You cant blame this on the developers. They have been given a platform which requires an unreasonable amount of time, effort and money to get results out of. It's great that some developers go the extra mile and get their multiplat games to look and play identically, but those who cannot or chose not to shouldn't be chastised. If Nintendo and Microsoft can make developing on their platforms easy, it's really about time Sony started TRYING to make life easier for developers. It's not like the PS2 was easy to develop for either.Ninja-HippoWhen a company makes a lesser product then they chould be criticized. If a company had the money to put out a really good game but thought "Well, why waste money on this if people might not buy it" then only put in very little money and the game was reviewed bad, people wouldn't defend them saying "Well, people might not have bought it, so I guess we should give the game a 10 because there was no point in trying."
360 multi-plats not only look better but...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You cant blame this on the developers. They have been given a platform which requires an unreasonable amount of time, effort and money to get results out of. It's great that some developers go the extra mile and get their multiplat games to look and play identically, but those who cannot or chose not to shouldn't be chastised. If Nintendo and Microsoft can make developing on their platforms easy, it's really about time Sony started TRYING to make life easier for developers. It's not like the PS2 was easy to develop for either.tman93When a company makes a lesser product then they chould be criticized. If a company had the money to put out a really good game but thought "Well, why waste money on this if people might not buy it" then only put in very little money and the game was reviewed bad, people wouldn't defend them saying "Well, people might not have bought it, so I guess we should give the game a 10 because there was no point in trying." Only that makes no sense. :? A bad product is a bad product. Let's not dance around metaphors but address the actual issue: Sony made a machine which requires an unreasonable amount of time, effort and money to get the same results you can get on the PC and the 360 without all that added time, effort and money. Thus, it is unfair to criticize developers who do not take all that extra time, effort and money, but more reasonable to place the blame on Sony for putting them in that position. In metaphorical terms, i remember one of the best examples being put forward by a developer in an E3 podcast - say you have to build two houses which look and function the same. One you make out of bricks and mortar using simple tried and tested methods. The other on the other hand, is made out of millions of tiny jigsaw pieces. If you try hard enough you can get the two houses to look and function the same, but the time, effort and money that you'll need to get it to work is just unreasonable, and often frustrating. Like another developer said, if you port from the PC to the 360, it'll work just fine. If you port from the 360 to the PC, it'll work just fine. As soon as you try and port something to the PS3 however, you find that it's broken and requires all kinds of fixing. That's not the developers fault, that's the tools that they're forced to work with.
I think everyone knows this by now, I don't think you need to point it out again. The PS3 has produced not only the best looking exclusives, but they all run perfectly aswell.(what 3 games or so?) So I think its fair to say the PS3 is not at fault. Not to mention the differences in the multiplats are always blown out of proportion.(just like the exclusives really) I have the ps3 version of RDR and im simply amazed by it. No less so than I would be if I had the 360 version. When you put the screens side by side, when you run and monitor the versions you see the difference. But is this practical? No. In the real world you simply play and enjoy your game and there is no feeling of "oh, look at the difference!"_Cadbury_I would rather have the console with lots of good running good looking games rather than 2 or 3.
[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. hysam20241
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
I'm sick of this harder nonsense. Look at Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, RDR, Fallout 3, Eternal Sonata, GTAIV, RE5 A slew of other games. It's not harder to do anything. If the devs take their damn time it'll end up fine. It's all about rushing it out the door and making sure they get their money.I would rather have the console with lots of good running good looking games rather than 2 or 3. The ps3 has plenty of good running games. All of its exclusives run fine. RDR runs GOOD but because of all these pointless comparisons its made out to be otherwise. Just like all the other multiplats with a few exceptions.[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]I think everyone knows this by now, I don't think you need to point it out again. The PS3 has produced not only the best looking exclusives, but they all run perfectly aswell.(what 3 games or so?) So I think its fair to say the PS3 is not at fault. Not to mention the differences in the multiplats are always blown out of proportion.(just like the exclusives really) I have the ps3 version of RDR and im simply amazed by it. No less so than I would be if I had the 360 version. When you put the screens side by side, when you run and monitor the versions you see the difference. But is this practical? No. In the real world you simply play and enjoy your game and there is no feeling of "oh, look at the difference!"vaderhater
I think everyone knows this by now, I don't think you need to point it out again. The PS3 has produced not only the best looking exclusives, but they all run perfectly aswell. So I think its fair to say the PS3 is not at fault. Not to mention the differences in the multiplats are always blown out of proportion. I have the ps3 version of RDR and im simply amazed by it. No less so than I would be if I had the 360 version. When you put the screens side by side, when you run and monitor the versions you see the difference. But is this practical? No. In the real world you simply play and enjoy your game and there is no feeling of "oh, look at the difference!"_Cadbury_
Almost every one argues that the 360 version of multi-plat games look better on the 360 but no one ever argues on the other aspects of the game, which, in it's entirety is way more important than the slight graphical differences. That is the reason why i made this topic.
Although i believe it is the ps3 (or sony's) fault not because it doesn't have the resource capable of producing a good port of a game but because you have to work much harder to make the game look and run as well as the 360 version.
[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. Animal-Mother
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
I'm sick of this harder nonsense. Look at Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, RDR, Fallout 3, Eternal Sonata, GTAIV, RE5 A slew of other games. It's not harder to do anything. If the devs take their damn time it'll end up fine. It's all about rushing it out the door and making sure they get their money.I don't understand your point. Every game you mentioned except mirrors edge looks and runs better on the 360. What is the point you are trying to make?
Its really not much of a issue any more. Multiplats these days are almost identical. If all developers took the time to make the PS3 versions make use of its harware, the PS3 versions of every multiplat would look alot better than the 360 versions. Most 3rd party games dont even use SPU's.djsifer01
I wonder what your opinion is on why FFXIII was inferior on the 360 (graphics only, its obvious why the CGI and Sound were better). ?
I'm sick of this harder nonsense. Look at Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, RDR, Fallout 3, Eternal Sonata, GTAIV, RE5 A slew of other games. It's not harder to do anything. If the devs take their damn time it'll end up fine. It's all about rushing it out the door and making sure they get their money.[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
hysam20241
I don't understand your point. Every game you mentioned except mirrors edge looks and runs better on the 360. What is the point you are trying to make?
Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemo[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] I'm sick of this harder nonsense. Look at Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, RDR, Fallout 3, Eternal Sonata, GTAIV, RE5 A slew of other games. It's not harder to do anything. If the devs take their damn time it'll end up fine. It's all about rushing it out the door and making sure they get their money.Animal-Mother
I don't understand your point. Every game you mentioned except mirrors edge looks and runs better on the 360. What is the point you are trying to make?
Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemoME (Mass Effect?) on PS3 ?
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] I'm sick of this harder nonsense. Look at Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, RDR, Fallout 3, Eternal Sonata, GTAIV, RE5 A slew of other games. It's not harder to do anything. If the devs take their damn time it'll end up fine. It's all about rushing it out the door and making sure they get their money.Animal-Mother
I don't understand your point. Every game you mentioned except mirrors edge looks and runs better on the 360. What is the point you are trying to make?
Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemoYes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does the ps3 version has a lower resolution, lower draw distance, a smaller amount of objects on the screen (trees, grass, etc), less particle effects (such as dust blowing in the wind), more texture pop-ins and more bugs, it also has a lower (average) frame rate. this is a common theme for many of the multiplatform games on the ps3.
[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]
[QUOTE="crusadernm"]
When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.
hysam20241
Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.
You and I know that rockstar is not a crappy developer, so this is not the case.
That's a game, a dev, not the rule, but the exception. Additionally, I haven't enjoyed R* this gen, though all I've played was GTA IV, which was crap. So, to me they have been rather crappy this gen, but that is personal opinion. CoD games constantly review well also, and I find them to be garbage more often than not.
I can't, personally, go off review score, because hype seems to dictate too much on that department, I go off the games I play, and my impressions of them. I am skipping RDR because I hated GTA IV, and am not going to pay full price for the western spiritual successor to that game. I may get it when it's cheaper, like 30 or so, because it may be better than GTA IV.
As I said, the case of crappy games from crappy devs being crappy ports is the general rule. They are underfunded, lacking in talent, and unfocused in their work.
Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemo[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
I don't understand your point. Every game you mentioned except mirrors edge looks and runs better on the 360. What is the point you are trying to make?
hysam20241
Yes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does
Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it up[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemo
Animal-Mother
Yes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does
Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it up In fairness, practically every review mentioned the differences between RE5 and Fallout 3. I dont get why you would contest that.[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemo
Animal-Mother
Yes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does
Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it upBecause you want to make him work for it does not make it any less true.[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] Can you prove it? That they run better? Sure there may be graphical differences but they aren't leaps and bounds. But I played RE5, ME, Fallout 3 perfectly fine on my PS3. DMC4 no problemo
Animal-Mother
Yes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does
Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it uphttp://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/20/read-red-redemption-ps3-vs-360/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704
I don't have to do this for you but since it was so easy to get the "proof" I decided to do it. I'm not going to do this for you again how ever. I don't have to directly show you prove everytime i make a single statement on a gaming forum
[QUOTE="tman93"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You cant blame this on the developers. They have been given a platform which requires an unreasonable amount of time, effort and money to get results out of. It's great that some developers go the extra mile and get their multiplat games to look and play identically, but those who cannot or chose not to shouldn't be chastised. If Nintendo and Microsoft can make developing on their platforms easy, it's really about time Sony started TRYING to make life easier for developers. It's not like the PS2 was easy to develop for either.Ninja-HippoWhen a company makes a lesser product then they chould be criticized. If a company had the money to put out a really good game but thought "Well, why waste money on this if people might not buy it" then only put in very little money and the game was reviewed bad, people wouldn't defend them saying "Well, people might not have bought it, so I guess we should give the game a 10 because there was no point in trying." Only that makes no sense. :? A bad product is a bad product. Let's not dance around metaphors but address the actual issue: Sony made a machine which requires an unreasonable amount of time, effort and money to get the same results you can get on the PC and the 360 without all that added time, effort and money. Thus, it is unfair to criticize developers who do not take all that extra time, effort and money, but more reasonable to place the blame on Sony for putting them in that position. In metaphorical terms, i remember one of the best examples being put forward by a developer in an E3 podcast - say you have to build two houses which look and function the same. One you make out of bricks and mortar using simple tried and tested methods. The other on the other hand, is made out of millions of tiny jigsaw pieces. If you try hard enough you can get the two houses to look and function the same, but the time, effort and money that you'll need to get it to work is just unreasonable, and often frustrating. Like another developer said, if you port from the PC to the 360, it'll work just fine. If you port from the 360 to the PC, it'll work just fine. As soon as you try and port something to the PS3 however, you find that it's broken and requires all kinds of fixing. That's not the developers fault, that's the tools that they're forced to work with. No it's their fault. You find it understandable and I can see that, but it's still their fault, yes they would have to put more money into it but thats their choice. They choose to make the lesser product thus it is their fault. The only way it wouldn't be their fault is if the PS3 literally couldn't handle the game.
Lemmings have been desperate after Alan Wake flopped and SMG2 got AAAAE
Lemmings have been desperate after Alan Wake flopped and SMG2 got AAAAE
Mattizzle815
Okay, but what do lemmings have to do with this?
Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it upBecause you want to make him work for it does not make it any less true. People who wanna make claims should back up there evidence, I never denied anything. But they're not as bad as people make them out to be[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]
Yes i can prove it. Type red dead redemption 360 vs ps3 on google. You will find out that not only does
vaderhater
No it's their fault. You find it understandable and I can see that, but it's still their fault, yes they would have to put more money into it but thats their choice. They choose to make the lesser product thus it is their fault. The only way it wouldn't be their fault is if the PS3 literally couldn't handle the game.
tman93
Your a human right? You are capable of thinking outside what something should "technically" mean. Rather you should think realistically. Sony gave them absolutely no reason to make a ps3 game Superior or equal to the quality of the 360 version. Its harder to code for and the reward for doing it (sales) are not justifiable for that harder work.
Going by your logic, it is sony's fault the ps3 is not selling as quickly as it should because they are not selling it for $50. Sure it is not cost effective at all but they could do it to sell more ps3s :roll:.
[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Because you want to make him work for it does not make it any less true. People who wanna make claims should back up there evidence, I never denied anything. But they're not as bad as people make them out to be[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"] Provide some proof Other than "google" You wanna make a bold claim, back it upAnimal-Mother
Okay, first of all, I proved my claim with two articles which I didn't have to do. Second of all, you made claims yourself and you did not back it up with evidence. Third of all, you did deny my claim by calling it "nonsense"
[QUOTE="tman93"]
No it's their fault. You find it understandable and I can see that, but it's still their fault, yes they would have to put more money into it but thats their choice. They choose to make the lesser product thus it is their fault. The only way it wouldn't be their fault is if the PS3 literally couldn't handle the game.
Your a human right? You are capable of thinking outside what something should "technically" mean. Rather you should think realistically. Sony gave them absolutely no reason to make a ps3 game Superior or equal to the quality of the 360 version. Its harder to code for and the reward for doing it (sales) are not justifiable for that harder work.
Going by your logic, it is sony's fault the ps3 is not selling as quickly as it should because they are not selling it for $50. Sure it is not cost effective at all but they could do it to sell more ps3s :roll:.
Yep, they could if they lowered the price and they choose not to because it would cost them money thats a fact. Its not Sony's fault that R* choose not to spend some of their $100,000,000 budget to make the versions equal, it is Rockstars, it's Sony's fault that their system is hard to dev for, but it is R* fault that they made a lesser product. Sony didn't go R* and force them to make a lesser product. I understand why they did it, but that shouldn't make any PS3 owner less mad, the fact is they are accountable for making a lesser product.[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="tman93"]
No it's their fault. You find it understandable and I can see that, but it's still their fault, yes they would have to put more money into it but thats their choice. They choose to make the lesser product thus it is their fault. The only way it wouldn't be their fault is if the PS3 literally couldn't handle the game.
tman93
Your a human right? You are capable of thinking outside what something should "technically" mean. Rather you should think realistically. Sony gave them absolutely no reason to make a ps3 game Superior or equal to the quality of the 360 version. Its harder to code for and the reward for doing it (sales) are not justifiable for that harder work.
Going by your logic, it is sony's fault the ps3 is not selling as quickly as it should because they are not selling it for $50. Sure it is not cost effective at all but they could do it to sell more ps3s :roll:.
Yep, they could if they lowered the price and they choose not to because it would cost them money thats a fact. Its not Sony's fault that R* choose not to spend some of their $100,000,000 budget to make the versions equal, it is Rockstars, it's Sony's fault that their system is hard to dev for, but it is R* fault that they made a lesser product. Sony didn't go R* and force them to make a lesser product. I understand why they did it, but that shouldn't make any PS3 owner less mad, the fact is they are accountable for making a lesser product.Okay, I'm glad to see that you at least think that it is partially sony's fault for developing a system that is hard to code for. That was the point I'm trying to make.
They scored the same. "Greatly impacts"? No, I doubt that.Skittles_McGee
See the two articles I posted. My argument is not just that the difference of the ps3 version "greatly impacts" the experience (I did say sometimes but I mean't that there is a noticeable impact and this is true). All in all, I'm trying to make the statement that the impact is more than just graphics which is what most people consistently use to justify the ps3 version of ports.
[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. hysam20241
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
I doubt the ps3 is hard to code for it just requires effort due to the 360 just being a mini PC. Same thing with the Ps2, valve said the Ps2 was to hard to dev for... don't make me laugh.[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. Fightingfan
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
I doubt the ps3 is hard to code for it just requires effort due to the 360 just being a mini PC. Same thing with the Ps2, valve said the Ps2 was to hard to dev for... don't make me laugh.Okay sure, Ill buy that. Either way, sony is at fault for not making the ps3 as developer friendly as the 360, hence the bad ports.
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]They scored the same. "Greatly impacts"? No, I doubt that.hysam20241
See the two articles I posted. My argument is not that the difference of the ps3 version "greatly impacts" the experience (I did say sometimes but I mean't that there is a noticeable impact and this is true). All in all, I'm trying to make the statement that the impact is more than just graphics which is what most people consistently use to justify the ps3 version of ports.
But the real question is whether any of it is noticeable enough to matter. In which case the answer is, a few rare cases aside, no. I mean, most gamers (even myself included) won't notice some small difference in resolution, especially on a console game, or a 1 frame per second difference, 1 second longer loading time, things like that. And if they do, it will likely be far outweighed by all the reasons they chose the particular version of the game that they bought.[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]TC, it must suck knowing you're playing the worse version, I can only imagine how it feels. [QUOTE="tman93"]^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. tman93So it's the developers fault? They are lazy, right... I forgot. If they put the same effort into PS3 and 360 game, which do you think would come out better? If they put the same effort? Then it would be incredibly similar. How can you not say it's the developers fault when a game like CoD4 comes out and the versions are almost the same, then the same company makes MW2 and one version is clearly worse?it is not all the devs fault, the engines used for these games are optimised for traditional development, PC architecture if you like,they are not otimised for the Ps3's architecture, to get these running on the Ps3 you have two choices, you either optimise the engine for the Ps3, which takes time, or you try and code the game traditionally and do the best job you can, the blunt truth is, when coding games using traditional methods the 360 is going to win because it has the stronger GPU, when the ps3 is coded properly it has a graphical edge on the 360, but when coded using multiplatform engines, the 360 has a graphical and performance advantage in nearly every case, the fact that the 360's architecture is so close to the Pc's is an advantage.
[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]They scored the same. "Greatly impacts"? No, I doubt that.Skittles_McGee
See the two articles I posted. My argument is not that the difference of the ps3 version "greatly impacts" the experience (I did say sometimes but I mean't that there is a noticeable impact and this is true). All in all, I'm trying to make the statement that the impact is more than just graphics which is what most people consistently use to justify the ps3 version of ports.
But the real question is whether any of it is noticeable enough to matter. In which case the answer is, a few rare cases aside, no. I mean, most gamers (even myself included) won't notice some small difference in resolution, especially on a console game, or a 1 frame per second difference, 1 second longer loading time, things like that. And if they do, it will likely be far outweighed by all the reasons they chose the particular version of the game that they bought.In the cases of dead space, assasins creed, and oblivion it is not that noticable. But for games like read dead redemption, fallout 3, bayonette, the orange box, etc it is (at least for me).
But the real question is whether any of it is noticeable enough to matter. In which case the answer is, a few rare cases aside, no. I mean, most gamers (even myself included) won't notice some small difference in resolution, especially on a console game, or a 1 frame per second difference, 1 second longer loading time, things like that. And if they do, it will likely be far outweighed by all the reasons they chose the particular version of the game that they bought.[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]
See the two articles I posted. My argument is not that the difference of the ps3 version "greatly impacts" the experience (I did say sometimes but I mean't that there is a noticeable impact and this is true). All in all, I'm trying to make the statement that the impact is more than just graphics which is what most people consistently use to justify the ps3 version of ports.
hysam20241
In the cases of dead space, assasins creed, and oblivion it is not that noticable. But for games like read dead redemption, fallout 3, bayonette, the orange box, etc it is (at least for me).
Wasn't FO3 supposedly better on the PS3 or something, currently? I have the PC version, so, not sure on that one.But that's what I mean. Most of the time its either not noticeable enough to matter (See every game you mentioned except Bayonetta) and then there's just a few rare exceptions (Bayonetta). Hell, sometimes things work in the reverse too. Like with Darksiders, for example. And we know for a fact with Bayonetta who was at fault, it wasn't any console manufacturer.
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But the real question is whether any of it is noticeable enough to matter. In which case the answer is, a few rare cases aside, no. I mean, most gamers (even myself included) won't notice some small difference in resolution, especially on a console game, or a 1 frame per second difference, 1 second longer loading time, things like that. And if they do, it will likely be far outweighed by all the reasons they chose the particular version of the game that they bought.Skittles_McGee
In the cases of dead space, assasins creed, and oblivion it is not that noticable. But for games like read dead redemption, fallout 3, bayonette, the orange box, etc it is (at least for me).
Wasn't FO3 supposedly better on the PS3 or something It certainly wasn't, looked worse and had no AA too.Wasn't FO3 supposedly better on the PS3 or something It certainly wasn't, looked worse and had no AA too. I know it wasn't, at launch. Which is why I added "currently" ;) I just remember seeing someone mention something along those lines, thats all. Like I said, I have the PC version. I'm not too concerned with which of the inferior versions beats the other >_> :P[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
In the cases of dead space, assasins creed, and oblivion it is not that noticable. But for games like read dead redemption, fallout 3, bayonette, the orange box, etc it is (at least for me).
mitu123
[QUOTE="Ospov"]
I already have a PS3. I'm not going to buy another console just so I'll have slightly better textures on some games. That would be stupid. Like this argument.
hysam20241
The whole point of my argument is that textures arent the only difference between the 360 and ps3 version of the game. You clearly didn't read my argument and then you shoot it down.
Actually I did read it, but I read it really fast since I had to leave soon :P After re-reading it slowly though I see where you're coming from. I originally was going to say something like "As long as it doesn't crash every 5 minutes I'll be good" but I couldn't figure out how to put that in there and make it not seem like I was rambling...My point was basically that the differences between the performance of multiplats doesn't warrant purchasing another console since there isn't a considerable difference between two versions of the same game.
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But the real question is whether any of it is noticeable enough to matter. In which case the answer is, a few rare cases aside, no. I mean, most gamers (even myself included) won't notice some small difference in resolution, especially on a console game, or a 1 frame per second difference, 1 second longer loading time, things like that. And if they do, it will likely be far outweighed by all the reasons they chose the particular version of the game that they bought.Skittles_McGee
In the cases of dead space, assasins creed, and oblivion it is not that noticable. But for games like read dead redemption, fallout 3, bayonette, the orange box, etc it is (at least for me).
Wasn't FO3 supposedly better on the PS3 or something, currently? I have the PC version, so, not sure on that one.But that's what I mean. Most of the time its either not noticeable enough to matter (See every game you mentioned except Bayonetta) and then there's just a few rare exceptions (Bayonetta). Hell, sometimes things work in the reverse too. Like with Darksiders, for example. And we know for a fact with Bayonetta who was at fault, it wasn't any console manufacturer.
Fallout 3 was one of the games that performed much worse on the ps3.http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/ps3-compares-poorly-to-the-360-on-fallout-3-according-to-the-playstation-magazine/
To tell you the truth this topic is more of a rant at specifically the ps3 version of red dead redemption. All 4 of these games (bayonette, fallout 3, orange box, and red dead redemption) are 94+ metacritc games and they run vastly inferior on the ps3. I'm just frustrated that I'm consistently getting the worse version of a marquemultiplatform game. Here are the difference between red dead redemption on both versions:http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/20/read-red-redemption-ps3-vs-360/
3rd party dev's need to start using MLAA when coding Ps3 games, it's so much better than QAA and uses less recources,ps3 multiplats tend to look worse due to the QAA pretty much blurring everything, devs should take a leaf from crytek, that or make a concerted effort to optimise there game engines for Ps3, it will take time, but it's worth doing it in the long run.delta3074
You could be right but wouldn't the developers know more that any of us when it comes to such things? maybe it's not possible for them due to any reason which we may not know of.
I don't think so. I'm not going to let this thread die, when threads like"PS3's problem now.. TOO many games!" still live. This is why I want the system wars board to die. You guys argue about the most illogical things. The reason I keep coming back is because this is by far the most active forum in the entirety of gamespot.
SW has always been illiogical. This is common knowledge.I don't think so. I'm not going to let this thread die, when threads like"PS3's problem now.. TOO many games!" still live. This is why I want the system wars board to die. You guys argue about the most illogical things. The reason I keep coming back is because this is by far the most active forum in the entirety of gamespot.
hysam20241
SW has always been illiogical. This is common knowledge.[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
I don't think so. I'm not going to let this thread die, when threads like"PS3's problem now.. TOO many games!" still live. This is why I want the system wars board to die. You guys argue about the most illogical things. The reason I keep coming back is because this is by far the most active forum in the entirety of gamespot.
noodlevixen
A lot of people say this, but why the **** do you guys accept it?
i disagree, not ALL multiplats run better on 360, or look better.
GramDubs
What are you talking about, I never said all. In fact I carefully said "in general" in every single one of my posts that compares the 360 and ps3. Also you are not welcome in my thread. your the type of person that intentionally do not read entire posts when arguing. I'm not going to repeat everything that we had already discussed to you.
SW has always been illiogical. This is common knowledge.[QUOTE="noodlevixen"]
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]
I don't think so. I'm not going to let this thread die, when threads like"PS3's problem now.. TOO many games!" still live. This is why I want the system wars board to die. You guys argue about the most illogical things. The reason I keep coming back is because this is by far the most active forum in the entirety of gamespot.
hysam20241
A lot of people say this, but why the **** do you guys accept it?
Because it's amusing.[QUOTE="hysam20241"][QUOTE="noodlevixen"]SW has always been illiogical. This is common knowledge.
CakeBalls
A lot of people say this, but why the **** do you guys accept it?
Because it's amusing.It's not frustrating? I know some people are playing around, but most people on these forums are actually serious and that is really annoying.
Because it's amusing.[QUOTE="CakeBalls"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]
A lot of people say this, but why the **** do you guys accept it?
hysam20241
It's not frustrating? I know some people are playing around, but most people on these forums are actually serious and that is really annoying.
That's the best thing about SW, some of them are actually serious about it and they're the ones who make the best fanboy threads. If you're getting too annoyed by it I think you're starting to take it seriously too. I think you're the type of person who hates ignorance with a passion.I doubt the ps3 is hard to code for it just requires effort due to the 360 just being a mini PC. Same thing with the Ps2, valve said the Ps2 was to hard to dev for... don't make me laugh.[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]
But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.
hysam20241
Okay sure, Ill buy that. Either way, sony is at fault for not making the ps3 as developer friendly as the 360, hence the bad ports.
There's a reason why Sony can't make a console as user friendly as the Xbox360. It's the coding imo. MS has patents on coding of Windows and has made the Xbox360 coding pretty much like the PCs. Sony can't use the same code as MS will call patent infringment. So Sony has to make up their own codes. Quite frankly, Sony is not a software company so I was surprised they even made it this easy for the devs..
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment