Just recently I bought a computer for $400 that has a quad-core Phenom 2 X4 processor at 3.0ghz, 4 gigs of DDR2800 RAM, a 9800 GT with 512VRAM, a kickass motherboard, and a HDD with a 32mb cache and dual processors.

 Reply

I wouldn't hold my breath for the console version of any mmo. FF11 is the only one that actually managed to happen so far.

 Reply

We'll see though, the PS3 supports it already and I would assume most MMO development studios know that.

 Reply

I can't wait to kick all your asses constantly in it. XD

 Reply

That is awesome. I ended up building one and then almost immediately selling it because I was offered nearly twice what I paid for it.

I still wish I kept those Sanwa sticks, so I only have a Seimitsu for mine right now.

Really responsive and clicky.

 Reply

I'm still on the fence whether to go Sanwa or Seimitsu though, I'm leaning heavily towards Sanwa but the Seimitsu parts have some nice pros. Out of curiosity, what PCB did you use for the controls? I've been eyeing up the Cthukhu for a while now and it seems to be the best option.

 Reply

I got the PCB , he got his box/mock controller.

 Reply

@kipperminge: SCORE: 6490

AVERAGE: 53.17FPS

OS: Windows XP Home Edition

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

Memory: 3070MB

Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT

Display Setting: 1280x1024 60Hz 8xAA

I didn't fare as well as I expected. At first I tried it @1680x1050 with 16xQAA but the results were terrible but then I figured since I'll be throwing the 8800GT into a mame cabinet and replacing it with a GTX260, it made sense to test settings that I'd have in the cabinet rather than on my main rig which will have a different card by time the game is out. I'll probably drop the AA down to 4x for the cabinet though since it won't make all that much of a difference in visual quality.

 Reply

lol

 Reply

It does show promise for me though since I'll have the 260 by time the game comes out. What level of AA were you using?

THose X3 seem to be a very nice cpu too, quite cheap too, I was thinking of getting one for the cabinet.

 Reply

You might be pissed off that the PC is getting a better version but that doesn't change facts.

 Reply

PC version is nice but lets keep things in perspective.

 Reply

performance will most likely be barely better.. and i dont even see how the online will be much better. if you truly are into fighting games.. you know that even on pcs... theres still latency in fighters. its not perfect ANYWHERE yet.. plus, id be willing to bet money that more people will own this game for ps3/360 than the pc. thats just how it goes.. your "casual" players have already lapped it up from walmart and target for their consoles.. internet lurkers are a small bunch.

im so tired of that elitest attitude.. i love consoles.. i think theyre better for my needs than the pc.. and personally i think arcades trump all. but i swear ima beat somebody up soon if people dont stop acting like their opinion is king.

 Reply

"The Windows version of Street Fighter IV will include all features found in the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, plus some extras, that Capcom representatives say could make it "the definitive version" of the game. It has also been revealed that the game will feature online play via Games for Windows - LIVE, with built-in voice chat and PC-exclusive achievements, but no cross-platform playability would be available with Xbox 360 players. Also, the game will feature higher resolutions, and three new freely selectable visual styles, named "Watercolor", "Poster" and "Sumi-e ink"."

 Reply

If you're still living in the 80's cramped up to a desk on a 17" monitor, yeah I guess it would feel awkard.

 Reply

-Fixed

 Reply

I personally, would never play my PC games on a 46" lcd tv. 1080p, lol, what's the point when the image is stretched to fuck, you lose the high defintion completely. If it was an LED TV then you might have a point.

 Reply

The only things I ever have to consider in that regard is playing old emulation games and/or games for older versions of windows that didn't have widescreen resolutions. And even then you just play it at a resolution that doesn't stretch, windowed.

I really don't get the responses about playing a game stretched because I have never had that problem. At all. I play World of Warcraft, The Sims 3, Spore, Bioshock, Oblivion, Crysis, The Orange Box, and MANY others at 1920 x 1080 resolution and it looks amazing.

Do you know what you're talking about?

 Reply

Are you suggesting that sitting infront of a screen with a mouse and keyboard equates to 'awkward' gaming, or just that playing street fighter in that situation is bad?

 Reply

If people play PC's at their desk, fine. Good for them. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying the perception that it's the only way you can play PC games is ridiculous and totally uninformed.

 Reply

@Matt0505: The point is that 1920x1080/1920x1200 is the native resolution for a 22"/24" screen, thats when you see the true definition of the image. When you display that image on a 46" TV, you're stretching the resolution to fit the screen, effectively doubling the pixel size. Sure, it will still look ok but it isn't in high definition anymore and it won't look at all as good as displaying the resolution with a screen that fits it.

 Reply

I mean I get it in terms of 1920 x 1080 on my TV is native, where as 1920 x 1200 on a 24" monitor is native. So that means that on my TV, playing a game in 1920 x 1080 is not stretched, at all. Just like playing a game on a 1920 x 1200 native monitor isn't stretched. Now if I play something on my TV at 1366 x 768, something like that, and I try to fill the entire screen with it, then yes it will look stretched. But when I'm playing Fallout 3 on my PC at 1920 x 1080 on my television screen I can assure you that nothing is stretched whatsoever. It's a resolution that the game supports, and it's the native resolution of my TV. What am I missing here??

And anyway yes I agree with your sentiment; so many people on these forms know absolutely nothing about PC gaming and it drives me nuts.

 Reply

If you expand that image to full size, it gives the exact size of the different resolutions. When you're displaying any of those resolutions on a screen bigger than their respective size, the pixels get stretched and become larger reducing the overall quality of the image since the amount of pixels in any given resolution can't change.

Of course, when you're sitting a good distance away from the screen you're not going to notice it a whole lot but try this and you should get what I'm saying - set your desktop resolution as low as it goes and display it on your TV, everything will look more pixelated and blocky and this is because you're stretching the resolution far beyond it's intended size and the pixels are being vastly enlarged.

 Reply

And besides there are mods for WoW anyway to make the text bigger, so it's irrelevant anyway. Here is a screenshot of WoW on my PC/TV at 1920 x 1080:

[img15.imageshack.us]

Click on the image to make it full size if your browser fits it to the screen. The mod on the right side is cycling my quests, that's why they're kind of jumbled together.

 Reply

I don't get what you say when you say "is only 1920 x 1080." As compared to what? And how is it being "stretched" to fit the TV? The NATIVE RESOLUTION of the TV is 1920 x 1080 at 60hz. Hence 1080p. So that means, if I am playing World of Warcraft, Fallout 3, on my windows desktop, whatever, and I have those applications set to display at 1920 x 1080, which is what I have on ALL of those, then it's showing exactly how it's supposed to be. It's not being "stretched" in any way, it's to the native resolution of the TV.

Now if I set World of Warcraft to say, 1360 x 1024 for example, and I have that set to where it goes the full width of my TV, then yes it has to be stretched because there are less pixels in that resolution than there is my native 1920 x 1080.

I don't want this get into any kind of harsh debate or anything like that because I'm all for mature conversation on the internet as it's rare to find these days. But seriously I have no idea what you're talking about, and I just think you're confused because you're thinking that since it's a bigger TV (say comparind a 46" TV to a 22" monitor,) that in some way it will look worse because it's taking the image and having to "stretch" it to fit my larger TV. But that's not what's happening, at all. Not in the case of how I'm using it at least. My TV is 1920 x 1080 native resolution, and I'm playing all these games at a setting of 1920 x 1080. It's showing on my TV exactly how it's supposed to. Any other resolution and yes, there would be black frames, the pixels would look bigger, etc. But in no way is my display doing any "stretching" whatsoever. That would defeat the purpose entirely of using the native resolution of a TV. It's no different than if you're using a monitor that has a native resolution of 1680 x 1050, and you try to play a game at the aforementioned 1360 x 1024. It will work, but it'll look stretched out unless you have scaling on your video card to where it puts the black bars around the outside.

 Reply

@HioMrSan: The pixel size will be larger, but its not like your going to be sitting 1 foot away from the screen with a mouse and keyboard.

I know that and I've said it already but there is a difference in visual quality whether it's noticeable or not.

 Reply

I cover the bases?

 Reply