http://gamingtrend.com
December 18, 2014, 04:24:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IGN's Oblivion head to head article...  (Read 1450 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5612



View Profile
« on: April 09, 2006, 11:50:20 PM »

I don't subscribe so I just wanted to ask anyone who does: Which version won? Would you mind posting the closing comment?  Tongue
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
stiffler
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4071


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2006, 12:36:19 AM »

Quote
On a sheer technical basis the winner in this Head-to-Head is the PC. With faster load times, easier map and menu navigation, and the ability to display at a higher resolution with better draw distance the PC has a lot going for it.
Logged

Xbox Live Gamertag: cstiffler
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2006, 12:45:27 AM »

GT Rule #2: The PC version is always better!  biggrin
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2006, 12:55:16 AM »

Quote from: "Devil"
GT Rule #2: The PC version is always better!  biggrin


What GT Rule # 1
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2006, 12:55:28 AM »

Sad that a machine with 3 friggin cpu's and all the bells and whistles of this thing is still behind existing pc's. Oh well, it's only a console after all.

And I totally agree, the load times of Oblivion are killing it for me.  It loads and loads and loads and load, then stutters while it's loading or about to and then it loads and loads and loads.  It really is quite ridiculous.  I am considering bailing on it and swapping it in towards Tomb Raider or a future title this week because of that one reason alone.  It's a shame they fixed just about everything I hated about Morrowind only to have all those friggin loads.  Ugh.
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2006, 01:33:35 AM »

Quote from: "Devil"
GT Rule #2: The PC version is always better!  biggrin

Not true.  The console version of Spider-man 2 was better in every way than the PC version.  Supposedly so was the Xbox version of Farcry.  Doom 3 for Xbox featured co-op when the PC version didn't.  I'm sure there are many, many other examples.

Where the PC versions tend to excel is in pure graphical power and probably loading times.  I remember hearing that when Oblivion shipped it would look better on the 360 than any current high-end PC.  I thought that was silly then and it's certainly not true now.  The PC can always deliver higher performance.  But it does it typically at a cost of 3-4x the price of a 360.  That's the advantage of the 360 - high-end performance at a (relatively) inexpensive prices.

But don't worry Devil - Nintendo is still making money!   Tongue
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2006, 02:16:16 AM »

I agree with you, warning, but it isn't true in here!

Quote
But don't worry Devil - Nintendo is still making money!


THAT is rule #1!

Some day I have to put the whole list together!
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2642


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2006, 02:20:09 AM »

Quote from: "mikeg"

And I totally agree, the load times of Oblivion are killing it for me.  It loads and loads and loads and load, then stutters while it's loading or about to and then it loads and loads and loads.  It really is quite ridiculous.  I am considering bailing on it and swapping it in towards Tomb Raider or a future title this week because of that one reason alone.  It's a shame they fixed just about everything I hated about Morrowind only to have all those friggin loads.  Ugh.


I've got it for the 360 and the load times aren't bad at all (IMO, of course). The game loads when you enter a building or dungeon or town. And the game occasionally has brief stutters when walking around outside. Is it possible that you need to reset your cache (hold the "A" button when the game is first loading up)? That can cause some extraordinarily long load times (I've had to clear the cache twice now because the loading was getting too much).
Logged
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5612



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2006, 03:11:21 AM »

I disagree with IGN's closing comment. I own both versions and I stick to the 360 one. Why? I have a well-equipped PC and the performance is horrible, the game plays like shit in any other instance besides indoor areas with minimal lighting, and I have to turn most of the effects low or off. So really, IGN's point about the PC version having the graphical advantage is a bad one I would say. Think about it: 100% of 360 owners can play the game with excellent performance and all effects on (and the loading times are BARELY longer than the PC version, I hardly notice a difference), and much less than 100% of PC version owners can play the game with excellent performance and all effects turned on. So who really wins the graphical battle here?

Also I think the 360 controls better than the PC version and the first thing I realized when switching from PC to 360 was that the game was tailored for the 360 controller (especially navigating the menus!). The only area in which the mouse/keyboard combo is better than the 360 controller is a few instances when your trying to aim spells, other than that its the 360 controller by quite a bit.

I just feel like the IGN guy blew things out of proportion without listing any of the downfalls of the PC version. Both have their strengths, but I personally found the 360 version to be the better one.
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2006, 03:33:17 AM »

Quote from: "Ridah"
I disagree with IGN's closing comment. I own both versions and I stick to the 360 one. Why? I have a well-equipped PC and the performance is horrible, the game plays like shit in any other instance besides indoor areas with minimal lighting, and I have to turn most of the effects low or off. So really, IGN's point about the PC version having the graphical advantage is a bad one I would say. Think about it: 100% of 360 owners can play the game with excellent performance and all effects on (and the loading times are BARELY longer than the PC version, I hardly notice a difference), and much less than 100% of PC version owners can play the game with excellent performance and all effects turned on. So who really wins the graphical battle here?

That's an interesting statement. And a very good point. All 360 players can play the game well, or you have a slew of PC gamers who can play the game decent to fantastic.

One thing to keep in mind - for those people who have bleeding edge stuff (whatever the top of the line stuff is now), you can FAR exceed the 360's graphical quality. Especially once you start tossing in texture mods and direct .ini file editing (push out the grass line, the tree line, and how many cells the game loads into memory). The 2048x2048 textures that people are putting out are amazing, and drastically better than the 512x512 (if not 256x256) ones that Bethesda used.

And the very short load times (especially with a SCSI drive or RAID config) makes it so you never wait to travel around the world. Heck - I got tired of seeing the 'now loading' notice constantly showing up, so I removed it outright. All the game does is hiccup occasionally whenever I change outdoor cells.

But yes, all the quality comes at one heck of a cost ($1000-$1500 for a complete system, including monitor, easily). But while the 360 is only $399, you do need a TV that supports 720p to get the best out of the console, so add in that price as well.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2006, 05:51:08 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
But while the 360 is only $399, you do need a TV that supports 720p to get the best out of the console, so add in that price as well.


It's not really fair to suggest that the cost of an HDTV should be factored into the "real" cost of an XB360.  It's not like a computer where the monitor is being used ONLY for that device.  Many XB360 owners already had an HDTV or were planning to buy one anyway.
Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
disarm
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4191


my moral standing is lying down...


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2006, 08:00:43 PM »

Quote from: "Sarkus"
Quote from: "Destructor"
But while the 360 is only $399, you do need a TV that supports 720p to get the best out of the console, so add in that price as well.


It's not really fair to suggest that the cost of an HDTV should be factored into the "real" cost of an XB360.  It's not like a computer where the monitor is being used ONLY for that device.  Many XB360 owners already had an HDTV or were planning to buy one anyway.

not to mention that HD is in no way a requirement for the 360...and the games still look fantastic in SD.  regardless of whether or not you have a big HDTV, the 360 still looks better than any other console on the market.
Logged

*Gamertag - disarm78*
Now Playing: Grand Theft Auto V
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4004



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2006, 08:47:32 PM »

Quote from: "disarm"
not to mention that HD is in no way a requirement for the 360...and the games still look fantastic in SD.  regardless of whether or not you have a big HDTV, the 360 still looks better than any other console on the market.


I play my 360 on an SDTV and Oblivion still looks way better than it would on my PC currently.  biggrin
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
Bob
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 997


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2006, 08:51:39 PM »

Quote from: "Sarkus"
Quote from: "Destructor"
But while the 360 is only $399, you do need a TV that supports 720p to get the best out of the console, so add in that price as well.


It's not really fair to suggest that the cost of an HDTV should be factored into the "real" cost of an XB360.  It's not like a computer where the monitor is being used ONLY for that device.  Many XB360 owners already had an HDTV or were planning to buy one anyway.

Yeah.. well then you can't factor the full price of a computer into gaming because you can do more than game with it.
Logged
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2006, 08:52:54 PM »

It was an easy choice for me to get the PC version of Oblivion.  I'm sure my 360 displays the game better, and the 360 is probably smoother.  So what?  The PC version shines with the mods you can get for it, to expand the game so much more then anything on the 360.  The 360 game is going to be stagnant, besides a few pay for additions.  If Oblivion has even half the user community of Morrowind, I'll be playing separate campaigns, fighting new monsters, casting new spells, riding god knows what, etc. on the PC version, so the value I get out of the game is far better on the PC.

I also like many of the 'fixes' I can get now on the PC.  Like adjustments for how fast my armor gets banged up, more wildlife, better looking water, blood that stays around longer, etc.

I think the aiming would drive me nuts on the console too.  Oblivion is the most FPS like RPG game I've ever played.

From what I've seen though, my 2-3 year old PC with an XT850 puts out graphics that compare well with the 360 after tweaks.  I certainly don't think you need a top of the line PC to play Oblivion well, if you take a few minutes and tweak it.

The PC version just gives users a lot more value over the long haul then the console Oblivion.  I'll come back to Oblivion in a year when I'm tired of it now.  By then, there will be new user mods, new user graphics, new user rules, and other additions that will give me a whole new game.  A copy of Oblivion for the 360 will be on eBay, or sit on a shelf gathering dust, no changes possible.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5612



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2006, 11:30:08 PM »

Quote
I also like many of the 'fixes' I can get now on the PC. Like adjustments for how fast my armor gets banged up, more wildlife, better looking water, blood that stays around longer, etc.


While that may be true, in reality the two games we are comparing are the two games you get out of the box. I think its safe to say a majority of those who buy Oblivion aren't playing it with the intention of playing it for more than a few months. let alone with the intention of tweaking the game. I personally won't play the game any longer once I beat the main quest and perhaps a few of the faction line quests. If I bought games with the intention of playing it for months or years because of new content, I'd probably just stick to MMO's.
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18631



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2006, 11:48:12 PM »

Quote from: "Bob"
Yeah.. well then you can't factor the full price of a computer into gaming because you can do more than game with it.


Well Bob, that's where you'd be wrong. (IMHO)

Did you buy your 699 video card to work in excel? Is that bump-mapped hyperdynamic range lighting really helping out your web browsing experience?

The bells and whistles on PC performance is generally geared towards game-specific use.

The fact is, you can poke around in any normal PC-centric app with a 1.8GHz machine with half a gig of RAM and not need to spend more than 400 dollars. (which is a fair price for an SDTV).
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2006, 12:49:51 AM »

Quote
While that may be true, in reality the two games we are comparing are the two games you get out of the box. I think its safe to say a majority of those who buy Oblivion aren't playing it with the intention of playing it for more than a few months. let alone with the intention of tweaking the game.

One of the PC games huge advantages is the modability, so that has to factor into any comparison.  Its ignorant to ignore that in any comparison between the 360 and PC versions.  

I'd argue that large percentage of the people who buy the game do want to mod it.  Heck, the large percentage of 360 owners that downloaded the horse armor shows that people want add ons and mods.  Pretty much everyone that I've seen on the forums here, and in other spots are modding the PC game.  That's a big reason to get it.

So, maybe 360 owners won't play it very long as the game will get stale, but quite a few PC owners will...
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.111 seconds with 58 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.031s, 2q)