its possible, especially since the game is being both being optimized for the 360 AND its running on a much better programming language.
It may be optimized for the 360 and written in a better programming language. But the hardware it will be running on isn't all that great.
Infinite worlds would work for a couple days to a couple weeks and people would rejoice during that period. Then when the worlds started getting laggy everyone would complain saying that they should have known it would happen and that they should have limited the world size.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm usually not trying to be rude. So if a post comes across that way then sorry :]
Doubt it. My iPad 2 had a faster processor, and a hell of a lot more RAM, and the best they could do for it was make the maps 256x256x128.
We'll be lucky to get the same map sizes on the Xbox...
Doubt it. My iPad 2 had a faster processor, and a hell of a lot more RAM, and the best they could do for it was make the maps 256x256x128.
We'll be lucky to get the same map sizes on the Xbox...
but see this is where you are mistaken. it IS great for doin' the one thing it does, the only thing it does, play games.
It plays games great yes. But the hardware still isn't good enough to handle infinite worlds once the world files get to big. There are just some things consoles can't handle. And this is one of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm usually not trying to be rude. So if a post comes across that way then sorry :]
but see this is where you are mistaken. it IS great for doin' the one thing it does, the only thing it does, play games.
That's not the point. It's great for gaming, obviously since it's meant for it. But the hardware is just too lackluster to handle infinite worlds. It may still have huge, huge worlds so it's not noticeable, but it's not infinite.
Some of the people on this thread do not understand...
First off, Minecraft does not have infinite. However, the worlds will generate so far that you will NEVER find the end legitimately.
Secondly, people preaching the power of the Xbox 360 don't know what they are talking about. The reason that modern games run on consoles, are because they must be optimized SPECIFICALLY for the console. If the same effort towards optimization on the console was applied to current PCs, the graphics of games would be far better than they currently are. Also, developers, working with the 7 year old hardware, are very good at optimizing for the consoles. You can take a look back at early console games, like Oblivion, and take a peak into the future, at Battlefield and Crysis.
Obviously you know nothing about computer hardware. Considering that the Xbox is 6 years behind current technology, it cannot run as good as a PC and can't even come close to handling infinite worlds. Its' "gaming optimizations" don't make up for it either, you can't have a 6 year old system outperform a higher-end modern system no matter how hard you try.
Yeah, I'm not sure why people are asking to include infinite terrain in Minecraft. I doubt they can inhabit every part of the world, considering how huge it already is.
Yes, but the optimizations are being put onto a system with 6 year old hardware. Even if it does outperform a PC with equivalent specs, it will still not be able to handle as much as a higher-end modern PC could.
no thats only with using top of the line computers yes but MOST computers are **** compared to xbox360 EX: Computer + minecraft = LAG Xbox + minecraft= NO lag. its not rocket science.
no thats only with using top of the line computers yes but MOST computers are **** compared to xbox360 EX: Computer + minecraft = LAG Xbox + minecraft= NO lag. its not rocket science.
You're telling me it's not rocket science, yet you are not using any facts to prove that an Xbox can beat a mid-high level PC in performance, nor showing that you have any actual knowledge about computer hardware. My computer costs around $800 (far from "top-of-the-line") yet it averages around 300 FPS on the PC. Meanwhile, the Xbox is forced to have its' games locked at either 30 or 60 FPS. You're saying that the Xbox will perform better with Minecraft? If my $800 PC can manage 300 FPS, and we assume that because of that, a low-range PC $500-600 could manage around 40-60 FPS, then no, the Xbox 360 isn't too much better than even low-range computers.
Stop thinking an Xbox 360 will beat most computers except ones over $1000. Keep telling yourselves whatever you want to, but a 6 year old system, no matter how many damn optimizations it has, will not perform just as smoothly as any mid-range PC. It may have a big boost in performance from having far fewer tasks to handle than a PC, sure, but it's still a system released during a time the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX was the best video card available. That thing can barely handle new games now, and you're saying that an Xbox 360 with similar capabilities can perform faster than PC's that have mid-high range hardware because of its' optimizations.
One last thing: stating that "Computer + Minecraft = Lag, Xbox + Minecraft = No lag" proves nothing, other than the fact that you really know nothing about hardware.
So my computer, which has considerably worse specs than the Xbox 360 and a smaller hard drive can somehow handle Minecraft infinitely?
Either way, like always, the Xbox 360 version will have large enough worlds for most people, and [AS ALWAYS] the PC version isn't truly infinite, just huge.
So my computer, which has considerably worse specs than the Xbox 360 and a smaller hard drive can somehow handle Minecraft infinitely?
I may have used the wrong phrase for "low-range". "Low-mid range" seems to sound better. Now that I've cleared that up, obviously a computer with worse specs than an Xbox 360 will perform like an old toaster compared to it. But most modern $400-$500 PC's I've seen (most computers in that range are usually considered low-to-mid) benchmarked have around 40-60 FPS in Minecraft. If those things can handle Minecraft just fine, than I don't see why console players keep claiming their console can outperform all PC's below $1000 when an Xbox 360 performs around the same as a low-mid-range PC.
By the way, I never said a PC in that range can handle Minecraft "infinitely". Just that an Xbox 360 isn't much better than those ones.
[snip]
My computer costs around $800 (far from "top-of-the-line") yet it averages around 300 FPS on the PC. Meanwhile, the Xbox is forced to have its' games locked at either 30 or 60 FPS. You're saying that the Xbox will perform better with Minecraft? If my $800 PC can manage 300 FPS, and we assume that because of that, a low-range PC $500-600 could manage around 40-60 FPS, then no, the Xbox 360 isn't too much better than even low-range computers.
[snip]
It doesn't matter at that point how much FPS you have. Your eyes have a refresh rate of ~24 FPS, so anything above 40 will make no difference in the smoothness of the game.
I may have used the wrong phrase for "low-range". "Low-mid range" seems to sound better. Now that I've cleared that up, obviously a computer with worse specs than an Xbox 360 will perform like an old toaster compared to it. But most modern $400-$500 PC's I've seen (most computers in that range are usually considered low-to-mid) benchmarked have around 40-60 FPS in Minecraft. If those things can handle Minecraft just fine, than I don't see why console players keep claiming their console can outperform all PC's below $1000 when an Xbox 360 performs around the same as a low-mid-range PC.
By the way, I never said a PC in that range can handle Minecraft "infinitely". Just that an Xbox 360 isn't much better than those ones.
See above...
We are still talking about world size, aren't we? If so why can a poor PC handle infinite worlds if a Xbox with much better hardware can't? Or am I wrong and it can't? I really don't know...
We are still talking about world size, aren't we? If so why can a poor PC handle infinite worlds if a Xbox with much better hardware can't? Or am I wrong and it can't? I really don't know...
No, the guy I was originally replying to was stating that an Xbox 360 can beat any PC that's not top of the line, which is far from the truth. In terms of world size, though, no system even with top of the range parts can handle infinite worlds. Way, WAY too much processing for that. The game can just about handle worlds of its' current size, and that's about it.
No, the guy I was originally replying to was stating that an Xbox 360 can beat any PC that's not top of the line, which is far from the truth. In terms of world size, though, no system even with top of the range parts can handle infinite worlds. Way, WAY too much processing for that. The game can just about handle worlds of its' current size, and that's about it.
Oh, ok. But I meant If a poor PC can handle high end PC world sizes, theoretically can't a xbox with better specs than the poor PC handle high end PC sized worlds. Or can a poor PC not even handle worlds that big?
It doesn't matter at that point how much FPS you have. Your eyes have a refresh rate of ~24 FPS, so anything above 40 will make no difference in the smoothness of the game.
I agree. I didn't really notice too much of a difference when I had 100 FPS on my old card compared to 300 FPS on my new one. It already looks smooth at 40 FPS. But we're not talking about whether framerates above 40 FPS really matter or not, we're talking about overall performance of these systems. Yes, it may not matter because no one will see a huge difference, but if the Xbox 360 is restricted to 60 FPS while my mid-high-range PC can get 300 FPS in Minecraft, obviously a mid-to-high range PC can outperform an Xbox 360.
By the way, I was only making that point in a reply to masterfable117, who said that most computers, other than top-of-the-line gaming PC's, are crap compared to an Xbox, which is complete ********.
Oh, ok. But I meant If a poor PC can handle high end PC world sizes, theoretically can't a xbox with better specs than the poor PC handle high end PC sized worlds. Or can a poor PC not even handle worlds that big?
(BTW, I didn't say a poor PC can run Minecraft on the highest settings, just that it can still squeeze out maybe a tiny bit smaller framerate as an Xbox can.) Well, all worlds in Minecraft are the same size. Regardless of whether your PC barely meets system requirements or annihilates them, the size of the world you play in will stay the same. So with that, any PC meeting the system requirements can handle the size of the worlds, and so can an Xbox. A poor PC that is old but meets the required specs can handle those world sizes.
If you're asking how a poor PC can handle infinite worlds and an Xbox can't...well, nothing can run infinite worlds. Like I said before, it's just WAY too much rendering & processing for even the best PC available. It'll be working its' ass off rendering all that terrain, which will just slow it down and drag your framerates down with it. Hope that clears it up. I never did say poor PC's can handle infinite worlds, just that it can perform the same as an Xbox 360, if the parts can handle it.
It may be optimized for the 360 and written in a better programming language. But the hardware it will be running on isn't all that great.
Infinite worlds would work for a couple days to a couple weeks and people would rejoice during that period. Then when the worlds started getting laggy everyone would complain saying that they should have known it would happen and that they should have limited the world size.
but see this is where you are mistaken. it IS great for doin' the one thing it does, the only thing it does, play games.
We'll be lucky to get the same map sizes on the Xbox...
COMPUTER/CONSOLE VS IPAD
It plays games great yes. But the hardware still isn't good enough to handle infinite worlds once the world files get to big. There are just some things consoles can't handle. And this is one of them.
That's not the point. It's great for gaming, obviously since it's meant for it. But the hardware is just too lackluster to handle infinite worlds. It may still have huge, huge worlds so it's not noticeable, but it's not infinite.
First off, Minecraft does not have infinite. However, the worlds will generate so far that you will NEVER find the end legitimately.
Secondly, people preaching the power of the Xbox 360 don't know what they are talking about. The reason that modern games run on consoles, are because they must be optimized SPECIFICALLY for the console. If the same effort towards optimization on the console was applied to current PCs, the graphics of games would be far better than they currently are. Also, developers, working with the 7 year old hardware, are very good at optimizing for the consoles. You can take a look back at early console games, like Oblivion, and take a peak into the future, at Battlefield and Crysis.
And, that is the end of my rant.
You're telling me it's not rocket science, yet you are not using any facts to prove that an Xbox can beat a mid-high level PC in performance, nor showing that you have any actual knowledge about computer hardware. My computer costs around $800 (far from "top-of-the-line") yet it averages around 300 FPS on the PC. Meanwhile, the Xbox is forced to have its' games locked at either 30 or 60 FPS. You're saying that the Xbox will perform better with Minecraft? If my $800 PC can manage 300 FPS, and we assume that because of that, a low-range PC $500-600 could manage around 40-60 FPS, then no, the Xbox 360 isn't too much better than even low-range computers.
Stop thinking an Xbox 360 will beat most computers except ones over $1000. Keep telling yourselves whatever you want to, but a 6 year old system, no matter how many damn optimizations it has, will not perform just as smoothly as any mid-range PC. It may have a big boost in performance from having far fewer tasks to handle than a PC, sure, but it's still a system released during a time the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX was the best video card available. That thing can barely handle new games now, and you're saying that an Xbox 360 with similar capabilities can perform faster than PC's that have mid-high range hardware because of its' optimizations.
One last thing: stating that "Computer + Minecraft = Lag, Xbox + Minecraft = No lag" proves nothing, other than the fact that you really know nothing about hardware.
Either way, like always, the Xbox 360 version will have large enough worlds for most people, and [AS ALWAYS] the PC version isn't truly infinite, just huge.
What I was thinking.
I may have used the wrong phrase for "low-range". "Low-mid range" seems to sound better. Now that I've cleared that up, obviously a computer with worse specs than an Xbox 360 will perform like an old toaster compared to it. But most modern $400-$500 PC's I've seen (most computers in that range are usually considered low-to-mid) benchmarked have around 40-60 FPS in Minecraft. If those things can handle Minecraft just fine, than I don't see why console players keep claiming their console can outperform all PC's below $1000 when an Xbox 360 performs around the same as a low-mid-range PC.
By the way, I never said a PC in that range can handle Minecraft "infinitely". Just that an Xbox 360 isn't much better than those ones.
See above...
It doesn't matter at that point how much FPS you have. Your eyes have a refresh rate of ~24 FPS, so anything above 40 will make no difference in the smoothness of the game.
We are still talking about world size, aren't we? If so why can a poor PC handle infinite worlds if a Xbox with much better hardware can't? Or am I wrong and it can't? I really don't know...
No, the guy I was originally replying to was stating that an Xbox 360 can beat any PC that's not top of the line, which is far from the truth. In terms of world size, though, no system even with top of the range parts can handle infinite worlds. Way, WAY too much processing for that. The game can just about handle worlds of its' current size, and that's about it.
Oh, ok. But I meant If a poor PC can handle high end PC world sizes, theoretically can't a xbox with better specs than the poor PC handle high end PC sized worlds. Or can a poor PC not even handle worlds that big?
I agree. I didn't really notice too much of a difference when I had 100 FPS on my old card compared to 300 FPS on my new one. It already looks smooth at 40 FPS. But we're not talking about whether framerates above 40 FPS really matter or not, we're talking about overall performance of these systems. Yes, it may not matter because no one will see a huge difference, but if the Xbox 360 is restricted to 60 FPS while my mid-high-range PC can get 300 FPS in Minecraft, obviously a mid-to-high range PC can outperform an Xbox 360.
By the way, I was only making that point in a reply to masterfable117, who said that most computers, other than top-of-the-line gaming PC's, are crap compared to an Xbox, which is complete ********.
(BTW, I didn't say a poor PC can run Minecraft on the highest settings, just that it can still squeeze out maybe a tiny bit smaller framerate as an Xbox can.) Well, all worlds in Minecraft are the same size. Regardless of whether your PC barely meets system requirements or annihilates them, the size of the world you play in will stay the same. So with that, any PC meeting the system requirements can handle the size of the worlds, and so can an Xbox. A poor PC that is old but meets the required specs can handle those world sizes.
If you're asking how a poor PC can handle infinite worlds and an Xbox can't...well, nothing can run infinite worlds. Like I said before, it's just WAY too much rendering & processing for even the best PC available. It'll be working its' ass off rendering all that terrain, which will just slow it down and drag your framerates down with it. Hope that clears it up. I never did say poor PC's can handle infinite worlds, just that it can perform the same as an Xbox 360, if the parts can handle it.
I never said you said any of those things. We are both confused now.
Yes, we are...