PDA

View Full Version : XBox vs. PC



rHeZzEn
13th Feb 2004, 05:17
How many PC users have had the pleasure of playing an XBox connected to a HiDef TV, Dolby Digital 5.1 surround while sitting in your favorite chair. I was a PC user for years, played the first two games while sitting at a desk listening through PC speaker. I recently played Splinter Cell and it was just as addicting as the first time I played Thief. The graphics were amazing and the sound truly did have me looking over my shoulder. I can't wait to play T3 on the XBox. I can hear it now, Garrett pulls out his moss arrow lays down 3 along the catwalk. The sound of the bow being released travels from back to front and the deep low thud of the moss spreading over the medal grate is only picked up by the sub. And as for the difference between a keyboard and an XBox, play HALO on the XBox(I finished in 4 days).

HaVoK-G2
13th Feb 2004, 05:46
Personally id rather listen to it on my 500w 5.1/THX Surround sound system on my PC.. Id take a mouse + keyboard over a controller anyday.. except in a type of game like Prince of Persia. But then ive got a good controller for my PC For that.

Also, I kind of hate the new consoles, especially since the recent trend in porting xbox games to pc. I understand thier logic in they will most likely make more money on selling a game on a console cant blame them :(

Another thing is for the past 5 years ive really enjoyed modding for the pc and getting into mapping/texturing/modelling/uvw unwrapping for mods such as the Star wars mods for Tribes, Pirates Vikings and Knights for Half-Life, Galactic Conquest and Pirates! for bf1942, and working on Pirates Vikings and Knights II for Half Life 2 now (sigh give us the SDK valve :P) Also playing different mods for games made by the faithful PC communities surrounding the respective games that increases the value you got for you money for the purchased game. *shrug*

Mr. Perfect
13th Feb 2004, 06:23
Yeah, you just need some sweet speakers. Klipsch Promedia! Woot! Nice 6" sub and some THX clean sattelites. I wish I had somewhere to put a surround sound set...

HOC
13th Feb 2004, 10:02
definitely pc here. i have a lot more fun with pc games than i do with console games....even if the same game is in question.

being up close to a monitor is just better when it comes to gaming IMO. allows ya to disregard whatever's in your peripheral vision (especially if ya play games in the dark). easier for me to concentrate on what i'm doing, and for FP games, coupled with the mouse+keyboard, easier to just let instinct take over.

i enjoy console games, but only when friends are around. and being that all in my crew are employed, it's difficult to make console gaming the primary source of entertainment.

nos hermetis
13th Feb 2004, 11:28
rHeZzEn,

XBox vs. PC...what a title !

first: many user with some money have the pleasure of playing PC connected to a HiDef TV, with more than 5.1.
second: if Eidos use all the potential of each platform, i'm sure that the pleasure of playing Thief, Deadly shadows on PC will at least as great as playing on Xbox. Remember that Thief series was born on PC...
& third: definitively, playing with mouse & keyboard is a must ! you can finished Halo on PC in 2 intensive days. More, for which reasons you believe that Eidos added a third person view in thief ? simply because playing with paddle in a first person view is...vague.

Yes, Eidos thinks of you, console owners; we can't blame them, money is money...but Eidos, don't forget that Thief was a PC based game, and fans who buy games are numerous.
We want to have in Thief, Deadly shadows the same feelings that the first 2 opus: i'm a thief, not a hero...

a french thief fan

Philbe63
13th Feb 2004, 12:35
I don't know why it is so much harder for me to play a first person shooter (or sneaker) on a console but it is. I love playing these type of games on a pc (I sit in the dark) and lose myself in the world.

Maybe it's just bad thumb control...

Kerghan
13th Feb 2004, 15:44
Played HALO on both XBox and PC, and I absolutely HATED the controls on the XBox...it felt like...jumping from a swimming pool full of water, into a swimming pool full of jello. The only thing that made the XBox version tollerable, was that I was playing it split screen with a friend. However, if they would just make a mouse and keypad for a console, I think that would be the end of most games on a PC (except for RTS games and MMORPGs). I'd get a cheap, more portable console and forget about the PC! Until that happens, I'll stay with my well controlled, upgradeable, internet useable (I could go on forever) PC.

FrozenNorth
13th Feb 2004, 16:32
I think PC is better 'cos:
1) I like keyboard and mouse much more...not least because of the many many more buttons :)
2) PC games can be modded, updated, patched and so on by anyone to get better experience while when a game is released on console it's there and no updates or anything to it...
3) PC Graphics are better in general and can be updated easily
4) You can do so much more with PC (write, dl lots of stuff from the internet, do your work/homeworks&essays etc...)
5) PC is easy to update (even one part can be updated to better one(take memory for example)) while when your console gets old you have to buy a new one straight away...

I think I could put in here many many more reasons why PC is so much better than consoles and I think that many PC users here are on the same line with me?

EDIT: I forgot about the peripherals that you can plug into your PC...you can put 7.1 speakers, two displays (TV also possible and you can record TV programs), you can install programs that ease the use of your PC and so on....only a dream that can't be reached for the console ppl :)

lenny25
13th Feb 2004, 18:48
Remember that the hardware in the X-Box is in fact very outdated PC-hardware. There is really no competition when it comes to graphics and controls. The mouse/keyboard combination really is unbeatable.

ion
14th Feb 2004, 14:05
I have yet to see a FPS type game that works better on a console than with a keyboard and mouse.
Besides, I wouldnever buy an XBox anyway.
As much as i love the game, I'm ashamed to see it sold out to the big evil like this.

grafixmonkey
14th Feb 2004, 20:18
Originally posted by rHeZzEn
How many PC users have had the pleasure of playing an XBox connected to a HiDef TV, Dolby Digital 5.1 surround while sitting in your favorite chair.
...
I can't wait to play T3 on the XBox. I can hear it now, Garrett pulls out his moss arrow lays down 3 along the catwalk. The sound of the bow being released travels from back to front and the deep low thud of the moss spreading over the medal grate is only picked up by the sub. And as for the difference between a keyboard and an XBox, play HALO on the XBox(I finished in 4 days).

In the xbox version of Halo, the enemies all yell and growl and bellow more than they fight. That's to give you time to maneuver that gimpy little thumb stick to point your gun at the target, before they start shooting.

And, I wasn't aware that the xbox supported HDTV? You have to have a really expensive television for it to display more than 640x480. The graphics just look better because they are so big in the room. And the positional and environmental sound is MUCH better on a PC than it is on the xbox. Heck half the time the game designers just assume you'll be listening in stereo on the TV's built in speakers.

I don't like it at all when games are dual-released between PC and a console. It means to me that they had to dumb the game down to make it fit. Deus Ex 2 came out, and the levels were practically miniature models compared to the big expansive levels in the original. Think about it... If they were releasing T3 for PC only, there'd be a good chance you would have an ENTIRE TOWN completely open to you for thiefing, no loading times or sections or anything. Since it's dual-releasing for the xbox and its cute little 64MB of memory, you'll probably have little individual hallways sectioned off with loading scenes between them, just like DX:IW did. And DX:IW is even more of a free exploration / open world / run of the town type game than Thief is supposed to be.

Anyway, remember the big town levels in thief 2? where you had to get from the Crippled Burrick Inn to your house, and had run of the whole town to do it? That's impossible on an xbox. I predict indoor levels only in T3.

ion
15th Feb 2004, 12:21
Originally posted by grafixmonkey
If they were releasing T3 for PC only, there'd be a good chance you would have an ENTIRE TOWN completely open to you for thiefing, no loading times or sections or anything. Since it's dual-releasing for the xbox and its cute little 64MB of memory, you'll probably have little individual hallways sectioned off with loading scenes between them, just like DX:IW did. And DX:IW is even more of a free exploration / open world / run of the town type game than Thief is supposed to be.

Anyway, remember the big town levels in thief 2? where you had to get from the Crippled Burrick Inn to your house, and had run of the whole town to do it? That's impossible on an xbox. I predict indoor levels only in T3.

Noooooooooooooo!!! :eek: That mustn't happen!!! :( :mad:
I loved the city levels, and I expected more such from T3. :(
Running around, exploring stuff and manipulating things are one of the main charms about thief IMO.
Damn it, Microsoft is a kind of inverse King Midas.
Everything they touch turns into crap! :mad:

lenny25
15th Feb 2004, 12:29
Let's not be too hasty! We'll just have to wait and see and then draw conclusions.

grafixmonkey
15th Feb 2004, 13:51
Agreed, but after seeing Halo on xbox, you can REALLY see the lack of memory. Any large levels are very low polygon count, or are painstakenly divided into sections where you can't see one section from another, and there's a little level load when you pass through a corridor or overpass. And then there was Deus Ex 2 - Deus Ex 1 had levels encompassing whole city blocks, including rooftops and the indoors sections of lots of buildings. Deus Ex 2 feels like you're playing in a shoebox.

It's too late for Deus Ex 2, but hopefully the Thief 3 team will not do the same thing. But why oh why did they give that infernal box so little memory, knowing they were going to try and sell PC-style games for it?

EDIT:
In particular, in Halo, they were forced to resort to a dynamic "live copy-paste" level building style that I haven't seen in games since the SNES. They have a certain set of standard, modular, attachable hallways and rooms and they tell the game how to tack them together. They do the same for the outdoors, they have standard buildings, and tell the game to paste "building type 3" at a certain position. All to get Halo and its textures and levels to fit into memory.

Unfortunately, the only way to have Thief-3 be good for PC AND good for xbox is to have different level construction for each.

Cobra14744
16th Feb 2004, 17:50
I would definately go with PC. A good mouse outruns any other controler in a first person. For flight sim use a joy. In third person use a gamepad, and you can dolby digital 5.1 for pc too.

PC is best,

Quillan
16th Feb 2004, 17:59
Grafix has the right of it. With IW, they used the same level design for both versions of the game, which limited it to the system capabilities of the Xbox. While I have no problem with the level DESIGN being identical, I do wish the PC version would have had some of the levels combined into larger ones, to cut back on the number of loads. I hope they do that with T3.

HOC
16th Feb 2004, 18:14
my main concern right now for t3 is what IS failed to do with dx:iw. and that's actually optimize the game for the pc. although the previews say the game runs very well on the pc for the time being (although, no test system specifics were given) in it's alpha stage, there's no telling how they'll **** it up between now and the release date.

grafixmonkey
17th Feb 2004, 18:49
That's true, if they had combined some of the individual sections in DX:IW as continuous walkable levels instead of little sections, it might not have had that "sardine can" feel.

The problem is that the programmers are most likely using Quadro FX cards on their systems. Some nVidia agreement that lets them have the "Way it's Meant to be Played" logo on the box states that they have to. Then they will test it out on a Geforce FX 5950 and a Radeon 9800 Pro XT, and say that the minimum system requirements are the slowest DX9 capable card there is (that's what they did for deus ex 2.)

Here's hoping that Eidos learns from their mistakes and doesn't let the game pass QA before it actually works well. It's looking like they pushed for an Xmas release for DX:IW and that caused the sorry state the game is in.

At least I have heard of retailers posting on the Deus Ex 2 forums asking why they get so many returns, and after the responses they get they send all their copies of DX:IW back and refuse to carry it any more. Hopefully this is the "voice of the consumer" having an impact.

coldplay_josh_106
19th Feb 2004, 22:17
PC OVER XBOX ANYDAY!!!

PCs have everything an XBOX has and MORE!

It really annoys me when developers design games that were origanlly on the pc, but then they make the sequal for a console.

Look at DX:IW, the first was a master piece! and i think the second could have been as well! But they had to make it for XBOX aswell, which completely ruined the game!

The controls on consoles are soooo unsoffisticated, and that wears off on a game thats been developed for both platforms!

I really hope that thief 3 isnt the same!

CleptoManiac
20th Feb 2004, 04:18
Perhaps fan missions will best glorify PC Thief3.

Peter_Smith
20th Feb 2004, 06:13
I played "Doom" on a console a few years ago. I put Doom in quotes because it wasn't Doom at all. It totally sucked. The thumb control was completely unmanagable, for me at least. I can't believe that they use a control that is so sloppy and then substitute for its inadequacy with auto-aim. I haven't touched a console since. Give me a mouse, keyboard, and up-front CRT monitor any time. :) In thief 1 and 2, with the bow, I can hit a bulls eye from a long distance away and achieve some satisfaction doing it. I'm not sure how the console players will deal with that. Either miss or cheat, I imagine.

Huntress
21st Feb 2004, 01:58
LOL Peter....and it "sucked" from you? :D That's a good one coming from you! But as far as using bow/arrows...you might not need to do that so much now...you've got climbing gloves and a dagger instead :( Lets see...you'll have water arrows, fire and I guess some broadheads, won't have any rope arrows to worry about so your aim won't need to be as refined now since you'll be using less of that kind of weaponry...doh :( I dunno this is all becomming very disheartning just like DE:IW became to me in the end. Guess the bottom line will be I'll have saved myself $100.00 with the way things have been going but not happy about it either! Ta and Good Hunting!

Thiefinthenight
21st Feb 2004, 14:41
Can any Xbox users say "Custom Fan Missions"? :D

van_HellSing PL
21st Feb 2004, 14:48
Can any Xbox users say "Custom Fan Missions"? :D Yes, they can. The Xbox has a hard drive. (I'm a PC user btw.)

raashnav
21st Feb 2004, 23:57
I will admit that the keyboard and mouse gives you much better control. PC games can have higher requirements and heck, companies that require the new stuff can just say "the game will suck unless you upgrade" (see IDsoftware about DOOM3) and for some reason we all upgrade just for the one game.

But XBox has been designed however to make money. Why?

- Game Developers can no longer have the only people buying games be the PC users. Why? PC users pirate software. (Sure you can do it for XBox too, but how many people that only use an XBox know how to do that?)

- Money comes from sales volume. The more unintellectual people you can get to buy the game the better.

I will agree with coldplay_josh_106 in saying the PC has everying in XBox and more, but software companies know that over 50% of the people that buy the game are satisfied with what XBox provides. The minority needs the extras; That is why XBox, and consoles in general, exist to earn money from the majority.

Sorry the PC gamer is the minority and with the next console and then the next where consoles even provide back-compatibility for games (PS PS2; bet it happens with XBox too), the PC gamers will just get smaller in volume. Meaning no one will care about making sure to calm the PC gamer cries for help.

Of course, seeming the only people that will see my comments are using a PC, have fun ripping on them.

chimpwithalimp
22nd Feb 2004, 01:13
The main thing I don't like about FPS on consoles is the rather jerky and angular way you have to look around and aim using the little stick. I played Halo (xbox) and Medal of Honour (PS2) using the controllers and it was nightmarishly fiddley to aim properly, usually going a little bit too far past a target, then too far back the other way. Twitch aiming. As others have pointed out, the developers usually counter this by eother having an auto aim, or the bullets that you fire spread out wider to cover a bigger target. It'll never beat a mouse and keyboard unless they have a rethink.

Orumph
23rd Feb 2004, 00:05
Take this post however you like, I speak a lot of truth here....

Personally, I don't think the PC gamer is dead yet.

HL2, Doom3, UT2004, groups that are going to continue to produce games like Stalker. These games will never work well on today’s consoles. Infact, I doubt the next gen consoles would work well either.

But, the PC gamer is not gone for good yet. Truth be told though, the games of yesterday will slowly disappear. Reason? there are more Console Lackeys. Yes, that's right I said Lackeys. They don't really care about what a true gamer finds important in an FPS. They just want to point and shoot. They could care less if they have auto aim as long as they hit the target. Console Lackeys are too lazy. I wish FPS's could be outlawed for consoles. But, they sell and lackeys buy them.

The problem is though, that game companies are starting to switch directions. They can sell a short game with 10 or 15 levels that can be finished in a matter of hours. People don't think about these things anymore. I remember a time when, if a game came out with 10 or 15 levels and no way to mod it, it would have been completely shunned no matter how good it might have been would have sat on the shelf indefinitely. Now, it's becoming norm. They can then sell us the other 15 levels for the same price in an expansion pack. I really don't think piracy has all that much to do with it. Not as much as people would like to believe.

If they were really seriously worried about piracy as hard core as people would like to believe, they would seriously do more about it. But they really don't. All the things they have tried so far haven't worked and they know this. Yet, they still use the same methods to no avail. You know, if a game is good enough people would buy it with a comm port key. And with digital the way it is now, it would be a lot harder to get away with pirating using a digital com port or USB key. Oh wait, that might cost more money for a game company than what they are doing now for games that they know really aren't that good. I mean as it is now, it's cool if some people pirate stuff cause the ones that buy the junky games can't return them anyway. They still win. But if game companies spent more money on seriously protecting there games and software, they would have to pass it down to us. Most of us would never set finger on DX2 for more than 50$ from what the Demo showed us. So they would definitly lose more money. They would have to up the quality of games big time.

I really don't have a problem with buying games, but make them quality and give me my moneys worth.

COD and MOH are great games. I do enjoy playing them. But damn short. I felt rather jipped on game length when they ended.
I would be seriously irate had I spent more than 50$ on either of those games.

(I am sure the keys would not be that much more expensive, but still, people would be a lot more careful about purchasing ANY game if they have to shell out more than 50$, Console Lackeys excluded, most games are bought by mom or dad as presents, so money is no object to most Console Lackeys)

Hence the reason for PC games slowly going away.

Chaser, while mostly a gun and run updated doom/quake style game was awesome fun and huge, took forever to complete the game. I felt like it was never going to end. When it did end I wanted more. Unfortunately, while the game is cool, people are spending more time on other games like COD, MOH, DX2 (which is complete crap), BF1942, UT2003, etc. There is no place for any real fan base for a game like Chaser.

I am hoping that HL2, Doom3, Stalker will bring back the thrill of serious level modding. While UT is cool. We need single player modded level creation again. Something that was lost with Quake3 and UT.

I can tell you right now, Eidos/IS sure as hell are not going to cater to a fan base with moddable games. I got money that says T3 is going to be very close to what DX2 is and won't have any kind of SDK either. The only reason why they are concentrating on a PC version port is so they can get a little extra money from the PC side of things cause of the fall out of DX2. And I bet they don't put all that much effort into it. It may in the end have better performance than DX2 does, there may not be as many load times as on X-box, but that will only be because they worked on both plats at the same time. Unlike DX2.

Still I would be shocked if they out do themselves and produce a flawless PC Port with excellent game play, huge levels, very limited and quick load times, and all around Thief 1&2 greatness. Unfortunately, they are still going to go way off the path of the originals and try their hand at simplicity. Expect an incredibly short game. Oh yeah, you can roam around the city and steal to your hearts content. Will only work if this is done right, and I can tell you, it won't be done right. If they even try to produce Unified Ammo with a clunky obstructive HUD the game will be a failure on PC. But the Console Lackeys will still eat it up.

Someone prove me wrong on the SDK.

So what if X-Box has a hard drive. You still are going to be hard pressed to find any patches, any fan base missions, any mods of any kind for any FPS. So that kind of makes it a useless point to talk about. Don't you have to pay to access X-Box live? How are you going to get a free patch for a game that may be all buggy? so, Yippee for X-Box, no more free patches, mods, maps, skins, sounds. Very few of which will be created by users who don't have PC's to create them on cause they are Console Lackeys who will never be able to appreciate the spirit of a true FPS.

I vote for PC.

Acorn
23rd Feb 2004, 04:39
I have both an X-Box and a PC, but I love playing Thief on my PC.
I can't afford $50 for both and I hope the PC version is best. I just use the X-Box console for two player airplane combat mission games and stuff like that.

thegrommit
24th Feb 2004, 03:29
Originally posted by Orumph
the spirit of a true FPS.


LMAO - I'm with you on the preference for PC gaming, but since when has Thief been a First Person Shooter? :D

thegrommit
24th Feb 2004, 03:40
Originally posted by raashnav
But XBox has been designed however to make money. Why?


You answered the question yourself. Because companies that don't make money tend to die rather quickly.

However, it IS possible for console/PC ports to be good games that work well on both platforms. Two current examples are Knights Of The Old Republic and Beyond Good and Evil. Sure, neither are first person games, but they both offer immersive gameplay and rich storylines. And most importantly are fun to play regardless of the platform.

grafixmonkey
24th Feb 2004, 04:43
Originally posted by thegrommit
LMAO - I'm with you on the preference for PC gaming, but since when has Thief been a First Person Shooter? :D

It wasn't. Haven't you read the box, manual, or website? It's a First Person Sneaker! :cool:

Orumph
24th Feb 2004, 19:48
Originally posted by thegrommit
LMAO - I'm with you on the preference for PC gaming, but since when has Thief been a First Person Shooter? :D

Gromm, are you trolling?

Nowhere in my post did I claim FPS meant First Person Shooter though, did I?

thegrommit
25th Feb 2004, 02:10
Originally posted by Orumph
Gromm, are you trolling?

Nowhere in my post did I claim FPS meant First Person Shooter though, did I?

Every game you used to justify the PC platform is a shooter (i.e. where the objective is to kill everything), and your concluding paragraph ended with "Console Lackeys who will never be able to appreciate the spirit of a true FPS. "

[edit] added definition of a "shooter"

Orumph
29th Feb 2004, 15:53
Thief Series does infact fall under FPS catagory. When you go to the store to buy games. It's going to be in the same section as all other FPS's. Sneaker or Shooter is irrelevent. It's First Person Scenario, being that you use First Person View while you play the game. I am correct in calling it an FPS. And there is no point in you going on about the 3rd Person aspect of T3. It's irrelevent as T3 has 1st Person options. But if you have noticed. others have compared T3 to Splinter Cell which is a 3rd Person Sneaker. Would that be TPS? I think so. From what I remember seeing, Splinter Cell was under the same catagory as other FPS's on the shelf.


"Console Lackeys who will never be able to appreciate the spirit of a true FPS. "Yeah, that's right. I said that. And I meant it. Cause most Console only users don't play many PC Games. They can't/won't be able to appreciate the true foundation of any FPS. They have to rely on Auto Aim cause game pads are simply not as accurate as a keyboard/mouse. A fact well documented by many true FPS gamers.

I have contended all along that I hope I'm wrong about T3. I still do. I will also admit when I'm wrong. It also sounds like the dev's are listening to a lot of us and have revamped parts of the PC version. Un-Boxing it. Something that should have been done with DX2 and wasn't which helped produce the junk PC game that it is. Simple fact is, you can't build one code for multiple platforms without moddifying it to that particular platform. Hence you no longer have one code for several platforms but several codes for several platforms. If done right, then yeah it might be able to work. But, Halo really would have been a 1000 times better if developed for PC first. Didn't it take them 2 years or something to revamp for PC release? And we all know that DX2 would have been a completely different game and a million times better if done for PC First. That is fact that no one can deny. So my concerns that doing T3 in the same fasion as Halo and DX2 are well founded. Also my comparing it to other FPS's in the fasion of playability and design. Not style of game play of sneaker vs. shooter. Comparisons can be made cause Thief is infact an FPS game. Stocked in the exact same section as all other FPS's. Get used to it.

thegrommit
29th Feb 2004, 16:24
Originally posted by Orumph
Thief Series does infact fall under FPS catagory. When you go to the store to buy games. It's going to be in the same section as all other FPS's. Sneaker or Shooter is irrelevent. It's First Person Scenario, being that you use First Person View while you play the game.

I guess the point went over your head. Thief isn't about shooting people. It's about getting past them. The games you listed (CoD, BF1942, Halo, Quake3, UT etc) were about shooting people.



Stocked in the exact same section as all other FPS's. Get used to it.


Heh, I don't need to. I paid US$36 shipped for my copy of DX:IW, how much did you pay again? :rolleyes:

Orumph
29th Feb 2004, 22:59
Now your really trolling grom. But OK!

First off, big woop, you got it for 36$. What do you want a cookie?
I got your cookie right here, hangin.

You still miss the point of anything I said. You would rather debate about nothing than admit I'm right. Or, it all went over your head. Cause it sure didn't go over mine.

You can compare them towards playability, level design, atmosphere, and on a small level, technological differences and probably a few other things. Given that Thief is a one of a kind game, there is nothing on an apples to apples comparison available. But you can still compare them. I guess that is too far over your head to comprehend.

Oh, well wait a second, maybe we can compare Thief with Deus Ex 2? Aren't you supposed to be able to use the shadows and sneak by the gaurds to some extent? Well, as long as you had the mod. Hmmph, DX2 failed miserably at it. DX2 failed in so many ways.

"Oh but look at the shadows on the wall, and how the body hangs over the barrel."

Hitman had ragdoll physics before DX2 came along. And does it quite well. Yeah, an Eidos game. One they actualy did half decent. Hmm,, fancy that, something NOT new to the gaming world.

Chaser has real time shadowing effects. "What? No way. It can't be." Not done to the extent that DX2 attempted. But still not new.

There is nothing new in DX2 physics that hasn't been done elsewhere. They just tried bringing it all into one game, ehancing it to the n'th degree and it failed miserably. DX2 is a kiddy pop game that will go by the wayside unlike Deus Ex or Thief 1&2.

"But the shadowing is different in this game, unlike any other."

So what, the game is still lame in a lot of other aspects that the physics and lighting can't make up for. The game sucks on a lot of levels.

So, yeah, you can make comparisons between FPS games.
I guess it's too far over your head to comprehend. You should stick with the kiddy FPS's like DX2.

As to the price.....
You still got ripped off, your just in denial.
You don't want to feel like you got ripped so you praise
DX2 to wash away the bitterness of being ripped off.
DX2 is kiddy pop trash. Plane and simple.

The thing is, Warren knows it too, but he would never admit it either. Remember, simplicity (unified ammo) is an enhancment, not a downgrade. What a crock of BS.

thegrommit
29th Feb 2004, 23:58
Originally posted by Orumph

As to the price.....
You still got ripped off, your just in denial.
You don't want to feel like you got ripped so you praise
DX2 to wash away the bitterness of being ripped off.
DX2 is kiddy pop trash. Plane and simple.



LOL - for those just joining us, Orumph paid US$50 for his copy of DX2. Considering he didn't like the game and I did, I'll leave it to the reader to determine who got ripped off. Note that I make no judgement on his taste in games. Why? Just as I like chocolate and others prefer vanilla, tastes differ.

Once again, this is a discussion about Thief and games where stealth is the primary style of play. As such, there is nothing inherently superior about the PC or X-Box that makes such games "better" on either platform.

Orumph
1st Mar 2004, 00:34
Poor Grom must be a Console Lackey and took offense.

The title of this thread is X-box vs. PC. I made the point that PC is better in a lot of ways that X-Box never will be. I also hinted on the topic of piracy and add at this point that it's possibily the reason games may be moving to console overall. Unfortunate for the rest of us. Although just as easy to pirate if you know what you're doing.

You are starting to show your colors grom. A Console Lackey Troll. You might want to be carefull, you might blow your cover as an eidos/is employee mystery poster. Save DX2 Grom, Save face and try to sell more of that trash. I will say you didn't buy DX2, you got it from Eidos/IS to come out and defend it to the end. I guess it shows your loyal, no matter how displaced it is.

thegrommit
1st Mar 2004, 00:51
Originally posted by thegrommit
LMAO - I'm with you on the preference for PC gaming,

Just a reminder - it's even on the same page!

As for the rest of your rant, responding to it would probably count as continuation of a fight so I'll let my previous posts speak for themselves. :cool:

Xcom
1st Mar 2004, 01:18
So, who's winning?

http://mindscraps.com/s/cwm/3dlil/lurk.gif

Orumph
1st Mar 2004, 04:20
Originally posted by thegrommit
Once again, this is a discussion about Thief and games where stealth is the primary style of play. As such, there is nothing inherently superior about the PC or X-Box that makes such games "better" on either platform. Yes, actualy there is. PC is still more responsive overall.

YOU are the one making it about sneaker vs. shooter in response to my other posts and you are only just now stating this asthough it's been stated all along? You are turning into something it's not and never was meant to be about. Hmm,, sounds vaugley familiar to me. (Sounds like grom defending DX2 to it's gleeful burial) Was I supposed to read between the words of some of your one line posts? (ex. "LMAO - I'm with you on the preference for PC gaming, but since when has Thief been a First Person Shooter?") I for one have not made nor did the original poster make any statments about " Thief and games where stealth is the primary style of play." You came up with that all on your own asthough that's been the premise all along. And your trying to show me up? Funny.

I'll let my posts speak for themselves.


From Original post in this threadHow many PC users have had the pleasure of playing an XBox connected to a HiDef TV, Dolby Digital 5.1 surround while sitting in your favorite chair. I was a PC user for years, played the first two games while sitting at a desk listening through PC speaker. I recently played Splinter Cell and it was just as addicting as the first time I played Thief. The graphics were amazing and the sound truly did have me looking over my shoulder. I can't wait to play T3 on the XBox. I can hear it now, Garrett pulls out his moss arrow lays down 3 along the catwalk. The sound of the bow being released travels from back to front and the deep low thud of the moss spreading over the medal grate is only picked up by the sub. And as for the difference between a keyboard and an XBox, play HALO on the XBox(I finished in 4 days).Side Note: I killed Halo on PC in approx. 11 hours total one day straight through. It's because the Keyboard/Mouse is much faster and more accurate.

Go ahead and pick at the rest of my posts. There's plenty to pick at I know, I wrote them, but the fundamental truth behind all I have posted is not so hard to grasp or understand. Unless it's beyond your comprehension. And no, you don't need to read between my words. It's pretty much stated right up front. Unlike what it appears you are claiming now as your intention all along. Your colors are showing Troll.

Kerghan
1st Mar 2004, 16:52
All I know is they can't make the game for both platforms without dumbing it down a little. This fact doesn't matter to me as long as the final product is good and not short. A PC that is at least average as far as how powerful it is will always beat consoles. Notice that most of the people who defend consoles only say consoles are superior because of how they are cost efficient and easy to use. This is a benefit, but how much money you put down for it doesn't make the kind of gameplay you can get out of consoles as good as the kind of gameplay you can get out of a decent PC, especially for First Person Games. Also, I thought halo was started as a game for the PC but then Bill Gates made Bungie his ***** to help sell his new toy...which would be ironic, seeing as one of the most popular console games ever made was orignally intended to be a PC game.

mtmckinley
1st Mar 2004, 17:18
why do they feel they have to dumb things down? I really don't get it. Even as a game developer, I just find the whole idea of "dumbing" a game down to be the most retarded thing ever. Instead of dumbing it down, why not have multiple difficulty levels and so all us "MIT-grads" can play it on hard and all you "dummies" can play it on easy... that'd work for me.

Console or not, I expect good games to be fun and challenging... not fun and a walk in the park. I can go walk in the park for a lot cheaper than a $50 game. :p

thegrommit
2nd Mar 2004, 00:45
Originally posted by mtmckinley
why do they feel they have to dumb things down? I really don't get it.

I believe thats because of the market consoles used to address. Even now "video games" are classified as kids stuff by the general populace - hence the furor over violent games and kids being "brainwashed".

The current wave of consoles has expanded the market for games greatly, but it has also brought in a lot of people who never gamed before. EA Sports games are the big cash cow on all of the consoles, but most of the people who play them won't be interested in a game like Thief (the topic of this forum), let alone a fast paced shooter.

So even though there is a broader range of console gamer, publishers still feel the need to "dumb down" their games to attract as wide an audience as possible. However, you can still find good cross platform games - Beyond Good & Evil and Knights Of The Old Republic are perfect examples of this.

On the first person shooter front, Metroid Prime and Goldeneye have shown that first person shooters CAN work on consoles if done by talented developers. Hence my previous point that platforms aren't the limiting factor.

grafixmonkey
2nd Mar 2004, 04:52
"dumb things down" mostly refers to them having to reduce the requirements of the game so that it will run on the console. For example:
average gaming PC: 512 MB of RAM for loading levels, textures, etc.
XBOX: 64MB of RAM that must be used to same effect.

Average gaming PC: Full keyboard, along with mouse, for control, can also have joystick or gamepad and game devs assume you own the controller you want for the game.

XBOX: Here, have a gamepad! Oh wait, you're playing a shooter? Here, have a gamepad!

Average gaming PC: Microphones are cheap and common. Large sets of speakers are also common. Games are frequently adding in-game voice chat, and almost always take advantage of surround sound.

XBOX: Almost everybody plays this on the plain old TV speakers. No need for surround sound really. No microphone plug on an XBOX. No in-game multiplayer voice-chat unless it goes through a separate system.

Average gaming PC: Monitor can play games at resolutions up to (and sometimes past) 1600x1200 resolution, allowing objects very far away to be seen clearly.

XBOX and all consoles: Play on a TV. Max resolution is 720x480. Distant objects cannot be seen, or are single dots of color.


So a game being "dumbed down" for the XBOX would mean: possibly lacking support for surround sound (DX:IW), never having any distant objects be important (DX:IW), having to choose between tiny, detailed levels or large, blocky, no-detail levels (DX:IW and Halo), not having in-game voice chat in multiplayer (Halo), having limited number of controls or having to reuse the same button for multiple tasks (every console game ever), and enemies having to be less threatening because you cannot aim as quickly with a gamepad in a shooter (Halo).

It also frequently means a younger audience, giving games a "young kid" or "back in high school" feel (hence all the hundreds of thousands of Tony Hawk style games).


Which is better? Neither one, dammit! A PC costs $900, absolute MINIMUM, to build a gaming machine. A good gaming machine would cost $1,050 all the way up to $2,000, and that's if you build it yourself and most people don't. Try buying a gaming machine from Dell. Ooh, $3,000 baby! Try selling one single console gaming machine that costs that. GameCube? $100! XBOX? what is it now, $150? $170? And you have to admit, some of those console games are fun. Mario 64 was pure genius, and there is no PC game that is anything like it except Mario 64 being emulated on a PC using PJ64. And then you need to buy a gamepad, it can't even be played with mouse and keyboard.

That said, I need to make one final point...

Coffee is infinitely superior to trees.

Squid
2nd Mar 2004, 07:43
Just one point on this topic. If the game was being dumb downed because of system requirements, why did Eidos want to know the specs on your PC were? To point this out... here's the particular thread for reference. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17544) Grey Mouser was asked to post that poll for T3. So, if it's only being made for the lower end system, X-Box, why bother asking at all?

Squid

grafixmonkey
2nd Mar 2004, 09:27
That's a good question. I don't know. Maybe they are hoping to avoid what happened with Deus Ex 2, and make at least the majority of peoples' computers sufficient to play the game at release time. What boggles me is that they're trying to do this on their forums? It seems like that would be a pretty biased sampling of people to me, consisting mainly of people who are enthusiasts or people who had problems and went to the forums for help.

Here's the weird thing: According to friends who've read about it, the xbox has something between a Geforce 3 and Geforce 4 - a Geforce 3 card with some features added for the newer pixel shaders or something. But you need a top-of-the-line Geforce 4 to be able to even play it [edit: DXIW on PC] above 640x480 or 800x600 (depending how much choppiness you can accept) even though a Geforce 4 didn't exist yet when they settled on xbox hardware. In the Geforce FX line, you need at least a 5700 Ultra to be able to play it at 1024x768, something I consider a minimum for it to look good on a PC monitor. Either the xbox has some unnaturally beefed-up graphics chip in it that they're selling at a huge loss, or the PC port of the game is using the card very inefficiently.

Another take is that PC gamers will want to play at high resolutions and consider 1024x768 a minimum acceptable detail, and this requires more video processing power than a console would use. [edit: max. console resolution is 720x480] The video power does not compare very well between systems for that reason, that's why I didn't have it in my list. The memory however does affect it - you simply can't fit into console memory what you can fit into PC memory, so console games have to find a way around it. Deus Ex 2 did that by having really tiny levels separated by doors that activate loading scenes when you click them, Halo did it by having S-shaped tunnels that activate a load when you get halfway through the S, and having large but extremely low polygon-count levels and repetitive textures. Now, when I play Halo on the PC, I get loading scenes in all the same places as the xbox, even though I could personally fit the entire game into memory, all at the same time, and never have a single loading scene from start to finish.

The controller affects it too - I got Prince of Persia Sands of Time for PC, and while the game is absolutely awesome to the core, it keeps pissing me off because it uses the same two or three buttons for everything and the character is always taking the wrong action, just because the system guessed that in that circumstance the wrong one was the likely intent. For example, the game uses the same exact button to jump as it does to somersault roll. It decides which to do by checking to see if you are close to an edge and moving towards it. If you are, then it jumps instead of rolling. It also uses the same button for "repel off wall and attack," for "flip over enemy in combat", for "dodge sideways/backwards," etc. etc., so for example when I know an enemy is about to dive towards me, I can't just jump because there's no way to communicate that to the game. The jump key would cause me to roll into the attacking enemy instead of jumping over the attack. They just decided that they were out of controller buttons, so that's how they made the game. Just think of Zelda 64, remember how often that "universal action button" had to flip itself around? They had to put an indicator on screen telling what that button would do when you pressed it, because it got so confusing. Wouldn't it have been better to have a single button for "pick up" and another for "open door" etc. so you wouldn't try to pick up a rock by a door and end up going through the door?

Anyway, I'd guess that poll stemmed from what happened with Deus Ex Invisible War, and I think what happened there was the fault of Ion Storm not Eidos (though Eidos is at fault for allowing it to go to market) so hopefully if Thief 3 is developed by different people it will be ported better, or hopefully developed side-by-side and not "ported" at all.

[EDIT: oh wait I just realized T3 is being developed by ion storm too... I must have been in denial about it! Here's hoping that they have a different team at least.]

Orumph
2nd Mar 2004, 21:54
Supposably it's not the same team as DX2 but some of the team from Looking Glass? I have read that somewhere anyway. This may be a good thing.

You can't create one game for different platforms. DX2 proves it. It is the coding, not peoples machines and not the technology of the system they attempted to create. It's Bad programing.

I do believe T3 is being designed in different ways for the 2 platforms side by side, unlike DX2. But we will know more when we find that the Settings are saved in the save file like DX2. Where you have to load a game to get your res, keyboad/mouse and other settings back. It's friggin bad programming. Not blaming the programers if that's not where the blame should go, unless it is, but who knows. Could very well have been eidos didn't give them time to do all the things that were needed. Inwhich case I blame Eidos more. But, DX2 had more problems than just technical issues. I'll leave it at that.

Still, don't be surprised if T3 has a high potential to be a big problem like DX2. Cross Platforming is just a bad idea between console and PC when it comes to FPS. PC version suffers horribly. This may not be the case in the future, but right now, it's a terrible idea.

T3 might be good, I will say it might have slight potential. But it won't be the epic everyone is hoping for. And that is one of the biggest problems for most of us that are complaining about cross platforming T3. T3 programmed for PC only really would be a LOT better than it is going to be. I DO say this with confidence.

The levels will be sightly bigger, but I bet not by much. Null won't even discuss the issue. Load times will probably be a little faster due to tweaking the engine. T3 probably will learn a lot from the mistakes of DX2 and T3 will prove the disaster DX2 actualy is.

I do hope that T3 is better than I am expecting. I still have my doubts though.

thegrommit
2nd Mar 2004, 22:40
Originally posted by grafixmonkey
No microphone plug on an XBOX. No in-game multiplayer voice-chat unless it goes through a separate system.


You forget XBox Live! And that PC games have only recently started putting voice comms ingame. Most of us have had to rely on RogerWilco/Teamspeak/Ventrilo up to now - all of which require someone to run a server with sufficient bandwidth (as a counter to the fact that Live! requires a subscription).

As for comparing the X-Box graphics to a Geforce3+, it's not that straightforward. While the featuresets may be similar, the memory architecture is very different. It's impressive how much performance can be gotten out of the unified, low latency, memory architecture. Can you imagine a PC with 64MB running Halo? Of course not, because the OS is bloated by comparison.

Guineapiggy
2nd Mar 2004, 23:16
Okay, facts are:

Consoles are better intergrated systems that are designed for a spesific task meaning they can on release keep up with a lot of top end PCs in terms of games at a smaller price BUT only for a short period. At any the very time top end PCs are technologically superior in all aspects but twice or three times the price/ The console can produce similar results for up to a year or two after the console is launched. After that it lags behind.

Consoles have a more intuitive control system for new gamers and games that don't require many different features to be mapped to a controler. PCs offer more advanced controls by their very nature.

Console games, whilst being smaller in size by nature than PC games are usually restricted more than PC games. Baldurs Gate 2 or similar games would never be developed for a console.

Consoles are easier to develop for than PCs by a way, being designed with a single task in mind.

PCs have a larger game library. Consoles may be easier to develop but there is a large chunk of the PC market that simply would not and will not work on a console. or is seen as too mature for the average console demographic. (Read: Most serious sims and a lot of RPGs.) This and the console market is sharply divided, unlike the PC/Mac debate where the 'IBM PCs' account for the vast majority of systems, the divide between consoles old and new that are not fully or at all compatable is much less straightforward.

PCs and Consoles aren't developed at different rates, the two will always stay pretty much within this relationship they have now as it is and is even more so becoming the case that they are developed by the same companies and/or work with the same technological boundaries due to the demand for console internet access becoming more advanced.

Each has it's advantages, each has disadvantages, get over it :P

As far as Thief3 is concerned, the only real issue is controls, autoaim and such. I'm sure that our good friends at IonStorm will be able to accomodate both PC users and Console users in harmony.

Jareware
2nd Mar 2004, 23:24
Originally posted by grafixmonkey
That said, I need to make one final point...

Coffee is infinitely superior to trees. Sums up the entire thread rather nicely... ;)


-JR-

Kayscha
3rd Mar 2004, 21:46
Considering that the PC as a gaming platform does not have a lobby promoting it as consoles do, it has kept its own impressively well in this battle of systems.

I mean, Sony, M$ and Nintendo spend tons of money to propagate their machines not just to the public but also to developers and - very importantly - to retailers. Nobody does that for PCs. Not even the manufacturers of PC gaming accessories (NVidia, Ati, Creative, etc.) who are pretty much dependent on the PC gaming market and can't simply switch over to a console manage to put aside their rivalry for a moment to promote PCs as a gaming platform. All they do is show how much better their products are than other companies' PC accessories. It's a shame, really.

Still, the fact that PC games are still around despite this adversity tell us something: the platform must have some serious things going for itself. I doubt that any console would manage so long without PR...

grafixmonkey
12th Mar 2004, 18:09
That's a pretty good point. When was the last time you spent the night in a hotel, and noticed you could pay the hotel to play PC games on the television they put in the room? I know I've seen many, many hotels with little controllers for snes or sega or N64 plugged in to the TV, where you could "pay-per-play" a console game. I notice that lots of retailers have kiosks up where you can walk up and play console games in the store too, to try out their system. But I don't see anybody setting up a Call Of Duty kiosk with a high-end grafix card, so that people can check out the PC as a gaming machine. But people still gravitate to the PC even though it has almost no advertising whatsoever as a gaming system.

Thiefinthenight
12th Mar 2004, 21:52
I recall when Xbox came it out was based the Ge-force2 chipset and not even close to the 3.

Thiefinthenight
12th Mar 2004, 21:58
I aoplogize you guys are right it is based on the Geforce 3. I stand corrected.

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020204/xbox-04.html

grafixmonkey
13th Mar 2004, 05:13
With some of the Geforce 4 pixel shader features added in too. (it's like a Geforce 3.5.) At least that's what I've heard.

The_Lurker
14th Mar 2004, 00:14
I haven't had a console since Atari 2600, PCs all the way (and macs, vaxen, sgi''s... the number of possible games drop as you go to the right :p ) Besides, why should I bother to by a TV so that I can play 640x480 without mouse+keyboard instead of 1600x1200 on a machine built for good I/O using the 21" monitor or the second-hand projector capable of covering half the livingroom wall? (Originally got it to show DVDs... yeah right). Long live the generic work horse that is the personal DRM-free computer!

Oh and hi, I'm new here, played thief i and ii as soon as they were released but sadly haven't been able to find gold anywhere... been lurking on through the looking glass and thief-thecircle for years. Even tried my hand at fan fiction :D Haven't had the time to make any mods since doom i though, been hard enough to find time to play.

*giddly looking forward to thief iii*,


Lurker

Kayscha
14th Mar 2004, 10:42
Consider yourself welcome, then, if I may say that, being a relative newcomer here myself. Good to see another positive spirit on these boards, too! :)
As you will see, many are much more negative or at least very sceptical of T3 (myself included), but don't let yourself put off by that. The game is certainly worth the discussion ;)

thegrommit
14th Mar 2004, 16:36
[edit] post removed as discussion on first person shooters (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6091340/index.html) isn't possible when the other party regards disagreement as a troll. ;)

Orumph
16th Mar 2004, 19:47
Your right,, the Troll comment in my last post was uncalled for.
I retract it.


Also, we have several Comp USA and Best Buy here that have a system setup to promote a particular game of the month type thing. I have seen and played Call Of Duty, Jedi Night 2, Americas Army and others on these systems. I don't recall what the specs were but I bought Jedi Night 2 and Call of Duty after playing it on those PC's at the store.

Maybe it's not a wide thing done. But they do exist.

Kayscha
16th Mar 2004, 20:10
Yeah, but in those instances, it's just an individual PC/software retailer making a deal with an individual publisher for one or several titles. There isn't a dedicated pc lobby promoting these things, and pc gaming in general to call more public awareness to them. I argue that the latter would be infinitely more effective, promoting PC gaming opposed to other platform instead of just selling an individual game instead of another pc game (which means more or less cannibalizing the pc market, serving only short-term interests)

thegrommit
16th Mar 2004, 23:19
Originally posted by Orumph
Your right,, the Troll comment in my last post was uncalled for.
I retract it.


Cool. For the record, I've never owned a console.

Kayscha - The appeal of the PC has always been that its a multi-purpose machine. Unfortunately, I don't think promoting gaming as the primary function of a PC is a good value proposition for most households. Especially when consoles can be had for less than $200.

I'm sure those PC gamers who are married can attest to how difficult it can be to get money to constantly upgrade ;)

HOC
17th Mar 2004, 02:39
Originally posted by thegrommit

I'm sure those PC gamers who are married can attest to how difficult it can be to get money to constantly upgrade ;)

not that difficult really. from what i've seen, it usually depends on what the person's occupation is (as is the case with several of my friends) that justifies the upgrades every year or two. gaming, although the pc is built for it technically (which allows it to be very useful for other things that are resource heavy), ends up becomming the bonus.

thegrommit
17th Mar 2004, 04:40
Originally posted by HOC
not that difficult really. from what i've seen, it usually depends on what the person's occupation is (as is the case with several of my friends) that justifies the upgrades every year or two. gaming, although the pc is built for it technically (which allows it to be very useful for other things that are resource heavy), ends up becomming the bonus.

Heh, a few of my colleagues have trouble upgrading every couple of years. And a few people here seem to be having the same problem (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=353704#post353704) ;)

Point is, more families will go with the $200 console that lasts three/four years than annual/bi-annual upgrades that cost at least that much each time. We PC gamers can rant all we want, but the 70 million PS2's (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39119121,00.htm) are a far more lucrative market for publishers than the PC is.

Kayscha
17th Mar 2004, 07:07
Hehe - my partner's got a car so I can easily justify upgrading my rig every so often. To each his/her own ;)

Anyway, of course gaming PC's shouldn't be targetted towards families, but more as a lifestyle device for the same groups that would buy a flat screen TV and home cinema system. Not neccessarily the nerds (we already have a gaming PC, remember? ;) ) but an 'in' crowd of single young adults with a larger wallet. This in turn will create a desire to own one of those PCs for many other people who would like to have that kind of lifestyle (including kids and youths) and will find that a gaming PC is more affordable than that flat screen TV after all. The multi-purpose PC, on the other hand should be marketed seperately, as it's appeal is quite different.

Sneaksie!!
18th Mar 2004, 04:29
DEFINITLY PC!!!!!
All this argument about x-box and high definition.Well....hmmm..
I think ill just take my GeforceFX5900 using its High Definition decoder and hook it up to my 60" Widescreen with 6.1 surround and have Way better Graphics!!!!

baxterrj
18th Mar 2004, 09:38
Sigh, I didn't want to read all the threads to this but...

Well, yes I have done this... and tell you what... My PC hooked up to my 21" CAD monitor with 1600X1200 resolution with 2AA on my fast system STILL hooked up to my 6.1 surround sound... IS WAY BETTER.

The graphics of a HDTV or of 1080i is NOWHERE neer the quality of a computer monitor pixel for pixel. There is also 2 mods of though.... TV's do tend to blend and blur a little naturally... computer's have to use AA to get rid of jaggies from the sharpness of their monitors.

But the deciding factors... Controllers and the upgradability of computers.

Computer pointing devices (mouses) are MUCH more accurate than those analog sticks Xbox has... and a keyboard allows more commands to be execuited with FEWER menus (which the game will probably pause in!)

Also look at the xbox. If you wanted better graphis... SOL... computer... drop a few bucks. The only thing you can upgrade in an xbox is the DVD drive and the HDD... try replacing the built in vid card some time.

Sorry, PC's lead the technology for consoles... always have.

grafixmonkey
18th Mar 2004, 19:00
Ok guys, just picture what it would be like to play 4-player Halo on the same box on a TV resolution - each player gets a 360x240 view. An enemy standing across a mid-size room from you is practically two pixels.

Now... how would the xbox display to HDTV? It would have to render a higher resolution. The XBOX struggles to render NTSC resolution, just to play Halo. The XBOX would need a faster graphics system to play games at HDTV, or would have to drop the detail and special effects until it looked like a Playstation 1.