View Full Version : IGN: First PS3 vs Xbox 360 Comparison
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 19:01
And now, we at last have our first chance at taking the battle to the next generation. From Software is in the process of bringing Armored Core 4 to both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and has released a pair of trailers, each said to be running on one of the machines. The PS3 trailer was first shown at the PS Meeting where the game was known as Project Force, but now we have a direct feed version. Likewise for the Xbox 360 trailer, which debuted at the Tokyo Game Show but is now available for the first time in direct feed form.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/662/662656p1.html
PS3 Developed version(development started first) Video: http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/761/761163/vid_1297574.html
Xbox 360 Developed Version(development started soon afterwards) Video: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/772/772076/vid_1297578.html
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24138
Comparisons of games which are in different stages of development to form conclusions on their respective platforms is beyond stupid.
Hardknock
29-Oct-2005, 19:14
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24138
I feel somewhat vindicated now. :smile:
That IGN article title is inappropriate at this point of time. I think it is too early to talk about PS3 vs 360. Ironically mutli-platform games may not be the best way to judge a console against another.
Joe DeFuria
29-Oct-2005, 19:17
I was going to write my own snarky comments, but the original article pretty much summed it up:
We encourage the inquiring gamer to download the high res versions of both trailers, view them each 100 times at a maximum viewing distance of five inches, come to an unwavering opinion about which one is superior, then isolate yourself with a fellow gamer who's well versed in polygon counts, lighting effects and frame rates but happens to believe the other trailer is superior, and start beating the crap out of one another (with words).
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 19:18
That IGN article title is inappropriate at this point of time. I think it is too early to talk about PS3 vs 360. Ironically mutli-platform games may not be the best way to judge a console against another.
actually what IGN is saying both trailers are realtime and running on each others perspective machines. PS3 is further in development while Xbox 360 is not that further
Hardknock
29-Oct-2005, 19:23
What's shocking to me is the PS3 version has been in development longer, but the Xbox 360 version seems to be alot more advanced graphically. Maybe has something to do with ease of development :?:
makaveli87
29-Oct-2005, 19:27
From Software has already stated that they began developing for both platforms at the same time; furthermore the ps3 vid is about 2 months older then the 360 one.
actually what IGN is saying both trailers are realtime and running on each others perspective machines. PS3 is further in development while Xbox 360 is not that further
IGN most certainly did not. They said that the PS3 trailer was debuted earlier thats all. "each said to be running on one of the machines" is saying (in an appalling abuse of the english language) that the games are running on their respective platforms, not both both games are running on both platforms.
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 19:33
IGN most certainly did not. They said that the PS3 trailer was debuted earlier thats all. "each said to be running on one of the machines" is saying (in an appalling abuse of the english language) that the games are running on their respective platforms, not both both games are running on both platforms.
Actually From Software announced Project Force as Armored Core 4 At E3, No announcement for the Xbox 360 version was made, but it was made for Playstation 3. at the PS3 summit, there was a new trailer along with a the gundam gameplay which we saw, after 4-5 weeks was the Tokyo game show where the game was FIRST ever announced for Xbox 360 with the trailer shown.
wireframe
29-Oct-2005, 19:33
What's shocking to me is the PS3 version has been in development longer, but the Xbox 360 version seems to be alot more advanced graphically. Maybe has something to do with ease of development :?:
Or maybe this has something to do with the fact that Xbox 360 will be released a long time before PS3 and more man-power and effort has been put into this version because final hardware will be available sooner.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24138
Comparisons of games which are in different stages of development to form conclusions on their respective platforms is beyond stupid.
I couldn't say better :d ...and there's still someone who thinks that cross platform games show the real strenght of each console ?!
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 19:37
Or maybe this has something to do with the fact that Xbox 360 will be released a long time before PS3 and more man-power and effort has been put into this version because final hardware will be available sooner.
but by the TGS, the release dates on both games seemed to be similiar, the xbox 360 version seems to be released at same time as PS3 version.
makaveli87
29-Oct-2005, 19:40
Actually From Software announced Project Force as Armored Core 4 At E3, No announcement for the Xbox 360 version was made, but it was made for Playstation 3. at the PS3 summit, there was a new trailer along with a the gundam gameplay which we saw, after 4-5 weeks was the Tokyo game show where the game was FIRST ever announced for Xbox 360 with the trailer shown.
From Software has already stated in a developers interveiw that they started developing for both at the same time, and that currently they are focusing more on the 360 version since the xbox will be out sooner. I'll look for a link to the article. it was a Japanese site so i might take a while.
Also IIRC the ps3 vid was released mid july and the 360 vid was released at TGS which was 2 months after.
fireshot
29-Oct-2005, 19:45
Ironically mutli-platform games may not be the best way to judge a console against another.
mp games are not the best to judge how far a console can run, but they do tell you how far two consoles compete.
Ms may have me conned, but this AC4, I stand by what i see, that is sony has done a good marketing job to convince the masses that ps3 is the xbox of next gen.
seismologist
29-Oct-2005, 19:46
The PS3 trailer looked better graphically but the 360 has a better trailer.
The real test will be what kind of framerates each version can run at in game.
Kb-Smoker
29-Oct-2005, 19:52
Not really fair to compared one game on final/beta hardware and the other on alpha... :roll:
KB-Smoker, any chance you can shorten your signature? There are rules on the vertical length of signatures... thanks
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 20:04
Not really fair to compared one game on final/beta hardware and the other on alpha... :roll:
Alpha Kits of PS3 with 70% of final hardware while Xbox 360 beta kits with 70% of final hardware (at those times) until the beta kits of PS3 which are 120% of final hardware because the XDR Ram in final kits are 256 mb more than consumer kits?
id say its a fair comparison
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 20:05
The PS3 trailer looked better graphically but the 360 has a better trailer.
The real test will be what kind of framerates each version can run at in game.
actualy the PS3 version did not look better graphically. They looked the same with Xbox 360 version having more lighting effects and smoke effects
makaveli87
29-Oct-2005, 20:09
Alpha Kits of PS3 with 70% of final hardware while Xbox 360 beta kits with 70% of final hardware (at those times) until the beta kits of PS3 which are 120% of final hardware because the XDR Ram in final kits are 256 mb more than consumer kits?
id say its a fair comparison
PS3 beta kits are not 120% of final hard ware. They are 75% clock frequency of final and 6% bandwith. Even if the beta kit had 1024mb or ram, it would not matter because they simply would only program for what final hardware will have (512).
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 20:18
PS3 beta kits are not 120% of final hard ware. They are 75% clock frequency of final and 6% bandwith. Even if the beta kit had 1024mb or ram, it would not matter because they simply would only program for what final hardware will have (512).
the PS3 final kits are 120% of the final hardware
MechanizedDeath
29-Oct-2005, 20:26
the PS3 final kits are 120% of the final hardware
Oh lord no. This will be thoroughly ripped apart, but I have to ask, what metric have you used to determine this completely random percentage? PEACE.
Kb-Smoker
29-Oct-2005, 20:53
Alpha Kits of PS3 with 70% of final hardware while Xbox 360 beta kits with 70% of final hardware (at those times) until the beta kits of PS3 which are 120% of final hardware because the XDR Ram in final kits are 256 mb more than consumer kits?
id say its a fair comparison
wow... onetimeposter..
anyways how do we not know this isn't a final xbox 360 dev kit running the game? The alphs kit is not even close to 70% of the total power of the ps3. :roll:
the PS3 final kits are 120% of the final hardware
Sorry, but this is the dum**** claim I have ever read. Final Kits do always pack more ram, regardless of the console...
By the way, it is not because the Alpha-Kits's Cell exhibits a 2.4 GHz frequency that it represents 70% of the overall potential of the plateform. I am afraid it is a littel bit more complicated...
mp games are not the best to judge how far a console can run, but they do tell you how far two consoles compete.
Not unless they are coded separately, indipendent of each other, taking advantages of each specific console hardware.
Thegameman
29-Oct-2005, 21:32
wow... onetimeposter..
anyways how do we not know this isn't a final xbox 360 dev kit running the game? The alphs kit is not even close to 70% of the total power of the ps3. :roll:
From what i know by TGS the xbox 360 final kits were out,and short after E3 the beta ones were ship,i don't think is running on alpha kits.
dukmahsik
29-Oct-2005, 22:06
this thread should be locked
Kb-Smoker
29-Oct-2005, 22:07
The first dev kits went out in june for the ps3.
PS3 Dev Kit Appears (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/628/628048p1.html)
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 22:09
The first dev kits went out in june for the ps3.
PS3 Dev Kit Appears (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/628/628048p1.html)
actually this article showed the dev kits for the first time. what do you think they ran the Unreal 2007 real time demo and the Ubisoft realtime demo Killing day on E3 in May?
pakpassion
29-Oct-2005, 22:12
Sorry, but this is the dum**** claim I have ever read. Final Kits do always pack more ram, regardless of the console...
By the way, it is not because the Alpha-Kits's Cell exhibits a 2.4 GHz frequency that it represents 70% of the overall potential of the plateform. I am afraid it is a littel bit more complicated...
the current dev kits have 2.4 Ghz, a 7800 GTX card and 256 Mb XDR Ram. the final kits will have 3.2 Ghz, RSX, and 512 MB XDR Ram , thats how its 25% more powerful, doubling the XDR Ram
Guden Oden
29-Oct-2005, 22:14
Meh, I read all posts in the thread, and not one of them said anything that was worth remembering for even five minutes. Sorry, but this is just forum noise.
looks to me like these two machines are going to be equal in overall ability.
looks to me like these two machines are going to be equal in overall ability.
I hope not
Junkstyle
29-Oct-2005, 22:32
the very tiny tiny respect for IGN is now completely gone. Shame on them for such an obvious troll and misleading comparison. This thread should be locked.
I looked at both videos, and the quality of both games look roughly the same. It will be interesting if the developer takes advantage of the respective power of each system to showoff differences. If they decide to make both games look the same as the lowest common denominator, how will this game be used to see which system is more powerful?
this thread should be locked
QFT!!!!
Retarded assumptions will only be built by fan boys.
the current dev kits have 2.4 Ghz, a 7800 GTX card and 256 Mb XDR Ram. the final kits will have 3.2 Ghz, RSX, and 512 MB XDR Ram , thats how its 25% more powerful, doubling the XDR Ram
The data are here...But I still don't get how you managed to obtain the 25% ? Am I the only one who did not make sense of the approach ? :???:
Saying that PS3's alpha kit is closer to the final than what 360's was to its final kit is ok.....But creating percentages from a few numbers available only like 2.4Ghz-3.2Ghz and 256-512MB?Thats irrational :???:
The thing isnt made out of ram and CPU only and also you cant know for sure how much difference in performance a 3.2Ghz Cell will have compared to a 2.4Ghz
How about the fact that the vid being shown of the PS3 version was certainly earlier in development (shown 2 months prior to XBOX360 version) and also, on an alpha/beta dev kit with a slower cpu and (as most here are forgetting) lacking the power of RSX? The final XBOX360 dev kits have both the full speed triple core processor and the Xenos GPU.
god forbid that both systems are similar in power and ability but with their own avenue to reach that destination. :D
PS3 is not going to be leaps and bounds past the X360. Next Gen starts next month (as weak as the first gen of next gen may or may not be) and it's all about the games.
Pick the system with your favorite games because each system will be similar, yet with their own flagship titles tailored to their strengths.
anything else is just system war rhetoric :lol:
Shifty Geezer
30-Oct-2005, 00:51
XB360 version looks better. PS3 is all using smoke and mirrors. I count 6 extra polygons per screen on XB360. PS3 looks bandwidth starved, and cell shaded, and the art direction sucks. The developers haven't got to grip with PS3's REYES renderer yet. And PS3's raytracing only works on 640x480 images so they've upscaled it for the movie. Jaggies hurt my eyes. XB360 version was in development 3 years earlier though, but it's only running on one core of an underclocked alpha kit and it's not even the full hardware. I know it's true. Bloke said down the pub. And my dad works at Microsoft and he's met Bill Gates and Bill said he was spending an extra billion dollars on the XB360 version of this game to make it look better.
fastasleep
30-Oct-2005, 01:00
Ironic to me that IGN's assessment of the reactions of parties has been borne out in this thread. This whole comparison comes under the general heading of who gives a flying you know what.
Why is IGN in the wrong here? They provide two videos, and said make up your own minds. What's wrong with that? They did not claim which console was better based on the videos. They did no different then was done on this very forum in another thread!
seismologist
30-Oct-2005, 01:51
looks to me like these two machines are going to be equal in overall ability.
Isn't it a little early to make that conclusion? It's not like the extra 1T flop computing power on the PS3 is going to go unused.
BlueTsunami
30-Oct-2005, 02:29
Why is IGN in the wrong here?!
IGN
IGN
IGN
IGN
IGN
pakpassion
30-Oct-2005, 04:58
Isn't it a little early to make that conclusion? It's not like the extra 1T flop computing power on the PS3 is going to go unused.
and you think flops matter? if they did the higher flops in PS2 would have as well.
pakpassion
30-Oct-2005, 05:00
How about the fact that the vid being shown of the PS3 version was certainly earlier in development (shown 2 months prior to XBOX360 version) and also, on an alpha/beta dev kit with a slower cpu and (as most here are forgetting) lacking the power of RSX? The final XBOX360 dev kits have both the full speed triple core processor and the Xenos GPU.
RSX is not the second coming of jesus, thank you.
Junkstyle
30-Oct-2005, 05:13
XB360 version looks better. PS3 is all using smoke and mirrors. I count 6 extra polygons per screen on XB360. PS3 looks bandwidth starved, and cell shaded, and the art direction sucks. The developers haven't got to grip with PS3's REYES renderer yet. And PS3's raytracing only works on 640x480 images so they've upscaled it for the movie. Jaggies hurt my eyes. XB360 version was in development 3 years earlier though, but it's only running on one core of an underclocked alpha kit and it's not even the full hardware. I know it's true. Bloke said down the pub. And my dad works at Microsoft and he's met Bill Gates and Bill said he was spending an extra billion dollars on the XB360 version of this game to make it look better.
lmao nice
Pakpassion, I forgot you have the white papers on the RSX. How about you fill the rest of us in on the specs? I mean because you seem to know that it's going to be this or that. The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems.
pakpassion, RSX is an incredibly powerful chip, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
> "The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems."
I agree, the advantage of CELL reducing CPU limited games, and the incredibly high bandwidth between CELL and RSX will be a winning combination. RSX is based on a proven architecture in the PC space, and an architecture tweaked and perfected for the console space.
ihamoitc2005
30-Oct-2005, 07:09
and you think flops matter? if they did the higher flops in PS2 would have as well.
Flops make a big difference but there is difference between flop count provided by GPU maker like Nvidia and programmable flops like CELL or PS2. For example, teraflop+ rating for Xenos and RSX is not programmable flops and not comparable with flops of CELL or Xenon.
As for PS2, there are many examples where high flops rating was useful like physics, animation, particles, high polygon count, etc... however, existence of many poor performing games such as GTA series was because of poor utilization of hardware by some developers.
mckmas8808
30-Oct-2005, 07:26
It's funny that this thread is not closed yet.
pakpassion
30-Oct-2005, 07:30
Pakpassion, I forgot you have the white papers on the RSX. How about you fill the rest of us in on the specs? I mean because you seem to know that it's going to be this or that. The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems.
Ok, RSX, a card which the Nvidia president himself said shares the same architecture and philosphy as G70 but faster, and we know its faster trhan the 7800 GTX in terms of clock, 125 Mhz Faster, with a lower memory bandwidth. TurboCache and flexIO connection to Cell. the inner workings of the card are the same as G70, what more do you expect, a G72 or G80 as the RSX? LOL at substantially more advanced and powerful LOL LOL. please let me bookmark this!!! LOL :D
Who needs G80, when G70 is more than powerful enough? Pakpassion, give it up, you are on a mission to no where convincing no one of anything. All you're showing is your insecurities, and your ego tied up in a console. Time to grow up.
BlueTsunami
30-Oct-2005, 08:04
I've got a cold. I blame it on this thread.
*sneezes on this thread
pakpassion
30-Oct-2005, 08:26
Who needs G80, when G70 is more than powerful enough? Pakpassion, give it up, you are on a mission to no where convincing no one of anything. All you're showing is your insecurities, and your ego tied up in a console. Time to grow up.
I just posted a topic from IGN. no need to get jelous , thier just consoles, not ur pets
ihamoitc2005
30-Oct-2005, 09:27
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/662/662656p1.html
PS3 Developed version(development started first) Video: http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/761/761163/vid_1297574.html
Xbox 360 Developed Version(development started soon afterwards) Video: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/772/772076/vid_1297578.html
I do not know how old each version is and how close it is to final version but in videos provided, the PS3 video has better lighting, reflectiveness (more shinyness on buildings, windows and mechs), self-shadow, particles, building destruction and bump-mapping (most noticable on on wing-like units) but Xbox360 video has more smoke-trail effects. Environment polygon count seems similar and mechs are so complicated it is hard to notice difference if such difference exists.
I do not know why Xbox360 video is almost monochrome but I like such art-style and it has more dramatic look than colorful PS3 version. Also, less colors in environment makes it easier to focus on good-looking Mechs instead of buildings with many shiny windows, less confusing to the eyes.
However, it is likely that both versions will surely be changed by release, no? So might not be sure reflection of final graphics.
Hardknock
30-Oct-2005, 09:29
As for PS2, there are many examples where high flops rating was useful like physics, animation, particles, high polygon count, etc... however, existence of many poor performing games such as GTA series was because of poor utilization of hardware by some developers.
No, just no. The PS2(despite having the highest FLOP rating) had by far the worst physics, animation, polygon counts, and AI of the current gen consoles. The Xbox CPU being a Pentium 3 and having more Mhz and general purpose processing power(but having a lower FLOP rating) was far better suited for these tasks and it showed.
Shifty Geezer
30-Oct-2005, 09:52
Why on earth is this being revisited, when every even moderately educated gamer knows AS A SYSTEM XB had more Flops than PS2? PS2's CPU had to do a lot of graphical work that XB's GPU handled, so higher CPU Flops on PS2 didn't mean more useable flops for non-graphics game code.
Will the PS2 vs XB arguments never end?? :cry:
Guden Oden
30-Oct-2005, 10:02
Ok, RSX, a card which the Nvidia president himself said shares the same architecture and philosphy as G70 but faster, and we know its faster trhan the 7800 GTX in terms of clock, 125 Mhz Faster, with a lower memory bandwidth. TurboCache and flexIO connection to Cell. the inner workings of the card are the same as G70, what more do you expect, a G72 or G80 as the RSX? LOL at substantially more advanced and powerful LOL LOL. please let me bookmark this!!! LOL :D
Too many LOL:s.:roll:
You're just trying to incite flamewar responses with nonsense like this. Cool it alright, this is beyond3d, not opa-ages. We behave like adults here, not children.
both look nice. Though i wonder how much of a feel it will have if u get what i mean. Your supposed to feel like your in a giant mech and i haven't played a game that gets that feeling right yet
Agisthos
30-Oct-2005, 10:18
Its hard to tell from low quality vid, but you know next gen has arrived when....
Look at the PS3 vid, where the mech tries to shoot the enemy, misses and hits the skyscraper.
The explosion and building particles flying everywhere is very realistic on a level not yet seen before.
I would say the lighting effects give the edge to the PS3 vid. That afternoon summer glow on everything.
Gholbine
30-Oct-2005, 10:20
No, just no. The PS2(despite having the highest FLOP rating) had by far the worst physics, animation, polygon counts, and AI of the current gen consoles. The Xbox CPU being a Pentium 3 and having more Mhz and general purpose processing power(but having a lower FLOP rating) was far better suited for these tasks and it showed.
Lol. :lol:
Firstly the Xbox CPU was a Celeron. Secondly "having move MHz" means absolutely nothing. The PS2 CPU was far better than the 733MHz Celeron in the Xbox, because it was doing the CPU work and a lot of the GPU work as well. The Xbox was 2 years newer than the PS2, and it absolutely didn't show. The only reason the Xbox had better graphics than the PS2 was because of its nVidia GPU.
Edit: Oh yes, and the particle effects on the PS2 are far better than those on the Xbox, simply because of the FLOPS rating on the Emotion Engine.
Your ridiculous bias towards anything 'Xbox' is becoming tiresome on this forum. This is B3D, not IGN.
ihamoitc2005
30-Oct-2005, 10:23
No, just no. The PS2(despite having the highest FLOP rating) had by far the worst physics, animation, polygon counts, and AI of the current gen consoles. The Xbox CPU being a Pentium 3 and having more Mhz and general purpose processing power(but having a lower FLOP rating) was far better suited for these tasks and it showed.
I am sorry to say you are very mistaken in all statements except AI. AI, textures and certain pixel-shader effects are only aspects in which the Xbox always had better performance potential my friend and this is due to high MIPS performance of XCPU, more memory, and programmable and multi-texture nature of slow but powerful renderering unit.
I think you need to learn a little more about PS2 my friend. Maybe you have only played GTA which is very poor performer in comparison with games like Jak3. Also, you should play GT4, Ace Combat 5, Primal, Ghost Hunter, Transformers, ZOE2, SOTC, Champions, Tekken5, Soul Calibur 3, and other recent games.
As for my previous statement:
As for PS2, there are many examples where high flops rating was useful like physics, animation, particles, high polygon count, etc... however, existence of many poor performing games such as GTA series was because of poor utilization of hardware by some developers.
This is supported precisely by actual Performance Analyzer data analysis which is freely available on internet.
Gholbine
30-Oct-2005, 10:26
ihamoitc2005, I've heard that a high FLOPS rating can help with animation. Can you explain how? I was under the impression that animations were just 100% scripted events which required little CPU power. Please elaborate? Lookin' to learn :-P
Shifty Geezer
30-Oct-2005, 10:33
the Xbox always had better performance potential my friend and this is due to high MIPS performance of XCPUAhhhh, MIPS. The 90's FLOPS. Nostalgia...
You know, seeing as I'm not contributing anything worthwhile to this thread I think I'll leave you to it. Doubt anyone will find anything new to say ni the endless XB vs. PS2 debate and like Times Tables learnt at school, the constant repetition of arguments has been burnt into my memory never to be forgotten such that I never need be reminded.
Titanio
30-Oct-2005, 10:46
We behave like adults here, not children.
Do we?
I'm afraid the ratio of good to bad post(er)s has gone down the tubes, particularly quite recently (in the last few weeks). The latter is becoming more the norm here now. There's few if any topics I enjoy reading here any more, and fewer still worth replying to.
Maybe it's not as bad as I make out, it just SEEMS that way at the moment.
ihamoitc2005
30-Oct-2005, 11:06
ihamoitc2005, I've heard that a high FLOPS rating can help with animation. Can you explain how? I was under the impression that animations were just 100% scripted events which required little CPU power. Please elaborate? Lookin' to learn :-P
Animation is moving vertices relative to other vertices, moving vertices requires floating point power which is measured in flops.
ihamoitc2005
30-Oct-2005, 11:28
Ahhhh, MIPS. The 90's FLOPS. Nostalgia...
You know, seeing as I'm not contributing anything worthwhile to this thread I think I'll leave you to it. Doubt anyone will find anything new to say ni the endless XB vs. PS2 debate and like Times Tables learnt at school, the constant repetition of arguments has been burnt into my memory never to be forgotten such that I never need be reminded.
You are right that the PS2-Xbox comparison has been too often repeated so I too will attempt to refrain from making further statements on this subject.
It's funny that this thread is not closed yet.
I've been busy - sorry.
Pakpassion - simply public request. Change your posting style or lose the right to post in the console section. You're here to debate, inform and learn; not to provoke and incite.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.