Ghostbusters - Get it for 360 or PC?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by JuanGuapo, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. JuanGuapo macrumors 6502a

    JuanGuapo

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #1
    Ghostbusters will be released soon, and I no-doubt want to get my hands on it. However, I have a dilemma about which version I should get....

    $29.99 - PC
    $59.99 - Xbox 360

    I have a 2.6Ghz iMac (4GB RAM, 256MB Radeon) and a 15" uMBP 2.66Ghz (4GB RAM, 512MB Nvidia 9600M GT)

    I know it will run smooth on the Xbox 360 (esp. on our 42" HDTV) but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get it for PC, save $30, and install it (via Bootcamp) on my MBP or iMac.

    Thoughts? :)
     
  2. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #2
    It will definitely run better on the 360, but you lose the precise controls of a keyboard and mouse and it will cost more. Personally I'd get it on the PC.
     
  3. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #3
    I'm buying it for the PC. Too much risk of crossing the streams when using an inferior pointing device like a gamepad. :)

    I think it depends on the port on how well it will run on that MBpro. My little 9600 GT pushes a much higher frame-rate and detail level than the 360 can handle. This is of course on games that weren't a crap-port. The 9600 M is about half the performance of my casual gaming card, so I think it's worth a shot.
     
  4. JuanGuapo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    JuanGuapo

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #4
    Thx guys, it sounds like the PC version is the way to go. Thankfully, I have a legit copy of XP Pro SP2 so I'll be 'bootcamping' this weekend.

    If I may ask.... is the 9600M GT that much more powerful than the Xenon GPU in the Xbox 360?

    Also, given the choice, should I install it on my iMac or MBP?

    Early '08 iMac 2.66Ghz/4GB/Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB VRAM

    -or-

    Late '08 Macbook Pro 2.66Ghz/4GB/Nvidia 9600M GT w/ 512MB VRAM
     
  5. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #5
    The 360's GPU is basically a x1600 variant with a few extra bells and whistles found in newer desktop GPUs. So think of it this way, it's a GPU from 2005/6 with the performance to match. ;)

    This is why 360 games are 720p with settings like VSnync turned off with features like anti-aliasing set to low, or to off. The 360 doesn't have the same OS overhead as a PC, but its age has more than negated that tid-bit.

    Your 9600 M GT is definitely a step up from the Xenon. Your CPUs are also way more capable than what's found in the 360. If anything, you'll need to lower the settings closer to the 360's level. ;)

    I'm not sure about the 2600 Pro vs 9600 M GT. They seem to be about the same performance, but I really didn't look far enough into it.
     
  6. JuanGuapo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    JuanGuapo

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  7. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #7
    This argument has been very PC bias so far and there is a lot of misleading truth in what is posted there Jack .....

    Jimmi and Jackaxe are really flying the flag for PC gaming here, but neither have played Ghostbusters PC/360 I bet, to warrant telling people that it will control better on the PC, or what indeed that settings need to be lowered to make it look like the console. (such silliness)

    Specification wise and comparisons also in general terms means very little too. This is a game who'se lead platform was console based.

    It also does not stand to reason that because your computer may be faster, have a better GPU in theory, that it will run the game better or to the same level as a 360/PS3.

    I have a very good PC with far better GPU than either PS3/360 and have found on many occasions the PC version of the game is inferior to its console counterpart. Not always of course, but it does happen regularly.

    Oh and as for 360 has to have AA turned off comment. Come on we all know it's scaler chip offers AA with little overhead, and certainly AA comes at less of a cost to the 360 than it will your PC which does not have that little extra chip doing the business.

    Then you also have to factor in 'experience' into the equation. What's better gaming on a big screen, sat on the couch, rumbling gamepad in your hands, or huddled over your PC with keyboard and mouse in tow. (And before anyone says 'yeah but you can use the 360 controller on PC I remind them
    )

    Remember this game is meant to be a movie like experience, therefore it seems logical the best place for it to be experienced is on the sofa.






    I'll suggest a simple thing.....

    When the inevitable demo becomes available for PC/360 download and see which you prefer. If the 360 demo doesn't emerge soon, simply hire the game overnight and see what you think yourself.

    Oh and boys...

    Before stating one plays or looks better than the other, without categorical evidence please make sure you make it clear your hypothesizing rather than speaking fact. slaps wrists.....
     
  8. nutman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    #8
    I would say just the opposite. The xbox 360 version, depending on the quality of the port, that is, will rock the PC version. I say this mostly on the grounds that the experience is totally different on a computer and on a TV. So what if the xbox can only push 720p nicely, at the distance and size of your TV, it really doesn't matter that you don't have 1440x900, or whatever it is your computer is running. Computer game requirements have always been ungodly. As long as you don't mind the controller, just think gears of war. when the first one came out a few years ago, yes, my x1600 ati card sucks, but there is no way that a computer short of a dedicate gaming rig will be able to play the game the way the 360 did.
     
  9. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #9
    Mr MacRumorUser,

    You kind of commented on a later comment, while not reading one of my earlier comments, which might have changed the perspective of things. ;)

    Here, this is my first post;
    OK, that pretty much covers this comment of yours;
    "It also does not stand to reason that because your computer may be faster, have a better GPU in theory, that it will run the game better or to the same level as a 360/PS3."

    And there's nothing misleading about the being 360 slower than modern PCs, that's simply the case, especially when all comments are taken in context. So yes, some games will run like crap on a PC, as the developers botched the release, but others will run great, or eventually run better when the developers get around to fixing their botched releases.

    And on your comment about lead platform, it has two sides now days. Of course it's always better when your target platform is lead, but since the 360 is generally the lead now days, this has been a benefit for PC gamers -- given the port is not crap -- as we only need a low-level PC by today's standards to run these newer games. This is why I commented about 720p and so on, as these are low marks for any modern GPU to achieve. It's actually a breath of fresh air compared to a few years back. I was pointing it out as reference, where as this is the level your system generally needs to handle for things to be happy.

    On your comment about AA. The PC and 360 pretty much handle it the same, it's all on the GPU, it's just that PCs depending on the config can handle up to 32x where as a 360 can only output 4x max from what I read. And we both know that not all games enable it on the consoles to save some performance and of course not all PC gamers run their games at with aa maxed out.

    And I have nothing against playing on the couch for specific types of game. I own a DVI to HDMI cable btw and I've plugged my PC into my 42" plasma. :p My precious 30" CRT HD, which I went out of my way to find last year, died... :(

    Before I ramble too much more, there's nothing stopping any PC gamer from using their TV, let alone a game pad. It's actually a requirement of MS that all new GFWL games support a gamepad, so that whole couch thing, besides being lazy :p, really isn't a reason to go console over PC, as a PC can do both.

    But anyways, I like the extra control I get from my mouse and n52Te, so it makes more sense to set at my desk. I also bought a Logitech G25 racing wheel for GRID last Friday. This is a setup that needs a desk or table to be used, so even though the action is BIGGER on my plasma, It's a better experience from my desk. I have a monitor arm, which I pull towards me, it puts my current PC screen not even a foot from my face, so in a sense I am getting bigger. :]
     
  10. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #10
    As I rambled to MRU, the 720p comment when in context to earlier posts was more of a reference, a benchmark, which for a modern PC is low. So given the port is good, somewhat current PCs will be able to run even the latest and greatest with ease. ;)

    To further ramble, that ungodly thing has actually passed, and it's a good thing. As long as the 360 maintains most developers attention, and they do the right thing for the PC -- which in the past year has been for the better -- the PC version will run great on an inexpensive rig and offer a few perks over the console version. And there's nothing stopping the PC guy from using their TV and a gamepad, if the game calls for it. :p

    For reference, GoW runs without a hiccup on my low/mid-range PC(a sub $500 rig) with Vsync enabled and all settings on max(Higher level than the 360 version). I have just a measly Q9450 with a 9600 GT. Now days it's all I need. A pittance when compared to the high-end nVidia and ATI cards. To bring up the Crysis game, as many refer to it as the ultimate benchmark. I let it choose my settings and it put everything to high and the game runs smoothly. So you really don't need some uber-super-duper PC to game now days. You only need that if you want to game at 1600p at 300fps... Anyways I noticed that now days, even the low-end desktop PCs all push 30 + fps at high/max detail, which is pretty cool when it comes down to it. Just goes to show how things have changed.
     
  11. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11
    Forget everything else... I like that bit :D:p
     
  12. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
  13. raygungirl macrumors member

    raygungirl

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Location:
    Arizona
    #13
    You might not care about this, but I think I heard that multi-player is only available on the Xbox version. So if you want to play multi-player, I suggest that version. :)

    Also, is the Ghostbusters game really only in 720p? That stinks. Dang movie tie-ins! ;)
     
  14. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #14
    Most PS3/360 games are 720p. Infact some aren't even technically HD, looking at you CoD4 and the PS3 version of GTAIV.
     
  15. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #15
    I'll buy the PC version... eventually, but once it drops to a few bucks. Atari better not blame poor sales of the PC version on piracy and all of that perceived crap, as it's completely their lack of effort that pretty much killed this game's chance of doing even OK.

    At least the game part itself wasn't handled by the same lazy, or under budgeted developer(Threewave) that did the online component for the PS3 and 360.
     

Share This Page