X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Seven

By Richard Leadbetter Published 3 January, 2008

One man, 12 games, many arguments.

Page 1 of 4

After a joyous yuletide spent playing Naughty Dog's supreme Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, it's back to the frontlines of the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 console war for this reporter, with the latest battery of cross-platform confrontations. You know the score by now: impartial criticism on each multi-format release is the name of the game, the aim being to supplement the original Eurogamer reviews with additional commentary relevant to each version of the game, with gameplay the primary concern.

As is the norm with our face-off comparison features, each game feature is supplemented with a range of ultra-clean screengrabs losslessly extracted from the HDMI ports of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 Elite. A Digital Foundry HD capture station is used to acquire every last pixel output by the consoles at full 24-bit precision, with the unit calibrated to full-range RGB and both systems set up likewise. As 1080p performance is so variable on PlayStation 3, we've included screenshots of this video mode in action where applicable and how the results compare to the Xbox 360's in-built GPU scaler on the same titles.

So... the games then. A colossal array of wares to get through in what is the biggest face-off feature yet; 12 titles that between them rate a 'not bad at all' 7.5/10 when their Eurogamer review scores are taken as an average.

Once again, many thanks to the Beyond3D Forum's invaluable Quaz51 for his assistance in getting to the bottom of the technical issues inherent in a few of these cross-platform conundrums.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men

An intriguing combination of ultra-violence and squad-based shooting from the creators of Hitman and the under-rated Freedom Fighters, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men has plenty going for it in the shape of strong characterisation, a no-holds-barred approach to gaming brutality and an excellent array of variety in the game's many missions. As Kristan noted in the original Xbox 360 review, the way that IO Interactive has managed to seamlessly incorporate the game's storyline into the actual action without the need for excessive cut-scenes is also worthy of praise.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Seven' Screenshot kane

However, in terms of overall polish, Kane & Lynch disappoints with some terrible flaws in several of the missions and some horrendous difficulty spikes. I also thought that the Gears of War/Uncharted cover system felt unfinished and unwieldy and saddled with some awful collision detection, meaning that you often take damage even though you think you're safely hidden. The squad-based strategy elements also appear to be somewhat superfluous and overly fussy for all the return they actually give you in the heat of battle. Also curious considering the basic nature of the game is the complete omission of online co-op from the roster of options.

However, the good news is that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game are very close indeed, to the point where you really need to look hard to notice any kind of difference at all. The only tell-tale sign is in the heavily anti-aliased look of the Xbox 360 game, with full-on 4x MSAA smoothing off the stylised visuals in a far more pleasing manner than the AA-free PlayStation 3 conversion of the game.

Gameplay-wise though, both games are a match, so if the action grabs you, you won't really feel short-changed regardless of the system you happen to own. However, based on my experiences with the game, that's a pretty big 'if'. For PS3 owners, the majestic Uncharted is clearly the superior purchase.

TimeShift

While it's difficult to disagree with much of Tom's expert 6/10 dismissal of this particular game, I have to admit that along with GRAW 2 and Guitar Hero III, TimeShift offered the most fun I had out of all the titles included in this mammoth face-off. Graphically slick and packed with good-looking set-pieces, it may seem rather too close to Half-Life 2 in its fundamental execution but the time-travel shtick adds an interesting twist to the basic gunplay. What is missing is the assured touch of a master designer, necessary in elevating a nice concept and a decent piece of technology into a truly unmissable game, but regardless, there's still the core of a decent release here.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Seven' Screenshot time

Unfortunately the good will I had for the game diminished rapidly after loading up the PlayStation 3 version. Don't get me wrong, graphically it's very close indeed to the original Xbox 360 version as the comparison screenshots doubtless reveal. But this is one of the rare occasions where even a low-res internet video would reveal the night and day difference between the two versions. Put simply, TimeShift PS3 at its best still drops frames compared to the 360 game, even when barely anything is actually happening. At worst, it's extremely jerky and plagued with v-lock screen tear. What is interesting is that the 360 game has the option to enable or disable v-lock (it's turned on by default). There is no such facility in the PS3 game, it's off by default in an attempt to keep the speed up. That particular gambit fails to pay off and the unwelcome consequence is a nigh-on constant screen tear effect.

I actually had a fair amount of fun playing this - on Xbox 360 at least. Sure, it's a fairly formulaic first-person shooter and its more original elements could've been better implemented in a more imaginative design, but for gamers who've squeezed every last iota of fun out of 2007's premier league FPS releases, TimeShift on 360 does just enough to make it worth a shot, especially as a post-Christmas rental or a well-chosen pick from eBay or the bargain bins. As the New Year gaming drought savagely kicks in, TimeShift is one of the more worthy also-rans of 2007 I'm definitely going to be catching up on.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2

Ubisoft has something of a Jekyl and Hyde reputation for their PlayStation 3 wares. On the one hand we have titles like Rainbow Six: Vegas, which look and play just as well on either platform. On the other we have titles like the now infamous Splinter Cell: Double Agent, rightly reviled as one of the worst cross-platform endeavours of all-time, and of course the disappointing PS3 rendition of Assassin's Creed.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Seven' Screenshot graw

By and large, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 happily falls into the former camp. Despite turning up on the PlayStation 3 months after the original Xbox 360 version, everything appears to have made it across to the Sony platform intact, and the game itself is absolutely fantastic. I have to admit to being a complete GRAW virgin prior to putting this feature together, but this is definitely one of the few titles from this feature that I'll be returning to once I have some spare time.

Gripes? Of course, there are a couple, and yes, as you might imagine, they are directed solely at the PlayStation 3 rendition of the game. The visuals lack the anti-aliasing of the Xbox 360 version but rather than leave things as they are, the developers thought they could mimic the look of the original game by applying an overly generous amount of blur to the proceedings. I'm really not sure why this is making it into so many PS3 conversions (Orange Box, Need for Speed ProStreet and Assassin's Creed to name but three) but it doesn't look good, wiping out a lot of the fine detail of the excellent graphics. As Tom Bramwell pointed out after witnessing Portal on PS3, it's like playing the Xbox 360 version with Vaseline smeared all over your expensive HDTV. My only other bugbear is the usual cross-platform 'gotcha' - token SixAxis controls inferior in every regard to the basic analogue sticks and disabled by default. Why bother?

However, when GRAW 2 is designed so well and plays so wonderfully, the complaints feel petty. Coming to the franchise as a complete virgin, I thought this was a simply a great game - and one I'd be happy to play on either platform. But if I had to make a choice it would be the 360 version, if only for the gamerscore challenges and the fact that the excellent graphics aren't diminished by the needless Vaseline effect.

Previously on Eurogamer.net...

To catch up on the previous clashes check out rounds one to six below.

Page 1 of 4

Comments (223) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • JediMasterMalik #1 4 years ago

    All I can say is WTF@GHIII! It's hardly graphically intensive is it?

  • vmagic #2 4 years ago

    ps3 ports getting better then o.O

  • monkie_king #3 4 years ago

    in before fanboyapocalypse

  • DAN.E.B #4 4 years ago

    meh seems a bit pointless to me most of the games are average at best!
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 14:30

  • Cloudane #5 4 years ago

    I wish Eurogamer would stop wasting their talents on articles like these.

    It is yawn-orific stuff to be quite frank.

  • GitSomE_UK #6 4 years ago

    Unleash the fanboys... fly my prettys, fly!!!!!

  • monkie_king #7 4 years ago

    screenshots don't show framerate though

  • kaosridder #8 4 years ago

    monkie_king - true. Good for the ps3 i guess. As it royally sucks at that, apparently

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #9 4 years ago

    EG you seem to be ignoring your New Years Resolutions with this blatent attempt to start a fanboy fight.

    As your new year article said in point 3. why try and compare who has the best console when there all good with good things to play on them.

  • disjoost #10 4 years ago

    Mmm, you would have expected to see the ps3 triumph over the Xbox360 at least once by now. So far, it's either uglier, or less smoothly running. With all that stuff about the super cell-proc etc, this is really not very convincing.

  • gizmo #11 4 years ago

    360 wins AGAIN then.

  • monkie_king #12 4 years ago

    GP: think of this as a sacrifice to the God of Page Impressions.

  • Dizzy #13 4 years ago

    Hmmm.. couple of strange things.

    Why does GH have no downloadable content on PS3?

    >the complete lack of anti-aliasing on the PlayStation 3 version of the game.

    That would be the 10MB Smart 3D memory in action on the 360. Looks like you guys like it.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 14:43

  • Beano #14 4 years ago

    I think Eurogamer looks way better on PS3 than on Xbox 360...

  • RedPanda #15 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • monkie_king #16 4 years ago

    @RedPanda: I said that in comment #3 ;-)

  • RedPanda #17 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Katsumoto #18 4 years ago

    Now to test my 'ignore poster' collection.

    I'm with you there. It's working so far!

  • andijames #19 4 years ago

    I think things will improve for PS3 as i believe its now being made the lead development console in most development companies but to be honest as long as the game runs well i'm not that bothered about a few frames here n there and slight differences. As long as the gameplay's good then a good game it should be. Regardless of console

  • Moonprince #20 4 years ago

    Now to test my 'ignore poster' collection.

    I'm with you there. It's working so far!

    2 for me so far ;)

  • JohnnyWashnGo #21 4 years ago

    I am no graphics whore, the only reason I need a semi decent graphics card on any machine is so that Compiz Fusion composite manager runs well enough to provide me with 10 desktops on my Linux installations.

    That being said, would someone care to explain exactly what 'v-lock tear' is and how it relates to graphics?

    Cheers.

  • Beano #22 4 years ago

    ok.. I guess....

  • Apologie #23 4 years ago

    i see no point in these articles (except to start fanboy wars), most of the games presentend here are in no way relevant to the majority of gamers or reflect the potential of both x360 and PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 15:01

  • Psiloc #24 4 years ago

    @JohnnyWashnGo

    Just a horizontal tear in the screen, with one half of the screen a frame or two behind the other. Most noticable when the camera is panning horizontally. Look up 'V-Sync' if you're interested, I have no idea why EG call it 'V-Lock'.

    @GamesProgrammer

    Ditto. They are all the more pointless because all of us PS3 owners know by now what the deal is.

  • DUFFKING #25 4 years ago

    Malik, you should see how the PC version of GHIII runs.

  • monkie_king #26 4 years ago

    Apologie, quick question since we're all being so very civil today: from a brief look at your EG profile, it looks like you used to have a 360, then sold it and got a PS3 around launch. Would that be correct?

  • Tomo #27 4 years ago

    x2 Cloudane

  • Dizzy #28 4 years ago

    "it looks like you used to have a 360, then sold it and got a PS3 around launch"

    He was probably the crazy German that jumped on his 360 to get a free PS3 at launch ;) Now I know why he is so bitter.


  • Eighthours #29 4 years ago

    EG you seem to be ignoring your New Years Resolutions with this blatent attempt to start a fanboy fight.

    Missing the point, fella.

  • monkie_king #30 4 years ago

    That German's 360 probably had the RROD, though ;) Not as stupid as he looked, maybe.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #31 4 years ago

    @Psiloc

    Cheers fella, just the answer I was looking for :)

  • JediMasterMalik #32 4 years ago

    @DUFFKING - Enlighten me!

  • monkie_king #33 4 years ago

    JohnnyWashGo: it basically means that you didn't have time to render the frame fully before vblank arrived. Your options are to drop a frame or render the partly-rendered frame with half an old frame underneath.

    I've a feeling maybe flat-panel screens show it up more, since we hear a lot more about it in this generation. It's certainly not a new phenomena (I remember Soul Blade on PS1 tearing like a bastard for instance).

  • Apologie #34 4 years ago

    @monkie_king

    Apologie, quick question since we're all being so very civil today: from a brief look at your EG profile, it looks like you used to have a 360, then sold it and got a PS3 around launch. Would that be correct?

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    I didn't sold my X360 because of that... i sold it because i happen to have a good computer that can run Gears of War (with added content), Bioshok, Lost Planet etc... with better graphics and performance (in time Mass Effect will be available on Pc too as well as Halo 3) so, no point for me in maintaining the console anymore.... the only top game i really like "that are not on Pc as well" is Forza 2.
    On the other hand Ps3 have truly exclusive games, games that i cannot play in any other platform including Pc, games such as God of War, Uncharted, Ratchet, Motorstorm, Gt5, Metal GEar, Killzone, Little Big Planet, Heavenly Sword etc... i like X360, but between a good computer and a X360, or a good computer and a Ps3, i preferd the second option.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 15:23

  • monkie_king #35 4 years ago

    right, fair enough ...

  • Moz #36 4 years ago

    "*YAWN* Same old same old.

    As long as games are developed 1st on the 360, they'll suck on the PS3.

    Nuff said. "

    I'd agree with same old same old, but 360 first doens't guarantee crap on PS3 as strangle hold show's. but the devs are slowy getting better

  • pyrat6 #37 4 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    Heheh .... you seem to be grumbling that Apologie is not being a cock. I prefer the civil version myself.

    I also own more than one console - and this article is a waste of time as most of the games have been out for ages. If they compared at the time of release it may have some use.

    Anyway - rule of thumb. Big crashy noisy games for the 360 ... games with a more subtle, chilled out approach get them for the PS3. Purely cos of the drive noise. It's a stupid method to use to decide. But no worse than any others.

  • jonsaan #38 4 years ago

    Having played Assassins creed through to completion on PS3 I can't say I have noticed any bluriness whatsoever. It looks fantastic. Sharp as a knife.

    I've only played the Timeshift demo but I didn't experience any framrate issues whatsoever.

    It's the same with Pro Evo (full game). Everyone witters on about slowdown. The only time I have ever seen it in about 500 matches is during an online game. I really do wonder about people's settings frankly.

    Likewise I didn't notice anything resembling vaseline on my screen whilst playing the GRAW2 demo.

    I agree with some of your comments on Tony Hawk's Proving ground though. It's a great game. So much content and it never drops a frame from what I've seen.

    Oh and a note to EG. It's all very well posting articles about how we should have a New Years Resolution not argue about console and which is best. Then you go and post this blatant flamebait on January 3rd!
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 15:40

  • monkie_king #39 4 years ago

    seamonsterneil: it especially helps when the list of games contains games in the list that aren't even close to being released and will probably still be in the list of games that aren't out when the list gets rolled out again in 2009. or will have turned out shit and quietly forgotten. or turned out shit and referred to as 'one of the best games ever made' regardless.

  • jonbwfc #40 4 years ago

    Would it be at all cogent to suggest that, with the possible exception of lego star wars (which isn't exactly pushing any technological boundaries anyway), which version of any of those games is better is largely irrelevant because a lump of dog excrement is still a lump of dog excrement, even if it's slightly more aesthetically pleasing one that the other one slightly down the road.

    You're wasting your money buying virtually any of those games regardless of which platform you're buying on.

  • kincaide #41 4 years ago

    Please keep these articles up - I find them very interesting and information. Thanks Eurogamer

  • jozz #42 4 years ago

    Blatant flamebait? Really?

    Can't help but wonder how many people complaining about these articles would still do if the results were reversed.

  • Apologie #43 4 years ago

    @paddy29

    You really are an ignorant foe, the Cell is still in its infancy, The Cell BE architecture is not a magic bullet. Simply re-compiling an existing application for the Cell will not see any benefit. Most systems must be re-architected and data re-designed to take advantage of the architecture. But when that's done, the performance is unrivaled by any consumer-level technology on the market today... that's why these games are not as good or even better on the Ps3... give the system time and it will impress you.

  • monkie_king #44 4 years ago

    funny, i could swear i read that somewhere before ...

    must be deja vu again.

    edit: ah, it's cut and paste from "Tapping the Potential of Cell".
    [link url=http://linuxp s3.net/content/view/16/34/
    ]http://linuxp s3.net/content/view/16/34/
    [/link]

    Originally published on PSINext on August 23, 2006. So nearly 18 months ago.

    That's rather a long infancy the Cell is having, don't you think?
    Edited by 2 at 03/01/08 @ 16:01

  • Nithron #45 4 years ago

    Why the hell are Sony consoles always so bad at anti aliasing?

  • monkie_king #46 4 years ago

    Nithron: because Sony's pixels are made from the souls of dead kittens.

  • Bonus #47 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    That's all fine and well for the processor, but it's the graphics chip which renders the image you see on your screen and the one in the 360 is better than the one in the PS3 so it wont really get all that much better in these head to head which has the better graphics/frame rate comparisons.

  • Bonus #48 4 years ago

    @Nithron

    The PS2 didn't have hardware anti-aliasing and the PS3 can't afford the memory space to do it properly for it in games which use a lot of texture space.

  • Rich72 #49 4 years ago

    he's quoted that paragraph 3 times in the last 2 days!

  • mingster #50 4 years ago

    gotta love the ol Apologie 'cut n paste' ps3 is best.

  • EmiliasHorse #51 4 years ago

    I would like to see a round by round score to the articles...Sure the 360 is 54-0 up with 12 drawn rounds but it's still fun!

  • SeesThroughAll #52 4 years ago

    "You know the score by now: impartial criticism on each multi-format release is the name of the game, the aim being to supplement the original Eurogamer reviews with additional commentary relevant to each version of the game, with gameplay the primary concern."

    A reporter who is not biased does not need to proclaim how unbiased he is.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 16:20

  • Kryon #53 4 years ago

    @Apololol

    You are such a joke! I loved that first post of yours where you pretended (rather unconvincingly) to be a normal (non-retarded) person, but I knew it wouldn't be long before you started with your cut & paste jiggery-pokery, Oh and you even managed to write a list of the upcoming PS3 games which (you hope) will be "teh best evar!!!"

    Honestly man, don't you get bored of typing out the exact same drivel day after day? You know, repeating the same thing 1000s of times won't make people believe you any more, it just makes us think you're a bit slow (putting it lightly).
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 16:22

  • Rich72 #54 4 years ago

    Don't be mean Kryon, i think I saw his lip quivver. ahh bless.

  • superdelphinus #55 4 years ago

    it's funny how 'good news' is now that the ps3 versions are almost as good as the 360 versions. heh

  • pyrat6 #56 4 years ago

    "Honestly man, don't you get bored of typing out the exact same drivel day after day? "

    Says Kryon. KRYON ffs. Irony overload.

  • BillyBrush #57 4 years ago

    If i was a developer right now

    I'd be making the PC my lead platform, and developing all the games using PC's

    I'd then think about porting the code to both consoles

    I'd then think about saying 'PS3 lead platform' to guarantee some sales even if my game is shite

    It will be lead platform for a lot more games in future, that's good business, just like having 1080p on the COD4 box, twill be bullshit 1/2 the time (all games apart from the exclusives) but it will work, Apologistes will buy

  • Rodney #58 4 years ago

    I love Apologies comments.

    sometimes I scan through comments to get his little gems of wisdom.

    PS tripple FTW.


  • Kryon #59 4 years ago

    @pyrat6

    I don't recall myself cutting and pasting the exact same thing day in, day out. I don't recall churning out the same list of upcoming titles with every post I make either, so I can only assume that you don't know what the word 'irony' means as your use of it is wholly incorrect.

    The dictionary is your friend.

  • Apostle #60 4 years ago

    I like reading these, but it doesn't make me cry anymore. I bought a 360 in September and, I'm sorry to say as I'm a big fan of Sony, I haven't really touched my PS3 since. Although I am looking forward to the future, and I love the fact that PS3 is constantly adding features and functinoality (Divx etc).

  • Apologie #61 4 years ago

    The point is that Ps3 have indeed a different/revolutionary architecture that will not be fully dominated in it's frist year... that's why some multiplatform games are not competent on Sony's Machine (some, because Oblivion, Assassins Creed, COD4 Dirt, Darkness, Fight Night round 3 are equal or (questionably) better).
    I post the same things because you guy's post the same shit all the time as well... these articles have been debated infinitely, Eurogamer should stop making these lame articles "at least for a while"... there are no point anymore.

  • Moonprince #62 4 years ago

    I see what he was saying kry, I, and I don't doubt most others see it...

  • Rich72 #63 4 years ago

    At least for a while? Apologie.... does that mean in the hope the ps3 may eventually come out on top it would then be fair to print the articles?

  • Andee #64 4 years ago

    I suspect this might get lost in arguments here, but just a few comments on the content of these articles:

    It would be useful to discuss anisotropic-filtering as well as anti-aliasing, as, perhaps due to also playing pc games, I find the differences in AF stand out as much as the AA ones in few of the screenshot pages.

    Also, the colour balance on many of the comparisons seem very different. Are both systems calibrated to the same black/rgb level, or is just the effect of the ATI and Nvidia image/saturation differences?

    A final point, and one which I accept might not be of importance to most people, is that it'd also be nice to know how the 360 versions handle the loading/streaming of game data during play, in terms of whether there is constant full-speed disc noise or if it stops during gameplay. For folk like me, not having the greatest of hearing, and often gaming late at night, this is rather important, particularly in recent games such as Assassins Creed which appears to offer no subtitle support at all.

  • SwedBear #65 4 years ago

    Why not Apologie? Because your precious PS3 is not winning? Again, we are quite a few who have both machines and I'm sure there are quite a few who have not decided yet which one to get. For us these articles actually DO have a lot of use.

    BTW - I've aksed this before but never saw the answer. What Gamertag did you use on your 360?

    /B

  • SwedBear #66 4 years ago

    Andee - I've seen washed out images from PS3 games on other sites too so I think there might be some issue when taking screenshots from then. Not sure if the gamma is wrong but PS3 screenshots seem to look more washed out than when you play them.

    B

  • Bonus #67 4 years ago

    Like I've said before, the image comes from the graphics chip, not the processor so you'll be hard pushed to find any game which is made to look better thanks to the benefits of the CELL.

    It might have more physics cycles, or better audio DSP effects or more accurate animation interpolation but not graphical quality.

  • monkie_king #68 4 years ago

    Andee: anisotropic filtering shows up on things like floor textures in the distance, right? It's to do with using a non-square interpolation grid to compensate for texture being viewed obliquely, where more filtering is needed in one axis than the others?

    Could you point to a screenshot where you can see the difference? Ta.

  • pyrat6 #69 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    Oh dear. I was referring to the regurgitation of tired arguments. Just because you don't cut and paste doesn't make it any less boring. Or you any less boring than apologie. Hence irony.

    Sorry for not making this simple enough for you to understand.

  • Kryon #70 4 years ago

    It's so true that the majority of people slamming EG for this kind of article are PS3 fans. What a coincidence, eh! It's also true that if the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. PS3 coming out on top for once) it would be the exact same people who would be sinning EG's praises and trying to rub 360 owners faces in it. It's a bit like how they used to say the 360 is shit and only for FPS (which was always inaccurate anyway) but as soon as UT3 comes out they all start wanking like there's no tomorrow..

  • Waffleaber #71 4 years ago

    How come Eurogamer don't do a Eurogamer TV version of this article? Most of the differences seem to be in framerate or amount of screen tear from an HD source which you can't really see on a 569x640 still image.

  • Kryon #72 4 years ago

    @pyrat6

    "Oh dear. I was referring to the regurgitation of tired argumblah blah blopity bloo etc"

    Zzzzzzzzz......

  • miiiguel #73 4 years ago

    Dear EG,
    You shouldn't talk about games at all, until these stupid devs don't figure out how to work with this revolutionary - oh my god, da awesome! - technology, that is da powa of da C3LL!

    Thank you,
    PS3defenseforce.desperate

  • Psiloc #74 4 years ago

    @Andee

    Agreed. I don't think anybody (except this Apolonog guy) will argue mulitplatform games on the PS3 are represented on the screen as well as the 360 versions, but that's not really all there is too it. Some games are genuinely ruined by the 360 deciding to use it's disc drive to escape the Earth's gravity. PS3's Assassin's Creed had a very undocumented +1 there for me.

  • pyrat6 #75 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    "Oh dear. I was referring to the regurgitation of tired argumblah blah blopity bloo etc"

    Zzzzzzzzz......
    "
    Well you did tell me to use a dictionary :)

    Disappointed in the response. I was expecting some of the legendary Kryon wit, masquerading as vague homophobia of course. I guess you really are just a cunt after all.

    My new years resolution not to ignore anyone fails after only 3 days :-( I Fail.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 17:23

  • HiddenPooh #76 4 years ago

    There's a beauty salon near me, they're offering half price brazillian waxing. Thought this might be a good place for them to advertise.

  • NickNack #77 4 years ago

    Why does the PS3 exist?, all mulit platform games run better on 360, and 360 has better exclusives. Sorry PS3 fanboys but the truth is the PS3 is not needed. 360 does the same job better and cheaper.

  • NickNack #78 4 years ago

    Once 360 gets MGS4 and FFXIII there is no reason to buy a PS3, and all PS3 owners may as well sell their PS3's.

    Not trolling just stating facts.

  • miiiguel #79 4 years ago

    Many, many consumers buy a Playstation just "because". That's a fact. I bet several of the 100 milion PS2's sold went to this demographics. I have friends at work who bought a PS3 after I explained it wasn't the best system this time arround, and they replied "heck, I don't really play..., it's just... you know..." (no I don't!). And that happened to be true most of them have it now for several months and have 2-3 games (PES; COD4, and some NFS).

  • Rich72 #80 4 years ago

    Miiiguel hits the nail on the head. blind loyalties indeed. i want a reason to buy a ps3 but at the moment.... nada! Maybe a price drop to the magic £250 and a couple of decent games (yes i have read your list of "must haves" apologie)

    The noise factor is an issue for me too with my 360 but it doesn't stop me enjoying it.

  • pyrat6 #81 4 years ago

    @kato

    Bless you. I think anyone aware of Kryon's standard of posting realises he's a big boy and doesn't need you fighting his battles, nor is he afraid of using 'colourful' language himself.

    I don't think using the term 'irony' and then explaining why really counts as 'goading' does it. Unless he is very sensitive.

    I did try to discuss, he took the piss, I called him a rude word. I think I would use that approach whether I am in a pub - or on a forum - at work. At least I am consistent.

    Finally I was hardly claiming glory by admitting I ignored him. In fact I said it was a failure on my part. But if he refuses to discuss - then I don't see I have any choice.

    Now run along ... I'm sure there is someone in need of you defence out there somewhere.

  • monkie_king #82 4 years ago

    Yeah, PS3 will definitely survive due to the lowest-common-denominator factor. X360 is shaping up to be more of a gamer's console, while PS3s will be bought because of the brand name and sit connected over composite cables, gathering dust with three rarely-played games next to it (a FIFA, a NFS, and whatever was bundled in HMV).

  • Andee #83 4 years ago

    @ monkie_king,

    Link to a couple of shots where AF stood out, here:
    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a rticles//a/8/9/9/7/2/Graw_720p20.jpg.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    That one is a bit odd, no differences on floor level, but its noticeable on the fence on the left for example. Reason it seems strange is i'm sure thats the kinda thing that used to happen in the past when comparing ATI to Nvidia image quality(for last gen cards), but in reverse.

    Another one:
    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a rticles//a/8/9/9/8/3/Bladestorm3.jpg.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    Just a slight difference here on the ground, but the colour saturation differences makes it a bit difficult.
    In more general terms, I've noticed a lot of discussion on AF differences over at the beyond3d and neogaf forums (perhaps most noticeable in titles like VF5 and Oblivion), but it does seem to be overlooked in these articles in preference to AA discussion.

  • BillyBrush #84 4 years ago

    Well Wii is the winner of this war, as someone pointed out...

    but between 360 and PS3 it doesn't matter, both have their marketplace, and both their fans...when ICO team drop a game i might even buy one

    all Sony did wrong was releasing later (oh and the rumble bollox but that's small)...it meant the very hardcore gamers went out and bought 360's...and they buy the biggest volume of games http://ww w.360voice.com/blog.asp?tag=Bil... such as myself..

    that's where the money is made as far as i'm aware, from software liscensing...things would have been Ok for Sony as people like myself will get all 3...only gamerpoints came along, and it will win the SOFTWARE war for MS, that's the real war going on, and publishers follow it...so no matter what the units of hardware that flush out, gamerpoints, such a small thing will mean 360 wins the software battle...and MGS, sorry to say will be timed....it could even mess up Free Radical if they backed the wrong horse and produce something not up to the standard 360 gamers have with FPS (Again tho, gamerpoints to the rescue the lucky so and so's)

    the only way to avoid this apologie is to go out and buy 145 games rightaway for your PS3...give it a couple o years and that many will be available...Ubi's figures come out next week, business is booming, and you'll find the Cell didn't manage to power that

    Not that it matters, ICO team are the shit....after Valve of course, they make Half life, one of those games nobody'd be playing so it's useless to compare, just like this lot..

  • miiiguel #85 4 years ago

    On a side note, and although english is not my 1st language (not even 2nd), "cunt" in a very unaestethical word.

  • Apologie #86 4 years ago

    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.

  • Apostle #87 4 years ago

    I'm with you on the gamerpoints, erm, point BillyBrush. I will buy a multiplatform game on 360 by default because more friends are on Live than PSN, and the gamerpoints system motivates me to complete games, rather than let them gather dust.

  • miiiguel #88 4 years ago

    Two years is a long time... But time does fly when you play with your 360.

  • Kryon #89 4 years ago

    @Apololol

    "The GPUs on the Xbox 360 and PS3 are roughly equivalent, with the Xbox 360 arguably having a slight edge."

    There's no 'arguably' about it Apolol, but seeing as you seem to know so much about the subject why don't you indulge us with your vast tech knowledge? Oh wait, or did you just cut & paste that whole post from some 2005 SDF forum?

  • BartonFink #90 4 years ago

    Game set and match 360 by the sounds of it

    Oh an apolwhatsyerface
    the 360 GPU and PS3 GPU are about as close as diamonds and coal.
    as for the CPU the 360 has 3 cores with 2 hardware threads each so with the redundancy built into the cell architecture it's 6 and 7. 360 also has a unified memory architecture

    Why do you think most if not all games on 360 look so much better?
    Edited by 4 at 03/01/08 @ 20:01

  • Scimarad #91 4 years ago

    Something obviously went wrong with Timeshift; After having played both demos I definitely would have gone for the PS3 version if I had bought it at all so I really don't know what to think about that comparison.

  • HiddenPooh #92 4 years ago

    What a stupid article. It's only purpose seems to be as a comment cunt magnet.
    Really who in their right mind gives a shit?
    If I was in the market for a console right now, the performance of these games would hardly be my primary worry would it?

  • George-Roper #93 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "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"

    Burnout: Paradise was developed primarily on the PS3. Where is the ultra-giga-leap forward in quality there, then, over the 360 version?

    Seriously....
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 19:12

  • George-Roper #94 4 years ago

    @HiddenPooh

    "What a stupid article. It's only purpose seems to be as a comment cunt magnet.
    Really who in their right mind gives a shit?
    If I was in the market for a console right now, the performance of these games would hardly be my primary worry would it?"

    Maybe none off this list but what about all the others? Taken as a whole, you could absolutely make a decision on which console is better.

  • TRUTH #95 4 years ago

    Apologie - The hypocrite, lier, and desperate PS3 fanboy.

    COD4 - better on 360, The Darkness - Better on 360, Assassin Creed - Better on 360, this incs: framerates, graphics and lighting all better on 360...As for Fight Night if you notice on PS3 there are certain effects, lighting, background and crowds and animation missing.

    Got PS3 and 360 - Rainbow Six also suffers on PS3.

  • Darren #96 4 years ago

    A dull selection of game and still no PES 2008 comparisons... ;)

    Just a couple of things to add that I've noticed from comparing the demos on both machines. One is that Kane and Lynch seems to have screen tearing on the PS3 where the 360 doesn't (they both use the same level). I've got the 360 version and never noticed any tearing in the single player campaign, only the splitscreen co-op mode (which is understandable and forgiveable). Secondly, GRAW 2 on the PS3 might lack the texture detail and AA of the 360 version and have inferior effects but at least it doesn't have any tearing. Personally I preferred the look of the PS3 version as it sacrificed the image quality slightly for the sake of a tear-free framerate which is a good thing in my book. I wish more developers would do that.

  • Zamn10210 #97 4 years ago

    Much as I hate to wade in on this way-hotter-than-it-should-be argument, comparing graphics on multiplatforms isn't exactly an ideal way of comparing the consoles. We all know the vast majority of multiplatforms look better on 360. Does that make the PS3 a worse console? No, it means multiplatform games are developed for 360 and ported to PS3 in most cases. A meaningful comparison would take performance on exclusives for both consoles into account.

  • Apologie #98 4 years ago

    George Roper

    Burnout: Paradise was developed primarily on the PS3. Where is the ultra-giga-leap forward in quality there, then, over the 360 version?

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

    Of course both versions are the same, Burnout is not an exclusive title and dev's that aim at a multiplatform market don't gain anything in making one of the versions much better then the other, they must be close to each other... and i mentioned 2 years... later these year (2008) people will see the resuts.

  • George-Roper #99 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "Of course both versions are the same, Burnout is not an exclusive title and dev's that aim at a multiplatform market don't gain anything in making one of the versions much better then the other, they must be close to each other... and i mentioned 2 years... later these year (2008) people will see the resuts"

    I'm not talking about exclusives i'm talking about primary development platforms and in this case, that was the PS3. So what you're now saying is that only exclusives will take advantage of teh Cell? If that's the case, PS3 owners everywhere are fucked.

    And, just for the record, how long do you think devs have had PS3 kits for? November 2006? Wrong, try a LOT earlier than that. This '2 year' magical number is almost up mate and theres sweet fuck all thats demonstrating this beast of a console you keep going on about.

  • Apologie #100 4 years ago

    @George Roper

    And, just for the record, how long do you think devs have had PS3 kits for? November 2006? Wrong, try a LOT earlier than that. This '2 year' magical number is almost up mate and theres sweet fuck all thats demonstrating this beast of a console you keep going on about.

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

    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. Sony is now 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... the tools available now are much much better then the ones you mentioned, that's why you will see "not only in exclusives but multiplatform titles as well" a big leap in terms of quality.

    that's why i repeat myself... as you can confirm, i had already answered your question in my previous post.

    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 19:45

  • symbiote #101 4 years ago

    Once again, proof that lazy coding = poor results

    And can I just say: I HATE AA! I sit a fair old way away from my TV and a find that games without AA look perfectly crisp whereas those with it look 'glossy' like some american sit-com.

  • symbiote #102 4 years ago

    "I think Eurogamer looks way better on PS3 than on Xbox 360... "

    LOL!

  • Darren #103 4 years ago

    @NickNack - Speak for yourself. I think the PS3 is a good all-rounder... it makes an excellent DVD upscaler/BD movie player, a very decent multimedia hub (it's quieter and more reliable than the 360 IMO), it's also a three generation PS games machine and it has a *free* online gaming service (perfect for someone like me who only dabbles in it occasionally).

    Once the games start coming out and the price drops further, it'll prove its worth. You only have to look at the underpowered PS2 or Wii (in comparison to the Xbox/360) to see that you don't necessarily need powerful hardware to have truly great games. And the PS3 *will* have many great games, don't kid yourself, many of which won't be available on the Xbox 360. That's the reason I bought mine and the same argument can be applied to the Wii and 360 as well which is why I also own those too. IMO there's no such thing as the perfect games console, all of them have something to offer the others don't and all of them have their good and bad points, that's what makes owning them all so interesting and exciting.

    I doubt people who only own a PS3 will be bothered or even aware that the Xbox 360 has slightly better looking multiformat games, after all it never bothered PS2 owners. And the best games on any hardware tend to be those developed exclusively for the machines so games like Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII are going to be the games that most PS3 owners want not tat like TimeShift, Tony Hawk's Proving Ground and Jericho.

    This article is only really of interest to people like myself who own both machines and want to buy the best version of a game, usually it's on the Xbox 360 admittedly (although I think I'm buying Burnout Paradise for the PS3 based on the demos as it has a more stable framerate than the 360 version). Shame that this info isn't available at the time of a game's release when it would be more useful really but at least I can try the demos and make my own mind up in a lot of cases...

  • Diomedes #104 4 years ago

    Its sad to see such a good page as eurogamer drag its reputation through the mud in these lame comparisions ....

  • Kryon #105 4 years ago

    "Once again, proof that lazy coding = poor results "

    The sad thing is, how many times are you going to have to say that? I know I've heard it far too many times , in fact it's said practically every time a PS3 game is released (as the majority of PS3 titles are not exclusive, i.e. ports). As for hating AA, come off it man. PS3 games look jaggy, sorry, but no one (not even Apolol) can try and say they like jaggy graphics. It made PS2 games look cruddy and does the same (to a lesser extent) to PS3 games.

  • Diomedes #106 4 years ago

    Specially seeing as Assasins Creed has a lot more detail on the PS3 version that on the 360 and all the frame rate problems have been solved for the ones experiencing those ...yet euro-ms-gamer has to point again and agains the PS3 version being inferior ..wich it isnt by any means just the contrary .

  • symbiote #107 4 years ago

    @Darren

    "I think the PS3 is a good all-rounder"

    Agreed and +1 to all your other comments. A mate of mine was going to buy a 360 as they were cheaper but when he added up what it would have cost for online, wireless and HD playback (all of which he wanted) he decided to go for the PS3.

  • symbiote #108 4 years ago

    "(lack of AA ) made PS2 games look cruddy "

    Aye, as they were running in 480p, not 720 or 1080! Look, I just prefer it! When I had a PC and sat 2ft away from my games AA made it look better but the further away you move the more you get natural AA anyway. So a 720+ resolution from 8ft away looks great without AA IMHO.

  • George-Roper #109 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "They are giving first party developed techniques and code to third-party developers so that multi-platform games should start looking better on PS3... the tools available now are much much better then the ones you mentioned, that's why you will see "not only in exclusives but multiplatform titles as well" a big leap in terms of quality.

    that's why i repeat myself... as you can confirm, i had already answered your question in my previous post."

    You've answered nothing. Nada. Zip!

    What you've done is try to circumvent my response and its failed. Badly.

    First you said that 2 years after launch we'll start to see beastly, God-like games, on the PS3.

    Then you said, no, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that the developers are only now getting updates and new dev libs in order to start coding beastly, God-like games, on the PS3.

    So what you now mean is...PS3 owners will need to wait ANOTHER two years, so that devs can get their heads around these new dev libs and start coding beastly, God-like games, on the PS3.

    You just go around and around and around and around, don't you.

  • Kryon #110 4 years ago

    "I sit a fair old way away from my TV and a find that games without AA look perfectly crisp"

    LOL, that's like saying " I don't wear my glasses when my wifes around so she actually looks quite attractive"

    symbiote, Sony apologist to the bitter end ;-)

  • TRUTH #111 4 years ago

    Diomedes

    What are YOU talking about - Assassins Creed on PS3 pales compared to the 360. I'm playing right now and am witnessing a graphical/texture drop, framerate problems, longer loading times and less sharper display...all on PS3.

    Don't write crap just to keep your self happy.

    APOLOGIE - PS3 fanboy, lier and hypocrite.

    The Darkness, COD 3 and 4...better framerates, graphics from effects to lighting and textures all better on 360. Apologie - please get the fact right, as I actually do own both systems and do compare them - unlike you and you many mates who seem to have the 360.

    Fight Night 3 on PS3 had better coloring - but also had frame animation and lighting, with various crowds missing all in the backgrounds. Also certain graphical effects on were also gone on PS3.

    Remember APOLOGIE the 360 has not been pushed to it's full limit too...So don't keep saying next year, or the year after blah blah blah..the PS3 will go beyond god.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 20:10

  • George-Roper #112 4 years ago

    @symbiote

    "Agreed and +1 to all your other comments. A mate of mine was going to buy a 360 as they were cheaper but when he added up what it would have cost for online, wireless and HD playback (all of which he wanted) he decided to go for the PS3."

    Pity he didn't factor games into the decision making process, really.

    Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

  • SeesThroughAll #113 4 years ago

    I read 137 comments on the front page, and when I came here, saw 112.

    Nice to know all the viral marketing plants are back as usual.

  • reddevil93 #114 4 years ago

    I think miiiguel hit the nail on the head.
    Sony's brand name could be what keeps them in the game until the big releases come out despite better multiplatform titles on the 360.

  • SwedBear #115 4 years ago

    Frod: why wouldn't I use articles like this to make a judgement on which version to play? I'm not sure how you can call all these games in theis latest article crap? I only have GHIII from this bunch and it sounds like there are a few interesting in there (GRAW2, Timeshift, Bladestor) and in the end even if some have been out for a while not everyone can buy all games at the time of release. Not only that but the fact that we rarely see reviews of both versions means that you are left in the dark on which version to get.

    Apologie - Sure, at some time some developers will learn to get more and more out of the Cell and GPU on the PS3. This happens for all consoles. As developers learn they squeeze out more and more out of it. But do you think this only will happen for the PS3? Regardless if the 360 has the cell or not, it does have a nice tri-core CPU and a great GPU and there is nothing that suggests that the improvement of 360 exclusives also won't improve.

  • George-Roper #116 4 years ago

    @cthulhu_steev

    Taken from that link...

    “The amount of action we’re able to put on the screen at 60 frames per second dwarfs what we were able to do a year ago at 30 frames per second,” claims Insomniac’s (Resistance, Ratchet) Chief Creative Officer Brian Hastings, “What’s most exciting is I think we’ll see just as big a leap from our second generation engine to our third as we did from first to second.”

    User-created content will be a feature of 2008, claims Epic boss Mark Rein (Unreal Tournament 3). “We’re really excited about bringing robust user-created content to PS3. PC gamers can use the included Unreal Engine 3 tool set to create mods which can be played on PS3.”

    So, to summarise, PS3 developers praise PS3 platform?

    I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with keeping Sony sweet or protecting their own interests.

  • SeesThroughAll #117 4 years ago

    360 fanboy logic:

    A 360 developer praises the 360: He knows what he's talking about, he's experienced, if he says it, then the 360 is the best thing ever!

    A PS3 developer praises the PS3: He has to say it, moneyhats, kissing Sony's arse, business agenda, etc.

    A 360 developer trashes the PS3: The man knows what he's talking about! It's true! It MUST suck!

    I haven't heard of too many PS3 developers trashing the competing system, for some strange reason... but I can guess how much these people would agree...

    Dear God, the ignorance in EG is amazing...

  • GamesConnoisseur #118 4 years ago

    Not the head to head again! Yeah can be useful but only for multi-platform owners or perhaps in reality more for Xbots who delights in the repeatingly scrubbings of PS3?!

    Sony did ask for it, but come on its round seven, are we not getting tired or got the message loud and clear by now? Let do the feature every six months instead. EG please, enough is enough!

    I have PS3 and do consider it quite a good console and regularly use it for BR rental as well as for the exclusives, but X360 is the serious gamer's console of choice that you would be daring fool to miss out on.

    Look at the top tens for 2007 by any multi-platform magazines/sites, to give one example in current Gametm (issue 65) which have 6 titles in top ten available for X360 and only 2 for PS3 (actually Games ignored PS3 version of The Orange Box and listed only one for PS3).

    I believe as most of the sensible people would that PS3 would take better share of 2008 top tens, but the proof in the pudding to date is not as tasty as what been available for X360 owners.

    /That would explain why the stupid scale shown half a stone extra since some months ago!

    p.s. Hey Apologie; you still havent given us your former gamertag for XBL?

  • banjo21 #119 4 years ago

    I think these articles are really useful.

    I really want to buy a PS3 game for that black box sat under my TV for over a year now (first a US one and now a UK one) - but apart from UT3 these is simply nothing worth buying AND not done better on X360.

    Please Mr Sony give me a game worth buying - I have loads of money - you provide the games and I provide the money. Easy.

  • George-Roper #120 4 years ago

    @SeesThroughAll

    "A 360 developer praises the 360: He knows what he's talking about, he's experienced, if he says it, then the 360 is the best thing ever!

    A PS3 developer praises the PS3: He has to say it, moneyhats, kissing Sony's arse, business agenda, etc.

    A 360 developer trashes the PS3: The man knows what he's talking about! It's true! It MUST suck!

    I haven't heard of too many PS3 developers trashing the competing system, for some strange reason... but I can guess how much these people would agree...

    Dear God, the ignorance in EG is amazing..."

    Your logic is flawed. The 360 consistently delivers in terms of releases and release quality. The PS3 does not. As these comparison pieces show.

    Therefore, when 360 devs speak out, it doesn't stretch the imagination to have to agree.

    When PS3 devs speak out, its time to roll ones eyes.

  • Kryon #121 4 years ago

    SeesThroughAll is not one to talk of 'fanboys'. He's just as bad as Apolol, in fact he's worse, at least Apolol doesn't deny what he is.

  • SeesThroughAll #122 4 years ago

    The 360 consistently delivers in terms of releases and release quality. The PS3 does not. As these comparison pieces show.

    These comparison pieces show multiplatform games designed primarily for the 360, as it has the biggest installed user base between two consoles of similar CPUs and the PS3 with a limited GPU in comparison. The investment to make the PS3 version look as good with sub-par development tools is not worth it.

    None of this, believe it or not, means that the hardware is crap.

    No, my logic is not flawed.

    Then again, I'm not sure if you understood what I meant.

    As for Kryon, feel free to use your personal attacks with Apolol, as both of you belong nicely in my ignore list. Thank you.

  • Darren #123 4 years ago

    @George Roper - "Pity he didn't factor games into the decision making process, really."

    Well actually I did... I inferred that I bought the PS3 for its exclusive games not the multiformat titles. ;)

    I was one of the people that bought the PS2 at launch in November 2000 and looking back it too had a dire first year with a lack of decent games and developers were struggling to code for the hardware. So it's really no different for the PS3 and only a fool would suggest that the machine doesn't have some good games now or won't have loads of great games in time. You only have to look at the PS2 now to know that it came good in the end. I believe the same will be true of the PS3 once the price drops further and PS2 games start drying up. So what if the multiformat games look better on the 360, I won't be able to play Gran Turismo 5, Metal Gear Solid 4 or Final Fantasy XIII on anything other than Sony's machine and those are the games I bought the machine for not stuff Need for Speed or FIFA. I think the PS3 has had more good games in its first year than the PS2 had... certainly for me Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank ToD and Unreal Tournament III are three of my favourite games of 2007 and I can't play any of them on the 360.

  • Kryon #124 4 years ago

    @SeesThroughAll

    That's funny, I thought you were already ignoring me? Anyway the fact remains that you are a fanboy and well known SDF member so your opinions hold little water.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 21:11

  • George-Roper #125 4 years ago

    @SeesThroughAll

    "These comparison pieces show multiplatform games designed primarily for the 360, as it has the biggest installed user base between two consoles of similar CPUs and the PS3 with a limited GPU in comparison. The investment to make the PS3 version look as good with sub-par development tools is not worth it.

    None of this, believe it or not, means that the hardware is crap.

    No, my logic is not flawed.

    Then again, I'm not sure if you understood what I meant"

    Your logic is absolutely flawed because, as a PS3 owner, your excuses mean nothing when my only option on a game purchase is a lesser version of the same game on a same-gen platform.

    As a PS3 owner, are you saying I should sympathise with PS3 devs, because of the reasons you've cited? Or should I be expecting my version of the game, on a pricy console NOW, to at least match if not surpass the quality of the 360 version? I mean, the PS3 is some kind of wonder-console that has limitless untapped power, isnt it?

    Ultimately, you're saying that I can be happy with my PS3, safe in the knowledge that whilst the 360 has the superior versions of games, 'my hardware is still not crap'. Because what? I don't play games on my PS3?

    Your logic isn't flawed. It's bollocks.

  • smelly #126 4 years ago

    geesus threads like this are depressing.

  • smelly #127 4 years ago

    >Your logic isn't flawed. It's bollocks.

    Wait a year, the ps3 will outsell the 360. The devs will start developing for ps3 first and foremost then do ports to 360 - THEN you'll see 360 ports which look worse than the ps3 ones.

    (and not to mention - more ps3 games, etc etc etc).

    It'll be about that time i'll finally get around to buying one too.


  • George-Roper #128 4 years ago

    @Smelly

    I hope so.

    I just want a balanced selection of games ASAP. If I knew it would have taken so long for the devs to get their shit together, I might have held off on the PS3 purchase (even though i'd have forsaken BC).

    I was looking at Lair today, after being unable to locate Warhawk in any shops. That's how desperate i'm getting...

    My fault entirely, though, for being an impulse buyer on the day the PS3 60gb price reduction came into effect.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 21:29

  • septimus #129 4 years ago

    Yawn. If anyone still cares ten they need to get laid more often.

    Really, a small box on the actual review (either at the time or tacked on later) is less of a waste of time, for us and you.

    /own all systems and care even less. Average games/developers better on 360, good developers and good games doesn't matter what console you get it on.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 21:36

  • zooms #130 4 years ago

    The real picture that is emerging is that the results you can get from a PS3 are often the same or worse than what you will achieve on a X360 but to do so will require more effort. Which in term means more money and more time.

    Why the hell any 3rd party developer would choose to make anything PS3 exclusive is beyond me ( certainly without some kind of enticement from Sony ).

  • bioreit #131 4 years ago

    @ George Roper

    "Ultimately, you're saying that I can be happy with my PS3, safe in the knowledge that whilst the 360 has the superior versions of games, 'my hardware is still not crap'. Because what? I don't play games on my PS3?

    Your logic isn't flawed. It's bollocks.     "

    +1

    @ SeesThroughAll

    There are just as many Sony apologists who say:

    "Give it a year or two, they're still struggling to get to grips with the new hardware - they only released it in late Autumn 2006, you know...."

    Except devs had final dev kits months and months and months (in some cases, no doubt a year) before that time. What, you guys thought the developers received a kit a month or two prior to the PS3 release and magicked up a quick game or two? Yeah, right.

    There are also Sony fanboys who repeat Sony's own words:

    "All you have to do is wait for the potential to be tapped. Give it time."

    Wait, so you want me to lay out money, now in order to play great games in a few months time? Tell you what, when lots of good games come out, how about I buy your console then? By which time it will probably have had a price drop, too, meaning I get even more value for my money. Why buy something and use it as a doorstop until you get a chance to really use it?

    There have also been what I can only guess are Sony employees saying things like:

    "Yes, the graphics on PS3 may look worse, but you know - I kinda like my games to look like ass! Yeah, the framerate sucks, but it's like watching a pretty slideshow!" (That last one is an exaggerated extrapolation - i.e. a lie - but the thought processes behind the comment have been exhibited several times. In this very thread, no less!)

    I'm sorry, but worse graphics are worse graphics and for people who do own both consoles, like my brother-in-law, these comparisons are very useful to him - when you splash out so much money for games and you have the choice between two versions, surely you would want to buy the best possible version, no?

    Undoubtedly, there have been Xbots just as bad (see Halo 3 'not really HD' threads for ready evidence of that special type of madness where people say 'Actually, I think worse is the new better' like some kind of drooling fashion-conscious gimpoid), but I just thought I'd bring a little balance to your comments. Aren't I nice? :-)


    @ Apologie and anyone wondering where that comment about the 360 and PS3 GPUs being similar came from:

    <a href="http://www.n4g .com/ps3/News-32115.aspx
    ">http://www.n4g .com/ps3/News-32115.aspx
    </a>

    Section 8. about two-thirds of the way down. Good ol' cut-n-paste - where would fanboys be without you. Also, STA, this article shows a PS3-centric dev being critical about the 360 - not overly critical, but it's very clear from which cup he chooses to sip.
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 22:10

  • projectmayhem #132 4 years ago

    @bioreit: devs didn't have final ps3 hardware a year before launch. a lot of third parties were working off theoretical figures on PC systems while first parties worked from beta devkits for a long time. final kits were only shipped out in june before launch.

    also, has no one at EG realised that the pictures for both machines look nearly identical? show the flaws in video please :D
    Edited by 1 at 03/01/08 @ 22:41

  • J.C #133 4 years ago

    360 kicks PS3's ass again!

  • reddevil93 #134 4 years ago

    /troll

    At least you can play online on the PS3. ;)

  • J.C #135 4 years ago

    /troll

    At least you can play online on the PS3. ;)

    How long did that take you to think up?

  • bioreit #136 4 years ago

    @ projectmayhem

    Ah, how true. Although according to Engadget, it was 21st August 2006 when final kits were shipped. Mayhaps allow me to remove 'final' dev kits from my previous wording? Pwetty pwease? :-)

    Obviously the hardware specs, toolkits and whatnot would be different to the alpha and beta kits they released throughout early 2006, although I'd guess the major work wouldn't change - it would just be a case of optimising the code for the finalised hardware, yesno? Whatever, I stand corrected and thank you for pointing that out!

    @ Reddevil93

    +1 Although I've only experienced the odd 'Connection Interrupted' message on CoD4 this Christmas break, my brother-in-law and my boss have both been teairng their hair out at the Live outtages! They'd better offer up some decent goodies as compensation for that 'downtime' (I'm sorry, what's that? It's not your fault and the service is actually working perfectly? Riiiiight, so I guess it was just the whole Internet at fault, yeah?) - like a free arcade game of choice, or some MS points. And then children, it did snow on Christmas Day, even for St. Lucifer and his oh-so-merry gentlemen....

  • JediMasterMalik #137 4 years ago

    Fantastic, the 360 fangang abusing everyone who has a disagreement with them about a fucking video game console yet again. Sad thing is, it just grows every time we see it. It's easy to take the piss out of ApoIogie even though the 360 gang abusing him are often far more abusive to the rest of the regulars around here.

    There's a big difference between having an opinion and throwing it in everyone's faces like shit. You people, especially Kryon, seem to have blurred that difference immensely. Either that or he knows how much of an arse he's being, and does it for shits and giggles.

  • George-Roper #138 4 years ago

    @Jedi

    "Fantastic, the 360 fangang abusing everyone who has a disagreement with them about a fucking video game console yet again. Sad thing is, it just grows every time we see it. It's easy to take the piss out of ApoIogie even though the 360 gang abusing him are often far more abusive to the rest of the regulars around here.

    There's a big difference between having an opinion and throwing it in everyone's faces like shit. You people, especially Kryon, seem to have blurred that difference immensely. Either that or he knows how much of an arse he's being, and does it for shits and giggles."

    Care to name and shame or are you, too, just throwing more fuel on the fire?

  • VMerken #139 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "As for hating AA, come off it man. PS3 games look jaggy, sorry, but no one (not even Apolol) can try and say they like jaggy graphics. It made PS2 games look cruddy and does the same (to a lesser extent) to PS3 games."

    I have to agree with Symbiote, as I like games when they are without AA. Makes the visuals sharper, more in-your-face (in my opinion). Of course, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate having the option to turn AA on and off, just to play around and go AA whenever I feel like it :).

  • Diomedes #140 4 years ago

    Truth ,shut up .

    You arent playing both versions at all .In fact ,most you Xbots havent touched a PS3 ever .Let alone bought one and buy the two versions of most games to compare side by side .You just go to the forums to say you have and that the X360 version looks a lot better hoping you can trick someone into believing it.No doubt some crap ports and the odd game here and there can look better on the MS machine ,but the recent efforts in both plattforms are about the same when the PS3 version isnt a bit superior.

    Going back to AC look at this comparision (scroll down a bit to see the screenshots ) and come to tell me again the PS3 doesnt have more detail please .

    [link url=http://zonaforo.meristation.com/foros/viewtopic.php? t=932648
    ]http://zo naforo.meristation.com/foros/vi...[/link]

    Stop your proselitizing foolishnesh .I have seen lots of pics of Assasins Creed on both versions and the PS3 version has a lot more detail than the 360 one.Frame rate wise I havent experienced a single problem with AC in my PS3 so from here on all what you (or Eurogamer for that matter ) have to say that contradicts my experience is complete BS .

    Most of the games the Eurogamer guy (or MS guy more like ) here always find a way to despise albeit slighty the PS3 version ...well lets say he seems the only one to find those gripes .Games as Medal of Honor Airborne ,Stranglehold ,Guitar Hero III and Timeshift are absolutely identical in both plattforms as recognized by most games mags ,so you xbots should stop smoking herbs .The PS3 and 360 AA are different just because one is a Nvidia card and the other a Ati one ,these cards even in the PC always have some subtle differences its not as if one is better than the other it just has subtle things that put it apart .Attacking the PS3 versions just because it doesnt look exactly the same is being a bit stupid .

    But why do I care ,if one thing all these forums have demostrated is that the Live service must have some subliminal thing that turns citizens into idiots .So sad .

  • Dizzy #141 4 years ago

    "A PS3 developer praises the PS3: He has to say it, moneyhats, kissing Sony's arse, business agenda, etc."

    I think it is the absurd hyperbole that usually comes our way from the Sony camp that triggers people. Maybe they should be a bit more down to earth is some of their claims (like 360 devs seem to be?)

    "I have seen lots of pics of Assasins Creed on both versions and the PS3 version has a lot more detail than the 360 one"

    You are confusing lack of AA with extra detail.
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 06:48

  • warbo #142 4 years ago

    Diomedes, off-screen photos are not more representative of reality than direct 720p captures. Assassins Creed has more pop in, screen tearing and a less consistent frame-rate on PS3.



  • Kryon #143 4 years ago

    @SDFMemberMalik

    "It's easy to take the piss out of ApoIogie even though the 360 gang abusing him"

    I actually laughed in real life and almost spat my coffee over my keyboard at reading this tripe. "Abuse" him? Apolol gives as good as he gets and he deserves most of the comments levelled at him. The only reason you stick up for him is because you used to be treated like him. You think people don't remember the way you acted a year or two ago in these forums Malik? I do, and you were ridiculed just as much as Apolol is now. The difference between you and Apolol is that you lost heart when you were constantly put in your place and eventually toned down your insane rabid Sony biased love fest of crap that you used to spout all over the place.

    Anyway, defending Apolol is certain proof of your SDF heritage Malik. Good for you.

  • Kryon #144 4 years ago

    @trebell

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers Maliks 'true form' ;-)

    @VMerken

    "I like games when they are without AA. Makes the visuals sharper, more in-your-face"

    Well, imo there's a big difference between sharp and jaggy but each to his own. So you thought RE4 looked better on the PS2 than on the GameCube did you?


  • Strac #145 4 years ago

    I can't see why people get so worked up; in the PC world it's normal that some games work or look better on nvidia than on ati.

    For me (as a not so active gamer) the only reason to get a ps3 next to my xbox360 would be for blu-ray, not the games.

  • busboy33 #146 4 years ago

    @Apologist:

    "Of course both versions are the same, Burnout is not an exclusive title and dev's that aim at a multiplatform market don't gain anything in making one of the versions much better then the other"

    Well, that certainly explains why Lair was so buttery smooth, being an exclusive and all.


    I understand how you read the Sony press releases and believe them as gospel truth, but out of curiosity . . . how can you predict things will look exponentially better? Sure, they will look better (and they'll look better on 360 and *pray God* Wii too), but what makes you think this astounding, unrivaled leap in quality is coming?

    Here's why I ask -- Sony has NEVER shown anything running on a PS3 that has been leaps and bounds over 360 -- not even a tech demo. They designed the friggin' chip. They've had longer than anybody else to learn to code for it (btw, why design something that you don't know how to use?), and they've never been able to show ANYTHING that says "here is the potential". If even Sony can't make the damn thing morph Akira-like into some unmatchable 4th-dimension toy, why would you believe them that it's possible?

    Perhaps it IS possible -- but perhaps it's possible that the 360 has untapped potential that will allow the machine to fellate me whenever I get an Achievement too. Why don't you believe that? Why just believe the amazing, untapped, never-seen-but-trust-us-it's-really-there-guys magic power of Sony?

    Have you (and the rest of the SDF) ever considered the possibility that Sony was just fluffing? Like the 120 frames-per-second nonsense? Or the "rumble is last gen" crap? Or MS spouting nonsense about how they would let gamers sell their custom designs on Marketplace? I don't want to be the one to ruin things for you, but . . . sometimes big companies lie to make you buy their product.
    Edited by 2 at 04/01/08 @ 08:52

  • muftak #147 4 years ago

    @Strac

    Well said , I've always liked Nvidia chips cause of the way they produce the colour compared to ATI.

    its amazing how perfetic this "console War" is like my dick is bigger than yours. Its also amazing that any one who like the PS3 gets the head shot as soon as they say anything.

    I got one for 2 reason Blu ray and the games , Yes there are fucking games out on the PS3 i don't own all 3 consoles so even games like lost planet excite me cause they are new.

  • busboy33 #148 4 years ago

    @muftak:

    fyi: Lost Planet is definite rental material (presuming you didn't already know that). Loads of fun to blow thru, but that's about it. Multiplayer is meh at best (too damn slow), but definitely worth the play.

  • 7creature #149 4 years ago

    Kryon: Regarding RE4 AA. I have played only PC version (i.e. port of PS2 version) and aside those terribly butchered cutscenes and lightning effects it was looking really good (1920x1200, approximatelly 2 GB+ of higher res (i.e. mainly from GameCube) texture packs).

    I have seen a lot of both PS2 and GameCube videos (and of course, GC is looking better - mainly because it uses better quality textures and effects - and engine cut-scenes :-( )

    But what I wanted to say - I basically haven't noticed any major differences on PC when playing without AA and with 8xAA (probably one of the games I don't mind playing without AA at all). AF seems to have bigger visual impact (improving mainly world textures). I have seen some 16xAA, 16xAF screenshots on GTX SLI setup and while they were obviously even better, the actual improvement wasn't so different as, for example, in HL2 or F.E.A.R.

    So I really think that AA, especially in higher resolutions, when watched from distance on TV is not that important... And I am saying this from the perspective of PC gamer who prefers playing everything on highest details possible, even using (individually choosed) improvements (textures, shader effects, etc.) whenever possible.
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 09:04

  • Bonus #150 4 years ago

    @frod

    I'm educated more than most on the capabilities of the PS3 having developed a published game on it.

  • Kryon #151 4 years ago

    @7creature

    "I have seen a lot of both PS2 and GameCube videos (and of course, GC is looking better - mainly because it uses better quality textures and effects - and engine cut-scenes"

    Yes, one of those effects is AA :0)

    I agree that at extremely high res AA is less crucial (although I'm talking about resolutions that the 360/PS3 do not achieve) but it's the idea that AA actually somehow makes games look worse at 360/PS3 (or especially even PS2) resolution that I find laughable. Jaggies are not a good thing (imagine buying a movie like ToyStory and watching it with jaggies, people would think it was lame, why is there a difference with games) and I feel that anyone claiming they like jaggy graphics (claiming it looks sharper etc) perhaps have a secondary agenda. It doesn't look sharp, it looks rough, there's definitely a difference imo.

  • 7creature #152 4 years ago

    Well, by "effects" I was meaning mainly lightning and shader effects generally (for example the part playing as Ashley with torch). AA is not effect IMO in this sense.

    Anyway, to comment on TV gaming with AA or without AA I would need to actually try to play those games, so I cannot say.

    I'd say though, that quality textures, texture filtering and effects are more important than high AA.

  • Amoebalove #153 4 years ago

    @ apologie

    when did you sell your 360?

  • Arwin #154 4 years ago

    As usual, interesting feature. GHIII has three packs of downloadable content on the PS3 though - apart from the Halo song, does the 360 version have that much more already?

  • Arwin #155 4 years ago

    OH, and thanks for this:

    "with the unit calibrated to full-range RGB and both systems set up likewise"

  • BillyBrush #156 4 years ago

    A big PC running Crysis...banging around DX10 effects

    shits on PS3, and 360

    polishing turds is cool n all, but you can't polish them to the level of the Killzone2 trailer...people who lie like that get their card pulled, and some silly 620/1000 system turned out the ace of spades

    tis over, nothing to see here, move along now

  • monkie_king #157 4 years ago

    Amoebalove: he actually answered that earlier in the thread, and you can tell by his games collection anyway. Basically sold it when the PS3 came out, before 360 had the huge slew of fantastic releases in mid-late 2007.

    Think maybe he's in deep denial about making the wrong (or at least a wrongly-timed) decision, hence the massive cognitive dissonance and attemps to convince himself otherwise.

  • PCRist #158 4 years ago

    I do not understand why anyone would care about Killzone 2. The graphics, though technically proficient, are bereft of any particular artistic merit. I think Shadow of the Colossus is a more attractive game, even if it cannot boast the polygon count or texture resolution. In appearence, it is reminiscent of Gears of War, which for all its special effects, cannot escape the monotone colour scheme which ultimately renders its appearence quite dull most of the time.

    However, more importantly. The developer, Guerilla, has an awful track record, despite procuring large budgets and extensive development schedules. In case anyone had forgotten, Killzone was actually quite crap, I could not force myself past the third mission, or thereabouts. Moreover, let us not forget the monstronisty that was Guerilla's Vietnam themed game, released sometime before Killzone. There is very little that bodes well for this game, and does not seem worthy of the anticipation it has generated.

    Besides, who calls a game "Killzone", what an awful stupid brain-numbingly ridiculous name. I hope it turns out decent, if only for the sake of the Playstation 3, but I am not holding my breath.

  • 7creature #159 4 years ago

    FluffyTucker: What I am saying means basically (for example) - playing HL2 in DX9 mode and without AA will look better than playing with 16xAA and in DX8 mode. Or I prefered Oblivion with HDR even without AA compared to AA but without HDR (well, nowadays you can use both options luckily). In other words, AA is great for PC games, but IMO nowhere near essential (unless for lower resolutions like 1280 or worse).

  • Apologie #160 4 years ago

    busboy33

    PS3 is a revolutionary piece of hardware that have yet to be decoded, read these:

    Recently I came across a link on http://www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that ?This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage?. I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode. This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs... in the end the point is that after people start to dominate these new and amazing technologie (and let's not forget that Cell is exclusive to Sony at least until 2010)games on the Ps3 will start to look much better then anything X360 can offer, and yes, Killzone2 looks amazing from a technical point of view, gameplay is yet to be seen.
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 13:22

  • Garulon #161 4 years ago

    @JMM

    "There's a big difference between having an opinion and throwing it in everyone's faces like shit. "

    Isn't that what these articles are doing? Throwing your opinion that the PS3 would shit all over the 360 back in your face? Time to man up and admit you were wrong, I think.

  • Bonus #162 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    That's all fine and well, but then where do you run the physics, game logic, audio, streaming and all other game related processes if you use all but one of the CELL's SPEs for rendering the scene which the RSX should have been doing?

  • Apologie #163 4 years ago

    That is a matter of time..., people are now testing the capabilities/possibilities offered by the Cell, everytime a new technologie comes out dev's need time to explore and dominate, that's exactly the case... no one really knows what can be achieved with Cell, the only thing that seems obvious by know is that it's one revolutionary/amazing piece of hardware with obscene computing capabilities.
    The Cell is a new architecture and will seem strange and alien to many used to rather more conventional desktop designs (Half life 2 Dev, anyone??). In order to utilise it properly programers will have face new problems and devise new ways of solving them. It remains to be seen how much of the Cell’s potential can be achieved and how difficult it is to extract it, but it’s clear that STI are trying to make this as painless as possible.
    Many people do not like change, to them Cell represents a threat. For others it represents an opportunity.
    Lets see how many take the opportunity, and what other opportunities the other CPU vendors come up with in response.

    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 13:48

  • PCRist #164 4 years ago

    Apologie,

    Is it really that obvious, so obvious that hardly anyone on Eurogamer agrees with you, including those who have extensive knowledge of computer hardware, and one who claims to have been involved in the development of a published Playstation 3 game? There is nothing about this situation and your claims which strikes anyone as "obvious". Though, you said it yourself, "no one really knows what can be achieved with Cell", and that, my creepy fanboy friend, is not necessarily going to be a good thing.

    I hope you are right, by the way. The Playstation 3 has little going for it at the moment, and competition is good for the industry (as well as my bank balance). It would be nice if the Playstation 3 can do what you say, though I suspect that even if it is that much more powerful than the Xbox 360, that few, if any, developers will successfully push it that far. In last generation, Sony had such a lead that they could afford to have a developer unfriendly machine, but in this generation things are different, and not looking good for Sony.

  • Bonus #165 4 years ago

    I'm not convinced because as good as the CELL processor may be it's still let down by lack of RAM, a relatively poor GPU, low levels of VRAM and high levels of system intrusion.

    Somewhere in the development of a game someone needs to work out how to make a profit from it. With Sony's track record in throwing away it's architectures and coming up with an almost all new one every generation it's not a particularly good investment in the technology unless you can get returns from it which are over and above the returns from the alternatives.

    I don't see the PS3 returning more than the 360 for developers or publishers over this generation so the CELL will remain an untapped potential hindered by other architectural weak points.

  • old_skool #166 4 years ago

    Another year, another flame war, welcome to 2008.

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

  • drumm23 #167 4 years ago

    "and what other opportunities the other CPU vendors come up with in response."

    Yep, I hear Intel are busting their balls trying to figure out how their Core 2 Quad can ever compete with teh Celltastic..............

    You're so far behind the curve I've got neck ache just trying to read your damn posts crazy-man.

  • VMerken #168 4 years ago

    @Kryon:
    "Well, imo there's a big difference between sharp and jaggy but each to his own. So you thought RE4 looked better on the PS2 than on the GameCube did you?"

    I prefered the GC version because it has better lighting effects, more enemies onscreen simultaneously in certain scenes (the Water Hall is a great example of this) and better geometry (more polygons per enemy and for the backgrounds). AA has nothing to do with it - I'd probably prefer the GC version without AA, but since I never saw it, I can't really say what I'd go for.

  • busboy33 #169 4 years ago

    @Apologie:

    I'm not saying that the Cell is worthless -- it's quite a nice chip.

    But it's JUST a chip.

    In this thread alone you have used "revolutionary" repeatedly to describe it. It's a custom designed processor chip -- I'm not so sure what's "revolutionary" about it. Aside from being exceptionally fast at math processing, what has it "revolutionized"?

    Developers have had 18 months to "unravel it's secrets". Does this mean that there's some glowing magic hidden within the chip, waiting to be unlocked like the Hellraiser cube . . . or does this mean that developers can't figure out how to get the damn thing to function as a GAME chip?

    The PS3 isn't one giant Cell chip. It's multiple components that have to work together to provide the game experience. If your PS3 is hooked up to a 1950's-era black-and-white television, then regardless of the machines potential you're only going to get a grainy, black-and-white image produced. If the RAM is creating a bottleneck (especially considering how much of it is used by the OS) then the bloody machine could have 100 Cell chips . . . it's only going to function as a game system as well as its weakest link.

    SDF members like to knock the 360 because it uses DVDs instead of a larger format . . . and they have a point. Regardless of how good a system the 360 is, it's going to be limited by the ammount of data it can take in from the disc. I could make the greatest game for it, but if it needs 10 gig + to be accesed simultaneously by the system, and I can't load anything into a hard drive, then the game won't run.

    Cell doesn't change the laws of physics. It doesn't offer magic. It's a math intensive processor. A very powerful one, perhaps the most powerful available in a commercial machine. But that doesn't make games.

    As developers take more time with the chip, they'll learn how to use it more effeciently . . . the same as with the 360, the Wii, and every other programmable hardware platform. However, these are incremental steps. The way you talk, the developers just haven't found the secret 4th-dimension section of the chip, and once they do games will become unfathomably better. That's not going to happen. It's not as if Sony created a virtual reality chip, then hid it so developers could waste their time and money trying to find it. If the Cell had this kind of magic in it, Sony would be showing it off. ALL IT DOES is extremely fast math.

    Think back to the tech demos from E3 06. Pretty? Yes. Revolutionary? No. Since then, what have you seen that's been done with a Cell that can't be equaled by the 360?

    The PS3 isn't being used to maximum ability -- true. Neither is the 360.

  • Kryon #170 4 years ago

    @VMerken

    "AA has nothing to do with it - I'd probably prefer the GC version without AA"

    Well, I'm lost for words...So you actually believe that even with the lower resolutions of last gen (I believe the GC's native res was 640x480) anti-aliasing did not improve the visuals? In fact you believe AA hindered visuals, even at a low res? I find this hard to believe, I guess you like jaggy graphics then, that's...just... very odd.....

  • Apologie #171 4 years ago

    @busboy33

    PS3 has a much faster processor, superior graphics card and in what concerns RAM, i know the ps3 Ram is better than Xbox 360's ram. Do you want to know why?

    -It uses XDR Ram. Next year, Toshiba is going to release these new XDR ram cards. According to this article.[link url=http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/s torage/toshiba-first-...
    ]http://ww w.gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...[/link]
    XDR ram is 12x faster than the typical PC ram.
    -ps3 ram operates at 3.2 GHz.

    ps3 ram
    256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz -CPU
    256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz-GPU

    xbox360
    512 MB GDDR3 RAM @ 700 MHz DDR (SHARED)
    Unified architecture

    What do you notice?
    ps3 256 mb ram CPU ram operates at 3.2 GHz.
    360's 512mb shared ram operates at 700 MHz.

    -This is an example of how ps3 creates more with little. Clearly the ps3's 256mb CPU Ram operates way faster than the xbox360
    .Even if 360's Ram in unified.

    Ps3 CPU ram beats xbox360's CPU ram. The better ram, the faster, and better performance. Ps3 will be faster, and have better performance than the 360.

    xbox360 shares its ram.
    This slows down 360's CPU. Like intergrated G-cards do with Computers. Intergrated G-cards share the computers ram.

    Ps3 is a much more capable machine then the Xbox360...
    Edited by 3 at 04/01/08 @ 15:58

  • Yaz #172 4 years ago

    "What do you notice?
    ps3 256 mb ram CPU ram operates at 3.2 GHz.
    360's 512mb shared ram operates at 700 MHz.
    ...Clearly the ps3's 256mb CPU Ram operates way faster than the xbox360"

    No, no, no Apologie (and I'm saying this as a friend ;)).

    Ram isn't just about GHz, it's also about how many bits are processed per clock cycle.

    For XDR, it's 64 bits processed per clock cycle, which is 64*3200 bits/sec, or 25600 bytes/sec (25.6GB/s).

    For GDDR3 (in BOTH consoles), it's 128 bits processed per clock cycle and at 2 passes per cycle, which is 128*700*2 bits/sec, or 22400 bytes/sec (22.4GB/s).

    You can see this in the official specs, eg;

    [link url=http://www.ps3.net/p s3-specs.php
    ]http://www.ps3.net/p s3-specs.php
    [/link]

    "Main RAM 25.6GB/s
    VRAM 22.4GB/s"

    That's 25.6GB/s for XDR and 22.4GB/s for GDDR3, as shown above.

    Hence the XDR memory in the PS3 is SLIGHTLY faster than the GDDR3 memory in both consoles.

    You seem to be on an endless quest to prove the PS3's superiority with information you don't understand Apologie. :|

    (Edit: Repaired link).
    Edited by 3 at 04/01/08 @ 16:14

  • Amoebalove #173 4 years ago

    @ monkie_king

    i only asked because he has stated recently on several occasions that he owns both systems and this has been his defense when being called a fanboy. however, now he is claiming to have sold his 360 and i was just curious as to when this happened.

  • smelly #174 4 years ago

    >So why fan the flames? You thrive on this crap.

    I'm not, i'm just pointing out an obvious truth for anyone who isnt as retarded as yourself.

  • Kryon #175 4 years ago

    Apolol IS <a href=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I_19WR0CHz0&feature=relat ed>Chad Warden</a>.

  • VMerken #176 4 years ago

    @Kryon:
    "Well, I'm lost for words...So you actually believe that even with the lower resolutions of last gen (I believe the GC's native res was 640x480) anti-aliasing did not improve the visuals? In fact you believe AA hindered visuals, even at a low res? I find this hard to believe, I guess you like jaggy graphics then, that's...just... very odd....."

    Look, I own a PC, where you can turn AA on and off in most games, and get all the resolution you want. So I know what AA is, how it works and what effect it has, regardless of the resolution. Yet even with that knowledge, I tend to turn it off most of the time because I'm not a fan of the effect. As I stated earlier, that is my personal opinion.

    I know the majority of the users prefer AA and thinks it makes the game prettier. That's fine but for me, AA is a post-processing effect which creates smoother edges on nearby geometry at the cost of blurring out information from the background geometry. As such, it's a "distortion" of the output from the rendering engine. Over the years, I've noticed that I prefer playing without that distortion which is why I posted to support Symbiote's opinion.

    However - and I also said this earlier - I do appreciate having the option to turn AA off and on, just to play with both outputs when I feel like it. Having an option is better than not having an option and that's something I missed in, for example, the PS2.

  • Kryon #177 4 years ago

    @VMerken

    "Look, I own a PC, where you can turn AA on and off in most games, and get all the resolution you want. So I know what AA is, how it works and what effect it has, regardless of the resolution"

    You are muddying the waters though, you say "regardless of the resolution", this is a really silly thing to say. Obviously, the higher the res, the less anti-aliasing is needed. We are not talking about ultra high res PC games here. PS2 games looked jaggy not 'sharp'. You claim to like that, that's your choice but it IS odd. Even symbiote admitted that PS2 games would have benefited from AA. Like I said, each to his own but I feel you are probably the only human in existence who does not appreciate the benefits of AA at a lower res.

  • Drogul #178 4 years ago

    JKR next book: Harry Potter and the Power of the Cell
    Of course Harry Potter loses the battle and will die.

  • Kryon #179 4 years ago

    Harry Potter and The Lost Exclusive.

    Harry potter and The Untapped Power.

    Harry potter and The Lack of Ram.

    Harry potter and The Invisible B/C.

    (apparently hermione gets her bewbs out in the last one)...What? She's Legal now!

  • busboy33 #180 4 years ago

    @Apologist:

    I'm going to skip the tech debate, since Yaz laid it out pretty clearly and I have no doubt you're just going to ignore him.

    Let me see if I understand what you are saying:
    CPU in PS3 is better
    Graphics chip in PS3 is better
    Ram in PS3 is better

    That about right? And these are the three that have come up so far. I'm willing to bet you'd posit that the wiring in the PS3 is better, the electricity is cleaner, the screws are milled more precisely, etc. But just to look at the top three . . .

    Then why do the games, AT BEST, merely equal the 360?

    I'm playing on a Yugo . . . you're using a Ferrari. Yet you can't beat my lap times.

    And don't give me "it'll take developers years to fully comprehend how godlike the PS3 is" nonsense. Gears of War came out a year into the 360s lifecycle. So did GRAW2.

    SDF posts were saying "just you wait" LAST year. They said this before Motorstorm. They said this before Lair. Before Heavenly Sword. Nirvana is always just around the corner . . . but it never seems to get here, does it?

    Uncharted is a great game. So is R&C. They both look great. Untouchably great? Dear God no. The preview video for GT5 looks unbelievable -- in my opinion the prettiest game I have ever seen. Of course, all that pretty comes at a price -- there's nothing under the hood going to simulating driving physics, since it's all going to the eye candy (bouncing off other cars at 130+ KMH isn't a "real driving simulator";). MGS4? Pretty . . . but still well in the 360 ballpark.

    *sigh*

    Let me try a different tact. Lets assume for discussion's sake that the PS3 really is the second coming of Jesus, and one day (soon! totally soon!) developers will be able to produce magically life altering code that simply can't be matched by anything else on the market. If/when the PS3 accomplishes this feat, I assure you I will be at the store buying one.

    Why on Earth would I buy one before that?

    I didn't buy an HDTV when they were first sold -- because there wasn't anything that took advantage of them. If someone offered to sell me an actual Ferrari, I'd buy it, but only to say I own it -- there's nowhere around here (Los Angeles) that I could safely take advantage of the power. If I'm just going to go to the store for groceries, I can do that in my Yugo and it will take me exactly the same ammount of time . . . and save me considerable cash. I wouldn't buy a time travel machine, on the promise that at some unspecified point in the future it will work.

    Who's telling you that the PS3 is capable of trancending reality? Aside from Sony and 1st party developers, of course. Do other developers say it's a good machine? Sure. Do they say it has untapped potential? Sure. Do they say it's capable of a "revolution" in games? No. It's just a good machine. Good like the 360 (better at some things, worse at others). Developers say the same things about the 360 . . . and they can actually get games to work on that.

    I'm not knocking the PS3. As I've said repeatedly, it's a good machine. But all this SDF nonsense about it being unrivaled is just silly.

  • TRUTH #181 4 years ago

    Check this out PS3 fans...

    [link url=http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/ PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=bb1443ed-30f8-4eb2-b 212-8926111caf49&v7Pager=3
    ]http://ww w.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIE...[/link]

    http://ww w.gamesradar.com/gb/xbox360/gam...

  • JediMasterMalik #182 4 years ago

    @Garulon - Perhaps I would admit that, if that was my fucking opinion.

    Jesus you people are stupid. You can label me a fanboy as much as you want, all I have to say is you're full of shit. Seriously, you're just applying a persona to me which you like to take the piss out of and use to discredit my opinion when that persona is far from the reality.

  • corzair #183 4 years ago

    Half a life lol

  • Kryon #184 4 years ago

    SDFMemberMalik

    Did you honestly think that if you toned down your fanboy drivel for a few months people would forget your past rantings? Look at it like this, you basically have an anti-social gamer order, an ASGO if you like, yeah we'll give you a bit of leeway as long as you're a good little boy and don't revert back to your tardism ways but the second you try and troll again (like now) you'll instantly be put back in the "utter cretin" category and people will ridicule you once again.

    Run along now and stop being a twit, you've just undone months of good behaviour son...

  • Bongo #185 4 years ago

    For all those complaining about these articles, don't you see, Eurogamer are helping you? My ignore count is up to 12 now as a result of this article.
    I can't bring myself to ban Apologie though. I don't know why.

  • old_skool #186 4 years ago

    @Bongo

    I can't either, then again I can't ban anyone. I guess it's the entertainment value they provide.

  • Apologie #187 4 years ago

    @Yaz

    I see you admited that the Ps3 RAM is not inferior in terms of performance when compared with the X360 (as many people defended here), on the contrary, in your own words, is even SLIGHTLY better (we are almost in agreement, except for the fact that i don't consider it only slightly better but clearly superior).
    Xbox 360 have 512 MB of memory, same as PlayStation 3, but they have general purpose memory, rather than system-specified memory, and only have a 10 MB internal frame buffer... and so that's why they can't do 1080p full frame, because the image has to be in the frame buffer and a full 1080p image is 8 megabytes, so you can't double buffer... right????!!!!! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 21:16

  • Kryon #188 4 years ago

    "I see you admited that the Ps3 RAM is not inferior in terms of performance when compared with the X360 (as many people defended here), on the contrary, in your own words, is even SLIGHTLY better"

    Apolol, the ram is utilised in different ways because of the different architecture of the two systems. You are fighting a losing battle because as Yas rightly said, you do not understand the technology you are talking about.

  • Kryon #189 4 years ago

    Dex, son, you also fall into the same category of 'ridiculous fool' as Malik and Apologie. It's no surprise that you scuttle to their defense like a well trained whore.

    Must try harder.

  • Amoebalove #190 4 years ago

    @ apologie

    i'm going to keep asking until you answer me. when did you sell your 360? was it in the last couple of weeks?
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/08 @ 10:49

  • George-Roper #191 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "PS3 has a much faster processor, superior graphics card and in what concerns RAM, i know the ps3 Ram is better than Xbox 360's ram. Do you want to know why?

    -It uses XDR Ram. Next year, Toshiba is going to release these new XDR ram cards. According to this article.[link url=http://ww w.gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...
    ]http://ww w.gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...[/link]
    XDR ram is 12x faster than the typical PC ram.
    -ps3 ram operates at 3.2 GHz.

    ps3 ram
    256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz -CPU
    256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz-GPU

    xbox360
    512 MB GDDR3 RAM @ 700 MHz DDR (SHARED)
    Unified architecture

    What do you notice?
    ps3 256 mb ram CPU ram operates at 3.2 GHz.
    360's 512mb shared ram operates at 700 MHz.

    -This is an example of how ps3 creates more with little. Clearly the ps3's 256mb CPU Ram operates way faster than the xbox360
    .Even if 360's Ram in unified.

    Ps3 CPU ram beats xbox360's CPU ram. The better ram, the faster, and better performance. Ps3 will be faster, and have better performance than the 360.

    xbox360 shares its ram.
    This slows down 360's CPU. Like intergrated G-cards do with Computers. Intergrated G-cards share the computers ram.

    Ps3 is a much more capable machine then the Xbox360.."

    Does anyone else think that Apologie sits at home, rocking backwards and forwards, muttering this kind of stuff to himself over and over and over and over again?

    As though if he says and posts it enough, it will actually make some kind of difference out in the real world? Y'know, where games *are* sat on shelves, proving beyond this kind of bollocks, that all of the above means fuck all (apparently).

    Mind over inferior matter, maybe?

    I know, blame the devs! The hardware is awesome!! Look at it, sat there, all grill-like, shiny and moody. Like it's lurking, waiting for that opportune time (sometime 2-3 years after release) to pounce, grab me by the collar, flip me over and pound my ass with exclusive Cell powered, Blu-Ray games...that think!

    GAMES THAT THINK, FFS!

    /FFS!

  • TRUTH #192 4 years ago

    APOLOGIE - Where is your proof - I haven't come across a single game on PS3 that seems to show me an advantage over 360.

    AND THE FACTS!
    Bandwidth
    The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

    The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

    Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

    The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes - This can be seen as washed out colors, lighter texture details etc.

    HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.

    Ooops!...Sorry George (below)- got the wrong name (now corrected)
    Edited by 3 at 05/01/08 @ 00:22

  • George-Roper #193 4 years ago

    @TRUTH

    ???

    Thank you very much ;-)
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/08 @ 23:11

  • Yaz #194 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "I see you admited that the Ps3 RAM is not inferior in terms of performance when compared with the X360"

    There was nothing for me to 'admit', I'm simply saying it as it is.

    "we are almost in agreement, except for the fact that i don't consider it only slightly better but clearly superior".

    25.6 vs 22.4 is not clearly superior Apologie, it's only slightly superior. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You were saying it's clearly superior when you claimed the XDR memory was 4-5 times faster than the GDDR3 memory (i.e. 3.2Ghz vs 700Mhz). It was not an example of the memory being 'clearly superior', it was an example of you being 'clearly wrong'. ;)

    "Xbox 360 have 512 MB of memory, same as PlayStation 3, but they have general purpose memory, rather than system-specified memory, and only have a 10 MB internal frame buffer... and so that's why they can't do 1080p full frame"

    So the 360 games with a native resolution of 1080p are just figments of our imaginations then? ;)

    The embedded 10MB EDRAM can handle any frame buffer requirements through the use of tiling. You can read about it here (written before the upgrade to 1080p);

    http://ww w.beyond3d.com/content/articles...
    Edited by 2 at 05/01/08 @ 02:22

  • VMerken #195 4 years ago

    @Kryon:
    "You are muddying the waters though, you say "regardless of the resolution", this is a really silly thing to say. Obviously, the higher the res, the less anti-aliasing is needed. We are not talking about ultra high res PC games here. PS2 games looked jaggy not 'sharp'. You claim to like that, that's your choice but it IS odd. Even symbiote admitted that PS2 games would have benefited from AA. Like I said, each to his own but I feel you are probably the only human in existence who does not appreciate the benefits of AA at a lower res."

    With "regardless of the resolution", I'm talking about knowing what the effects of AA are, in both low and high resolutions. Of course AA becomes less necessary at higher resolutions since the human eye can only distinguish different objects when they have a certain size.

    Why do I prefer AA? It's hard to put into words. One could think of it as an "artistic" choice, akin to musical and graphical taste, where you turn away from the "smooth" to the "dirty". I don't want any post-processed edge blur on the geometry, I want the "raw output" from the rendering engine. You talk about jaggies at low resolutions, for me they are a clear distinction between the visible parts of nearby and far-off geometry, an honest representation of their resolution. As such, they don't disturb me in the least. Weird, but maybe I'll change my opinion in the future and revert back to smoothness, dunno.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/08 @ 02:14

  • warbo #196 4 years ago

    To Apologie.

    PS3 does not have a bandwidth advantage over Xbox 360. With 360 you have 512MB of shared system memory on a 22.4GB/s bus. That might not seem like a lot, but then factor in the 256GB/s internal eDRAM framebuffer bandwidth, which deals with all of the more bandwidth intensive processes and leaves the shared system bus free for just texture and vertex data and CPU.

    The difference between these two consoles is maybe ~20% all things considered (not my guess). Anything you can do on PS3, you can approximate well enough on 360 and vice versa.

    360 will always have slightly more available memory and cheaper AA.
    PS3 might have a texture filtering advantage because 24 TMU’s > 16 TMU’s.

  • TRUTH #197 4 years ago

    Urm Sega Rally and Virtua Tennis - supported 1080p on 360 and I belive Sega Rally on PS3 didn't even have 1080p...Virtua Fighter 5 improved and better looking on 360. And I do remember Sony boasting that a game like Virtua Vighter is ONLY able be done on PS3 to this level of detail.

    Also many games are not selling on PS3...Looking at the European charts & Usa and even Japan - hardly any PS3 titles make it 10 - 15 top...360 in Japan has had more top 10s then PS3...If games don't sell; PS3 will start to really have more problems then it's having now...Lucky for me my brother left his pS3 with me and hasn't bothered with it since (almost a year ago).
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/08 @ 19:59

  • Calgon #198 4 years ago

    Im really tired of having to put Apologies outdated hype about the ps3 in its place... he's taken to talking absolute bollocks now you dont even have to know that much to see it now which is a good thing cos I can just sit and laugh.

    I dont see why it matters that much, it makes a good media center but all technical babble aside for once(suprised?).... it's simply not right to call PS3 the better machine, if anything based on the situation so far the 360 is making it look bad(tell me Im wrong with a straight face. Whether you own a PS3 only or not you can only go calling all developers, even ones who've sided with Playstation crap for so long... times up IMO its not rocket science nothing in the ps3 hasnt been seen before cells design maybe... I dont think people realise that doesnt mean its components).

    Right final thoughts, I find these articles interesting(and I never thought Id see EG do anything to make Sony look bad either), Im sure if they ever find a bunch of games that makes the PS3 look good(which they havent been able to do or Im positive they would have already) they would have as soon as possible(the last thing you can ever call this site is pro microsoft/xbox).

  • zorik4 #199 4 years ago

    TRUTH
    The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
    ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
    Its not exactly true

    @warbo
    That might not seem like a lot, but then factor in the 256GB/s internal eDRAM framebuffer bandwidth, which deals with all of the more bandwidth intensive processes and leaves the shared system bus free for just texture and vertex data and CPU.
    ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------
    You can not render from EDRAM on x360,need to copy to system RAM first,on PS3 side you can simultaneously make calculations on GPU and CPU, and standart HDD for fast data stream,remember any medals has two sides
    Sorry my bad English
    Edited by 3 at 06/01/08 @ 10:09

  • TRUTH #200 4 years ago

    Well for the fact the article was written after several developers said that the memory of the 360 and inc bandwidth was an advantage to 360 and this causing problems on PS3...I don't know where you got your info from; but I'm quiet sure to believe the several articles done by developers have the full knowledge of the advantage memory and bandwidth of 360 - This inc Epic, Midway, Activision, UBIsoft...And so far seeing the games, I agree what the developers have been saying. Remember too the 360 has a separate fleixable memory for reserved shading effects which is not part of the 512mb Ram.
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/08 @ 11:09

  • Kryon #201 4 years ago

    HAHAHHAAAA LOL

    @zorik4

    Or should I call you Apolol, how stupid do you think people are? If you are going to pretend to be someone else at least change the format of your posts FFS!

  • zorik4 #202 4 years ago

    @TRUTH
    Well for the fact the article was written after several developers said that the memory of the 360 and inc bandwidth was an advantage to 360 and this causing problems on PS3...
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Because they dont understand PS3 architecture ,x360 much development friendly platform,and easy to work with yes it is!First PS3 games did not use XDR RAM for video memory,texture streaming too,but now look at UT3,Uncharted,GT5P utc. they look great,In some places better than best x360 games Remember Ps3 only one year old


    Remember too the 360 has a separate fleixable memory for reserved shading effects which is not part of the 512mb Ram
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Where ?You speak about EDRAM? As far as I know it can be used only for AA
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/08 @ 16:03

  • Kryon #203 4 years ago

    Apolol, you should really go back to using your original name, you'll lose even more respect (if that's possible) if you don't...

  • TRUTH #204 4 years ago

    zorik4...Or Apologie

    Saying the PS3 is only 1 year old is not being correct. It is infact the same age as the 360. The only reason the PS3 was late was due to the problems on manufacturing enough parts for is BR...This holding up the original release date, causing the PS3 to hit a year later then 360 (actually less then year as PS3 hit Japan earlier!).

    I've pointed this out before: that PS3 dev kits where out around 2005: Remember Motor Storm, Heavenly Sword, Resistance - where being shown by Sony E3 2005 and even Assasins Creed (showed a bit later - when it was issued to be a PS3 exclusive, but then came on 360 which looked/played better)...all being showed in early form footage. The fact is because of the delay PS3 games listed had more development time for better production...The 360 did not as the 1st set of game were rushed and the fact the 360 was originally planned to come at same time as PS3, but was pushed forward to avoid the PS3 release date...This being the cause for less development time on 360's games at the beginning and more time for Sony to develop more parts and game development.

    Also the games sale have been very disappointing on PS3. Look at the top 10 around the world and you hardly ever get any PS3 titles. 360 game sell well, are regular in the top 10 and even Japan 360 has had more top 10s then PS3. Also remember the biggest market for game is USA, then UK & Europe, then Japan...all being dominated by 360, even beating the Wii in games sale. Why io earth do you think that many once exclusives to PS are now with 360 - which has more exclusives and PC/360 only games coming...Because the games are selling, this bringing more revenue to the developers, this the main reason for developers to develop.

    Also you keep forgetting the 360's GPU, core and thread technology has not even been used it's full effect.
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/08 @ 17:11

  • Kryon #205 4 years ago

    ^^^

    /wobbly lip & tear in eye

    b...b.....b....b.b.b.bbb...BUT...Teh PowaZ of ter CELL??!!!!one111eleventynine!!!one

    :'(

  • TRUTH #206 4 years ago

    The reason is that developers that are familiar with PCs (which is about 99%) are going to find 360 fairly ease to work with...But! using the 360's core and thread technology along with the custom built GPU and CPU is gonna be harder, due to the difference in development...But thanks to the PC/360 cross, 360 has another advantage in game development. Look forward to Stalker and the next Command & Conquer.

  • zorik4 #207 4 years ago

    TRUTH
    . It is infact the same age as the 360. The only reason the PS3 was late was due to the problems on manufacturing enough parts for is BR...
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Its not true .latest devkits and final RSX has arrived in 2005

    Also remember the biggest market for game is USA, then UK & Europe, then Japan...all being dominated by 360
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Im sorry?
    USA Ok agree
    Europe hell No
    [link url=http: //www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-78508.aspx
    ]http://ww w.n4g.com/industrynews/News-785...[/link]
    PS3 73,614 1,953,642
    PS2 70,057 44,272,772
    PSP 51,757 8,641,209
    x360 38,212 3,860,039
    <a href="http://vgc hartz.com/eweekly.php?date=39383
    ">http://vgc hartz.com/eweekly.php?date=39383
    </a>

    Japan 360 dominated? Are you kidding
    <a href="http://vgchartz.co m/japmonthly.php
    ">http://vgchartz.co m/japmonthly.php
    </a>

    Also the games sale have been very disappointing on PS3.
    ------------------------------------------------------------ -------
    Motorstorm 2 000 000 units sold , same Resistance not so bad

    Why io earth do you think that many once exclusives to PS are now with 360 - which has more exclusives and PC/360 only games coming..
    ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
    japan devs 100% will support PS3 ,she has more 100% exclusives than x360 because PC and x360 not the same platform,but they have similar games,if you have strong PC you should not buy x360,and Sony has best 1st party developers like Polyphony Square Naughty dog utc

    Also you keep forgetting the 360's GPU, core and thread technology has not even been used it's full effect.
    -----------------------------
    Same as PS3

    But thanks to the PC/360 cross, 360 has another advantage in game development. Look forward to Stalker and the next Command & Conquer.
    ------------------------------------------
    Its not an advantage,look at Ps2 latest games like God of war2,videogame console should not be similar on PC with gamepad,and Latest Command & Conquer3 Tiberium Wars Looks worse on x360 than PCver


    Edited by 3 at 06/01/08 @ 19:30

  • Amoebalove #208 4 years ago

    @ zorik4

    my god did you just refer to the ps3 as a she?

  • TRUTH #209 4 years ago

    The devs are always gonna be improved over time on PCs, 360 and PS3 - better software and development tools. Just as PS3 gets updated with new tools, so does the 360...And remember the devs back in 2005 for PS3 showed very early stages real game footages, but Sony did also lie when claiming the FMV was the power to expect from the full games. I do remember Sony also once claiming GT on PS2 is only using 10% of the power of PS2 graphics capabilities, also that the Sony's PS2 is so powerful they could guide missiles!

    I'm didn't say that Japan was dominated in the games charts by 360 - what I said that 360 has had more top 10s then PS3 in Japan - the last PS3 gamesI remeber to hit the top 10 in Japan was Bladestorm, and recently come and gone: GT5P...Games in many game charts for PS3 across the world simply don't sell to get in the top 10-15...Wii has sold the most console but in USA and Europe you don't see many games for Wii entering the top 10-20, and the PS3 simply has the least sold game units...ALso I meant dominated by game sales, not the console sales...Though the 360 is still selling well and not slowed down (actually has increased) after the hype of the 1st year - the most important.

    PS3 Uncharted & Rachet & Clank never even reached the top 20 chart in Europe and haven't really sold in USA...The market in UK and with Europe is continuing to expand and grow at a faster rate then Japan, and the fact is in Japan it is slowing down. Many developers are now looking at Europe and the USA for revenue much more & more...Check the charts out regular and you'll see...In Japan it's the DS, Wii all the way. Wii's biggest title Mario sold less then was expected, this was reported by Japanese salesand even Nintendo admitted they sold less then expected; with many games on 360, outselling Mario..even non AAA titles.

    The biggest sales per ratio for games is the 360 - this includes exclusives and also many multiplatform games are the biggest sellers on 360. That's another reason many games are continuing from all directions to 360. Also some cool titles on Live too, also more Xbox 1 games coming too (PS3 has now stopped this for some strange reason), PC to 360 games, online gaming heaven, exclusives, mutiplatform...the PS3 simply can't compete when it comes to gaming.

    Edited by 4 at 07/01/08 @ 18:04

  • Kryon #210 4 years ago

    "my god did you just refer to the ps3 as a she?"

    PMSL, Poor Apolol, I bet he dresses his PS3 up in little dolly clothes and then gives it one up the USB. XD

  • zorik4 #211 4 years ago

    TRUTH

    Though the 360 is still selling well and not slowed down after the hype of the 1st year - the most important.
    ----------------------------------
    Yes
    but Europe and Japan PS3 selling better now

    online gaming heaven, exclusives, mutiplatform...the PS3 simply can't compete when it comes to gaming.
    --------------------------------------------
    PS3 already has 100% exclusives (not like X360 exclusives) and its still early too tell what she (correct me) can't compete

  • Kryon #212 4 years ago

    Give it up Apologie, we all know it's you....

  • Amoebalove #213 4 years ago

    @ zorik4

    man stop talking about your ps3 like its a woman! its really starting to give me the creeps!!!!!

  • Kryon #214 4 years ago

    <a href=http://i12.tinypic .com/6jyzxfn.jpg>She's soooo HOT!</a>

  • TRUTH #215 4 years ago

    zorik4 aka APOLOGIE

    In Europe 360 selling more then PS3 by 2+ to 1...That's the fact!

    PS3 has 100% exclusives - What like: URIII, GTA, Resident Evil, Virtua Fighter 5, Silent Hill, DMC, Assassins Creed..etc - mostly at once originally exclusive to PS3...Oh! Haze has been hinted to hit 360 6months later (Not that I'm really bothered with it)...Don't be surprised to MGS4 on 360 (has been hinted...and due to the massive cost in making the game - Remember MGS2 was always claimed to be PS2 only).

    Edited by 1 at 07/01/08 @ 18:16

  • zorik4 #216 4 years ago

    TRUTH
    In Europe 360 selling more then PS3 by 2+ to 1...That's the fact!
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Where?
    <a href="http://vgchartz.com/ ehweekly.php
    ">http://vgchartz.com/ ehweekly.php
    </a>
    OK in UK, Australia
    but
    European / Others Charts for Week Ending 06th January 2008 :
    Weekly Total
    PS3 125,196 3,654,894
    X360 88,916 5,337,682

    PS3 has 100% exclusives - What like: URIII.......
    ------------------------------------------------------------ ----
    They all multiplatform games
    PS3 has 100% exclusives - What like: GT5P Uncharted, Lair, Retchet ,Motorstorm ,Resistance,Folklore

    x360 has 100% exclusives - What like: Forza ,PGR,Lost Odissey ,Mass Effect (not sure about 100%)
    and not like Gears of War, Viva Pinata utc

    Don't be surprised to MGS4 on 360
    --------------------------------------------
    CES 2008: Sony Lists MGS4 as 'Exclusive'
    <a href="http://n4g.com/ps3 /News-97682.aspx
    ">http://n4g.com/ps3 /News-97682.aspx
    </a>

    Too much fanboys here







    Edited by 4 at 08/01/08 @ 12:07

  • DjFlex52 #217 4 years ago

    TRUTH
    In Europe 360 selling more then PS3 by 2+ to 1...That's the fact!
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Where?
    http://vgchartz.com/ ehweekly.php

    Too much fanboys here

    @zorik4

    here
    [link url=http://vgchartz.com/hwt able.php?cons%5B%5D=PS3&cons%5B%5D=X360®%5B%5D=UK®%5B% 5D=France®%5B%5D=Germany®%5B%5D=Spain®%5B%5D=Italy& reg%5B%5D=Scandinavia®%5B%5D=Other+Europe&start=38676&end =39453
    ]http://vg chartz.com/hwtable.php?cons%5B%...[/link]

    yea zorik4...cause you are so impartial

  • Yaz #218 4 years ago

    Two rather pointless questions DcP729UK. It really doesn't add anything. It's like saying why did Eurogamer need a 'facelift' if the old format was sooo good. ;)

  • Yaz #219 4 years ago

    DcP729UK wrote "why don't MS just match the power of the PS3, then it wouldn't be such a waste =P".

    The 360 IS as powerful as the PS3. :)

    Ok, that's not 100% true in the sense that overall, the PS3 is *slightly* more powerful (when devs can access it's power). That's what ALL the developers who work on both consoles say. ALL of them (when asked of course).

    They state that the CPU in the PS3 has a slight edge over that in the 360, but the GPU in the 360 has a slight edge over that in the PS3. It's practically a draw.

    The main difference between the two consoles therefore is the HDD as standard in the PS3 and the larger capacity of the Blu-ray drive. But it's Blu-ray drive is slower (but much quieter) than the DVD drive in the 360. However in most cases, this can be solved by multiple DVDs on the 360 if necessary.

    Regarding the XBox, it was only cut short because it came out late last gen (a full 18 months after the PS2 was launched!). This was MS's first console, therefore they decided to make sure that their second console came out at the expected start of the next generation, instead of being late like the first XBox.

    Lastly, the updates to the 360 are not making it more powerful, it's just adding more features to the console (bigger HDD, HDMI port, cooler running processor etc). The same is happening on the PS3, where there's the 20GB and 60GB models (with hardware support for backward compatibility), an 80GB model (with hardware and software BC), and now a 40GB model (with no BC at all). Expect further PS3 models in futures, but the power is exactly the same between them. :)
    Edited by 1 at 10/01/08 @ 08:06

  • onyxbox #220 4 years ago

    I think this face-off would be useful if it was done before the games are released...so that I can decide which version to get but it never happens that way. A face-off done a long time after release doesn't serve as much more than re-stating the same thing we all know:

    The game works better on the LEAD platform (which is usually the 360 / PC)

    I suppose what it does provide tho' is an account of how PS3 ports of 360 (lead platform) games are getting better and very close to the original 360 / PC vision of the game... so much so that the general public will by now perceive them as being 'the same'. I played TimeShift on PS3 and it does run smoother on 360, same with Ass Creed etc. but I still enjoyed them.

    Had I bought them on 360, would I have enjoyed them more?

    Doubtful, but I look forward to the day when it doesn't matter which version you pick up and perhaps articles like this will help bring that day closer.


  • syphon92 #221 4 years ago

    its getting kinda old or what?

  • TRUTH #222 4 years ago

    Half Life 2, Episode 1 & 2 - are f***in' brilliant (On 360)...just completed them and it's sad that such great games are spoiled on PS3 by erratic frame rates, jerkyness and more pop up then the excellent 360/PC version.

  • onyxbox #223 4 years ago

    @TRUTH

    Half Life 2 on PS3 plays fine, sure it drops the odd frame in episode 2 but nothing to get excited about IMO. Fantastic game (whatever the system).

  • Kryon #224 4 years ago

    "Had I bought them on 360, would I have enjoyed them more?"

    Yes.

  • l:x #225 4 years ago

    As a PS3 owner it hurts to see nicer X360 shots :s But... (and no, don't call me a fanboy) I think it might be because most of the games are ported to the PS3.

    If you look at Ratchet & Clank you see a very very nice game. So I don't think it's the lack of power that makes these games look less good as their X360 counterparts.

    I suppose we just have to hang on a little longer and then we'll see some very nice games getting released on the PS3... Can't wait to see GT5, MGS4 and GTA4.