×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gears of War Heading To PC Someday

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the taking-cover-behind-your-video-card dept.

PC Games (Games) 69

Mark Rein, of Epic Studios, told the folks over at Team Xbox that sooner or later Gears of War will be heading for the PC. With Microsoft's 'ownership' of both the 360 and PC platforms, it's a no-brainer that Epic's epic will make its way there eventually; the question is one of keeping quality high and satisfying fans of the franchise. They also discuss the hopeful-looking future for the game, as a part of the Marketplace download ecology and in future games. Rein states: "The big challenge is to make a game that was designed solely for the console, to take advantage of every last little corner of that console, to fill every little crack and run as many threads as we could and do as much to exploit the power of that machine, and make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing. That's a challenge." For another look back and forward on the game, 1up has a chat with CliffyB up on their site.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

69 comments

Why? So PC Gamers Have Something To Laugh At? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027118)

Sorry Epic but the bullshit you pulled with Gears on the 360 ain't gonna fly in the hyper-competitive pc gaming market.

None of us are fooled by your bullshit marketing shots. We all know about cranking up the normal map resolution on objects, huge amounts of AA not possible in games, and all the other crap you did with those pathetic Gears 'in game screenshots' the Net is filled with.

None of us give a shit about a game that can only handle 4 vs 4 online matches. It's 2007 - wake up!

None of us give a shit about a game that can't get it's networking code to work - we all know about the pathetic lag and disconnect problems that plague Gears.

Whatever you spent of pulled to get those bogus reviews for the game aren't going to do shit in the pc world.

In other words, don't waste your time with a port. Unlike the Xbox, we pc gamers actually have other games worth buying.

Re:Why? So PC Gamers Have Something To Laugh At? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027384)

Someone forgot to take his whiny bitch pills this morning.

Re:Why? So PC Gamers Have Something To Laugh At? (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18042822)

Oh shut the fuck up. I've been a PC gamer since probably before you were born (judging by the content of your posts, you're probably not older than my little sister), and I'm actually anticipating Gears more than UT2007. And I don't even own a 360.

None of us are fooled by your bullshit marketing shots. We all know about cranking up the normal map resolution on objects, huge amounts of AA not possible in games, and all the other crap you did with those pathetic Gears 'in game screenshots' the Net is filled with.

The game still looks beautiful on an HDTV. So what if the official screenshots have too much AA. News flash, most commercials embelish on the truth. Do you complain when you get a burger at Burger King and it doesn't look as nice as the one on TV?

None of us give a shit about a game that can only handle 4 vs 4 online matches. It's 2007 - wake up!

Not all games scale well to all player levels, not just horsepower-wise, but gameplay-wise. Anything more than 4v4 on Gears of War would be complete unorganized chaos. If I want to play 32-64 player nutso fragfests, I'd play Battlefield 2142. But Battlefield 2142 can't really handle 8 player games well...you'd probably want to play Quake 3 TDM for that number of players, or add two more and make it a CS scrim. Likewise, those two games probably aren't very fun if you try to cram 32 or 64 players into them (though the leigions of morons who play 24/7 dust with 32 player servers might disagree, but I don't think they have the cognitive capacity to say much more than random letters and numbers with "nub" somewhere in there). Half of why Gears only supports 4v4 is probably technical, but the other half is probably how the multiplayer gamepalay was built around 4 player teams. Honestly, I dont see how Gears could work with more than 8 players.

None of us give a shit about a game that can't get it's networking code to work - we all know about the pathetic lag and disconnect problems that plague Gears.

You do realize that Gears of War servers are essentially listen servers, right? Unless I'm mistaken, there is no "dedicated server" for Gears. You try running a listen server in Counterstrike and get 8 players to hop on your server and then get back to me. Given the range in quality of broadband in the US, it's amazing that it works as well as it does.

Whatever you spent of pulled to get those bogus reviews for the game aren't going to do shit in the pc world.

Hype can only go so far. Halo and Halo 2 continue to thrive to this day because they were actually good games. There are plenty of really hyped games that turn out to be rubbish. So far, it looks like Gears met the hype it recived, but honestly, I think it's too early to tell...we'll see how many people are playing in 6 months.

In other words, don't waste your time with a port. Unlike the Xbox, we pc gamers actually have other games worth buying.

Yeah, like World of Warcraft! And...World of Warcraft!

Lack of enthusiasm (1)

chrisb33 (964639) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027126)

Rein doesn't sound very enthusiastic in TFA:

People ask me, "Are you going to do it on PC?" Yeah, eventually...I don't think that's any great secret that we would like to do it on PC, but for now it's a 360 game. Eventually we'll get around to a PC version. I just don't know when.
Translation: When we feel like whoring out our franchise for a bunch of cash, we'll give you a PC version.
Ah well, I'm still excited that I'll be able to get my hands on it eventually.

I don't understand your comparison. (2, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029274)

"When we feel like whoring out our franchise for a bunch of cash, we'll give you a PC version."

"Whoring out our franchise" implies they were doing something for some noble higher purchase and are now succumbing to the call of cash, and giving up their moral stance. It implies that there's something seedy about writing games for the PC. I don't think it applies here.

"Gears of War" was written to make money. Expanding to the PC market allows them to make MORE money. No change in position, goals, or morals.

Re:I don't understand your comparison. (1)

chrisb33 (964639) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030600)

I think that it's a funny contrast with the rest of the article:

And just bring people the awesome, compelling experience, and hike up the quality of the gameplay, but not lose what's great about UT. In fact, I think we've brought back some of the things that people liked about the original UT--and toned down one or two of the things that people maybe didn't like about the last game in the series, and, again, just get it right.

So, there's all kinds of cool games being done with the technology, and I guess that's kind of our job over the next few years, is to just broaden people's imaginations and stop thinking about shooters.

We just need to help people broaden their imaginations.
Despite all of this talk about how they're dedicated to innovation, his only comment about the PC version of Gears of War is that they want to "make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing."
Notice in my post that I'm not angry about this (quite the contrary - I'm psyched for GOW on the PC) but I do think that it's quite funny - even Rein admits that GOW on the PC will at best be only as good as GOW on the 360, which by that point will be somewhat of an old game.

PC...the land of the ports. (3, Insightful)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027212)

One can only hope they do as bang up of a job as they did with those Halo games...or Thief deadly shadows or even Oblivion. Oh sure, those last couple were actually billed as PC games but they both had the stink of console on them. I mean...you guys did get a load of the gigantic icons and text in Oblivion right? And the limited shortcut keys? What would it have taken? 3 Days to shrink the icons and fonts while expanding some of the hotkeys for the PC? And they couldn't even be bothered to do that. Hell, in most ways Morrowind had a better interface then Oblivion.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (2, Informative)

DarkJC (810888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027540)

Gears of War is UE3 based, so I would imagine that since Epic has UE3 running on the PC already (UT2k7) a Gears port would be trivial and capable of better-than-360 performance.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

ArtanisDTS (1005001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035824)

Sweet! Now I won't ever need to purchase a 360 just to play a game i've been dying to try out :D

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#18036568)

Epic has UE3 running on the PC already (UT2k7)

UT2k7 has been renamed UT3; apparently 2k3 and 2k4 are being counted as a single title. That's almost fair enough, given that from what I remember, 2k4 is essentially equivalent to a service pack to 2k3 (although it's been a long time since I played 2k3), albeit a rather expensive one...

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18037198)

2k4 is essentially equivalent to a service pack to 2k3 (although it's been a long time since I played 2k3), albeit a rather expensive one...

Not if you skipped 2k3.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

smokeala (912641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027744)

Oblivion just seemed lazy with the large icons, sure thanks to the mod community the issue was fixed but I think as customers you tend to expect companies to put in that little bit extra of effort to make things nice. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (2, Insightful)

gregtron (1009171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027960)

Yeah... But then you'd be playing Morrowind.

There's something about gaming on a console that I prefer over PC gaming. Not only do I sit, chained, to a computer all day at work, when I get home I fire a computer up to read the news, get new music, and to keep in touch with friends and family. Unless I need a WoW fix, I'd rather throw an FPS or goofy Wii game on the tube, especially if there will be friends and/or booze involved.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030200)

One can only hope they do as bang up of a job as they did with those Halo games...
WHAT? The Halo PC port SUCKED. Absolutely no optimization. Multiplayer interface is the worst I've ever seen. Ever tried to figure out which weapons are used in a match? Or the Vehicles? You have to wait at least 20 seconds per server watching the scrollbar on the bottom that tells you the info about the server set up. That's not even considering the technical optimization. There's no options for AA. AF has to be forced through the graphics drivers and it looks ugly. Not to mention how the game plays in general...Doom, Quake 4, Farcry, and UT2k4 (especially) all run infinitely better than Halo PC does on my 6800Ultra.

Halo PC was probably the suckiest port I've seen to date.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18031934)

> You have to wait at least 20 seconds per server watching the scrollbar on the bottom that tells you
> the info about the server set up.

You think that's bad - you should check out any game in the Battlefield series...

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18042444)

Halo PC sucked becase Gearbox made a half-assed port. Halo PC had the potential to be great, but Gearbox made a mess of the port, with shitty internet play, unoptimized graphics, and having to use a seperate EXE in order to allow third party maps. The gameplay itself was really fun, but it was obviously gimped by Gearbox's incompitance.

Bungie themselves are working on Halo 2 PC. Frankly, I can't wait, because if anyone has what it takes to deliver Halo 2 to the PC in a worthwhile package, it's Bungie.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18031142)

I'm surprised all the Oblivion fans on slashdot didn't mod you to hell. I for one agree with you, the hotkey setup in Oblivion was a joke, the UI was a joke, it was designed for the visually impaired I think. I'm still waiting for a decent Oblivion mod to make the PC version less console-sucky.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035812)

I'm still waiting for a decent Oblivion mod to make the PC version less console-sucky.

What, BTMod, Elven Map, Book Jackets and Natural Environments wasn't good enough for you?

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18054254)

All those mods you listed are superficial changes, what I want is some real gameplay changes!

1) BTMOD - Modify/customize the User Interface (visual changes)
2) Elven Map - a prettier map (visual mod)
3) Book Jackets - nice pretty books (a visual mod)
4) Natural Environments - again, a visual mod

When I say real gameplay changes, I mean like a better combat system (melee & magic). It's way too simple and get's boring extremely fast. For example, if you play a straight warrior, all you have is just a couple different sword swings, none of which are really interesting or have any cool effects. What I want is something that actually makes the fighting in the game FUN, and not so bloody simple. I would love to see some different "special moves" with cool animations, fire effects, cold effects, you name it, just give me something interesting!

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18066006)

When I say real gameplay changes, I mean like a better combat system (melee & magic). It's way too simple and get's boring extremely fast.

Ahh, I see. Yes, then I agree with you. BTMod removed the worst of the console-itis from the user interface, but I agree the game is too easy. There are a few special attacks available actually once you get to expert level in some skills. You can jump attack, move siteways and tap attack, or hold down attack and move forward or back to do a few special attacks like a bullrush. But combat is so simple you don't need to use them really. I too would have liked to see a combat system that relied less on stats and more on player skill.

Last game I played that tried to implement some real fencing mechanics was Die By the Sword, and that didn't work very well. Damn....how long ago was that game? 4 years? 7?

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

DarkMantle (784415) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034006)

One can only hope they do as bang up of a job as they did with those Halo games...or Thief deadly shadows or even Oblivion.

I wasn't aware that Epic made any of those games. Naive me, I thought that was Bungee, Looking Glass Studios, and Bethesda Sofworks respectively.

Although I know that "Thief: Deadly Shadows" was built on the Unreal Engine. [unrealtechnology.com] But it wasn't made by Epic.

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18058556)

Halo 1-3(?) - 'Bungie'
Thief 1-2 - 'Looking Glass Studios'
Thief (3) Deadly Shadows - 'Ion Storm'
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion - 'Bethesda Softworks'

Re:PC...the land of the ports. (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18040826)

3 days? Please. Some fans did a mod with the xml engine to reduce the text and window size, and it probably took them less than half a day.

Slashdot is where I get all my gamer newz n rumorz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027288)

When anyone mentions $$$ony I get very angry and i hit things with my head and my handlers have to give me my meds

Yawn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027438)

So we are getting a port of an old 360 game that has broken/retarded online play and a mind numbingly boring 8-10 hour single player campaign.

Gears of War is what I imagine a game that some interns at Epic Studios would throw together from their free time after work each day. The only thing Gears has been good for has been to show just how badly Microsoft fucked up designing the 360 hardware. Gears is basically just a Doom 3 engine(very low poly, heavy use of normal maps, tiny constrained areas) with the unified lighting model stripped out because the 360 couldn't handle it. gg MS!

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027810)

...a mind numbingly boring 8-10 hour single player campaign.
I beat the game at a friend's place in about 4 hours.

And yes, I did get a cookie, too...

Oh .. the Irony (3, Funny)

Brigade (974884) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027564)

GoW drove sales of the Xbox 360 through the holidays. Damn shame that it probably won't do the same for Vista .. [slashdot.org]

Re:Oh .. the Irony (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18027728)

'drove'? The Xbox 360 is selling at worse rate than the first Xbox. The same people who bought the first Xbox for Halo are buying the Xbox 360 for Gears of War. The combined Nov/Dec sales for the system are at best mediocre considering the massive amount of bundling and other incentives Microsoft paid retailers to try to move systems. Anyone who wanted to could effectively get an Xbox 360 for 100 dollars off during the holidays and the system still didn't come close to reaching half the sales of last gen's top console the PS2 - which didn't have any of the huge bundling type deals at a similar point in the console's lifetime.

Re:Oh .. the Irony (2, Informative)

Brigade (974884) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028014)

I worked at a Gamestop as an Assistant Manager for the holiday season .. (and both the Wii and PS3 launches), this is what people bought:

1. Wiis, if we had them (tended to run out about an hour after the UPS guy arrived, sometimes less)
2. PS3s, until the Wii released.
3. Xbox 360s by the TON (average 3-4 a day), and out of those, 75% went out the door with a copy of Gears.

"around 2m Xbox 360s were sold between the start of November 2006 and Christmas Day." [reghardware.co.uk] and Gears of War, ... with shipments of more than 2 million copies in six weeks leading Microsoft to proclaim it the "fast-selling next-generation console game" to date" [itwire.com.au]

Yea .. I can see your point. Really.

360 Controller for PC (3, Interesting)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027568)

Why don't they just mandate that you get that spiffy 360 Controller for PC? It's not *that* expensive and IMO is a decent investment anyway considering how good of a controller it is. And naturally it would mean that they don't have to mess with the game's pacing which would be a good thing because I think the pacing was well-done in Gears.

Re:360 Controller for PC (1)

Brigade (974884) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027620)

Well .. you're looking at $50 for the game, $50 for a Wireless 360 controller, and another $20 for the PC Wireless adapter. That's a pretty steep cost of entry.

Re:360 Controller for PC (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027702)

Well .. you're looking at $50 for the game, $50 for a Wireless 360 controller, and another $20 for the PC Wireless adapter. That's a pretty steep cost of entry.

It's $40 for the 360's Wired (USB) controller.

Re:360 Controller for PC (5, Insightful)

vecctor (935163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027714)

I think, for a lot of people, the whole point of playing FPS/TPS games on the PC is NOT having to use the controller and being able to use keyboard/mouse.

Re:360 Controller for PC (1)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028470)

Why both make it for the PC at all then? I've seriously been wondering if Microsoft has been trying to figure out whether they could get away with requiring 'Games for Windows' games to use a xbox360 controller. I mean, the whole thing kind of sounds like they're trying to turn a gaming PC into an overpriced xbox360.

The question is...why bother spending the extra money on a PC Gaming machine at all if all there is to play is console ports that aren't even updated to take advantage of the different platform. I wonder about the business model MS uses...I mean the original xbox was sort of the same thing.

Re:360 Controller for PC (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029080)

The "Games for Windows" I've seen so far were the AoE3 expansion and Company of Heroes, both RTS and neither suited for a console controller. I'm not using my 360 controller much either because most gamepad-capable games on my PC are 2d and the 360 pad sucks for those games. I'm using a cheap-ass PS2 imitation controller and it works much better for 2d games because it has a reasonable deadzone on the left analog stick (the digital pad sucks on both controllers). I even play fighting games on the thing and it's actually more comfortable than the original PS2 controller because I can use that analog stick with its good deadzone, no need for the thumb killing d-pad.

Re:360 Controller for PC (1)

Mdentari (979766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030614)

You have to be fraking kidding me. A game controller for a FPS on a PC is like training wheels on a mountain bike. Why would I want to limit myself that way?

I'm sure... (5, Insightful)

Mex (191941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027686)

It will be a "Windows Vista" exclusive, right?

Re:I'm sure... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038356)

It will be a "Windows Vista" exclusive, right?
Sure... if they want to severely limit [random high-90s]% of their marketshare.
 

Do console ports work? (4, Interesting)

T0wner (552792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18027738)

Forgive me for being sceptical here, but in the last 5 years (or ever come to think of it), can you name an FPS game which moved sucessfully from a console to a PC? Crys of "omfg Halo is the pwnzors" will not suffice since it was hardly as sucessful as say the Quake/Doom or Half-Life series or most original PC made FPS games.

IMO they simply dont translate well because fundamentally the controls are simplified on a console. Moving from an inaccurate control system to a more accurate keyboard and mouse means the gameplay is changed and I am yet to see it translated well enough to satisfy the so called PC "twitch gamers". This is of course assuming that you dont want to use a gamepad (in which case why dont you have a console in the first place?)

Re:Do console ports work? (1)

Brigade (974884) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028150)

Not to criticize your point, maybe off-topic, but Gears is a "3rd Person Shooter" not a FPS (First-Person Shooter).

Controller would probably work a lot better than Keyboard/Mouse in this instance, the only time you're in a FPS perspective is when you zoom in. They REALLY did a hellova job mapping the controller to the game (and the triggers make the game playable).

I'd like to qualify my opinion by stating that I've played FPS since Doom (Yes 1), and I absolutely refused to play ANY FPS on ANY console, until Halo came out. Say what you will about M$ or the Xboxes, but they made a controller that you CAN play a FPS on reliably, and not make gamers run screaming for mice/WASD.

Re:Do console ports work? (1)

vecctor (935163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028998)

Personally, I think TPS is just as good with keyboard/mouse as FPS.

I would put forth Max Payne (1&2), Splinter Cell (not sure how many there are now, I played a couple), Jedi Outcast, and Jedi Academy as examples of this. I played all those in third-person mode (though some had first-person options) and the mouse was definetly still my weapon of choice.

GTA (1)

British (51765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029968)

While I have all the GTA games on my PS2 and enjoy them, I would be tempted to buy GTA:SA for Windows, that is if my system wasn't 4+ years old. Why? Mods. There's the multi theft auto mod, and other mods(different cars, etc) I'd love to get my hands on. I can't do that with the PS2, but easily on the PC.

And with a mouse, I'd do better on those shooting gallery missions, but otherwise play with my Thrustmaster, which is a PS2 controller + 2 extra buttons & no pressure sensitivity on the quad-buttons.

Re:GTA (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033368)

FYI, GTA:SA works just fine on my 4 year old PC. Of course, it depends on what 4+ actually stands for, but the game isn't very demanding. I've upgraded a little since then, but at that time I had a P4 2.6, 512MB of RAM, and 9600Pro.

Re:Do console ports work? (2, Informative)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030130)

GoW would not translate well to kb/m. Considering the map layout and movement speeds involved in this game, being able to use mouse precision would drastically change the gameplay. It'd be like playing counter-strike with everybody's walk button taped down.

Right now melee combat is a very significant equalizer in this game since disparity in armament becomes irrelevant once you get up close, which happens fairly regularly since controllers just aren't as precise as mice. If kb/m is used, ranged weapons vastly increase in their deadliness, particularly the one-shot stoppers like the sniper rifle, boomshot, and bow.

It can be moved to PC, but it will require adjustments to core gameplay and renovation of map layouts, because a direct port would not play out anything like the current Gears of War.

Re:Do console ports work? (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18032112)

Maybe not, but it worked the other way around. Half Life for the PS2 was awful, but Half life 2 for the xbox was spectacular. The controller did not limit you as much as you'd think, and even made the driving parts easier.

Another reason to NOT buy a XBox EVER! (2, Interesting)

Wingfat (911988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029256)

If you have just a little patience, then almost all the games out on the XBox 360 will be put into PC platform. Like Halo did for the regular Xbox and a few other games that dont need to be mentioned becasue they suck. Not to mention elumators work great on the PC to play a huge portion of Xbox games. Now dont get me wrong here. I am an avid Microsoft fan, beta tester and what not for them. but I would never put money down on a fancy gaming system when i could drop the same money into my home system and have it more powerful then what gameing system is out.

Re:Another reason to NOT buy a XBox EVER! (1)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034598)

Well, you sir, are most definately uninformed. Have you taken a look at the state of xbox emulation on Windows (I cant comment on Mac or Linux, but Windows will be first to get it for numerous reasons including the fact Xbox uses a modifyed DX)? There are 2 games that will run on the 2 emulators playably, Turok on CXBX or whatever it is (cant remember it), which got abandoned and is close sourced, and Halo another Emulator I can't remember. These games are both ported, and to boot, run like crap in the emulator compared to natively. Now, since the Xbox uses a Freakin' Celeron Processor and a Hybred GeForce 3/4, and uses a modifyed Windows OS with DX, why is it this consoles is terribly emulated? Do your research before making posts where you blatantly state somthing.

Re:Another reason to NOT buy a XBox EVER! (1)

Wingfat (911988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038826)

hmm I should do research? I think not. You should resarch before bagging on someone else's post. I maybe should not have said elumator. But have you heard of the: "XBOX software development kit" you can download that almost anywhere. I know, I know it really isn't an elumator in that since, but in the other way it is because you can play all the xBox game images. So very easy to DL and play on your home PC it isnt funny. I agree with you on that you are right about those other two elumators.. they suck and only work on one game each. but they are not the only way to play xBox games on the PC. (and if you actually read my post.. i said that a lot of the games on the xBox eventually get released onto PC platform.)

Re:Another reason to NOT buy a XBox EVER! (1)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063558)

That may be so, but as you yourself agreed, you said Emulator, and combine that with the fact that using a emulator is legitimate, whereas using the Xbox dev kit is not, and also the number of home users that could even USE a emulator, let alone the damn Dev kit, your arguement is useless :D - Not ment as a flame either, just a reply which seems slightly agressive.

Excellent (1)

Leo Sasquatch (977162) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029402)

That'll be two systems I can ignore this pile of crap on. Colour palette of brown and grey; weapons that take an entire magazine to kill anything; gameplay that consists of running from cover to cover, sticking your gun muzzle out of cover and spraying bullets in the hope of hitting something at random. Did nobody else notice these tiny defects or was it just me?

Co-Operative Mode (2, Insightful)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030794)

The big thing for me, if there is a port, is that they bring over co-operative play via LAN or the net. Halo's port was a huge disappointment to me because they dropped co-op play. For me, especially with games such as these that have weak stories, co-op is a deal breaker.

Gears of War runs on UE3 which runs on the pc (2, Interesting)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030806)

The company I work at licences the Unreal 3 engine for their upcoming games. Our game merely needs recompiling to switch targets between pc, xbox360 and ps3 (though we don't have any ps3s at our studio. Ironically we have a wii despite not developing for it). I'd bet that Gears of War is the same, that they merely need to change the project config and press build to get a pc version.

OpenGL? Linux? Mac? AMD64? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18032934)

I ask not because I'm a Linux zealot (though I am), but because UT2004 supported all of those, working straight from a Linux installer on the CDs.

I mean, it's obvious Linux hasn't been the native dev environment for any recent Epic or Id games -- all the editing tools are given away for Windows only -- but I can still hope to at least be able to play the game by upgrading my Ubuntu for free, instead of paying to upgrade to Vista.

Re:OpenGL? Linux? Mac? AMD64? (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18036214)

I've only seen it running on (windows xp) pc and xbox 360, but it definitely supports both direct-x and opengl. I honestly don't know if it runs on linux or not. I haven't seen a native AMD64 build either, unfortunately.

Re:Gears of War runs on UE3 which runs on the pc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033226)

For reference: it runs like crap on ps3 atm.
On consoles, it's a compile + some extensive data cooking for optimized load times (which the PC doesn't/can't have).

Re:Gears of War runs on UE3 which runs on the pc (1)

DeeDob (966086) | more than 7 years ago | (#18041192)

With games of the caliber of GoW, it's a tad more complex than that, unfortunately.

Ever thought why Halo 1 on PC required PC specs that were more than double the hardware of the original XBOX on which it also ran? The XBOX was very similar to a regular PC, so just recompiling the whole thing should have just worked right?

Merely "recompiling" won't do a good game. You have to redo the controls, adjust the sensitivity of the aim for mouse/keyboard AND change the way graphics are displayed.

Yes, the Unreal engine 3 does a bunch of stuff, but the game uses the parts of the engine that works easilly on the 360. For example, this specific game may use a graphic processing element (lighting, shadow effect for example) that is built into the video card of the 360 but that is absent from half the video cards on PC. To take those cards into account, you'll need to "emulate" the effect through the main processor, requiring huge PCs.

So unless you want your users to require a PC that cost over 10000$ to run GoW on PC, you'll need to optimize the graphic code of the game itself for that platform. The instructions you need from the engine will have to change, as well as tons of other stuff regarding controls and whatnots...

If it were that easy as a mere recompile, they would already have brought it to PC, or at least announced it.

Re:Gears of War runs on UE3 which runs on the pc (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049804)

Except that you're talking to someone who uses the Unreal 3 Engine at work, and your point misfires.

Halo 1 required a higher spec pc than the xbox partly because of the resolution it runs at on the xbox (i.e. 640x480 interlaced) vs. the resolution that most people run pc games at, partly because it doesn't get direct access to the hardware and has to go through drivers, and partly because it has to give some cpu cycles to other programs in order to play nice with windows.

The unreal engine requires all game data to be "cooked" to run the console build, which takes quite a bit of time, which means that it's generally simpler for developers to just run the pc version (which runs on uncooked data). The whole engine is designed to be platform independent, so very little extra work is needed for a releasable pc version.

In fact the only areas I can think of that would need work is copy protection and multiplayer.

PC games vs Console games (2, Insightful)

Shadukar (102027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033936)

Something to keep in mind is that differences between Console games and PC games are primarily design decision - not technical/programming specs.

Consider how much of the console development is actually done on the PC ? Consoles do not have some magic Console++ programming language - most of the development is done on the PC itself. Sure, the extensions/libraries might be different but we're not talking about a total code re-write just to make a port from console to PC.

What I think is the major difference between a PC game and Console game is how the game looks and plays.

Console games must have support for more limited controller compared to PC keyboard. Console games have simpler interfaces, the saving/loading mechanisms are generally simpler.

In the end, Console games are having difficulty overcoming the "platformer" stereotype. Back in the days of sega genensis and etc, most games were simple 2d scrollers, punch the monkey, kind of simple affairs.

Things have changed since these days but it seems like the spirit of the idea that console games are pac-man and Centrepide lives on.

Look at DeusEx1 vs DeusEx2.

Dx1 was clearly a PC game: it had inventory management, most guns had 2-3 different types of ammo you could switch/change/manage/use vs different opponents. You picked up a lot of information and it was saved in a log which you could edit/change/annotate. As you learned information in game, you had to feed it back into the game: you read someone's email that contains a username/password to another computer, you go over to that computer and you actually have to type it in. The interface was very robust and extensive. You could suffer area specific wounds, and heal them accordingly. It was a fantastic game. It ran perfectly fine the first time around. Many years after its release as newer and newer cards come onto the market, the game on max graphic settings looks better every time I buy a new card.

DX2 on the other hand was a console game that was poorly ported to PC: Universal ammo meant you only had a pool of 1 ammo and different guns burned the ammo at different rates. Usernames/passwords/pin numbers were non-existent - you either had access or you didn't (oh wow that concept was only invented in gaming in like the 80's). There was one type of 'tool' instead of dx1's collection of multitools/lockpicks/etc that you could use on a very limited number of places in the environment. The interface was clunky at best. Inventory management was limited to "you have 10 spots, each item takes 1 spot, you can carry 10 items) The interface was slow and unresponsive even with patches, the game handled sluggishly even years after the game was released and the graphic cards improved many fold.

Same comparison could be made between Morrowind and Oblivion. Granted Morrowind ran like an slug on release and just as bad after months of patching, even on high end systems. However, these days, running Morrowind on a high end system means the game handles incredibly well and all them fanboys who are spazzing about "but look how great oblivion looks you can see sooo far!!!!" should see Morrowind on max settings with a graphic tweak that increases the view distance to match today's hardware.

I could go on about the artistic aesthetics and the countless imaginative/interesting/fun books that morrowind had compared to the plastic crap of oblivion with its dozen of cut-and-paste-from-lore/elderscrolls-background books.

In closing, yes, there is a huge difference between PC games and Console games - it is not the programming, the extensions, the 3-12-months-behind-pc-technology, the controller or the madden-loving-fanboys.

It is the look and feel of these games, the spirit - one is the spirit of early dungeon and dragon text games and geeks learning how to use the acoustic coupler to dial up to their local BSB wondering "how cool would it be if we could play the Red Dragon text game with more than 3 people online!!" and the other one is supermarket plastic toy that gets chucked out every year or two for the newer, shinier one.

Not a challenge (3, Interesting)

rtechie (244489) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035240)

"The big challenge is to make a game that was designed solely for the console, to take advantage of every last little corner of that console, to fill every little crack and run as many threads as we could and do as much to exploit the power of that machine, and make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing. That's a challenge."

This is a bunch of crap. This is easy. You just stall.

The cutting edge of PC graphical and computing power is constantly moving forward, at a pace far faster than consoles (new video cards come out every 6 MONTHS instead of 6 YEARS). This has traditionally meant that console ports, given the 18 to 24 months usually taken to port, are always widely playable on "gamer" PCs at the time of release.

Take Halo for example. XBOX version released in Nov 2001, PC version released Sep 2003, about 2 years later. What were the minimum system requirements?

System: 733MHz or equivalent
RAM: 128 MB
Video Memory: 32 MB

These requirements exceed the system capabilities of the XBOX (and they're directly comparable as the XBOX is basically a PC), but were met even by entry-level PCs at the time. Of course it ran better (higher resolutions, etc.) on faster hardware, but "gamer" PCs were considerably faster than 733mhz at the time and they're usually the target market for console ports. Certainly this is the target market for Gears of War.

Re:Not a challenge (1)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035988)

Hey, a little fact here for you, Halo was in Developement for 2 years for PC, it would have been more or less a straight port as has been mentioned, and would have been even simpler due to the fact that the Xbox uses a hacked up DX and Windows Kernel. The system requirements, while higher than the Xboxes, are actually quite low really, and the only reason the Xbox could play it is due to optimisation. Wouldn't it be ALOT easier to make shirts for everyone on the planet if they all took a Small? Thats more or less what its like with Xbox, but for PC's, these shirts need to be Medium and made out of Elastic, so they will work and do their job for everyone. Also, gamer's dont always have cutting edge stuff. take me for example, I am a gamer, even more so when I got this hardware then now, and my rig is a AMD Athlon 64 3000+ with 1gb of RAM and a 6600GT AGP. Sound very high end? Its what you get in a $1200 HTPC now. You know how long I've been on this rig? half a year, if that.

Another monopoly forming... (1)

gamer4Life (803857) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039674)

With Microsoft's 'ownership' of both the 360 and PC platforms


If Microsoft gains control of the console market through the XBox 360, it will have control over development, the platform, and online services. Gamers everywhere should be wary to support Microsoft's XBox 360. Sony may be evil, but they're also pretty stupid - Microsoft, on the other hand, is evil and sneaky - they've established a system where gamers will be hesitant to leave the XBox platform (XBox Live) because all their friends are on it. They're trying to establish control of gaming development by tying in PC with console development, so that developers have no choice but to develop for Microsoft.

Microsoft isn't good at innovation, but they're immensely successful at tying in their products together to keep customers and developers locked in. Sony is the opposite, they're great at innovation, but their attempts at keeping customers locked into their formats haven't been very successful.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...