PDA

View Full Version : Need help, fanboys saying the Xbox version of DOOM III won't be near as good graphics



Xaminor
08-26-2002, 05:55 PM
wise....


Go here, my name is also Xaminor there as well...

http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=004129&p=3#000107

Xaminor
08-26-2002, 06:19 PM
Now they are taking what id said and taking it out of context from Gamespies interview where they said it is just like a PC. Fanboys...The developer was referring to the XDK's but the fanboys over there (in a seperate DOOM III thread) are making it as if they are talking about the Xbox.

KviK
08-26-2002, 06:22 PM
Who cares ? Be happy with what you have and feel proud. Their jealousy is hilarious.

Snoopy7548
08-26-2002, 06:27 PM
yea. let them think what they want. when it comes to the xbox, they'll be pi$$in their pants over this game. and even John Carmack said, that doom 3 would be ported to the xbox with NO graphical changes.:D its on the front page of xba

Xaminor
08-26-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Snoopy7548
yea. let them think what they want. when it comes to the xbox, they'll be pi$$in their pants over this game. and even John Carmack said, that doom 3 would be ported to the xbox with NO graphical changes.:D its on the front page of xba

Yes I know, they are saying that this is John Carmacks opinion (lol) and then they are saying that with THEIR monster PC's it will look better then the Xbox version, even though I tried to explain to them that all of those other specs won't matter on the Xbox version graphically and that their GF 4's won't fully be utilized. They don't understand that the difference in memory may only mean that the Xbox version may be broken up into more levels and then I explained the load times of Halo in between levels (almost seemless) but they just don't get it.

Kooster
08-26-2002, 06:59 PM
wow u live in san bernardino!! im from there.

anyway heres a link with proof that the xbox version will have graphx as good as the pc vers.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2877682,00.html

actually its not really proof. i have no idea if the xbox version will be better or not...

Xaminor
08-26-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Kooster
wow u live in san bernardino!! im from there.

32 years old, went to Cajon High School. Want to get the hell out of here as you could understand though.

MidniteArrow
08-26-2002, 08:08 PM
I'm an Xbox fan. I've got one. I love it. But let us be objective. John Carmack did not say that the graphics on the Xbox version of Doom III will be the exact same as the graphics on the PC version. What he did say was that it would be of the same "fidelity". He further detailed that there are 6 different graphical effects that are key to Doom III and that their target refresh rate for the game was 24 frames per second.

What this says to me is that Doom III, when played on the Xbox, will be able to render the full suite of effects (all 6 of the key effects that were detailed) at 24 frames per second. This will likely be in the 480p resolution. It is unrealistic to think that the top of the line PC gaming hardware will have this restriction. While I do not think that top of the line gaming hardware will increase the "fidelity" of the rendering engine (as in they will only get to use the same 6 key effects), there will likely be a resolution and refresh rate improvement when played on a top of the line PC compared to when played on an Xbox.

Having said that, I think that the Xbox version of this game will be awesome, and fully plan to play BOTH Xbox and PC versions on my 50" HDTV as soon as possible. I'll let you guys know how they stack up.

Snoopy7548
08-26-2002, 08:10 PM
its on the front page of xba:

Carmack specified Microsoft’s machine as the only console that the company will port the highly anticipated FPS to, promising that none of the game’s graphical quality would be compromised.

Afro Aura
08-26-2002, 08:18 PM
lol let them have there say Doom 3 won't be going know where near the PS2 so just pity them and let there jealousy do the rest:D

y2kash_14
08-27-2002, 02:14 AM
it doesn't take a fanboy to know that the Xbox won't match the PC version exactly. I say that there will be a 25% chance of a Framerate problem with the Xbox version

TheCovenant
08-27-2002, 05:15 AM
What pc idiots dont know is, that ok....


"LOOK AT ME I HAVE A GEFORCE 4 WITH DIGITAL THIS AND i million thAT!"

but it doesnt matter what you have. it matters what the game will be prgramed to do.

just because you have top of the line hardware doesnt mean everyone does and id software has to take that into strong consideration.the game probably can run on a super upgraded computer but it must also run on a pc with a voodoo three and a pentium 3. that caused the programers to not use the full potential of a totally upgraded pc. as for the xbox, its all the same! so they can use the xbox hardware ( which compared even to the strongest pc, does put up a competition) and use it to its fullest potential which will eventually look like the most upgraded pc version.

and if john carmacks opinion doesnt matter to you, umm who's does? yours? hahahaaha. trust me not only will the xbox version look the same but it will have upgraded sound on the xbox

(dolby digital surround 5:1)

so pc guys, eat it, and remember, id software DID come really close to becoming microsoft first party, and i f you've even seen the screenshots for halo 2, then you wouldnt be at all surprised at what the xbox can do.

Citainus
08-27-2002, 05:22 AM
Obvious things that will help it run is the closed architecture and the fact that it will be done in 640X480 resolution, and as said earlier, memory restraints would only occur in level break up.

I don't think much of the graphical splendor will be lost, but it won't be known for sure until Carmack stops talking about it and delivers.

BCan
08-27-2002, 05:24 AM
With the 24 FPS comment - PAL tv's refresh rate is 25.6 and NTSC 30, so what I see here is no need to waste processor time on graphics that can't be shown, no matter what, there is a set refresh rate on TV's, so there maybe advances in AI, without the need for the extra overhead.
Ever think that they may also be able to add more realistic textures to the XBOX version, so it is more photorealistic.......

Differences graphically are most likely to be put down to the use of Open GL in Windows, and DirectX 8.1 on the XBOX and the different ways they do things.

JJaX
08-27-2002, 02:59 PM
You all know im a big Xbox fan. But lets face it here, The PC version will be able to look much better than the Xbox version.

The PC will offer higher resolutions, better framerate and more draw distance.

Morrowind on the xbox is Morrowind running on its minimal settings on the PC.

Lets be real here.........

GokuX
08-27-2002, 03:24 PM
I'd at least say a top of the line PC could run higher FPS and Resolution, but like the other guy said, Carmack said same fidelity so I'd expect the objects/effects/polycounts rendered on screen at once to remain the same otherwise the fidelity ie how it looks at a single rendered frame wouldn't be the same if the Xbox had a lower draw distance, effect count, or polycount.

JJaX
08-27-2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by GokuX
I'd at least say a top of the line PC could run higher FPS and Resolution, but like the other guy said, Carmack said same fidelity so I'd expect the objects/effects/polycounts rendered on screen at once to remain the same otherwise the fidelity ie how it looks at a single rendered frame wouldn't be the same if the Xbox had a lower draw distance, effect count, or polycount.

Maybe true, But once all this starts getting crazy lets all watch the xbox framerate poop out a whooping 12 FPS. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, if it can run on xbox, it can run on a high end PC but smoother + higer resolution (until more xbox games start coming out with a higher Interlace modes i.e. DOA3)

If you can show me a game thats on xbox that also on the PC, and the xbox version is better ill shut up.

GokuX
08-27-2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by JJaX


Maybe true, But once all this starts getting crazy lets all watch the xbox framerate poop out a whooping 12 FPS. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, if it can run on xbox, it can run on a high end PC but smoother + higer resolution (until more xbox games start coming out with a higher Interlace modes i.e. DOA3)

If you can show me a game thats on xbox that also on the PC, and the xbox version is better ill shut up.

I guess we can see when Wolfenstein comes out since given the recent history of PC FPS to consoles, the console version has always been quite a bit worse in every way, Unreal on PS2 and DC, Quake 3, etc.

JJaX
08-27-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by GokuX


I guess we can see when Wolfenstein comes out since given the recent history of PC FPS to consoles, the console version has always been quite a bit worse in every way, Unreal on PS2 and DC, Quake 3, etc.

I think 'quite a bit worse' is a understatement.

They were straight garbage compared to the PC versions. ;)

Plus the possibilities with infinite on the PC (i.e. Mods, Total conversions, map editors, online play)

Citainus
08-27-2002, 03:42 PM
Don't forget Carmack himself is heading this port, if that gives any credence to its' quality.

JJaX
08-27-2002, 03:43 PM
|----------|Sorry, didnt mean to post|----------|

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by MidniteArrow
I'm an Xbox fan. I've got one. I love it. But let us be objective. John Carmack did not say that the graphics on the Xbox version of Doom III will be the exact same as the graphics on the PC version. What he did say was that it would be of the same "fidelity". He further detailed that there are 6 different graphical effects that are key to Doom III and that their target refresh rate for the game was 24 frames per second.

What this says to me is that Doom III, when played on the Xbox, will be able to render the full suite of effects (all 6 of the key effects that were detailed) at 24 frames per second. This will likely be in the 480p resolution. It is unrealistic to think that the top of the line PC gaming hardware will have this restriction. While I do not think that top of the line gaming hardware will increase the "fidelity" of the rendering engine (as in they will only get to use the same 6 key effects), there will likely be a resolution and refresh rate improvement when played on a top of the line PC compared to when played on an Xbox.

Having said that, I think that the Xbox version of this game will be awesome, and fully plan to play BOTH Xbox and PC versions on my 50" HDTV as soon as possible. I'll let you guys know how they stack up.

Just a quick question. Do you think DOOM III will look better on your PC/monitor then it will on your Xbox/HDTV? One more, why would you get both versions of the game if you already have the PC version?

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by GokuX
I'd at least say a top of the line PC could run higher FPS and Resolution, but like the other guy said, Carmack said same fidelity so I'd expect the objects/effects/polycounts rendered on screen at once to remain the same otherwise the fidelity ie how it looks at a single rendered frame wouldn't be the same if the Xbox had a lower draw distance, effect count, or polycount.

Yes but the Xbox has a maximum res of 1920 x 1080 and the resolution should be just fine if the game supports 720p, especially since monitors can't do p (progressive scan), not to mention wide screen format, better color quality, and a screen 3 to 4 times the size as your monitor. Also console games usually fair better in the draw distance department, so that shouldn't be a problem, just look at the DS in Halo, there isn't a PC game out with that kind of distance when you are overlooking the beach from the cliff.

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by JJaX
You all know im a big Xbox fan. But lets face it here, The PC version will be able to look much better than the Xbox version.

The PC will offer higher resolutions, better framerate and more draw distance.

Morrowind on the xbox is Morrowind running on its minimal settings on the PC.

Lets be real here.........

Max Payne runs at the lowest texture settings on the Xbox as well (I know from the suits the bad guys are wearing at the begining of the game, the ones who killed Max's family), and all that means is that it is a PC port from a lazy developer that didn't want to put in the extra work, it doesn't mean that the NV2a (which is more powerful then a GF 3) can't handle the textures. Face it the textures in Halo are better then those of the PC version of Max Payne set at the highest setting. Morrowind looks just as good on the Xbox BTW and it would have looked better on the Xbox if they would have used bump mapping.

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by JJaX


Maybe true, But once all this starts getting crazy lets all watch the xbox framerate poop out a whooping 12 FPS. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, if it can run on xbox, it can run on a high end PC but smoother + higer resolution (until more xbox games start coming out with a higher Interlace modes i.e. DOA3)

If you can show me a game thats on xbox that also on the PC, and the xbox version is better ill shut up.

I'll tell you what, Max Payne looks just as good on the Xbox if you have an HDTV and the devs could have set the game on high textures if they chose to. Halo looks just as good as ANY PC game which proves any PC port could look just as good on the Xbox, remember you can hook your Xbox up to a monitor as well.

nijimeijer
08-27-2002, 05:50 PM
Look at it this way--at E3, the Doom III demo was running on an ATI Radeon 9700 (currently, the most powerful graphics card available to your average consumer), at 640 x 480 on medium detail. Things look bad for the Xbox port at this point.
However, fast forward to the latest showing, at Quakecon. There, the Doom III demo was showing on an Nvidia GeForce4Ti 4600, at 800 x 600, on high detail. Considering what we know the the NV2A, which is a more than a GF3, somewhat more than a GF4 in some areas, and somewhat less in others, things look good for the Xbox port.
In other words, based on the latest showing of Doom III, the Xbox should be able to run Doom III at 640 x 480 just fine, incredibly fine, even, should they actually try and optimize for the console.
After all, it's cousin, the 4600, was running it in higher detail and higher res, on a PC with bloated OS overhead, weaker sound acceleration than the Xbox (if any at all), and the you can clearly see that a perfect Xbox port is entirely within the realm of impossiblity. Remember, while the PC running the demo may have had a 2.2GHz monster under the hood, Carmack has already stated that the new engine uses only 15% of CPU power when sufficient GPU power is available.

Whew! First post and it was a doozy!

XslayerX
08-27-2002, 06:40 PM
Just say this, If xbox can handle Halo 2, and it has vehicles, it can handle Doom 3 with no prob. They both have the same graphics which kick arse.

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by TheCovenant
What pc idiots dont know is, that ok....


"LOOK AT ME I HAVE A GEFORCE 4 WITH DIGITAL THIS AND i million thAT!"

but it doesnt matter what you have. it matters what the game will be prgramed to do.

just because you have top of the line hardware doesnt mean everyone does and id software has to take that into strong consideration.the game probably can run on a super upgraded computer but it must also run on a pc with a voodoo three and a pentium 3. that caused the programers to not use the full potential of a totally upgraded pc. as for the xbox, its all the same! so they can use the xbox hardware ( which compared even to the strongest pc, does put up a competition) and use it to its fullest potential which will eventually look like the most upgraded pc version.

and if john carmacks opinion doesnt matter to you, umm who's does? yours? hahahaaha. trust me not only will the xbox version look the same but it will have upgraded sound on the xbox

(dolby digital surround 5:1)

so pc guys, eat it, and remember, id software DID come really close to becoming microsoft first party, and i f you've even seen the screenshots for halo 2, then you wouldnt be at all surprised at what the xbox can do.

One thing that you are overlooking is that a top of the line PC has more resources than the Xbox. There really is no way around this. There are some limitations that a top of the line PC has, but those limitations (such as incompatibility issues) are more a problem for the software developers than the end user. Carmack's team has stated that they are targetting both platforms, and in my opinion, will do a good job on both. But they've got more resources to work with on a high end PC. I think they will end up with an engine running on both with the same "fidelity" - as in the picture will look the same - but the high end PC version will have the benefit of higher resolutions and framerates. I do expect resolution and framerate to be the only significant difference between the two versions (note that this statement is in agreement with Carmack's press statement, not in opposition to it - he only stated the two versions would be of the same fidelity).

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by BCan
With the 24 FPS comment - PAL tv's refresh rate is 25.6 and NTSC 30, so what I see here is no need to waste processor time on graphics that can't be shown, no matter what, there is a set refresh rate on TV's, so there maybe advances in AI, without the need for the extra overhead.
Ever think that they may also be able to add more realistic textures to the XBOX version, so it is more photorealistic.......

Differences graphically are most likely to be put down to the use of Open GL in Windows, and DirectX 8.1 on the XBOX and the different ways they do things.

While the above is true, it does not entirely limit the capabilities of the Xbox. These above statements only affect the older televisions. Newer televisions - and the Xbox - support both 1080i (60 fields - or half frames - per second) and 720p (60 or 72 frames per second). I'm not sure which of the two refresh rates of 720p the Xbox will support, but I'd assume it's the 60 fps version. I realize that this is a distinction that will not affect most Xbox users, but it does affect me (it also is a benefit that ALL computer users will enjoy - which was the reason it was mentioned).

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Xaminor


Just a quick question. Do you think DOOM III will look better on your PC/monitor then it will on your Xbox/HDTV? One more, why would you get both versions of the game if you already have the PC version?

I expect Doom III to look the best on my PC/HDTV. The Xbox/HDTV will, I expect, be a close second. I will be getting both for two reasons: to personally compare the two to offer an unbiased opinion (I'm a PC and Xbox fan) and to support both PC and Xbox gaming industries. I would like to see game development continue on both of these lines.

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Xaminor


Yes but the Xbox has a maximum res of 1920 x 1080 and the resolution should be just fine if the game supports 720p

The xbox supports 1080i60 (1920x1080 at 30 fps) and 720p (1280x720 at 60 - 720p60 - or 72 fps - 720p72). 1080i60 and 720p72 are basically the same resolution if you count up the pixels per second. keep in mind that 1080i60 is just 30 frames per second while 720p72 is 72 frames per second.


, especially since monitors can't do p (progressive scan), not to mention wide screen format, better color quality, and a screen 3 to 4 times the size as your monitor.

If I've understood this, then I must disagree. All computer monitors purchased in the last 10+ years are progressive scan capable (and all popular resolutions for computers are progressive scan). Some are widescreen. All of them have better color. They do suffer from the size restriction however.


Also console games usually fair better in the draw distance department, so that shouldn't be a problem, just look at the DS in Halo, there isn't a PC game out with that kind of distance when you are overlooking the beach from the cliff.
I'm not sure on this one. I can't think of a reason that the Xbox would have better draw distances. High end PCs have more resources. There's no way around this. The developers may not be targetting high end PCs (they may be writing the games for lower end PCs to reach a broader market) - but this is not a limitation of the PCs - just a limitation of the development team. I have a brother that works in the industry and - speaking on draw distances in Morrowind - stated that the PC version is much better in this arena than the Xbox version (yes - he is a developer on a console team that does target the Xbox so he likely knows what he is talking about).

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by XslayerX
Just say this, If xbox can handle Halo 2, and it has vehicles, it can handle Doom 3 with no prob. They both have the same graphics which kick arse.

I would hope that our friends at ID have made some 3D engine enhancements in the 3 years since Halo was made. Yes - they both kick arse. But Doom III should be drastically different than Halo from an engine point of view.

LynxFX
08-27-2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Xaminor

Yes but the Xbox has a maximum res of 1920 x 1080 and the resolution should be just fine if the game supports 720p, especially since monitors can't do p (progressive scan), not to mention wide screen format, better color quality, and a screen 3 to 4 times the size as your monitor. Also console games usually fair better in the draw distance department, so that shouldn't be a problem, just look at the DS in Halo, there isn't a PC game out with that kind of distance when you are overlooking the beach from the cliff.

So many things wrong with that entire post.

Yes the Xbox has a maximum res of 1920 x 1080i and Doom III would never run at that resolution. I don't think it will even be able to run at 1280 x 720p either since they are having trouble getting more than 4 characters on screen at any time as it is and this was at 640x480 resolution. That is the res that will ultimately be on the Xbox.

Next, monitors are progressive from day one. So that whole argument is out the window. Add in that quality monitors do offer more accurate color than your standard affair of televisions including most HDTV's.

You are right that tv's are for the most part larger than what you will have on your monitor. But then again, you are only going to be 2-3 feet from your monitor filling up a larger portion of your field of view than most do with a tv. There are exceptions of course, like take my screen or hugh_jass's. But these kind of setups are rare.

I also have a strong suspiscion that Doom III won't be a widescreen game as well so that point is also moot, taking away the fact that there are widescreen monitors.

I've seen draw distance better on the PC and better on a console, typically consoles right out of the gate.


After all that I still am getting a little wary about Doom III in general after finding out that multiplayer will only support 4 players. (again a problem with the engine being too high tech). Multiplayer will only let you join as teams (yeah teams of two, whoopy) and not a join as you want. I would like to see that as an option rather than a hard coded rule. These problems will also transfer to Quake 4.

MidniteArrow
08-27-2002, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Lynxfx
Next, monitors are progressive from day one.

LynxFx - I just wanted to clarify this a little. All monitors made now are progressive, but they weren't always. I personally owned a couple (back in the late 80s) that supported interlaced pictures. This was done, just as it is today for HDTVs, to support a higher resolution. It was also phased completely out, so the statement that all monitors are progressive is an accurate one.

Snoopy7548
08-27-2002, 08:34 PM
this was a good thread until it got all technical and stuff. lol:D :)

LynxFX
08-27-2002, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by MidniteArrow


LynxFx - I just wanted to clarify this a little. All monitors made now are progressive, but they weren't always. I personally owned a couple (back in the late 80s) that supported interlaced pictures. This was done, just as it is today for HDTVs, to support a higher resolution. It was also phased completely out, so the statement that all monitors are progressive is an accurate one.

Oops, thanks MidniteArrow. I was going out on a limb with the 'day one' bit. :p

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 09:51 PM
[i]Originally posted by MidniteArrow
The xbox supports 1080i60 (1920x1080 at 30 fps) and 720p (1280x720 at 60 - 720p60 - or 72 fps - 720p72). 1080i60 and 720p72 are basically the same resolution if you count up the pixels per second. keep in mind that 1080i60 is just 30 frames per second while 720p72 is 72 frames per second.

Thanks.



If I've understood this, then I must disagree. All computer monitors purchased in the last 10+ years are progressive scan capable (and all popular resolutions for computers are progressive scan). Some are widescreen. All of them have better color. They do suffer from the size restriction however

Yes they do suffer from size restriction, and I thought component (HDTV) had the best color quality, what about a monitors color is better than an HDTV's?



I'm not sure on this one. I can't think of a reason that the Xbox would have better draw distances.

It isn't so much that a top end PC couldn't do a better draw distance, it is the mere fact that MOST people don't have top end PC's and the developers are restricted to utilizing them to their fullest, on the other hand developers are not limited to working with the static hardware of the Xbox, hence draw distances such as those found in Halo which are much further then any PC game I can think of with the acception of maybe a game in outer space with nothing but a black background. For instance take a beautiful game such as Morrowind, or Dungeoun Sieg and notice they don't have far draw distances. These are both top of the line PC games in terms of graphics, yet they suffer in the draw distance area, same goes for EQ and others PC games that make up for this problem with fog, smoke, or space (usually fog).

Not knocking PC games, I just noticed that draw distance is usually a little better on the console and let's remember that PC games just recently caught up to the console graphics wise (Half Life I would say), and MS is trying to take that title back. If MS would have used more DDR memory (bandwidth is great), then we would be seeing some scary, scary stuff, and now that memory is so cheap don't be surprised if the Xbox 2 doesn't have 6 times the amount of memory.

Xaminor
08-27-2002, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Lynxfx





After all that I still am getting a little wary about Doom III in general after finding out that multiplayer will only support 4 players. (again a problem with the engine being too high tech). Multiplayer will only let you join as teams (yeah teams of two, whoopy) and not a join as you want. I would like to see that as an option rather than a hard coded rule. These problems will also transfer to Quake 4.


Yes Quake III Arena kind of sucked on the DC with only 4 people allowed at one time and I am sure this was because most DCers only used narrowband?

Doom III will still be fun, not much of a story maybe, and not much multi player but killing monsters that look real will be loads of fun.

VAN
08-28-2002, 02:26 AM
We have a couple fellas from Berdoo, eh? I spent the first 24 years of my life in Redlands. :) Howdy, former neighbors!

Tinny
08-28-2002, 10:42 AM
It's only a year old and people are currently arguing which version of DOOM III will be better... sorry but that has gotta say something for the Box. :D

OK, the X-Box version will not be started until round about the time the PC version is finished. This probably won't be just a standard port of the minimum spec on a powerful PC. Now obviously, PCs with their ever changing systems will ultimately be better graphically then a console like the X-Box, however the Box ain't exactly just any old console. It can pretty much match todays high powered PCs and it's down to the developers to optomise the games to this system and make them look great. If the developers do optomise DOOM III for the Box then I can honestly say, I won't be suprised if the games looks even better then it's PC counter part especially if they bother to try to make it better. Specification or no specifications.

Oh and is worst comes to worst, you can expect the minimum spec for DOOM III on the PC for the X-Box version, and that still is kick ass graphically.

MidniteArrow
08-28-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Tinny
It's only a year old and people are currently arguing which version of DOOM III will be better... sorry but that has gotta say something for the Box. :D

OK, the X-Box version will not be started until round about the time the PC version is finished. This probably won't be just a standard port of the minimum spec on a powerful PC. Now obviously, PCs with their ever changing systems will ultimately be better graphically then a console like the X-Box, however the Box ain't exactly just any old console. It can pretty much match todays high powered PCs and it's down to the developers to optomise the games to this system and make them look great. If the developers do optomise DOOM III for the Box then I can honestly say, I won't be suprised if the games looks even better then it's PC counter part especially if they bother to try to make it better. Specification or no specifications.

Oh and is worst comes to worst, you can expect the minimum spec for DOOM III on the PC for the X-Box version, and that still is kick ass graphically.

I just don't see how the software developers can do more with less resources. If you look at the technical specs, PCs have already passed the Xbox, and the gap is just going to get wider. The Xbox is great - and I'm not saying it isn't - but PCs have more resources. If a good software team commits to doing the best job that they can on both targets, the high-end PC will have more resources to exploit and thus will have greater potential for performance and quality.