PDA

View Full Version : "Best Gaming Experience On Any Platform"


MacRumors
Oct 21, 2001, 10:41 AM
There's no doubt gaming fans who have made the switch to Mac OS X have been enjoying the truly impressive performance of some early native ports to the platform. Quake 3 Arena, Alice, Sacrifice, etc. Well, get ready to be even more impressed. Now available for order at the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/52/wo/Z9XSg1q7UTKH7gqpuM/3.3.0.3.30.10.19.13.0) is Giants: Citizen Kabuto (http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2001/09/giants/), heralded as one of--if not the, most impressive 3D games on the PC.

OmniGroup ported this PC title, which will be sold by MacPlay, to OS X and in doing so made the game multiprocessor aware (which the PC original is not) and also made use of custom OpenGL extensions for the GeForce 3, to access its advanced pixel shader technology. OmniGroup made a statement a short while back indicating that Giants on a G4 dual-500 with GeForce 2 ran faster on the fastest GeForce 3-equipped Athlon out there. Quite impressive. What's more impressive are the recent comments made by MacPlay president Mark Cottam about the game (quoted from a MacObserver article (http://www.macobserver.com/gamingnews/2001/10/19.1.shtml)):

The talented engineers at Omni Group have implemented SMP (Symmetric Multi Processor) support into Giants, which takes advantage of Mac OS X's symmetric multiprocessing feature when running the dual processor Power Mac G4. Playing Giants on a dual 800 MHz Power Mac G4 with Mac OS X and a GeForce 3 graphics accelerator will be the best gaming experience one could enjoy on any platform."

So for once, the Mac faithful stand at the absolute pinncale of gaming performance, of all the platforms out there. This is a very exciting time for Mac gamers. The future of Mac gaming looks extremely bright thanks to the power brought by OS X.

Some Guy
Oct 21, 2001, 12:28 PM
Now if only I could use Mac OS X for actual WORK instead of playing games. I can barely even just use the Internet on it right now. IE 5.1 has some really annoying bugs in it on top of 5's, most web content plugins won't work, the Java is touted as being the best but it also barely works.

All productivity software requires a full purchase upgrade and they are still so flaky (partly their fault and partly Mac OS X's) why bother. Plus much hardware still won't work with Mac OS X unless Apple engineers themselves wrote drivers for it apparently.

Who cares if it has UNIX inside if I cant print to a label printer in the shipping area or run my custom AppleScripts using third-party OSAX that won't work near term or at all on OS X.

Maybe I could use RealBASIC, oh wait it breaks with nearly change made to OS X.

Hmm, a Dual 800 G4, Mac OS X all to play a friggin game for a few weeks? Yeah, thats how I want to spend my money at WORK.

About the only thing OS X is good for is as a server, and even then the hardware is not server orientated so you must hand hold it to keep it from totally dying on you.

Good job Apple! You finally made an OS for everyone that NO ONE can use!

I hate to say it, but the Windoze XP actually looks like a better OS. Its interface looks much better than OS X (cleaner, none of those damned lines through EVERYTHING), and has all the same features as OS X has but don't quite work properly or as nice as on OS 9.

Yeah its Windoze, but damn the hardware is cheaper, all the high end CAD/CAM software is for Windoze except few select UNIX apps and you can actually use hardware with it.

OS X would be great if it actually lived up to the hype, oh wait there IS NO MARKETING FOR OS X by Apple. Geeze time to sell my shares...

Pants
Oct 21, 2001, 12:42 PM
your whingeing about REALBasic support and you have access to a unix command line and all the free compilers you could wish for? jeez - maybe you should go try windows XP - after all, it was designed for dummies.

Kela
Oct 21, 2001, 01:11 PM
PEOPLE THE NEW TITANIUM G4 is out!!! GO TO APPLE.com. IS THIS OLD NEWS OR AM I CRAZY!?!?!?, 667 Megahertz!!!

blakespot
Oct 21, 2001, 05:06 PM
Kela, you're about a week late on that one.

Some Guy, OS X works fine for me, for "work." I prefer Aqua to XP's Luna interface as well. Funny, I was reading a Maximum PC article just now comparing OS X and XP's interfaces, and they jabbed at OS X saying that it's multi-column Finder file interface looks an awful lot like Windows Explorer's old interface, accusingly.

I guess it does. OS X basically _is_ the latest version of NEXTSTEP, which was released in 1988, which is where Windows 95 copied their Explorer interface from.

I find that amusing.

The fact that we're getting gaming performance like this on OS X is an indication of the power of the hardware and the OS itself. This translates into high performance for "work" as well. Sounds a bit like the "it's just a game machine" argument people threw against the Amiga back in the day, when they didn't know what multimedia was. Anyway, sounds like you should go build yourself a nice XP box, Some Guy.




blakespot

[Edited by blakespot on 10-21-2001 at 06:05 PM]

mymemory
Oct 21, 2001, 07:02 PM
For me OS X steel useless at this point yet. It is like having a very "cool thing" that doen't have any real use yet. Most of the people I see using it are mac freaks. OS X it is not that popular yet, may be in a year from now. I do not see the sense of a "very cool" to play games, what is the point? where are the real 3D production softwares like Alias Power Animator, Maya or Soft Image. If I see any of thouse soft running fine in a Mac with OS X a can say something have been done, for now running games is for people that haven't teaste a real computer doing real work.

setanor
Oct 21, 2001, 08:08 PM
where are the real 3D production softwares like Alias Power Animator, Maya or Soft Image

is it just me, or is maya out for OSX?

Playing Giants on a dual 800 MHz Power Mac G4 with Mac OS X and a GeForce 3 graphics accelerator will be the best gaming experience one could enjoy on any platform."

most of you seem to take this as a compliment to the OS and the hardware, seeing as this is coming from the software distributor actually makes it seem more like a comment on the game itself... if a game like deus ex had SMP support, it would be a much better "gaming experience"

JoeBob
Oct 21, 2001, 09:00 PM
So, you need to spend $3000 to get a good gaming experience on a Mac? Apple, you need to make a mini-tower system that is inexpensive and one that gamer's can use... without having to spend $3000.

whitegold
Oct 22, 2001, 01:27 AM
I'm first to be impressed with this level of gaming performance. Giants is a real test of even the highest end in hardware, and to see it run so well is excellent.

My inevitable conclusion, though? I loved this game. Nearly a year ago.

Apple need to really push hard at getting a wider range of newer games. There are newer and more innovative titles available, than this, and Apple really needs to do their best to encourage parallel development of titles.

I know this is happening (wolfenstein, etc) but it's rare, and seems to be confined to limited developers, such as Id.

I wish them luck on it, though.

whitegold

Pants
Oct 22, 2001, 03:37 AM
Blake, your insistance that osX is a new version of Next step is more likely to drive people away than thrown their hands up and say 'yah!". The was a reason why it failed to catch on first time round - and lets hope Jobs isn't retreading old ground again.

And I woul agree with whitegold - if Apple really do want the best gaming platform (which looking at their current expensive line up, is highly doubtful.....), then they do need to help out developers a little more, and encourage parallel porting. Currently, even though one game may run top on a dual 800 (which is a mighty expensive machime lets not forget, and after a lot of tweaking), its not saying much for the platform as a whole. The real test will come with doom 3, unreal 2 and the like - and that test will be 'how long will they take to arrive after the pc fomat?'.

spikey
Oct 22, 2001, 06:48 AM
lol, kela where have u been my different thinking friend? ;)

[Edited by spikey on 10-22-2001 at 07:53 AM]

blakespot
Oct 22, 2001, 06:54 AM
Pants,

I couldn't decipher why you're saying NEXTSTEP did not catch on the first time. Let's also recall that it was aimed and marketed towards academic/scientific markets--definitely not consumer.

DOOM 3 will almost certainly be a parallel release for OS X and Windows. Recall that Quake 3 was released first on the Mac (Q3Test beta)--about 3 weeks ahead of PC release. (And that DOOM was developed in NEXTSTEP.)



blakespot

Pants
Oct 22, 2001, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by blakespot
Pants,

I couldn't decipher why you're saying NEXTSTEP did not catch on the first time. Let's also recall that it was aimed and marketed towards academic/scientific markets--definitely not consumer.

DOOM 3 will almost certainly be a parallel release for OS X and Windows. Recall that Quake 3 was released first on the Mac (Q3Test beta)--about 3 weeks ahead of PC release. (And that DOOM was developed in NEXTSTEP.)



blakespot

next step may have been aimed at the scientific market, but it fell well short - mainly because the boxes were so damned expensive, and there were better/cheaper options to go for. Research money has to be justified, and sadly its hard to justify a lot on a computer when a cheaper one will do the same thing.


as for quake 3 - yeah the test was released early for the mac (because the user base is small, or so the read me said >:( But when the game was released, how long did we have to wait???!! almost 3 months..... I really doubt doom will be a simultaneous release - unreal 2 certainly wont be, and I cant see doom 3 being any better.

snowman
Oct 22, 2001, 01:17 PM
I don't care how bad some of you guys think OSX is This is good news, way to go!

Newton-Man
Oct 22, 2001, 02:04 PM
On my Dual800/1.5gb with Geforce 3 64mb and 17" Studio Display (ADC) is amazing at games, in OS X.1.

I think the MAC RULES! at games.

Thanks,

Guy

Obsidian
Oct 22, 2001, 04:32 PM
People are seeming to forget how much of an improvement that Apple has made in the recent past. I have played many games on the G4, such as Unreal, Deus ex, Quake 3, and a few other good FPS's. They have all ran much better on the g4, regardless of OS, and with the upgrade to OSX, Quake 3 was one hell of an imressive experience on my neighbors 21" monitor.

Just think of the performance increases that will come with the G5. If the G5 does end up showing itself in the firs quarter of 2002, it will be just in time to play Halo. Let us all hope that Halo is ported to OSX(unless microshack tries to hold it back).

Whats all of this talk about Image Writer not being for OSX? Correct me if I am wrong, but hasnt it been announced for OSX, but just not released yet?

But as it stands, have we all forgotten that any computer shipped with OSX, also has 9.1 classic? This means that you can have the best gaming experience AND have your other apps work on the mac.

I have never seend a new innovative pc come with 2 OS's!
Hell! I have never even seen a new innovative PC!

whitegold
Oct 23, 2001, 01:34 AM
Seems strange to me that you're saying it comes with two operating systems like it's an amazing feature.

OS9 is not in there because it's such an amazing option. It's there because it has to be. It's there because OSX is still a work in progress when it comes to app support.

Hell, Windows XP still contains Dos. Isn't that the same thing? Well... no, but you get my point... :)

Obsidian
Oct 23, 2001, 02:07 AM
I do get your point, but what I am trying to say is that 'Some Guy' was wrong in saying its usleless to have osx if he could only play games on it.

At this point in time, he may only be able to play games on it, but untill that changes, he has classic to back him up, so it is not a waste of money after all; just a maching with a great os that will get even better instead of worse.

You get my point? :)

whitegold
Oct 23, 2001, 07:15 AM
I see now :)

Yeah... hopefully the anti x people will be sated more and more as OS updates and new native versions start coming through..

What really surprises me is how long it's taken for some big companies to update (whitegold makes a cough that sounds suspiciously like the word adobe).

Still one inevitable things is that there will never be LESS support than there is now.. only ever more. So it will have to get better.

On thing Apple really needs to do is everything it can to hasten the moment when people no longer need to use classic. Ever. For anything. I know personally I'd be kind of annoyed if I had to have Windows XP for my "latest and greatest OS" and windows 98 also installed for all my work software. It's not the ideal solution, and the sooner Apple, and Apple users, can complete the migration the better for everyone...

spikey
Oct 23, 2001, 01:21 PM
Im not anti OSX. But i would like to know if it is really worth having it on a rev a imac, until i upgrade.
(reminding u that it has a 233Mhz G3)

imacguy
Oct 25, 2001, 11:50 PM
Im not anti OSX. But i would like to know if it is really worth having it on a rev a imac, until i upgrade.
(reminding u that it has a 233Mhz G3)
************************************************************
I've got a 266 Mhz G3 iMac and OS X is quite functional now that it's 10.1..... Put it on your iMac, get the window compression "hack" and the performance is quite impressive. Not quite as fast as 9.2 but a far, far cry from 10.0 or 10.0.4.

I can use my digital cam with it now, though my webcam and CD burner doesn't work (most do now though). My burner will get a fix soon enough and i'll probably get a firewire webcam with my new flat-panel iMac if they ever release them.

spikey
Oct 27, 2001, 12:15 PM
Ok, cheers.

oldMac
Oct 27, 2001, 07:42 PM
I've got to say that gaming has come a *long* way on the Mac in the past couple of years...

If you'll remember, it was only a couple of years ago when no major PC releases came to the Mac at all.

We should all thank 3 companies for helping and bringing awareness of the Mac gaming community.

1) Ambrosia
Thank Ambrosia for turning out games that made PC users envious even while most game companies were dropping support for the Mac. (Maelstrom still rocks!)

2) Bungie
Thank Bungie for taking 1st person gaming to a new level with their introduction of Marathon... And gaining the respect of a lot of 1st person perspective programmers on the PC side. (Of course, Pathways into Darkness was cool, too. :)

3) id Software
Thank id Software for having the balls to support multi-platform releases, not because it would make them more money, but because they recognized the benefits and entertainment value of a multi-platform world.

[Edited by oldMac on 10-27-2001 at 08:46 PM]

spikey
Oct 28, 2001, 06:52 AM
Dont forget Escape Velocity Override.

sparkleytone
Oct 28, 2001, 11:01 PM
hmmmm...

most of the naysayers dont seem to realize the OS X is not only one of the greatest platforms ever created, but that it is the REASON (from what i've seen in my store) why people are converting (including me) I for one cannot stand using 9 or earlier for the plain and simple reason that my winblows boxes multitask circles around old mac OS's . that said, an OS with mac stability and performance, with apple's commitment to excellence, and with such an open ended and proven groundwork as UNIX/BSD is truly creating waves for the future. let's just hope that being so ahead of the curve again doesn't lead to dropping the product because people dont understand it...again. give apple time, all the developers are bringing out the products...and they will run bigger better faster more.

Catfish_Man
Nov 1, 2001, 12:24 PM
I'd like to add Blizzard Software to that list of cool developers. They're shooting for simultaneous release of Warcraft III on mac and pc. Also, EV is infinitely cooler than Maelstrom (or EVO for that matter, hopefully EVN will be more of an improvement than override was.)

whitegold
Nov 1, 2001, 12:37 PM
I have to agree that Maelstrom rocked. Bungie have done some amazing games in the past. What are they up to now, out of curiousity? They still pumping out the good stuff?

Anyway, I remember seeing games like maelstrom and um... other things. I really can't remember their names. Something where you shot little spears to the side to wall off sections, and something else where you had little creatures falling...

Anyway, the graphics style on those games was light years ahead of anything for PC (or anything ELSE for mac) at the time. Congratulations to them for that.

I don't know what EV or EVO or whatever is. Further information?

Finally, I have to state that I personally thought Marathon to be horrendous. I found it bland and uninspriring. It's story was weak, and the engine quite nothing. Particularly when compared to the things happening on the PC. Quake, and Duke Nukem 3D, I believe were all then or even earlier. And were both far superior games, technically, aesthetically, and in every way.

But that's just my opinion. I know a lot of Mac Users did unclean things in their pants over Marathon.

snowman
Nov 1, 2001, 03:40 PM
Since Marathon, Bungies made Myth, Myth 2, Oni and are working on Halo. I think that your feelings toward Marathon are not shared with everyone. There are still Marathon fan-sites up and running (marathon.bungie.org). More than you can say about those far more superiour games you mentioned :) But of course it was only your opinion and I'll respect it. Oh BTW the story in Marathon is simply the most engaging story you'll find in any game ever, hmmm... Halo might beat it though :) Oh more BTW, Marathon was out before both Quake and Duke Nukem, late -94.

Originally posted by whitegold
I have to agree that Maelstrom rocked. Bungie have done some amazing games in the past. What are they up to now, out of curiousity? They still pumping out the good stuff?

Anyway, I remember seeing games like maelstrom and um... other things. I really can't remember their names. Something where you shot little spears to the side to wall off sections, and something else where you had little creatures falling...

Anyway, the graphics style on those games was light years ahead of anything for PC (or anything ELSE for mac) at the time. Congratulations to them for that.

I don't know what EV or EVO or whatever is. Further information?

Finally, I have to state that I personally thought Marathon to be horrendous. I found it bland and uninspriring. It's story was weak, and the engine quite nothing. Particularly when compared to the things happening on the PC. Quake, and Duke Nukem 3D, I believe were all then or even earlier. And were both far superior games, technically, aesthetically, and in every way.

But that's just my opinion. I know a lot of Mac Users did unclean things in their pants over Marathon.

whitegold
Nov 1, 2001, 04:05 PM
You don't think Quake is more popular now than Marathon ever was?!

Seriously, though, you may be right about the storyline of marathon. I didn't get that much into it, and mostly I just watched a friend play.

Just as a word of advice, you may want to give Deus Ex a try, if you haven't already. Deservedly considered the best game of last year.

And yeah, thanks for the pointers on bungie's recent stuff. I forgot all that. Oni rocked! Actually, it had some flaws, but at least it was innovative and fun.

Timbuktu
Nov 2, 2001, 04:03 AM
The only games I've play on my Mac is Deus Ex, which is a brilliant game.

Why bother paying so much to play games on a Mac? The platform is miles behind PC, which itself is lagging behind the consoles. I do all sorts of things on my Mac, but I play games on my Gamecube. Keep it simple.

blakespot
Nov 2, 2001, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Timbuktu
The only games I've play on my Mac is Deus Ex, which is a brilliant game.

Why bother paying so much to play games on a Mac? The platform is miles behind PC, which itself is lagging behind the consoles. I do all sorts of things on my Mac, but I play games on my Gamecube. Keep it simple.

Well, the point of this entire thread is that with the proper programming, even a port of a PC title can be miles ahead of the PC versions. Giants for the Mac, made to support dual processors, is the most impressive demonstration of a game that pushes the boundaries of 3D gaming technology---moreso than is possible on PC.

Also--a well configured Mac or PC has far more "gaming power." from a hardware perspective, than any console. That's the undisputable part. The debatable part is whether the software for PC's/Macs is a better offering than that for consoles--which I personally believe it is (especially when it comes to multiplayer, on-line gaming, where consoles lag).


blakespot

snowman
Nov 2, 2001, 05:45 AM
Well said, also, the TV itself is one of the biggest worries. A TV-screen is 640*480 pixels, man this sux big time. You can get far higher resolutions than that on a computer.

Originally posted by blakespot
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timbuktu
[B]
Why bother paying so much to play games on a Mac? The platform is miles behind PC, which itself is lagging behind the consoles. I do all sorts of things on my Mac, but I play
Also--a well configured Mac or PC has far more "gaming power." from a hardware perspective, than any console. That's the undisputable part. The debatable part is whether the software for PC's/Macs is a better offering than that for consoles--which I personally believe it is (especially when it comes to multiplayer, on-line gaming, where consoles lag).
blakespot

blakespot
Nov 2, 2001, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by snowman
[B] Well said, also, the TV itself is one of the biggest worries. A TV-screen is 640*480 pixels, man this sux big time. You can get far higher resolutions than that on a computer.



Also worth noting is the fact that for many types of games, FPS in particular, there is absolutely no controller better than a keyboard and a mouse. You can add a USB keyboard + mouse to the PS2 and it's supported in the PS2 version of Unreal Tournament, which is a plus, but who's got their PS2 situated to comfortably use with a keyboard and mouse? Mine sits on a shelf of my entertainment center, about 4' off the ground.

The CPU's in todays PC's and Macs are more powerful than that of any current consoles and there exists the option to use a video card that's superior to the 3D hardware of any console, such as the GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500. (Yes, the X-BOX uses a modified GeForce III (and a P3 733) but the new GeForce 3 Ti is clocked higher and will outperform the X-BOX's 3D hardware).



blakespot

spikey
Nov 2, 2001, 09:15 AM
EVO is Escape velocity Override
EV is escape velocity (prequel to EVO)
EVN is Escape velocity nova (coming soon)

These are great games made by ambrosia i think.
I was glued to them a few years back.

jefhatfield
Nov 2, 2001, 11:12 AM
being and old guy, i get my butt kicked by any game whether it is playstation, pc, or mac

graphics seem cool on all platforms but i can't find mac games at the mall or in stores but walk into almost any K-Mart and you have sega, sony, x-box, etc..

spikey
Nov 2, 2001, 02:41 PM
Yeah, that is very true jef.
U walk into any shop like electronics boutique, GAME, etc u will not find any good mac games (barring about 4)
Well im not good at most games, shoot em ups im quite bad at, but im good at most racers.
As for strategy.........well i play chess.......badly.

Timbuktu
Nov 2, 2001, 03:35 PM
Just exactly how much games do you guys play? From what you said, you clearly don't know a lot.

Technologically, I dare say the consoles are far superior to the the best graphics card on the market at the moment. It is useless comparing clock speeds and numbers. Consoles have an entirely different architecture. Take Nintendo Gamecube for example, they have engineered it to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to play games. On the other hand, graphics cards on PCs have to deal with many other applications. And for the price of a GeForce III, you can buy several consoles.

Gaming on a PC means a lot hazzles. It means bugs and patches. PC games crash, consoles' don't.

The keyboard and mouse control may favor FPS and RTS games, but for anything else console controls are better. Okay, Xbox's controllers are hideous, but have you hold Gamecube's controller? It melts into you hands. Console controls are much easier to pick up, and give you more freedom and immersion. You don't have to look down to check what button you're pressing.

And the TV being your worry? Huh? You don't have to plug your console to a TV, you know? You can use a monitor if you want higher resolution. Also, TVs are bigger, and consoles now support HDTV.

If you don't agree with me, fine. Most of the industry seem to see it my way. Nowadays, only about 20% of games are published for the PC format and this is dwindling. 'Gaming power' doesn't really matter. Developing a game for PC is like shoting at a moving target. And it doesn't make as much money as consoles. Consoles technology evolves periodically, providing a stable platform to make games for.

Online-gaming? That is PCs greatest strength at the moment, but the consoles are catching up.

Finally, games are supposed to be fun, not demos to show pretty graphics. Don't be graphics tarts. Have you played games like Zelda or Super Monkey Ball? Console games are more fun, end of question.

blakespot
Nov 2, 2001, 04:11 PM
Just exactly how much games do you guys play? From what you said, you clearly don't know a lot.

I play a fair amount. I follow the technology more closely than I play the games (but I am a gamer, to be sure).

Technologically, I dare say the consoles are far superior to the the best graphics card on the market at the moment. It is useless comparing clock speeds and numbers. Consoles have an entirely different architecture. Take Nintendo Gamecube for example, they have engineered it to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to play games. On the other hand, graphics cards on PCs have to deal with many other applications. And for the price of a GeForce III, you can buy several consoles.

You would be mistaken, I fear. The X-Box is considered to be more powerful than the PS2, generally. The reasons for this are that the 733MHz P3 CPU is faster than the MIPS CPU core (what is it, 292MHz?) of the PS2. Also, the GeForce 3 in the X-Box is considered to be generally faster than the graphics hardware in the PS2. ArsTechnica did a nice article on this a while back. The GeForce 3 to CPU atchitecture in the X-Box is indeed enhanced to a degree over a standard PC architecture, so there is a slight speed increase there.

But look at a high end PC. A 2GHz P4 with 400MHz Rambus memory and a GeForce 3 Ti has more power in the 3D hardware and far more power in the CPU than the X-Box, PS2, etc. Same goes for a G4 DP 800 + GeForce 3, for instance.

It's impressive what console makers do with hardware at that cost--and I love my PS2. But just look at the hardware before making as statement to the effect that consoles are far superior to PC's, when they simply arent, price aside.

Also--most consoles are fixed at around 640x480 res. Some new consoles can output an anamorphic signal and show an added resolution that way, but that's about it. I am aware that the PS2, for instance, is capable of much higher resolutions than std TV res, but nothing supports it. Meanwhile, I am playing Alice, Quake 3, and UT at 1280x1024 on a clear 19" CRT. With very high framerates.

Finally, games are supposed to be fun, not demos to show pretty graphics. Don't be graphics tarts. Have you played games like Zelda or Super Monkey Ball? Console games are more fun, end of question.

Well, it's a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with you to a degree. Not necessarily grouping these types of games into "console" games but just "simpler" games that aren't 3D demos, as you say. This is why I keep a few Amigas and an Apple IIgs on my desks. There's some old classics to be enjoyed therein.


blakespot

sparkleytone
Nov 2, 2001, 06:27 PM
timbuktu i hate you GIMME A GAMECUBE NOW!!!! D': /me cries.
anyways i want i want i want i shell out money for nintendo anyday. unless its virtual boy

jefhatfield
Nov 3, 2001, 12:11 AM
and someone mentioned that me living on macrumors was a waste of time

...actually, the reason i don't take up games is the same reason i never took up smoking...i mean, imagine actually knowing more than most highly paid techs and being destitute because you buy games too much

man, if the gamers i knew became techs and engineers, we would already have the G5 by now

Timbuktu
Nov 3, 2001, 04:18 AM
I get you, blakespot. I'm sorry for being rude saying that you know nothing about games. I was a bit carried away when I said consoles are superior, but I still think comparing numbers are useless without looking at the whole picture. IBM actually lowered the clock-speed of PowerPC CPU 'Gekko' in Gamecube so that it would integrate better with the rest of the system and increase performance.

PCs have surpassed consoles in power years ago and will do so again with the new consoles in no time. However, the ever increasing power of the PCs is really a problem, not an advantage. You're always looking at the high-end PCs and Macs, but in reality how many people own those machines? The diversity in specs is so great in the PCs, it is impossible for developers to optimise their games for any one platform. How many people own a Geforce III? The point is, not matter how large a PC's 'gaming power', a game will never take full advantage of it. Maybe that is why some ports for Macs can be superior to their PC originals; Macs present a narrower spectrum to target.

Xbox, coming out later this month, is the result of the problems in PC gaming. It is undeniable that games are important for PCs. They present one of the few urges for users to upgrade their PCs in a saturated market. But there are less and less games coming out for the platform, which is a point of concern. Many think that Xbox is a move by Microsoft to counter this trend. They are not only trying to invade the living room. Xbox, really, is just a high-end PC wrapped in a different package. By encouraging developers to make games for Xbox under the DirectX architecture, Microsoft is hope that at least some of the games will spill onto the PC platform as well.

Coming back to Macs. I am optimistic with the Mac gaming scene. Apple claims that OS X boost games performance by 20% due to improvements in OpenGL graphics standard. 10.1 ships with version 1.2.1. The success of DriectX placed a question mark over the future of OpenGL, but the specs of OpenGL 1.3 seems to have lifted that, matching DirectX 8 and 8.1 in virtually every department. With nVidia and ATI fully supporting the format, Apple's claims seems to be quite realistic. Then there is John Carmack - father of id and one of the main proponents of OpenGL. We can look for to the graphical splendors from the likes of Doom 3.

I am sure that with OS X, Macs are more than capable of keeping up with PC's 'gaming power', and we are sure to see the best of the PC games ported to Mac. My question is: is that enough? With the PC ailing as a gaming platform, is it enough for Macs just to keep up with it? Games are an intergral part of the so-called 'digital hub' of Apple's. However, the market is increasingly dominated by dedicated consoles, which makes me wonder whether the convergence Apple is planning will actually work. The market seems to be opting for cheaper, more specialised devices over multi-purpose machines. I'm actually hoping to see some of the console games coming for Mac. With Gamecube using the IBM PowerPC CPU and the OpenGL architecture, it shares more similarities with Mac than you might have expected. An alliance between Apple and Nintendo, two of my favourite companies? Impossible, I know, but I can always dream.

spikey
Nov 3, 2001, 11:23 AM
I dream of the same thing, it would be very beneficial for apple to have a few nintendo titles on the mac.
Anyway, i have played on a PS2 and also on a 1.4Ghz athlon system with the Geforce 3 running at 75% speed of what it should (had trouble installing, sorted out now) and i can tell you that the PC just blows it away.
Having said that, the PC cost around 1000.

whitegold
Nov 4, 2001, 10:00 PM
All platforms (every console, and both mac and PC) has it's pluses and minuses.

Playstation 2, Mac, PC, Gamecube, Xbox... all are made with market forces and a balance of technology to cost.

Not so much with Macs and PCs. They're upgradable.

In my personal experience (and I've had a lot) consoles always represent the very highest in gaming (particularly in graphics). When first screenshots are shown, the consoles are so far beyond PCs it's startling. By the time of their Japanese launch they're still amazing. A few months after the US launch, though, the PC standard has just raised to a point when they're not much below. A few months (6 or so) later, and the console is starting to suffer from it's static configuration.

That is inevitable. Computers (including Macs) are a constantly changing level. Consoles pop themselves in at certain point, and ride there until the next console ups the ante.

As for displaying on TVs vs Monitors, I'm undecided. Resolution isn't everything. I would rather a 640x480 image that's well antialiased than a 800x600 image that looks blocky and jaggie. (though resolutions above that it matters much less).

Another factor is that with the high end stuff (pentium 4 and a GeForce 3 titanium) you're putting all the power into just making the picture a higher resolution. Drawing more pixels. NOT more polygons. Not more depth.

Consoles are limited to that 640x480 (i'm ignoring the fact that thye can now output to higher res, because it's convenient). Because of that they are able to put more and more power into detail and polygons. Take a look at some of the environments in PC games, and they're often quite low-poly. High res, but low poly.

Resolution isn't everything. Don't get me wrong. All things being equal, if you're getting a framerate of 150fps anyway, what the hell, bump up the res. But that's surely not the end to want. More detail, more depth, more realism. NOT more pixels.

Just my opinion.

whitegold
Nov 4, 2001, 10:12 PM
another factor here I forgot to mention is that the hardware is largely irrelevant.

I've seen a lot of dreamcast games that look far better than anything on PS2.

I've played playstation games that are more fun that those on PC.

Personally, I'm not buying a Gamecube because of it's CPU or it's overall performance. I'm buying it for Luigi's Mansion, Super Monkey Ball, and Pimkin.