This post isn't meant to cause angst between console and pc peeps, I'm just looking for some info on how the PC will be handled.

Very curious as to how the graphics are in the PC version compared to the console versions. I keep hearing from developers in the videos during demonstrations that the console version is the same as what we are seeing on PC. First off, that would mean an 8 series or ATI equivalent cards aren't being used to their full potential. A 8800GT and up should very easily be able to look far better than what we see on the 360 -/PS3.

Are the differences in the PC version just going to be higher resolution, AA and AF ? I would hope Ubisoft would give us PC Gamers the option to use high res textures and better lighting capabilities, and not ones that are the same as what's on console.

I'm picking up a 9800 soon, but I'm wondering if i'll actually be using this card to it's potential, and not vastly undercutting it's performance with FC2. Any insights or devs that have spoken about this?

Also, will the PC version include standard PC style quicksave and quickload features that us PC gamers love having, as opposed to a checkpoint system mostly found in console titles? I'm really hoping FarCry 2 has a decent PC version customized for the platform.

I just wanted to add, if this game comes off like a true PC title and not a port, after all is said and done, I'm actually more excited for this then I was for Crysis last year. I'm extremely impressed with the procedural gameplay environments shown in the latest stage demonstration.

To be honest, I'm guessing yes. All these previews from Ubidays are saying that they hardly see any difference between the versions, so the previewers are either blind, biased, or the PC version isn't all it could be graphically. The PCs that they showed it on were supposedly eight core SLI 9800 systems or something insane like that. There's no comparison in terms of power. I'm not too bothered by it though, all that really means is higher res, AA, AF, FPS, etc.

There was a mention of higher res textures (a must) and real-time radiosity (curious to see how they pull that off) in the PC version, however. I wish we could see a comparison ourselves.

quote:

or the PC version isn't all it could be graphically.

I love the logic here.

The game has been in development for over 3.5+ years as a PC exclusive ONLY. The console ports only began development a couple months ago. What does that tell you about whether or not the graphics were "nerfed" on the PC version?

quote:

Originally posted by keithsprout:
All these previews from Ubidays are saying that they hardly see any difference between the versions, so the previewers are either blind, biased, or the PC version isn't all it could be graphically. The PCs that they showed it on were supposedly eight core SLI 9800 systems or something insane like that. There's no comparison in terms of power.

Or maybe it's the fourth option, that the modern consoles aren't as graphically weak as you presume them to be, and despite the fact that Far Cry 2 is a PC-lead developed title, it's not that far-fetched that the consoles are able to attain a more-or-less comparable/respectable port? There may very well be a lot of excess power available to be had with various quad/octo-core CPUs or SLI GPUs, but in all honesty, no games are designed to target that level of hardware and performance (unless you count cranking up the resolution to excessive degrees).

You have to ask a question about the state of the PC version at this point, it makes perfect sense. Every video demo I've seen, the commentator is always saying that this is the same on consoles. Well, logic tells you, an 8 series Nvidia card or 3870 from ATI is clearly above the 360/PS3 in what they can do. So where's the give? Are they just upselling FC2 on consoles? At this point, I hope so. PC Gamers just want to know, with current hardware, will the game offer a better visual experience. Unless we get answers from the dev themselves, there's really no other way of finding out until release.

I really do hope the PC version offers everything expected from a PC shooter, also including a vast amount of visual options to scale the game accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by staticks:
The game has been in development for over 3.5+ years as a PC exclusive ONLY. The console ports only began development a couple months ago. What does that tell you about whether or not the graphics were "nerfed" on the PC version?

quote:

Originally posted by keithsprout:
All these previews from Ubidays are saying that they hardly see any difference between the versions, so the previewers are either blind, biased, or the PC version isn't all it could be graphically. The PCs that they showed it on were supposedly eight core SLI 9800 systems or something insane like that. There's no comparison in terms of power.

Or maybe it's the fourth option, that the modern consoles aren't as graphically weak as you presume them to be, and despite the fact that Far Cry 2 is a PC-lead developed title, it's not that far-fetched that the consoles are able to attain a more-or-less comparable/respectable port? There may very well be a lot of excess power available to be had with various quad/octo-core CPUs or SLI GPUs, but in all honesty, no games are designed to target that level of hardware and performance (unless you count cranking up the resolution to excessive degrees).

I'm no expert on this by any means, since I've just started learning about procedural programming, but hasn't anyone considered that perhaps the unique method (unique for games) of programming being utilized could have something to do with it? It's my understanding that procedural programming frees up the CPU more so than object-based programming which is what is widely used in videogames. So maybe this form of code is allowing the consoles to run quite nicely, almost parallel with the quality of the PC version.

I mean seriously, all you have to do is LOOK at the screen shots and movies and you can see quite plainly that the graphics are not "nerfed" on the PC.

I would like to say something right now. The consoles are not graphically weak. In many respects, they can run better than most computers can in terms of gaming, because they are dedicated gaming machines that do not have to worry about antivirus, spybot, all the peripheral programs running, you know, stuff that slows down your computer more than most may or want to realize. With a console, this excess trash is cut out of the equation allowing the console to focus its attention to one game unlike the PC which has to focus its attention on millions of things at once in order to just complete the simple task of logging on. I am by no means saying that PC's are weak, and many PC's can have great graphical thresholds that have yet to be broken by anything to date, all I am saying is that the power of consoles is not to be underestimated.

quote:

Originally posted by netflame5:
I would like to say something right now. The consoles are not graphically weak. In many respects, they can run better than most computers can in terms of gaming, because they are dedicated gaming machines that do not have to worry about antivirus, spybot, all the peripheral programs running, you know, stuff that slows down your computer more than most may or want to realize. With a console, this excess trash is cut out of the equation allowing the console to focus its attention to one game unlike the PC which has to focus its attention on millions of things at once in order to just complete the simple task of logging on. I am by no means saying that PC's are weak, and many PC's can have great graphical thresholds that have yet to be broken by anything to date, all I am saying is that the power of consoles is not to be underestimated.

I don't think people are saying that consoles are graphically weak overall, I think they're saying that they're graphically weak compared to an Intel quadcore/dual 9800 combo and other various high-end configurations. Unless you've got several gigs of spyware bogging your computer down you really can't argue that the consoles can compete with that. However, as I pointed out, I think there are ways around the overhead of consoles such as the method of coding used for an application.

quote:

Originally posted by PeeWee1476:
I don't think people are saying that consoles are graphically weak overall, I think they're saying that they're graphically weak compared to an Intel quadcore/dual 9800 combo and other various high-end configurations.

You're correct in that a quadcore and SLI configuration might be ahead of a PS3 in absolute raw power terms, but games at the time release rarely take full and complete leverage of all that extra power. You need to understand some things about the game development process; games usually are not developed to target the absolute most powerful and exotic super PCs available (e.g., SLI and quadcore PC); they're designed to run well on moderately powerful gamer PCs, and a reasonable resolution (not something very high, like 1080p). If all games were really developed to take full advantage of the most powerful hardware configurations POSSIBLE, then the game wouldn't sell very well because so few people would be able to run it. Therefore, even though there are extremely powerful possible gaming PC setups available that use quad/octo-core CPUs, or 4x SLI GPUs, development tends to target reasonably powerful PCs, not those that are over-the-top and which nobody owns. That wouldn't be good business.

There're also other factors to consider, such as consoles being closed-architecture developmental platforms, with no OS or antivirus overhead to consider, and with very specific, measurable amounts of RAM, available cache/virtual memory, and bus bandwidths, which makes complete utilization and leveraging of the full potential power of a particular piece of hardware much easier. That's the nature of a console, a closed-architecture, standardized configuration of hardware that's designed for only games, and is much easier to optimize a game for and exploit for maximum graphical fidelity. It's always been the case that a relatively weak console could normally run a game with far better graphics than would be thought possible with an equivalently spec'ed PC. Because consoles are closed-architecture, developers are able to stretch the limits of what they can do with the limited power.

In response to a couple of posts.

First off, I've never stated that the 360 and PS3 are weak, but there's this false notion that they are just as powerful as current mid and high end GPU, they simply aren't. Forget about SLI and Crossfire setups, a 9800 or a 3870 from ATI will crush anything done elsewhere. Even with the fact that the 360/PS3 don't run a bloated OS, they are now years old and getting older. It's no secret that many games on those consoles cannot run in resolution high enough to be considered 720p high def. Developers have been scaling down games to meet framerates. My concern is the PC version in all of this. In fact, with every single multiplatform release, the PC version always seems to get the shaft, and it's always a concern in the PC Gaming community.

Lastly, PC Gamers don't play games with tons of programs running in the background, so that has very little effect. It's mostly the operating system that's running that takes up additional resources, and that's why most PC's have 2 and 4 gigs of RAM to make up for it, 4 times the ram in some cases than a Console. It's true that a console is made specifically for gaming, but PC hardware more than makes up for the fact of running an OS or any small programs while gaming.

quote:

Originally posted by staticks:
The game has been in development for over 3.5+ years as a PC exclusive ONLY. The console ports only began development a couple months ago. What does that tell you about whether or not the graphics were "nerfed" on the PC version?

quote:

Originally posted by keithsprout:
All these previews from Ubidays are saying that they hardly see any difference between the versions, so the previewers are either blind, biased, or the PC version isn't all it could be graphically. The PCs that they showed it on were supposedly eight core SLI 9800 systems or something insane like that. There's no comparison in terms of power.

Or maybe it's the fourth option, that the modern consoles aren't as graphically weak as you presume them to be, and despite the fact that Far Cry 2 is a PC-lead developed title, it's not that far-fetched that the consoles are able to attain a more-or-less comparable/respectable port? There may very well be a lot of excess power available to be had with various quad/octo-core CPUs or SLI GPUs, but in all honesty, no games are designed to target that level of hardware and performance (unless you count cranking up the resolution to excessive degrees).

Do you honestly believe it's been PC only for 3.5 years? They might have said that, but I highly doubt Ubi didn't have it in the back of their heads that the 360/PS3 would be on the table at some point. I just don't believe a company like Ubi, who never releases games without them being multiplat mind you, would design a game they could NEVER origninally port over to the consoles. I just can't believe that.

Two years ago when the 360 lit up the CoD2 sales(which was very much a PC franchise at the time) all publishers/developers shifted focus to the 360, and I have no reason to think Ubi didn't follow suit back than.

quote:

Originally posted by PhillyFraGGeR:
Do you honestly believe it's been PC only for 3.5 years? They might have said that, but I highly doubt Ubi didn't have it in the back of their heads that the 360/PS3 would be on the table at some point. I just don't believe a company like Ubi, who never releases games without them being multiplat mind you, would design a game they could NEVER origninally port over to the consoles. I just can't believe that.

I've been tracking this game's development very closely ever since it was announced for PC exclusively a year or so back, and all the sources and info I've read is consistent in its indication that it has always been intended as a PC-only game in mind, and that the devs thought the consoles wouldn't be able to handle the game design. Videogame insider, SurferGirl, is another who divulged that the decision to bring Far Cry 2 to consoles was only a recent decision. They DID initially plan on using the DUNIA engine to create other Far Cry Instincts-type spin-off games for consoles, however. But after some R&D research into the viability of a console version last year, they figured out that they could port Far Cry 2 to consoles without compromising the core gameplay mechanics. I've read every preview and interview there is on this game, and Ubisoft has been VERY consistent in what they've been saying about the intent and development philosophy of Far Cry 2 as a non-consolized, hardcore triple-A PC game, first and foremost. For 3.5 years, the console versions didn't even EXIST, and thus had no affect on the development of the PC version.

quote:

Originally posted by PhillyFraGGeR:
In response to a couple of posts.

First off, I've never stated that the 360 and PS3 are weak, but there's this false notion that they are just as powerful as current mid and high end GPU, they simply aren't. Forget about SLI and Crossfire setups, a 9800 or a 3870 from ATI will crush anything done elsewhere. Even with the fact that the 360/PS3 don't run a bloated OS, they are now years old and getting older. It's no secret that many games on those consoles cannot run in resolution high enough to be considered 720p high def. Developers have been scaling down games to meet framerates. My concern is the PC version in all of this. In fact, with every single multiplatform release, the PC version always seems to get the shaft, and it's always a concern in the PC Gaming community.

Lastly, PC Gamers don't play games with tons of programs running in the background, so that has very little effect. It's mostly the operating system that's running that takes up additional resources, and that's why most PC's have 2 and 4 gigs of RAM to make up for it, 4 times the ram in some cases than a Console. It's true that a console is made specifically for gaming, but PC hardware more than makes up for the fact of running an OS or any small programs while gaming.

Well, it's a multitude of reasons why the consoles are so efficient and streamlined in their videogame performance, and why developers are achieving breathtaking, groundbreaking graphical results (just look at Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 2), not just the ones you mentioned. Again, there might be extremely powerful videocards available for the PC, but the fact remains that games aren't developed with a level of visual fidelity to target those ultra high-end cards. They're developed to run well, at very high resolutions, on moderately powerful hardware. Current console games are designed to run well at a more moderate resolution, 720p, and is optimized for that particular resolution, so that also allows for greater visual fidelity and better performance, as console games don't have to run at ridiculously high resolutions like high-end PCs do. As a side note, the vast majority of console games run at full 720p natively, not below. Running at sub-720p resolutions is actually a rarity and there are only a handful of games that do this performance-saving resolution reduction.

Let's also not forget about the as-of-yet unknown quantity that's the Cell processor, a component that has no PC equivalent, and which no developers have really truly harnessed the potential of yet, or know the true capability of for use in gaming applications. So far, we can tentatively say that it appears the processor has helped the PS3 achieve some new graphical heights in certain first-party games, but then again no devs have made full, intensive utilization of the Cell and its SPUs yet.

staticks,

I'm not saying games have to be made for the absolute high end, they need to be scalable for all systems. What my concern is relates to just how high Ubi is going to allow us to scale this game upwards, and what impact the console versions will have on the PC version, a very legit question. If Farcry 2 can scale anywhere near the top, it's going to have to be a vastly better looking version than the console counterparts, plain and simple.

As for the PS3, The Cell chip is not a very good chip for gaming, at least in comparison to the 360's processor and just about every PC processor current today. The Cell chip is an amazing chip for mathematical functions, but that's about it. It definitely wasn't a wise decision going with the Cell for gaming, especially since most games are now multiplat and made alongside the PC/360 versions, which is why we see so many delays and cancellations on the PS3 side. As an owner of all systems, it's certainly frustrating not having reasons to pick up PS3 versions of games when you can almost guarantee it won't be best on the system. Burnout Paradise is the only title i'm aware of that runs better on PS3 than 360.

As for 360/PS3 games running at 720 or higher, that's simply not true, alot of titles aren't. Yes, TV's can upscale the image, but the games aren't actually running at that resolution. Check out this article:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/current-video-games-mostly-not-hd/

Here's a list of games not even running at 720p as of January:

* Tony Hawk’s Project 8 - XBOX 360 - 1040×585 (with 4XAA)
o Tony Hawk’s Project 8 - Playstation 3 - 1280×720 (no AA)
* Perfect Dark Zero - XBOX 360 - 1152×640
* Halo 3 - XBOX 360 - 1152×640
* Call of Duty 3 - XBOX 360 - 1120×630
o Call of Duty 3 - Playstation 3 - 1120×630 (software scaled to 720p)
* Project Gotham Racing 3 - XBOX 360 - 1024×600 (2xMSAA)
* Tomb Raider Legend- XBOX 360 - 1024×600 (2xMSAA)
* Tony Hawk’s Proving Ground - Playstation 3 - 1024×600
o Tony Hawk’s Proving Ground - XBOX 360 - 1280×720
* Super Rub a Dub - Playstation 3 - 1600×1080
* Gran Turismo HD - Playstation 3 - 1440×1080
* Super Stardust HD - Playstation 3 - 1280×1080
* Skate - Playstation 3 - 1536×864 (no AA)
o Skate - XBOX 360 - 1280×720 (4x AA)
* The Darkness - Playstation 3 - 1024×576
o The Darkness - XBOX 360 - 1280×720
* Jericho Demo - Playstation 3 - 996×560
* Call of Duty 4 - XBOX 360 - 1024×600 (2x AA)
o Call of Duty 4 - Playstation 3 - 1024×600p (2x AA)
* Def Jam: Icon - Playstation 3 - 1152×648
* Transformers - Playstation 3 - 960×1080
* Pirates of the Caribbean - Playstation 3 (720p mode) - 960×720
o Pirates of the Caribbean - Playstation 3 (1080p mode) - 780×1080
* Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - XBOX 360 - 1024×600
o Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Playstation 3 - 1280×720
* Virtua Fighter 5 - XBOX 360 - 1024×1024
o Virtua Fighter 5 - PS3 (720p mode) - 1024×1024
o Virtua Fighter 5 - PS3 (1080p mode) - 1024×768

I don't have all of them, but the latest game running sub 720p is Metal Gear Solid 4, running at 576p...that's terrible in comparison to midrange PC. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1150046

If the consoles were anywhere near a current mid range Gaming PC, they would be running at 1920x1200, my native resolution running on my 8800GT(sub $200). I really noticed a jump looking at Assassins Creed and Mass Effect on my 360 and then running them on my Gaming PC, big differences. Load times were at least 4 time faster with my Q6600 in my PC vs. the 360 loads times, especially in Mass Effect.

These are just ones mentioned in the article, there are others that have been released since January as well. An 8800GT for instance can almost double some of those resolutions with better textures etc..Looking at that list, this is certainly reason to question how FarCry 2 is going to run on consoles vs the PC, and just how scalable forward it's going to be on PC. Take a look at those tiny resolutions for example. Yes it's nit picky, but it shows how weak they are in comparison to a mid range rig. Most Nvidia 8 series and 3* series from ATI are around 200 to 300 dollars, easily making them midrange and should easily outperform any of those games above, with ease.

For more information of nerfed Console resolutions, check out the best graphics information source on the net, beyond3d.net

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46242


BTW, do you have a rig and have you played Crysis yet? Just curious on your thoughts.

Oh and from having all next gen consoles and 2 gaming PC's, the one factor that makes console titles look good is having a nice TV. There's a big difference in one's experience playing those games on a nice 50" vs. playing on a standard 32" set that most people have. The only game that was "breathtaking" on console to me was Gears, which is easily outmatched by the PC version running at almost double to resolution. Even still, I have yet to play any game on console that was anywhere near Crysis, which can be done on a midrange gaming PC on high settings.

Philly, you should look at your list again; many of those games you have on your list actually state 1280x720p native, and some even run at 1080p native. MGS4 actually runs at 665p (1024x768), and from my examination of the console trailer for Far Cry 2, it appears to run at 720p native (to my eyes... it was a blurry video, so it's hard to tell exactly).

I also think you're selling the selling the Cell processor short here, especially when considering that even the best PS3 1st party developers like Naughty Dog and Insomniac have stated a mere 20-25% usage of the Cell in their games; meaning that there's a lot of untapped potential there as far as future developments and optimizations for PS3 games go. If you would read into what the Cell processor is capable of and what its strengths are, you'd see that it's actually most adept at heavy-volume 3D graphics and physics processing; I think it IS in some ways a good choice of CPU for games, but we have seen a lot of sub-par XB360 ports for the system by developers that aren't all that experienced with the PS3 and its Cell. I think that's why we've been seeing a lot of poor-performing primarily 3rd-party games on the PS3 compared to the 360 and PC. The 1st-party developers and games are the ones that generally did a little more R&D on how to best utilize and optimize for Sony's system, and those are the games where we've seen much better results (Uncharted, Killzone 2, Heavenly Sword). To be honest, we don't really know if all this will pan out, or if we'll really start seeing a major ubiquitous graphics improvement to PS3 lead-developed games as time continues to wear on and devs get more experience under their belt working with the eccentric PS3 platform. But some upcoming titles I've seen such as Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 have me hopeful.

Speaking of Crysis , didn't Crytek themselves recently state that the "next-gen consoles" are capable of running the CryEngine 2.0 at the High settings equivalent of the PC? I can dig up the quote if you want.

Edit: To address your first point, I wouldn't be too worried about how Far Cry 2 scales on higher-end PCs. Although I don't expect major improvements as far as effects, you can probably expect to be able to run at higher resolutions, with sharper textures because of the greater available video memory, and with more FSAA. These differences may not seem all that substantive, but I'm sure that, Far Cry 2 being a high-end, graphically-intensive game, it will more than give all the super gaming rigs out there all they can handle.

sorry, i edited my post again, make sure to read up the thread from beyond3d, they are updating games as they release and it's where that author got it's information from. It's a mega thread btw.

There are many games that aren't running in 720p though, still. Rub a dub doesn't count..

You have to look at the last three digits to signify what it's running in. Take CoD4 for instance, it's running at 600p, not considered high def. Yes, some in the list are running at 720p thought.


And no, The CryEngine 2 CAN run on consoles, but Crysis cannot run on the 360/PS3 in it's current state. Cevat has stated many times that the 360/PS3 cannot run the game, and is a major reason why Crysis:Warhead is NOT coming to consoles this Fall, the standalone sequel just announced. Number one, ram limitations and GPU limitations are a problem on console. Two, the environments would have to be vastly cut as well.

I have a feeling your not a PC Gamer staticks.
:P

I could easily find out though, Halo or Halflife? It's the ultimate litmus test

You're right, I'm not a PC gamer. Or at least I haven't been for the last 5 or so years. I have no problem with others if they are PC gamers, though. And no, I'm not fan of either Halo OR HL2. Actually, one of my favorite shooters in recent years has actually been Far Cry 1 on PC; a lot of other FPS titles have really disappointed me as of late, although I think this year will be redemption for me, with awesome stuff like Project Origin, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, Resistence 2, Condemned 2, and more. Far Cry 2 will be the absolute best by FAR when it comes out, of course.

The idea that Crysis "couldn't run at its current state" on consoles, according to Crytek, is probably because he initially thought the extremely low memory footprints of the consoles (512mb total RAM) is a major limiting factor that precludes a port of a free-roaming, large-scale, open-environment game like Crysis. But I think that was just an early, somewhat uninformed assessment/assumption of Cevat Yerli's part, because we've seen other free-roam games with HUGE environments like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, and GTAIV run on consoles, so we know it's actually possible. It definitely takes from finagling on the part of the devs to make it happen, with stuff like streaming and virtual memory and other memory optimizations, but I don't think Crysis is as "impossible" as he made it out to be.

I actually visit and post at that resolution thread at Beyond3D all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by staticks:

..... But I think that was just an early, somewhat uninformed assessment/assumption of Cevat Yerli's part, because we've seen other free-roam games with HUGE environments like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, and GTAIV run on consoles, so we know it's actually possible. It definitely takes from finagling on the part of the devs to make it happen, with stuff like streaming and virtual memory and other memory optimizations, but I don't think Crysis is as "impossible" as he made it out to be.

I actually visit and post at that resolution thread at Beyond3D all the time.

You honestly have to see and play Crysis yourself. Games like GTAIV, Assassins Creed are nowhere near the level of Crysis, and I'm being completely serious. I play GTAIV on 360 just about everyday, it's the best looking GTA by far, but it's a cartoon in comparison. I don't even see how one could make a comparison. The lighting, textures, and geometry in Crysis is on a whole different level of wow. It's the only game that's ever made my jaw drop to the floor, which it still does. The last game that had a similar effect was FarCry 1, which was outstanding as you know for it's time. There's just absolutely no way Crysis in it's current state could run without lots of video ram and system ram for that matter, which makes perfect sense given the fact that even with a high end rig, you'll be lucky to pull of 35-40FPS.

This is really one of the reasons why I'm concerned about FC2, wanting it to be up there with Crysis. It looks nice, but it's not Crysis, although original impressions made me think it might rival it, it's just not there. As confirmed by reviews editor Sean Elliot over at 1up, who also wrote the review for Crysis in GFW magazine(8/10 which I agree with), has already seen FC2 and has said it doesn't compare, altough FC2 is a beautiful game. PCG US has also made the same comments as well on their podcast. Elliot knows his FPS's, so I trust his judgment for sure.

With Warhead coming out this Fall, it will be an excellent year in FPS. I'm really looking forward to STALKER Clear Sky as well, although that's a PC title for now, but GSC has stated they want to put it out for 360/PS3. It's probably my most wanted game at this point, even over Stracraft 2, which is the second coming in my eyes...

Oh and Dead Space looks like the Sleeper of the year, and we might as well throw in Fallout 3, which can be pretty much played as an FPS. Although I'm a rabid Fallout fan of years past, I'm really looking forward to that for sure. But, Valve's Left4Dead will probably be the multiplayer shooter of the year for me..

Oh, and don't get me wrong Staticks, I love my consoles, I'm just an old schooler when it comes to FPS/RTS/RPG on PC. Although I will play FPS on console with thumbsticks, I have a really hard time enjoying it. I did enjoy Resistance, and I'm looking forward to the sequel but fighting the sticks was frustrating. I've played through all of the Halo games, playing the first Halo the day it came out for the original Xbox, fought through it. Played through CoD3 on 360, regretting that one though, as it was the worst in the franchise by far. When it comes down to it, i'm just a mouse and keyboard guy all the way and probably always will be.

I really don't care about the graphics....or the PC that much. :P