X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Six

By Richard Leadbetter Published 29 November, 2007

Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed and many more. Ding!

Page 1 of 3

Eurogamer is back for its latest tour of duty at the frontline of the console war with this new instalment in our rolling series of PlayStation 3 vs Xbox 360 cross-platform face-offs.

You know the form by now. We take an impartial look at a range of games that appear on both consoles, providing additional comment to the reviews already published on the site. Technical differences are highlighted, with any impact on the basic gameplay being of primary concern.

As usual, backing up the analysis is a range of comparison screenshots of each game, losslessly extracted with full 24-bit RGB precision from the HDMI ports of the Xbox 360 Elite and PlayStation 3 courtesy of a Digital Foundry HD capture unit. 720p shots are provided as standard for all games, but where the PS3 version supports 1080p (either scaled or native), we supply additional 'True HD' screengrabs to compare the games' respective performance for those privileged enough to have access to top-end displays.

We've got an intriguing range of titles in the line-up this time around, including two of the biggest releases of recent times.

Hyperspace ultra links to save your precious fingers

Eight games, 105 comparison shots, and masses of discussion points. Let's do it.

Call Of Duty 4

Infinity Ward's return to the Call of Duty franchise is a landmark release, a brilliant example of developers at the very pinnacle of their game. The Xbox Live multiplayer beta was a tantalising teaser of what was to come, but the sheer magnificence of the final code is nothing short of a revelation. Effortlessly combining quality online gameplay with a single-player campaign that out-quaffs all competition, Call of Duty 4 is quite simply a staggeringly good game and right up there with Super Mario Galaxy as my personal pick of the year.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Six' Screenshot cod

The great news is that both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 owners get to experience the same superb gameplay with no compromises, the two versions essentially being completely interchangeable. Sure, there are a few minor variations here and there, if you can stop playing long enough to sit down, put both versions side-by-side and compare them carefully. There's the occasional better-looking texture on 360, offset by some more accomplished effects (like the rain in the cargo ship mission) and less blocky shadows on the PlayStation 3 rendition of the game. Of slightly more consequence is that the loading times on the PS3 game are noticeably longer: anything from 10 to 15 seconds longer compared to the same data being streamed in on Xbox 360.

Both versions are also operating at a sub-HD resolution - 1024x600 to be precise - but the scaling up to both 720p and indeed 1080p looks decent enough thanks to anti-aliasing being present on the base image. Certainly, frame-rate is not an issue; both games run (for the most part) at a smooth 60fps, and I for one would take that arcade-like precision and crispness of response over a boost in resolution any day.

Miniscule differences aside, the point is that the core experience and all the things that make this game great are identical on both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, with only the lure of Achievements potentially offering further replay value for owners of the Microsoft console if you are that way inclined.

NBA Live '08

No Eurogamer review on record for this one, and taking a look at the game for the purposes of this feature it's not difficult to see why. NBA Live 08 feels like a product made to order, composed of the best-fit components of the other more accomplished EA Sports titles, featuring the requisite basketball trimmings that feel OK but wholly unremarkable. As a sim, it more than does the job, but it lacks that magical ingredient that turns a hardcore sports title into an all-inclusive game that's irresistible to pick up and play.

'X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Six' Screenshot nba

Perhaps not surprisingly, this is yet another in a long line of games to emanate from the EA Sports division that have clearly been designed to run at their maximum potential on the Xbox 360. Frame-rate is pretty much locked to 60fps - not crucial but certainly welcome in this type of game - with very detailed textures, and top-end 4x MSAA anti-aliasing effects. While the PS3 version of NBA Live 08 matches the Xbox version in terms of features and content, graphically it's clearly far inferior. It's not as smooth, with an inconsistent refresh rate, the textures are clearly far less detailed and there's no anti-aliasing in the visuals whatsoever. It does the job, but could easily have been so much better.

With EA Sports now on its second generation PS3 titles, it's rather disconcerting to see that its development efforts are still lagging behind the Xbox 360 versions, which are clearly improving year-on-year. Bearing in mind how crucial this range of games is to the US market in particular, it'll certainly be intriguing to see what happens next year with the next range of updates. If a mammoth juggernaut with the financial muscle of EA Sports can't treat PS3 development with the same respect afforded to the competition, you really do have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Let's hope for better things next year across the whole EA Sports portfolio.

Previously on Eurogamer.net...

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

Page 1 of 3

Comments (368) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • miiiguel #1 4 years ago

    Pointless by now. Everyone knows nowdays the games are identical. If you dig lack of rumble; like to play a bit more lightly; want to build a BR collection more than actually play - go PS. If games is your thing go "bland-white box".

  • MoGamer2006 #2 4 years ago

    Can I be first to make that smugly annoying "/Gets popcorn" post?

  • philw #3 4 years ago

    EG, you may as well just copy and paste the comments thread from the last one of these. Queue the fanboys and trolls...!

  • morriss #4 4 years ago

    miiiguel: The games aren't identical. Read the article. Every game reviewed bar 2 is worse on the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:04

  • miiiguel #5 4 years ago

    I have a close friend who own a PS3, he usualy buys what I buy, so I have my own opinion on this. Don't need EG on this issue, with due respect.

  • caligari #6 4 years ago

    ...and yet I'm still purchasing a PS3 and not an Xbox 360! \o/

    Take THAT, Microsoft!

  • alimokrane #7 4 years ago

    I think the most obvious difference is apparent in Assassins Creed where textures are clearly richer and crispier on the 360 which is fair given that the 360 has 512MB memory and it's more complicated to achieve the same textures quality on the PS3 which as I understand requires a lot of memory juggling around to (something about 265 MB being dedicated and another 256mb somewhere that's also used to do something else) I am not sure correct me if Im wrong.

  • blender #8 4 years ago


    microsoft win. Ps3 is a loooooooooooser

  • miiiguel #9 4 years ago

    caligari, nevermind... I bought yours. I'm a proud owner of two, ya know... high-availability and shit...

  • Max_Powers #10 4 years ago

    Exactly Morriss, these keep being interesting articles because the 360 versions of the game almost always come out on top. Microsoft must be very pleased about that.

    Plus, its not a fanboy rant but a professional and objective analysis which gives it a lot more authority
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:11

  • El_MUERkO #11 4 years ago

    die kitty!

  • morriss #12 4 years ago

    dabo: No.

    The same or worse.

  • miiiguel #13 4 years ago

    yet you need a "controlled environment" (aka same setup) to reach such results. Make a slight difference on one end and everything falls apart. IMHO, differences are too small. It has no objective result but to shout "me box is better" (by the way... it is!).
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:17

  • teabagger #14 4 years ago

    At least there was far more emphasis on where the differences come from this time, i.e the quality of porting from one platform to another. From a hardware comparison perspective comparing multi-format releases is not especially useful. The proof of the pudding comes from comparing the quality of platform exclusives.

  • mazzl #15 4 years ago

    when time goes by ik would have guessed this would change. but even now. the 360 is far better of, maybe due to installbase ?
    to bad to hear about burnout bein lead on ps3, i really want that title..

  • ElephantMonkey #16 4 years ago

    Isn't uncharted supposed to be much better than anything on xbox 360 ?

  • morriss #17 4 years ago

    teabagger: Not really. Everyone wants FIFA games and COD4. Multiplatform titles are what keep the industry going and make up well over 50% of peoples' collection.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:18

  • miiiguel #18 4 years ago

    "Isn't uncharted supposed to be much better than anything on xbox 360 ?"
    That's subjective, as there's no Uncharted to compare on the 360.

    Isn't Gears of War supposed to be much better than anything on PS3?
    That's subjective, as there's no Gears of War to compare on the PS3.

    oh but I like Uncharted type of game.
    oh but I dig Gears kinda better...
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:21

  • Stoatboy #19 4 years ago

    Completely agree about Assassin's Creed (as a game, disregarding the platform comparison). It's got huge flaws, it's a 7 out of 10 (maybe an 8, if I'm generous), but it's absolutely one of my favourite games of the year (in a year of bloody good games). It's probably not for everyone, I guess, but I love it to bits.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:21

  • agparrot #20 4 years ago

    I did have a quick go on AssCreed on my mates' PS3 just yesterday, and couldn't help but feel the whole product felt a little clunky - from ages of loading, straight into fairly clunky-framerate gameplay.

    Haven't seen the 360 version yet, but as the refurbishment of my local video and game rental store is nearly complete, might just head down there and rent it soon to do my own Face/Off comparison.

  • killest #21 4 years ago

    Multiplatform comparisons are quite difficult due to the vastly different architectures. Suffice to say, its best to compare the best looking games of a genre on different platforms. Bit like comparing Max Payne 2 on ps2 and xbox1 is completely unfair, but compare Jak 2/3, Ratchet and Clank 2/3/4/5/6/7 to the best xbox platform game and you might notice that ps2 isnt THAT far behind in visual quality.

    At the moment 360 is the target platform for development and ps3 is the port. Ie create an effect on 360 and see if it works on ps3, if it doesnt get rid of it or keep it in regardless of framerates.

    That said, the PS3 has in noway shown that it is graphically superior to the 360 when comparing different games.

  • morriss #22 4 years ago

    @Matt: Yeah of course, your initial purchasing preference is down to what exclusives the machine has. But if you look at what's on the market right now, 360 exclusives make up for around 20% of the games they've released.

  • Darren #23 4 years ago

    Cannot really fault the comparisons at all on those games I've tried on the PS3 and 360. EG even mentioned the tearing in Stuntman Ignition on the PS3, something I noticed straight away when I tried the demo (I own the 360 version by the way). I also noticed tearing in the PS3 Conan demo as well but not in the 360 demo but obviously cannot comment on how the full games compare since I don't own it. Also despite EG claiming WWE SmackDown vs. RAW 2008 uses AA on the PS3 and not the 360, the latter looks less jaggy to me from the pictures.

    Looks like the PS3 is still lagging behind the 360 when it comes to multiformat games with the exception of the odd game, like Call of Duty 4, which at least is as good. When will we see a multiformat title that looks graphically superior I wonder? (Oblivion runs better on the PS3, yes, but it's debatable whether it looks better as the game lacks the AA the 360 version uses)

    Still with exclusives like Ratchet & Clank ToD and Uncharted, it's clear that the PS3 is capable of churning out stunning visuals to match anything the 360 has done to date. In fact, I'd argue that Uncharted looks better than any 360 game I've played up to now, certainly it's more attractive than Gears of Wars, which many reckon is the benchmark on the 360.

  • ecureuil #24 4 years ago

    And yet games like COD4 on PS3 proves that the console can handle anything as well as the 360. I don't think it'll be long before all developers are up to speed with the PS3.

  • miiiguel #25 4 years ago

    frod, maybe it makes a difference to the ones who want to buy the better product. Surely it wont for the those who buys for the brand name or something.

  • smoothn00dle #26 4 years ago

    it still piss off that multi-platform games run poorly on PS3 and favor Xbox360 because of market share. The bigger market console will have better version of the game. That is fuck! Fuck you EA and fuck too, Ubisoft!

  • myiagros #27 4 years ago


    @morris

    Not sure I totally agree. Platform exclusives make or break machines more than cross platform titles.

    completely agree, look at the last gen. Almost all multi platform games ran better on Xbox than PS2, but PS2 won because it had a more appealing selection of exclusive titles.

  • juho #28 4 years ago

    Xbox360 games vs. lazy PS3 ports Face-Off: Round Six

  • miiiguel #29 4 years ago

    All in all, what we want to know is who wins "da console war- sales! sales!", not which one is the better games machine!

  • bioreit #30 4 years ago

    @ frod

    "If framerate made any difference at all to the majority of hardware sales the original Xbox would have fared better than 1/6th of the PS2 sales."

    True, but the PS2 was out first and was more popular, so had more games developed first for it, which were then ported to the Xbox. So, the less popular console had the 'better' versions of multiformat, but the more popular got them earlier and had more sales.

    This time around, the 360 has come out first and has more multiplatform titles developed for it first. It also has arguably the 'better' versions. So, you have the more popular, earlier console with the better versions, versus the later console with the later, worse versions and a smaller install base.

    Of course, this is disregarding all the other factors - RROD leading to lack of consumer confidence, Live vs. PSN and Home, etc, but that's enough to fill a thesis!

  • Darren #31 4 years ago

    @smoothn00dle - Had the PS3 been released before the 360 then it might have been 360 owners doing the complaining about lame ports. I remember when the Xbox came out and it got lazy PS2 ports for a number of years before things improved. Likely the same thing will happen with the PS3. As the market share gets bigger and developers become more familiar with the hardware, I think we'll see a gradual improvement in the quality of multiformat games on the PS3. They may even end up being better, as devs learn how to exploit the Cell, who knows?

  • El_MUERkO #32 4 years ago

    You know what kinda pisses me off, we dont get a single word about inferior PS3 versions in the reviews which sway us toward buying the games but then a few weeks later you tell us how much it sucked balls. Could you not check that when you were reviewing and tell us?

    Or at least make it abundantly clear which version of a game you're reviewing so we can go elsewhere.

  • sharky_ob #33 4 years ago

    I've nothing to add to these pathetic fanboys, but I will say - the photo of the cat and the monster is amazing!

  • Wobble #34 4 years ago

    That is fuck!

    you're doing it wrong.


    btw, ps3lol.

  • Xerx3s #35 4 years ago

    ...and yet I'm still purchasing a PS3 and not an Xbox 360! \o/

    I'm sure mgs are gutted. Your loss really.

  • miiiguel #36 4 years ago

    Thank you Liverpool, for humiliating Porto!

  • Darren #37 4 years ago

    I noticed there's a distinct lack of a PES 2008 comparison on both formats... now I wonder why...? ;)

  • Fuser #38 4 years ago

    The Assassins Creed shots interested me too - usually I dont spot many differences in these comparison articles, but the 360 really comes out on top here doesnt it.

  • monkie_king #39 4 years ago

    where the hell is Apologie with his amazing powers of denial? We're over 40 posts now and he hasn't even shown up to defend his beloved PS3, like some weird consumer-electronics knight in shining armour.

    ah well, i'm sure he'll be here soon to tell us how good a bunch of games that are 6+ months away from release will be.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:40

  • bioreit #40 4 years ago

    @ monkie_king

    Apologie's probably stuck in lunchtime detention....

  • krudster #41 4 years ago

    It's tough to compare the PS3 versions at the time of reviewing because...guess what? We don't usually get the PS3 versions until later.

  • miiiguel #42 4 years ago

    Darren, PES08 is better (on the 360, at least) after the patch.

    Still not very good, though...
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:42

  • gizmo #43 4 years ago

    360 wins again. So the 'real next-gen' actually started when Microsoft said, not Sony.

  • bdc #44 4 years ago

    PS3 gets owned again

  • rhinoxious #45 4 years ago

    Excellent and informative article.

    Well Done EG and Mr Leadbetter to take the time to do this properly.

  • EmiliasHorse #46 4 years ago

    I watched Suzi Perry on GMTV's short banal clips prior to the ADs this morning. She said if you want awesome power of awesomeness go for the PS3, if you want an online experience go for the 360...I say shoot the fucking Knob who produces the GMTV mini gadget guides.

    Just like that arse on Gamer TV who still waxes lyrical whenever he can about the PS3's Awesome power. Get over it Sony lovers the machine is maybe in theory slightly more powerful, to date no evidence whatsoever exists.

    Good article EG as always, thanks.

  • L42yB #47 4 years ago

    @myiagros

    "completely agree, look at the last gen. Almost all multi platform games ran better on Xbox than PS2, but PS2 won because it had a more appealing selection of exclusive titles."

    Not true... I believe the PS2 won the last bout because it had a massive head start...

  • BadBoyBonner #48 4 years ago

    "Assassin's Creed is definitely in my top ten titles of the year, a testament to the sheer ambition of developers today and a tantalising glimpse at the technical possibilities of the games of tomorrow..."

    It's like somone plucked the words right out of my head. Could not agree more. (360 version obviously).
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 12:47

  • rhinoxious #49 4 years ago

    So COD4 doesn't run at 720p natively either, not really surprising given the graphics hardware in these consoles is rather dated now by PC standards.

    Still both that and Halo3 look great to me, so I'm not bothered.

  • rhinoxious #50 4 years ago

    @ Emilia's Horse

    If the PS3 has any extra power then it's certianly not in the graphics chipset, the nvidia chipset lacks some of the ATIs flexibility plus the systems divided RAM is a problem when buffering textures.

    The Cell processor could do some interesting stuff on paper, but that would be more likely to show up in more complex worlds or better AI, not in graphics like are being tested here. Whether we ever experience any evidence of this greater processing power is another argument however.

  • symbiote #51 4 years ago

    It's a shame the PS3 gets so many lazy, sloppy seconds. Still, it's not like I'm short of stuff to play and I can live without ANOTHER average sports/driving/platform game for the time being thankyou. The really good games at least seem to be getting fair treatment (Dirt, Oblivion, COD4, R6 Vegas, GRAW2, Sega Rally UT3).

    For me, the only game in that list that's better on the 360 AND of any worth is ACreed, which is, y'know, over-hyped bilge.

    EDIT: looking back at the other articles, apart from the games I've listed above, it's all middle of the road bilge IMHO. 360 boys can keep em'!

    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:12

  • monkie_king #52 4 years ago

    these faetures make me wonder if there's any point getting a 1080p HDTV instead of a 720p one. Even if you have a PS3, it seems that running it at 1080p just gives you an upscaled image, or hurts the framerate, making 720p output a better choice. So is it a better idea to have a TV with 720p native res to play 360 and PS3 games on and avoid upscaling?

    I guess that assumes you only want it for gaming though, since the HD movie formats and broadcast HD television are 1080p.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:11

  • Monkey_Puncher #53 4 years ago

    This is living!

    I'll get my coat....

  • vane101 #54 4 years ago

    We're going to have to wait for the Japanese giants AAA titles before we know how good the PS3 really is. As others have said all it's getting is lazy ports at the moment and the odd decent unique game.

  • Darren #55 4 years ago

    The only real justification for owning a 1080p HDTV is for watching HD movies on whether that's Sky HD, BD or HD-DVD. Since it now known that many games don't even run natively at 720p never mind 1080p, it's less essential for games. Unless you plan on keeping your HDTV for ten years, you'd be better off buying a cheaper 720p set to be honest. I reckon 720p/1080p games won't become the standard until the next-generation, when the hardware will obviously be more capable. I reckon even Nintendo will support at least 720p in their next machine.

  • BillyBrush #56 4 years ago

    In football they call 6-0 a drubbing

    But not in gaming, bcause no one wants to admit they backed the wrong horse to the tune of 425 nicker

    Anyway, PS3 will have an ICO team game and MGS4, and then we should all buy them, because they are not so expensive now...still think Multiplats will go the way of 360 for me, not because of framerates because of acheivements

  • Nifta #57 4 years ago

    Well Done EG. I like these articles. As a long standing 360 owner, I have also recently received my PS3 and I was pondering on which format to buy COD4 for (if one was spectaularly better then the other). Although it seems there isn't a preferred format for this game, I'll deffo be getting Assassins Creed for the 360. Looking forward to some games which will show off the PS3 in the future then as well as Uncharted (looks great).

  • jlaakso #58 4 years ago

    I wonder why there is no more noise about Assassin's Creed on the PS3, because it sure is a letdown. The framerate just never picks up, the tearing is the worst I've seen. It doesn't break the game, but it makes me want to drop some details to make it run smoother, like I'd do on a PC. Too bad.

    And regarding the "why didn't you warn me" issues: like they said, the PS3 versions arrive later than the 360 versions. I usually get mine about two weeks later than the 360 versions, which is an eternity in publishing.

  • superdelphinus #59 4 years ago

    They should do a ps3/360 v PC just as a joke. Current top level pcs piss all over those two

  • VMerken #60 4 years ago

    The Assassin's Creed comparison surprises me, because it was a PS3 exclusive originally.

    EDIT: "Irk" wasn't the right word to use, sorry =).
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:36

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #61 4 years ago

    We're going to have to wait for the Japanese giants AAA titles before we know how good the PS3 really is

    What, like PES2008 :)

    It's certain to be the bestselling Japanese-made PS3 or Xbox 360 title this christmas.

    That's a point, though. What the hell are the japanese companies doing? The West have been knocking out top-drawer ps3/360-gen games for two years now, and what have we had from japan?

  • superdelphinus #62 4 years ago

    it irks you, it makes me laugh

  • Darren #63 4 years ago

    The 720p video comparisons I've seen on GameTrailers.com and the like, which show the same sections from both the 360 and PS3 versions of Assassin's Creed clearly highlighted the differences to me. The PS3 version looks more washed-out colourwise (which can be compensated for admittedly) but also suffered from a lower framerate in places and more obvious v-sync tearing. Nothing alarming admittedly but with the reports of the game freezing on the PS3 - something Ubisoft are working on a patch for - I'm glad I opted for the 360 version. As an owner of both systems and from personal experience, it seems to me that in 99% of cases, the 360 version is the one to go for anyway if you're lucky enough to have the choice.

  • MrsPacMan #64 4 years ago

    @designerheadache

    or perhaps your bs
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:42

  • VMerken #65 4 years ago

    @Darren:
    "Not so with PS3 where even the most basic action on-screen sends the refresh rate tumbling dramatically."

    "Scaling and blurring aside, it's the frame-rate that is the key concern here, not just in terms of visual smoothness - essential in maintaining the in-game illusion of reality - but also in the perceived response from the controls."

    "In short then, one word sums it up for me: gutted."

    That from the article, coupled with freezing issues, does sound alarming for an originally PS3-exclusive title. If this is in fact fact, I don't think anyone would even remotely consider getting Ass Creed for PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:45

  • MrsPacMan #66 4 years ago

    8 months with loads of great games is better than 12 months with 3 or 4 mediocre ones

  • SBfistfun #67 4 years ago

    ZOMG PS3LOL!

  • gaselite #68 4 years ago

    I think you summed up assassin's creed beautifully not just from a technological standpoint but as a game. I haven't played it as extensively as you yet but so far I agree absolutely.

    Unfortunately I bought the PS3 version because the fucker had absolutely no games to play on it (I won my PS3 earlier this year in a competition, wouldn't have considered buying it at this stage). Also the PS3 is in a nicer room for play a game like Assassin's Creed than the 360 >_> but that's probably a minor point. Anyway, I kinda regret my decision, or I probably would if I was more fussy about this sort of thing. The frame rate is unbelievably dissappointing but I still find the game more or less entirely playable (I have to say I haven't noticed any problems during the combat), so I'm not willing to swap the ps3 version over for the 360 one, really, but perhaps I should've gone with the 360 one in the first place. I just wish comprehensive articles like this were a bit faster on the uptake but you can't have everything. I probably should've learned from the gametrailers comparison video but it's hard to understand the extent of the problems without some text to back it up.

    At least I've bought Uncharted since to play on the PS3. Wonderful game.

  • gaselite #69 4 years ago

    Oh also: CoD4 - it's better on PC.

  • Raiten #70 4 years ago

    I wonder if i'm the only one that, after reading these face-offs betwean xbox360 and ps3 that it seems it has turned in face-off with crapiest game designer?

    from what i've read seems EA is leading as the crapiest quality game developer with ubi coming as good second.

  • wewillselfdestruct #71 4 years ago

    I heard that the 360 version of COD4 only supports 18 players online, whereas the PS3 version is 24 players. Is that right? (I know it varies between modes.) If so, I think that would have been worth mentioning in a comparison, especially since they're saying 360 maybe has the edge because of Achievements. Apart from anything else it makes an interesting technical point challenging the perceived wisdom of 360 having an unquestionably better online service.

    If it's true then there must be a reason. I know that Infinity Ward said they put their best coders on PS3 from the beginning, rather than trying to port the 360 version which, given the differences in the architecture between the two consoles, sounds like a very sensible approach.

  • Apologie #72 4 years ago

    I can't understand how people still give a shit about these Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round articles, they are worthless... games like NBA Live 08, Need for Speed ProStreet, Stuntman Ignition, WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2008, The Simpsons Game, Conan etc... are not my kind, i bough my Ps3 for the amazing exclusives and not some 2nd class multiplatform games... COD 4 where the only one i wanted, and it turned out great "even slightly better then the X360 version".

    Anyone who thinks about a Ps3 have in mind games like Haze, Metal GEar 4, Killzone 2, Ratchet&Clank:TOD, Uncharted, GOd Of War3, Warhawk, UT3 etc... not exactly Stuntman or Smackdown. :)
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:58

  • Apologie #73 4 years ago

    wewillselfdestruct

    Yes, Sony's edition have bigger online capacity (24 max players vs 360's 18)...
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 13:57

  • Madafunkola #74 4 years ago

    @ monkey_puncher

    This is Living?

  • wewillselfdestruct #75 4 years ago

    Cheers Apologie.

    To be honest I think that's pretty interesting, and actually gives the PS3 version a clear advantage over the 360. No doubt other titles (such as Assassins Creed) go the other way, sometimes disasterously so, but credit where it's due and Infinity Ward seem to have nailed the PS3 version of COD4.

  • Yaz #76 4 years ago

    "I heard that the 360 version of COD4 only supports 18 players online, whereas the PS3 version is 24 players. Is that right?"

    I believe that is correct.

    However, since I have neither version of the game, I haven't been able to find out if the online experience is exactly the same between both games. From my understanding, the PS3 version is mostly server based whereas the 360 version is mostly peer-to-peer. Correct anyone?

    Hence it would be interesting if someone could provide an HONEST comparison between both games online (pros and cons of each, differences, performance etc), instead of just stating '24 vs 18' as if that says all we need to know.

    Regarding the single-player game, as with every other comparison I've read regarding COD4, there is nothing to seperate the PS3 and 360 version (although some claim the devs have stated overwise, but I believe that's a distortion of what was actually said).

  • Anhunedd #77 4 years ago

    I tell you exactly why the PS3 version comes out, on average, slightly less well than the 360 one when a game is developed simultaneously on both:

    1) In the games dev company I work for, we got 360 devkits before we got PS3 kits. So our next gen engine was developed on 360 first and so the PS3 boys had to make theirs match the 360 one. We also therefore have more experience with the 360, and have built our development procress around them first. Inherently this leads to minor compromises.

    2) We have stacks more 360 kits than PS3 kits. Both due to the 360 coming first and the relative price of them. So once you take a few out for each engine team to work with, there's only 360s left for the game teams. So they develop the game to work perfectly on the 360, and again the PS3 is second fiddle.

    End result? The PS3 version is ever so slightly not quite as good.

    Now, look back through these comparison exercises and you'll see one example where the PS3 version had seperate room to breathe - Oblivion. Result? The PS3 version is as good as the 360 one.

    We've now got some PS3 dedicated people who are beginning to work with what is under the hood and early indications are that once they fully crack how to use the Cell efficiently, the ability of the PS3 to do in game processing (Physics, AI, etc) will exceed the 360. Graphically, there's not a lot in it.

    What it will mean is that games developed specifically for the PS3 will get better over time. Exactly what happened with the PS1 and PS2. On the other hand, I expect games developed on multiple formats at the same time to be biased towards the 360 ever so slightly - it's cheaper and easier to develop on, and so it will more often than not be the lead console of choice in those cases.

    Personal choice? I've got both and if the game is available on both, I go for the PS3 version. Reasons? Two. I personally hate achievements as a concept, and in my gaming room, the 360 is just too loud when running the DVD drive.

  • Apologie #78 4 years ago

    COD 4 Multiplayer: 18 players simultaneously on X360, 22 on PS3, and 32 in PC, not to mention that the Ps3 multiplayer is for free (big advantage in my opinion)...
    "We had our best programmers on the PS3 [version of Call of Duty] and it shows," said Zampella ;) well, no doubt about that... even Dev's admit that the Ps3 final version had overall better graphics and performance.

  • monkie_king #79 4 years ago

    Apologie, where the hell have you been? This discussion has been crap without you telling us about the games that might turn out to be any good on PS3 over the next 12 months. You're letting the side down a bit aren't you, not turning up until page 2?

    Still, better late than never.

    (Hmm, maybe that should be Sony's new PS3 slogan ...)

  • Runtime #80 4 years ago

    Can anyone confirm the PS3 version is 22 player? I asked in the forum yesterday and the general reply was 18 players max.

  • Yaz #81 4 years ago

    "We had our best programmers on the PS3 [version of Call of Duty] and it shows"

    That is NOT an example of the devs saying the PS3 is the best version! No where did they say the PS3 version has better graphics and performance.

    And I'm still waiting (hoping) for someone who can discuss the online aspect of the game beyond numbers online.

  • Yaz #82 4 years ago

    "Can anyone confirm the PS3 version is 22 player? I asked in the forum yesterday and the general reply was 18 players max."

    Yes, I've been reading that too. I read that Ground War carries the maximum of 18 players.

    You have this game Apologie. What does it say in the manual, and have you actually played against 22/24 players online in COD4 (be honest now :)), and which online game mode does this apply to?
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 14:27

  • Xerx3s #83 4 years ago

    I can't comment on the ps3 version of COD4 (though I suspect it will be similar) but the online of the 360 version is silk smooth ingame. Have only seen one laggy game (out of 80 to a 100 something matches?). the 18p runs silksmooth, as the EG'ers in the COD4 group can most likely confirm.
    What IW needs to fix though are the bugs in the game. I.e., when someone accepts a cross game invite from outside of the game or even outside of the 'online menu', it fails to connect to the party. This is the first game where I have seen such a bug. And then there are the party problems such as certain members joining a game while the rest is booted back to the lobby and the partyleader dropping back to the lobby while the party stays in the game.

    Whatever IW did with the 'beta', they didn't fix bugs.

  • bioreit #84 4 years ago

    @ Apologie

    [link url=http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Games/Cal l_of_Duty_4_Modern_Warfare
    ]http://ww w.us.playstation.com/PS3/Games/...[/link]

    Sony reckons its 18 players online for the PS3.

  • Bongo #85 4 years ago

    360 only has better looking versions because it's programmed for them first.
    The next round of games will be programmed for PS3 first and then ported to 360 (it makes a LOT more sense tech-wise), and that's when you'll start seeing much more even results, with PS3 probably even edging ahead.
    The "power" difference is negligible. It's just what platform the development starts on.
    Give it a year or two, it'll even out.

  • AHiFi #86 4 years ago

    So that makes it...what...6-0? Although I am the owner of an Xbox 360, it's still annoying to see the PS3 ports proving to be sometimes lazy.

    As said in the article, hopefully Burnout Paradise will call in times of change - where both have an equal opportunity of having good and bad ports. Surely the development teams must be getting to grips with the PS3's capabilities now.

  • Yaz #87 4 years ago

    Thanks Xerx3s. :)

    Can anyone comment on the PS3 version?

    And bioreit, that's what I'm finding too. It was always 18 players online until that recent interview. :|.

    Hence it would be interesting to find out from anyone whose actually played COD4 on the PS3 with 24 players.

  • Xerx3s #88 4 years ago

    Bongo: If developers start out on the 360 & get fantastic results, why would they suddenly switch over (well other than being paid)?

    It's just as silly as the argument that the ps3 coders needs time and will in a year or so pawn the 360 builds. As if 360 development has hit a ceiling and will never improve.

  • Xerx3s #89 4 years ago

    24-18=6. ¬_¬

  • Garulon #90 4 years ago

    "Apologie, where the hell have you been? This discussion has been crap without you telling us about the games that might turn out to be any good on PS3 over the next 12 months. You're letting the side down a bit aren't you, not turning up until page 2?"

    He kept his eyes screwed shut through most of that, I imagine, the poor bugger. "No! Reality! Keeepp AWAAYAYYYYY!!!!!"

  • messiahtj #91 4 years ago

    Meeeeh, all multi-platform games looks better on 360 because this is easiest to develop for, old news. But with gorgeous games like Uncharted running smoothly in the Ps3, developers like the ones in EA just look like lazy morons xDDDDD

  • shab #92 4 years ago

    I think these showdowns should also include some kind of "use-ability" score. For example, I'm playing Mass Effect at the moment which is immensely enjoyable as a game, but the experience is being completely marred by the horrendous noise emanating from the 360’s DVD drive. The game becomes almost unplayable if I’m wearing headphones, as I have to have the volume so loud to cover the noise of the drive.

    My point is that if this game were ported to the PS3, even if it was graphically slightly inferior, that would be the one I would go for simply because the PS3 runs significantly quieter and would, for me at least, offer an overall better gaming experience. I recently did just that with Pro Street, the 360 version looked better, but I went for the PS3 version because it was quieter.

    I know to a lot of people this is simply not an issue, but to others some kind comparison of this type would prove useful.

    Cheers…

  • Garulon #93 4 years ago

    "360 only has better looking versions because it's programmed for them first.
    The next round of games will be programmed for PS3 first and then ported to 360 (it makes a LOT more sense tech-wise), and that's when you'll start seeing much more even results, with PS3 probably even edging ahead. "

    Asassins Creed led on the PS3.

    On the forum quartertothree.com one of the developers stated the PS3 version had the most resources of the two by far, yet still came out all wobbly.

    So that's been tried. End result? No difference.

  • darc #94 4 years ago

    I really wish Uncharted weren't an exclusive. It's the game I'd most like to be playing right now, but it's the only title that would lead me to buy a PS3 over an XBox360...

  • klanger13 #95 4 years ago

    Shab: I agree. I rented Elder Scrolls for the ps3 recently just to see what it was like - and it has the Knights of the Nine - and it was only then that I realised it had some great subtle ambient sound. I could just never hear it over the hoover that is the 360!

    P.s I thought that Elder Scrolls was a lot better on the ps3 as well but then it should do for the extra development time.

  • Darren #96 4 years ago

    Apologie - "... even Dev's admit that the Ps3 final version [Call of Duty 4] had overall better graphics and performance."

    Yet I read a post from one of the IW developers who claimed that you could argue both versions are the best depending on which parts of the game you compare. Sometimes the Xbox 360 version looks better, sometimes the PS3, there's no clear winner at all, something the EG article correctly points out. ;)

  • BillyBrush #97 4 years ago

    Good point re the sound, randomly i play thru cans going via a mixer (so the housemates don't think there's a war going on at 2am in my room) hence i don't hear the drive but do hear the environmental sounds

    but it seems to be better with some games than others, Mass Effect in particular has been rushed out of the door and disc reads and loads really badly...it's quite the shoddiest game in some time...slowdown and tearing too, it's choc full of guff

    Launch games like PGR3 were pretty loud

  • Darren #98 4 years ago

    Does anyone think it odd that so many PS3 games lack anti-aliasing (AA) in comparison to the 360 equivalent? EG mentioned it several times in this article, e.g. NBA Live 08. In my experience, as an owner of both machines, it seems like the PS3 has problems doing AA and HDR lighting simultaneously in the same way that the ageing GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card in my PC cannot do both, except for games like Half-Life 2 Episode 1 & 2. The 360 clearly has the advantage when it comes to AA.

  • Darren #99 4 years ago

    @shab - Another reason to port Mass Effect over to the PS3 would be its standard HDD, which would undoubtedly help reduce the amount of texture pop-in and smooth out the framerate. I understand it doesn't use the HDD at all on the 360, presumably so Core 360 owners (/spits) can have the same experience as Premium and Elite users.

  • davisorle #100 4 years ago

    CoD 4 if you check the leafs in the botttom on 360 are way more clear so there is a difference, Assassin's Creed just like almost all the multiplatform games now more lookes faded out on PS3 and has framerate issues, at Conan the close by planting look way more clear and not just blur leafs also the shoadowing of those is way better on the 360 and the rest of the games EG said itself the PS3's issues compared to the 360. Lets wait another 3 years for the ps3 to catch up. Maybe if they had delayed it another year for us Europeans it had more lag issues on all games and was a bit more expensive. Cause i dont get why it has that same stupid prob on most games.

    Well, I'm happy that most PS3 owners ( to fanboys only, for the rest im sorry guys that you paid for it.. ) got really dissapointed by reading this article. I would if I had their huge mouth and then saw this. Anyway, have fun gaming to all. Going to get some epic for both my Warrior and Priest ^^

  • septimus #101 4 years ago

    "We take an impartial look" LMAO

    Is there something wrong with your PS3? The frame rate is fine on Assassins Creed, and yes I have run both side by side. I call BS.

    Most of the games are crap conversions and not natively coded.

    Your flame bait articles are getting tiresome.

    To trolls, if you can't afford all 3 consoles, stfu. I haven't read the comments, but I know the usual lot will be in house.

  • Garulon #102 4 years ago

    @Darren
    "PS3 has problems doing AA and HDR lighting simultaneously in the same way that the ageing GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card in my PC cannot do both"

    Take that card, cut the bus width in half, hook it up to 256MB of rambus memory and you, my friend, have yourself a "Reality Synthesizer" just like the one in the PS3.

  • Garulon #103 4 years ago

    "I understand it doesn't use the HDD at all on the 360"

    It uses the HDD for caching. The pop in is Unreal Engine 3 being shit at managing texture resources.

  • dirigiblebill #104 4 years ago

    I couldn't give a flying fuckasaurus about the pixel-thin difference between multiplatform releases. What I'd really like to know is... where did you guys get the front page picture from? That cat rules.

  • Bongo #105 4 years ago

    "Bongo: If developers start out on the 360 & get fantastic results, why would they suddenly switch over (well other than being paid)?

    It's just as silly as the argument that the ps3 coders needs time and will in a year or so pawn the 360 builds. As if 360 development has hit a ceiling and will never improve."

    Because if you're going to be creating another multi-platform game, you would be a bit silly not to learn from your mistakes first-time around. Look at the delays of games hitting PS3 after Xbox 360. If you develop the other way around, this won't happen. There are more problems going from 360 to PS3 than the other way around.
    That also makes sense to everyone including marketing, PR etc, not just tech. You lose money releasing the same games at different times on separate platforms. It's "old news" by the time the latter one comes out.

  • Jac #106 4 years ago

    I don't understand why anyone would own a ps3 at the moment other than for unchartered which hasn't really grabbed me as a reason to shell out £300+. Give it a year or 2 and i'm sure it'll be worth owning (i'm quite excited about LA Noire) but at the moment i can't believe it is actually selling other than on name alone.

  • Darren #107 4 years ago

    Let's face it, no-one judges a console by the quality of its multiformat games anyway, they're rarely take full advantage of the hardware since they have to cater for the lowest common denominator. When you look at the quality of PS3 games like Ratchet & Clank: ToD and Uncharted: DF, it obvious that the machine is more than capable of running great-looking games in the right hands. It's just that some developers, like EA and particularly Konami, are clearly having problems getting them to run as well or look as good as the 360 versions.

    It'll be interesting to see how Haze and Burnout Paradise turn out on the PS3 seeing as they've been lead developed on that platform. Now that rumble is finally supported on the PS3 (my Dualshock3 controller will hopefully arrive this year) then I'm solely tempted to pre-order the latter game for the PS3 if only to get the chance to use my PS3 more.

  • peterfll #108 4 years ago

    I like these articles as I think they're brave, tackling a thorny subject that most games journalists and publication tend to shy away from. And as a proud owner of both consoles, I like to have this information.

    Well done EG.

    What is shocking is that the situation for the PS3 situation has probably got slightly worse since the last face-off. Sony really need to do something for the devs; clearly they're not motivated in solving the cross-platform conversion issues themselves.

  • Garulon #109 4 years ago

    "Let's face it, no-one judges a console by the quality of its multiformat games anyway, they're rarely take full advantage of the hardware since they have to cater for the lowest common denominator"

    Yeahhhh.... that's the PS3 right now though, so what's your point? Just play the four or five firstparty titles on your £300 box, ignoring the sixty-odd thirdparty titles?

  • Darren #110 4 years ago

    @Garulon - Erm... no, I play those "sixty-odd thirdparty" games on my Xbox 360. I only bought the PS3 for its exclusive games anyway, which I'm sure there'll be plenty of in time. Ditto for the Wii. Which ever console has the better multiformat games was always going to be my "main" console and that's obviously the 360 at the moment, simply because the games tend to be superior on that format. I'm in no way biased, if the PS3 gets a better multiformat title, say Burnout Paradise, then I'll happily buy that version.

  • gizmo #111 4 years ago

    Framerate issues are the most important aspect to me.

    Sony overpromised and underdelivered. Again.

    People eventually learn it would seem.

  • bioreit #112 4 years ago

    So, it's been almost two hours since Apologie's last post about CoD4 and over one and a half hours since I told him what Sony reckoned about CoD4's multiplayer limits.

    Do we reckon he's

    a) slipping

    b) in after-school detention

    c) hurriedly trying to research some totally unrelated fact as to why the PS3 is, in fact, superior to 360, to distract from the issue, or

    d) so apopleptic with rage at losing his reason for PS3 CoD4 being superior to the 360 version that he is choking on his own bile in front of his computer?

    Place bets now!

    /misses Banzai so, so much.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 16:05

  • Garulon #113 4 years ago

    "I only bought the PS3 for its exclusive games anyway, which I'm sure there'll be plenty of in time"

    Seems a lot of money though - say ten must-have exclusive games come out for the PS3. At £300, that's £30+£60, or £90 per game, R&C might be good. Is it £90 good?

  • rhinoxious #114 4 years ago

    Most of the best games on PS3 at the moment are multi-platform releases. 360 has some good exclusives but not loads.

    However the cost of development means that big titles, like COD and GTA, are multiplatform as that's the only way to cover the development costs.

    Also the wii hasn't helped, as its removed a large number of consumers (though not all of them are 'true' gamers) from the multiplatform business model. There are around 13 million console owners out there who can't buy COD4 remember!

    So MS and Sony have a smaller slice of the overall gaming pie than they might have expected, and so most developers must release on both PS3 and 360 to make good money.

    ===EDITED FOR CLARITY===
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 16:19

  • Darren #115 4 years ago

    @Garulon - I do use my PS3 an awful lot for watching upscaled DVDs and BDs on though (via HDMI@1080p), not to mention playing PS2 games on (I have PS2 games but no PS2) and for listening to music on, streamed from my PC or from ripped CDs stored on the HDD (it's much quieter than my noisy 360 you see).

    I paid £425 for my PS3 back in March and replaced the 60 GB HDD with a 160 GB one for an extra £50. It does get a lot of use surprisingly but not always for playing PS3 games on admittedly. Although you wouldn't think so, I feel I've got good value out of my PS3 as it is actually a very good BD player and dedicated players are still more expensive and some aren't even as good.

  • dustrat #116 4 years ago

    Wow, Hyperspace Ultra Links!

  • Gurgeh #117 4 years ago

    This list isn't up to date (June 2007) but the number of console exclusives by platform:

    XBox 360: 91 (44 released by June)
    Wii: 76 (21 released by June)
    PS3: 44 (8 released by June)

    http://ww w.videogamesblogger.com/2007/06...

  • wewillselfdestruct #118 4 years ago

    @ Yaz

    "instead of just stating '24 vs 18' as if that says all we need to know."

    I was merely restating what I'd heard and, since the article is about comparing the 360 version against the PS3 version, that I would consider this to be an advantage of one over the other. I also didn't say I knew this definitively, and I believe that my opinion is as valid as anyones, particularly since I've avoided sensationalistic language and rampant fanboyism.

    You mentioned peer to peer vs server based games might be the reason. Is that really the case? It's surprising that they'd use a server infrastructure on one platform but not the other. To be honest, in my experience I would take server based games over peer to peer any day, but then perhaps the peer to peer games I've seen aren't the best examples. I suppose the one advantage they have is that Activision can't turn the servers off when they decide to stop supporting the game.

  • monkie_king #119 4 years ago

    @Bongo: but the majority of sales are on the 360, by some margin, and it's cheaper and easier to develop for. Simple economics dictate that titles lead on 360, at least while things stay the way they are.

    I think Burnout Paradise will be illustrative. There's a cross-platform game from Criterion, who know a thing or two about writing engines (think Renderware), that is leading on PS3, and that the devs have hinted will be marginally superior on PS3. "You won't be disappointed" by the 360 version, is what they keep saying.

    Still, it seems likely they've had to invest more time/effort/capital into squeezing that PS3 performance out, and so long as the 360 has such a large sales advantage over PS3 it makes little economic sense for most 3rd party developers to switch over. (On the bright side, maybe EA will be able to use Criterion's tech to improve their PS3 ports).

  • polymorph #120 4 years ago

    @ Darren,
    Again +1,
    Your not a evil twin that i dont no about but lives in the loft are you??

  • nickthegun #121 4 years ago

    So which one is Domo-Kun and which ones the kitten?

  • JayPee #122 4 years ago

    No mention of how the on-line services compared, which really seem to be the difference between the consoles apart from the occasional pplatform exclusive.

    Hmm, sorry EG. Bit worthless without these comparisons.

  • J.C #123 4 years ago

    To many PS3 owners here giving it the mines better than yours bollocks. the fact remains that the 360 is still outperforming the PS3, and thats a fact. hard for a sony owner to accept yes, but its the truth.

  • Garulon #124 4 years ago

    "No mention of how the on-line services compared"

    What, the PS3 didn't get enough of a drubbing already?

  • L42yB #125 4 years ago

    @septimus

    [link url=http://kotaku.com/g aming/update/assassins-creed-ps3-crashing-is-firmware-20s-fa ult-324396.php
    ]http://ko taku.com/gaming/update/assassin...[/link]

    Check it out thru google if you like too... there are a *ton* of people complaining about the PS3 version being unstable and apparently this is caused by the firmware. But it's definitely not BS...

  • Darren #126 4 years ago

    Ironically, these comparison features are only really of use to people who own both machines so which one is better is only important in that they know which version is the one to buy. I'd imagine most PS3-only and Xbox 360-only owners aren't remotely bothered about which is the better one since they can't play the other version anyway. LOL

    It would be nice if these comparisons were mentioned in the reviews so it helps us multiconsole owners decide which version to buy but I guess it's not always possible at the time they're written. It might have prevented me from buying the PS3 version of PES 2008...

  • Rodney #127 4 years ago

    "To many PS3 owners here giving it the mines better than yours...fact remains that the 360 is still outperforming the PS3"

    I love irony.

  • Yaz #128 4 years ago

    @ wewillselfdestruct

    "I was merely restating what I'd heard"

    I'm aware of that, hence I said you heard correctly and therefore I wanted to know if anyone had experience of playing the online game for both versions.

    "I believe that my opinion is as valid as anyones, particularly since I've avoided sensationalistic language and rampant fanboyism."

    Of course, I agree, I wasn't aiming those comments specifically at you, but at those who seem to think 24 players is better *only* because it's a bigger number than 18, with no thought given to how each version performs online and the differences between them (they know who they are ;)).

  • Apologie #129 4 years ago

    @bioreit

    So, it's been almost two hours since Apologie's last post about CoD4 and over one and a half hours since I told him what Sony reckoned about CoD4's multiplayer limits

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

    I do have a life you know... i'm at the moment working.

    Here is the link for everyone to enjoy...;)

    [link url=http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

    See... its not just even me, even the dev's admit it.

    I'm very pleased with the Ps3 first year..., Resistance, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet&Clank:TOD, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, UT3, Warhawk, Motorstorm, Ninja Gaiden Sigma etc.. multiplayer games like COD 4, Dirt, Oblivion, Darkness, Fight Night Round 3 are all better on Ps3 and i will not even bother to mention future releases because we all know the greatness of thouse titles.

    Dev's said that Uncharted isn't even using 40% of the Ps3 capabilityes... it can only get better from that, and by the way, (maybe i will) i'm looking forward to Haze, Kilzone 2, Little Big Planet, Metal GEar Solid 4, Resistance 2, God of War 3, Home etc... and you guy's are looking forward to?? maybe Ps3 isn't all that bad ;)
    Edited by 4 at 29/11/07 @ 17:14

  • Waffleaber #130 4 years ago

    The only differences I can see in those screenshots are in the brightness or contrast.

    Then again i'm useless on the pub quizzo spot the difference. Cluedo ftw.

  • L42yB #131 4 years ago

    @Darren - Also would be useful to people who don't know which console to buy yet...

  • Xerx3s #132 4 years ago

    Because if you're going to be creating another multi-platform game, you would be a bit silly not to learn from your mistakes first-time around.

    Mistakes? No mistakes. The ps3 api is just not as good and the hardware is a bitch to program for. And then there are just things that the 360 has and the ps3 hasn't. The reasons why the ps3 versions are later and not as good looking is not because there are mistakes that are made. It's because MS knows how to develop software development tools and the architecture is just simpler to use.

    Look at the delays of games hitting PS3 after Xbox 360. If you develop the other way around, this won't happen. There are more problems going from 360 to PS3 than the other way around.

    Yeah, so instead of just delaying the ps3 version, you delay both versions. Or do you think that programmers are suddenly capable of solving difficult unique problems at twice the speed?

    That also makes sense to everyone including marketing, PR etc, not just tech. You lose money releasing the same games at different times on separate platforms. It's "old news" by the time the latter one comes out.

    True, but as a company, holding a release back just because other products aren't done yet is even less desirable. It costs money and might make your product look outdated.

  • Yaz #133 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "[link url=http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

    See... its not just even me, even the dev's admit it."

    Link error, try this instead:

    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=17 6088
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

    Like I said earlier Apologie, they don't say that (at least not from what I've read so far).

    There are only three quotes from Vince Zampella reported online from that interview, which are;

    1) "We had our best programmers on the PS3 [version of Call of Duty] and it shows"

    2) "We had two separate teams working on both versions from the start"

    3) "Most developers only focus on a single platform, then quickly port the game over to another one. You don't get very good results that way"

    The other comments have been added by the reporter, not by Vince, and since the interview originates from issue #95 of PSM3, it's not surprising to see the reporting of it biased in favour of the PS3 (with fanboys jumping up and down with excitement before they've even read the full interview).

    Here's how PSX Extreme reported it without the extraneous comments from Games Radar;

    [link url=http://w ww.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/2184.html
    ]http://ww w.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/2184....[/link]

    Hence I'm waiting to read the ACTUAL interview itself to see EXACTLY what Vince says and the context in which it is stated.
    Edited by 3 at 29/11/07 @ 17:33

  • bioreit #134 4 years ago

    @ Apologie

    "i'm looking forward to Haze, Kilzone 2, Little Big Planet, Metal GEar Solid 4, Resistance 2, God of War 3, Home etc... and you guy's are looking forward to??"

    (I'm gonna regret getting into this type of conversation, but, well, he did ask...)

    Halo Wars, Huxley, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Too Human, Fable 2, Banjo-Kazooie 3, Age of Conan and a fair few more. Will that do?

    /awaits "but they're not my type of game", or "but so many of those are coming to PC too" comments

  • dirigiblebill #135 4 years ago

    I notice that nobody has replied to my comment regarding the front page pic. Marks will be deducted accordingly.

  • Feanor #136 4 years ago

    "Call of Duty 4 is quite simply a staggeringly good game and right up there with Super Mario Galaxy as my personal pick of the year."

    A light-gun game as GOTY? Never.

  • captain-future #137 4 years ago

    @miiiguel: Pointless by now. Everyone knows nowdays the games are identical.

    Graphically maybe... but all I want is a stable 60Hz framerate... which in the better cases I get but mostly not on PS3.

    CoD4 is a good example that it's possible to make smooth games on PS3, but then again it's not even 720p!

    --

    And I own all next-gen consoles, so I'm not leaning towards any one.

  • bioreit #138 4 years ago

    @ dirigiblebill

    [link url=http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2624914 700100644483qztDCz
    ]http://en tertainment.webshots.com/photo/...[/link]

    I missed your comment first time around, so did a 'lil digging and found a link. Has been reversed though.

  • bioreit #139 4 years ago

    @ frod

    1. Apologie mentioned "future releases". No mention made of them having to be in 2008.

    2. Apologie used Killzone 2 - what with reports of the beta possibly not happening until late 2008, expectations are that it might not get a release until early 2009, either.

    So where's the problem?

  • dirigiblebill #140 4 years ago

    @ bioreit

    I bow to your digging abilities, sir.

    /prints
    /frames

  • Yaz #141 4 years ago

    frod wrote: "ok well, don't forget you'll have to buy a new xbox in 2009."

    Nice yet predictable dig at the 360 ;), but there's absolutely no reason for the next Xbox console to be released that early.

  • bioreit #142 4 years ago

    @ frod

    Ok.... Resistance 2 then. And Home, seeing as the beta for that keeps getting pushed back. But nice to see that you try to distract from the fact that I didn't do anything 'wrong' by making a flippant, unrelated comment. I didn't turn round and say "but don't forget, to take advantage of the new rumble features, you'll have to shell out for new controllers" did I? Because it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

  • Dizzy #143 4 years ago

    So 5 - 0 for 360?

    When does the match end?

  • bioreit #144 4 years ago

    @ dirigiblebill

    Pleased to be of service

    /bows

    I initially thought I'd seen it on http://icanhascheezbur ger.com/ but I think that was my caffeine-addled brain playing tricks on me. Good old Google to the rescue!

  • evilboo #145 4 years ago

    WAR IS OVER - XBOX WINS!

    hahahahah xbox is best hahahahaha

    lllllooooooooooozzzzzzzzzeeeeeeerrrrrss!

    i will buy PS3 for £90 from Argos in 2010 and play whatever good exclusives they have left by then.

  • monkie_king #146 4 years ago

    I like the way Apologie pads his "great PS3 games" list out with Ninja Gaiden. Err, three-year-old XBox games ftw?

    On the other hand, it is PS3's 5th-highest rated game on Metacritic. Along with zero exclusives scoring over 90. Still, I'm sure that each and every one of those games on his 2008 list will be AAA 10/10 fried gold.

  • bioreit #147 4 years ago

    @ frod

    Original Xbox was made from off-the-shelf components that cost MS an arm and a leg to put together. Nvidia also owned the rights to the GPU (hence all the BC issues). Microsoft killed the original Xbox as soon as they could to save money.

    The 360 was a Microsoft in-house designed product and they made sure they maintained all the necessary rights.

    Totally different situations.

    Next?

  • bioreit #148 4 years ago

    @ frod

    Not saying it's a good reason, just saying it's the reason for it and why the 360 won't be killed off in the same way.

  • Yaz #149 4 years ago

    "same could be said of the 360 though."

    No because that was completely different. The original XBox was MS's first console and it arrived late in the last gen, a full 18 months after the release of the PS2. Therefore the 360 was always going to cut short the life of the XBox (unless MS were willing to be late again this generation, which would have been a disaster).

    EDIT: Ok, can we get back on topic now. :)
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 18:07

  • bioreit #150 4 years ago

    @ frod

    Oh, sod off, PS fanboy. I'm bored with you, as I can't even get any logic past your Sony Defence Force-branded Reality Shield.

  • TRUTH #151 4 years ago

    So far 360 has won every round!...Only Uncharted and Motor Storm are showing PS3 capabilities, though they can be done on 360...Uncharted is a very nice looking game; But it's not above GOW - which has alot more going on onscreen then Uncharted. The action with lighting/textures and characters onscreen at once is still ahead on GoW.

    And 2008: Ninja Gaiden 2, Alan Wake, Banjoo & Kazioee, Halo Wars, Too Human, Fable 2, Cry-On, Splinter Cell Convection. Remember MGS 4 has been hinted several times to appear 360 (Probably will!).

    Oh! even the Xbox cross conversions looked and usually played better the PS2, with extra features.

    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 18:10

  • monkie_king #152 4 years ago

    hmm, much better to enjoy the 2girls1cup-style relationship with Sony that PS3 owners have been subjected to?

    edit: @frod, damned slow typing
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 18:14

  • Yaz #153 4 years ago

    "Instead they released early and made two disasters: diabolical reliability and killing a great console before its time."

    That's a matter of opinion, but from the state of the 360 in the market, they have achieved their goal of grabbing a larger share of the market compared to the XBox, and it's likely to remain that way even if they were to finish third this gen.

    Also, somehow I doubt you were a fan of the original XBox. :)

  • Machiavellian #154 4 years ago

    Even though we like to call developer lazy the real problem still center on Sony for developing such a complex beast. Not only did Sony create this complex beast but then they let it loose without any solid means for developing for it. This might have worked in the PS2 days but competition is much fiercer now. Only after getting owned by MS on a lot of multiformat games and having one of their certified engine companies (Epic) run into serious problems did Sony decide to get their butts in gear and ask IBM to send out their crack team for assistance? The blame still rest with Sony more then 3rd party developers because you know if Epic, ID, Valve and a host of other top notch developers had problems with the PS3 how do you think much smaller developers are able to cope. Then you have the exorbitant cost of the Dev units from Sony and you see the problem is still squarely on Sony.

    For big time developers like IW, it's easier to have two separate teams devoted to both consoles because the risk are small for them and the profits are big with a money maker like COD but most devs do not have the luxury or those kinds of funds. It’s been said by many developers that it takes a long time to get the same effects out of the PS3 then it does the 360. Even the devs for Naughty Dog stated that they spent a lot of resources on their PS3 engine which means it cost a hell of a lot of money to squeeze out 30% of the PS3 power. Yes, we can blame EA and Ubisoft for sub par ports but in the end the fault and the blame goes mostly to Sony. I am certain that if Sony provided more support, better tools and understanding of how to get the power out of the PS3 we wouldn’t see so many poor ports. Sony attitude, the same attitude Nintendo use to have when they were on top is what has caused so many problems for 3rd party developers more then them being lazy.

  • Caer #155 4 years ago

    Domo-kun ftw!

    [link url=http://www.jlist.c om/PRODUCT/DM006
    ]http://www.jlist.c om/PRODUCT/DM006
    [/link]

    I have a Samurai Domo (same as that ^ one but with a samurai costume) which sadly doesn't seem to be available any more :( He's on my desk at work now, standing watch.

  • Yaz #156 4 years ago

    frod wrote: "guys, I've been posting here a long time.....Or just carry on discrediting if you like."

    Please stop acting like you're an innocent victim ;)

    If you liked the XBox and some 360 games, then good for you, but that doesn't justify or validate some of the comments you've made here!
    Edited by 2 at 29/11/07 @ 18:20

  • Yaz #157 4 years ago

    frod wrote "Just trying to provoke a little thought before the "must be a PS fanboy" ad hominem attacks fly in."

    Good, so now you've got that out of the way, I ask again, can we get back to the topic now? :)

  • Yaz #158 4 years ago

    "There isn't really any proper discussion here, just hair-splitting bullshit."

    Same with the discussion we've just been having, besides being one which has been discussed so many thousands of times here already anyway.

    Hence I'd rather focus on 360 vs PS3 games, since that it what the article was all about.

  • Yaz #159 4 years ago

    :)

  • clean515 #160 4 years ago

    Why the hell make an article like that with low res screenshots ?

  • JYM60 #161 4 years ago

    Xbox 360 has no decent games next year.

    PS3 wins

    \o/

  • Garulon #162 4 years ago

    I'm thinking if any console's off for an early bath, it's the PS3. It's costing Sony a fortune, they're not making it up with software sales, and now they're slashing prices costing them even more money to compete. It's basically the same situation the XBox 1 was in, only without a Sugar Daddy Windows to bail it out.

    If Sony want to go the full five years with this boat-anchor around their neck (let alone ten) let alone ten they'll go bust. They've been selling off their chip plants and IP just to tread water, and they're almost certainly working on something they can bang out by 2009 so they can rip this train wreck off the shelves before it takes the whole company down.

    And you can forget about back compat as well.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 18:58

  • Apologie #163 4 years ago

    MattDamon

    Are you on Drugs??? MEtal GEar 4 will be exclusive for PS3, forget about a x360 version, never gonna happen mate.

    bioreit

    are you kidding??? i mean, do you really compare x360 future releases like Halo Wars, Huxley, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Too Human, Fable 2, Banjo-Kazooie 3, Age of Conan to the future releases for Ps3 like Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Little Big Planet, God of War 3, Resistance Fall of man 2, Motorstrom 2, Gran Turismo 5 etc...???? lol, you gotta be kidding me :) ps3 will own x360 in every category.
    Edited by 3 at 29/11/07 @ 19:24

  • Rembrandt #164 4 years ago

    Well I have both systems and if I'm honest my PS3 is nothing more than a Blue-Ray disk player for me at the mo (and a good one at that too). I've tried so many times with the 3rd party games but just can't convince myself that the PS3 is better, therefore my whole games catalogue is wth the 360. I'm sure the PS3 will improve it has the power but I dont know if that will be too late. Right now I think developers have mastered the 360 archetecture and are churning out non stop hits. Everyone has to admit that from a hardcore gamers point of view 360 has Xmas wrapped up.. Too many good games. And PS3?? Just Drakes Fortune and an average Rachet and Clank (Not for me sorry) as exclusives...

    Also you have to think do you really need all that power with the PS3. Games already look good on the 360 (at this point better than the PS3) and will get even better, soon shinyness will count for nothing and it will be down to the playability.

  • Machiavellian #165 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    Out of your list, only MGS4 and God of War 3 (which will not make 2008) are probably sure fire hits. Killzone probably will not make it in 2008 and even if it does, going by Killzone 1 there is a very good opportunity for it to be sub par. Resistance was average so why expect it to be any better for the second version. Motorstorm was decent but nothing that screams must have.

    Why don't you just say that in your opinion those will be stellar games because so far that list is no better than bioreit and at least all the games he list will make it next year.

  • Apologie #166 4 years ago

    Rembrandt

    almost all X360 good games are Shooters and most of them not exclusives, you see, Gears of War and Bioshok are out for Pc, and anyone with a decent/medium computer (and that makes it almost everyone) can play them..., Halo 3 in time will be launched for Pc as well so.. on top of beign all shooters, they are not only for X360. On the contrary Ps3 exclusives like Gt5, Killzone2, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, REsistance, Motorstorm, Metal GEar 4, Little Big planet, God of War 3 etc..., are only for that system, and you don't see them on Pc's, so if you want to play them, go buy a Ps3... (that's what i call an exclusive).

    Ps3 have a lot of pottential to be discovered, many dev's like insomniac have said it and proved it... it's a machine that will see constant evolution in terms of performance and graphics, you will not see much more improvement in X360... i mean, even Gears of war, the prettyer game X360 have to offer have been overrun by Unchartet, a 1st generation title for the PS3.

    In a few month's everyone will see that.

  • Calgon #167 4 years ago

    May 2010, Apologie type Sony fanboy : "I cant beleive Sony pulled out of the console race, Im still not gonna buy the new Xbox. The PS3 was too much for games developers and software engineers' tiny minds, there must have been like 60% left of Sony potentials ^tm. It couldnt ever have been just not quite as good as Sony hoped for gaming"

    Again will they use the same excuses next year? about next year being better on PS3? and about developers not having enough time with the hardware(theyve had plenty of time now, not only that but PS3 gets special treatment *COD4's best devs\Sony engineers\extra dev time\special optimisations and research into the hardware by devs* for the same results at best as the 360 version which costs less and bar a few exceptions has handled everything thrown at it thus far without much special treatment).

    Next year should be interesting for 360, multiplatform games are still the fairest benchmarks we can give, exclusives are where you see consoles at their strongest but its near impossible to compare like for like(already people making stupid comparisons with totally different engines, aiming for totally different things visually).

    Shame Bizarre have gone to Acclaim, but Rare I think always learn something new about the hardware they're working with on each new project(so hopefully we will see that again next year).

    Silicon Knights, I dont know if its their game engines that make them stand out to begin with and since its running Too Human on a modified UE3 if there will be a big difference between other UE3 games but they are no slouches either and may surprise us. Lionhead might have something nice to show but I dont know if its visuals their engines excell in(again they may surprise us though, Fable was beautifully rendered but was it cutting edge technology that made it possible?).

    Ubi (Splinter Cell): now with some interesting Dev soundbites about how much they like 360s hardware already, it should be one to look out for, I did hear though that this isnt a native 360 engine either but it should be heavily optimised(much moreso than Assassins Creed for example), as they were on the original Xbox.

    So yeah its nice that 360 does so well accross the board with exclusives and multi-platform games, but it would be nice to see a few more devs making native 360 engines to really stand out... and naturally take better advantage of the hardware(untapped potential as Sony say). I think some acquisitions or something of the sort is in order for 360 next year(well they would be planning that now and announce it then.... but you know what I mean).
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 20:06

  • foamy #168 4 years ago

    You call 1st generation, a game which comes out 1 year after launch? :o

    And while the 360->PC thing, it's kind of true, but usually people like to play games as they are meant to be played. For example, Bioshock. All the architecture in the game, and water effects, etc, are meant to get you inside the game. Low res textures do exactly the opposite.

    Other thing that is correct, is that probably 360 got to a point where it cannot get more raw power than they currently are getting. But, on other hand, software usually tends to get better, and by doing so, they use more tools to make games look better, using less power. Same with PS3.

  • Yaz #169 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "it's a machine that will see constant evolution in terms of performance and graphics, you will not see much more improvement in X360... i mean, even Gears of war, the prettyer game X360 have to offer have been overrun by Unchartet, a 1st generation title for the PS3."

    I hate to say this Apologie, because I enjoy our discussions, but that's a very ignorant comment to be making, and one which is nothing more than a repeat of the same nonsense gamers were going on with last gen.

    Both consoles are of similar power, all except certain console exclusive devs (for obvious reasons) agree with this view. Devs have only begun to see what they can do on both machines, and hence BOTH have a long way to go in terms of the developement and improvements for future games.

    So declaring one as having a lot of potential to be discovered and the other as not having much potential left is fanboyism at it's most blatant, and it's not a pretty sight. :)

    "even Gears of war, the prettyer game X360 have to offer have been overrun by Unchartet, a 1st generation title for the PS3."

    Please quit the 1st gen nonsense. Gears of War was released in November 2006, 1 year after the 360 was launched. Uncharted was released this month, 1 year after the PS3 was launched. So both games were release one year after the launch of their respective consoles, and so your generation statement is meaningless. As for which looks better, it's a matter of opinion, for you it's Uncharted, for others it's Gears, for many more it's a case of who cares as long as the games are great! :|
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 20:20

  • Calgon #170 4 years ago

    Exactly stop with the untapped potential guesstimations, they mean next to nothing if you think just using logic for a second, if they knew how much was left that would mean theyve already proved it by reaching it... they havent, Sony need soundbites like this from their devs, MS doesnt but still gets them(from much better sources too... ie non partial - hugely respected devs).

    360 isnt standing still if anything it could have MORE untapped potential given that if any console has recieved more special treatment and research into software for it, its the PS3... and that's just to match the 360. If I were as bad as Apologie I'd now suggest: "That means that 360 is still cruisin in first gear at the moment, while theve tuned the PS3 up and gave it special fuel already... just wait till 360 really gets goin... it will make PS3 fanboys everywhere weap into their empty wallets"... but Im not. ;)
    Edited by 3 at 29/11/07 @ 20:28

  • Apologie #171 4 years ago

    Well friends, as i said..., 8 months down the road and all of you "who don't see denial as an option" will be facing exactlly what i'm saying... better exclusives (or should i say, REAL EXCLUSIVES), beter graphics and even better "on-line" with home...
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 20:37

  • captainrentboy #172 4 years ago

    Hey Apologie, AKA Massive cunt, as MGS4 being announced for the 360 is inevitable, please make sure you come back here, tail between legs, and admit you were so very wrong. It's just the right thing to do yeah?
    It might be a month down the line after the PS3 version, it might be 10, but MGS4 will be released on the 360 eventually.
    I can't understand why other people actually try to communicate with Apologie, don't you realise, the spaz can't comprehend any words other than ''Sony is da bestest''.
    Out of interest, Apologie, how old are you? I do hope, for the integrity of the education system's sake, you aren't over 14.

  • Calgon #173 4 years ago

    Apologie lol the irony... you're in denial right now, listing games that are better on 360 or equal at best as PS3 accomplishments.

    Darkness, COD4, FNR3?(hint: I disagree strongly) blatently trying to flesh out that little list, since even you must have thought it would have made a weak arguement with just 2 titles(even Dirt -- which is not one Id boast about given the development facts about that title-- lost detail for that frame rate... texture and geometry) its still weak Im afraid.

    We WILL wait and see(I said it last year and Im saying it again, wait and see)... and we know you will just keep telling us next year if its looking the same again(it will go on and on because you will never accept it).
    Edited by 2 at 29/11/07 @ 20:49

  • DjFlex52 #174 4 years ago

    Well friends, as i said..., 8 months down the road and all of you "who don't see denial as an option" will be facing exactlly what i'm saying... better exclusives (or should i say, REAL EXCLUSIVES), beter graphics and even better "on-line" with home...

    @Apologie

    And what are you going to say to us, August '08, after the games you're boasting about are delayed.
    Will you admit YOU were in denial? Or will we hear..."you just wait 8 months down the road" again?lol

  • Rembrandt #175 4 years ago

    Apologie you may be right thats why I've held on to my PS3, but with this Xmas being special for the PS3 (PGR4, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Bioshock) who will hold out for the PS3 other than those in the real know? And by then Xbox may have the commercial market tied up...

    Looking forward to Home (if it ever comes out) and Little Big Plannet. But on the whole its a great year for gamers whatever your platform (not so much PS3) and next year looks good to (sorry to sit on the fence).

  • Rembrandt #176 4 years ago

    Doh special for the 360 god damit! typo

  • Arwin #177 4 years ago

    It took a year before the 360 saw its first graphically impressive title: Gears. It took the PS3 a year (unless you count from European perspective) to get out its first graphically impressive title: Uncharted (or R&C, even, though HS not bad either). I'm actually impressed with the rate of progress that PS3 titles are going through, and things are looking good for the future. Particularly with the Unreal Engine 3 now also being up to speed on the PS3, we should see a big improvement on multi-platform games. I've got both machines, but so far spending *much* more time on the PS3. I can easily see how that would be reverse for people who are really into shooters (Bioshock, Halo 3), but personally I just like PS3's titles more (Warhawk, Motorstorm, Eye of Judgment, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, and Guitar Hero 3, while maybe not better than its 360 twin, still either sounds better on PS3, or you can hear it better ;) and though its not perfect yet - website doesn't run quite as well as it could have on the PS3 especially in 720p mode, and why didn't they give access to the webbrowser without you having to leave the game, which could have been a piece of cake? - you can at least still check out your http://www.guitarhero.com< /a> stats without having to go back to your PC ;; ). The PSN games just have a lot more flavor to them, and online gaming is pretty decent so far (for Warhawk, Motorstorm, Eye of Judgment, Guitar Hero 3) and yes, I don't need to say it, but as someone who has been paying for Live for over 4 years now ... 240 euros and counting.

    I think, by the way, that Apologie is actually a 360 fanboy in disguise, trying to smear us PS3 fans from the inside. He makes me sick.

  • Calgon #178 4 years ago

    Arwin: except PS3 software development started pretty much around the same time as 360 software development... regardless of when they were ready for mass production. No that excuse doesnt cut it(there wasnt a full year gap... if anything PS3 launch titles should have been far more polished than 360 launch titles which were all pretty much completed on beta dev kits), especially given as Im repeating purposefully PS3 has been getting special treatment already, not to mention longer dev cycles for games(including exclusives... theres an excuse for everything on the PS3, 360 hasnt needed to give any)... its just not showing because 360 does so well.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 21:22

  • Rembrandt #179 4 years ago

    I guess its down to preference but I have a feeling this console war will end a draw with MS taking the US, Europe being stalemate and Japan being PS3 (This doesn't take into account the Wii but for me they're in a whole new market, these guys cover an age range of like 5 to 70 year olds, no one can compete with that). It'll be interesting to see where Sony or MS goes after this generation. I'm also interested in Sony's answer to MS's gamerpoints which gives games that extra replay value. How will home emulate this? I hear talk of trophies in your PS Home avatars place?...

  • Apologie #180 4 years ago

    bcolter

    I'm not a fanboy dipshit... i just prefer my Ps3 over my X360, and have a different opinion in what concerns it's potential and future.

    @Yaz

    Both consoles are of similar power, all except certain console exclusive devs (for obvious reasons) agree with this view. Devs have only begun to see what they can do on both machines, and hence BOTH have a long way to go in terms of the developement and improvements for future games

    _________________________________________________

    Wrong my friend... Ps3 have increased holding capacity of Blu-ray discs, the CPU power of Cell and the pixel shaders of the RSX GPU... the apparently limitless processing power of the Cell along with the other characteristics i just mentioned will give the edge i'm talkin about.... next year is crucial, and i think Ps3 will do fine.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 21:26

  • Yaz #181 4 years ago

    Apologie, please quit talking about technology when you *clearly* haven't a clue what you're talking about.

    You're far better at being a Sony Cheerleader (complete with outfit) than a techie. ;)

    The Cell processor is an excellent processor, and it's strength is in it's floating-point capabilities, which 'on paper' is twice that of the 360's CPU Xenon thanks to 6 SPEs for use in games. However, Xenon has at least twice the general processing power of Cell due to having three cores for this purpose compared to just one on Cell (PPE). So depending on the game, there will be times when Xenon has the edge, and others when Cell will have the edge.

    Xenos, the GPU in the 360, is accepted by most devs as having the edge over RSX, where the unified shader architecture enables the GPU to make far more efficient use of it's available power compare to seperate pixel and vertex shaders.

    Blu-ray, whilst it clearly has it's pros (and cons), is irrelevent when talking about power. I could just as easily bring up the fact that the 360 has 40MB more ram available for it's games (since the PS3's OS requires 40MB more ram than the OS of the 360, being 72MB vs 32MB).

    Devs give the PS3 a slight edge overall due to the floating-point capabilities of Cell, but in gaming terms, this amounts to very little to all except those devs with sufficient time and resources. The differences between the consoles means that there are some things the PS3 will do better and others that the 360 will do better, and that's the way it will remain until the next generation arrives.
    Edited by 3 at 29/11/07 @ 21:45

  • m0thr4 #182 4 years ago

    @MattDamon

    Colin McRae Dirt has a far better framerate on the PS3, but they achieved that by reducing the draw distance and losing some graphical effects.

    Oblivion has slightly better graphics, but at a noticeable cost to the framerate. Oblivion still suffers from textures streaming in late, in all the same places the Xbox 360 version does.

  • Calgon #183 4 years ago

    Wrong my friend... Ps3 have increased holding capacity of Blu-ray discs, the CPU power of Cell and the pixel shaders of the RSX GPU... the apparently limitless processing power of the Cell along with the others characteristics i just mentioned will give the edge i'm talkin about.... next year is crucial, and i think Ps3 will do fine.


    No you're the one who is wrong my friend! lol

    Cell isnt limitless, Xenos beats RSX easily(with much more potential to untap), Xenon has lots left to give too (if devs optimise for it) and Blu-Ray disk capacity increase?... even if it wouldnt need a new laser or hardware it struggles as it is with the slow access and transfer speeds.

    This all means that theres little reason to hope for this "edge" or atleast not nearly as optimistic about it as you seem to be, I personally think 360 will end up with better visuals when all is said and done, if Cell is going to give any advantage its not likley that its going to be graphics, physics maybe?, AI... Im not convinced many devs still arent in agreement which is better for AI, anything else is anyones guess literally untill we see it.
    Edited by 3 at 29/11/07 @ 21:40

  • George-Roper #184 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "Wrong my friend... Ps3 have increased holding capacity of Blu-ray discs, the CPU power of Cell and the pixel shaders of the RSX GPU... the apparently limitless processing power of the Cell along with the other characteristics i just mentioned will give the edge i'm talkin about.... next year is crucial, and i think Ps3 will do fine."

    I'm sorry, Cell has apparently limitless processing power?!?

  • ronuds #185 4 years ago

    @ Apologie - I don't want to insult you because we've never spoken before, but your posts are extremely uninformed and sound as if they're being spewed straight from Ken Kutaragi's gullet. Just awful, I'm sorry.

    And I'd be absolutely amazed if you actually owned a 360.

    Now...about "teh cell."
    The cell is certainly a powerful processor, but is severly hampered by the fact that Sony decided to give the PS3 only 256mb of general purpose ram. It's like trying to fit a bowling ball through a straw...just not going to happen. This is also why, despite Sony's claims, the PS3's graphics have yet to outshine anything done on the 360. It's very likely that they never will. If you all remember correctly, 1st gen XBOX games outshined their PS2 counterparts immediately. This was because the XBOX had the hardware, in all areas, to outperform the PS2.

    So while the cell is a "bit" more powerful than the 360's xenon, the 360 is actually better off graphically since it has access to an extra 256mb of ram, which is a huge difference in terms of pushing pixels.

    So you can talk about the cell all you want, but the components around the cell are also extremely important to performance.

    If you can show me 1 game this gen that has "taken advantage" of the extra space blu-ray discs afford developers, I'd like to know about it. And, no, the average consumer cares little about having multiple languages on the same disc. Being PS3 development is so costly as it is, what makes you think developers are looking to create 50gb games, which will push dev costs ever higher and probably into a realm where the money they spend will never be recouped?
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 21:57

  • Xerx3s #186 4 years ago

    Is this still going on? Who is winning?

  • Xerx3s #187 4 years ago

    To trolls, if you can't afford all 3 consoles, stfu. I haven't read the comments, but I know the usual lot will be in house.

    It's always easy to dismiss a persons opinion because he doesn't own all (maybe he is smart?). At least, where is not for the fact that the demographic of this site are people between 18 & 40 with a lot of extra pocket cash.

  • Arwin #188 4 years ago

    Calgon, your comment holds for some of the first party developers, but a lot of developers like EA have quite simply linked their R&D and development budgets to the console's actual release dates. If you recall, last year there were several comments from EA big cheeses indicating that they were pretty sure when the PS3 was and when it wasn't going to launch, and in many cases (even including the Unreal Engine stuff for instance) development resources have been allocated to the 360 during its first year.

  • Nick_JD #189 4 years ago

    Why would I want all three consoles ?, I own a 360 and in the last couple of months have bought Halo 3, COD4, Mass effect, Assassin's Creed, Guitar hero 3, Bioshock, and I will get Orange box and Ace combat 6 by the end of the year.

    I feel bad enough as it is buying all those games without adding a PS3 and Wii to the mix.
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 22:17

  • Apologie #190 4 years ago

    @ronuds

    If you can show me 1 game this gen that has "taken advantage" of the extra space blu-ray discs afford developers, I'd like to know about it. And, no, the average consumer cares little about having multiple languages on the same disc. Being PS3 development is so costly as it is, what makes you think developers are looking to create 50gb games, which will push dev costs ever higher and probably into a realm where the money they spend will never be recouped?
    Edited 1 times. Most recently

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

    For the final question of the meeting, someone asked how much of the Blu-Ray disc the game would use. Mathijs and Steven chuckled. The E3 level everyone had just seen clocks in at 2 GB.

    Guerrilla expects to pretty much use the whole disc. (KILLZONE 2 is not possibel to do on X360)

    see the full interview here: [link url=http:// ps3.ign.com/articles/815/815430p3.html
    ]http://ps 3.ign.com/articles/815/815430p3...[/link]
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 22:19

  • DjFlex52 #191 4 years ago

    "Is this still going on? Who is winning?"

    EG is, of course ;)

    Also, I just started playing ME and AC on 360.

    Assassin's Creed is gorgeous and the gameplay reminds me of what that next gen Tenchu (a piece of crud) should have been like. Totally underappreciated and so immersive with so few load times.
    ME is a next gen RPG with real time action instead of turn-based. Superb! Again, totally underappreciated.

  • rawburger #192 4 years ago

    god bless eg forumites, i really love you all (in a purely non sexual way).

    Always an entertaining read, and a fascinating example of why the world is as it is at the moment. (my country's better than your country, its bigger its got shinier things..... i disagree, my country is better, we have a proud culture, and even shinier things).

    my pc is nearly 2 years old, some games i play on max settings, some on low. a game to me is a game i enjoy playing, not marveling at the amazing visuals, i will upgrade if something gives up the ghost, so i may not be a true gamer, your opinion of me matters about as much as something that matters not an awful lot.

    If i want to experience the real next gen, i will go outside and marvel at the 20X antialaised full hdr 10.1 audio experience that is real life.

    Thank you for your time, please carry on with the inane banter .....

  • Nick_JD #193 4 years ago

    If Assassin's Creed had a bit more variety to its missions it would be one hell of a game, it's the best looking game I've ever seen besides Crysis, and is fun to play, the 7/10 reviews were to harsh imo, but the game isn't for everyone I guess.

    Mass effect is great, only thing that lets it down is some of the side missions and rewards are kinda lame, and those damn elevators that cover up the loading times.

    But I've enjoyed both these games just as much as any other this year, the average Eurogamer reviews are kinda surprising seeing as they thought Halo 3 was 10/10, Sega rally 9/10.

    But I won't get into that.

  • Xerx3s #194 4 years ago

    ok well, don't forget you'll have to buy a new xbox in 2009. Plus there is no way Killzone 2 will be 2009, sorry man.

    Erm, sony doesn't particularly have a good track record of releasing their must have stuff. Especially in Europe. -_-

    wait, that's not a good reason at all, unless you're a Microsoft shareholder.

    /twiddles thumb
    /looks the other way

    guys, I've been posting here a long time. You can find my comments in Xbox and early 360 review threads going back to at least 2004 if you like. Or just carry on discrediting if you like.

    Hmmmzzz, nah, we will just go on and discredit you. ^_^

    /wispers to the guy next to him: I heard frod eats babies ¬_¬

    Anyway people, you are splitting hairs here. The only difference that keeps popping up is that the 360 version seems to have a bit more contrast (dark seems darker than the ps3 version).

    You people are still here while you can be at the party! Or don't you care for the cake?

  • George-Roper #195 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "For the final question of the meeting, someone asked how much of the Blu-Ray disc the game would use. Mathijs and Steven chuckled. The E3 level everyone had just seen clocks in at 2 GB.

    Guerrilla expects to pretty much use the whole disc. (KILLZONE 2 is not possibel to do on X360)

    see the full interview here: http://ps 3.ign.com/articles/815/815430p3... "


    Shock, horror, developer to use capacity of Blu-Ray, 2+ years after PS3 release.

    For one game.

  • TRUTH #196 4 years ago

    Apologie:

    Killzone 1 was shit, 2 looks average at present. Resistance was just average at best - for a PS3 this is desperate attempt to claim is a decent (NOT!) game.

    Along with: Too Human, Cry-On, Lost Oddysee, Alan Wake, Fable 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, Splinter Cell Convection, Halo Wars, and classic HD downloads: Rez, Ikagara, Radient Silvergun, Street Fighter II (Third Strike on XB1 can already be played on 360)..With follow-ups to Gears Of War, Crackdown, Mass Effect, Perfect Dark...And not forgetting the next Castlevania could very well be a 360 exclusive, along with Square/Enix making a 360 exclusive and also the classic GC 'Eternal Darkness' continuing on 360.

    2008 will be even better then 2007.

    Still have Gears Of War, Mass Effect, Dead Risisng, Guitar Heros, Halo 3, Project Gotham Racing 4, Forza 2, The Orange Box, Dead Or Alive 4, Vina Panta, the better version of Virtua Fighter 5, and also Crackdown...to keep me busy.

    More then anything on my PS3.

  • Calgon #197 4 years ago

    Since we are talking about Cell I will like to add a few thoughts... its teh crap... lol no really.

    Cell is considered more powerfull overall, but it looks much better on paper than in practise is what they are finding. As someone noted its not hands down stronger either, there are trade offs due to the directions took like general purpose power(or flexible power if you like being one of them).

    The Flops figures I think have to be questioned now no matter how hard to develop for Cell is, you cant compare a CELL flop to that of a Cray computer or maybe even Xenon IMO(either they used some tricky calculations as they have with GPUs in the past... like Nvidias or there are some bottlenecks, either way its not good). Xenon is also a OOOE Cpu(out of order execution as apposed to in order found in traditional desktops... basically both CPUs came under scruitiny for that decision when announced) and data paralellism isnt new(PS2 development was like that which is why some devs have taken to PS3 development easily).

    With CELL we have a PPE which is similar but certainly not the same as Xenons cores as some incorrectly assumed(xenons are more custom, expected to do more and equiped for it) and --not counting the one reserved for system-- 6 SPUs which arent anything revolutionary in themselves(based on toshibas DSPs as many may have read before). To get anywhere near those inflated figures on a purely theoretical level it would require full SPU utilisation, which would mean the PPE is no longer free(acts as controller feeding each pipeline) and thats when we will really see where the SPUs limitations lie(flexibilty). Now add effeciency, bottlenecks, memory and bandwidth questions into the mix and you can see theres much more to answer for than Sony devs are letting on. Its said that the SPUs have an indirect access to main memory themselves(rather than have the PPE do everything for them)but this doesnt sound optimal... indirect means there will be performance hit either way(and it just appears as though the PPE was always intended to act as the controller). Many a dev has said that game code doesnt always split that well accross multiple processors(I understand this as: you can dedicate one SPU for physics, one for animation, one or two for sound ect but once start pushing the console its going to be tricky to find balance. One minute you might need two SPUs the next theres one sat waiting for instructions.... so theres rarely going to be full utilisation there). CELL may be great as a media processor for cruching continuous streams of data like hi-def sound or video but thats not necessarily what games need more of, thats not to say that's all CELL is going to be good at... but rather we may find that people will have to settle with the fact its better at some things but others - not so much, so not the jack of all trades then.

    PS3 hardware has its strong points no doubt but its never going to blow the 360 away which has to be said is often being underrated(what does it have to do before it gets a bit of credit? It turned out to be more than match for PS3, as some of us were saying from the beginning thats all there is to it).

    Edit: Before anyone says it yes I edited 5 times, so? :-)
    Edited by 5 at 29/11/07 @ 22:56

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #198 4 years ago

    To settle this debate once and for all, I've asked Zany Zane all the way from the actual ghetto of New yourk to offer his opinion, I think you'll find it ties up all the loose ends of this debate..

    Please excuse the Caps lock, they dont do lower case in America, everything has to be big..

    "WHATS UP BRO I LIKE IT BUT THIS CONTEST IS NOT A RECORD DEAL ITS A DEMO DEAL THEY ARE NOT TELLING PEOPLE THE TRYTH YO REAL TALK. MAN LISTEN EVERYONE WHO SIGNS UP PAYS IF A MILLION PEOPLE DO THAT THESE PEOPLE GET RICH ITS A SCAM. TEHY WILL OWN YOUR WINNIG SONG IM TMAXS PRODUCER DOG REAL TALK WE GET 10.000 DOLLARS . THE CONTRACT THEY GIVE YOU IS FOR A DEMO DEAL SHIT YOU DO YOU OWN SHOPPING PLUS THEY GET A FINDERS FEE. WE STILL HAVENT GOT ARE MONEY WE ABOUT TO RUN UP IN THE BUILDING IN NEW YORK WE HAVE DIRECT CONNECT YO REAL TALK . THEY SAY NEXT WEEK THEN WEEKS KEEP PASSING BYE WITH NO MONEY THIS IS NOT A RECORD COMPANY THEESES ARE JUST CATS MAKING MONEY ON PEOPL SIGNING UP YOU GOT TO PAY TO GET ON HERE THINK ABOUT IT BPEOPLE THEY ARE EATING OFF YOU . THERE IS ALOT OF GOOD TALENT ONTHIS MUSIC SHIT BUT THERE BEING LIED TOO. WE WON SO WE KNOW WE ARE THE FIRST TO WIN THIS FAKE SHIT WE GOT DEAL OFFERS FROM REAL COMPANIES NOT THESE FAKE DUDES OKAY SPREAD THE WORD FOREAL BECAUSE I AM . IM A PROBLEM TRUST ME I SPEAK THE TRUTH ITS A WASTE DOG YOU DO GET THE MONEY BUT THEY TAKE THERE SWEET TIME WELL AFTER NINETY DAYS THE CONTRACT IS UP SO IF YOU WIN TAKE THE MONEY AND DO YOU REAL TALK THATS FOR EVRY BODY ON HERETHIS IS NOT FOR A RECORD DEAL ITS FOR A DEMO DEAL FOR THEM TO SHOP YOUR MUSIC. PEOPLE WE CAN DO THAT ARE SELF . IF SOME ONE WINS TAKE THE MONEY DO YOU ITS BETTR IF YOUR HOT A REAL COMPANY WILL SEE YOU AND GET INTOUCH LIKE US . THIS IS NOT FOR A RECORD DEAL. FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW WHAT A RECORD DEAL IS . ITS A DEAL TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR SINGL WORLD WIDE AND IF IT DOES WELL YOU CAN GET A LABEL DEAL. NO WHAT A RECORD DEAL IS . THIS IS NOT A ECORD DEAL ITS A DEMO DEAL THATS SOME WACK SHIT WE CAN SHOP ARE OWN SHIIIT RIGHT . ZANYZANY YALL THE TRUTH . AKA GOOD SEEDS TELLING THE FACTS WE WON WE SHOULD KNOW REAL TALK"

    Y'know what Im sayin?
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 23:19

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #199 4 years ago

    Thanks Zany Zane, you know you could use his quote to settle absolutely ANY debate on the internet. It leaves people speechless, its the ultimate comment..

  • thomastantrum #200 4 years ago

    Is your keyboard broken?

  • AOFanboi #201 4 years ago

    EG readers in "Developers make crap versions on PS3 therefore the PS3 must be crap" shocker. I guess Shakespeare is crap compared to Jean Poiret because King Lear is harder to perform than La Cage Aux Folles?

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #202 4 years ago

    No, but zany zane's is and I cant retype it all myself. Its a genuine post I thought you would all like so I stole it from another website.

  • smelly #203 4 years ago

    (Still doesnt understand how the excellent COD 4 got a 9 while the breathtakingly average halo 3 got a 10)

  • smelly #204 4 years ago

    "EG readers in "Developers make crap versions on PS3 therefore the PS3 must be crap" shocker. I guess Shakespeare is crap compared to Jean Poiret because King Lear is harder to perform than La Cage Aux Folles? "


    Eh?

    Surely you buy a games console to PLAY GAMES. Therefor if the games on a system are inferior to ones on another system.. Then surely that by definition makes the system inferior too? Regardless of how much/little power either machine has or how "lazy" developers are?

  • GamesConnoisseur #205 4 years ago

    CHAZBIGPOTATO: Sorry all that was over my head!

    Got back late from a long trip. My god what had I been missing!!

    Apologie how many more times do you need to say you believe in PS3? I think everyone got the point.

    I own all consoles and agree with Darren (in first page or so!) that X360 is preferred as main console for multi platform titles. I acknowledge that for some the noises is an issue.

    Also as others here were clear that as a serious hardcore gamer, missing out on X360 currently would be much more painful than missing out of PS3. I dont need to list titles. Those are pretty much capable to speak for themselves!

    Having said that, I would not DARE to miss myself out of PS3 exclusives. I have DualShock 3 right here right now and are going to play Drake's Fortune and Rachet & Clank with that proper controller this year and will enjoy both in a big way.
    Though overall 2007 could have been a lot better for Sony, and look forward to what coming for PS3 and X360 in 2008.

    Finally, head to head however so well written in sixth iteration is becoming pointless. Just cut and paste from previous articles and previous forumites' angry/mocking comments! Better space them out much more.

    EG must have pool going on these features, perhaps to see how many posts Apologie will rabidly defends Sony? I may not like how he present his views but I defend to death his right for free speech!

    /Wondering how to use the so far unused ignore facility

  • Ryze #206 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    You've gone and clicked on the wrong website again!!!

    Here you go...

    http://us.gamespot.com/ tosser

  • Vic #207 4 years ago

    People are quick to diss Apologie, but Calgon is the biggest 360 fanboy on this site after Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiguel.

    Xenos beats RSX easily? Give me a break. Xenos is more flexible, RSX has more shader power. How many developers have you heard saying Xenos is much better? Exactly.

    The gap between Cell and Xenon is bigger. I think deep down you know this, but you like to pretend that this power cant be tapped (as if developers wont tap into it like they did with the PS2's complex proprietary architecture).
    Edited by 1 at 29/11/07 @ 23:56

  • Apologie #208 4 years ago

    from a hardware perspective, the PS3 is by far the more interesting console. Though the launch software hasn't blown anyone away, i admit that, the 360's launch titles were equally unimpressive, and the system will certainly mature, as we can see by the recent titles (Uncharted, Ratchet&Clank:TOD and even the multiplatform version of COD4) Sony's embrace of the PS3 as a computer rather than just a console, and the availability of supported Linux distributions for the console will also develop and will likely bear entirely unexpected fruit in future, free multiplayer and the amazing exclusive titles will play a big role too...

    And for all X360 fans who are praying for a X360 version of METal GEar Solid 4, that will simply never happen...., and by the way Sony has compensated the lost of GTA and Devil May Cry exclusivity by ramping up its own game production and has 15 internal studios working on PlayStation titles, more than Microsoft and Nintendo combined.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 00:26

  • Mun #209 4 years ago

    thanks all for a highly entertaining and surprisingly informative thread.
    Wii v2 will smoke all ur asses!

    No I kid, i'm feeling a warm, smug, savvy consumer glow and will now go play ass creed on my elite..

  • George-Roper #210 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    "And for all X360 fans who are praying for a X360 version of METal GEar Solid 4, that will simply never happen...., and by the way Sony has compensated the lost of GTA and Devil May Cry exclusivity by ramping up its own game production and has 15 internal studios working on PlayStation titles, more than Microsoft and Nintendo combined."

    Is that it? Are you basing the main reason for a PS3 purchase on MGS?

    Don't forget Resident Evil 5, in that 'little' list of lost exclusives. If I still only had an X360 i'd glady accept the 'loss' of MGS if that meant I could have titles like Bioshock and Mass Effect.

  • bicky316 #211 4 years ago

    rawburger - "If i want to experience the real next gen, i will go outside and marvel at the 20X antialaised full hdr 10.1 audio experience that is real life."


    My eyes do 30X antialaising and my ears 20.1 sound!! Your so inferior to me it's a joke!!

    reallifelol

  • GamesConnoisseur #212 4 years ago

    Damn! My eyes require a reading glasses and my hearing is absolutely no good, cant even hear X360 noises that everyone complain about.

    Ah what I am talking about... that a bliss and a brilliant advantage!!

  • Mordum #213 4 years ago

    I think these articles are getting a bit tedious now, and should end... they're just stating the obvious over and over, everyone's already aware that the 360 has the edge.
    People have mentioned that comparing console exclusives is a better way to go... which I'm sure EG will do once the PS3 has enough decent exclusives worth comparing.

  • Calgon #214 4 years ago

    Vic you hypocrite, your in the runnings for 'Fanboy of the Year award- as recognition of your complete and utter blind devotion to your platform holder/corporation'... why bother?

    Im sorry but you know jack shit about any of this, how can we have a proper discussion? What do you hope to acheive? Im actually a lot fairer than most when comparing technical matters. You've embaressed yourself with the most noobish mistakes on the occasions you havent just copy and pasted crap from forums, you were well and trully owned in the first discussion we had on technical matters... you had no clue about Xenos(denying existance of well known features or dismissing it as "ATI lies";) you overrated RSX and CELL... You might still disagree on that but one year on from that discussion and who was right about how things would look now? thats right, I was, funny that youve forgotten that eh? (dont like to gloat but your attitude in that post suggests you have a short memory and are just as deluded as apologie... you make a cute couple).

    How many developers have you heard saying Xenos is much better? Exactly.

    Exaclty nothing, you complete hypocrite, there are devs saying Xenos is the stronger GPU if you look hard enough(would you listen to them anyway? or write them off as you have with Carmack, Newell, Itagaki... all three prefering 360 btw and host of 3 party devs calling it even... because Ive got quotes most recent one being a chap who used to work at Harmonix)about as many as there are saying CELL is "much better than Xenon", except the GPUs are rarely mentioned. What we do have is some of the most respected non partial devs(ie dont WORK FOR THE PLATFORM HOLDER ;) lets not forget Sony devs wont bite the hand that feeds them) not supporting your bollocks last year about PS3 blowing 360 away infact calling them pretty even when push comes to shove. CELL isnt way way more powerfull than Xenon, Xenos IS more powerfull(more than evens it out), efficient and advanced than RSX which old tech or if you like less interesting in comparison. Theres very few arguements certainly nothing convincing support your "clear technical superiority advantage next year" claims... would another two years be enough before you stop using that line? or is it something you will kick and scream about for aslong as you have to?(ie untill next gen where you just call all devs shit lol). PS2 had untapped potential as did Xbox and GC, how gullable are Sony fanboys? Its not a playstation exlusive if developers invested as much into Xbox or GC as they did for PS2 theyd be even further above it. Likewise for the 360 and PS3 arguement... you can argue with this all you like both Xenos(Unified shader, daughter die and other Xenos specific optimisations) and Xenon(multi threading optimisation, VMX optimisations, dot product computation... and so on). PS3 has Cell for its "untapped potential", as Ive said... its not going to be graphics and its not the jack of all trades super CPU its WORSE at some things... you're still having trouble admitting to it arent you? LOL
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 02:58

  • Calgon #215 4 years ago

    @Vic
    Xenos is more flexible,
    RSX has more shader power

    Over simplified by someone with lack of knowlege, with not much explanation either... I can back any statements up or even opinions atleast with some sound technical reasoning.

    Im saying this once more for you still cant understand its not my problem(perhaps stick to what you know eh?). I told you why Xenos is clearly stronger its overall output is just higher... by shader power they meant of course RAW PIXEL shading power(not vertex) this is theoretical and it was before the clock decrease.They are BOTH clocked at 500Mhz.

    Ok now you might have known that part(its hard to tell with you really) because you posted an ALU comparison as a display of PS3 shading power... bit of a mistake ignoring the unified shaders for one thing as with some serious optimisations Xenos can reach levels of effeciency way way above PS3 as it was designed to vastly reduce idle transistors which are the norm on an architechture like RSX'. Thats untapped potential and that also shading power but wait... theres more!, no games use raw pixels in modern games do they? What about textures I hear you cry?... thats an excellent question. :)

    I showed you a head to head comparison of shader power figures with textures added. This is where things sway in Xenos' favor greatly, theres 48 standard ALUs and 8 vertex pipelines on RSX right? 48 unified ALUs on Xenos? got that?

    Now at first that looks like 8 more ALUs for RSX right? Well you see those RSX ALUs are also used for texture fetch and they cant be doing two things at once(perhaps why they put two alus on every pipeline?... 24 pixel pipelines btw). Besides stepping away from these "pipelines" in the traditional sense theres another difference Xenos has 16 Texture units specifically for texture fetch(16 filtered and up to 32 unfiltered IIRC). This just means that xenos can do more, with 16 filtered textures on the same game, xenos could say match RSX on shading power and have ALUs spare for an advantage in vertex shader performance or vice versa.

    CELL isnt for graphics... its not the jack of all trades, read my post about CELL earlier, "you know its true you just dont want to hear it" ;-). Btw I have no consoles to justify the purchase of at present I just know my hardware and will continue to post my thoughts on the matters whether you like it or not because I find alot of what some of you Sony fanboys say ridiculous.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 02:57

  • Calgon #216 4 years ago

    Sorry for the mammoth post guys but its annoying being "corrected" with none arguements and one line answers. Vic is nothing more than a die hard Sony fanboy justifying his expensive purchase as is Apologie... "PSTripply-True Fanboys4Life" they probably say to each other in their secret meetings, with secret "cool" handshakes.

  • Vandrius #217 4 years ago

    The poor people who can't afford a PS3 and a good PC can buy a 360.

    Those of us with cash can buy the combo that gets us the better selection (overall) of games.

    A good PC makes the 360 redundant - easily.

  • bioreit #218 4 years ago

    @ Vandrius

    "A good PC makes the 360 redundant - easily."

    Not precisely. When I've upgraded my graphics cards post-Christmas, I should have a machine that even Crysis won't break, but I'll still prefer my 360 for gaming. Why?

    Because my set-up is in front of a bean bag. Helluva job to play an FPS properly, with mouse/keyboard, when you're sitting slumped in a comfortable, you-shaped holding pouch.

    Also, when I buy a new game, I can take it home, pop it in the drive and play it, rather than faff around installing it. Then getting the latest drivers for some bloody thing. And then having to upgrade something in a year's time if I want to maintain the same level of graphical goodness I've now become used to.

    And there are some games that I really want that are not coming to PC (or are a long way off).

    And I have friends with 360s who I play online with, who don't have powerful PCs for whatever reason.

    So, no, a "good pc", just by dint of being a "good" one, does not automatically make the 360 redundant.

    Should also mention, my Wii is turning up next week, ordering a second 360 for downstairs in the New Year and getting a PS3 as soon as Little Big Planet hits. But I'll still probably prefer my 360.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 08:14

  • Kryon #219 4 years ago

    PrayStation3lol

  • bioreit #220 4 years ago

    And with the arrival of Kryon, we finally have the whole set...

  • Kryon #221 4 years ago

    @bioreit

    Oh, make no mistake, I've been here all along. I've very much enjoyed drinking the salty tears of denial from Apologie and co but couldn't really be bothered to join in properly this time.... but seeing as I'm here now....

    @Apologie

    So it seems that the discussion regarding COD4 we had a few days ago was totally pointless as all the points you made where utter bullshit (as usual) and it turns out that the game is pretty much identical on both systems, although the 360 version wins through on online play due to achievements (as I said)...You are so full of shit mate, it's not even funny
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 09:15

  • Xerx3s #222 4 years ago

    Calgon & rest: Please make our lives better and put idiots like apology & vic on ignore? What exactly do you hope to achieve - other than rubbing their stupidity into the faces of people who where smart enough to put them on ignore long ago? You seriously waste waaaaaaaay to much effort on them.

    Vandrius: What a stupid comment. I have a rather good pc and an income that's most likely a lot better than yours. It's petty and childish to dismiss the best console atm while trying to hide bias under the false flag of 'it doesn't have anything a gamer needs'.

  • Darren #223 4 years ago

    As an owner of both the 360 and PS3, I really couldn't care less which system is the most powerful so long as they both have great games. As long as the 360 continues to have better multiformat titles then I'll keep on buying them for that platform but if the quality of PS3 ones improve to the point where they're better then I'll buy them on that system instead. Either way I win. :)

    With the PS3 launching a year after the 360, I'd like to think the machine does have more potential than the 360, particularly as it has a standard HDD for developers to utilise (unlike the 360) and a large capacity BD storage format for games.

    It seems to me that both consoles aren't anywhere near as powerful as their respective manufacturer's claimed. Developers are struggling to run many 360 and PS3 games at the promised 720p minimum. For example, two key releases this year, Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 aren't even hi-def games in the technical sense and although the latter looks excellent, the former falls somewhat short of my expectations for a current-gen game graphically. Is this how developers will add better graphics to future games - by dropping the rendering resolution to near Xbox (non-HD) resolutions?

  • Apologie #224 4 years ago

    Xerx3s

    Why are you trying to convinve Calgon & rest to press the ignore button??? people can think for themselves, they don't need someone half brained like you to tell them what to do.

    And people are right, you can play most of X360 best games on Pc (some with even added content)... on the other hand, Ps3 exclusives are only for Sony's system. It's a fact, so don't acuse anyone who mention it of fanboysm ok
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 10:13

  • Kryon #225 4 years ago

    @Xerx3s

    I know what you mean about ignoring Apologie but I have to confess, reading his imbecilic ramblings has become somewhat of a guilty pleasure for some of us. Almost akin to the days of old before consoles had been invented when folks would capture a freak, lock it in a cage and poke it with a stick just for giggles, good clean fun! ;-)

  • Yaz #226 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "they don't need someone half brained like you to tell them what to do."

    To be honest, you're the last person who should be calling others half brained. ;)

    I've noticed numerous times here already that you're incapable of making a solid counter arguement whenever you're challenged, choosing instead to either ignore the response or simply repeat yourself.

    Hence as bcolter correctly said on the previous page "You never counter properly and in the end you make a fool of yourself". And I regret to say I have to agree with him. :)

  • Kryon #227 4 years ago

    Yaz, don't waste your life with regret, just laugh at the fumbling baboon instead ;-)

  • mike_mgoblue #228 4 years ago

    I agree with Eurogamer that Call of Duty 4 is better on the Xbox 360 because the Xbox 360 has load times that are between 10-15 seconds faster, and because of the Achievements in the Xbox 360 game...

    But, there is also something that I noticed in some of the screenshots. The Xbox 360 has more polygon detail.

    For example, in the first screenshot (the one on the left) the Xbox 360 version has lots of sand bags in front of the building of the door, while the Playstation 3 version doesn't include that feature.

    Plus, we need to remember that the Xbox 360 version has Rumble in the game right now, and that is an incredibly fun feature!

    And the framerate in the PS3 version of Assassins Creed really does perform very poorly at all times, especially in some of the later stages where the game becomes virtually unplayable on the Playstation 3. The Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed is quite a bit better.

  • Apologie #229 4 years ago

    Yaz

    My first language is not english... so i have little more difficult to express myself then most of you... by the way, don't get me wrong i think you'r alright but sometimes you'r just full of shit too.

    As for Kryon... well, forget it, you'r a Microsoft whore anyway so, no point answering your retarded comment.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 11:58

  • Diomedes #230 4 years ago

    I have played quite a bit Assasins Creed on the PS3 and never saw those problems you are mentioning with the frame rate .

    I hope MS is paying you good enough to talk this BS .

  • Diomedes #231 4 years ago

    Calgon ,the RSX is still 550 mhz .....stop with the FUD bullshit you read in some MS blog please .

  • Yaz #232 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "My first language is not english... so i have little more difficult to express myself then most of you..."

    Sorry, but you're just making excuses now. :)

    I appreciate language difficulties, but you show no real signs of having difficulties understanding what you're reading here, and you certainly show no signs of having difficulties expressing your own views.

    I've had many conversations online with those with *very* poor english (often because it's their second or third language), but it doesn't stop them from expressing themselves and it doesn't stop us from having a discussion., since we can still understand each other.

    They only usually mention the language issue if someone unfairly attacks them over their spelling and grammar (which I never do, except in defence), and they don't use it as an excuse to pick and choose which arguements they decide to reply to.

    "by the way, don't get me wrong i think you'r alright but sometimes you'r just full of shit too."

    So counter my comments then, don't use language as an excuse. :)
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 13:33

  • Diomedes #233 4 years ago

    Once more thing ,Eurogamer can talk all the BS its wants and some of the fanboys in the forum "definitely agree " with it but Infinity Ward themselves said the PS3 version is marginally superior to those with good eyes ...

    Between Infinity Ward and some fanboys on forums its Infinity Ward all the way .

  • Yaz #234 4 years ago

    Diomedes wrote: "but Infinity Ward themselves said the PS3 version is marginally superior to those with good eyes ..."

    Actually they didn't. Read it again, the comment regarding 'Cyborg eyes' comes from the reporter, NOT from Infinity Ward.

    I'm still waiting to read the full interview in PSM3 magazine, but so far, the comments from the interview posted online does not say the PS3 version is slightly superior.

  • Apologie #235 4 years ago

    YAz

    Just shut up and actually read it, these time activate your cyborg eyes ok ;)

    http://ps 3.qj.net/Infinity-Ward-Call-of-...

    The different versions of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has its own set of advantages and limitations, although the most talked about builds are the ones for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

    We know you all have your own preferences but Infinity Ward Studio Head Vince Zampella admitted that they gave Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare for the PS3 more attention:

    We had our best programmers on the PS3 version of Call of Duty and it shows. We had two separate teams working on both versions from the start.

    Most developers only focus on a single platform, then quickly port the game over to another one. You don't get very good results that way.


    This was said by the official during the recent interview with Future Publishing's PlayStation 3 Magazine (PSM3) and is part of a much longer interview. Aside from that, Zampella also mentioned that the PS3 version has better graphics and larger online support.

    If you want to know the full details, visit the nearest magazine stands in your neighborhood and pick up a copy of the publication's Christmas edition.

    See... he did said it ok, so stop with the bulshit.

    Edited by 4 at 30/11/07 @ 13:54

  • Yaz #236 4 years ago

    Apologie, are you stupid or something? Sorry I have to ask that because it seems you didn't read what you've just posted (or you simply didn't understand it).

    I'll quote Zampella's EXACT words for you again;

    "We had our best programmers on the PS3 version of Call of Duty and it shows. We had two separate teams working on both versions from the start.
    Most developers only focus on a single platform, then quickly port the game over to another one. You don't get very good results that way."

    Now where in that does he say actually the PS3 version is superior? Or are you going to use English not being your first language as an excuse again?

    From those comments alone, he is saying they didn't make the mistakes of quickly porting the game from the 360 to PS3, but instead had two seperate teams to work on each version, AND IT SHOWS because unlike most other multi-format games, the PS3 version looks and performs just as well as the 360 version.

    And this all originates from Games Radar who first reported it here;

    [link url=http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/ article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=2007112111543578009&rel easeId=2007042715365068067
    ]http://ww w.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/ne...[/link]

    The comments about the PS3 version being superior (24 vs 18, Cyborg-eyes) comes from the REPORTER not from Vince Zampella.

    Hence I keep saying we need to read the interview first before jumping to conclusions.

    So I advice you to shutup instead. :)

    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 14:01

  • Apologie #237 4 years ago

    Yaz...

    i guess you forgot to read the last part...

    "This was said by the official during the recent interview with Future Publishing's PlayStation 3 Magazine (PSM3) and is part of a much longer interview. Aside from that, Zampella also mentioned that the PS3 version has better graphics and larger online support."

    You are disapointing me Yaz, the "full of shit mode" you use all the time is somehow disturbing your cyborg eyes... now let me ask you something, are you stupid?? ;)
    Edited by 4 at 30/11/07 @ 14:03

  • Yaz #238 4 years ago

    And you're disappointing me Apologie. Because as I've shown you already, QJ is quoting what they've read in Games Radar (the link is on that page, or didn't you see it?).

    The comments about the PS3 version being better comes from the Games Radar reporter, not Vince Zampella. That's a fact.

    This is what Ben Richardson from Games Radar said "He's been explaining why Sony's edition has a bigger online capacity (24 max players vs 360's 18) and, according to those with cyborg-eyes, improved visuals". That's Ben's interpretation of the comments he's just read, those are not the opinions of Vince until someone can provide the evidence.

    So do post the comments from Zampella where he says the PS3 version is better.

    Time to put up or shut up. :)
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 14:09

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #239 4 years ago

    " the system will certainly mature, as we can see by the recent titles (Uncharted, Ratchet&Clank:TOD and even the multiplatform version of COD4) Sony's embrace of the PS3 as a computer rather than just a console, and the availability of supported Linux distributions for the console will also develop and will likely bear entirely unexpected fruit in future, free multiplayer and the amazing exclusive titles will play a big role too... "

    What a lorry load of old bollocks

  • Apologie #240 4 years ago

    Yaz

    You'r in denial..., do you have to be right all the time?? jesus, just admit that you were wrong about these one... the interview is published, i don't thin they would say something like that if Zampella didn't actually mentioned it in the interview, Ps3 version have indeed bigger on-line capacity and better graphics.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 14:11

  • Kryon #241 4 years ago

    Apologie am cry? :'(

    P.S. Great job Yaz, keep that turkey dancing like a retard for as long as you can, I'm almost pissing myself at his indescribable stupidity, Comedy Gold!!!

  • Yaz #242 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "You'r in denial..., do you have to be right all the time?? jesus, just admit that you were wrong about these one..."

    It has nothing to do with denial. I like FACTS, they may not be important to you, but they are to me. I have said MANY times already that I want to READ that interview myself, to see EXACTLY what Zampella has to say, because I know the internet is notorious for mis-quotes and distorting the truth.

    I'm also not sure if I can get to read the magazine (I'm in the UK), hence I'm waiting for someone who has so that they can provide some direct quotes from the interview.

    Again, I want the facts, and they will only come from the interview itself! Or are you going to claim that the interview doesn't matter?

    "the interview is published, i don't thin they would say something like that if Zampella didn't actually mentioned it in the interview"

    See above.

    "Ps3 version have indeed bigger on-line capacity and better graphics, just let it go ok."

    NO comparisons online or in magazines or reviews have come to the conclusion that the PS3 version has better graphics! Some details are slightly better in the 360 version, some slightly better in the PS3 version, and the framerate is the same for both. Hence every non-fanboy calls it even (and even some fanboys are intelligent enough to accept they are even in this respect).

    As for the online capacity, 24 is still questionable, since I've seen numerous gamers say it's actually 18 on the PS3 and not 24, including Sony's website. Hence I've ask for gamers who HAVE the game on the PS3 to confirm if they've played with 24-players online and for which game mode was it possible. And if true, I've also asked if it is because of dedicated servers compared to peer-to-peer, and what is the performance like on each. In otherwords, I would like to know WHY there is a difference and how they perform, not blindly decide one is better because 24 is a higher number than 18.

    So there's nothing to let go. I'm still waiting for the facts, and just because the facts don't matter to you because you WANT to believe it's correct, it doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others.
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/07 @ 14:27

  • Apologie #243 4 years ago

    Kryon

    i wonder why you don't argument with something valid and intresting even once and just insist on making silly comments all the time... i can only conclude one of two thing's, first: that you are one retarded prick, 2nd, that you are flirting Yaz. Well, Maybe both of them are true.

  • bioreit #244 4 years ago

    Yaz, you earn a cookie mate. My patience ran out hours ago and I succumbed to the lure of the 'ignore poster' button.

    Much shorter, nicer thread, to be honest.

    And I was pretty fair between Xbots and PSFanboys.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 15:03

  • Kryon #245 4 years ago

    "i wonder why you don't argument with something valid and intresting"

    I've tried but you just make incoherent nonsense up as you go along, you're a laughing stock and not worthy of a serious reply from me. I don't even know why Yaz is being so generous as to even let you sniff his farts, let alone actually talk to you! He must be a very kind sort of chap. I'm not that kind and I think you're a bullshitting cretin.

    Have a nice day, fool.

  • Apologie #246 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    I don't even know why Yaz is being so generous as to even let you sniff his farts, let alone actually talk to you! He must be a very kind sort of chap...

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

    so much love... ;) you make me laught Kryon

    YAz... another one for you "cry baby" :) http://play.tm/story/14712 nontheless i do hope you find that magazine.
    Edited by 4 at 30/11/07 @ 17:04

  • Yaz #247 4 years ago

    Apologie, given the recent posts, remind me again about how english not being your first language was suppose to make it difficult for you to express yourself. ;)



    Apologie wrote: "YAz... another one for you "cry baby" :) <a href="http://play.tm/story/14712 "
    ">http://play.tm/story/14712 "
    </a>

    Er-hem. Now check their source and you'll see it's the Computer and Video Games website, then check their source and you'll see it's from...*gasp*... it's from Games Radar. :D ;)

    "nontheless i do hope you find that magazine."

    Thanks, I hope so too. :)

    Edited by 3 at 30/11/07 @ 15:03

  • Kryon #248 4 years ago

    Apologie, just give it up you silly little boy, that link is sourced from the earlier link you gave, nowhere does a dev say the game is better on PS3. I guess maybe you don't understand when someone is being quoted or not...Poor sad you :-(

  • Calgon #249 4 years ago

    Diomedes: no it isnt FUD, there WAS a clock decrease(550MHz - 700MHz GDDR3 > 500MHz - 650MHz GDDR3) so STFU whining... they are both clocked at 500MHz( Xenos 500MHz - 700MHz GDDR3) ask around or do some digging before you start dismissing things because you dont want to hear it(there was no denial by Sony or any devs and it wasnt a big deal to begin with). It didnt come from MS, Sony developers themselves said it, its not something they can switch more than once so late on either(just before launch they did it, probably a stability and manufacturing decision, they were already developing on GPUs clocked at 450MHz), its was probably clocked too high for the chip in the first place. It wouldnt have mattered anyway as Xenos was already the stronger given all advantages it has, that only strengthened the arguement even further(50MHz was hardly an advantage, that was 10%... efficiency differences of the chips are greater than that so its not worth arguing over to begin with).
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 16:26

  • Calgon #250 4 years ago

    Right Im done with this thread now anyway, I should have probably ignored the likes of Apologie and Vic but thats the way these discussions go aint it?

  • TRUTH #251 4 years ago

    Darren:

    The PS3 is only delayed due to manufacturing enough BR parts. Not to get better performance or improve the console. The dev kits were out and fairly complete around the same time as 360's. Infact the PS3 is the same age as the 360, only came later thanks to Sony trying to manufacture the parts. The dev kits were already sent out.

    The 360 simply has better functions for textures, memory, shading, frame buffing, thread technology various effects. The reason for this is due to being custom made: GPU/CPU/Memory management, amongst others, designed around and for gaming priorities .

    Uncharted (Fairly liner) & Motor Storm (Originally shown back in early 2005 on PS3 dev kits, before any 360 game footage was shown) are the best example of PS3...But it's nothing above the 360 or surpassing GOW (Better A.i, textures, lighting, onscreen action, effects and larger detailed characters and animation being thrown around at once - Uncharted does not pull the same punches, also Assassin Creed looks better, esp the 360 version).

    Remember Virtua Fighter 5 was said by Sony that it can't be done on 360. Well which console has the better version now! 360.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/07 @ 18:34

  • Garulon #252 4 years ago

    Ah, I can smell post 300, where PS3 360 tech differences are cast aside and the fanbois throw deeply personal insults at each other based on which games console is better.

  • Garulon #253 4 years ago

    Fannin' the flames:

    PS3 and 360 are equal power, 360 is much easier to program ergo you'll have more chance to exploit the power than the PS3 ergo the 360 is more powerful than the PS3.

    And cheaper TOO!

  • Apologie #254 4 years ago

    @Garulon @TRUTH

    "The PlayStation 3 has a lot of power. When we started Uncharted we were really ambitious and had no idea what the PS3 would give us. Once we got the first devkits, we realized quickly that we could do everything we had planned to. The three main points for me are the Cell, Blu-Ray and the hard drive. We’ve been using the Cell for pretty much all our systems: rendering, particles, physics simulation, collision detection, animation, AI, decompression, water simulation, etc … and to give you an idea of the power of the PS3, we're using only 30 percent of the Cell processor.

    In terms of Blu-Ray, we just couldn’t have made Uncharted without it; with Uncharted we have almost filled it (91 percent). We're also using the hard drive to pre-cache data from the Blu-Ray disc. That allows us to stream up to 12 streams for sound, load level data super fast and more importantly to stream textures constantly to guarantee high-res quality on the screen".

    REad the rest here

    [link url=http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/10/ 30/getting-technical-with-naughty-dog-co-president-christoph e-balestra
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/journals/thumbs.a...[/link]

    basically, uncharted is not possible in X360...
    Edited by 4 at 30/11/07 @ 19:23

  • Knot #255 4 years ago

    Good articles EG. Thumbs up.

    Indeed, i also think the PS3 is still in slightly worse shape than Xbox360 atm.

    1 or 2 years from now, when PS3 exclusives like MGS4, Team Ico games and FF and dedicated Sony 1st party developed games are out...... then, the PS3 will be a good value for money purchase.

    Until then, no PS3 for me.

  • Yaz #256 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "basically, uncharted is not possible in X360..."

    LOL! Yes because we all know that Naughty Dog's co-president Christophe Balestra would be completely unbiased when talking about their PS3 exclusive title. No way would he ever talk up the capabilities of the PS3. ;)

    You're very naive Apologie. :)

  • TRUTH #257 4 years ago

    Apologie

    [link url=http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/xbox360/ game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=2007101111572 1909057&releaseId=20060321132945404017
    ]http://ww w.gamesradar.com/gb/xbox360/gam...[/link]

    ...you should also remember GT only used 10% of PS2 power by Sony. Also makers of GOW, saying it would not be able to done PS3 to the same standard as 360 due to lighting, texture, ram, and the much larger bandwith on 360.

    Uncharted is nice, but not the best looking game ever (..still very liner). GOW still looks better and with alot more going on onscreen. Assassin Creed still looks better, esp the 360 version. Lost Planet looks just as good.

    I do remember Assassins Creed also once being claimed to only be able to be done on PS3. Yet again the 360 looks better, better framerate (always constant), feels better, controls better...Got both versions (borrowed PS3's). And looks better then Unchareted...Can't be done on 360 - U make me laugh.

    Edited by 2 at 01/12/07 @ 11:07

  • Yaz #258 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote (regarding COD4): "the interview is published, i don't thin they would say something like that if Zampella didn't actually mentioned it in the interview, Ps3 version have indeed bigger on-line capacity and better graphics."

    Well I now have the magazine Apologie! :)

    Remember when I said;

    "From those comments alone, he is saying they didn't make the mistakes of quickly porting the game from the 360 to PS3, but instead had two seperate teams to work on each version, AND IT SHOWS because unlike most other multi-format games, the PS3 version looks and performs just as well as the 360 version."

    Well I was 100% CORRECT. :)

    The comments quoted from Vince Zampella are the ONLY comments from him in an article with the title "Why are so many PS3 games delayed?" (pg 12, PSM3, issue #95).

    Within that article, PSM3 says the following "COD4 is ARGUABLY better on PS3 than Xbox 360, with more players online. Why?". They THEN quote those comments from Vince Zampella where he explains why COD4 didn't suffer from the problems seen in other PS3 multi-format games, i.e. delays and poorer quality. So it wasn't Vince saying the PS3 version is better, it was PSM3! And even then, not once were the graphics mentioned.

    The article is quite a short one. It isn't an interview with Vince, it's an article using quotes from a number of developers (those that would talk) to discuss the problems with PS3 multi-format game delays compared to other versions (mostly XBox 360). In fact, in the opening paragraph they say "almost every developer we contacted declined to comment on why so many PS3 games are being delayed. What's going on?".

    They single out COD4 because it's an example of a game which doesn't have the problems of other multi-format games. It is reviewed in the same issue, where they gave it 94%, saying "we'll be staggered if Killzone 2 matches this level of calibrated chaos....it makes almost everything on the PS3 look foolish in comparison". So of course, being a PS3 magazine, they WANT to suggest COD4 is superior on the PS3, but this is only because of the number of players online (which still needs to be confirmed BTW).

    What is also interesting, is that in the article, they say COD4 on the PS3 supports more players online compared to the 360 version (but they don't say how many), and yet in their own review of COD4 in the same issue, they say the multi-player game is up to 18 PLAYERS! Exactly the SAME as the 360.

    So Apologie, you were saying? ;)
    Edited by 2 at 01/12/07 @ 15:08

  • captainrentboy #259 4 years ago

    Dear God, Apologie, you're being 'pwned' pretty much everywhere aren't you? I think it's for the best that you just remain quiet from here on in, you're just being made to look silly.
    Uncharted can't be done on the 360?!?!..... I love it.
    Like I said before, if you're thick enough to believe all of that PR hype bullshit, then surely the future of the PS3 doesn't bode too well, because if Naughty Dog's comments are to be taken literally, well there wont be much in the future looking better, or lasting longer than Uncharted on the PS3, because that darned Blu-Ray disc just wouldn't be able to hold all the extra data.
    Dickhead.

  • Apologie #260 4 years ago

    captainrentboy and Yaz

    Since the dev's that work for Sony can count on the hard drive to be in every PS3 console, they'r games begin to use a very aggressive data streaming system which in turn allows for much greater detail in the game environments. For this reason alone, the level of detail which you will see in the environments and characters in game's from now on is not possible on any other game console.

    The HDD really came in handy and allowed Uncharted dev's to have pretty big open levels with lots of detail.” Yes Uncharted is one of the very few games that has zero loading throughout the whole game. The game is completely streamed, and this is only possible with the PS3’s Hard Drive, which not every Xbox360 has.

    Furthermore, the game takes up 22GB of a Blu-ray disc, whereas an Xbox360 DVD is only 9GB. Could Naughty Dog have compressed the game to fit into 9gb? Perhaps. However, once again they would need to make a lot of concessions, and spend money doing so, removing resources from making the visuals and gameplay as good as they are. The high quality surround sound, the hundreds of minutes of HD cutscenes, and the high-res textures all take up space.

    To get such high-resolution textures and movies, a Blu-ray was indispensable to achieve the graphic quality of Uncharted. They filled the disc at 91 percent and it’s optimized, meaning wthey didn't duplicate any data. That includes all game data, sounds, 7 spoken languages and 102 minutes of movie.”

    So, i admit i was half wrong... Uncharted is actually possible in X360, but not with the same quality you can see in Ps3.
    Edited by 3 at 01/12/07 @ 16:03

  • Kryon #261 4 years ago

    Apologie, you didn't actually reply to the points Yaz made regarding COD4... I wonder why that is?

    I doubt Apologie even has a PS3 tbh, he knows nothing about the system and just copy & pastes out the bits in certain interviews with Sony owned devs he likes.

  • Kryon #262 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    So, i admit i was half wrong... Uncharted is actually possible in X360

    Lol, the fool actually admitted it, YIPEEE!

    /coat

  • Apologie #263 4 years ago

    Kryon

    You are the only fool here my friend... why did you "on purpose" only copy half of my phrase?? that's very sad :)

    "So, i admit i was half wrong... Uncharted is actually possible in X360, but not with the same quality you can see in Ps3."

    I never read that magazine so... i beliave in Yaz words.
    COD 4 have bigger on-line capacity: yes
    Does it have overall better graphics an performance on the Ps3: no,both versions are equall.
    (i somehow continue to think so, but anyway if there is a difference, it's not that significant for us to make a big deal out of it...)
    Edited by 2 at 01/12/07 @ 16:29

  • TRUTH #264 4 years ago

    If Unc... is the best of what PS3 can do - I'm not impressed. Assassins Creed does alot more, larger and more complex and better looking im all areas (though the gameplay may be a bit overused).

    Uncharted is liner, but fun, short and less compex in most areas that use processing + graphical effect then: GOW, Assassin Creed , Mass Effect, COD 4(Which looks just the touch better on 360), Half Life 2...etc: from A.i to physics, animation to characters on screen with loads of action/effects to large open areas etc ... Uncharted does not compete, Nice game, good fun but not a system PS3 is better then 360 game.





    Edited by 1 at 01/12/07 @ 16:35

  • Yaz #265 4 years ago

    I see Apologie, so I take it by your lack of acknowledgement to my last post that you now accept the claims that the dev said COD4 was superiority on the PS3 is false. ;)

    So moving on to Uncharted now that the COD4 battle is over.

    Responding to the article you quoted:

    "The game is completely streamed, and this is only possible with the PS3’s Hard Drive, which not every Xbox360 has."

    Wrong. The data for Uncharted is on the Blu-ray disc, the HDD is used to PRE-CACHE the data from the disc, which helps to eliminate the load time and improve performance in specific areas. This is nothing new. Oblivion on the 360 ALSO uses the HDD to cache data (obviously you didn't know that!), where gamers with the HDD see improved performance in the game. Therefore the difference between a 360 with a HDD and one without is NOT what is possible ingame, but the PERFORMANCE achieved. Hence you don't need a HDD in every console, you only need to be able to make use of the HDD if it's there.

    "Furthermore, the game takes up 22GB of a Blu-ray disc, whereas an Xbox360 DVD is only 9GB."

    Firstly, there is 7GB available for 360 game data on each 7.9GB (8.5GB base-10) dual-layer disc, not 9GB. Secondly, the structure of Uncharted means it is perfectly suited to being on multiple discs, therefore Uncharted could come on 2 or 3 DVDs for the 360.

    "To get such high-resolution textures and movies, a Blu-ray was indispensable to achieve the graphic quality of Uncharted....That includes all game data, sounds, 7 spoken languages and 102 minutes of movie"

    The 360 is not a HD movie player, so the movies will not be HD, but standard DVD quality at best, which is more than sufficient. So that saves space. Equally, a 360 version will not have audio for multiple spoken languages on the discs, they will be one language depending on the region (as with current games), hence saving more space. Also, the movies in Uncharted were created using the game engine instead of being realtime, therefore more space could be saved if they used realtime cinematics (like many games), even if the performance is not quite as good as the pre-rendered game engine versions.

    And finally, to your comment Apologie;

    "So, i admit i was half wrong... Uncharted is actually possible in X360, but not with the same quality you can see in Ps3."

    There would need to be changes made if there was to be a 360 version (which of course will not happen), and like MANY games, there will be elements which are better on the PS3 and others which will be better on the 360! Sorry, but that's the way it is. Which could be considered best would be subjective, except perhaps in the case of a really bad port. But that's all hypothetical, isn't it. :)
    Edited by 3 at 02/12/07 @ 08:47

  • captainrentboy #266 4 years ago

    Fuck, Apologie, you're one to go on about selective reading. You keep harping on and on about Uncharted, but you've ignored what I and now Truth have said, if this Uncharted title, less than a year into the PS3's lifetime, is already taking up 90 odd percent of a Blu-Ray disc, then surely by your own admission that's as good as it's going to get for the PS3.
    Obviously I and many others think it's utter bullshit, and of course games will progress and look better and better as the years go on, but you're so rediculously stupid you can't seem to comprehend it.
    Although saying that, he does ''beliave in Yaz words''
    Thick cunt :)

  • Yaz #267 4 years ago

    Another point Apologie, Would you P-L-E-A-S-E provide links whenever you quote statements from articles! Thank you. :)

    Your previous post originated from here I believe;

    [link url=http://www.ripten.com/2007/11/19/unc harted-on-the-xbox360-not-bloody-likely/
    ]http://ww w.ripten.com/2007/11/19/unchart...[/link]

    And going back to COD4, I noticed you said; "COD 4 have bigger on-line capacity: yes", but as I've shown in my post, PSM3 magazine contradict themselves, they say it has more capacity online in the PS3 game delays article, but they say the capacity is 18 players maximum in their review!

    I suspect that 18 players is correct, because no-one has been able to show it's more on the PS3 (at least, not yet).

    And regarding the graphics, I'm pleased you said the following;

    "Does it have overall better graphics an performance on the Ps3: no,both versions are equall.
    (i somehow continue to think so, but anyway if there is a difference, it's not that significant for us to make a big deal out of it...)"

    That's the key Apologie. Even if it was true that the PS3 version supported more players online, that would still not make it a superior game when there's little if anything between the graphics. Yes if true, you could say it supports more players online, but which is better would still depend on the performance of each version and how the online modes compares between both consoles.

    I think you can accept now that the two versions are so close to each other that both versions are equally good (which is great news for PS3 gamers). :)
    Edited by 3 at 02/12/07 @ 08:53

  • Apologie #268 4 years ago

    Yaz

    So you admit that if Uncharted had a X360 version it had to sacrifice many things: multiple languages had to go, they had to reduce the quality of the videos in order to squeeze data, it had to be made in 3 - 4 Cd's, and on top of that, loading times were inevitable
    Plus, Naughty Dog have used the SPU’s (mini processors on the PS3’s Cell) in their animation system, calculating physics and more. They have perfected this so much, that at this moment, much of the game relies on the specific nature of Cell, actually, since the game was made with Cell in mind, some concessions would need to be made, and by that a port to X360 would be not only hard, but almost impossible to create with the same performance and fluidity.
    As i said, the HDD allowed them to have pretty big open levels with lots of detail and zero loading..., in the X360, as you addmited, these kind of performance is not possible, quite simply because not every Xbox360 have a Hard drive.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    So, CoD 4 on your opinion is graphically equall between X360 and the Ps3 version, and in what concerns mutiplayer (judging by the Dev's words... and i think he at least for now, undertands about it better then you) multiplayer in the Ps3 have increased capacity. Well, i can only say that i'm happy to have the Ps3 version of the game. ;)

    I almost wish that Uncharted had a X360 version for all of you to see the difference in quality between the Ps3 version and the X360... :p
    Edited by 2 at 01/12/07 @ 17:08

  • Kryon #269 4 years ago

    "(i somehow continue to think so, but anyway if there is a difference, it's not that significant for us to make a big deal out of it...)"

    But a few days ago in a different thread you said this -

    "graphics wise is a little better too (i had the chance to put both versions side by side)... loading times are also shorter on Ps3..."

    This proves you to be a bullshit artist. As now you admit there is no graphical difference and EG now say the PS3 version loads significantly slower than the 360, that's after actually checking one against the other, something you obviously have never done (even though you just claimed you did)...

    You really must think very lowly of the PS3 if you feel the need to outright lie in its defence....Very, very sad :(
    Edited by 1 at 01/12/07 @ 17:08

  • Apologie #270 4 years ago

    Kryon

    Yes, i said that "graphics wise is a little better too", and now i say (after Yaz told me what was written in the magazine, and i never read that magazine so i have beliave that Yaz is telling the truth here) that ""(i somehow continue to think so, but anyway if there is a difference, it's not that significant for us to make a big deal out of it...)"_ so, i don't see the contradiction here, i steel say and beliave that the Ps3 verion is superior in the graphics department "if slightly".

  • captainrentboy #271 4 years ago

    ''I almost wish that Uncharted had a X360 version for all of you to see the difference in quality between the Ps3 version and the X360...''

    We almost have, it's called Gears Of War, came out over a year ago, looks far better too :)

  • Kryon #272 4 years ago

    So which system has better loading times Apologie? It's just you claimed a few days ago that you had both systems running together and that the PS3 had faster load times.... Explain please.

    I bet he won't answer this one....
    Edited by 1 at 01/12/07 @ 17:23

  • Yaz #273 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "So you admit that if Uncharted had a X360 version it had to sacrifice many things: multiple languages had to go, they had to reduce the quality of the videos in order to squeeze data, it had to be made in 3 - 4 Cd's, and on top of that, loading times were inevitable"

    It's not about sacrifice Apologie, it's about making changes to suit the platform. For example, the 360 has 40MB more ram than the PS3 for games, and therefore some of the problems with 360 code ported to the PS3 has been due to the lack of ram on the PS3. Hence devs need to make changes to suit the PS3, it's not about sacrifices!

    Loosing multiple languages on ONE disc is not a sacrifice, it will be english for english speaking countries, french for french speaking countries, spanish for spanish speaking countries etc.

    Multiple discs is also not a sacrifice, it's simply a change. Same content, more discs.

    Video quality MAY be reduced, but please don't tell me that DVD quality sucks (which we've all had for years and probably still accounts for most of the movies in our collections). Yes it's not HD, but it's good enough (in fact, it's excellent). And like I said, they could use realtime game engine cinematics instead of pre-rendered game engine cinematics to save even more space.

    "Plus, Naughty Dog have used the SPU’s (mini processors on the PS3’s Cell) in their animation system, calculating physics and more. They have perfected this so much, that at this moment, much of the game relies on the specific nature of Cell"

    No Apologie. The structure of Cell has NOTHING to do with it. It's about having sufficient arithmetic power to cope, NOT how the code is split. And since ND claim their game only manages to get 30% out of Cell, it is clear that the arithmetic requirements for the game are well within the easier to program Xenon processor in the 360. So you can expect the same 'performance and fluidity' on the 360.

    "As i said, the HDD allowed them to have pretty big open levels with lots of detail and zero loading..., in the X360, as you addmited, these kind of performance is not possible, quite simply because not every Xbox360 have a Hard drive."

    Again you didn't understand what I said. You don't need a HDD in every console to achieve this, therefore those with a HDD can have everything the PS3 version has in terms of load times and performance, whereas those gamers without a HDD in the 360 will see load times and have less performance.

    It's exactly the same with those PS3 games which give you the option of dumping 4-5GB of data onto the HDD. You don't HAVE to do it if you don't want to, but if you do, you benefit from improved performance in those PS3 games.

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

    "So, CoD 4 on your opinion is graphically equall between X360 and the Ps3 version",

    It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of 99% of those who've compared the games, and this view can be seen in the game reviews and in EVERY online head-to-head comparison between both versions (including most recently here on Eurogamer).

    "and in what concerns mutiplayer (judging by the Dev's words... and i think he at least for now, undertands about it better then you) multiplayer in the Ps3 have increased capacity."

    *Sigh* Once again Apologie, the dev DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PS3's ONLINE CAPACITY OR GRAPHICS. It is never mentioned AT ALL by the dev in that article. The ONLY PERSON who mentions the online capacity is the person who wrote the article for PSM3 (his name is not printed).

    (I hope I included enough capital letters to get that point across :)).

    "Well, i can only say that i'm happy to have the Ps3 version of the game. ;)"

    That's great Apologie, but also disappointing, because if you have the game, you should be able to confirm the maximum number of players online (hence I ask you to check before). Check the manual for the game, check the box, I'm sure it says 18 players. And more than that, you can go online and check for yourself, so why haven't you done so?

    "I almost wish that Uncharted had a X360 version for all of you to see the difference in quality between the Ps3 version and the X360... :p"

    Yeah, even if only to see the game looking better on the 360 :p (joking ;)).
    Edited by 4 at 02/12/07 @ 08:55

  • Kryon #274 4 years ago

    I think poor Apologie starts to malfunction when all his points have been proven incorrect....That's when he does <a href=http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Grap hics/Funny_Animations/images/4.gif>THIS!</a>

    Apologielol.

  • Kryon #275 4 years ago

    Anyway, it seems it is once again past Apologie's bedtime. At least we all agree, COD4 is actually slightly better on the 360 due to faster load times and superior online play.

  • TRUTH #276 4 years ago

    The two main problems the PS3 has is: 1) Bus width & Ram memory (2) Multicore Thread GPU...both which 360 has a major advantage over PS3.

    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.

    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.

    Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.

    Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs. The problem caused with the Cell it has to be processed over seven DSP. Just like with the PS2's Emotion Engine, with its missing L2 cache, the Cell is designed for a type of game programming that accounts for a minor percentage of processing time.

    If you look on many PS3 games (esp multi format) coloring, textures, framerates, load times, lighting are not as equal as 369's. With COD4 & Assassins creed looking better on 360. The colors/textures look sharper on 360 and even I noticed framerate drops on PS3 on occasions that have not happened on 360.
    Edited by 3 at 01/12/07 @ 18:40

  • Yaz #277 4 years ago

    Links guys... Please reveal your sources. :)

    Hence TRUTH, most of your post originated from the following;

    http://ww w.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_...

  • Kryon #278 4 years ago

    Aww, c-mon Apologie, what's wrong, why no reply? Please, I really want to hear your explanation as to this miracle that happened when you had both systems running and the PS3 load times were faster? Again, Please explain? Or can't you?

    Why don't you just admit that you don't own/haven't played the game (on either platform) and don't own a 360, we can all see this anyway because you don't actually know anything about them, but this time when you reply, please ignore the second & third paragraph and only answer the above question written in bold text.

    I have made it very clear for you, but I know you will still try to avoid the question as this is the third time I've had to ask it.

  • Apologie #279 4 years ago

    Since the ps3 comes standard with a hard drive all the games have the ability to cache and pre load many parts, reducing or even eliminating the load times...that's why Uncharted don't have any and the PS3 version of COD 4 have SHORTER LOADING TIMES :)... it's no miracle, in fact is something very very simple to understand @Kryon.

  • Yaz #280 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "Since the ps3 comes standard with a hard drive all the games have the ability to cache and pre load many parts"

    Having the ability and using it are two completely different things Apologie.

    The HDD is not used unless the developer chooses to use it. It's not automatic. Hence it's clear that the HDD is not being used to improve the load times in the PS3 version of COD4 because the devs probably didn't consider the load times bad enough to justify it's use.

    So regarding load times for the 360 vs PS3, I'm reading that the 360 version is quicker, for example;

    [link url=http://w ww.gamervision.com/gamer/spencer/blog/article/consolidated_t he_call_of_duty_4_console_comparison
    ]http://ww w.gamervision.com/gamer/spencer...[/link]

    "Moving on, the next most obvious differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of Call of Duty 4 can be found in the overall performance of the game. Although not directly related to the visual presentation, the 360 version of the game loads a level in about 33% of the time that it takes the PS3 to load a level. While this stipulation is only a matter of approximately 8-12 seconds, some finicky gamers may find the extended loading times a bit irritating on the PS3."

    And this is what Eurogamer says in their comparison between both versions; "Of slightly more consequence is that the loading times on the PS3 game are noticeably longer: anything from 10 to 15 seconds longer compared to the same data being streamed in on Xbox 360."

    Therefore load times are without doubt better in the 360 version, with the PS3 version taking around 10 seconds longer to load. Anyone claiming different are simply telling lies Apologie.

    Equally, I have gone through ALL the PS3 reviews I could find online (via the list on MetaCritic) and read through comments on forums, and can say with some certainty that the maximum number of players in the PS3 version online is 18! Even PS3 fanboys online have confirmed this. Check it out yourself. :)

    So it seems to me that since you didn't know that the PS3 version of COD4 only supports up to 18 players online and that you incorrectly claim that the PS3 has better load times than the 360, then I have to agree with those who say you haven't compared both games side by side as you claimed and that it's doubtful you've even played the game on the PS3. :|
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/07 @ 16:16

  • Apologie #281 4 years ago

    http://ww w.gamervision.com/gamer/spencer...

    the link you gave opens a page with "Application error
    Change this error message for exceptions thrown outside of an action (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) in public/500.html"... so, it's not exactly what I would call usefull you know..., i compared the 2 versions side by side graphically, not in what concerns loading time (games where running in both consoles at the same time in a store neraby so, i was not actually able to test and compare everything)..., so, i'm sorry if i was misunderstood in that matter... "i only claimed that based on an article i've read".
    Anyway, i've seen on line battles of 24 max players on the Ps3 version in "team deathmatch" mode... altough i must admit it's not very often to occur. On-line in the Ps3 version, is very smooth, not even once once i noticed any kind of problem.

    Tell me Yaz, have you confirmed it by yourself? " that the loading times are actually that better on the X360". Oh, and i must say that finally i saw you admiting that if the Dev's wanted, Ps3 games would be loading free. "and at teh same time acknolaging that only the Ps3 have the capacity to do it (due to the hard drive)".

  • captainrentboy #282 4 years ago

    ''Since the ps3 comes standard with a hard drive all the games have the ability to cache and pre load many parts, reducing or even eliminating the load times''
    Ahhhh, this is what must've been used on Motorstorm then, the way in which each vehicle took about 5 seconds to appear on the Vehicle select screen blew my frikkin mind :)
    Apologie, you dim fucker, why don't you just back down, you're being pwned all over the place here, and you keep coming back with the same ole nonsensical jibber jabber.
    Whoppedy Fucking Doo, the PS3 CAN reduce loading times, although this feature is pretty much absent from 90% of the games out there. I mean, even the fact that you're now resorting to that pretty ''mehhhh'' feature, means you're now struggling to get your silly point across.
    Face it, you are Yaz's bitch :)

  • Kryon #283 4 years ago

    So it when from:

    "(i had the chance to put both versions side by side)... loading times are also shorter on Ps3"

    To being:

    "(games where running in both consoles at the same time in a store neraby so, i was not actually able to test and compare everything)"

    HAHAHAAA, CLASSIC! Apologie saw the game running in a shop window for a few minutes and from that he was able to gage perfectly every single aspect of the game without question.

    Man, you are a joke! Just give up, you've been shot down so many times, every post you make just makes you look more like a clown.

  • Yaz #284 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "the link you gave opens a page with "Application error""

    When editing posts, the new version seems to sometimes corrupts the links within them (adding extra characters at the end). Hence I've ammended the link in that post, so it should work now.

    "i compared the 2 versions side by side graphically, not in what concerns loading time (games where running in both consoles at the same time in a store neraby so, i was not actually able to test and compare everything)"

    But that's far from being a good way to compare them Apologie, and therefore puts a BIG question mark over your observations. From your posts earlier, you gave the impression you were able to compare them properly for yourself, now you're saying you only saw both versions, on seperate screens at a store. Therefore you shouldn't be arguing here as if you had direct and sufficient experience of both versions.

    "Anyway, i've seen on line battles of 24 max players on the Ps3 version in "team deathmatch" mode... altough i must admit it's not very often to occur."

    Seen? Why seen? Did you actually PLAY in a 24 player online session? If not, where and how did you SEE it? I'm reading online gamers who say they've been playing COD4 on the PS3 since day one, and they've only managed up to 18 player in 'Ground War' mode. The number online may increase for all versions in future, but right now, I doubt what you're saying, especially since Ground War is the mode which supports the most players in all versions!

    "Tell me Yaz, have you confirmed it by yourself? " that the loading times are actually that better on the X360"."

    I don't own the game myself, but I don't need to because others have already confirmed it, including Eurogamer. Therefore there is no doubt that the 360 version loads quicker than the PS3 version (not surprising since the DVD drive in the 360 is faster than the Blu-ray drive in the PS3).

    "Oh, and i must say that finally i saw you admiting that if the Dev's wanted, Ps3 games would be loading free. "and at teh same time acknolaging that only the Ps3 have the capacity to do it (due to the hard drive)".

    *Sigh* Why do you always fail to understand my posts? It's not about admitting anything, it just a simple fact. I said the HDD will only be USED if the dev WANTS to use it. This doesn't mean PS3 games will be 'load free', it only means improved load times for certain games (often requiring the gamer to dump GBs of data onto the HDD). "Load free" games are possible with or without a HDD (depending on the design of the game, the game engine and the amount of data to be streamed), the HDD simply makes it easier to reduce the load times and improve performance in certain areas, since it's much faster than an optical drive.

    And to repeat what I said earlier, the HDD is available for 360 games ALSO (hence it's use in Oblivion), so you don't need a HDD in every 360 to make use of it, you just need it to benefit from it when it's in the console (I've explained this already). If you can't understand my previous posts on this matter, then it's pointless wasting time explaining it to you again. :|

    One last point, there isn't anything for me to 'admit' Apologie, since none of it was denied by me earlier. I discuss things as they are for the consoles (pros and cons, good and bad etc), whereas you seem to discuss things as you'd like them to be (pros for the PS3, cons for the 360), ignoring any facts which go against your beliefs.

    That's the difference. ;)
    Edited by 4 at 02/12/07 @ 19:45

  • Kryon #285 4 years ago

    Well, that about confirms it then. Apologie IS Yaz's Bitch!

    Link - http://www.Apologi eIsTehBitch.com

  • Kryon #286 4 years ago

    @Yaz

    I'll give you two cigarettes, a half of whiskey and a rusty butter knife if you make sure Apologie 'visits' my cell tonight *wink, nudge*

    /Laughs in a male rapisty kinda way( a bit like Tom Selleck)

  • Yaz #287 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "Anyway, i've seen on line battles of 24 max players on the Ps3 version in "team deathmatch" mode... altough i must admit it's not very often to occur."

    I've singled this comment out because I don't believe you Apologie.

    This discussion returned to talking about COD4 two days ago when Diomedes claimed Infinity Ward said the PS3 version was superior, and I responded to say he was wrong (that's when you told me to 'shut up', remember? ;)). But we've actually been talking about it for 3 days now.

    For 3 days I have questioned the claim of 24 players in the PS3 version many times, even asking you for confirmation since you say you have the game, and yet NOT ONCE did you say you've seen it yourself. All you kept saying was that (and I quote) "Ps3 version have indeed bigger on-line capacity and better graphics". And now, 3 days later, you *suddenly* remember to say that you've actually seen 24 players online in the PS3 version (Uh-huh, sure, I believe you....not). What a very convenient memory you have. ;)

    You're not fooling anyone Apologie, only yourself.

    Anyway, that's all from me (for the moment).

    Goodbye, and happy gaming.

    ---

    Thanks for the discussions everyone! I've really enjoyed it (including reading those posts I didn't respond to. Hint hint ;)).

    I've been off from work for a few weeks, but I'm back to work tomorrow, so I won't have as much time to post here for awhile (but I'll be watching and making a few quick responces when I can). Bye.



    [Deep voice] Anyway, my work here is done! [/Deep voice]

    *Flies off with cape blowing in the wind and underpants on the outside*
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/07 @ 19:54

  • TRUTH #288 4 years ago

    There also the odd frame drop and less sharper textures & lighting on COD 4 on the PS3 version. Yes! the loading times are also longer - approx 10-14 seconds. The 360 version is better. Have both consoles & did the tests.

  • Kryon #289 4 years ago

    LOL, Oh well, Even though Apologie's dreams of COD4 have been totally obliterated beyond all repair, TRUTH still jumps in to twist the knife that little bit further!

    Good stuff! XD

  • Apologie #290 4 years ago

    Hey Yaz... i see you got yourself 2 lovely cheerleaders ;) "captainrentboy and Kryon". Anyway i just got home and i'm too tired to answer, i'll pass here later for that... see ya all tomorrow.

  • Number1Laing #291 4 years ago

    I am no expert in these things but if I had to hazard a guess I would say that developers are not putting code on the SPE's, instead choosing to run everything through the main PPE processor in the Cell chip. This is because it is easier.

    Insomniac has given interviews where they say the new version of their engine (R&C: ToD) can display more stuff on screen at 60fps than the old version (Resistance) could at 30fps. This was achieved mainly by moving junk over to the SPEs.

    The PS3 is clearly an extremely capable system. Two of its games (R&C and Uncharted) are operating at a higher level graphically, imo, than any Xbox 360 title. There's no good reason for these ports to be so shoddy. Period. But the developers obviously have to do the work. If developers don't want to do that, then they are using a fairly unremarkable single core processor to do the work of the Xbox 360's triple-core chip. So of course you get something coming out that is mostly crap.

    I do hope publishers, EA in particular, start giving a shit. Maybe they can take some of Criterion's Burnout Paradise code (one of the rare examples of a game being designed for PS3 and ported to 360).

    edit: before anyone accuses me of being "teh bias", I own both a PS3 and Xbox 360 and play the best games on both. I have no skin in this game.

    Edited by 2 at 03/12/07 @ 04:20

  • Kryon #292 4 years ago

    ^^^ teh bias ;-) (actually being serious, I had a good go on Uncharted yesterday and while it's fun, the visuals are nothing special at all imo, quite nice art direction but nothing technically amazing and definitely nothing a 360 couldn't handle at all. Some people may really like the art direction but it is 'technically' not as impressive as 360 games of a year ago like Gears of War. It certainly doesn't have that 'wow factor' that Gears did/does...

    Anyway back to COD4, I have to say, I'm a little surprised because at first I believed both the PS3 and 360 versions to be roughly on par, but after this thread it now transpires that the PS3 version is again the worst version.

    *Much worse load times on PS3.

    *Same amount of online players (but the PS3 online experience is worse in general, no achievements, etc)

    *Arguably worse graphics on PS3.

    *PS3 version scores equally with 360 on Metacritic (94%) but scores worse on GameRankings (PS3 = 94% 360=94.5%)

    So, even though they had the best devs working on the PS3 version (as Apologie keeps telling us) the game is still noticeably WORSE! That's pretty sad for PS3 fans really...

  • Apologie #293 4 years ago

    Yaz

    "Load free" games are possible with or without a HDD (depending on the design of the game, the game engine and the amount of data to be streamed), the HDD simply makes it easier to reduce the load times and improve performance in certain areas, since it's much faster than an optical drive.

    And to repeat what I said earlier, the HDD is available for 360 games ALSO (hence it's use in Oblivion), so you don't need a HDD in every 360 to make use of it, you just need it to benefit from it when it's in the console

    ............................................................ ....................

    So, basically what you mean is that some X360's are capable of doing it... and others don't. (i know your a Pc fan but this is supposed to be consoles not computers). and as you know most dev's are not willing to spend energy on something that can only be used by a percentage of users, "as you can confirm by the number of X360 games that actually have that feature", speaking of that i feel obligated to ask you how many X360 games are load free like Uncharted??? oh yes, oblivion right? http://ww w.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_... i see what you mean, her's some more http://xb ox.about.com/b/2006/03/21/slow-... ...i see that Oblivion still have loading times altough using the hard drive extensively to cache (copy and reuse)... well, not a good example my friend.
    I'll ask you again, how many games for the X360 are loading FREE???

    admit it, not even one.
    Edited by 4 at 03/12/07 @ 13:47

  • Kryon #294 4 years ago

    LOL, Apologie, I'm glad this 'load free' buzz word seems to cheer you up so much, shame it doesn't help load times in games like COD4 isn't it... PS3lol

  • Darren #295 4 years ago

    Does it really matter whether CoD4 is slightly better on the Xbox 360 or the PS3? Surely what matters is that both platforms got a game that was as good as it could be and the PS3 didn't get lumbered with yet another sub-standard port? ;)

    It seems to me that some PS3-only owners are so desperate to prove that their console is better than the competition that they scour the internet looking for tidbits of comments from developers, reviewers, publishers, etc., that might suggest it is. Certainly there hasn't been any multiformat games that have been significantly better on the PS3 but that's never going to happen anyway since those kinds of games share the same assets. All you can hope for is minor improvements here and there (console specific since each has their own strengths), which when it comes down to it are insignificant to most gamers.

    P.S. I own a PS3 and Xbox 360 remember so which has the best multiformat game is of little concern since I can buy it for whichever has the better one.

    P.P.S. I think based on the demo and video reviews I've seen that Uncharted is the nicest-looking game on any of the current-gen consoles but that's just my opinion. Certainly it's a more attractive game than Gears of War, not least because it uses more colours than grey and brown. :p

  • Yaz #296 4 years ago

    Unfortunately Apologie, you still don't understand this issue at all, mostly because you're only interested in trying to prove the PS3's superiority over the 360, instead of seeking the truth.

    Like I said, I'm back at work now (I'm just about to go to lunch), therefore I don't have time to answer in full right now, but I will later this evening.

    In the meantime, I suggest you do some research on the Playstation and PS2. Both consoles have no HDD for games and yet both had examples of games with zero load times via CD and DVD only! And whilst you're at it, check out future multi-format games for the 360 and PS3, and you'll find at least one which promises no load times (but we'll have to wait and see of course).

    See if you can manage to do this *before* I respond again. :)

  • Kryon #297 4 years ago

    COD4 is just another example of a 360 game being downgraded to the lowest denominator (PS3). It stands to reason that if the best devs had worked on the 360 version it would have not just been 'slightly' better than PS3 but MUCH better! I hope other devs don't start dampening their talent to accommodate the less capable PS3...

  • Apologie #298 4 years ago

    research on the Playstation and PS2. Both consoles have no HDD for games and yet both had examples of games with zero load times via CD and DVD only! And whilst you're at it, check out future multi-format games for the 360 and PS3, and you'll find at least one which promises no load times (but we'll have to wait and see of course).

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

    Well... now that you have pretty much admited that there are no games for the X360 with zero loading times we can move forward. Maybe that's true but apparently not so simple to accomplish... at the current state of technologie where games seem more and more demanding, we only saw it possible on the Ps3, that's a Undeniable fact Yaz.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/07 @ 16:42

  • Yaz #299 4 years ago

    (Quick post before I leave work...)

    I'm still waiting Apologie for your research :).

    The time scale means nothing btw, since it's only NOW with the release of Uncharted (and Ratchet I believe) that you can talk about a few games with zero load times on the PS3. Which other PS3 games can you say this about? Before Uncharted and Ratchet, I could have asked you the same question, and you would have had to give the same answer as I could now about the 360!

    So stop playing the game of "Well show me this, well show me that". The question here is over your claim that the HDD is needed to enable zero load times and that it cannot be done on the 360 because there isn't a HDD in every console.

    As I've said, I can name a multi-format game for BOTH the 360 and PS3 coming out next year (hopefully) with zero load times. I can name games on the Playstation and PS2 with zero load times during the game.

    So, can you name any? If not, do some research before my main post later please. :)
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/07 @ 17:00

  • TRUTH #300 4 years ago

    Number1Laing:

    Stop using R&C and Uncharted to explain how great the PS3 can be. 1) Both these games can be done on 360. (2) Neither if these games are at the level of GOW or Assassins Creed in scope, A.I, effects and on going screen action...what is being thrown around on GOW compared with PS3 best Uncharted; you can very easily compare and see GOW is pushing alot more: textures, ploys, effects, on screen characters then Uncharted...even Assassins Creed is doing alot more then the 2 games you keep mentioning.

    Uncharted is nice game but the animation, the very linear paths does not come close to Assasins Creed (though PS3 looks inferior to 360 with textures, frame rate, lighting) in graphical and scope inc A.I. Though AC game is still great suffers a bit from samey quest towards the end.

    Good games but nothing to claim title for the best ever looking game. Still goes to GOW & AC (360) at the moment. COD 4 (this has some amazing graphical use in game), Bioshock, PGR 4, Assassins Creed...are up there with PS3's best and in some cases surpass in when you put in the full effects, animation, lighting, scope, size of game etc.
    Edited by 2 at 03/12/07 @ 18:10

  • Apologie #301 4 years ago

    Yaz said: The question here is over your claim that the HDD is needed to enable zero load times and that it cannot be done on the 360 because there isn't a HDD in every console.
    ------------------
    Well Yaz i think you didn't understood my last post... i said: Maybe that's true but apparently not so simple to accomplish... at the current state of technologie where games seem more and more demanding, we only saw it possible on the Ps3, and that's a Undeniable fact.
    ----------------
    Yaz said: As I've said, I can name a multi-format game for BOTH the 360 and PS3 coming out next year (hopefully) with zero load times.
    ---------------
    Yaz, i'm talking about the present... if i claimed that Killzone 2 will be greatest shooter in history would you belive it??? no, and why?? because it's not out yet, that's why. so that argument (if i can call it that) it's not valid whatsoever.

    @TRUTH

    http://ww w.ripten.com/2007/11/19/unchart...
    Edited by 2 at 03/12/07 @ 18:55

  • captainrentboy #302 4 years ago

    I'll tell you why I wouldn't beliave it, because there isn't actually a state of mind or an emotion out there called ' beliaveing'.
    I don't understand how this big, silly, although admiteddly rather amusing, little chit chat has gone from ''COD4 is definitely better on the PS3'' to ''Name me a game on the 360 with zero load times, GO ON, I dare ya!!''
    It's really, really pathetic, if I were Yaz I'd just stop talking to Apologie now, he's getting a tad repetitive.

  • Apologie #303 4 years ago

    captainrentboy

    thank you for the correction... (by the way, that was the only thing useful
    in your comment).

  • Yaz #304 4 years ago

    Ok, I'm here :), firstly Apologie, I noticed how you ignored my question of why you *suddenly* remember seeing 24 players online for COD4 and yet said nothing about this for 3 days during our discussion over that issue.

    Secondly, I noticed you couldn't provide a list of games, so I'll move onto your first reply.

    "i know your a Pc fan but this is supposed to be consoles not computers"

    Who's talking about PCs? Explain yourself! I'm a fan of ALL gaming systems, and have been since the late 70s (I enjoy anything related to the technology, game developement and of course the games). I've seen them all come and go over the years (including the fanboys) and have been discussing the technology/software on forums for over 10 years. So I will happily discuss all the great points about the PS3 here (as I've done on other forums), but unfortunately it's pointless with you because a) you don't want to hear the disadvantages and b) you don't want to hear about the advantages of the 360. You simply want to believe the PS3 is superior to the 360 in every way and that's all!

    "speaking of that i feel obligated to ask you how many X360 games are load free like Uncharted??? oh yes, oblivion right?...i see that Oblivion still have loading times altough using the hard drive extensively to cache (copy and reuse)... well, not a good example my friend."

    Why are you using Oblivion as an example? At no time did I say Oblivion was an example of a game with no load times, I said the HDD is being used in the 360 to IMPROVE LOAD TIMES and PERFORMANCE. Which part of that sentence did you not understand?

    Oblivion on the PS3 ALSO uses the HDD as a cache, and guess what, it ALSO has load times, since the game was never designed with zero load times in mind, not on the PC the 360 or the PS3.

    Games will ONLY have zero load times if the developer decided to design the game for zero load times from THE START. It's not a feature which is added on later as an afterthought.

    " how many games for the X360 are loading FREE??? admit it, not even one."

    This discussion was never about how many games have zero load times NOW, it was about what is possible or not. But as usual, when you can't win an arguement, you move the goal posts Apologie. Typical, predictable and disappointing. Just the same, move on that issue in the next post (I want to keep each post shorter now).

    (Next part after my dinner :))

  • ronuds #305 4 years ago

    Wouldn't Test Drive: Unlimited be an example of a 360 game with no load times? You can drive around the entirety of the island without a load screen.

  • Yaz #306 4 years ago

    ^^^ Why THANK YOU ronuds, that is correct and it was released September last year on the 360 (I thought there may be one, but I just couldn't remember, especially since I don't have a 360).

    So Apologie, as I stated in my last post, "Games will ONLY have zero load times if the developer decided to design the game for zero load times from THE START. It's not a feature which is added on later as an afterthought".

    Test Drive is a perfect example of such a game for the 360 (WITHOUT requiring a HDD as I stated!) and Uncharted is an example of such a game on the PS3.

    Thanks again ronuds. :)

  • Kryon #307 4 years ago

    /BANG!

    Jesus! What was that loud noise?.... Oh, don't worry, it was just Apologie's 556th argument being shot down like a miserable diseased pigeon.

    /lulz

  • Kryon #308 4 years ago

    So anyway, I wonder what Apologie will change his argument to now? I'm so intrigued! I'm guessing it will be something like "OK, so yez, it are true thet teh COD4 is bezt on 360 und yez it are troo that 360 kan doo teh zero lode tyme BUT duz teh 360 have spiderman logo on it? No it duzzant, 360 kannot handel spiderman font on case"

    XD

  • Yaz #309 4 years ago

    Ok, back to your post Apologie.

    You wrote "at the current state of technologie where games seem more and more demanding, we only saw it possible on the Ps3, and that's a Undeniable fact."

    Test Drive for the 360 and the game I mention at the end of this post (EDIT: And the posts below!!!) means it is NOT an undeniable fact Apologie. You are 100% WRONG on this point (as usual). ;)

    I mentioned the Playstation and PS2 because neither console had a HDD, and yet Soul Reaver on the Playstation had zero load times (which was something the devs spoke about in interviews at the time). The sequel on the PS2 also had no load times.

    More familiar to you would be the PS2 game series from the same developer behind Uncharted, which is Naughty Dog's Jak & Daxter (I, II & III). Those games had zero load times on the PS2 because that was the goal from the start of developement, and therefore it is NOT suprising that Naughty Dog's Uncharted on the PS3 follows in the same tradition! So again, it has nothing to do with having a HDD in the PS3, they had developed games with zero load times on the PS2 and therefore that was the goal for their first game on the PS3!

    I had other examples from last gen, but the examples I've provided above together with last year's Test Drive for the 360 (EDIT: Plus other games below), confirms everything I've said here regarding zero load times and the use of the HDD.

    Regarding the future, there's the multi-format game GTA 4 due out in 2008, I'm sure you've heard of it ;). It's as next-gen and as demanding as ANY OTHER game, and yet there will be zero load times, as discussed by the devs in interviews. For example;

    [link url=http:/ /games.kikizo.com/news/200705/101_p3.asp
    ]http://ga mes.kikizo.com/news/200705/101_...[/link]

    "And there are no load times, period, according to Brown. "You can basically play the game from beginning to end without a single load screen," he explains. And it won't be affected by your choice of console between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, either: "They will both be the same," says Brown - although he couldn't confirm at this point whether the PS3 uses caching on its hard disc. "We're still trying to solve all the riddles on both platforms; there is no target console...""

    So, once again, you were saying? :)
    Edited by 6 at 04/12/07 @ 06:33

  • ronuds #310 4 years ago

    You're welcome for the TDU reminder. :)

    Another couple I just thought of that "may" not have load times, though I've only owned the first 2:
    Saint's Row
    Crackdown
    The one that's GTA/Saint's Row-esque, but set in a jungle (can't remember the name!)? You can parachute and such and the guys you battled were sort've Cuban. That's the best I can do for a description, sorry.

    So, there were plenty of "no-load-time" games for the 360.

  • Yaz #311 4 years ago

    I believe you're correct again ronuds. :D

    Once you enter the city for Saint's Row and Crackdown, you can roam around without any load times because the data is streamed from the DVD in advance. Hence no load times during gameplay.

    I think the only exception I believe is when you die in Crackdown or warp to another part of the City (or something like that?).

    As for the last game, the one set in a Jungle, I can't think of the game. Perhaps someone reading this will know (anyone?).

    Thanks again.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/07 @ 21:43

  • Kryon #312 4 years ago

    I think you are talking about Just Cause, although I'm not sure about load times as I've never played it.

  • Amoebalove #313 4 years ago

    I've been reading this thread for a couple of days now and I've had to register so i could add my 2 cents worth.

    Apologie, where do i start with you? you are the worst type of fanboy and you really need to get some perspective. I'm not going to sink to low insults and name calling but believe me it would be so easy!

    I've been into gaming for as long as i can remember, from before the days of the vcs and i have owned just about every format since (with a few exceptions, 3do, neogeo and pc engine spring to mind) and yes that does include a vectrax! I love video games and as far as i'm concerned this is one of the best times i can remember to be a gamer with so many great titles out there across all formats for people to enjoy.

    now to my real point. i own a 360, a wii and a ps3 and get a great deal of enjoyment out of all 3. they all have their plus and minus points (I'm not going to list them here) and it really bugs me when people blindly defend the one console they own! the truth of it is sony lied about the ps3! they claimed it would be the be all and end all of console gaming and it has so far failed to live up to its hype. this is not to say its a piece of crap, far from it, i think its a great piece of kit but its not the machine sony promised and anyone who thinks it is suddenly going unleash some sort of cosmic like power is sadly mistaken!

    the 360 on the other hand has exceeded all expectations and continues to do so. this is a machine that many wrote off before it was even released (thanks in no small part to sonys use of pre-rendered graphics for kz2 at E3 05) and yet it is still managing to keep up with the ps3 and in many respects surpassing it. is it any wonder people see the ps3 as a failure.

  • ronuds #314 4 years ago

    Just Cause! That's it! I don't "believe" that game had load times, but I could very well be mistaken, since I didn't own it either. Played the demo, though, and that had no load times.

    And when you died or "warped" in Crackdown, the loading was extremely minimal. I'd hardly call it a load "time" as it was no more than a second or two.

    Funny how the 360 went from having zero games with no load times to pwning the PS3 in that category....
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/07 @ 22:02

  • Yaz #315 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    I believe you're right. :)

    [link url=http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/justcause/revie w.html
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/xbox360/action/ju...[/link]

    "No loading times as you travel across the island"

    @ronuds

    "And when you died or "warped" in Crackdown, the loading was extremely minimal. I'd hardly call it a load "time" as it was no more than a second or two."

    Thanks for that.

    "Funny how the 360 went from having zero games with no load times to pwning the PS3 in that category...."

    ;) :)
    Edited by 2 at 03/12/07 @ 22:09

  • Kryon #316 4 years ago

    @Yaz & Ronuds

    The problem is, you two shot Apologie down much too fast this time, you didn't even give the poor boy a chance to reel out his usual list of future PS3 releases (all of which will be 'AAA' of course). Next time at least give him a chance to cut & paste a few more wildly biased statements from the SDF website. You've scared the kid off now, being beaten down so many times must have really hurt him, I guess even Apologie has some pride (not very much obviously)... ;-)

  • ronuds #317 4 years ago

    Sorry to disappoint, Kryon!

  • Kryon #318 4 years ago

    Not to worry, Apologie never stays away for long. He'll be back with his brand of comedy gold in a day or two no doubt XD

  • Apologie #319 4 years ago

    1st of all Crackdown and Test Drive have loading times... if some of you had actually played the gameS (like i did) I wouldn't have to listen so much crap... @Amoebalove , i have both the Ps3 and X360, and have as well played video games for a long long time..., Mega Drive, Nintendo 64, Mega Cd, Sega Saturn, Playstation 1, 2 etc... the only console i never bought was the first Xbox, so, i'm not biased or a fanboy, but i do believe that the Ps3 is superior (i guess is a free world and we don't have to share the same opinion about everything)... so, i'm still waiting for a game that have Zero, and i mean Zero loading times like Uncharted.
    The HDD are really important to have pretty big open levels with lots of detail, Uncharted (unlike the games you guy's mentioned) is COMPLETELY streamed, and that is only possible with a Hard Drive, which not every Xbox360 have.
    So YAz you can do it on a X360 dvd DISC..., but not TOTALLY, as you can on a Ps3, do you admit that at least, i hope so??

    And Kyron my boy, you lack personality ... try to say something useful to the conversation and stop acting like a CHEERLEADER for Christ's sake. :)
    Edited by 4 at 04/12/07 @ 11:51

  • Yaz #320 4 years ago

    "1st of all Crackdown and Test Drive have loading times... if some of you had actually played the gameS (like i did) I wouldn't have to listen so much crap..."

    Stop lying just to make a point please. :| (That's right, I believe you lie to try to get ahead in discussions :)).

    Funny how you just so happened to have played BOTH games on the 360 and yet you happened to forget about them. I guess it's like the way you said you played (or seen) COD4 with 24 players online on the PS3 but forgot to mention that for 3 days, and how you said you compared both versions (360 vs PS3), but forgot to mention you only saw them in a store. etc.

    I've already discussed when there are (minor) load times in Crackdown, so tell us about Test Drive Apologie, when are there load times during gameplay. And please say why you neglected to mention this game before.

    "the only console i never bought was the first Xbox, so, i'm not biased or a fanboy, but i do believe that the Ps3 is superior"

    Actually, you are a biased fanboy, and this has been clear from almost every post you've made here on Eurogamer. Being a fanboy is defined by your BEHAVIOUR and your ATTITUDE towards consoles, not by the consoles you own. Hence a gamer could still be a 360 fanboy even if he owned a PS3, and vice-versa.

    "The HDD are really important to have pretty big open levels with lots of detail"

    No it is not. If you had a clue about programming you would know that (but obviously you don't). Uncharted looks great, but quit pretending it's a free roaming environment where you can go anywhere you like, because it isn't. And being big and open has nothing to do with the HDD, it's to do with the game design. Big open levels with lots of detail is a feature of ALL Naughty Dog games, hence their games on the PS2 (which didn't require a HDD).

    Please explain why you don't consider Naughty Dog's Jak series as having big open environments on the PS2!

    "Uncharted (unlike the games you guy's mentioned) is COMPLETELY streamed, and that is only possible with a Hard Drive, which not every Xbox360 have."

    ALL games are completely streamed, it's a case of when that data is streamed and if it can be done it such a way to eliminate load times. The HDD is useful but not required. Fact!

    "So YAz you can do it on a X360 dvd DISC..., but not TOTALLY as you can on a Ps3, do you admit that at least, i hope so??"

    Oh please. You said it couldn't be done AT ALL. It was impossible, remember? A HDD was a MUST, remember?

    Once again, you move the goal posts. :)

    EDIT: Off to my work Christmas lunch. :)
    Edited by 1 at 04/12/07 @ 12:13

  • captainrentboy #321 4 years ago

    Apologie not only are you bias and a gigantic fanboy, you're also quite clearly delusional as well.
    You're basically bordering on being totally insane.
    I mean where has your new obsession with zero load times come from? You sound like an effing maniac.
    And if a HDD is sooo very important, then why the bloody hell does Assassin's Creed play fine on a 360 arcade pack, (better than it does on the PS3 too, might I add) and yet have some of the most giganticous, well detailed levels out there at the moment.
    Every single post you make is being ripped to shreds, I've got to hand it to you, you're one determined little chap, a determined chap who's being made to look silly time and time again, sure, but determined all the same :)

  • Darren #322 4 years ago

    Regarding those 360 games with no loading times; technically they do have loading times prior to actually starting the game, thereafter they continually stream data in so as to hide/mask them. Halo 3 does this as did Halo 2 but both those games have a long inital load. Ditto for Saints Row, Crackdown and Test Drive Unlimited, although they're nowhere near as lengthy as Halo 3.

    The amazing thing about Uncharted on the PS3 (from the demo anyway) is that once it has loaded to the title screen, you press START, the intro movie begins then you can *immediately* skip it and you're in the game which Drake waiting there really for your commands!!! I was totally amazed at that, I've never seen any game load that quickly, not even on the PC so I've no idea how Naughty Dog managed to pull it off. Maybe the game caches data as the demo actually loads, either way it's very impressive and points to a future where loading times really are a thing of the past.

  • Apologie #323 4 years ago

    YAz: "Funny how you just so happened to have played BOTH games on the 360 and yet you happened to forget about them."

    No Yaz, i didn't forget about them... but as you can see, they do not fit in the categoy of "games with no loading times whatsoever", so, there was no point in bringing them to the discussion.

    YAz: ALL games are completely streamed, it's a case of when that data is streamed and if it can be done it such a way to eliminate load times. The HDD is useful but not required. Fact!

    No Yaz, not all games are completely steamed, some still remain with few loading times, and others, seem to eliminate them completely (like you can experience in Uncharted)... the games you guy's mentioned are not totally and guess why???? because they do not rely on the Hard Disc.

    ... i'll be back later (working)
    Edited by 3 at 04/12/07 @ 13:30

  • captainrentboy #324 4 years ago

    By working you actually mean you're putting together a nice macaroni and glitter X-mas card for your teacher, yes?
    Good luck, don't get the paste on your clothes, it's a bitch to get off.

  • Apologie #325 4 years ago

    @captainrentboy, that's one incredibly intelligent joke... congratulations. :)

  • Yaz #326 4 years ago

    Despite being full up with food, a bit drunk, and tired after my Christmas lunch, I'll continue (well, as best as I can under the circumstances :D).

    Apologie wrote: "No Yaz, i didn't forget about them... but as you can see, they do not fit in the categoy of "games with no loading times whatsoever", so, there was no point in bringing them to the discussion."

    The issue here was zero load times during gameplay, not "no loading times whatsoever". So as I said, you're simply moving the goal posts as usual. Even Uncharted has load times, yes some of them may be carefully hidden, such as during menu screens (perhaps), but the data STILL has to be copied into memory, and that doesn't happen instantaneously.

    Oh and, why no comment about COD4 still?

    "No Yaz, not all games are completely steamed, some still remain with few loading times, and others, seem to eliminate them completely"

    Streaming and load times are two different things, so please understand that before you talk about it. Data is copied from one medium to another one byte at a time, hence data with originates on an optical disc or a HDD has to be copied into memory a byte at a time, i.e. streamed (that's the point I was making). In gaming terms, streaming often refers to having a sufficient input of data from the storage medium to enable the game to continue with minimal, if any, load times, but it doesn't MEAN zero load times.

    So from a gaming perspective, zero load times CAN be achieved if ALL the data needed is loaded in advance of when it's required.

    PC games are 100% HDD based. The data sits on an optical disc and is INSTALLED onto the HD drive, where from that moment on, EVERYTHING is streamed from the HDD, and yet only a tiny minority of PC games have zero load times. Why? Because as I've said already, zero load times has to be part of the design goals from the start of developement. So again, a HDD doesn't mean zero load times.

    Take ANY of the games today on 360 and PS3 and put all the data onto a HDD, and you will STILL have load times. The only difference is that the HDD will offer shorter load times because it is faster than DVD and Blu-ray.

    So the HDD doesn't eliminate load times as if by magic, it's all down to the design of the game.

    However before moving on, answer the question regarding Naughty Dog's Jak and Daxter. Please explain why you think it doesn't have big open environments and why you think it's lack of loading times during gameplay doesn't count.

    Lastly, here's what Christophe Balestra from Naughty Dog had to say about Uncharted's load times a few weeks ago;

    [link url=http://boardsus.play station.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=transcripts&m essage.id=19
    ]http://bo ardsus.playstation.com/playstat...[/link]


    "Christophe_Balestra: There is A LITTLE BIT OF LOADING TIME when you start the game but THEN there's absolutly no loading time. It was very important for us to this otherwise Uncharted would have been very different. We're using the hard drive constantly to load levels, sounds, objects and animations to avoid any loading screen."

    So let's recap shall we, according to Christophe, there IS a bit of load prior to starting the game with no load times AFTER that during gameplay, which is the same as those games on the 360. Please explain why either a) You think Chrisophe is wrong about HIS game or b) why the initial loading in Uncharted is any different to the initial loading in those 360 games. Just because that initial loading in Uncharted may be hidden behind a movie playing doesn't mean it is not there!

    Remember, by your definition, Uncharted also doesn't fit into YOUR category of "games with no loading times whatsoever".

    The fact that they use the HDD has more to do with the fact that Blu-ray is slower than DVD, and hence they NEED the HDD to improve the data transfer rate in order to eliminate the load times, in much the same way as other PS3 devs allow gamers to dump 4-5GBs of data onto the HDD to improve load times.

    Like I've said, at some point, data has to be loaded into memory. Zero load times comes from managing the data in such a way that you already have the data you need in advance of when you need it during gameplay, and THAT is when load times are eliminated for the gamer.

    It does NOT require a HDD.

    (EDIT: Fixed link and corrected spelling)
    Edited by 6 at 04/12/07 @ 17:01

  • Yaz #327 4 years ago

    Darren wrote: "The amazing thing about Uncharted on the PS3 (from the demo anyway) is that once it has loaded to the title screen, you press START, the intro movie begins then you can *immediately* skip it and you're in the game which Drake waiting there really for your commands!!!"

    And that's what I like to see Darren, you like what you see and you say it, you don't try to make it into more than it is!

    Naughty Dog have been coding games with little if any load times for YEARS. It's a key feature of ALL their games, and therefore you would expect them to get better and better at it (as they did with the J&D series of games). What you say suggests the game data is being loaded during the menu screen or whilst the movie is playing or both, hence you can skip the intro movie and drop straight into the game.

    Unfortunately, we have fanboys who instead of just saying what a great job Naughty Dog have done with the game on the PS3, choose instead to make it a 360 vs PS3 arguement, and therefore latch onto any difference they can find (i.e. the HDD) to say that it couldn't be done on the 360.

    It's the same irritating fanboy nonsense we had last gen over issues such as the number of texture passes per polygon & fur shading (from GC fanboys), load times and self-shadows and bump-mapping (from XBox fanboys), polygon levels and streaming (from PS2 fanboys) etc. All of which pick a game feature or achievement they CURRENTLY see on their console of choice, look for the differences between their favorite console and others, and therefore declare that because of the differences, such effects and/or achievements can ONLY be possible on THEIR favorite console. Any challenge to this is usually greeted with tried and tested comment of "Well show me a game on your console that does X then". *rolleyes*

    So when I see Apologie's posts, it's a case of "Here we go again". ;)

  • Kryon #328 4 years ago

    SHHhhh!!! Be quiet everyone! I'm getting some morse code through here:

    /Beep be-beep-beep...be-beep-beep-be-beeeeep

    Oh, don't worry, it's just an SOS from Apologie, apperently he's sinking like a lead balloon ... Again...

  • ronuds #329 4 years ago

    I'd still like to know where the load times are with TDU and Crackdown? Apologie says "they have them," but no explanation other than that.

    And if you've played these games, describe something about them that you couldn't find in a review or preview? That could put our claims to rest that you haven't played these games. I own them both, btw.

    Also, what about Just Cause?

    Also, also, what about GTA:SA on the PS2?

    Apologie, you don't have to admit you're wrong, because I know that's difficult for any man - but at least give it up already and save some face. It's very clear to just about everyone reading this that you don't know what exactly you're talking about.

  • captainrentboy #330 4 years ago

    ''@captainrentboy, that's one incredibly intelligent joke... congratulations. :) ''
    It wasn't a joke :/ I just assume from your awful spelling and grammar that you are infact still in Junior school. Well that or in the special needs department of a comprehensive school, either way, how's that card coming along? I'd imagine that Ken Kutaragi in a Santa Claus get up, plastered all over it, isn't going down too well.

  • ronuds #331 4 years ago

    Well, here's some info. directly from the Atari website on TDU:

    [link url=h ttp://www.uk.atari.com/index.php?pg=product&id=129
    ]http://ww w.uk.atari.com/index.php?pg=pro...[/link]

    "Gamers can carry their luxurious Test Drive Unlimited lifestyle with them and play online wherever and whenever they want on the most expansive network of open roads ever realised in a video game spanning the entire tropical island paradis of Oahu, Hawaii, FULLY STREAMING WITH NO LOADING TIMES."

    And here's an interview with the Crackdown devs where they state how Crackdown has zero loading times:

    [link url=http://www.firingsquad.com/games/crackdown_interview/ ]http://ww w.firingsquad.com/games/crackdo...[/link]

    "We wanted RPG based character progression in 5 key skills, a solid physics model to create fantastic vehicular based gameplay and allow for a huge amount of object interaction, to design our own city from scratch, WITH ZERO LOADING TIMES and the ability to constantly be able to see the vistas of the environment that you would be playing in, a truly freeform mission structure, and a density of characters, vehicles and street furniture never seen before in a city based game."

    Read for yourself...and take notes on how to backup a claim.
    Edited by 1 at 04/12/07 @ 17:27

  • Apologie #332 4 years ago

    YAz... i do like talking with you but sometimes it's just hard to make you understand some points...

    Yaz:Take ANY of the games today on 360 and PS3 and put all the data onto a HDD, and you will STILL have load times. The only difference is that the HDD will offer shorter load times because it is faster than DVD and Blu-ray.

    So the HDD doesn't eliminate load times as if by magic, it's all down to the design of the game.

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

    I know that... but if a dev. want's to create/design a game with zero loading whatsoever (and not just accelarate the loading process, and by zero i mean obviously not noticeable), the hard drive becomes essencial... and you know that.

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

    YAz: "Christophe_Balestra: There is A LITTLE BIT OF LOADING TIME when you start the game but THEN there's absolutly no loading time. It was very important for us to this otherwise Uncharted would have been very different. We're using the hard drive constantly to load levels, sounds, objects and animations to avoid any loading screen."

    So let's recap shall we, according to Christophe, there IS a bit of load prior to starting the game with no load times AFTER that during gameplay, which is the same as those games on the 360. Please explain why either a) You think Chrisophe is wrong about HIS game or b) why the initial loading in Uncharted is any different to the initial loading in those 360 games.

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

    Yes, but that loading process is almost undetectable/unnoticeable.... nothing like the big loading periods of games like Crackdown etc... that you mentioned. It's an obvious advance over any game ever made in that matter.

    a quote from that link:

    erikgolson: How important was the Blu-ray format in making this game?
    Christophe_Balestra: Huge!!! We couldn't have made it without the Blu-ray or at least not at the quality we wanted it to be. We filled 91 percent of the disc. Everything is compressed and nothing is duplicated.

    So, do you still beleave that Uncharted could be ported to X360 withought some kind of concession???

    @ronuds

    Thouse games you mentioned have actually some big loading times "as Darren correctly referd", "when you are ready to start the game and the data is beign upload you have to wait"... only then you don't actually wait for nothing.
    Edited by 2 at 04/12/07 @ 18:37

  • ronuds #333 4 years ago

    "Thouse games you mentioned have actually some big loading times "as Darren correctly referd", "when you are ready to start the game and the data is beign upload you have to wait"... only then you don't actually wait for nothing."

    All I can say to that is, "ugh..."

    Now you're just splitting hairs (and saying "big loading times" is an exaggeration). At first you say the HDD is essential if you want to create a game with zero in-game loading times. Now that we've proven that wrong, you've moved onto, "the 360 has no games with zero initial load time," which I don't think any game has to date (which you even quoted regarding Uncharted).

    So what's the argument going to be this time? If you're trying to tell me there's an existing game that you can pop in the disc and play ABSOLUTELY IMMEDIATELY after doing so, that's really all you can come back with. Even if the initial loading time for Uncharted is very minimal, there is STILL AN INITIAL LOADING TIME. The fact that DD has perfected the minimal loading time has nothing to do with the hardware.

    I don't see where you can go from here with this, but I'm interested to find out! Hey...I'm bored today.

  • Amoebalove #334 4 years ago

    @Apologie

    i'm sticking to my statement because you are a fanboy through and through and i find it hard to believe that you own a 360! after all why did you buy COD4 on ps3 when it looks better, loads faster (seeing as load times seems to be your thing at the moment) and is £5 cheaper on the 360? not to mention the 360's controller is better for FPS's.

    also if you own both systems then why do you care so much which one is better? surley you should be just enjoying the wealth of great games around at the moment and not spouting crap about which console you think is better!

  • Yaz #335 4 years ago

    Apologie wrote: "YAz... i do like talking with you but sometimes it's just hard to make you understand some points..."

    Thank you, and I like talking to you too, but you do not know how to stick to a point (choosing instead to move onto another point whenever proven wrong :p).


    Apology wrote: "I know that... but if a dev. want's to create/design a game with zero loading whatsoever (and not just accelarate the loading process, and by zero i mean obviously not noticeable), the hard drive becomes essencial... and you know that."

    WRONG! A HDD is not essential for zero load times. It was not essential for the Jak & Daxter series on the PS2, it was not essential for zero load times in those 360 games mentioned. So no, it is not essential. What is essential is having sufficient data transfer speed to supply the data as and when required by the game.

    If the PS3 had a faster Blu-ray drive, say 3x or 4x, then it's likely that Naughty Dog would not have needed to use the HDD, just as they didn't need to use a HDD last gen for zero load times. However, with the Blu-ray drive being relatively slow (compared to the DVD drive in the 360), they therefore need to use the HDD BECAUSE of this (just as others have on the PS3), not because a HDD is essential for zero load times in general.

    "Yes, but that loading process is almost undetectable/unnoticeable.... nothing like the big loading periods of games like Crackdown etc..."

    ALMOST is NOT ZERO Apologie. Before, there was NONE according to you. As I've mentioned already, this is Naughty Dog's speciality, they have been reducing/eliminating load times for MANY years, and they get better and better with every game, finding better ways to disguise/hide it and during gameplay, remove it. But as mentioned in that interview, it is STILL THERE.

    To pick up on the point made by ronuds, this is typical of you Apologie :). Initially we were talking about zero load times in the games in general, the key point being during gameplay (since that's when it really matters). Once you were proved wrong with examples of 360 games with zero load during gameplay, you shifted to saying you were actually talking about zero load times EVERYWHERE, claiming that was true for Uncharted. Once you were proved wrong regarding some initial loading in Uncharted, you now shift to the duration of that initial load time. Classic! :D

    "Christophe_Balestra: Huge!!! We couldn't have made it without the Blu-ray or at least not at the quality we wanted it to be. We filled 91 percent of the disc. Everything is compressed and nothing is duplicated."

    Well duh! Of course he's going to say that, just as ND said about their exclusive Jak games on the PS2 (only possible on the PS2), just as Julian Eggebrecht said about Factor 5's PS3 exclusive Lair (only possible on the PS3), just as Julian said about their exclusive Rogue Squadron game for the GC (only possible on the GC), just as Melbourne House said about their exclusive Transformers game for the PS2 (only possible on the PS2), etc. See a pattern yet? All console exclusive devs like to talk up the console they're working on and put down the others. It's great publicity and pleases their 'masters', since they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them!

    Christophe is no different.

    "So, do you still beleave that Uncharted could be ported to X360 withought some kind of concession???"

    I've already described that in detail in this thread (see posts 301-350). I told you the issues regarding porting Uncharted to the 360 days ago in THIS thread. Seems you've forgotten (as usual). Go back and read it please. ;)

    And I have to ask you this again, why do you not answer my question about COD4? Is it because I've caught you telling lies about seeing 24 players online? :)
    Edited by 6 at 04/12/07 @ 21:24

  • ronuds #336 4 years ago

    @ Yaz

    The conversation with Apologie can go on forever because whenever one of his "PS3 selling points" is proven false, he moves on to the next argument without ever admitting he was wrong about the 1st. It's ok...most people, especially on the internet, never admit to anything.

    I'll find out for you from another forum I belong to about the COD4 PS3 question and let you know the TRUTH.

  • Yaz #337 4 years ago

    @ ronuds

    "The conversation with Apologie can go on forever because whenever one of his "PS3 selling points" is proven false, he moves on to the next argument without ever admitting he was wrong about the 1st."

    Yep, I notice that. Reminds me of the song "There's a hole in my bucket". :)

    (Besides, I actually like him, strange as that may seem :)).

    "I'll find out for you from another forum I belong to about the COD4 PS3 question and let you know the TRUTH."

    That's great, thanks very much. Near the beginning of this thread (seems so long ago now), I wanted to know if COD4 on the PS3 did indeed support 24 players online, which game mode did it apply to, and also the differences between both versions online (performance, servers or p2p, modes etc). If you only confirm the number of players and the game mode it applies to, that would be perfectly fine. (My understanding was that 'Ground War' was the mode with the highest number of players, being 18).

    Thanks again. :)
    Edited by 1 at 04/12/07 @ 21:25

  • ronuds #338 4 years ago

    Well, here's what I found.

    Me: "For those of you who have the game for PS3 - what's the max # of people allowed in an online game?"

    PS3 Owner: "Up to 18, depending on the mode you choose."

    So, I didn't get the specific mode that supports 18 players, but he did confirm that 18 is the most. I'll dig deeper to find out which mode.

  • Yaz #339 4 years ago

    ^^^ Thanks ronuds, that's consistent with what I've found so far regarding COD4 on the PS3. Any more information would be great. :)

  • Kryon #340 4 years ago

    @Yaz

    "(Besides, I actually like him, strange as that may seem :)). "

    It's not strange at all imo, chatting to Apologie is akin to bringing an ugly mate to the club, i.e. he makes YOU look good, and if you're already good, he makes you look fucking splendid ;-)

    @Apologie

    You call me a 'cheer leader' but you seem to conveniently forget that I've pwned you about 3000 times in the last week (it was me who first pulled you up on your falsified COD4 claims in a different thread last week), I just got bored of it all because you can never admit defeat (as Yaz has pointed out, when you lose an argument you simply move the goal posts and completely change the subject) so now I prefer to just sit on the side lines and watch others beat you down ;-)

    @All

    I've also enjoyed this thread over the last few days but I feel it slowly dieing, this saddens me so I'm thinking we should perhaps set up a forum debate and call it 'Apologie Versus the World'....What say you?

  • Apologie #341 4 years ago

    "It's not strange at all imo, chatting to Apologie is akin to bringing an ugly mate to the club, i.e. he makes YOU look good, and if you're already good, he makes you look fucking splendid ;-)"


    Man you really are crazy... lol, Don't Be Jealous Kryon, i'm sure he likes you too. lol

  • Amoebalove #342 4 years ago

    there's no way i'm letting him have the last post on this thread!!!

  • miufs #343 4 years ago

    Am I the only one who doesnt care about console wars?

    Honestly, the diferences between the 360 and PS3 versions of NFS and AC are irrelavant IMO.
    I just cant see the BIG diference between them. Honestly...

    I play games since 1990 and i think that nowadays some people give waaaay to much importance to these mesky things. And shame on Eurogamer for these kind of articles.

    JUST PLAY THE GAMES AND HAVE FUN, no matter what console you have cause they´re all excellent!!!

    ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/07 @ 21:50

  • Arwin #344 4 years ago

    What I keep forgetting to ask, could you next time indicate whether or not you are using the RGB Full option (or whatever equivalent option your TV supports, there's also the Super White option, just as you can output using RGB or YUB etc.) ... those kinds of things matter to some of us when comparing picture quality. ;)

    I'm getting the feeling that some of the screenshots on the PS3 are without the RGB Full option when they really should be.

  • Apologie #345 4 years ago

    Uncharted is withought any doubt the best video game of the current console generation.... (and that means a lot given the competition). Congratulations to naughtydog

  • TRUTH #346 4 years ago

    APOLOGIE:

    Uncharted is good fun (if short & liner) game, but is not a console seller...Graphics are great, but still not up there with GOW. Esp if you consider what is being thrown around on screen by GOW.

    Isn't Mario Galaxy the highest scoring game ? also GOW, Halo 3, Metroid Corruption, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Zelda, The Orange Box, Bioshock..all have scored higher. Average score for Uncharted is 8/10; average score for above listed is 9/10. Voted best releases of the year by gamers - Mario Galaxy & Bioshock.

    Edited by 2 at 06/12/07 @ 18:29

  • captainrentboy #347 4 years ago

    ''Uncharted is withought any doubt the best video game of the current console generation.... (and that means a lot given the competition). Congratulations to naughtydog ''
    You do actually realise that typing statements out, in terrible broken english, does not instantly make them true, yeah?
    The saddest thing about all of this is, Apologie hasn't even played Uncharted, that's what makes him the saddest fanboy on this entire site.
    It's quite an achievement really, there's a lot of competition.
    Edit: Damn my chunky fingers.
    Edited by 1 at 06/12/07 @ 18:47

  • Apologie #348 4 years ago

    captainrentboy

    Yes i did... actually i bough it today, but a friend of mine have it for much longer..., almost since the US launch.
    And TRUTH, i have Gears of War and believe me, Uncharted is superior. I love gears of war as well, it's amazing... but somehow Uncharted managed to create more open environments, with lots of activity, enourmous waterfalls "the grass moves with the wind, birds fly, lots of enemies on screen"... i mean, there is no doubt (at least for me) that it's better.
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/07 @ 13:43

  • Yaz #349 4 years ago

    Hmmm.

    Which is better guys? Apples or Oranges. ;)

  • Apologie #350 4 years ago

    Yaz

    its not a matter of taste.... but a technical issue.

  • Yaz #351 4 years ago

    Those are two completely different games Apologie. They are in seperate genres, set within completely different environments, with different gameplay mechanics, and so on.

    Therefore you two are not comparing like with like. It's like comparing a 3D fighter with a racing game, or a platform game with an RPG etc. Which was better, RE4 or GT4? 'Dead or Alive 3' or Rogue Squadron?

    Therefore it's rather ridiculous to be argueing over which is superior imo.

    This kind of comparing always happens every gen because it's not really about which game is superior, but about which *console* is superior, where the games are being used as proof, despite the fact that this gen has a long way to go.

    So the most you can say is that each game represents the best in their respective genres (but that wouldn't be good enough for you I guess ;)), and therefore comparing both to each other directly is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

    Between these two games, which is best is subjective. :|
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/07 @ 15:08

  • Apologie #352 4 years ago

    the quality of the textures in the game are the best ever seen in a console game. Every surface is painted with a collection of distinct textures, meaning a wall not only has a brick texture, it has a dry moss texture, a shiny painted surface, sections broken off revealing the cement below, and it’ll look wet if it’s by water. It doesn’t look plastic as said in our demo preview. The wet effect is very convincing for the game’s visual style. This layering has in a sense been done before, but not to this extreme, or with such a strong artistic vision.

    You see, before Uncharted most textures would reveal a repeated pattern when you get up close, making all textures very similar and even pixelated when you got closer. But Naughty Dog went to the trouble of painting all their textures by hand (usually textures are photographic based) creating as many as possible so they could layer them on top of one another and make every section look unique. Oh and a common cop-out by developers is to have low-resolution ground textures, but not here, they are just as good as the rest.

    Uncharted has great textures. So what? Well Gears of War is lauded as a graphical show piece mainly due to both its artistic vision and its high resolution textures. Uncharted, however, trumps Gears of War, for the sheer amount of unique texture surfaces, even when in similar dark sections.

    Uncharted also has the best graphics you’ve ever seen on consoles for many other reasons. Your HDTVs are going to be flooded with water– the best looking and moving water you’ve ever seen. Naughty Dog put a hell of a lot of effort into this, and it shows. The reflections and the movement of the water when Nathan is swimming in it makes you want to lick your television, though that’s because of Nathan and not the water (Ooh, Saucy).

    Oh, and Nathan gets wet quite realistically, with only the parts of him that touch water getting wet. It must be said though that the water splashes don’t hold up as well as the water itself, looking more like 2d sprite effects, something which Naughty Dog should tackle in their next game.

    [link url=http://www.ripten.com/2007/12/01/uncharted-drak es-fortune-review/
    ]http://ww w.ripten.com/2007/12/01/unchart...[/link]

    I suggest you guy's do a test, try to look at the grass in Gears of War "in the outdoor environments" and then, look at the grass in Uncharted... the difference is enormous (not to mention that the grass, trees etc... in Gears are dead), In Uncharted the jungle is living and breathing, the plants and trees sway in the wind and cast moving shadows over the ground and Nathan himself.
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/07 @ 17:39

  • Yaz #353 4 years ago

    Thanks for providing a link for a change. ;)

    Yes, that's HIS opinion and he's entitled to it. Some others would agree, some would disagree. So just as there are reviews that says Uncharted is a great game and others that it's merely a good game but nothing special, so there are those that consider the graphics the best yet, some that they are the best graphics of it's TYPE so far, some that they're up there amongst the best this gen (i.e. along with Gears), others that they're great but troubled by problems with tearing and texture pop-in (I'm just summarising from all the reviews I've read). It's all down to opinions, but that doesn't make them facts, just opinions.

    "I suggest you guy's do a test, try to look at the grass in Gears of War "in the outdoor environments" and then, look at the grass in Uncharted... the difference is enormous (not to mention that the grass, trees etc... in Gears are dead)"

    Well duh! :) Uncharted focusses on organic environments, just like Far Cry and Crysis on the PC, and so like Uncharted, the organic environments of Crysis has many considering the graphics of that PC game as being the best seen so far. They stand out amongst the typical drab and dark grey's and browns which dominate the settings of many games, especially FPSs. They stand out because there's beauty in such environments that you don't find in a city/urban environment, and therefore any games which renders them well stand out from the crowd. And art design and direction is also a major influence on the graphics. Many consider the GC's RE4 as having the best graphics seen last gen, even though techically it wasn't the best, but artistically, it was brilliant (even the PS2 version looked great imo). Hence for me, Gears looks great but UT3 looks ugly (I prefer the look of UT 2004).

    Going back to Uncharted and Gears, of course the grass and other organic objects would look better in Uncharted than they do in Gears. Given that the game is set in a jungle environment, why would you expect it to be any different? If the game was set in a water based environment, then coming from a developer like Naughty Dog, I would expect the depiction of water in such a game to be better than other console games where water is just a tiny part of the overall environment.

    Anyway, that's all from me (Just got back from the work Christmas party and I've had a LOT to drink, so I'm going home now).

    Have a great weekend. :)
    Edited by 6 at 07/12/07 @ 18:53

  • Apologie #354 4 years ago

    YAz

    Well duh! :) Uncharted focusses on organic environments, just like Far Cry and Crysis on the PC, and so like Uncharted, the organic environments of Crysis has many considering the graphics of that PC game as being the best seen so far.

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

    Yes, but my point was that it's harder to make organic environments ... as i said, Gears of War, altough beign a great looking game have dead grass, trees etc... the environment doesn't change or move with the wind whatsoever, it's just there... the water in Gears is not even comparable to the water in Uncharted among many other examples i could give, animation for instance... Uncharted have pretty big open evironments, dynamic and interactive environments, (as you pass through the field the long grass bends etc..) Gears don't have anything like that, and if you zoom in a wall, no matter if it is an open set or indoors, Gears graphics will reveal themselves much worser then Uncharted. In another take,, Uncharted gameplay have more depth then Gears..., you can jump, escalade walls, swim etc...
    Edited by 3 at 07/12/07 @ 19:04

  • Yaz #355 4 years ago

    Dam, I was just about to leave... :)

    "Yes, but my point was that it's harder to make organic environments ... "

    Being different doesn't make them harder. They were not harder for Naughty Dog for example (as you can see in Uncharted), the Haze developers don't seem to be having any difficulties either (even before PS3 exclusivity), and neither had the developers behind the Far Cry games (for both PC and console) and Crysis. Last gen, they were not harder to create for Melbourne House with their game engine for Transformers on the PS2 (again it focussed on an organic environment, and therefore stood out amongst all the PS2 games at the time).

    The goal for each was to render an organic environment from the start, rather than the usual city/town based environment, and so like the other devs mentioned, Naughy Dog succeeded very well on the PS3.

    What ALL the games I've mentioned have in common is that their game engines were designed for organic enviornments from the START. It is no more difficult than game engines designed for typical city/town envionments. However, what is difficult, is creating organic objects within a game engine designed for rendering non-organic objects (hence the organic objects in such games are crude in comparison to those seen in Uncharted, Far Cry and Crysis).

    It also goes the other way. In otherwords, the superb game engine used for Uncharted would not be able to re-create Gears of War to the quality seen on the 360. Likewise, Epic's Unreal Engine 3 would not be able to render a game like Uncharted to the quality seen on the PS3.

    For each game, you'll need a game engine designed and optimised for the task (i.e. Naughty Dog's game engine on the 360 for Uncharted (not going to happen), Unreal Engine 3 on the PS3 for Gears (as used for UT3)).

    That's it for now, I really HAVE to go.

    Enjoy your weekend. :)
    Edited by 3 at 07/12/07 @ 19:19

  • TRUTH #356 4 years ago

    APOLOGIE:

    Your talking crap - the lush green areas look nice but rather over clean and plastic looking and behave quiet artificially in the same routine manor...The puzzles are hardly testing you and the liner path is fairly predictable even Tomb Raider 1,2, 3 had more scope for adventure. The pistol can defeat the enemy and is the only real weapon that needed in most parts. The wave after wave of enemy spoil the game and starts to drag it down.

    Uncharted also suffers from pop up & tearing. The organic effects look nice to the game setting but hardly really change much. The outside section in GOW..DO look better, the trees, rain, floor, lighting all cleaner and better textured and with alot more action, bigger characters then Uncharted...PS3 owners would say this as it's probably the only game that can compete.

    I've just finished the game, the graphics look very good but not highly impressive the way you make them out - and if you have a 360 too you'll agree: GOW, Bioshock, Call Of Duty 4, Assassins Creed...etc, are doing alot more and more impressive in scope and visual with also effects.

    Uncharted is a good game, but for me not a AAA title I was hoping. It's nice looking (though liner for a adventure game) PS3 game but have seen better. It's good game for the PS3, but if on 360 I still buy it but probably be less impressed.



    Edited by 3 at 07/12/07 @ 21:20

  • Apologie #357 4 years ago

    TRUTH

    "organic effects look nice to the game setting but hardly really change much. The outside section in GOW..DO look better, the trees, rain, floor, lighting all cleaner and better textured and with alot more action"

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

    Basically, you are just lying to yourself... "saying that the outside section in gears of war look better is ridiculous".
    Looking at the water in uncharted, or the absolutely incredible draw distances once you're on the island or the way that late-hour sunlight bathes everything in a ruddy orange absolutely confirm that the Ps3 is a beast. If this is an example of what a first- or second-generation game is going to look like, the stuff we're going to see five years from now... well, it makes my head hurt.

  • TRUTH #358 4 years ago

    APOLOGIE:

    Yes the water effects look effective, but for game in this sort of setting the water will be a priority to look good. I don't agree this is the best looking game ever. Though very nice it's still not quiet there with: GOW, Call Of Duty 4, Assassins Creed, Bioshock...The section you mention is visual treat, but honestly there are areas in Mass Effect and Assassin Creed, that look just and even better - or like the first time you strepedout the dungeon in Oblvion. To say you can't wait to see what the PS3 an push in 4-5 years; I think that everybody be waiting for the next-gen systems which will be around the corner from then.

    For now the 360 is a equal to better visuals, games and exclusives. The most important thing is too the game ratio sales that have been best on 360 then PS3 (which are selling not so hot)...Oh! the draw distance, there's many games that are just as good or better and less liner too.

    SHAKA:
    Learn to speak and pronounce properly. Also do your research before writing. If you look nearly all 2rd party games look and have better frame rates then PS3.

    Heavenly Sword, Lair, Uncharted, Racthet & Clank vs Gears Of War, Blue Dragon, Project Gotham Racing 4, Mass Effect, Dead Rising, Vina Patna, Halo...if I had to choose a console for games, exclusives, online gaming, graphics the 360 wins - That's the main priority for a games console.

    Edited by 4 at 08/12/07 @ 11:05

  • Apologie #359 4 years ago

    TUTH

    1st party for the Ps3: Heavenly Sword, Lair, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, Racthet & Clank (you forgot about Resistance Fall of Man, it's a great FP'S and still one of my favorites), 1st party X360: Gears Of War, Blue Dragon, Project Gotham Racing 4, Mass Effect, Dead Rising, Vina Patna (what is this Vina Patna, you mean Viva Pinata??)) and Halo... future releases on the Ps3: Haze, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, Resistance Fall of Man 2, GOd of War 3, Metal GEar Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5, Socom, Motorstorm 2 etc... future releases on X360??? the only release i see worth mentioning is Ninja Gaiden and GEars of War 2, nothing more... welll, i take PS3 exclusives any day over X360..., but that's a matter of opinion and taste.

    @TRUTH
    !The section you mention is visual treat, but honestly there are areas in Mass Effect and Assassin Creed, that look just and even better"

    All i have to say is simpy... no they don't. But i wont argue with you anymore about that, you are just defending the system you prefer and that's understandable.
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/07 @ 13:38

  • TRUTH #360 4 years ago

    Resistance is just plain average. I can't see how your impressed with the game or the graphics. Condemned, Halo 3, Call Of Duty 2 3 & 4, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R (360 version), The Darkness (360 version)...all beat it hands down. As a PS3 owner like your self, your choice is limited to most genre of games...So it may seem great to you, but not when compared to a 360 fps...Lucky for me I have PS2, PS3, 360, Dreamcast, Jap Sega Saturn. Also Assassins Creed on PS3 looks washed out, less definition on textures, blurs at long distances & choppey frames - not like the 360 version. Also COD 4 looks better on 360.


    Killzone 1 was shit...Haze at moment hasn't set me as a must have title & has been hinted that it could come to 360 a few months later...Resistance 2 - well the 1st is just a average fps...GT 5 - don't care: PGR4, Forza 2, Burnout, Test Drive, Dirt, Flatout, Moto GP 07, Sega Rally; give me all the driving I need. Every type from arcade to simulation and between is catered for...Socom are just a average mans PS online game.

    Too Human, Alan Wake, Fable 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, Dead Or Alive 5, Halo Wars, Lost Oddysee, Splinter Cell Convection, and with Bungie confirmed to make games on only for 360 (not inc Halo), also Banjo-Kazooie also in the works, with the follow up to GOW, Crackdown and Konami also interested to make an exclusive Castlevania game for the 360...I think even you have to admit the 360 is getting some top-notch games coming in 2008.

    Since having the PS3 i've only been impressed with Motor Storm & Uncharted. The thing is there nothing that can't be done on a 360. I still believe the 360 is ahead in games, online, and graphics. That's exactly why I prefer it.

    oh did I mention Enternal Darkness for 360 and a wealth of cross PC/360 games.

    Edited by 3 at 08/12/07 @ 20:04

  • Amoebalove #361 4 years ago

    @ Truth

    what you are saying is spot on but there is no point arguing with a fanboy like Apologie! read this comment from him on heavenly sword.

    The first Heavenly Sword was simply breathtaking, the graphics and cut-scenes of the game were better directed and technically more impressive then 90% of hollywood films... as amazing as that.
    They could add more depth to gameplay (new weapons, combos, jump button etc..) make it longer (at least 10-12hrs), develop intresting puzzles (i cannot even call puzzles to that nonesense presented in the 1st)... fix nariko's hair, and create colossal monsters (a la god of war).
    If they do that... my god what a game. Either way it will be an instant buy for me.

    What a fanboy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • TRUTH #362 4 years ago

    Yhea!...but Apologie is desperate convince everyone & himself that the PS3 is the best for gaming. I think deep down he knows it not. I know it ain't I've got both systems (though PS3 is originally my brothers...his not so bothered with it!).

  • Apologie #363 4 years ago

    @TRUTH @Amoebalove

    You two have some nerve... "Too Human, Alan Wake, Fable 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, Dead Or Alive 5, Halo Wars, Lost Oddysee, Splinter Cell Convection, and with Bungie confirmed to make games on only for 360 (not inc Halo), also Banjo-Kazooie also in the works, with the follow up to GOW, Crackdown and Konami also interested to make an exclusive Castlevania game for the 360...I think even you have to admit the 360 is getting some top-notch games coming in 2008"

    1st Carkdown will not have a sequel..., 2nd, MEtal GEar Solid 4, God of War 3 and GT5 alone destroy that list... not to mention all the other AAA titles coming out in 2008. You claim that halo 3 graphics are better then the ones you find in Resistance..., my friend Halo 3 graphics are average at best, if you weren't a desperate fanboy you would realise that they don't even do 720p in a new generation system, even REsistance graphics (one of the very first titles available for the Ps3) look better then Halo.

  • TRUTH #364 4 years ago

    Oh! just like Heavenly Sword, Lair, Resistance, Uncharted...were meant to be PS3 titles that lift it above th3 360 - Well they didn't. The only decent hame is Uncharted, but, it's not that massively great. It's a very good game.

    Resistance is shit - Liner, crap immersion in game, brown all over, A.I is not a touch on any of the Halo games. I didn't say that Halos graphics are better; I said the gameplay shits all over Resistance (as do most other fps)...but since you mention it and compare Resistance to the graphics on Halo 3 (even though this not even 360's best)...Lets Compare: game size area, the options, the A.I, the explosions and onscreen battles, particle effects, speech, sound effects, characters onscreen, interactivity, modeling, use and damage to various vehicles, feel of immersion on foot or vehicle, the weight and feel to battles...Halo kicks Resistances ass (as do most fps). A pity F.E.A.R, The Drakness didn't play as well on the PS3 then 360. Halo was actually more interactive with the environments - Resistance was pathetic!

    Resistance is crap, plays the same each time and no use of thinking in battle, unlike Halo, that's why many, many people enjoy it. A evolution and in your face action with great A.I that's never on the same predictable path (esp on harder levels), the intelligent use of weapons, vehicles which actually worked with the game, unlike Resistance laughable approach. Like I said PS3 fps selection is poor, the only claim Resistance is a good game is simply because it's for PS3. In truth it's just very average...Halo kicks it's ASS big time. The graphics may not be the best, but 3's are still better then Resistance esp the outside sections. And more interactive too - Resistance was pathetic!

    Lost Oddysee, Alan Wake got alot of attention at the last E3, esp the graphics in Alan Wake. I suggest you look into Too Human now. At E3 was an early & rushed showing - now it's a more complete game that is looking very very good - a rpg, action, si-fi by the guys who made Eternal Darkness 8 converted MGS on the Gamecube. Now looks gorgeous with excellent use of camera and fighting system.

    Not even bothered by MGS4...didn't really like MGS2 and 3 was a good game, but I prefer the Splinter Cell games. Look forward to the exclusive 360 game. Ninja Gaiden 2 does not interest you - but you seem to love the other fantastic, brilliant, best game of it's type that no other system can do - NOT!..Heavenly (just plain decent) Sword...GT 5: Not bothered, got more then enough driving games on 360 - PGR4, Burnout, Dirt, Sega Rally, Forza 2, Test Drive, Moto GP 07, Flatout - the only driving game i'm not interested is in is Burnout Paradise and Tocca Racing...Both coming to 360.

    I don't care if you think I'm a fanboy - so what if I am & if I am, I'm a fan simply because the system I'm a fan of is the system that has impressed me more, naturally I would prefer that system...The point is I have a PS3 and 360 (+ other consoles). I have a 50" 1080p Pioneer Plasma, and I know what I'm talking about when comparing the systems. I do play, see and compare the systems and for sure I'm convinced the 360 is simply better.







    Edited by 3 at 10/12/07 @ 11:43

  • Amoebalove #365 4 years ago

    what gets me with idiots like Apologie is when they try to call you a fanboy when they couldn't look at things objectively if their life depended on it! also if you are going to make comments about Halo don't use a game so clearly wishes it could be Halo as your comparison! now before you start to get upset i'm not saying Resistance is a bad game but even a fanboy like you has to admit it is a bit run of the mill. come on Apologie you can do it and you'll feel better for it.

  • Apologie #366 4 years ago

    Amoebalove

    No it's not... Resistance have inventive weapons "that add depth to gameplay and the way you can aproach each battle.Graphics wise is better then Halo and artistry shines in certain battles and locations, have lots of enemies on screen without even once drop in frames..., have a good sci-fi story and a good single player campaign that lasts 12-14 hrs with multiple locations..., enemy AI is solid, have a breathtaking orchestration that alway's keep up with the pace and multiplayer is very competent too, not like Halo but intresting, i mean, overall is a very impressive game (even more if we realize that it was one of the first games Ps3 offered)
    Now, talking about competition, let's wait and see Killzone 2 in a few months or even Haze... and then we talk again "if Resistance can somehow be superior in certain areas " i can't even imagine how magnificent thouse games will look when compared with Halo3.

    And TRUTH, let me tell you something... if you say "like you just did", that Gt5 is not relevant just because you can play Forza 2 and PGR4..., and that Metal GEar Solid4, GOd of War3, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 etc... are nothing speciall when compared to that list you made, my friend you must be the biggest nerd/fanboy i ever met, and you call yourself a gamer? In case you didn't noticed thouse are some of the best franchises ever, some of the best games ever made in they'r respective category
    Edited by 5 at 10/12/07 @ 19:38

  • Amoebalove #367 4 years ago

    @ Apologie

    if want see the biggest fanboy ever then just take a look in the mirror. And my God how can someone be so misguided!!!! Do you even read the crap you write? Do you even know what objectivity is? To be honest i can't really be bothered to comment on the rest of your delusional ramblings as i really don't know what game it was you were playing, but what the hell I'll have a go. Yes there are a lot of weapons in Resistance but most are useless and they add no depth to the gameplay whatsoever!! 'have a breathtaking orchestration that alway's keep up with the pace' what are you talking about? what does that even mean? In a nutshell the graphics are average, the AI is average, its too liner, the vehicle sections are pretty poor and its difficulty level is uneven. Its fairly long I'll give you that but lets face given the overall quality of the game its hardly a plus!
    Edited by 2 at 10/12/07 @ 21:12

  • Amoebalove #368 4 years ago

    I really should be writing an essay thats due in on thurs and not wasting my time arguing with someone as closed minded as Apologie but i can't help myself!

  • TRUTH #369 4 years ago

    Apologie

    Your argument is weak in all areas...It's starting to become funny how your desperate to convince yourself: 1st you convinced Resistance is a better game then Halo, and now your convinced it's better in some areas only...It's not better in any.

    Played Resistance on hard level. Found it a bit too liner, boring, and really did start to drag midway and towards the end. The battle with the Spider Mech was just a waste of time, instead of being fun with involvement like the battles in so many surprior fps...probably because i've played alot better fps that do it right and makes the combat feel right eg Halo.

    I found GT rather clinical in racing and rather a bit boring, esp once you got a good car the challenge to win became fairly easy...If it wasn't for Forza 2, PGR4, Flatout, Dirt, Sega Rally, Test Drive, Moto GP: I probably would buy it for the PS3...But like I said before I have enough driving games for both simulation and arcade, and in between to be bothered with GT now.

    Why do you keep going on about Killzone 2; The 1st was tripe, KZ2 looks like much of the same from the footage but with improved graphics...Metal Gear Solid 4 - come on! 2 & 3 wasn't exactly really that great. I actually prefer to play a game, not watch endless cut scenes. The reason i prefer my stealth games with Splinter Cell.

    I said it before and I'll say it again...The 360 has the best exclusives, best multiformat games, best PC/360 conversions, larger exclusive IP, better online gaming and still better graphics!...Why would I feel the PS3 is better for gaming as I haven't seen or played a game that has convinced me.



    Edited by 3 at 14/12/07 @ 21:32

  • Amoebalove #370 4 years ago

    @ apologie

    Where are you? Have you given up on this thread now that you've been proven not only wrong but also a liar? Are you going to admit that you lied about comparing load times on COD4? Are you going to admit that the graphics are more or less the same if not better on the 360? Are you going to stop saying that games that have yet to be released are the greatest games ever with the best graphics ever seen? Are you going to get some perspective and objectivity? Come on where are you? I've missed reading your mad rants!