Xbot 360 sucks in comparsion to $500 home-built PC.
The Need for Speed may actually become playable again!
(1125 posts, started )
Xbot 360 sucks in comparsion to $500 home-built PC.
You sure? 'Cos I bet if we pick up the same 2009 game, i could play it without any lag on 360 on max settings.
360 got no max settings. In GTA IV, medium graphics, 22% draw distance and low render quality on PC = XBox graphics.
Uhhuh. Well GTA4 works with at 720p HD with no FPS slowdowns except when it's raining... and you blow up 384 cars at once.
[Off-Topic]
Well, I get your point, but GTA4 works at 1080p Full HD with no FPS slowdowns with no exceptions on PC (even with a processor under the minimum requirements)... and you can blow up all of the full(100) traffic density cars at once (console has "20" and cannot be changed), with full(100) detail distance, 7 view distance (but still a lot higher distance than console because of FarClip), high textures on a E5200 + 8800GT 512MB and 3GB RAM
Since my computer is on my bedroom and the full hd tv I mentioned is on the living room (i.e.: not currently available to play), I opened GTA IV and ran a quick benchmark to prove my point (on my monitor's highest res, 1680x1050).
Now I have 8 tabs on Opera, 2 MSN chats, Live for Speed, Vegas 7, Windows Media Player (watching the NFS Shift HD video) and 3 Explorer windows, all of these opened. I play GTA IV on Steam, and I'm talking with 5 people in there ATM. I'll run the benchmark tool just after finishing to write this post (I'm not going to close anything because I'm busy now).
Just finished running the benchmark, and here are the results
My computer: E5200, 2GB RAM DDR2 667MHz, 9800GT 512MB. IMO, it's just a normal computer, nothing new on it and a Core Duo processor which is under the GTA IV minimum requirements.
As said by Rockstar Games, the consoles FPS goes between 25 and 30. I got 27.20 average while not running at normal gaming conditions.
I had already ran the benchmark before (at normal conditions, i.e.: without anything other than Steam open), and even posted on the forum. "Average FPS: 31.49". Well, since this is an average, it's above the console.
I ran the benchmark with the PC full of things open just to point out that the PC is a lot better. Not because you can open anything else, but because graphics on this test (hey, I play with these settings) are more than 3x higher than the consoles', higher resolution and still the same FPS range (or, higher FPS range when on normal gaming conditions). Yet, my processor (most important thing on GTA IV) is well under the minimum requirements: Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (mine is Core Duo E5200 2.5GHz). I don't like overclock, so it's not o'cced.
Rockstar's said the console graphics is low textures too if I'm not mistaken, and everything else Shadowww mentioned.
[/Off Topic]
Well, I get your point, but GTA4 works at 1080p Full HD with no FPS slowdowns with no exceptions on PC (even with a processor under the minimum requirements)... and you can blow up all of the full(100) traffic density cars at once (console has "20" and cannot be changed), with full(100) detail distance, 7 view distance (but still a lot higher distance than console because of FarClip), high textures on a E5200 + 8800GT 512MB and 3GB RAM
Since my computer is on my bedroom and the full hd tv I mentioned is on the living room (i.e.: not currently available to play), I opened GTA IV and ran a quick benchmark to prove my point (on my monitor's highest res, 1680x1050).
Now I have 8 tabs on Opera, 2 MSN chats, Live for Speed, Vegas 7, Windows Media Player (watching the NFS Shift HD video) and 3 Explorer windows, all of these opened. I play GTA IV on Steam, and I'm talking with 5 people in there ATM. I'll run the benchmark tool just after finishing to write this post (I'm not going to close anything because I'm busy now).
Just finished running the benchmark, and here are the results
My computer: E5200, 2GB RAM DDR2 667MHz, 9800GT 512MB. IMO, it's just a normal computer, nothing new on it and a Core Duo processor which is under the GTA IV minimum requirements.
As said by Rockstar Games, the consoles FPS goes between 25 and 30. I got 27.20 average while not running at normal gaming conditions.
I had already ran the benchmark before (at normal conditions, i.e.: without anything other than Steam open), and even posted on the forum. "Average FPS: 31.49". Well, since this is an average, it's above the console.
I ran the benchmark with the PC full of things open just to point out that the PC is a lot better. Not because you can open anything else, but because graphics on this test (hey, I play with these settings) are more than 3x higher than the consoles', higher resolution and still the same FPS range (or, higher FPS range when on normal gaming conditions). Yet, my processor (most important thing on GTA IV) is well under the minimum requirements: Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (mine is Core Duo E5200 2.5GHz). I don't like overclock, so it's not o'cced.
Rockstar's said the console graphics is low textures too if I'm not mistaken, and everything else Shadowww mentioned.
[/Off Topic]
You put Nitro on your PC. ;0
Haha 
But IMO it seemed sluggish and laggy when playing GTA4 on XBOX360. My buddy usually plays it, and he claims it's not sluggish. But I'll swear, it's not running on more than 15-20FPS, and when things blows up it's really laggy as hell.
But don't worry, my computer can't handle the game at all so hehe
But IMO it seemed sluggish and laggy when playing GTA4 on XBOX360. My buddy usually plays it, and he claims it's not sluggish. But I'll swear, it's not running on more than 15-20FPS, and when things blows up it's really laggy as hell.
But don't worry, my computer can't handle the game at all so hehe
But still, your computer is cheaper than Xbot
No it's not 
Two new videos: http://www.jeuxvideo.fr/need-s ... clusives-actu-273054.html
Not sure what I feel about it. The handling is not realistic it seems, but not completely rubbish either, even had to brake.
Damage seemed not good. He really did to hit hard before the damage was vissible. And after the BIG hit only the hood loosened up while not car damage / Bulks what so ever is vissible.
Damage seemed not good. He really did to hit hard before the damage was vissible. And after the BIG hit only the hood loosened up while not car damage / Bulks what so ever is vissible.
Everybody knew it.. EA will never learn.
All you guys are talking crap about this game, yet all you have to go off of is screenshots and videos, not the mention the fact that this game is still in development. Just wait until a demo comes out, then tell your opinion.
Looks good to me
Shock horror, a racing game that can be fun without being stuffed to the gills with stuffy realistic driving physics
Shock horror, a racing game that can be fun without being stuffed to the gills with stuffy realistic driving physics
As seen in the video, you can full throttle in almost every corner
Well if not sim it can become a very good arcade.
And making trough every corner on full speed have it charm also.
Here I mention again bout Ridge racer series.
Thx to the proper raceline and drifts you could beat almost every track on full throttle and this was quite exciting, speed and balance on the edge of losing control.
NFS is a game for 3 year old's who don't even look at the screen but just keep pressing the throttle with their right finger.
game sucks balls
Dude I have 5 finger on my right hand can you precise which of them is more right than the other
Anyway something tells me that you speakin bout console version.
Since when playing with joypad throttle is usually on right side
[QUOTE=Chupacabras84;1143666]Well if not sim it can become a very good arcade.QUOTE]
True, Not all NFS fans are high skilled car drivers (most of them are kids though)
But it gets dissapointing on the end. Stupid story, unlocking parts of cars etc.
True, Not all NFS fans are high skilled car drivers
(most of them are kids though)But it gets dissapointing on the end. Stupid story, unlocking parts of cars etc.
It don't have to be realistic, but entertaining. If the mix between sim and arkade is horrible enough it's not fun. Someone mentioned RR, indeed I agree, was a good game and I enjoyed it.
I do hope, whatever the car feeling feels like, that they boost the damage factor some more, so the car actually looks like shit if it gets wrecked in 300 km/h
I do hope, whatever the car feeling feels like, that they boost the damage factor some more, so the car actually looks like shit if it gets wrecked in 300 km/h
haha true when i played NFS carbon on ps2 the story was so immature and simple that it hard to call a story more like random movies that suppose to give you a filling that you participate in something big.
If it about skills apart from playing Gran turismo, LFS, and Toca race driver(not really a sim if you ask me
)I play NFS on PS2 and Ridge racer on psx emulator just cant stop to much like it
And Dirt dirt somehow have screwed stering dont know what but cant feel it something like delayed reaction can stear well but still dont fill.
So in any case Games you play its more like what you like than how old or skilled are you.
For me game should be fan no matter is it sim or arcade
BTW. NFS was quite fan even if it has stupid story or the fact that parts or setups where rather worthless.
I don't know is it only me but I still play NFS Porsche unleashed one of those games where graphics is not terrible even on todays standards and there is still a lot of fan.
Right two things:
Why can they NEVER find someone who can actually play these games to demo them. It's always a noob pissing about which frankly doesn't demonstrate anything.
And... it looks worse than GRID.
Why can they NEVER find someone who can actually play these games to demo them. It's always a noob pissing about which frankly doesn't demonstrate anything.
And... it looks worse than GRID.
Zonda is at Brands Hatch. The Porsche is at a fantasy track from ProStreet, but in reverse direction. I made a video of both tracks. Since the NFS Shift team includes 25 ex-GTR employees I used GTR Evolution's Brand's Hatch for comparason:
http://jeffareid.net/gte/gtebhf3k.wmv
For the second track, I ran ProStreet Shimbashi track reverse in the Zonda. Note that Prostreet's physics are way over the top with cars pulling over 5 g's, so the Shift lap times will be much more realistic than the swoop racer like 50 seconds here, but at least you get to see the basis for the track without the crashing.
http://jeffareid.net/nfsp/npgsbrznd.wmv
Why the HELL does it sound like the Zonda has a dumpvalve??!?!?
True, and I bet that it will have higher system requirments.
Cause it's NFS
The Need for Speed may actually become playable again!
(1125 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG