Oblivion 360/PC comparison

[one]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/index.html

Not a very detailed article, but you get the idea.

 

[drpepper]

Wow, the low end PC version is a joke. I don't think its worth playing at those specs.

 

[booomups]

this is an interesting starting point.

now lets see how long the developers need to utilize the xboxs architecture to bring it over the current high end pc level.

 

[dukmahsik]

i think it looks very comparable to the high end PC

 

[Titanio]

The price difference is even wider here in Europe, I think. I was in my local GAME today and was shocked to see Oblivion on 360 for €75 while right next to it, the PC version was priced €45.

 

[booomups]

is the difference the money microsoft takes for themselfs?

 

[predicate]

is the difference the money microsoft takes for themselfs?

Nah, it's the money the publishers and devs take for themselves after having convinced the average joe that it's 'next gen' and therefore needs to cost more.

Next gen games = next gen prices!

 

[drpepper]

Not relevant to PC/360 comparison thread, but it's Oblivian related.

It seems people are pissed that people have to pay 2.50$ worth of points to get armour for a horse that doesn't contribute to stats.

I don't believe this is the marketplace a lot of people were expected. 2.50 is a lot, that's something I would expect for say an uber weapon or a new map or something. But a cosmetic upgrade for a horse?

Bethesda responded to the backlash.

Might as well get the PC version. At least this mod is 2.00$. Or just wait for the free mods from the user community.

 

[pjbliverpool]

now lets see how long the developers need to utilize the xboxs architecture to bring it over the current high end pc level.

Given that PC games improve graphically at a faster rate than console games, the answer to that question is likely to be never.

If it can't do it now, more time certainly isn't going to tip things in the consoles favour.

As for the comparison, the high end PC version does look very similar to the xbox, but there are some great mods out there which can significantly improve the look of the PC version. Some don't even cost performance!

 

[scooby_dooby]

Given that PC games improve graphically at a faster rate than console games, the answer to that question is likely to be never.

If it can't do it now, more time certainly isn't going to tip things in the consoles favour.

As for the comparison, the high end PC version does look very similar to the xbox, but there are some great mods out there which can significantly improve the look of the PC version. Some don't even cost performance!

Ya well...lets just compare 1st party 360 exclusives at the end of this year, like Too Human, Blue Dragon, Gears of War and Mass Effect to what we get on the PC at the end of this year. In my opinion, it will be no contest.

Basing a comparison on a PC port, when the entire strength of a console is it's closed architecture, is fundamentally flawed.

 

[one]

As for the comparison, the high end PC version does look very similar to the xbox, but there are some great mods out there which can significantly improve the look of the PC version. Some don't even cost performance!

The high-end PC enjoys some performance headroom up to 1600x1200, so I guess it can go further with 720p even now with those MODs.

but a high-end PC with an AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU and GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card can enable all the settings and take resolutions up to 1600x1200 or more and still maintain smooth frame rates.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Ya well...lets just compare 1st party 360 exclusives at the end of this year, like Too Human, Blue Dragon, Gears of War and Mass Effect to what we get on the PC at the end of this year. In my opinion, it will be no contest.

Basing a comparison on a PC port, when the entire strength of a console is it's closed architecture, is fundamentally flawed.

And in my opinion, it will be a very close contest. Its not like any of those games are obviously better looking than Crysis or UT2007.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I got the PC version of Oblivion, and I'm running it on my A64 3200+ (2GHz), Ati Radeon 9600XT, 1GB RAM.
Obviously, I have to run it a t 800 x 600, without AA, medium textures, medium water effects, no tree shadows... but with full draw distance and medium grass draw distance, and it still looks very pretty and runs at a playable framerate (I'd guess well below 30's in the outdoors, butthat doesn't yet seem to bother me too much, I guess I'm more forgiving on lowish framerates on my PC and 17" monitor than on my console games and 52" TV for some reason).
Still, I'm constantly left with a nagging feeling that it could look so much prettier. With €300 I guess I could update my PC to make Oblivion look as pretty or prettier than the xbox360 version. But I think I'll try to contain myself, and play it with my current setup.

 

[NavNucST3]

Ya well...lets just compare 1st party 360 exclusives at the end of this year, like Too Human, Blue Dragon, Gears of War and Mass Effect to what we get on the PC at the end of this year. In my opinion, it will be no contest.

Basing a comparison on a PC port, when the entire strength of a console is it's closed architecture, is fundamentally flawed.

Heres the problem I see forthcoming, and it is in the word "port". Microsoft is designing XNA so that it is easy to move stuff from PC to 360 and vice versa. I see this as an integral step in allowing PC gamers and consoles gamers to play against each other, the first step was designing the 360 controller to work on the PC. So now devs will have the tools to make essentially one game, for two platforms both of which use the same input control methods (obviously they can add kb/mouse option as well).

So from a financial standpoint it only makes sense that we will see, I believe, the majority, it not ALL 360 games on the PC at some point. I know this is bullet point for people from opposing factions to use against the system (360), but seems to be the most fiscally responsible thing to do. I am not going to hold it against the system or developers for Microsoft trying to make the pipeline better and easier for them, thats what the company is supposed to do. I am still going to buy the console version over the PC version, just because of convenience, well, that and the big ass tv I will play it on that I am saving for right now, only another $4500 to go...


I had a lot more points to make, but I will save them for another time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

but a high-end PC with an AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU and GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card can enable all the settings and take resolutions up to 1600x1200 or more and still maintain smooth frame rates.

I don't know what they mean be smooth framerates. I saw Oblivion on a highend laptap, Mobile 7800, Pentium M, and 1024x768, where the game selected hgihest quality on pretty much everything and though there were moments of high frames rates indoors, it was jittery and far from high framerate outside. I don't know how the processor compares with the A64, and how much diffrence that makes. I'm reminded of Morrowind that basically had a bad framerate no matter what machine you had, even one well beyond the recommended specs, and I don't think Bethesda are the people to make the most of the hardware in the graphics department. But when they say smooth framerates, what's their definition of smooth and why wasn't this laptop getting it?

On a sidenote, we connected it via S-Video out to the SDTV to get an idea of next-gen graphics on an SD display. Image quality was very different to the laptop. Colour was better. Jaggies were pretty obscurred. Gamma was way off, so dark items couldn't be identified on a dark floor and it was very hard to make out enemies at a distance. It was useable in the main but small text was totally unreadable. And strangely if we spent any time in the management screens with the roll of parchment on the left, the TV developed a blue smear in that area. I needed to switch it off for a while to clear it.

 

[one]

I don't know what they mean be smooth framerates. I saw Oblivion on a highend laptap, Mobile 7800, Pentium M, and 1024x768, where the game selected hgihest quality on pretty much everything and though there were moments of high frames rates indoors, it was jittery and far from high framerate outside. I don't know how the processor compares with the A64, and how much diffrence that makes. I'm reminded of Morrowind that basically had a bad framerate no matter what machine you had, even one well beyond the recommended specs, and I don't think Bethesda are the people to make the most of the hardware in the graphics department. But when they say smooth framerates, what's their definition of smooth and why wasn't this laptop getting it?

Maybe SpeedTree is CPU-intensive? More foliage and weeds = more procedural synthesis.

 

[kyleb]

The author was really reaching for 360 pluses; "Solid performance" - not even close, "unlockable achievements" - yeah you get the little pop-up and worthless gamer points but other than that you are just achieving the same goals, "5.1 sound" - the PC can do that too.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The author was really reaching for 360 pluses; "Solid performance" - not even close, "unlockable achievements" - yeah you get the little pop-up and worthless gamer points but other than that you are just achieving the same goals, "5.1 sound" - the PC can do that too.

Not even close? Get a grip and quite blowing things completely out of proportion. YOU are uber-sensitive to framerate fluctuations, the other 99% of gamers are not. If the game was "not even close" to solid performance how does it outscore the PC version on average and score a 95% on gamerankings? I've yet to see a single review that notees the framerate as anything more than a minor problem.

Achievments - they indicate what you haven't done and what factions are available/outstanding, so they're a great tool. I would never have finished the Dark Brotherhood quest had it not been for the achievments which told me I had further to climb up the ranks, as it appeared the quest was over. It's more than a pop-up and worthless points, it's a reminder of what you haven't finished, and it motivates you to finish them.

It's a very subtle way to add replay value, and it really does work.

 

[c0_re]

Not even close? Get a grip and quite blowing things completely out of proportion. YOU are uber-sensitive to framerate fluctuations, the other 99% of gamers are not. If the game was "not even close" to solid performance how does it outscore the PC version on average and score a 95% on gamerankings? I've yet to see a single review that notees the framerate as anything more than a minor problem.

Achievments - they indicate what you haven't done and what factions are available/outstanding, so they're a great tool. I would never have finished the Dark Brotherhood quest had it not been for the achievments which told me I had further to climb up the ranks, as it appeared the quest was over. It's more than a pop-up and worthless points, it's a reminder of what you haven't finished, and it motivates you to finish them.

It's a very subtle way to add replay value, and it really does work.

I agree as dumb as achievments sound on paper in real life they are pretty cool. I can goto my Xbox Live page and see everything I've done in every 360 game I've played. Gamer points give you an idea of what the person you are playting against or checking out is like and their experience and games played, so their not completly worthless.

 

[AlNom]

"5.1 sound" - the PC can do that too.

I'm going on a limb here...but I would guess that listing this as a plus wasn't meant to be in the context of a feature not found on PC. I would have a hard time believing that more people have a 5.1 system connected to their PCs versus a home theatre setup.