And we' re getting a PS2, XBOX, PS3, XBOX 360 crap-tastic game from Treyarch to placate everybody who doesn' t have a $2,999 gaming rig.

Fourzerotwo, IW' s community manager, has released a statement regarding the release date and platform Call of Duty 4 will appear on:
Some cool things to notice is that all that footage is taken directly from the SP campaign, so you' re looking at the actual gameplay you' ll get to play. The only exception of course are the logos, waving flags, etc. All the action is actual in-game action captured from the SP of the game.

Platform: PC
Release: Fall 2007

What...


The....


Fuck...

Edit: Okay now I' m miffed. I just checked IGN, & they had this to say,

" Activision has not yet announced which platforms the game will be released on, but IGN confirmed in February of 2006 that the development team had been scoping this game out primarily for Xbox 360 and PS3. "

Which makes sense in one regard, but they' ve always been about the PC, and I can' t see them abandoning it completely.

Theres no such thing as a 3rd Party exclusive in this day and age. Im sure we' ll see gimped 360 / PS3 / Wii /PS versions not long after..


Edit:

And we' re getting a PS2, XBOX, PS3, XBOX 360 crap-tastic game from Treyarch

ORIGINAL: Virtua fighter 5

Theres no such thing as a 3rd Party exclusive in this day and age. Im sure we' ll see gimped 360 / PS3 / Wii /PS versions not long after..

Like the gimped 360 version of CoD2!?

Right...

Like the gimped 360 version of CoD2!?

COD2 is a old PC game.. Within 360' s capabilities.

On the horizon is Multi-core, min 2gig, Directx 10 PC gaming. Anything being converted onto the humble 360 will be severely gimped from now on.

ORIGINAL: Virtua fighter 5

Like the gimped 360 version of CoD2!?

COD2 is a old PC game.. Within 360' s capabilities.

On the horizon is Multi-core, min 2gig, Directx 10 PC gaming. Anything being converted onto the humble 360 will be severely gimped from now on.

Why could Xbox run Doom 3 or Riddick when it was NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR the MINIMUM recommended system requirements?

Why could Xbox run Doom 3 or Riddick when it was NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR the MINIMUM recommended system requirements?

Yeah, ran them severely gimped.

" Why could Xbox run Doom 3 or Riddick when it was NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR the MINIMUM recommended system requirements?"

Like VF5 said, it was nowhere near the same quality either. 480p, at about medium settings. lighting, special effects, textures, everything is toned down on the Xbox version. Still an excellent port for the console...

The thing I like about PC is that if you like to keep your games, you can raise the settings and resolution of your games to make them look like the times. Even a 1000$ PC bought these days can run Doom at Ultra settings at a much higher resolution with a higher frame rate than the Xbox version. Meanwhile the Xbox version is trash now.

ORIGINAL: Virtua fighter 5

Why could Xbox run Doom 3 or Riddick when it was NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR the MINIMUM recommended system requirements?

Yeah, ran them severely gimped.

Dont know about Doom 3 but Riddick looked great on the xbox ..

ORIGINAL: Virtua fighter 5

Like the gimped 360 version of CoD2!?

COD2 is a old PC game.. Within 360' s capabilities.

On the horizon is Multi-core, min 2gig, Directx 10 PC gaming. Anything being converted onto the humble 360 will be severely gimped from now on.

Xbox 360 is multi-core. 360 covers everything in dx10, all dx10 has over dx9 is efficiency, it doesn' t really bring anything new in graphical beauty. The 360 has 512 MB available to its GPU which is fairly high-end compared to current graphics cards.
The 360 won' t be " severely gimped" . It' ll be like running the games on " high" settings instead of " highest" . You could compare that with a $400 computer that wouldn' t even be able to run it on the lowest settings.

Nitro, No matter how you look at it, you cant argue..

low-mid with 30fps (at best) from high settings at double the framerate, proper controls = Gimped.

Before this continues, those who have their chips on the table for the superior PC version need to post pictures & specs of their own rig, now.

I could have an amazing DX10 PC that could take a dump all over Call of Duty: 4 for 360, but I don' t, & I' d be stupid to think that more than a tiny minority of people do.

A title is not gimped unless they didn' t exploit the hardware to it' s fullest potential. Mario Galaxy isn' t gimped because it doesn' t perform like Alan Wake or Crysis. All three are pushing boundaries on their respective platforms, therefore, one isn' t gimped.

Xbox 360 is multi-core. 360 covers everything in dx10

Yeah, exac...

...

wait what?

ORIGINAL: Virtua fighter 5

Nitro, No matter how you look at it, you cant argue..

My point isn' t that 360 will be able to match high-end PC' s further down the line, but that we' re talking s[ecifically about CoD4 and i fully expect it to be " within 360' s capabilities" as you put it.

This isn' t Crysis we' re talking about...

The 360 has 512 MB available to its GPU which is fairly high-end compared to current graphics cards.

Actually the 360 has 512mb total ram shared with the cpu with at 700Mhz@128bit width. The 2900xtx (GPU) for example coming out in a few months will have 1024mb of ram clocked in excess of 1000mhz with a 512bit width. Meaning, a 2900xtx will have twice the memory and about four times the bandwidth as the entire 360. Along with far more proccessing power.

This of course does not consider general ram on a PC which is moving towards 2GB as the standard and has much more bandwidth than then the shared 512mb in the 360. Not to mention CPUs with 4 to 8 cores coming out next year.

Next year we' ll see PC ports on 360 that look like low-medium settings of the PC version, at lower resolution as well as crappier framerates.

You get what you pay for.

If you want the best looking game, buy it on the PC.

If you want a good looking game without having to invest a thousand + dollars, play it on the 360. It' s as simple as that.

The 2900xtx (GPU) for example coming out in a few months will have 1024mb of ram clocked in excess of 1000mhz with a 512bit width. Meaning, a 2900xtx will have twice the memory and about four times the bandwidth as the entire 360. Along with far more proccessing power.

Wow, uh... what does one of those cost?

As the hippie environmentalist I am I must say that consoles are better for the environment. By upgrading PC' s you constantly throw old components and PC' s usually need much more power than consoles. Therefor, for natures sake, choose consoles

don' t forget that riddick on xbox run at a resolution of (640*480 or less since there was a severe aliasing) , no antistropic filtering. compared to the pc it just looked bad and that explain " somewhat" how the xbox could run such an amazing game, you should add optimization and what have you.

riddick dropped my jaw on the xbox, that is the first game that let me know the true potential of this console.

same thing apply for doom 3. a very low resolution like 640* 480 gives breath to old cards.

If you want the best looking game, buy it on the PC.

If you want a good looking game without having to invest a thousand + dollars, play it on the 360. It' s as simple as that.

Exactly. I used to be a PC game junky, but I' ve just gotten tired of investing the cash in it. I' ve decided I would rather own all the consoles, and plenty of games for each, along with a big HDTV rather than keep up with PC' s over the next 4 years.

The other thing is that when I have people over, they would much prefer to play all sorts of games on a variety of consoles on a large TV rather than watch me play my PC .

I still love PC gaming, and will play the cutting edge stuff about a year after it comes out to keep my upgrade costs down, but I definitely don' t see myself investing in it like I used too.

Listen to Eddie guys, he is the mind of reason on these boards.

If you want the best graphics and money spent on PC hardware isn' t an issue, then by all means get games for it.

If you have a more limited budget or like to game with friends, go with the consoles, the games aren' t going to look " bad" and their will be a large variety of great games to play.

If you are a true gamer, you will realize that both PC' s and consoles offer certain things that the other cannot, and will appreciate both for what they do. It never hurts to hold off on a cutting edge PC title for a year when your rig can run it because even by then, it will still look as good or better than anything on the consoles, and will be a title you still haven' t played.

Didn' t we already determine that it is stupid to suggest that one needs to upgrade every month to play the newest PC game? Let' s not devolve into that infantile debate.

Wow, uh... what does one of those cost?

I don' t think the price for that card has been announced but for the 2900xt which has an identical core as the 2900xtx is said to cost about 399.99$. The difference is lower clock speeds and 512mb of ram, even with half the Vram it' s hardly crippled. It still has the 512bit width giving it ridiculous bandwidth. However, you almost certainly have to upgrade you power supply as well uness you did so not too long ago. If the 2900xtx is ever even released as they seem to be having problems with the card, probalby driver issues. I would only recommend that card if you have money to burn on having two videocards in Crossfire. Due to the fact that when you put two cards in SLI or Crossfire, you don' t double your Vram as both cards must have identical data stored in the Vram. So having 1GB over 512mb for two cards would make a big difference. Otherwise 512mb is good enough for now, in most cases the the bottleneck in the videocard will be raw proccessing power.

I think I' m going to buy the 2900xt when they move to 65nm fab, it looks like a really good deal. It perfomers between a 8800gts 640mb and a 8800GTX for DX9 games, and should outperform an 8800GTX with DX10 games.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

The 360 has 512 MB available to its GPU which is fairly high-end compared to current graphics cards.

Actually the 360 has 512mb total ram shared with the cpu with at 700Mhz@128bit width. The 2900xtx (GPU) for example coming out in a few months will have 1024mb of ram clocked in excess of 1000mhz with a 512bit width. Meaning, a 2900xtx will have twice the memory and about four times the bandwidth as the entire 360. Along with far more proccessing power.

This of course does not consider general ram on a PC which is moving towards 2GB as the standard and has much more bandwidth than then the shared 512mb in the 360. Not to mention CPUs with 4 to 8 cores coming out next year.

Next year we' ll see PC ports on 360 that look like low-medium settings of the PC version, at lower resolution as well as crappier framerates.

You get what you pay for.

Notice how I said FAIRLY HIGH END compared to CURRENT graphics cards.

The architecture of consoles demands less memory for comparable performance than that of PCs.

Yes, eventually 360 will be thromped by PCs but it is very competetive right now. Especially when games are designed to take advantage of it. COD2 ran extremely well on 360 and the controls were done very well, COD4 isn' t going to suck on 360.