Lindbergh delivers real next gen graphics

[mojo]

lindbergh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.>>ps3/xb360

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/7...74/vids_1.html

[babs]

I'll reserve judgement til I've seen the new consoles properly, but JEEEBUS that looks good. If they put the original music in, HUGE speakers and a moving cab again I'll be moving into one

[Kotatsu Neko]

Lindbergh is basically just an average spec PC. Amazing what you can do with them if you have the talent isn't it?

The tech is certainly not equal to 360 or PS3.

[Concept]

I know. :/

It reminds me how much PC technology goes to waste by many developers and doesn't even begin to reach the edge of its limits before moving on to the next best GPU/CPU. That's why I'm frequently finding it hard to be wowed on the technical front by PC games, as I always find titles which are pushing their hardware to the limits (even if the hardware is inferior to the best of what's available) more impressive.

[Ish]

And it's why I've given up on PC gaming. Waste. Of. Money.

I wouldn't mind forking out 300 quid every year or so for a graphics card if it was actually going to get pushed to it's limits. But it isn't.

[babs]

The problem with PCs is the hideous amounts of drivers/hardware cfgs/OSs being used, the games have to be written to cope with a stupid amount of possibilities AND be able to scale back to the low end systems in many cases.

Stick your 'average PC' in an environment where it needs no bloaty OS overheads, and can have the hardware written for and to directly and you'll see performance.

[eastyy]

Yep i have said that for years.I think PC programmers are lazier than console programmers.Perhaps i might be wrong.But take a look at doom3 for the xbox sure its had cutbacks and is at a lower resolution.But could my PC that was around at the time of the xbox release run doom3 that well i really doubt it.

Really dont know why microsoft dont create a games specific OS just to run games and nothing else cut out everything non essential .

[babs]

You kinda answer yourself there. PC programmers are not lazy, they just have a huge spectrum of hardware to cover with each release. It's not like writing for a unified platform/nice console.

Really dont know why microsoft create a games specific OS just to run games and nothing else cut out everything non essential .

Why would they bother, they make the Xbox

[Ish]

I don't think you are wrong eastyy. I don't think it used to be the case though: back in the days of Wolfenstein, Doom, Ultima Underworld PC developers were working there asses off to get some really quite impressive game engines running on pretty feeble hardware.

But since gaming, and in particular FPS gaming, took off on the PC it's turned into a technological arms race on the video hardware side of things.

Though perhaps lazy is the wrong word. It can't be fun dealing with all the different resolutions and hardware configurations.

And babs - I agree. It's frustrating to think just how much power is sat in the PC on my desk and it's just so underused by games. I don't think it all comes down to Windows though.

[Concept]

Lazy's too harsh... there are time constraints, and the nightmare of hardware configurations to think about.

The problem is dealing with these problems isn't something you see tangibly in the same way the likes of Snake Eater, Stranger's Wrath and Resident Evil 4 all push their home systems.

I suppose there isn't the time to learn the ins and outs of the latest GPUs in PC gaming. Everything moves at too fast a pace.

[Commander Marklar]

maybe in 1990 but that isn't true of modern game development. hardware is mostly removed by the likes of directx and opengl which talk to the hardware and the system, providing an abstract layer for game code to use. it is just like writing for a unified platform/nice console

the biggest problem i see with pc game development is where users cut corners and think their cheaper 'compatible' card or third-party knock off under performs and <hardware abstraction layer> has to handle the missing functionality in software rather than rely on hardware performance. the game performs badly, users complain.

you'd never see this on a console (well, maybe the Xbox *cough* ) but the varying hardware of a PC invariable means some box somewhere is going to under perform and the user is going to let the whole world know. give it some oomph, put the money down and you'll never have a problem.

[Concept]

I think mainly the issue for me is that my PC isn't all that far off from the PS3 in terms of what's under its hood iwhen it comes to grunt, and then I see the likes of MGS4 completely wasting the likes of Half-Life 2 technically (from what I've seen of it), and it's a first-gen game.

That makes me scratch my head.

[Commander Marklar]

games obviously need to catch up too and i think console developers are just more creative in terms of the content you see on a console. in terms of graphical prowess, i've not seen anything on a console that looks as good as GTR on a full-spec machine, what with its internal cockpit-glass reflecting-light bouncing off every surface wonders

same for a full-spec half-life 2 or battlefield 2. mind boggingly good looking games. few and far between though. but then it isn't like every game on a console looks the **** though, aye?

[Baseley09]

Why do they have it in the X360 section, Lindburg is nothing like 360 & didnt Sega already state they have no plans to port such games yet??

Tho if i missed them saying AB3 was 360 bound.........pre order me pls.

[Kotatsu Neko]

SEGA have hinted VF5 will be console bound, but have given no details.