X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 10

By Richard Leadbetter Published 25 March, 2008

Vegas 2, Army of Two, Lost, Blacksite, Conflict, Lost Planet, DW6.

Page 1 of 7

Welcome to the latest in Eurogamer's on-going coverage of cross-format games development, our chance to go back and supplement existing reviews with additional console-specific coverage.

As is the norm, there's roundup commentary on the gameplay of each title, combined with technical analysis for both PS3 and Xbox 360 releases. Backing that up is the usual range of 720p and 1080p (where PS3 supports it) full precision, full-range 24-bit RGB dumps of every game, courtesy of the Digital Foundry HD capture unit. With Eurogamer you get the full, uncompressed picture of what the respective consoles are pumping out, with no recourse to murky, jerky streaming video.

Onto the games then. There's quite an intriguing line-up of the best and the very, very worst in cross-platform development in this round, with an unintended emphasis on co-op gameplay and Epic's Unreal Engine 3 technology.

Thanks to the Beyond 3D Forums' Quaz51 for additional technical analysis on Army of Two and Lost: The Video Game.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2

I'm somewhat late to the Rainbow Six party, getting my first taste with the last Vegas game I covered in the third face-off last year. I liked what I saw so much that I played through the entire single-player campaign in a few days. The control system felt refined and mature, the graphics were (and still are) excellent and the game took on an entirely new dimension when played online. The fact that it was an excellent PlayStation 3 conversion was the icing on the cake.

But Rainbow Six Vegas 2? In many ways, it's a solid progression. The ability to use the same character persistently throughout the online and offline modes is an obvious but highly successful addition to the formula, and the customisation options are excellent. Seamless integration of co-op into the single-player campaign is another decent addition (though two-player-only does rankle), but more than that, the make-up of the levels has clearly been designed with multiplayer gameplay in mind. Multiplayer is as good as ever it was, and, once again, Terrorist Hunt is a real high point.

But like Kristan, away from the multiplayer options, I found the solo campaign to be a real disappointment. He found it too easy, I found it dull and annoying. The original Vegas' juxtaposition of tactical shooting in a glamorous, glitzy environment was a risky idea, but - credit to Ubisoft here - it worked. In Vegas 2, the locations are much less interesting (welcome back office blocks and warehouses) and the continual process of snake-cam, door-busting shoot-outs becomes progressively monotonous.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 10' Screenshot r6

Not to mention frustrating. Even on default difficulty level, the enemies are crack shots - one false move and you're dead. Often you've no idea where incoming fire is directed from, so death is frequent and frustrating. Combine that with key 'set-pieces' that have terrorists spawning out of nowhere (usually on the protection missions) and I found myself forced to play on just to do this piece justice, as opposed to playing for fun as I did with the first Vegas. In most cases, sending in your squad ahead of you to attract enemy fire seems to be the best way forward as, bizarrely, the terrorists seem to have a much tougher time gunning them down. Hardly a fair or sporting way to progress, but at least it forces you to make full use of the team.

So very definitely a Jekyll and Hyde sort of a game for me, significantly better than the first Vegas in any multiplayer scenario but undeniably disappointing for those after a decent solo campaign, where it really seems as though the development team has run out of ideas.

In terms of the cross-format analysis, Ubisoft has had an excellent run of form with the Unreal Engine technology. With just the occasional difference in special effects and lighting, the original Vegas was essentially the same game on both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Ubi's Phil Therien promised the same level of parity on the sequel in several press interviews, and by and large, the company has delivered. However, in the case of Vegas 2, that doesn't seem like such a big deal as the game feels sparser and less detailed than its predecessor. Somehow, the move away from the casino environments seems like much less of a workout for the Epic middleware.

There's good news for 1080p display owners too. After the unmitigated disaster of the 'full HD' support in the original Rainbow Six Vegas, which somehow managed to look about as impressive as a badly scaled 480p image, the developers simply haven't bothered this time around. Of course, the 360 version scales up nicely to any resolution as is the norm with the system hardware, but at least this time PS3 owners won't have to fiddle about with the XMB settings just to make the game run at its best.

Page 1 of 7

Comments (213) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • soylent_grey #1 4 years ago

    Awesome Jacobean style homepage image, more of that if you please!

  • andromeda #2 4 years ago

    another pointless article, followed by some juicy page hits

  • octo #3 4 years ago

    I actually got to play my first PS3 game last weekend. The game was Drakes Fortune. I was not particularly impressed by the way the game looked. Even in HD. I no longer own a console but I did own a 360 from launch day up until just before Halo 3 came out. I realize I only have one game for comparison, and therefore cannot give an accurate impression, but from my experience and from reading these comparison articles it seems that there is very little, if anything, between the capability of the systems.

    Didn't Sony say that developers were starting to make the ps3 their lead platform a few months ago?

  • MBar #4 4 years ago

    another pointless article, followed by some juicy page hits

    I disagree, and since you didn't give reasons, I won't either.

  • KingOfSpain #5 4 years ago

    I have always enjoyed these articles EG but feel free to stop them now.

  • betahoven #6 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:36:16 17-12-2011

  • JohnnyWashnGo #7 4 years ago

    I have never found favour with cross platform games. For some reason, they seem to be inferior than the equivilent games written for one hardware spec alone.

  • Lawlost #8 4 years ago

    for me I just want to see a face off on Grand Theft Auto 4, which is likely to be the definitive face off, whoever wins that, WINS

  • Les #9 4 years ago

    "I have never found favour with cross platform games. For some reason, they seem to be inferior than the equivilent games written for one hardware spec alone."

    +1

  • Mindstorm #10 4 years ago

    Blahblahblahblah!

    and...

    Blahblahblahblah!!!

  • jaluuk #11 4 years ago

    Christ, how many more of these articles are there going to be? Please, less of these and more of your fantastic reviews.

  • aldo_14 #12 4 years ago

    for me I just want to see a face off on Grand Theft Auto 4, which is likely to be the definitive face off, whoever wins that, WINS

    Absolutely, methinks. Unless there's a Pc version of GTA4, in which case I'll save the cost of a new console and buy that. ;)

  • GamesConnoisseur #13 4 years ago

    Another one already!

    'for me I just want to see a face off on Grand Theft Auto 4, which is likely to be the definitive face off, whoever wins that, WINS '

    Deffo looking forward to GTA4 head to head, but doubt that whoever win that will go on to win the current gen!
    However it may settle few arguments but come on, the detractors on each side will just readjust their position and say 'the coding for other platform held up.'. 'the issue of hardware memory/DVD had forced lowest common ..' or perhaps moving onto other multi platform games coming up later this year as being a more fair test!!

    Grow up just accept the results so far, what is clear is that X360 is a marginally better gaming console and that PS3 do come out second best in the overall competition, but in a majority of time there is actually not much NOTICEABLE differences especially to those who only owns one console!

    I was only suprised with Army of Two, borders on PS3!! Heck!

  • Grom #14 4 years ago

    Why the hell are you re-reviewing the games in these articles? If it's about PS3 vs 360 then just stick to the technical and gameplay differences. Otherwise you're just underlining the pointlessness of this series of articles.

  • Les #15 4 years ago

    "but in a majority of time there is actually not much NOTICEABLE differences especially to those who only owns one console!"

    Actually, there will be no noticeable differences at all for those that own just one console... ;)

  • LeD #16 4 years ago

    The PS3 is taking another pasting. Oh my, will it ever end?

  • adamamosa #17 4 years ago

    Fanboy Fodder

  • Darren #18 4 years ago

    The most intriguing thing about this article is how on earth EG manage to get such similar looking screenshots from both games given that some are taken from action scenes. That impresses me far more than the actual comparisons themselves although as per usual it is the Xbox 360 that offers the best visual experience so no surprises there. Seems to me that the PS3's Achilles' Heel is its poor anti-aliasing capabilities in comparison to the Xbox 360.

  • Wendelius #19 4 years ago

    Guys, please remember: Useful info if you have both consoles and are set on buying one of these games despite their "averageness".

    It's not fanboy fodder or anything unless you take the thread in that direction. You could just read this like those cross platform comparisons we do sometimes request in comments and just use it to know where the game runs best. *shrugs*

    Wendelius

  • robg #20 4 years ago

    @Grom - agreed.

    @headbog - well, you must be some 360-loving noob if you think being anti PS3-bashing is a bad thing. Or is it bashing anti-PS3 people that's the problem?

    While I only own a Wii, and don't care either way between these 2 consoles, it does seem that the PS3 crowd get very defensive and start calling these articles "pointless" an awful lot, when for people who own both consoles (or are looking to buy one of them) they can be very helpful.

    If your console has crap versions of lots of games and the only thing it generally does better is having more storage space on its game medium, /so be it/. Presumably you didn't buy it so it would do well in this sort of review; you must have actually had a real reason for getting it, so why do you care enough to post here?

  • vadimur #21 4 years ago

    For console purists, 360 is definitely the way to go. Better performances, with better graphics implementation & detailed textures. *sigh*

  • Max_Powers #22 4 years ago

    Conclusion:

    Xbox > PS3

    Ten articles to underline this point is a bit much though!

  • LeD #23 4 years ago

    We all know where a game runs best. And that's on the 360, which will be the true home of GTA IV, with superior graphics, full Live integration, superior game pad, custom soundtracks and DLC. PS3 version is full of fail and has a higher high-street price.

  • GamesConnoisseur #24 4 years ago

    "but in a majority of time there is actually not much NOTICEABLE differences especially to those who only owns one console!"

    Actually, there will be no noticeable differences at all for those that own just one console... ;)

    Les, yes was being funny :-o !

    I know there were previous comments that articles are USEFUL for those who owns both consoles and need to be certain as to which version would be better. So made your mind up after 10 or so identical results yet?!!!

    Question is those who only own one console would care that much that the version they are playing are slightly inferior or so than other console? For them playing it it is the game in front that is important! Still the results speak for themselves inniit?! However that are not going to put people off getting PS3 or continue to play on it?

  • Apologie #25 4 years ago

    another worthless article...

  • Progguitarist #26 4 years ago

    The mandatory installs for the PS3 would piss me right off...still though, I'll probably get one for MGS4...

  • BillyBrush #27 4 years ago

    The day PS3 actually wins any games comparision will be the day these articles stop being 'useless' i susphect

  • Prodigy_BE #28 4 years ago

    Whoever thinks GTA4 will be more of the same... AGAIN, raises his hand
    After 3 PS2 games, and 2 PSP games, I kinda had enough.

    So mister Houser, amaze me, or be gone!

  • DrDamn #29 4 years ago

    I think these articles couched as they are have probably had their time now. What would be more useful is to retrospectively have a small comparisson piece added to the original review to help those who are trying to decide which platform they should buy a title for.

  • Progguitarist #30 4 years ago

    PS3 + 40gig HDD + Blu-Ray + 2 gameswith choppy frame rate + 2 Pads + Free online laggy gaming for life = £299 at Currys.

    360 + 20 gig HDD + 2 games = £219 at same shop.


    PS3 wins.

    Fixed.

    (Complete joke btw...Ive not played Ps3 yet...)

  • Widge #31 4 years ago

    RE: the comment about shit games right at the top

    how true indeed, its like a line up of games I would go out of my way not to own! That Conflict game is an absolute atrocity.

    The one thing that this does highlight though, for PS3 exclusives ( well, and GTA ;) ), its got to be the PS3 of course. For everything else and the 360 exclusives, its gotta be my laptop for platform of choice. Nothing beats Bioshock and C&C3 on the move, HDMI to HDTV when at home!

  • Widge #32 4 years ago

    oh PROGGUITARIST!

    you big stirrer ;)

    I have to say, I've never noticed any lag in my gaming, its better than my big black Xbox of last generation. Although thats mainly on Warhawk so not sure how the hosted servers impact on that.

  • Prodigy_BE #33 4 years ago

    Billybush, that's an insightfull statement. Just as they are usefull to Xbots now.

    Lets just all be happy with the console(s) we've bought!
    Even better, buy all three and play console exclusives only. 'Cause Johnnywashngo is right.

  • peteb #34 4 years ago

    why does everyone who does these PS3 vs 360 price comparisons always count the wireless adapter for 360? seriously, a CAT5e cable costs like £5 and is way better IMO. Its not like the wireless adapter is essential like, far from it.

  • orac1971 #35 4 years ago

    i think one reason for these face offs is that IGN, Gamespot etc. review the same game on each format. Eurogamer don't.

  • repairmanjack #36 4 years ago

    Conflict Denied Ops is less buggy/more polished than Vegas 2.

    Oh yes.

  • orac1971 #37 4 years ago

    I think one reason that they do these face-offs is that IGN, Gamespot etc. review the same game on all formats, whereas Eurogamer often don't

  • DrDamn #38 4 years ago

    @Peteb
    "why does everyone who does these PS3 vs 360 price comparisons always count the wireless adapter for 360?"

    Because it is massively overpriced probably.

  • OldMan #39 4 years ago

    There are hardly any articles attracting as many comments as these face offs, and every other comment is to tell how pointless these articles are! Well then, why read them, and why bother commenting? My life is surrounded with pointless stuff, but I don't add to the pointlessness by wasting my time telling the world about it every time.

    Fact is, the question of which console is the "real next gen" -- offering the superior technical quality-- has been the major marketing focus of Sony and, partly, of MS.

    EG's face offs simply subject the marketing propaganda to some systematic, critical judgement. That's good journalism. Fanboy fodder? Of course it is! The fanboy clans have deliberately been constructed around this issue by marketing strategies. Arguably, that makes EG's journalism even better.

  • peteb #40 4 years ago

    @DrDamn

    Yes well thats true, but you don't have to buy it, that's why I didn't! Same with the hilariously overpriced hard drives.

  • glaeken #41 4 years ago

    It does make me laugh how people are always saying Eurogamer should stop doing this articles. I mean why? Who is forcing anyone to read them.

    It's so clear those making these comments are just unhappy with the results of the comparisons and if their chosen platform were winning all the face off's they would have no problems with the articles.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 14:41

  • peteb #42 4 years ago

    @headbog

    It can still be done though. Even though CAT5 its not an ideal solution for you, I just dont think the wifi adapter should be considered an essential for everyone. For me I'm happy just running the CAT5 to the router when I want to use the net and then taking it out again when I'm done, not perfect, but it saves me buying the adapter and I never have to worry about signal degradation.

    As for the HDD issue, yea 20gb isn't much, but I just delete stuff im not playing, same with demos and everything else and the DLC hasn't taken up much space so far. Maybe by the time it becomes an issue the 120gb hard drive will be cheaper.

    Maybe. :D
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 14:46

  • Les #43 4 years ago

    "It's so clear those making these comments are just unhappy with the results of the comparisons and if their chosen platform were winning all the face off's they would have no problems with the articles."

    Rather bold statement. Like others (as well as I) mentioned before, cross platform comparisons are definitely valid at the time of the original review of a game. But doing them after the fact and in this form (mini-reviews with lots of information that's totally irrelevant to the 'face off') begs the question of their true intent. Nothing wrong with readers giving feedback to EG. Not that it helps though, quality keeps on slipping. At least the comments sections can be fun sometimes.

  • Widge #44 4 years ago

    Oh yeah, CAT5 is plausible in my house, but the madam wouldn't be happy with the wire running across my front room. There is homeplugs as a solution but wifi is happy convenient medium for now.

    Plus there are plenty of 'average joe' types who wifi is a given necessity. Someone on my team bought a 360 for their son, and was rather crestfallen when we went through the box and I pointed out that they'd need a wifi adapter. I didn't think they'd be too much money until I went online to find them a cheap one.

  • TheNinkyNonk #45 4 years ago

    EG IN FANBOY LUBE DISTRIBUTION SHOCKER

  • mattigan #46 4 years ago

    Even with all these pointless breakdowns of prices for peripherals you have to get for the 360 before it matches 'PS3 spec' (e.g. every single post that headbog ever makes) I still prefer the 360 as I like playing games and the 360 is currently where it's at if that's what floats your boat. PS3 still hasn't got enough good ones to warrant a purchase from me. And before you start quoting all the stuff 'in the future', I can't stand MGS or GT, which are pretty much being touted as the second coming for the PS3 so I'm immediately alienated right there, plus the PS3 isn't the only console that has stuff coming 'in the future'.

    The fact that the 360 comes out on top in most of these articles is a bonus for me, it is getting less and less frequent though.

  • Widge #47 4 years ago

    Is the 360 that noisy then? I sometimes think my PS3 is pushing it on fan noise. Although this is on DVD upscaling and PS2 upscaling though. Outside of that its usually alright but I wouldn't want anything noisier!

  • Vaxadrin #48 4 years ago

    Headbog, are you sure you didn't miss any bullet points?

  • mattigan #49 4 years ago

    some are noisier than others, typically the older the box the more likely to be noisy, although it also depends on the listener. Mine is apparently very noisy, but I cant say I notice THB.

  • glaeken #50 4 years ago

    @Les

    You make a good point that such comparisons would be more useful on the original reviews though I think Eurogamer have already said they have difficulty doing this as often they only get sent one version of a title to review.

    Still I am sticking with my concept of if you don't like these articles reading them is entirely optional :)

  • Vaxadrin #51 4 years ago

    I want to see a list of exclusive games for each console, followed by a meticulous deconstruction of the validity/quality of said lists. Make it happen, people!

  • Widge #52 4 years ago

    indeed, if GT, MGS and Final Fantasy doesn't float your boat, then the 360 should be what you should be heading to. I tend to base console of choice usually around what has Final Fantasy coming out on it and what has a Zelda coming out on it, this leads to Sony/Nintendo as my choices. So with just about everything I want to play coming out on the PS3, I'm more than happy. Everything that I've seen that is tempting on the 360, I'm playing on PC... and usually on my lunchbreak at work (which is handy).

    So for me, there is nothing that the 360 can offer that would make me want to buy one. Well apart from Halo 3 perhaps, if only to finish off the story from the first two, although we're not exactly living in an FPS drought nowadays like in the days of Halo 1 & 2.

  • mattigan #53 4 years ago

    "So what you are saying is that you are prepared to bugger your 360's NIC for the sake of saving £60 - (Plugging, unplugging, pluging, unplugging),. "

    You are actually mental, CAT5 is a wire just like any other copper meduim for transporting electric signals, you can staple it to the wall if you like, no special skill needed. And as for buggering a NIC you really are clutching at straws citing this as a reason one would have to shell out on a wireless adapter.

    Some people don't like the PS3, and some people wont buy a PS3 just because Sony makes it, get over it, and stop wasting hours and hours of your time typing away at your keyboard defending it, it's pointless.

  • monkie_king #54 4 years ago

    evilfoxhound: GT5 only proves that Polyphony can milk a console's power like no other dev team -- if they were developing it exclusively for 360 then same would hold. They even managed to make PS2 look good, remember. The only fair point of comparison is multi-platform games.

  • monkie_king #55 4 years ago

    headbog: there are games on PS3?

  • gizmo #56 4 years ago

    Well, from a pure gaming point of view, 360 wins yet again.

  • Vaxadrin #57 4 years ago

    Corporation A told me they were different. They said they liked me for my charming personality, and weren't just using me to make a quick buck like Corporations B & C. They told me they just wanted to make me the happiest consumer possible, and weren't in the business to exploit every last penny from me they possibly could. I believe them, and that's why I fight this war on the battlefield of the internet. Their honor, no...MY honor, must be defended.

  • des #58 4 years ago

    Another win for x360 this makes it 10:0.
    So what happened to 1080p 120fps 4D,supercomputer ps3 fairy tales?

    Reality is really a bitch lol

  • peteb #59 4 years ago

    @headbog

    jeez man, i'm just saying its not essential for everyone, im one example of many i'm sure. good for you that you need wireless but myself and others are fine with using a cable at the minute.

  • stepneg #60 4 years ago

    These articles are worth it, a mate of mine was waiting for a PS3 to play GTA4 but he bought a 360 this weekend and is now loving Rainbow 2\Frontlines and playing online, regrets not getting one sooner. I actually said to him check out the comparisons on EG, being a Sony die hard I never thought he would buy a different console. I think if you don't want to accept that the majority of games are currently better on 360 it's probably best you don't read them anymore.

  • Apologie #61 4 years ago

    des

    Another win for x360 this makes it 10:0.
    So what happened to 1080p 120fps 4D,supercomputer ps3 fairy tales?

    Reality is really a bitch lol

    ---------------------------------------

    don't be dumb... do you see any Ps3 exclusive on that list?? you should know by now that only games developed from scrach on Sony's system will take advantage of it's revolutionary architecture... oh, and by the way, only a person withought any kind of quality standards would buy such a defective product, everybody knows that X360 it's outrageously unreliable and have a weaker catalogue for 2008.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 15:33

  • reddevil93 #62 4 years ago

    'Poor developers who make poor games in making poor conversions shocker!!!11!one!!1!'

  • kule #63 4 years ago

    Doesn't really make much difference to me - looks like they are both about the same. I can understand the ps3 version being a bit slower at the moment as the 360 has had a lot longer for developers to really get the most out of it.

    Seems to me it really just boils down to which exclusives you would prefer to play...

  • mattigan #64 4 years ago

    Fair point, the 360 does breakdown and is unreliable and noisy.

    But unfortunately thats the price you have to pay if you want the best games, nothing worth having is ever easy to get/keep.

  • Trendyninja #65 4 years ago

    You know, I might actually be interested in these comparisons if that was what you were doing and wrote about in the article.

    Instead we have 5 paragraphs of what Vegas 2 is about, how it compares to the original etc, etc, and then 1 tiny paragraph on what the differences are between the 360 version over the PS3. Which comes down to a slight difference in the lighting.

    Seriously, what's the bloody point? If I want to know what the game is about then I’ll read the review...again. Just tell us what the differences are and if there are none (which for this instance there really doesn’t seem to be) don’t waste your time and our time with a crappy non-worthy comparison, which has amounted to nothing.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 15:42

  • HermitArcader #66 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Markusdragon #67 4 years ago

    @headbog
    You seem to be assuming that I want a HD movie player, that I don't have a 5 port switch next to my TV, and that I have any interest whatsoever in MGS4.

    Just because your situation is perfect for a PS3, doesn't mean that everyone else's is.

  • rotmm #68 4 years ago

    It's clear that the Xbox version of Vegas 2 has suffered in the graphics department due to dual-console development, as the devs have targeted the lowest common denominator to ensure comparable performance.

  • skillian #69 4 years ago

    This article was worth it just for the infinitely more realistic assessment of Lost: The Video Game.

  • Apologie #70 4 years ago

    Ubisoft is getting lazy, they didn't polished the game whatsoever... there are incredible bugs, just search in youtube, the Single Player campaign is veryvery short and for a game with so much emphasis in it's multiplayer content, the lag is unbelievable, very unprofessional and i don't recomment it to anyone, especially given the great releases coming up for the Ps3 owners.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 15:56

  • ronuds #71 4 years ago

    @ headbog

    Just because your precious PS3 has built-in wifi doesn't mean everyone needs it. I'm perfectly happy w/o wireless and would probably be more inconvenienced if I had it. You're going crazy and are acting more fanboyish than ever today. Though, it is good for a laugh. I'm sorry, but yours and Apologie's comments are very out of place and don't belong here. You're not even sticking to the topic of the article, which is how games perform on each console. Instead, you're just ranting and raving about how the PS3 is a better value, which is a matter of personal opinion and preference anyway. No, not everybody wants a blu-ray player...sorry to burst your bubble.

    Let's weigh the inconvenience of the 360 being so unreliable:

    Have plenty of games to play all year round, yet be without your console for a month (worst case scenario)
    or
    Have no games to play year round, yet have your console the whole time

    I'd take the former, because what's the sense of a working console if there's no worthwhile use for it?
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 15:57

  • ParanoidZombie #72 4 years ago

    Funny, IGN's review of Vegas 2 says that the ps3 version is significantly worse (x360 version=8.4, ps3 = 8.2). Same goes with Viking (6.5 vs 6.3, that's for round 11). Weird, isn't it?

  • ronuds #73 4 years ago

    @ Paranoid

    Could be because Vegas 2 is apparently unplayable online for the PS3 (at this time, anyway). I've seen a few news reports on the subject, though, not sure if IGN mentioned it in their review.

  • Apologie #74 4 years ago

    ronuds

    Have no games to play year round, yet have your console the whole time

    ----------------------------------------

    I don't know if you have been sleeping for the past 7 months but that argument concerning the PS3 lack of games is out of context now mate... and yes, the Ps3 is more reliable, have good ports (at least the one's that matter most) like COD4, Burnout Paradise, Assassins Creed, UT3 (timed exclusive) etc... have on-line/multiplayer for free and a better catalogue for 2008.... as i said, only games developed from scrach on Sony's system will take advantage of it's revolutionary architecture, Uncharted is a good example.
    I don't say by any means that the Xbox is not a good console, but if you consider everyhing features, long term value, reliablity, exclusives etc... the Ps3 is a better choice.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 16:14

  • moggsy #75 4 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound

    Anyway, these comparisions mean nothing really. Play GT5 Prologue on a 1080p TV and you will see that the PS3 has the capacity to totally dwarf the 360 , graphics wise. I really doubt that there will ever be anything that looks that good on the xbox.

    PGR4 looks really nice. It's got dynamic weather too. Aqua planing in one of the races was certainly a first for me :-)

  • MangoBen #76 4 years ago

    There isn't a single game on this Face Off list that I'd be interested in.

    And the fanboy mania doesn't interest me one bit - I'll always buy a multiformat release on 360 cos I prefer the pad. Nuff said.

  • ParanoidZombie #77 4 years ago

    @ronuds: no, they say it's the usual stuff (frame rate issues + poorer textures). I mean, it's visible stuff, I can't understand why Eg says both versions are the same while IGN says the opposite. These VS stuffs will turn pretty useless for us consumers if websites can't agree on such a basic thing as frame rate and textures.

  • rawburger #78 4 years ago

    Just as a side note to all the forumites, me included.

    Do you realize that if you have read and/or been involved in all the (face offs) so far, and that means actually reading all the madness.

    We have lost over 7 hours off our lives, and that does not include actually typing out a post,
    but still, carry on it is fun.

  • mattigan #79 4 years ago

    12 month subs are going for £25 on ebay at the moment

  • ParanoidZombie #80 4 years ago

    @apologie: I know you're not interested in telling the truth since you're a bit lacking upstairs, but you really need to check your facts about the ps3 version of assassin's creed. It's not a good port AT ALL. Check every serious gaming website in the universe for further information.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 16:16

  • Waldo #81 4 years ago

    How throwing some PC games into the next round of comparisons?

  • Dizzy #82 4 years ago

    "The entire 25GB single-layer Blu-ray disc has been filled up to make the cinematics as beautiful-looking as possible."

    Just makes you smile doesn't it :)

  • Widge #83 4 years ago

    I do remember liking the old Xbox S Type pad more for FPS style games when I had the last gen Xbox, so I'd certainly concede that. I read plenty of comments from people who like the PS3 one, but for me I prefer the stiffer sticks of that (even though the black and white buttons were in a shameful position!). The original was like holding a Dreamcast!

    I think the only FPS I own at the moment is RFOM though, I've just not got round to COD4 yet. For the likes of Warhawk, no probs with the sixaxis so far though, even for sniping. I doubt I'll get round to COD4 now before RFOM2 surfaces, as it stands I've got too many games to go through.

    If a 3rd party pad surfaced with stiffer sticks on the PS3, I'd go for it.

  • ronuds #84 4 years ago

    @ Apologie

    I understand why you believe the PS3 is the best choice, but can you understand why I disagree? Can you understand that maybe because the PS3 is the best choice for you that doesn't mean it is the best for everyone else in the world as well?

    If you can understand this, maybe we can ALL get along, though, these comments sections would suffer a comedy hit because of it.

  • Widge #85 4 years ago

    ^^^^
    is the well balanced opinion!

  • Widge #86 4 years ago

    I'm intrigued to see what GT5p looks like, so I may even DL it on Thurs. I've bought every GT game bar GT4p so far. Considering GT3 was the game that made me rush out to get a PS2 and it was fairly early on in its lifecycle, it still remained one of the best looking games ever on the system.

    Although I'm a little hesitant. GT4 was all very nice but it was a bit lacking on the fun factor after a while. Bar going down the path of being a completionist, I just found one car and spanked most of the races with it. Hoping the AI and human element makes it a bit more fun.

    Personally I'm a bit more keen on the forthcoming GRiD game from the codies. Having sat on the AVForums looking through the GT5 thread, there are alot of people who get huge joy by pulling off perfect laps, shaving seconds off times, talking about the G25 wheel etc... but thats just not me reall.y

  • gizmo #87 4 years ago

    How can anyone say PS3 is the best gaming choice after reading that?!

    Maybe their brains go a little slower, therefore appreciating the lower frame rates.

  • Grom #88 4 years ago

    Like Les says above, I couldn't give two hoots which console 'wins' this 'war' (although Sony are arrogant so-and-sos) but stop putting reviews of non-platform specific gameplay into the comparisons. It devalues the actual reviews written on release when the games were current.

    What a total non-revelation is the fact that the author finds the levels of a slightly rushed 360 launch title to be "generally overlong and repetitive". Just leave it at the link to the review(s) and talk about what's DIFFERENT.

    If the author is dying to review games as well, give him a review or two - or chuck him in the readers reviews section like everyone else.

  • Widge #89 4 years ago

    @ gizmo: because the system exclusive stuff can only be picked up on the PS3 at the moment, everything else can be played on PC

    although I've said this about 40 times now...

  • ParanoidZombie #90 4 years ago

    @widge: I don't think there will be a PC version of Ninja gaiden 2, sorry.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 16:40

  • Widge #91 4 years ago

    Oh god yeah, but this goes back to games you want to play again, I didn't like the first one, so having a second one isn't going to really cut it for me. Didn't like DMC4 either, and they are on a similar tip. Someone earlier mentioned that there was nothing to tempt him into getting a PS3 since he wasn't interested in any of the exclusives, and thats fair play, the same works in reverse for me.

  • Apologie #92 4 years ago

    I can give you guy's a good example... both Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 are built in the same engine (i own both), the Unreal Engine... yet, both games have different kind of performances in the same system, Ut3 in the Ps3 is a great game, very fluid with amazing graphics, gameplay, multiplayer etc..., and RSV2 is a pain in the ass, with mediocre graphics, lots of glitches, some slowdowns, and an horrible multiplayer with tons of lag, as you can see, the problem is not the system, but the developer. If a developer does not take the time to get confortable with a system, or take the time to polish the game, they can program to the best console the universe have ever seen that the final product will still be utter shit.

    Now, i never said that the Xbox is a bad console... the problem is that i have what it's called "quality standards", and that specific system is a joke in that matter, nuff said... (i actually had one, but sold it)... and by the way, one of the many reasons i sold it it's because there are no REAL exclusives, every major release wil end up with a Pc version, in some cases with even added content, and i do have a good Pc so, no point, ohhh, and the Xbox Live is a robbery.
    Edited by 4 at 25/03/08 @ 17:00

  • ParanoidZombie #93 4 years ago

    @widge: "you have a jacked up notion of fair play, pal, and it's beginning to piss me off". Well, i didn't like DMC4 that much either, but anyway, it's always the same with you guys: everytime we prove you wrong, you always answer the same thing: "oh well, i don't care about this game anyway". We're getting nowhere fast.

    @zero_cool: I'm very sorry if you don't like Ass Creed, but the fact is that the X360 version of this multi-million seller is better than Ps3's.

  • onyxbox #94 4 years ago

    'generally' speaking I find that most games run better on 360 bar a few exceptions like Oblivion, Burnout etc.

    you can just tell by the feel of a game when it was a port they struggled with on PS3... little bit framey... little bit aliased... little but lower res... but over the past year developers are learning new tricks to do 'ports' more successfully and the ones that focus solely on the PS3 do get some impressive results.

    I personally prefer PS3 because it's quiet and I like the pad but I can see that a lot of cross platform games run better on PC/360.

  • peterfll #95 4 years ago

    I still don't understand why people with both consoles find these articles so offensive. I like knowing which version is better. Especially as some devs are STILL knocking out below par PS3 ports.

    And shame on you Capcom for Lost Planet, espeically after the terrific DMC4 on PS3.

  • Widge #96 4 years ago

    and it works the other way round, there are plenty of "I don't care about this game, it wouldn't make me want a PS3" comments in the PS3 game threads. Its not so much that I don't care, its that I currently have the facility to play all the games that I personally want to play (barring Halo 3 as thats not on PC). I can sing and dance about Uncharted, Warhawk et al but if someone doesn't give a fig about them, then its not going to make any impact on them whatsoever. I personally love them, so at the end of the day, its a winning situation for me.

    If someone absolutely loves what the 360 offers, especially if they have a great gaggle of mates who own them, then bloody hell, its the path to choose for sure. Where I'm trying to go with this is that for the games I want to play, I 95% of the time have the systems that I need, no-one can convince me otherwise. As a result, for me, they are the best systems in the world to me. This may not be the case for someone else though.

    For someone who likes to hit Mario Kart, Brawl, Zelda... the Wii is going to be the best machine of this current crop of consoles.

    For the Live community, gamerpointing, Halo 3 and whatnot, the 360 is the best console in the current age of man.

    Its like trying to convince someone who likes cats that dogs are the best. Look at what a dog can do, it can run after this stick and stuff etc.

  • ParanoidZombie #97 4 years ago

    @widge: point well made, so your first post actually reads: "because the system exclusive stuff I'M INTERESTED IN can only be picked up on the PS3 at the moment, everything else I'M INTERESTED IN can be played on PC". Fixed! Remember to be more specific next time around!;)

  • miiiguel #98 4 years ago

    Anyone who enjoys gaming should have a 360. It's the "new" PS2 but better than the competition (which PS2 wasn't), imho.

    Tip: there's blank faceplates where one can paint a Sony logo on it, ta-da...!

  • Les #99 4 years ago

    "Its like trying to convince someone who likes cats that dogs are the best. Look at what a dog can do, it can run after this stick and stuff etc."

    +1 Finally an analogy that makes sense! ;)

  • BillyBrush #100 4 years ago

    PS3 is the cat, sleek looks, nice finish, looks good, doesn't give a shit about you, would rather eat some chips round the neighbours than even be in your house 'this lounge isn't art nouveau - i'm off'

    Xbox is the dog, pants quite a lot, genuinely luvvable but the vets bills are steep

    and it does seem you are either a dog or cat person, there are a brave few however who already have all 3, the lucky so and so's...erm that's the Wii parrot too...they're like ace ventura, erm they get all the love of the animal kingdom

    ...it's late Ok

  • Scimarad #101 4 years ago

    I must say that despite what it says in the article I definitely prefer the PS3 version of that Lost Planet screenshot. The 360 one looks distinctly purple for some reason.

  • miiiguel #102 4 years ago

    "Never under estimate the power of the playstation brand it seems. "
    So true. I sometimes wonder if PS3 was 360 and vice-versa. MS would be out of the game.

    I mean, one might not like them (they're americans, they have a lot of money, they have that OS that everybody uses...), but I think we should admit they are trying hard, investing big money in the games (MistWalker titles costed milions to produce, according to latest OXM). On the other way, and imho, Sony should have done better. , because we (I)'ve been told it would be so much better than anything else. Now they seem happy with "almost equal". And I don't fall for the excuse "it's a new architecture" and stuff, as I don't have to be bothered with that, I just want to sit down and play the game. The "new architecture" is their problem, not mine. Something like I buy a car it's more expensive than others and underperforms in comparision, would be acceptable to be given as excuse in the likes of "it's not our fault, you just need to wait for BP and whatnot to develop a proper fuel for it... we're awesome! we're 4d! wheels are last-gen, but wait one year and you can buy it, if you really want it...".
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/08 @ 18:10

  • Les #103 4 years ago

    "Never under estimate the power of the playstation brand it seems."

    ?! As far as I know the PS3 is getting wiped by Wii so far...

  • captainrentboy #104 4 years ago

    I can't be arsed to read all the comments but I'm guessing they go something like this.
    PS3 owner- Ahh yes but the developers haven't quite gotten used to the dev kits for the PS3, you wait until 2009, that's when it'll show what it can do.
    OOOrrr
    Ahhh they're all crap anyway, who cares about multi-format releases? Exclusives are where it's at. And the PS3 has the best. You just wait until 2009.

    360 Owner- Ten- Nil, Ten-Nil, ner ner.
    I'm close aren't I?

  • Rash' #105 4 years ago

    miiiguel wrote: "Anyone who enjoys gaming should have a 360. It's the "new" PS2 but better than the competition (which PS2 wasn't), imho."

    Now, now miiguel. We all read the mass market article on 360 and it is anything, but a PS2... ;-)

  • TRUTH #106 4 years ago

    MGS4 - seen it, looks a bit dated in gameplay department. GT, played the Japanese promo import - Nice graphics, AI needs to be worked on, still no damage on cars, weather always the same...a bit boring in honesty.

    PS3 2008 top games...MGS4, GTP, Littlebig Planet, Haze, Tekken 6
    360 2008 top games...Splinter Cell Convection, Fable 2, Too Human, Gears Of War 2, Ninja Gaiden 2

    I think the 360 seems more interesting.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 19:43

  • Rash' #107 4 years ago

    TRUTH (modestity was at the forefront when you came up with that tag, huh?):

    LBP, most would agree, is the most interesting of all the titles you listed above.

  • TheNinkyNonk #108 4 years ago

    The only games in these 'face offs' that are worth spending any money or time on have been great on both platforms. IMHO these articles provide little proof that the 360 is 'better' than the PS3, more that sub-par games are made by sub-par coders.

    I own both machines but haven't bought anything for the 360 since Halo 3 as, given the choice, I prefer a quiet reliable machine with a slick interface and the PS3 pad feels more like home.

  • Kryon #109 4 years ago

    This is brilliant, Headbog in 'ULTIMATE DEFENSE MODE' is hilarious... Anyway 10/10 for 360, 0/10 for PS3....0/10lol XD

  • gamecat #110 4 years ago

    So GT5p still has indestructable cars you can bounce off walls all day .. but looks quite nice?

  • Les #111 4 years ago

    "IMHO these articles provide little proof that the 360 is 'better' than the PS3"

    Of course they don't. But it does matter that PS3 gets sup-par ports. That extra power is rather irrelevant if coders are too stupid (or lazy) to tap into it. Not sure whether it was a prime reason for the early launch but so far 360 has profited most from being lead platform for multi-platform titles thanks to it. Whether it lasts remains to be seen (like in next gen the first xbox ports were worse than the PS2 ones) but for now it's definitely a disadvantage for PS3.

  • Nodebug #112 4 years ago

    Can we have a round up of the comparisons and highs/lows of each consoles technical aspects in relation to the games tested in a seperate article? I like reading about the technical differences but am not interested in the mini review of the game that is at the top of each games section. Cheers anyway.

  • Kryon #113 4 years ago

    "IMHO these articles provide little proof that the 360 is 'better' than the PS3"

    It's true that these articles don't (necessarily) prove that the 360 is 'more powerful than the PS3 (although it does imo have the graphical edge). These articles do however prove that the 360 is a better games machine,, as it has better games, simple.

  • Widge #114 4 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie

    Thats it!

  • DAN.E.B #115 4 years ago

    SDF LOL!!!!!!

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #116 4 years ago

    Xbox 360 10-0 Playstation 3

  • Xerx3s #117 4 years ago

    "LBP, most would agree, is the most interesting of all the titles you listed above. "

    While I really fancy playing lbp, I think that is subjective. I'm a diehard coop player i.e. so fable 2, gow2 and th for me. But then I'm a sucker for those kind of games.

    Anyway, threads like these make me really proud to be part of the human race.

  • TRUTH #118 4 years ago

    Uncharted is probably the best game for PS3...But playing it I was a little let down to the game very liner path, also the graphics - though very nice; but nothing that convinced me this is better then the 360, I 'm 100% sure this can be done on 360, esp when compared to the amount of effects and action going on in GOW (Personally still the best looking game on console).

    PS3 has now had over a year to prove itself a better games machine - which it has not. PS3 was also delayed only because of Sony not able to make enough bluray parts in time for it's original PS3 launch (Same time as 360). The development kits were already sent to developers in late/eary 2005 - remember E3 2005, where Motor Storm, Resistance and early Heavenly Sword were shown...with 2+yrs development time and help from Sony inhouse teams they didn't exactly pop anything amazing (Though Motor Storm was a decent game)

    With the GOW 2 pushing the graphic ability further on 360, and Alan Wake looking even more amazing; I have yet to see a PS3 game that actually makes me say that a 360 can never do that!
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 21:08

  • ronuds #119 4 years ago

    @ headbog

    You don't consider a worse frame rate as a sign of a game playing worse? Frame rate and gameplay are usually connected in some ways.

    I'm a gamer "worth my salt" and don't really salivate in the least at playing yet another MGS. I doubt it's the leap forward in gaming you're making it out to be and for you to make any such claim without having played the game, along with many of the other "facts" you list, shows that your comments are worth close to nothing. I mean, at least TRY to make a reasonable comment w/o lowering yourself to unimaginable depths! Maybe someone might actually read what you have to say and take it seriously instead of just thinking that you're yet another in a long line of mindless fanboys.

    Do I like the 360 best? Yes, I do - but I can like it best without being a complete dumbass. I can understand that other similar products might appeal to people for particular reasons, which is something you have trouble with. The "facts" are that both consoles offer many similar games or game types, even though some may be exclusives - and for games, right now and in the forseeable future (yes, even after the "REVOLUTIONARY" LOL MGS4 hits) the 360 has the bigger and arguable better lineup...especially given that 360 games are generally ranked higher than PS3 ones.

    It's funny watching some of the meltdowns here though. LOL!!!
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 21:29

  • Ghost_Dog #120 4 years ago

    If you compare both the PS3 and the 360 purely as games consoles, then surely the 360 wins.

    No I don't own a 360, but 360 owners have been enjoying Bioshock, Halo 3, Forza 2, Gears of Wars, Mass Effect, Crackdown, Project Gotham Racing 4, Dead Rising and those are just the exclusives. Take into account multi format ports Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Elder Scrolls and the fact that many of these receive better treatment on the 360.

    Any true gamer would agree that the 360 is a better games console. Sure its had technical problems, but whats the point having a console which is sturdy but has no games to write home about.

    Any PS3 owner would be lying if they said they wouldn't want the 360's exclusives on their console. The problem with many PS3 owners is that they buy into the Sony brand, while 360 owners buy into the games, not Microsoft.

  • Les #121 4 years ago

    @ Ghost_Dog

    Funny and rather naive post. Made me LOL a few times. OK maybe not LOL or lol but at least giggle :) 360 and PS3 owners bought into pixels and lots and lots of unwarranted hype... Both are failed PS2 wannabes and are rightfully punished by the market. A 'true gamer' would agree with that and see that with some pixels removed, there's nothing special about anything currently on PS3 and 360. Don't believe the hype.

  • HermitArcader #122 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Xerx3s #123 4 years ago

    "360 and PS3 owners bought into pixels and lots and lots of unwarranted hype"

    I'm sorry, I thought I bought into all those fantastic games. I can think of only one machine that has a lot of unwarranted hype but that's just me.

    "A 'true gamer' would agree with that and see that with some pixels removed, there's nothing special about anything currently on PS3 and 360."

    Erm, sure. I imagined playing all those great games. Must be all hype. Thx for telling me that.

    "Don't believe the hype."

    It seems to me that there is only one person buying into hype and confusing smart marketing for having good games. But hey, that's just me. What do I know. I thought that I was playing all those great games in the past months. I was wrong, it was just hype.

    I know some brown stuff and that post was full of it. ¬_¬

  • GamerG #124 4 years ago

    Wow, I was in the market for a PS3 as I assumed it was the most powerful but after reading this article and the preceeding ones it appears my assumption was wrong. Guess its the Xbox 360 for me!

    Edit, just found out its loads cheaper got a 360 and 3 games for £199 bargain!!
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 23:43

  • Ghost_Dog #125 4 years ago

    @ Les

    I'm not being naive. My comments where within the context of PS3 vs 360, not PS3 vs 360 vs PS2, Wii, Dreamcast, Jaguar...

    If I had to choose between a PS3 and a 360, based purely on games, I would choose 360.

    Sure, the PS3 is a more stable piece of hardware, plays Blu-Ray (Don't get me started on Blu-Ray vs HD DVD) and has a free online gaming service, but none of this matters if you have bought a console to play some games and the games just aren't there.

    I admit that the PS3 lineup for 2008 is an improvement, but it's still nothing to get excited about. The most anticipated games are from existing franchises (GT5 and MGS4).

    Nothing beats the SNES/Megadrive 16bit era anyway, so I'm off to play Super Mario World and Streets of Rage 2.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/08 @ 22:45

  • SwedBear #126 4 years ago

    Sometimes I wonder if some people have been in the trenches a bit to long. These articles are directly being used as arguments iun the console war and fanboys get upset right away and start fighting. But what about taking the articles as what they just as well could be: a bit of consumer information. A way to help people to decide which, if any, version of a game they should spend their money on?

    The way I see it these types of articles should become even MORE important as more people get both consoles (with prices going down for both 360 and PS3 there will be a time when you can actually afford both) and thus actually are interested in which version is the prefered version. I agree that it would be nice if Eurogamer just could add a small piece on each original review where they in a few sentences compare the versions but we've heard quite a few times now that the problem is that they usually get the PS3 review code much later. This is the second best option.

    If you only have one console - just don't read the articles. It's not for you. If you are in the market for an console - look them over but still decide the console from the game library (these articles only cover a small number of games) and possible any other needs you have.

    We all already know that the Xbox 360 does have an edge in its GPU (while the PS3 has a impressive "CPU";). Not even Apologie/headbot can deny that. The GPU is scaling 720p to 1080p much better than the PS3 (I got a 1080p TV and both 360 and PS3 and it is pretty aparent in some games where I rather change res to 720p on the PS3 than run at 1080p) and the lack of AA forces developers to come up with "creative" solutions.

    Apologie/headbog: Aren't you guys getting a bit embarrased when reading back what you are writing? Remember that the internet never forgets. It's getting a bit tiresome to hear the same old garbage about the 360 from you guys. You need to update your arguments.

    No, not every 360 will fail and burn. We are quite a few people who still are on our launch models. So please try be a bit creative and actually come up with something new other than "your Xbox360 will die so buy a PS3".
    Yes, the 360 is noiser - that is a valid complaint. Newer ones are not as loud though and I can honestly say that I've yet to be bothered with the sound when playing. Your mileage may wary though.
    Yes - if you add every possible addon for the 360 as well as several years of Live as well as .. whatever - it will cost more than a PS3. The key here is still that you ahve an option not paying for something you do not need.
    Yes - the PS3 has a definite edge over the Xbox360 if Media capabilitie is important. Except for the BR though I do not think either are great media extenders (I am writing an article testing several media extenders right now including the PS3 and 360). I would rather get a media extender like the Popcorn Hour. And as for BR - well, I've already gotten bitten a few times with BR regional coding. Damn I hate that.

    Apologie - you are right. No exclusive PS3 games were included. But no exclusive 360 games were included either. It's a comparison article so it's pretty hard to include exclusives. And the vast majority of games will come out on both formats so ....

    MGS4 will probably be great. Gran Turismo will probably be great. But Fable 2 probably also will be great. And GOW2.

    So Eurogamer - not that my opinion matters that much - please continue with these articles in some form even in the future. Ignore fanboys on both sides - heck, one day I would love to see some heavy moderating removing all the fanboy drivel (from both sides) so we could speak about personal experiences of the games instead. i would love to hear from some PS3 or 360-owners commenting on their experience with a game that EG finds lacking in one or more areas.
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/08 @ 23:58

  • SleepyMagpie #127 4 years ago

    Cheers SwedBear; my Scandinavian cousin, good input!

    What brings me back to the comments sections of these comparison articles time and again aren't to get input or make up my mind these days really, the articles are fairly comprehensive, and owning both consoles, I am pretty much decided whch is for what - but rather, my fascination is toward the intensity, and religious fervor of the comments.

    It seems clear that (young) people of today desperately need something to BELIEVE in (seeing as God is dead here in the west), a brand or whatever, so that they can switch off the critical part of their minds, and set their actions to autopilot. Much like our doddering elders setting their faith in God because "That's they way it's alway been, it's the right thing, and he will take care of you on the end of days..". Yet others have a politcal agenda to see through, and follow it blindly to achieve what they see as righteous ends.

    I always hated Microsofts "Good enough" mantra. "We'll make our code, our products good enough, and shove it out there before anyone else, and swamp the market". And those who dared compete; often, but not always, with better products, they were muscled out - often by underhand tactics.

    I am very much for honing and perfectionism. I HATE glitches in software or hardware, just as I hate it anywhere else.

    And the seeming perfectionism in Playstations' model #3 did look mostly delectable at first. The specs were awe-inspiring.

    But the arrogance on part of Ken Kutaragi and Sony ("You'll just have to work more to afford one";), precipitated their fall from grace with me. Then, following, REAL WORLD tests and comments made it clear that the PS3 was not all that it was chalked up to be.

    Still, after almost 2 years in action, and not that many successes, Sony fanboys proclaim the absolute superiority of their console.

    This is religious commitment, and for this, you have to hand it to Sony, they really have created the PRAYSTATION.

    Of course the 360 is flawed! Of course the stupid thing breaks for many. But the PS3 is flawed too, AND it has very few games to speak for it.

    And I thought that was why we were here. GAMES. The really good games where you stop thinking about whether you're playing them on the latest Samsung 6 series LCD screen, or that perfectly decent 14" Philips CRT your mate has, sat in his kitchen with it propped on the table, eating beans and drinking cold tea!

    And the game was never this good!

    And if you look at it from this perspective, the 360 is in the winning corner atm. The PS3 however, is an EXCELLENT BD and DVD upscaler! If you are considering a BD player, go with this, then you are hedging your bets in case the PS3 gets a cracking exclusive game later on.

    Let us pray.

  • Rash' #128 4 years ago

    Xerx3s, of course I'm aware it's subjective. I thought that was made apparent through the whole "most would agree" part. Incidently, LBP can be played cooperatively.

  • Rash' #129 4 years ago

    Zero Cool, have to agree, knowing that I am savouring the excellent online play of COD4, Burnout and Warhawk without paying a penny for the privilege is sweet. I don't care how good live is, it shouldn't be a pay for service with all those ads filling up the screen.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 16:00

  • Les #130 4 years ago

    "I'm sorry, I thought I bought into all those fantastic games. "

    Yeah, your mind can play tricks like that... Think past the pixels (and irrelevant online features) and none of them warrant the inflated review scores. Doesn't mean you personally couldn't like them very much. I for instance liked Lair... PS3 and 360 so far have brought nothing new to the table and therefore are completely unnecessary additions to the console spectrum. 2007 was the year of ridiculous ' next gen' hype in which the full industry tried to push the HD systems and failed. Thankfully consumers are smarter than that and got a Wii. Nintendo is on track to sell 24m more of them this year. More and more Wii titles get announced. Maybe MS and Sony will try harder next time...

  • SleepyMagpie #131 4 years ago

    The Wii...

    Yeah. Well, it sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one.

    How about, I give you the finger...

    And you give me my replacement 360.

  • Widge #132 4 years ago

    So once again, after this merry little dance around, the bottom line is reached which is the best machine out of the two is the one that has the titles you personally wish to be playing on.

    I sit on a forum where people aren't entrenching themselves in particular camps. There are 360 owners who have sold their machines to get a PS3 (the two reasons I read from them are either hardware failure, or a desire to play PS3 games that are out like Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank), there are PS3 owners who have moved to 360, some who have both systems and get to enjoy all the games. They can all see the merits and faults of each system, and after all the discussion of what system is the best it comes down to which has the franchises you want to play on them. My collection in my life has been full of Squaresoft titles, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo... and after owning the last consoles, the PS2 came out king for me. As a result the PS3 is the best system out of the current generation, no end of technical comparisons can shift this opinion, the 360 will not be running those games I want to play. Also I've had the intense bonus of some other crackers, my first top online experience was playing Halo 2, I thought it was amazing, that was until I discovered Day Of Defeat:Source... totally trumped it for me. This has now been replaced by Warhawk, I've never had such a blast on an online game anymore, it soaks up the most time out of anything I own. Being a big Lord Of The Rings head, I just loved delving into Heavenly Sword. It totally doesn't have the sophisticated fighting engine of God Of War, but I just love the experience it serves up. But two examples of happiness I'm getting. Also I am one of the lucky ones who can play the few 360 games that I'd like to play on my laptop (Dell m1530), so I don't feel like I'm missing out except for not being able to get my mitts on Twilight Princess.

    Horses for courses, someone who likes Super Mario is going to find both the 360 and PS3 terrible.

    And remember, when it comes to talking about the ultimate gaming platform, we ALL get lorded over by the mighty ninja PC owners!

  • miiiguel #133 4 years ago

    In a nutshell: best gaming machine so far 360, but the ones who are so into Playstation will never admit it. I'll have no problem in buying a PS3 if it ever proves to deserve my money. It's nice to be free.

  • septimus #134 4 years ago

    Doesn't matter which platform R5 Vegas 2 is on, it sucks balls. I got the 360 version as it was £10 cheaper.... and today I'm taking it back. Worst game for crashing, bugs, slowdown etc I have owned. Also, well done Ubisoft for lowering the textures to a blurry 3DFX Voodoo style mess.

    It seems Eurogamer is home of the cheap gamer who can only afford the one console. That's why these articles are successful here. They need to feel better about being skint?
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 10:50

  • warbo #135 4 years ago

    Hey guys. Buy the other system, and put some of that console warrior energy into gaming.

    You can't hug the world with nuclear arms etc.

  • miiiguel #136 4 years ago

    " but exactly which ones are that much better on 360 than on PS3, because I haven't seen a major difference between the quality of games for either so far."
    The thing is - at least to me - is that Sony said PS3 would be sooooooo much better, now it strugles to be "almost equal".

  • miiiguel #137 4 years ago

    GT5 Prologue is not a demo, not even a racing game, it's a brainy RPG because it runs on a PS3 ?

    "What they ALWAYS forget is that they have a diet of mostly Shooters and racing games, and that nobody outside of XBOX world cares much for these. "
    UK is but those XBOX weirdo guys innit ? I mean, take a look at this months chart, at Eurogamer.net. R6 Vegas?!!! wow..., I wonder what is that...
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 11:43

  • t8yman #138 4 years ago

    What they ALWAYS forget is that they have a diet of mostly Shooters and racing games, and that nobody outside of XBOX world cares much for these.

    is this the same headbog that was just telling the world how great GT and MGS are going to be?

  • Xerx3s #139 4 years ago

    "Wow, I was in the market for a PS3 as I assumed it was the most powerful but after reading this article and the preceeding ones it appears my assumption was wrong. Guess its the Xbox 360 for me!

    Edit, just found out its loads cheaper got a 360 and 3 games for £199 bargain!!"

    Nice try sock.

  • miiiguel #140 4 years ago

    Les, week after week (after week, after week... - I think it's been like a year now...), a 360 title tops the 2 largest video-game markets, and yet you talk like 360 is a failure.

  • bitesize #141 4 years ago


    is this the same headbog that was just telling the world how great GT and MGS are going to be?

    and don't forget apologie always goin on about how amazing resistance2 and killzone2 are gonna be, what type of games are they again?


    and widget, you talk a lot of sense my friend, but this:
    Horses for courses, someone who likes Super Mario is going to find both the 360 and PS3 terrible.

    is clearly wrong - i love mario, i love my 360. surely i can't be that much in the minority?


    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 11:59

  • Xerx3s #142 4 years ago

    "Xerx3s, of course I'm aware it's subjective. I thought that was made apparent through the whole "most would agree" part. Incidently, LBP can be played cooperatively."

    In know, that's why I want it. ^_^

  • Xerx3s #143 4 years ago

    "Yeah, your mind can play tricks like that... Think past the pixels (and irrelevant online features) and none of them warrant the inflated review scores. Doesn't mean you personally couldn't like them very much. I for instance liked Lair... PS3 and 360 so far have brought nothing new to the table and therefore are completely unnecessary additions to the console spectrum. 2007 was the year of ridiculous ' next gen' hype in which the full industry tried to push the HD systems and failed. Thankfully consumers are smarter than that and got a Wii. Nintendo is on track to sell 24m more of them this year. More and more Wii titles get announced. Maybe MS and Sony will try harder next time..."

    I hope that it is tongue in cheek self mockery. If it isn't, it's bloody self-righteous arrogant crap, worse than what headbog & co do.

  • Xerx3s #144 4 years ago

    "Hey guys. Buy the other system, and put some of that console warrior energy into gaming. "

    I'd love to but I have 17 weeks left. 17 weeks of browsing EG. ¬_¬

  • sharpfish #145 4 years ago

    I've always said i'm not biased in these matters. And as a former 360 owner and now PS3 owner I still believe i'm not. I was only EVER pissed at MS for being so underhand with their quality problems that led me to blowing £300 on 'nothing' (A dead box with no 'free' fix as it was e74 and not RROD - though my previous 2 X360's did indeed die of RROD) yes I mention this but it's almost an essential preface for context.

    I got fed up of the 360, it was stressful just turning it on to play games (so I started to avoid it) because I never knew when it was going to start flashing red lights again, I just found it a 'chore' to play anything on it, especially combined with the disc grinding noise and the very loud fans. Aside from that though I was happy and saw how they did loads right over Sony.

    I assumed the PS3 was just a box of shit and would never interest me. When the 360 finally died with no 'free fix' I thought fuck it, MS is getting no more cash from me (inc games remember). So I thought long and hard about a PS3, then it got a cheaper version AND some better titles release or on the way, THEN BluRay 'won' the war (and yes I was in the market for a proper HD movie player too) so at £299 + uncharter + ninja gaiden it was a virtual 'bargain' to me compared to waht I paid for the 360 + add ons that came inc with the PS3.

    However I knew all along that the GPU in the PS3 wasn't so hot, certainly good enough but not as good as the 360's. I knew I was going to get MORE aliasing on PS3 games (which isn't something I take lightly as I DETEST aliasing, it's the #1 immersion ruiner along with tearing), but frankly the games and the reliability/pleasure of owning the PS3 outweighed these cons.

    In time maybe they can levearge more of Cell to make up for the GPU's shortcommings, specifically to attempt some kind of anti aliasing other than this vaseline crap. It does dissapoint me that Sony didn't think the GPU solution out better like MS did and get a more custom jobby built that was easily a match or better than the 360. Part of that was due to the BluRay inclusion costing loads to Sony so there was little left to buy 'state of the art GPU solutions'.

    When you weigh up the pros and cons of both systems however you are left with a the answer that frankly 'this generation' in general has been one of the most haphazzard and dissapointing I can remember. MS's monumental failure rate and Sony's original high price and slightly mis matched specs (great CPU and Drive, poor GPU and Ram).

    And once you reach this conclusion you end up realising you just don't give a damn anymore and want to play games and stop worring about all the little details. I am under no illusion that in the vast majority of cases so far, the 360 HAS definitely got the better/smoother gfx in MOST mutli format titles, i'm also aware that it's a very noisy machine, poorly built, untrustable to build a games library around and is saturated with games better suited (and mostly appearing on) the PC, namely FPS games.

    PS3 on the other hand is getting into it's stride. Sony's first party stuff shows that ALIASING doesn't always become a factor, Uncharted for example looks very smooth, the shadows are foliage are actually cleaner than even CRYSIS running on 'very high' on my DX10 PC... that is not to say it begins to compare with the masterpiece that is Crysis in other technical ways but that with good art direction, aliasing and rough edges can be 'avoided' to some degree.

    That is the key point here, that games for PS3 Definitely take more effort to get looking good but if the effort IS taken then they can look stunning. And while some games look appauling with way too many jaggies (this applies to the 360 also, I saw my fair share of awfully aliased games on that system with tearing too) many of the top class ones that you would buy anyway (mainly the exclusives) only have minor or non disruptive aliasing.

    My solution to this was not to sit 3 feet in front of my 32" 720p HDTV and double it 6 Feet and the aliasing becomes almost irrelevent. Certainly games like Ratchet and Clank viewed on HDTV at 6 foot look more stunning than ANYTHING I ever played on the 360.

    So you have 2 different systems with 2 different feels to them, and I have to say i've been enjoying the 'feel' of the PS3 far more than I did my 360 which comes down to many smaller factors other than pure GPU specs, from quiter operation, classier interfaces, more value, better contoller (D pad and buttons esp;esp with DS3), blu ray player, hdmi as standard, HDD as standard, no mahoosive power 'brick', decent looks in with my TV/dvd/amps etc...

    so basically when you factor all that in, this pissing and moaning about the utter CRAP that is 90% of multiformat shovelware looking a bit worse on ps3 is redundant. This battle will be won with the exlusives. And in that area I think Sony easily has the upper hand especially by the end of this year. Best of all I can just put it on and play games without any fear of it dying nor a constant reminded of it being on with the jet engine noise of the 360.


    I just wish the GPU from the 360 was in the ps3 to make it almost perfect. Shame Sony can't make an addon like the old expansions/sfx chips that older consoles used to use to 'upgrade' the power/graphics. On the other side Cell will come more and more to the forefront and helping out the GPU once people get their heads around it.

    fucking hell that was a long post, I don't suppose anyone will read it but It felt good to get it off my chest. :)

    edit > also a MASSIVE factor in the PS3's favour - FREE ONLINE. NO not because im' a tight arse (I used to pay for GOLD) but because many of my freinds who owned 360s DIDN'T have gold. So for all the talk of it being a better system online, in practice it's hard to get everyone ONLINE because every is at different points in paying for gold or not even bothering. Some may want to check out the multiplayer in a game but not want to pay (and the 48 hours vouchers are a joke). On ps3 you just KNOW you can go online anytime and play ANY friend... the problem is atm that those friends are a bit slower at adopting the PS3 after the 360's head start and that's where Sony fucked up. In the long run that FREE NETWORK is going to be a major reason and not just because of the cost (£30 a year isn't that much after all) it's because only a certain % of friends on 360 are ever going to join up to gold regardless of cost and that's why you feel like you are only getting 'half a game' sometimes on the 360 knowing you wont be playing online.

    I played burnout paradise demo on ps3, online for free with no lag or problems. On the 360 i'd have to get mates to all sign up to gold then we'd have the problems when live goes down or the usual host advantage crap that is apparent in certain games (gears of war). On ps3 with it's open network they can do basically what PCs do and set up dedicated servers or whatever they chose and if devs started doing it right it would easily surpass live in network performance, it already does in some games. Live's other functionality is already being 'copied' to PSN with home/ingame bar etc.

    I can't wait till more of my mates pick up a ps3, which will happen with the good games this year, then finally we can start playing properyl for free just as it was on PC without this 'gold' hurdle to jump.. it was a logistical nightmare for when you just wanted a casual online meet up once every couple of months as invariable someone in the group (many) hadn't got gold or it had lapsed and were in a position to pay at that time... on PSN it's a non issue, buy the game get online job done.

    So developers should be supporting the PS3 for the 2 things it brings back to them:

    1. Free oniline, meaning that any effort they put into multiplayer parts is not wasted/unseen by the MAJORITY of gamers. At least on PS3 you know everyone will give it a shot and a fair chance without having to pay for 'testing' it out.

    2. Blu Ray. Content storage is one thing but the COMPLETELY LACK OF PIRACY on the ps3 should have EVERY DAMN DEVELOPER who has ever used the 'high prices are due to piracy' BS to jump onboard 100% with PS3 knowing that if they produce a killer game then they will get 100% sales with no pirate copies (regardless of what the industry things about PC piracy, 360 piracy and in fact all other consoles except the PS3 are rampant with it)... i'm sure it will be cracked eventually but right now - 360 is the pirates choice (and maybe that is to sony's detriment in the numbers game right now), however developers should be rewarding PS3s security with BETTER versions not crappy ports.



    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 12:36

  • miiiguel #146 4 years ago

    All in all, and in the oposite direction of Les' opinion, everyone's a winer. Sony reached its main goal, to push Blu-Ray (I honestly believe this was their main goal, this gen); MS establsihed itself as an entertainment provider with its focus the online service (Live had a major increase of users, massive); and Nintendo is like Phoenix..., reborn from Cube's ashes.

  • Xerx3s #147 4 years ago

    "What they ALWAYS forget is that they have a diet of mostly Shooters and racing games, and that nobody outside of XBOX world cares much for these. "

    Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Wipeout HD, Haze(?), Resistance 2, Killzone 2, MotorStorm 2, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, LittleBigPlanet, Final Fantasy XIII.

    Left 4 Dead, Gears of War 2, Universe at War: Earth Assault, Too Human, Supreme Commander, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition - Colonies Edition, Banjo-Kazooie 3, Fable 2.

    Self owning must be a daytime job for you headbog.

  • Dizzy #148 4 years ago

    >When the 360 finally died with no 'free fix' I thought fuck it

    3 years guarantee dude. It almost sounded believable.

  • Les #149 4 years ago

    "I hope that it is tongue in cheek self mockery. If it isn't, it's bloody self-righteous arrogant crap, worse than what headbog & co do."

    It's a little bit of both... I am very disappointed in what PS3 and 360 so far have brought to the table (nothing that surpasses ps2/xbox/gc) and have grown very tired of the perpetual hype and self delusion that seems to drive video game journalism and its fans. IMO it's better to be critical and tell the platform holders and publishers that they should do better than those self congratulatory posts you see around here celebrating 'best year of games ever' while the sad fact is that 2.5 years into the 'next gen' there's still little that couldn't have been done on last gen systems gameplay wise. Even without the rest of the orange box, HL2 was the best game of last year ffs.

  • Xerx3s #150 4 years ago

    Les: You assume that just because you don't want systems and games to be like the 360 and ps3, others agree (while I'm sure that others agree with you, there are also a lot of people who - like me - have a ton of fun with the games). You speak of a lack of innovation on the ps3/360 but truth told, I haven't seen anything on the wii either that couldn't be done in previous machines.

    "Jerk-knees" - OMG! Personal insults! That makes you look so mature and really gives your comments a reason to read. You're so manly. Want to make out?

    I'm not even going to comment on your little additions as you seem to be under the impression that rts & hack/slash games apparently are shooters or racers. Funny that you forgot to bold another shooter. MGS a shooter???! Why not go all the way and mention banjo as a shooter as well. And fable, it's got guns innit? Ps: Spot the oddity in your list.

  • Prodigy_BE #151 4 years ago

    My god Sharpfish. If you're gonna write that long a text, why don"t you just become a gamesjournalist.

    We all come here for our quick fix of Fanboy fun, don't you know. Nobody reads lumps of text in those quantities.

  • Les #152 4 years ago

    "You assume that just because you don't want systems and games to be like the 360 and ps3, others agree"

    No, I assume they don't agree and I think they are wrong...

  • Rash' #153 4 years ago

    Headbog & Xerx3s:

    Let me draw your arguement to this. I'm sure you both know it: http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

  • Xerx3s #154 4 years ago

    "No, I assume they don't agree and I think they are wrong..."

    Fair enough. I suppose it depends on what one expects.

  • Rash' #155 4 years ago

    headbog, I think you paint too rosey a picture for the Wii. Even now with the release of some genuine top draw games, many bemoan the underwhelming portfolio of games for the console. Most, to use a term commonly used on this thread, are shovelware. It would explain the low attach rates for the system. The Wii sells because it has a shroud marketing campaign with an open to all image. You couple that with a few ok games that appeal to that market with a genuinely unique interface at the right price, and masses come calling. Simply put, Nintendo worked it's sock off planning for the market it wanted and organised everything around that. Quality control wasn't an issue. If it was Wii Sport and Fit would be better games.Of course like Sony, Nintendo has the advantage of time on it's side, so the good games will come.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:21

  • Xerx3s #156 4 years ago

    Rash': Yes, I'm aware. I wouldn't have invested money in any machine if it didn't cater for the hardcore market. Massmarket/casual gamers be damned. Yes, I'm aware how that gives me a narrow vision. IMO, the ps3 and 360 should play to their strengths and cater for the hardcore gamer. Sure, they won't have a big piece of the market but they can still have profit. It's not like those platforms will suddenly become mass market in the next to years, right? They cannot win there and if they try to be what they are not they will lose the hardcore market as well (which btw, is very lucrative).
    It makes no sense to try and beat nintendo in a race that they have already won. It makes far more sense to win the races that nintendo isn't competing in.

    "I was taking the piss out of XerX3s" - Ah, the "I was just taking the piss routine".

    /ticks box on checklist

  • Xerx3s #157 4 years ago

    Rash': People who think that the wii is mainly shovelware are people like me. I don't think that johny average gives a toss about a game being shovelware (after all, who keeps buying all those film tie-ins?)

  • Rash' #158 4 years ago

    Xerx3s: by definition the hardcore will come whether you cater for them or not. If the games are there (and I believe they will be for Wii and PS3) then they will jump on board. There's little point in catering for the hardcore because they cater for themselves. That's what I think was Microsoft's biggest misunderstanding when setting about creating it's image.
    Edited by 3 at 26/03/08 @ 15:58

  • Widge #159 4 years ago

    I think the Wii is following the performance of the Gamecube last time round as far as games catalogue goes. Everything made by Nintendo = good, everything else = take it or leave it.

    RE: the hardcore

    Are they not perhaps the Ninja PC owning types? Hardcore games would no doubt think nothing at ploughing major £age into a system, plus with HDTV, you're not restricted to being sat in front of a 19" monitor anymore.

    Without a shadow of a doubt, when it comes to technical performance, they can lord it over us all, frankly trumping each and every cross platform game with ease, and setting the benchmarks for future systems to follow.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:59

  • Widge #160 4 years ago

    Miiiguel: in a nutshell, how is the 360 the best gaming machine for me, based on all I've said so far? You seem to be missing the point there. Pointing at sales charts is hardly enriching my gaming experience or driving me into a frenzy of number based nerdy goodness.

  • Rash' #161 4 years ago

    Widge: The ninja PC owning gamer is surely a sub catagory within the hardcore, which just opens up a whole new can of worms.

  • Widge #162 4 years ago

    I'd love to see a gamer family tree spoof!

  • Drpwnage #163 4 years ago

    For the sake of accuracy:

    "FIXED

    Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Wipeout HD, Haze, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, MotorStorm 2, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, SOCOM: Confrontation, The Getaway 3, Infamous PAIN, Singastar, Tekken 6, White knight Chronicles, WarDevil. LittleBigPlanet, Final Fantasy XIII

    10/17 exclusives are Shooters and Racers

    Left 4 Dead, Gears of War 2, Universe at War: Earth Assault, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition - Colonies Edition, Banjo-Kazooie 3, Fable 2. Ninja Garden 2., Halo Wars, Too Human, Supreme Commander.

    5/10 exclusives are shooters and racers.

    A greater percentage of exclusives are shooter and racers on the PS3 :-)"

    Nice exclusives on both consoles, with a similar number of games that interest me on both the PS3 and 360.

  • warbo #164 4 years ago

    For accuracies sake you’ve missed out a lot of console exclusives like Alan Wake, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Project Offset, APB, whatever else RARE are working on etc.

  • Drpwnage #165 4 years ago

    True, it was only cut and pasted from Headbog, I FAIL at producing game lists.

  • captainrentboy #166 4 years ago

    Headbog- ''Talk for yourself, for I win. A greater percentage of exclusives are shooter and racers on the 360 :-)''

    You aren't very successful with the ladies are you?...

  • SleepyMagpie #167 4 years ago

    I only want game-based games. And I will knock the Wii every opportunity I get.

    We've been talking about the hype surrounding the PS3 a lot, well compared to the hype created around the Wii it is NOTHING. Man, Jesus, talk about talking up a shits-storm, or a deluge of yellow rain rather?

    No one is disregarding the fact that Nintendo has delivered the gaming community many jewels over the years, but the Wii package is mainly a hype crossover machine built to snag the mainstream moo-moos who don't give a fuck about games and don't know their Sonic from Zelda.

    There's nothing wrong with the basic premise of games, being human we tend to think mostly the same things are fun, again and again, there's not that much really new under the sun.

    The Wii package is the worst case of "The Emperor's New Clothes" I've seen in a long while. The emperor is clearly naked, but no one has the guts to point it out.

    Only ones that bought into it are the afore-mentioned moo-moo's and the odd nostalgic elder gamer, who's really just jaded and lost contact with what's what.

    I'm not saying new-fangled HD graphics a good game makes, but the flipside is equally true.

    Who are you calling a ninnie, Headbog, you softcore wannabe NINNIE!

  • Kryon #168 4 years ago

    Headbog is a joke, I think he used to be a gamer... best ignored really, then again I guess it's fun to laugh at his angst and desperation when his Blu-ray player gets mocked...

  • Calgon #169 4 years ago

    Its funny how a Sonybot even thinks for a second pointing out Wii's obvious wider target audience somehow makes the PS3 closer to it than the 360... 360's library remains more varied to this day.

    I see them sulk when people point out the lack of quality exclusives on the PS3 and the many dissapointments, with defences like "thats not true, thats ill informed fanboy talk"... yet they still come out with complete bollocks about the 360's library like "Its only FPS' and racers"... hello? Hypocrisy dont you think.. just a wee bit eh?
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 00:01

  • Calgon #170 4 years ago

    What will these hopefull Sonybots say if GTA4 does turn out to be another defeat?(they are probably hoping Rockstar do Sony a favour like they owe them and not the other way around... but short of them neglecting the 360 code to spruce up the PS3 code there will be no reason to expect it)

    I think I know exactly how they'll react, same as always, either blame the devs or say it doesnt matter that much... but how much fuss would they make out of a better PS3 version for once? "See I was right all along and if I was right about that... then Im always right so PS3 is by far the most powerfull..." they really dont get it, it's true put the extra work in and you'll get better results on the PS3 than before... same with the 360. The funniest thing about seeing them post stuff like that is if the 360 version is better again the likelyhood of the 360 owners not being too fussed about it... they are that used to it now.

    On to the games library debate then:

    The PS3 is the PS3... it's not the PS2... Wii will take that place as the "everybodies console" so to speak.

    Having a brand that once appealed to a wide audience but no longer caters to every taste as well isnt enough, its already apparent by looking at their poor performance so far(for Sony).

    Neither 360 or PS3 are performing as well as the respective platform holders had hoped(there are more positives for MS than Sony in this gen compared to last though...), why Sonybots deny this just shows they really dont like the reality of this generation so far... instead they cling onto things like untapped potential, games that arernt out yet("just you wait till next year";) and now the hope that everyone goes out and buys a HDTV for Blu-Ray while the PS3 is so competitively priced compared to stand alones(which wont be for much longer IMO). I'm not saying its impossible that PS3 could take second place and even though unlikely first place too but lets be honest here nothing is garenteed here and there is a chance they will remain in third place too.

    Im happy with what the 360 will offer me... if you like hardcore games(please not this covers far more than FPS' and racers which some idiots seem to mistake the term as) then more of the games you like will be on that platform and theres room for innovation here by all means MS should start widening their appeal and think outside the box too(and they have done a little of this already) but shut up with the Hardcore = seen it/shit because thats rubbish. Different groups typically stick to their own preferences, so you wont find developers suddenly beleiving everyone will eventually be buying hardcore games too and stop supporting the 360 even if the PS3 does overtake(ie the dev switch over theories are very hopefull because that requires huge margins if its a desicion based on install base alone). Install base really isnt the be all and end all for devs and publishers, turning profit is, making money back on investments/dev costs and selling software is the way to do that. Software sales are just as if not more important as install base then.
    Edited by 2 at 27/03/08 @ 00:57

  • SleepyMagpie #171 4 years ago

    My personal mold?

    Starting point: Atari VCS 2600 in 1980.

    8 bit Computers: Spectrum 48K, have owned several Amiga's

    Consoles in collection: N64, Playstation 1, Dreamcast, Playstation 2, 2 Xbox'es, Gamecube, Xbox 360, Playstation 3.

    Handhelds: DS Lite, PSP light (or whatever it was called, the new one).

    PC: High-End, able to run Crysis without flinching at reasonable settings.

    I play almost anything that intrigues me but recently:

    Lord of the Rings Online, Age of Conan betatesting, EVE Online, Call of Duty 4, Bully, Lost Odyssey, Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones (GBA game on the DS), Valkyrie Profile: Lenneth, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, Jet Set Radio Future.

    "XBOT who thinks that all games have to fit his own personal mold"

    What mold would that be then, the good games mold?

    And since when did the mainstream need helping? Woe unto him who helpeth the cows graze on his lawn, for they will breaketh down your doors and come to shit in your living room. A pox on the Wii and it's hype, it is an Anethema to real gaming and gamers everywhere.

    Edit: Amiga wasn't really 8 bit was it - doh, 16 bit then.
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 00:56

  • Xerx3s #172 4 years ago

    "For accuracies sake you’ve missed out a lot of console exclusives like Alan Wake, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Project Offset, APB, whatever else RARE are working on etc."

    I know, my intention wasn't to swing dicks around and completeness. It was to show what kind of crap headbog was sprouting again.

  • Xerx3s #173 4 years ago

    "The 360 has a reputation as being a box bought by a certain age group for certain types of games, and the problem is, it will never break from that - but XBOTS hate that label, even if they continue to buy only games that fit in that stereotype. "

    /claps slowly

    No I don't. It's not like YOUR taste in games is better than anyone else's. If people like shooters, racers, wrpg's, etc. there is nothing wrong with that. 'Label' makes it sound as if people who buy these type of games somehow have inferior taste to people that buy things like jrpg's. Also, you seem under the impression that the 360 ONLY has those type of games while atm it has a far more variating line-up than any other platform this generation. As for the age group, well I can make a comment on that but I'm not prepared to go as low as you.
    As for the term 'XBOT', I have no problem with people using it. It just makes them look like utter twits.

  • Widge #174 4 years ago

    I think the Wii does (for me) have a woeful catalogue, although I have seen it have mass appeal to the non-gamer types. People whose opinons of games are based upon a fleeting childhood blast with 2D visuals suddenly seem to have their interest perked. Party games and the like. Plus my company has bought one for conferences and the like and always a good way to get a crowd in. Pretty much doubt a 360 or PS3 would have the same draw.

    As I said, for me, there are about 2 / 3 games that will get me going for it though. I love the Zelda games, so any iteration of that is well worth it in my opinion, plus Mario Kart is always worth a blast with the GF. Then there is Mario Galaxy, the proverbial bees knees according to many... well, I'd give it a go. I actually found Sunshine face chewingly frustrating at points and eventually put it down never to return, so I may count that out.

    With BBC news banging on about the classification of games and spooling videos of Vice City and some FPS', to the concerned parental public who are heading into supermarkets and buying games, having a platform that is blatantly family friendly, where the other platforms are quite happily defined by anti-terrorist action and general alien-shooty joy, is going to win them over. So for these proportion of people, and those who find the likes of HalfLife2, Call Of Duty 4 etc... a bit nerdy and devoid of fun factor, the Wii is going to have a blinding catalogue to them, where the other platforms will sadly not compare. No matter how well received the games are by us/the critics/the charts, the catalogue is going to hold little value for them. Again its all about what each platform offers for the individual. What needs to happen is a move away from the generic, texture comparing, the recycled put downs (from both sides), and more enjoyment of the system you own, which you bought for your own reasons.

  • Les #175 4 years ago

    "The Wii package is the worst case of "The Emperor's New Clothes" I've seen in a long while. The emperor is clearly naked, but no one has the guts to point it out."

    Of course there’s hype around the system but rather than hype purely generated by the platform holder as was the case with PS3 and 360, this time the market itself has generated the hype because they really like the product. The industry has always been talking about reaching out to a broader audience but had great difficulties in achieving it. PlayStation was a first step as it took gaming out of the kids’ area and also got mostly male 15-35 year olds to play games for the first time. Wii is the next big extension of the video games audience and should be applauded for it.

    The hardcore are so rooted in game dogma that they’re only able to see nakedness where there are clothes.

    It might very well turn out to be that the age of the power console is over. Wii has shown that more realistic graphics are not the way to the mass market. Of course thinking that Wii’s way is the only way is as stupid as thinking PS2’s way was the only way but I definitely think the R&D departments of Sony and MS have thrown a couple of draft system specifications down the drain this last year. It might very well be that Sony was a bit on the conservative side when claiming the PS3 would last 10 years... On the strength of Blu-Ray and high ‘living room acceptance leve’l it might eventually sell sufficient numbers. As for MS, releasing a new high powered console in short/medium term would be a costly affair for MS and one that seems very likely to result in financial disaster again.

  • Yaz #176 4 years ago

    "It might very well turn out to be that the age of the power console is over...As for MS, releasing a new high powered console in short/medium term would be a costly affair for MS and one that seems very likely to result in financial disaster again."

    Whilst I agree the Wii should be applauded, I doubt it marks a trend away from the 'power console' as you put it.

    I expect the next consoles from MS and Sony to be as ambitious in pushing the console power boundaries as their previous consoles (and launched around 2010-2012), whilst Nintendo would probably follow the Wii with a more powerful motion-controlled based successor.

    We'll see. :)

  • RichGL #177 4 years ago

    I'm confused here maybe you could explain.

    The 360 will never apparently break out of the mould that it is currently in. The popular and successful one of releasing games that the 25+ age group love.

    That is a bad thing?

    Hmmm, you see how your argument is complete shit don't you?

  • Les #178 4 years ago

    "The 360 will never apparently break out of the mould that it is currently in. The popular and successful one of releasing games that the 25+ age group love.

    That is a bad thing?

    Hmmm, you see how your argument is complete shit don't you?"

    No clue who this is/was directed at but there are several problems with your attempt at an argument which I just can't help but point out (I have a problem with bad logic you see). First, 'the mould' isn't popular in mass market terms. Second, it isn't successful in the sense that it creates a positive return on investment.

    And yes that is a bad thing. Why? Because the audience isn't spending enough to make 360 into a financial success. Given that the 360 attach rate is quite high, this isn't because the target audience isn't buying a lot of games each. It's because the group isn't big enough to buy a large enough number of games in total.

    edit: layout
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 20:09

  • Apologie #179 4 years ago

    Free Online
    Among all the talk about the price of Sony's console, I almost never see anyone mention the significance of Sony's free online service. Xbox Live Gold costs $70 to sign up for 1 year, or $20 for three months [It's actually now $49.99 for a one-year subscription - Ed.]. You can renew your membership for $50 a year. So if the Xbox 360 stays around for five years, you'll be paying 70 + 50 + 50 + 50 + 50 = $270 to access features that Sony gives you for free.
    I agree, Xbox Live is overall offering a better online service right now. But $270 better? And Sony is steadily narrowing the gap in online features. With improvements to the messaging system and support for background downloading, Sony is rapidly catching up with many of the key advantages that Live has enjoyed. Add to that the fact that Sony is offering virtually lag-free dedicated servers at no cost, while on Xbox Live you are paying for a more laggy peer-to-peer service. Furthermore, one of the biggest advertised features of Xbox Live is matchmaking, yet the implementation of this feature has been inconsistent since it is left up to the developer. The matchmaking service on Resistance: FOM, meanwhile, has been one of its biggest successes, proving that even at this early stage the PS3's online capabilities are very competitive. And free. As the PS3 community continues to grow with new features and player-generated content from Home and Little Big Planet, Sony's online service is looking better and better. And, again, they're not charging you $270 for it.

    If you ever hear someone say "Blu-Ray isn't needed for this generation," rest assured they don't make games for a living. At Insomniac, we were filling up DVDs on the PS2, as were most of the developers in the industry. We compressed the level data, we compressed the mpeg movies, we compressed the audio, and it was still a struggle to get it to fit in 6 gigs. Now we've got 16 times as much system RAM, so the level data is 16 times bigger. And the average disc space of games only gets bigger over a console's lifespan. As games get bigger, more advanced and more complex, they necessarily take up more space. If developers were filling up DVDs last generation, there are clearly going to be some sacrifices made to fit current generation games in the same amount of space.

    Granted, some really great Xbox 360 games have squeezed onto a DVD9. Gears of War is a beautiful game and shows off the highest resolution textures of anything yet released, partly because of the Unreal Engine's ability to stream textures. This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you're going to chew up more disc space for each level. With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1 GB of data per level. That inherently limits you to a maximum of about 7 levels, and that's without multiplayer levels or mpeg cutscenes.

    Sometimes people ask us, "If Resistance takes 14 gigabytes, why doesn't it look better than Gears?" Well, for one, Resistance didn't support texture streaming, so we had to make choices about where we spent our high-res textures. Resistance also had 30 single-player chapters, six multiplayer maps, uncompressed audio streaming, and high-definition mpegs. That all added up to a lot of space on the disc. Starting with Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction we are supporting texture streaming, which will make the worlds look even better, and will also consume even more space on disc.
    There's no question that you can always cut more levels, compress the audio more, compress the textures more, down-res the mpeg movies, and eventually get any game to fit on a DVD. But you paid for a high-def experience, right? You want the highest resolution, best audio, most cinematic experience a developer can offer, right? That's why Blu-Ray is important for games, and why it will become more important each year of this hardware cycle.

    IMPORTANT... read below......................

    The GPUs on the Xbox 360 and PS3 are roughly equivalent, with the Xbox 360 arguably having a slight edge. The difference in CPU power, however, is far greater with the PS3 enjoying the advantage. The PS3's eight parallel CPUs (one primary "PPU" and seven Cell processors) give it potentially far more computing power than the three parallel CPUs in the Xbox 360. Just about any tech programmer will tell you that the PS3's CPUs are significantly more powerful. The problem is that it has been challenging thus far to take advantage of the Cell's parallel architecture.

    With the PS2, Sony got away with making a fairly developer-unfriendly system, and its success allowed their hardware designers to ignore developer's complaints as they made the PS3. People high up at Sony have realized that approach simply won't work anymore and are trying to fix the problem. Sony is actively improving their libraries, tools and developer support in order to make PS3 development easier. They are giving first party developed techniques and code to third-party developers so that multi-platform games should start looking better on PS3.

    Games developed from the ground up on PS3 are the ones that will really show off the PS3's CPU advantage. The complexity of the distributed processing architecture means that PS3 engines won't fully blossom until a little later in the lifecycle than the PS2. This has put the PS3 at a disadvantage early in its lifecycle, but within two years you will see games that surpass what is possible on the Xbox 360.

    http://ww w.gamedaily.com/articles/featur...

  • Yaz #180 4 years ago

    ^^^Thanks for the 1 year old article from a PS3 exclusive developer Apologie (regardless of their independant status, they only ever create games for Sony consoles).

    Great to read info coming from an unbiased source...oh wait. ;)

    Still, at least you included the link this time. :)

  • TRUTH #181 4 years ago

    1 yr on and 10/10 for 360. Apologie still cut and pasting arguments he did a year ago nothing proves his case. The 360 simply has better, more exclusives, pc/360, better looking with better frame rates and online gaming then PS3 by far.

    I remember you saying Uncharted can never been done on 360. Having fully completed the game I can honestly say that I wasn't over impressed with the graphics as you made them out to be. And where exactly were those huge open areas in the game. Every path was very liner. Good game, but nothing above the games on 360. And GOW still looks and does more the Uncharted, by quiet a bit actually.

    MGS 4 again I'm not convinced by the graphics. Doesn't look above the games already out. If into games, online gaming, exclusive games, PC/360 cross gaming online and off, eye candy games, better cross format games - The 360 wins fairly easily.

    OH!...I can paste many web pages that say 360 is better or not, or Wii will lose or win, or PS3 will win (also lost already), is better then 360 or is not...etc. But right now the wining evidence is in 360's corner. Don't forget PS3 had it's dev kits out in late/early 2004-05 - remember Heavenly Sword, Resistance, Motor Storm first preview in E3 2005. The PS3 is the same age as 360, only delayed due to problems manufacturing enough bray parts. This causing the delay in PS3 original release date by a year. The dev kits were sent out earlier.

    Look forward to 2008 with GT5, Little Big Planet (though not really my sort of game). Mgs 4 for 2008...And Ninja Gaiden 2, Halo Wars, Fable 2, Gears Of War 2, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell Convection, Too Human on 360.
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 19:45

  • Apologie #182 4 years ago

    Yaz

    You are getting away from the point Yaz... the arguments he used in that interview are pretty logical and valid, if you want to add anything to the discussion (and i would really like to hear your opinion on the subject) tell me why you agree or not with what he said, simple.

  • Apologie #183 4 years ago

    TRUTH

    ".. GOW still looks and does more the Uncharted, by quiet a bit actually"

    --------------------------------

    The game presents realistic animations and a nice stylised design full of vivid colours which really enhances the visual quality, environments are brilliantly realistic, not to mention the water (Nathan Drake gets realistically wet – step in a shallow stream and you’ll have soggy trousers, dive in and you’ll be dripping in watery wetness) – to the unique style created by all of the hand painted textures, more, Nathan Drake is the best animated game character ever, why? Partly because of the motion capture, fluidity and perfect responsiveness, partly just because it’s brilliant and lifelike, Nathan doesn’t just “run and jump”, he stumbles, trips, loses his balance and barely makes long jumps, clinging on with his fingers and mumbling expletives. No other game has managed to create a more convincing, well animated and lifelike character. It’s that good, and now you come here and say that GOW, a brown and grey game where your character can't swim, jump etc... wherethe textures from close get much worse them Uncharted, are somehow and strangely much better??? give me a break mate... ;)
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 19:48

  • Les #184 4 years ago

    "Great to read info coming from an unbiased source...oh wait. ;)"

    Doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong though (wouldn't know, can't see the post you refer to). All sources/people are biased and some manage to tell a truth. I really hate cheap ass rhetoric tactics like this but given the " ;) " you were aware of this... ;)

  • Hypnopedia #185 4 years ago

    I don't get time to play a fat lot of games, but still have a collection of some 15 games on the 360 - I was a bit surprised to read of the mandatory HDD installs required on some games (5GB mentioned on Lost Planet) - is this a common thing on PS3 games, or does it only occur on a very small percentage of titles?

  • TRUTH #186 4 years ago

    Come on Assassin Creed had better animation then Uncharted, also graphics too. Uncharted is a nice looking game, but nothing as impressive as you make out. Lost Planet sucks on PS3. Stranglehold as has problems on PS3. DMC4 also looks and has better color depth and animation on 360 - Though this originally started as a pS3 exclusive first. There certain animations that are missing when blending certain moves.

    PS3 is not at moment the gaming machine it should be. With a year+ gone, and still no evidence of the console going beyond the 360.
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 22:36

  • Yaz #187 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "if you want to add anything to the discussion (and i would really like to hear your opinion on the subject) tell me why you agree or not with what he said, simple."

    Because I've actually done so here time and time and time again already, including with yourself.

    So rather than spending hours repeating myself (yet again), I'll simply return here (perhaps tomorrow) with some Eurogamer links to where I've discussed many of the points he raises . :)

  • Yaz #188 4 years ago

    Les wrote: "I really hate cheap ass rhetoric tactics like this but given the " ;) " you were aware of this... ;)"

    Ouch!

    But far from cheap. ;)

    The link I refer to is actually at the end of Apologie's post. The comments are from that link, which is an article by Brian Hastings, Chief Creative Officer at Insomniac Games, titled "10 Reasons Why PS3 Will Win This Console Generation". Gee, so I guess we can expect unbiased 360 and Wii comments from the PS3 exclusive Brian Hastings then. ;)

    Here's the beginning of the article;

    [link url=http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/10-reasons-why- ps3-will-win-this-console-generation/70209/?biz=1&page=1
    ]http://ww w.gamedaily.com/articles/featur...[/link]

    "All sources/people are biased and some manage to tell a truth."

    Of course, but I always maintain that console exclusive devs (PS3, 360, Wii) are not the best people to ask if you want a balanced view of the console they're developing on compared to the opposition (for obvious reasons I would have thought). The best people are those with direct experience developing games on the consoles they're discussing, and hence for any PS3 vs 360 comparison, I listen more to what those developing games on both consoles have to say. I did this last gen, and the gen before, because these devs have proven to be the more reliable sources for any console comparison. Consoles exclusive devs in previous gens have always been the least reliable in this respect, therefore I fail to see why things should be different this gen.

    Besides, as I've mentioned already, I've been here many times before on the issue of PS3 vs 360, and I'm not really in the mood right now for another long 'fight to the death' arguement over it (hence the short reply). :)

    Edited by 1 at 28/03/08 @ 00:02

  • Xerx3s #189 4 years ago

    "Wii is the next big extension of the video games audience and should be applauded for it. "

    Depends on your perspective. If you are new to gaming and drawn in by the wii then sure. From my perspective however, I've mostly seen cringe worthy games that make run back to PC territory as fast as possible. I also find better graphics far more important as they give games new powers to tell even better stories. Perspectives.

    "First, 'the mould' isn't popular in mass market terms. Second, it isn't successful in the sense that it creates a positive return on investment. "

    Wrong on both accounts imo. First you don't NEED to be mass market to do well, second: 3rd parties and 1st parties seem to prove this point wrong pretty well as they make an incredible profit (see EA's profits for that i.e.). Third, it's better to stay in the market that's small where you can be successful than to attempt to break into a market that's big but where you are bound to fail.

    "And yes that is a bad thing. Why? Because the audience isn't spending enough to make 360 into a financial success. Given that the 360 attach rate is quite high, this isn't because the target audience isn't buying a lot of games each. It's because the group isn't big enough to buy a large enough number of games in total. "

    Erm, it already is turning a profit on hardware and the software sales is eclipsing the competition combined, what's your point?

  • Les #190 4 years ago

    @ Xerx3s

    Indeed perspectives. Being drawn into a story IMO has absolutely nothing to do with graphic fidelity but with quality game and story design. The only thing improvements in graphical quality achieve is they make less advanced (often older) graphics look terrible.

    As for why it is a problem that xbox isn’t breaking into the mass market: The huge R&D costs of developing the machine. MS (like Sony) has invested such a big amount of money in the development of the console that together with the time value of money they’ll need a huge installed base to be able to create a positive return on investment. You’re right that not every product needs to be aimed at the masses in order to become a financial success. However, 360’s business model requires a mass market (as does Sony's).

    As for third parties, yes a few of them have earned huge profits on 360 titles (which ironically almost completely fall in the FPS/driving game categories). But the argument was about 360 as a viable business for MS. The fact that others earn money on MS’s investment is nice for them but doesn’t help MS much if in the end those titles don’t lead to a significant extension of the console’s market.

    MS isn’t generating a real profit on the sales of 360. They just don’t sell them anymore for less than the cost of components. However, there are plenty of other costs (overhead, logistics, etc.) that need to be taken into account (and are taken into account in the company’s financial statements). MS’s video game business division (which also includes MS’s PC games) has created a tiny (accounting) profit for one quarter, almost two years after the console launched. That quarter included the biggest entertainment launch ever (Halo 3 of course, a title published by MS itself so they reap a significantly higher margin on that then they would on a third party title). Hardly signs of a profitable business, let alone one that generates a positive return on investment.

    Of the three current gen consoles, Nintendo ironically is the one that would be able to generate a positive return with the smallest market share. But they are on track to have more consoles out there by the end of the year than MS and PS3 combined. Unless MS finds some way to get the masses interested in their product, it's only a matter of time before Wii software sales will eclipse those of 360. The higher attach rate just isn't a match for Wii's incredible growth in hardware sales.

  • Xerx3s #191 4 years ago

    "Being drawn into a story IMO has absolutely nothing to do with graphic fidelity but with quality game and story design."

    It's a bit of a non argument imo. One tells a story. Telling a story is all about HOW you bring it[1]. The primary method of communication between the machine and the human (thus telling the story) is video and audio. If one of these is not convincing, it handicaps the storytelling. In games it also contributes to handicapping game play and game play possibilities.

    I.e. Imagine that graphics never really developed beyond the zork confines. Now imagine playing wiiSports or Halo 3. Not only will the storyline become impossible, the gameplay is impossible and I doubt that the games would be any fun at all.
    Or imagine watching LotR where the best 3d animations are early wireframes. Would totally ruin the experience.

    Game play and graphics are equally important. This is not surprising as they are part of the same man-machine interface/ action-reaction-interaction routine.

    As for the rest, well, I'm getting off this merry-go-round since we have been debating this for a while now. Nothing new to say there.

    EDIT [1]: I don't know if you have got experience in professional film making but one make have a storyline and tell it a 100 different stories by only slightly altering how things are shown (stuff like camera angles).
    Edited by 1 at 28/03/08 @ 11:40

  • Les #192 4 years ago

    “The primary method of communication between the machine and the human (thus telling the story) is video and audio. If one of these is not convincing, it handicaps the storytelling. In games it also contributes to handicapping game play and game play possibilities.”

    I agree. I just don’t think the number of pixels and shaders correlates much with how convincing the graphics are. Like cartoons show, fidelity has little to do with approaching realism. And only poorly designed games are handicapped by graphical capabilities.

    “Or imagine watching LotR where the best 3d animations are early wireframes. Would totally ruin the experience.“

    Not if you didn’t know better. That’s what I said earlier: Once you’ve advanced, it’s hard to go back to the old times. Like with SD and HD. Of course HD looks better. But it adds nothing to the gameplay or movie viewing experience while it makes SD look bad though it was more than sufficient before.

  • warbo #193 4 years ago

    A CPU advantage doesn't really give the PS3 as significant an edge (graphically) as a GPU or huge RAM advantage would.

  • Xerx3s #194 4 years ago

    "Not if you didn’t know better. That’s what I said earlier: Once you’ve advanced, it’s hard to go back to the old times. Like with SD and HD. Of course HD looks better. But it adds nothing to the gameplay or movie viewing experience while it makes SD look bad though it was more than sufficient before. "

    True. But then we ARE at that point. I'm not saying that HD perce is IT. I'm saying that good graphics are important. To make such graphics possible you don't perce need a HDtv (yet) but a machine that can handle it is a must.

    This however is where I think that we will see the market divide into two markets in the years to come (and in previous years). One the one side we will see games that will be more and more about deep mature story line that will go further down the path that we have already seen.
    The second market will be the market where storyline is not important at all (popcap games) or a story that is completely within the lines of 'light' graphics (can't really come up with a correct term for it atm) - see games such as SMG, etc.

    Imo, they are two completely different markets.

  • sharpfish #195 4 years ago

    @ Dizzy
    "sharpfish: When the 360 finally died with no 'free fix' I thought fuck it

    Dizzy: 3 years guarantee dude. It almost sounded believable."

    Learn to read dickhead.. good luck getting a free fix with an error 74 (ana chip/scalar chip fuck up). THE FREE WARRANTY IS ONLY FOR 3 RED LIGHTS NOT THE OTHER COMMON XBOX FAULTS. YOu fucking twat, calling me a fucking liar, how about you click my name and see my EX gamertag/acheivements which means I most definitely DID own a 360 and it most definitely DID FUCKING DIE on me for a 3rd and final (final being E74 and not merely '3 red lights') time.

    God it's ignorant twats like you that give fanboys a bad name.


    here's the VERY FIRST PART of that message again just for you, enjoy:

    "I was only EVER pissed at MS for being so underhand with their quality problems that led me to blowing £300 on 'nothing' (A dead box with no 'free' fix as it was e74 and not RROD - though my previous 2 X360's did indeed die of RROD) yes I mention this but it's almost an essential preface for context. "

    E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74! E74!

    Edited by 1 at 28/03/08 @ 14:32

  • Luvbeers #196 4 years ago

    Wii is not a console, it is a nintendo. I wish people would stop putting it in the same category as 360/PS3.

  • Les #197 4 years ago

    "Wii is not a console, it is a nintendo. I wish people would stop putting it in the same category as 360/PS3."

    You mean the category of financial successes?

  • Widge #198 4 years ago

    Hm, interesting discovery RE: the PS3 version of RSV2:

    [link url=http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=732940
    ]http://ww w.avforums.com/forums/showthrea...[/link]

  • Les #199 4 years ago

    "True. But then we ARE at that point. I'm not saying that HD perce is IT. I'm saying that good graphics are important. To make such graphics possible you don't perce need a HDtv (yet) but a machine that can handle it is a must."

    No, we've passed that point. PS2/xbox/GC graphics are more than enough for people to get into games as Wii proves. Mature story/content has nothing to do with graphical fidelity. We might indeed see a divide: Console gaming that stops being a the forefront of graphics upon release and surrender the high end graphics game niche to PC as there's simply no money to be made. That doesn't mean that in 5-10 years the consoles will be underpowered compared to now. They'll be more powerful but will use commodity parts and not cutting edge ones.

  • syphon92 #200 4 years ago

    games are exactly the same on both consoles, 360's graphix are just darker.

  • subtlesnake #201 4 years ago

    "And yes that is a bad thing. Why? Because the audience isn't spending enough to make 360 into a financial success. Given that the 360 attach rate is quite high, this isn't because the target audience isn't buying a lot of games each. It's because the group isn't big enough to buy a large enough number of games in total"

    I don't think that's reflected in the actual sales figures:

    1. Halo 3: 8 million units: [link url=http://uk.ga mespot.com/news/6184291.html
    ]http://uk.ga mespot.com/news/6184291.html
    [/link]
    2. Gears of War: 4 million units [link url=http://gearsofwar.com/
    ]http://gearsofwar.com/
    [/link]
    3. Call of Duty 4: 3+ million in the US [link url=http://shackn ews.com/onearticle.x/50809
    ]http://shackn ews.com/onearticle.x/50809
    [/link]
    4. Oblivion: 3 million units across PC and 360 [link url=http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/01/oblivion_hits_3.html
    ]http://bl og.wired.com/games/2007/01/obli...[/link]
    5. Rainbow Six: Vegas: 1.7 million units [link url=http://]http://[/link] [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=5371&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]
    6. Bioshock: 2 million units across PC and 360 [link url=http://ww w.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165101
    ]http://ww w.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165...[/link]
    7. Assassin's Creed: 1.87 million units in US [link url=http://shackn ews.com/onearticle.x/50809
    ]http://shackn ews.com/onearticle.x/50809
    [/link]
    8. Mass Effect: 1.6 million units [link url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/art icles/worldwide-xbox-360-sales-reach-177-million
    ]http://ww w.gamesindustry.biz/articles/wo...[/link]
    9. Crackdown: 1.5 million units [link url=http://www.develop mag.com/news/28421/Realtime-Worlds-chats-about-Crackdown-cre ation-challenges
    ]http://ww w.developmag.com/news/28421/Rea...[/link]
    10. Lost Planet: 1.5 million units
    11. Call of Duty 2: 1.4 million units [link url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-07-10- world-war-II_x.htm
    ]http://ww w.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006...[/link]
    12. Madden NFL 08: 1.1+ million units in US (August and September NPDs)
    13. Guitar Hero III: 1.2+ million units in US (October, November, December, January NPDs)
    14. Madden NFL 07: 1.1 million units in US [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=4525&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]
    15. Orange Box: 1 million units [link url=http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gd c_will_steam_add_movies_music/
    ]http://ww w.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/g...[/link]
    Dead Rising: 1 million units [link url=http://news.teamxbox. com/xbox/12548/Dead-Rising-Sells-More-Than-1-Million-Copies- Worldwide/
    ]http://ne ws.teamxbox.com/xbox/12548/Dead...[/link]
    16. GRAW 2: 1 million units [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=5371&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]
    GRAW: 1 million units in US [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=4525&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]
    17. Saints Row: 1 million units [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=4133&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]
    18. Fight Night Round 3: 1 million units [link url=http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/sport s/fightnightround3/news.html?sid=6148917
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/xbox360/sports/fi...[/link]
    19. Dead or Alive 4: 1 million units [link url=htt p://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11/07/dead-or-alive-4-sel ls-1-million-designer-on-trial-controversy.htm
    ]http://ww w.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11...[/link]
    20. PDZ: 1 million units [link url= http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/742/742581p1.html
    ]http://uk .xbox360.ign.com/articles/742/7...[/link]

    This list is missing out a number of multiplatform titles (for which it's not possible find 360-specific sales figures) which have almost certainly sold over a million. The fact of the matter is, nearly every major 360 release has sold over 1 million copies or more.


    "MS isn’t generating a real profit on the sales of 360. They just don’t sell them anymore for less than the cost of components. However, there are plenty of other costs (overhead, logistics, etc.) that need to be taken into account (and are taken into account in the company’s financial statements). MS’s video game business division (which also includes MS’s PC games) has created a tiny (accounting) profit for one quarter, almost two years after the console launched. That quarter included the biggest entertainment launch ever (Halo 3 of course, a title published by MS itself so they reap a significantly higher margin on that then they would on a third party title). Hardly signs of a profitable business, let alone one that generates a positive return on investment."

    Yes, they made a $165 million profit in the third quarter last year, partly due to sales of Halo 3, but guess what: the quarter after that (last quarter), they made $357 million in profits, so clearly they're not reliant on Halo 3 to sustain profitability.

    [link url=http://uk.ga mespot.com/news/6185110.html
    ]http://uk.ga mespot.com/news/6185110.html
    [/link]
    http://21 6.92.236.126/php-bin/news_index...

  • Xerx3s #202 4 years ago

    sharpfish: Wow. Need some anger management therapy?

  • Xerx3s #203 4 years ago

    "No, we've passed that point. PS2/xbox/GC graphics are more than enough for people to get into games as Wii proves."

    No we really haven't. And it proves what? That there are some people out there that don't gives a rats arse how a game looks or plays?

    You keep talking the same bollocks about how 'big budget' games are not financially doable any more etc. but it's just a load of toss. I'm not even going to bother with pointing it out any more as you seemingly keep hammering on it.
    Edited by 1 at 29/03/08 @ 15:22

  • VMerken #204 4 years ago

    Opinion pieces are fun!

  • warbo #205 4 years ago

    These are probably the most impartial and technical comparisons with good quality screenshots available.

  • Calgon #206 4 years ago

    Les just likes to make assumptions of MS doing as poorly as possible without much to back it up, its all well and good giving links and quotes but if they arent really backing your claims 100% then whats the point?

    Many ill-informed speculations by anti-MSbots as per usual.

  • Widge #207 4 years ago

    Should MS stick out a new console in the short term?
    I would think that a bad move... lots of hardware iterations killed off Sega due to people getting fed up with supporting a platform only to have it superseded.
    Both the 360 and PS3 have been a bit slap happy with sticking out multiple versions of a console.

    Oh and graphics. I think people may not care about how a game looks, but the certainly will care about how it plays. I still haven't been as consistently impressed with a game as I was with God Of War, and this is having delved into Bioshock, Drakes Fortune etc. In fact, the title I've got the most genuine fun out of since GOW is Warhawk.

  • slave23d #208 4 years ago

    why is 25-40 quid (depending on where you buy it) for live such a rip off, I have a unified friends list, i get excellent service, not laggy, all my mates are on it, to me its worth the money. So far only played a couple of games online on PS3 but it wasn't quite the slick affair on LIVE.. I'll be interested to see what HOME does though..

  • Widge #209 4 years ago

    I don't know what 360 Live is like, but I don't find any difference in service from playing on PSN to when I played Halo2 on live. In fact, Halo 2 would always hit that bloody blue screen all the time.

    I tend to play on Warhawk for online japes, jumping into a game on that is much the same as jumping into a game on Steam... or using Xfire. I have a look through the list, see what mates are on what server and join if its free. One downer is no auto-retry like you get on Steam. It'd be nice if I could just leave it sitting trying to get into a very full server until it gets in a free slot.

  • Les #210 4 years ago

    "No we really haven't. And it proves what? That there are some people out there that don't gives a rats arse how a game looks or plays?"

    Those 'some' outnumber the ones that got a 360... And are on track to outnumber owners of 360 and PS3 combined by the end of the year... Making the Wii the fastest selling home console ever.

    For years the industry was trying to convince itself that the road towards mass adoption of games was through ever more realistic graphics. As if someone that dídn't like a PS2 shooter would all of a sudden love it when it looked more 'real'... As every console generation in the past focused on improving graphics first and foremost and the industry showing growth there seemed truth to this belief. Until Wii destroyed it by releasing a next gen console with hardly a significant processing power increase but instead a focus of making gameplay more accessible. And in hindsight, the signs were there already with PS2 proving a mainstream success in no small part because it delivered accessible games like Singstar, Eye Toy and Buzz.

    "You keep talking the same bollocks about how 'big budget' games are not financially doable any more etc. but it's just a load of toss. I'm not even going to bother with pointing it out any more as you seemingly keep hammering on it."

    Big budget games are financially doable but in smaller numbers than before and with higher risk. Very simple: games cost more to develop, the market for the typical big budget games type (FPS, open world) isn't expanding much. Result: smaller profit margins (Partly offset by raising the prices of current gen games a little). On the other hand there is a new platform with a bigger user base and that is relatively cheap to develop for (from a financial perspective, much more 'expensive' from a creative one). It's only a matter of time before development resources will be shifted to where most opportunity for profit lies. Even if it requires a radically different take to game development.

  • Amoebalove #211 4 years ago

    @headbog

    You’re a cock!!!!

  • Les #212 4 years ago

    "The fact of the matter is, nearly every major 360 release has sold over 1 million copies or more."

    Your point being? I didn't contest that major 360 titles sell well (and I expect minor titles to sell poorly... ;) ). I said that if the audience doesn't grow much it will not be enough to offset the billions of dollars invested in developing the machine.

    "Yes, they made a $165 million profit in the third quarter last year, partly due to sales of Halo 3, but guess what: the quarter after that (last quarter), they made $357 million in profits, so clearly they're not reliant on Halo 3 to sustain profitability."

    True but that 4th quarter of course included the holiday season, not exactly the worst quarter in the industry and very likely a significant share of Halo 3 sales... It'll be interesting to see how this develops. It needs to grow sharply and fast for the 360 project to be a value adding one for MS.

  • miiiguel #213 4 years ago

    "Your point being? I didn't contest that major 360 titles sell well (and I expect minor titles to sell poorly... ;) )."
    But, "minor titles" a plenty on 360, and none on PS3, why?