oh wow, bring your fanboy a55 over to any other neutral gaming forum and watch this paragraph get torn to shreds.
the 360 has already proven it has better graphical capabilities. the ps3's cell is a b/tch to program for and you constantly see cross platform games look and even play better on the 360. i mean for god sakes i know this is an apple forum and its usually anti-microsoft everything but seriously all it takes is a quick peak around any gaming blog, magazine, or site to see how the ps3 has been received.
the best games of this generation have been on the 360. UT didn't even sell well on the ps3, i'm sure its a decent game and the online will be infinitely better on the 360 but thats all you have? UT and Uncharted? sad.
the whole disk storage hoopla has already been deflated. also, the higher resolution myth has been debunked and with added insult (360 games are known to have higher frame rates).
honestly, where have you been man? you need a serious update.
AAA 360 titles
Halo 3 (best selling game of 2007)
Bioshock (game of the year 2007)
Gears of War (game of the year 2006)
Mass Effect
Forza 2
Crackdown
Dead or Alive 5
Saints Row
Dead Rising
Project Gotham Racing 3
just to name a few.
All you have is it's hard to program for... That's because MS developers are second rate hacks. The 360 has not proven anywhere it has better graphical capabilities. The disc space thing... ?? How could that be debunked? Everybody knows the 360 Max size for game content is standard DVD so what 8, 9 GB's. Your the one who seems to be the fanboy. The big difference between the 360 and the PS3 is the system. THe PS3 system is starting to show why it's better. The 360 is the same platform that the original XBOX was. Developers didn't have to learn much of anything new when it came out because it was almost identical. The PS3 is a totally new system architecture. Some of the early games were not optimized for the system properly, but all the new ones are showing their superiority. Madden is a perfect example. It had it's spots where full optimization and even shadow casts were not achieved, but in the places developers understood how to do the programming it was technically superior. Time Shift. 360 version online barely moves from what I hear. once multiple players start shifting time the whole server is drained, and lags like it's dragging dead bodies. PS3's new CELL processors has not showed that problem one bit when I've played. What's this about UT3 sales? There are more active PS3 servers for this game than I have ever seen in a PC or Mac Version, and they also just finished making a change that allows user created MOD's on the console version. Where is that 360 version? Hardly...
All you have is it's hard to program for... That's because MS developers are second rate hacks. The 360 has not proven anywhere it has better graphical capabilities. The disc space thing... ?? How could that be debunked? Everybody knows the 360 Max size for game content is standard DVD so what 8, 9 GB's. Your the one who seems to be the fanboy. The big difference between the 360 and the PS3 is the system. THe PS3 system is starting to show why it's better. The 360 is the same platform that the original XBOX was. Developers didn't have to learn much of anything new when it came out because it was almost identical. The PS3 is a totally new system architecture. Some of the early games were not optimized for the system properly, but all the new ones are showing their superiority. Madden is a perfect example. It had it's spots where full optimization and even shadow casts were not achieved, but in the places developers understood how to do the programming it was technically superior. Time Shift. 360 version online barely moves from what I hear. once multiple players start shifting time the whole server is drained, and lags like it's dragging dead bodies. PS3's new CELL processors has not showed that problem one bit when I've played. What's this about UT3 sales? There are more active PS3 servers for this game than I have ever seen in a PC or Mac Version, and they also just finished making a change that allows user created MOD's on the console version. Where is that 360 version? Hardly...
you're honestly deranged. UT3 is going to play just as good and may even look better on the 360. the modding is a different story since xbox live is strict on user created content. frankly, i could careless about the modding.
i mean where in the world is the ps3 starting to show that its a better system?
xbox live- better
games- better (both financially and critically)
content- better (movie downloads, arcade games)
the only area hte ps3 is beating the 360 is in the hd movie department. once and hopefully soon when bluray is the standard microsoft can go ahead and either install a player in future 360's or provide an external drive like they did for hd-dvd.
oh and here some more concrete examples
Quote:
Ex Harmonix Developer Jason Booth on the PS3:
I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common misconceptions:
"The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"
Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.
"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"
In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.
"Uh, Blue Ray!"
Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream.
"But it's got a lot more space than DVD"
Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.
"Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and it will be amazing"
I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to be fun or not is another question.
Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an 'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response slower.
So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into practical realities for a moment:
Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and why exclusives often suck:
As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3 requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance. Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.
The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.
Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources, do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3 to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have often sacrificed their game in the process.
This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community. They are going to loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and usable machine.
all you've given me is sony marketing spin. seriously, if i wanted to hear that kind of rebuttal i could go listen or read one of their famously asinine PR persons.
That is such bull shit. The PS3 is a better system, and the gameplay proves it. UT3 can not even fit on an 360 Disk. When and if the 360 version comes out the game is going to be smaller than the PS3 version, Lower resolution, less Maps, less content. Confirmed!, Uncharted on the 360... Not a chance. All the texture Maps in full HD resolution, and take up over 20GB of disk. Not going to happen. TimeShift on the 360... Plays like shit. That's what everybody says. The System can not handle the game. PS3.. Flawless. So don't give me that PS3 is a bogus system nonsense.
I just read that MLB '08: The Show has 10GB of just dialogue.
all you've given me is sony marketing spin. seriously, if i wanted to hear that kind of rebuttal i could go listen or read one of their famously asinine PR persons.
It's funny, I can tell that if you were to play almost any PS3 game, your pride would get in the way of you enjoying it.
You CAN NOT say it has better games. That is opinion. Don't act like it is fact. I have both consoles. I don't need to argue with you why the PS3 is better. Do you own one? If not, back off, and take your pride with you.
For the record, Microsoft has already stated that they will DEFINITELY not make a Blu-ray add on for the 360, or have anything to do with it for that matter.
And for the record, the PS3 hardware is far superior. The 360 hardware blows.
I just read that MLB '08: The Show has 10GB of just dialogue.
I assume you are being sarcastic, but Rockstar said that there were many things they couldn't do with GTA IV because of disc space limitations. Going forward, apparently, Rockstar is doing games more exclusively for the PS3.
Game enjoyment is totally opinion bases, I have had all three. I found the Wii too gimmicky, I don't want to way a controller at the screen all the time. I was paranoid of hardware failures from the 360 and don't like FPS. Elixir, not one of those games you listed off appeal to me in any way shape or form, does that mean I think the 360 blows? Not really. I could care less, I have a PS3 that I am confident will last a long time through gaming and movie watching.
Why are you guys arguing about 360 Vs. PS3? Surely everyone knows the Wii is where it's at
Personally I have no interest in games, but the PS3 is still interesting for its blu-ray and streaming capabilities. The only thing is, how come no one ever mentions the fact that the PS3 is seriously butt-ugly? I hope Sony is working on a revision.
you're honestly deranged. UT3 is going to play just as good and may even look better on the 360. the modding is a different story since xbox live is strict on user created content. frankly, i could careless about the modding.
i mean where in the world is the ps3 starting to show that its a better system?
#1 How on earth is going to look better? Will it be the 640x480 texture map's vs. the PS3's HDRI Textures? Hmmm..? Will it be all the Maps that can not fit in the game? Will it be the game modes that they may not even be able to include?
Tell me how the hell it's supposed to look better when they have already talked about dropping it all together for the xbox because it's limiting their game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elixir
xbox live- better
games- better (both financially and critically)
content- better (movie downloads, arcade games)
PS3 Store, and FREE online play, has everything xbox live does, other than movie downloads, and it's free. There are downloadable Demo's (like the new Grand Turismo that I got tonight), and downloadable Arcade games is not exclusive to he XBOX. I Have Tekken 5 Dark Conflict. Joust, Mortal Combat 2, and Rampage that all came from the PS3 store, and I also got my copy of Warhawk there. The PS3 store has seen 7 or 8 updates in the month I've had my PS3, and the not only does sony keep adding content they also add features. They have downloadable Movie trailers, and I would imaging Movies themselves will be next. Don't forget it's free!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elixir
the only area hte ps3 is beating the 360 is in the hd movie department. once and hopefully soon when bluray is the standard microsoft can go ahead and either install a player in future 360's or provide an external drive like they did for hd-dvd.
............................
Microsoft has already stated they are not going to have a Blu Ray add on for the 360. Your system is already falling behind as games get bigger, and better, but all you've figured out is how to do is pretend that the PS3 didn't recently pass the 360 in gaming so you try and bullshit your way through it. Not going to work. .
i'm asking you where its falling behind? i mean all i get from people in here is "going to", thats the card the ps3 crowd has been playing since day 1. and yes i have played plenty of ps3 titles. again, i reference you to industry wide reports, blogs, journals, reviews, critics, fan reaction... do you want me to do the googling?
i gave you a list of games, a list of critically acclaimed games for both systems and you are still sitting here telling me the 360 is falling behind.... where!?
enough with your UT argument because when it comes out for the 360 and it looks as good or better i will shove it so far down your throat. have you played a game called GEARS OF WAR???? the game of the year for 2006? the highest selling Epic game EVER? i think you should check it out.
you're really fooled with the bluray aren't you? the bluray storage has does nothing positive to the ps3's gaming experience as of yet, nothing. its hoopla, they want to push bluray into homes, it does nothing for gaming. the ps3 store is mediocre, and the FREE online play is pure sh/t. i mean when has a free SERVICE ever been decent? its like the ps2 network with a new coat of paint. you dont even have unified voice chat for christ sakes lmao. maybe you should go back and read why the orange box was rated so high for the 360 compared to the ps3, ya know do some research or something.
microsoft said they dont have plans for bluray right now and they will continue supporting hd-dvd. this does not mean they will never bring bluray over to the 360, after all this is microsoft we're talking about.
That's because MS developers are second rate hacks.
...
The 360 is the same platform that the original XBOX was. Developers didn't have to learn much of anything new when it came out because it was almost identical.
There are some dev teams where they are entirely separate. There are others where the PS3 and XBox 360 devs overlap quite a bit.
The reason the 360 is easier to code for isn't because its the same as the XBox (easily disproven) but because Microsoft has a superior toolchain. They are a software not a hardware company. The 360, from a dev perspective, beats the PS3 for the same reasons that Apple products are much easier and better than Sony products. The software is a lot better.
While the PS3 hardware is much nicer and the buuild quality much higher...I like the 360 exclusives much better. I also like the fact that if I were so inclined I could build an indy game for the 360.
MS did a lot of stuff right and their marketshare in comparison to the XBox has reflected that. The RRoD and DVD limitation is reflected in marketshare numbers as well. Had MS managed perfect execution, the PS3 would be worse off. Eventually I'll get a 360 when it goes all 65nm and no more RRoD. For now, I'm getting a PS3 and will play Mass Effect at a friend's house.
UT3 will look bad on the PS3 because Epic is incompetent, that is what the whole Silicon Knights lawsuit is about.
And I have both PS3 and 360 hardware, the 360 is like a tinker toy compared to the PS3. Microsoft shouldn't be in the hardware business - they suck. Mr H - have you even seen a PS3? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I have them right beside each other on my shelf and the 360 is outclassed in my eye (and my wife's).
Now, I'm not ditching the 360 since it has so many games, but when it dies (and it will die, every 360 ever made is defective) it won't be replaced by another one. The wii is cool also, but it has a short shelf life (mine has sat idle for months).
PS3 Store, and FREE online play, has everything xbox live does, other than movie downloads, and it's free.
Movie downloads I think are a nice capability. Sony wont approach the XBox Live until Home gets released. Once that's here then for gaming there will be parity if not superiority depending on how well Home works.
Now, I'm not ditching the 360 since it has so many games, but when it dies (and it will die, every 360 ever made is defective) it won't be replaced by another one.
Er, why? Isn't it free and the warranty extended to, what is it? 3 years?
UT3 will look bad on the PS3 because Epic is incompetent, that is what the whole Silicon Knights lawsuit is about.
).
Epic has proven time and time again why they are a premier developing company. the unreal engine has now powered 2 consecutive games of the year (gears of war 06, and bioshock in 07) coincidently both xbox 360 exclusives.
unreal tournament 3 already proved a good port can be done on the ps3 but with much investment and work. its going to be interesting to see how well it looks on the 360 considering it was written for the PC before the PS3.
Epic has proven time and time again why they are a premier developing company. the unreal engine has now powered 2 consecutive games of the year (gears of war 06, and bioshock in 07) coincidently both xbox 360 exclusives.
unreal tournament 3 already proved a good port can be done on the ps3 but with much investment and work. its going to be interesting to see how well it looks on the 360 considering it was written for the PC before the PS3.
Neither bioshock or gears of war were on the PS3 - it is the PS3 version of the engine that sucks so harshly, but maybe is sucks less than it did (I didn't realize that UT3 was out for the PS3 yet, and it got good reviews on gamespot - but that could just be paid for reviews).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Er, why? Isn't it free and the warranty extended to, what is it? 3 years?
Well, I am an early adopter, so I only have half of that left - if it dies under warranty then fine, but they have been sending broken refurbs back to people who return the 360 under warranty.
Neither bioshock or gears of war were on the PS3 - it is the PS3 version of the engine that sucks so harshly, but maybe is sucks less than it did (I didn't realize that UT3 was out for the PS3 yet, and it got good reviews on gamespot - but that could just be paid for reviews).
.
i dont understand what you're saying. you said silicon knights sued epic, which they did but they did over an xbox 360 exclusive as well. in my opinion i think silicon knights just had their own problems with the engine and decided to pass their blame off on epic.
epics engine has powered a few games and even their own to critical and mass success soo????
UT3 on the ps3 is probably the best looking port (which there aren't many) on the system. COD4 also looks pretty good on the ps3. again, i remind you that many ports to the ps3 have looked like pure junk, even coming well after the 360 version.
a recent port called Lost Planet that came out over a year ago on the 360 has been causing a lot of frustration amongst the ps3 crowd because it has been done so poorly. i reference you back up to my quoting of one of harmonix's programers on to why it may be this way.
UT3 is already out for the ps3 and its coming to the 360 shortly.
Holy cow. Nearly a full page of gamer kid posturing. Could we please stay on topic for the denouement of this multi-year Blu-ray v. HD DVD epic?
Gamer kid? I'm 40 with a 20 year old daughter...
Oh - wait a minute, I am "level 40" that's it! We should re-define age to be levels, like in Wow, maybe that would get the respect for elders back into society.
Exlir - for some reason I thought that "too human" was a PS3 game, so you were right - but I still think that Epic will lose the lawsuits.
Comments
oh wow, bring your fanboy a55 over to any other neutral gaming forum and watch this paragraph get torn to shreds.
the 360 has already proven it has better graphical capabilities. the ps3's cell is a b/tch to program for and you constantly see cross platform games look and even play better on the 360. i mean for god sakes i know this is an apple forum and its usually anti-microsoft everything but seriously all it takes is a quick peak around any gaming blog, magazine, or site to see how the ps3 has been received.
the best games of this generation have been on the 360. UT didn't even sell well on the ps3, i'm sure its a decent game and the online will be infinitely better on the 360 but thats all you have? UT and Uncharted? sad.
the whole disk storage hoopla has already been deflated. also, the higher resolution myth has been debunked and with added insult (360 games are known to have higher frame rates).
honestly, where have you been man? you need a serious update.
AAA 360 titles
Halo 3 (best selling game of 2007)
Bioshock (game of the year 2007)
Gears of War (game of the year 2006)
Mass Effect
Forza 2
Crackdown
Dead or Alive 5
Saints Row
Dead Rising
Project Gotham Racing 3
just to name a few.
All you have is it's hard to program for... That's because MS developers are second rate hacks. The 360 has not proven anywhere it has better graphical capabilities. The disc space thing... ?? How could that be debunked? Everybody knows the 360 Max size for game content is standard DVD so what 8, 9 GB's. Your the one who seems to be the fanboy.
All you have is it's hard to program for... That's because MS developers are second rate hacks. The 360 has not proven anywhere it has better graphical capabilities. The disc space thing... ?? How could that be debunked? Everybody knows the 360 Max size for game content is standard DVD so what 8, 9 GB's. Your the one who seems to be the fanboy.
you're honestly deranged. UT3 is going to play just as good and may even look better on the 360. the modding is a different story since xbox live is strict on user created content. frankly, i could careless about the modding.
i mean where in the world is the ps3 starting to show that its a better system?
xbox live- better
games- better (both financially and critically)
content- better (movie downloads, arcade games)
the only area hte ps3 is beating the 360 is in the hd movie department. once and hopefully soon when bluray is the standard microsoft can go ahead and either install a player in future 360's or provide an external drive like they did for hd-dvd.
oh and here some more concrete examples
Ex Harmonix Developer Jason Booth on the PS3:
I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common misconceptions:
"The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"
Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.
"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"
In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.
"Uh, Blue Ray!"
Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream.
"But it's got a lot more space than DVD"
Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.
"Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and it will be amazing"
I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to be fun or not is another question.
Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an 'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response slower.
So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into practical realities for a moment:
Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and why exclusives often suck:
As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3 requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance. Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.
The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.
Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources, do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3 to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have often sacrificed their game in the process.
This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community. They are going to loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and usable machine.
all you've given me is sony marketing spin. seriously, if i wanted to hear that kind of rebuttal i could go listen or read one of their famously asinine PR persons.
That is such bull shit. The PS3 is a better system, and the gameplay proves it. UT3 can not even fit on an 360 Disk. When and if the 360 version comes out the game is going to be smaller than the PS3 version, Lower resolution, less Maps, less content. Confirmed!, Uncharted on the 360... Not a chance. All the texture Maps in full HD resolution, and take up over 20GB of disk. Not going to happen. TimeShift on the 360... Plays like shit. That's what everybody says. The System can not handle the game. PS3.. Flawless. So don't give me that PS3 is a bogus system nonsense.
I just read that MLB '08: The Show has 10GB of just dialogue.
all you've given me is sony marketing spin. seriously, if i wanted to hear that kind of rebuttal i could go listen or read one of their famously asinine PR persons.
It's funny, I can tell that if you were to play almost any PS3 game, your pride would get in the way of you enjoying it.
You CAN NOT say it has better games. That is opinion. Don't act like it is fact. I have both consoles. I don't need to argue with you why the PS3 is better. Do you own one? If not, back off, and take your pride with you.
Cheers.
And for the record, the PS3 hardware is far superior. The 360 hardware blows.
33% Failure rate? No thanks.
I just read that MLB '08: The Show has 10GB of just dialogue.
I assume you are being sarcastic, but Rockstar said that there were many things they couldn't do with GTA IV because of disc space limitations. Going forward, apparently, Rockstar is doing games more exclusively for the PS3.
Game enjoyment is totally opinion bases, I have had all three. I found the Wii too gimmicky, I don't want to way a controller at the screen all the time. I was paranoid of hardware failures from the 360 and don't like FPS. Elixir, not one of those games you listed off appeal to me in any way shape or form, does that mean I think the 360 blows? Not really. I could care less, I have a PS3 that I am confident will last a long time through gaming and movie watching.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand...
Personally I have no interest in games, but the PS3 is still interesting for its blu-ray and streaming capabilities. The only thing is, how come no one ever mentions the fact that the PS3 is seriously butt-ugly? I hope Sony is working on a revision.
you're honestly deranged. UT3 is going to play just as good and may even look better on the 360. the modding is a different story since xbox live is strict on user created content. frankly, i could careless about the modding.
i mean where in the world is the ps3 starting to show that its a better system?
#1 How on earth is going to look better? Will it be the 640x480 texture map's vs. the PS3's HDRI Textures? Hmmm..? Will it be all the Maps that can not fit in the game? Will it be the game modes that they may not even be able to include?
Tell me how the hell it's supposed to look better when they have already talked about dropping it all together for the xbox because it's limiting their game?
xbox live- better
games- better (both financially and critically)
content- better (movie downloads, arcade games)
PS3 Store, and FREE online play, has everything xbox live does, other than movie downloads, and it's free. There are downloadable Demo's (like the new Grand Turismo that I got tonight), and downloadable Arcade games is not exclusive to he XBOX. I Have Tekken 5 Dark Conflict. Joust, Mortal Combat 2, and Rampage that all came from the PS3 store, and I also got my copy of Warhawk there. The PS3 store has seen 7 or 8 updates in the month I've had my PS3, and the not only does sony keep adding content they also add features. They have downloadable Movie trailers, and I would imaging Movies themselves will be next. Don't forget it's free!!!!
the only area hte ps3 is beating the 360 is in the hd movie department. once and hopefully soon when bluray is the standard microsoft can go ahead and either install a player in future 360's or provide an external drive like they did for hd-dvd.
............................
Microsoft has already stated they are not going to have a Blu Ray add on for the 360. Your system is already falling behind as games get bigger, and better, but all you've figured out is how to do is pretend that the PS3 didn't recently pass the 360 in gaming so you try and bullshit your way through it. Not going to work. .
i gave you a list of games, a list of critically acclaimed games for both systems and you are still sitting here telling me the 360 is falling behind.... where!?
enough with your UT argument because when it comes out for the 360 and it looks as good or better i will shove it so far down your throat. have you played a game called GEARS OF WAR???? the game of the year for 2006? the highest selling Epic game EVER? i think you should check it out.
you're really fooled with the bluray aren't you? the bluray storage has does nothing positive to the ps3's gaming experience as of yet, nothing. its hoopla, they want to push bluray into homes, it does nothing for gaming. the ps3 store is mediocre, and the FREE online play is pure sh/t. i mean when has a free SERVICE ever been decent? its like the ps2 network with a new coat of paint. you dont even have unified voice chat for christ sakes lmao. maybe you should go back and read why the orange box was rated so high for the 360 compared to the ps3, ya know do some research or something.
microsoft said they dont have plans for bluray right now and they will continue supporting hd-dvd. this does not mean they will never bring bluray over to the 360, after all this is microsoft we're talking about.
That's because MS developers are second rate hacks.
...
The 360 is the same platform that the original XBOX was. Developers didn't have to learn much of anything new when it came out because it was almost identical.
There are some dev teams where they are entirely separate. There are others where the PS3 and XBox 360 devs overlap quite a bit.
The reason the 360 is easier to code for isn't because its the same as the XBox (easily disproven) but because Microsoft has a superior toolchain. They are a software not a hardware company. The 360, from a dev perspective, beats the PS3 for the same reasons that Apple products are much easier and better than Sony products. The software is a lot better.
While the PS3 hardware is much nicer and the buuild quality much higher...I like the 360 exclusives much better. I also like the fact that if I were so inclined I could build an indy game for the 360.
MS did a lot of stuff right and their marketshare in comparison to the XBox has reflected that. The RRoD and DVD limitation is reflected in marketshare numbers as well. Had MS managed perfect execution, the PS3 would be worse off. Eventually I'll get a 360 when it goes all 65nm and no more RRoD. For now, I'm getting a PS3 and will play Mass Effect at a friend's house.
#1 How on earth is going to look better?
UT3 will look bad on the PS3 because Epic is incompetent, that is what the whole Silicon Knights lawsuit is about.
And I have both PS3 and 360 hardware, the 360 is like a tinker toy compared to the PS3. Microsoft shouldn't be in the hardware business - they suck. Mr H - have you even seen a PS3? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I have them right beside each other on my shelf and the 360 is outclassed in my eye (and my wife's).
Now, I'm not ditching the 360 since it has so many games, but when it dies (and it will die, every 360 ever made is defective) it won't be replaced by another one. The wii is cool also, but it has a short shelf life (mine has sat idle for months).
PS3 Store, and FREE online play, has everything xbox live does, other than movie downloads, and it's free.
Movie downloads I think are a nice capability. Sony wont approach the XBox Live until Home gets released. Once that's here then for gaming there will be parity if not superiority depending on how well Home works.
Now, I'm not ditching the 360 since it has so many games, but when it dies (and it will die, every 360 ever made is defective) it won't be replaced by another one.
Er, why? Isn't it free and the warranty extended to, what is it? 3 years?
Mr H - have you even seen a PS3?
Yes. It's a horrible bulging monstrosity.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I have them right beside each other on my shelf and the 360 is outclassed in my eye (and my wife's).
I wasn't making any comparison to the 360. The 360 is ugly in its own way and is certainly more flimsy.
UT3 will look bad on the PS3 because Epic is incompetent, that is what the whole Silicon Knights lawsuit is about.
).
Epic has proven time and time again why they are a premier developing company. the unreal engine has now powered 2 consecutive games of the year (gears of war 06, and bioshock in 07) coincidently both xbox 360 exclusives.
unreal tournament 3 already proved a good port can be done on the ps3 but with much investment and work. its going to be interesting to see how well it looks on the 360 considering it was written for the PC before the PS3.
Epic has proven time and time again why they are a premier developing company. the unreal engine has now powered 2 consecutive games of the year (gears of war 06, and bioshock in 07) coincidently both xbox 360 exclusives.
unreal tournament 3 already proved a good port can be done on the ps3 but with much investment and work. its going to be interesting to see how well it looks on the 360 considering it was written for the PC before the PS3.
Neither bioshock or gears of war were on the PS3 - it is the PS3 version of the engine that sucks so harshly, but maybe is sucks less than it did (I didn't realize that UT3 was out for the PS3 yet, and it got good reviews on gamespot - but that could just be paid for reviews).
Er, why? Isn't it free and the warranty extended to, what is it? 3 years?
Well, I am an early adopter, so I only have half of that left - if it dies under warranty then fine, but they have been sending broken refurbs back to people who return the 360 under warranty.
Neither bioshock or gears of war were on the PS3 - it is the PS3 version of the engine that sucks so harshly, but maybe is sucks less than it did (I didn't realize that UT3 was out for the PS3 yet, and it got good reviews on gamespot - but that could just be paid for reviews).
.
i dont understand what you're saying. you said silicon knights sued epic, which they did but they did over an xbox 360 exclusive as well. in my opinion i think silicon knights just had their own problems with the engine and decided to pass their blame off on epic.
epics engine has powered a few games and even their own to critical and mass success soo????
UT3 on the ps3 is probably the best looking port (which there aren't many) on the system. COD4 also looks pretty good on the ps3. again, i remind you that many ports to the ps3 have looked like pure junk, even coming well after the 360 version.
a recent port called Lost Planet that came out over a year ago on the 360 has been causing a lot of frustration amongst the ps3 crowd because it has been done so poorly. i reference you back up to my quoting of one of harmonix's programers on to why it may be this way.
UT3 is already out for the ps3 and its coming to the 360 shortly.
Holy cow. Nearly a full page of gamer kid posturing. Could we please stay on topic for the denouement of this multi-year Blu-ray v. HD DVD epic?
Gamer kid? I'm 40 with a 20 year old daughter...
Oh - wait a minute, I am "level 40" that's it! We should re-define age to be levels, like in Wow, maybe that would get the respect for elders back into society.
Exlir - for some reason I thought that "too human" was a PS3 game, so you were right - but I still think that Epic will lose the lawsuits.