Wow that sux for PS3 owners, getting a waterdown port of a great game.
white_sox
Same goes for the 360 version....
The 360 version still stands up pretty well though, I played it and enjoyed it, though they should have polished sixed the multiplayer to suit xbox live.
lemms will never understand how things work in the gaming industry, its pretty sad if u ask me. Resistance destroys FEAR on x360 and ps3 and yet lemms still use this game as some example how weak ps3 is. GermanShepard06
[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]The graphics were not impressive on the 360 either. So they must be really bad on the PS3.THETRUEDOZAH
They both look the same, thats the problem. The ps3 only has slightly better lighting for the extra dev time put into it.
I have to disagree here. Looking at the HD comparison vid, it is readily apparent that the PS3 version is washed-out, and some lighting effects are entirely absent. The 360 version looks much deeper and richer in color saturation, which really makes the games atmoshpere more appropriate.
Â
That's actually not true , the PS3 can display a better range of colours and more accurate contrast due to HDMI. In most comparisions of 360 v ps3 games they usually have the brightness too high in the ps3 version making the colours look washed out, they should calibrate the outputs before showing comparisions. Also I heard that the PS3 version of FEAR had better frame rates.Â
[QUOTE="GermanShepard06"]lemms will never understand how things work in the gaming industry, its pretty sad if u ask me. Resistance destroys FEAR on x360 and ps3 and yet lemms still use this game as some example how weak ps3 is. Shadow_op
Gears of War
/your arguement
Sure, gears of war, it shows what a console is capable of. So now that it's been many months since gears of war launched, why aren't there any other 360 games that look just as good :|
[QUOTE="GermanShepard06"]lemms will never understand how things work in the gaming industry, its pretty sad if u ask me. Resistance destroys FEAR on x360 and ps3 and yet lemms still use this game as some example how weak ps3 is. Shadow_op
Gears of War
/your arguement
Â
Did you even read what he typed? That is completely irrelevant to what he was talking about. He says saying how lemmings are using this sloppy ports as ownage when the PS3 has LAUNCH games that look better than both 360 and PS3 versions, disproving their argument on how the PS3 is weak... It is just sloppy porting, that simple.
Wow that sux for PS3 owners, getting a waterdown port of a great game.
white_sox
Same goes for the 360 version....
"The 360 version features some enhanced lighting over the PC version, but for the most part, the visuals are equivalent to the PC version running on a high-end system" - gamespot
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
wok7
who cares I played this game in 2005 and its not much more than a tech demo, great graphic, physics ai but bland repetitive level designÂ
I don't care. I have a horrible computer and never had the chance to play this game, so I will be buying this game regardless of gamespots score.Not-A-Stalker
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...
wok7
Â
that's obviously the devs fault.
No port can be so much different from the original game, with that much time in development, if Devs put all the money and effort it deserves. It just seems that the company was only after expanding the audience the game has, and obtaining profits, without really working hard for it...Â
[QUOTE="Furbyballistik"]it seems like third party developers dont want to improve on ps3 games...i guess we are just going to have to hope the 1st party developers show the true power of the ps3nextgengaming18
NOt true, the devs that aren't bothering are the same devs failing to improve games on the wii. EA, activision, and take 2 are trying to dev for the ps3, unlike ubisoft or sierra. But what can you expect from those 2 devs?
so true ea make the games for playsation and then port them to the others while ubi makes them for xbox and ports them its proably why everyone here hates ea becuase they port to xbox rather than make it for xbox like ubi
[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]I don't care. I have a horrible computer and never had the chance to play this game, so I will be buying this game regardless of gamespots score.imprezawrx500
did you know it runs on a geforce 2?
Â
I don't even know what card my computer has. This peice of junk is a 6 year old pre-built machine... I really have no idea what my specs are, so I just always assumed I couldn't play good looking games on it :lol:Â
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
wok7
Oblivion got a year more too, but textures were till downgraded, those rock textures on PS3 are half the resolution of 360 ones, same for trees
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
wok7
We all know that the ps3 is capable of playing fear just as well as the 360, but its just so hard for the devs to port it to the ps3, but thats besides the point because they are still getting a nother crap port of a good game...sucks for them...Â
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...
wok7
A few years, lol it was a few months. I thin as long as developers port games from Xenos to Rsx they will look better its just a fact. Although its highly difficult to do hence the long delay times between versions. Porting the other way round though is considered much easier to do and eventually most developers will go along this route meaning the 360 versions of games will suck.Â
that is a joke considering sony want you to part with $600!!
or even more if you do the conversion from £ $ considering im in the uk.
it was a bad choice for sony to go to nvidia for there gpu or they should have sent more cash on the project instead of using bluray on the ps3 to get there format out there into peoples homes!
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
michael098
We all know that the ps3 is capable of playing fear just as well as the 360, but its just so hard for the devs to port it to the ps3, but thats besides the point because they are still getting a nother crap port of a good game...sucks for them...Â
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
AvIdGaMeR444
Yeah...I'm sure the developers didn't give FEAR a quick, sloppy port treatment from the 360 to the PS3 or anything. I'm sure it's all the PS3's fault :roll:
Â
Why the hell would a dev. port the 360 version to the PS3 when they have a clean PC version to port from ???
I know that blaming the developers for being lazy is an easy point to make but it doesn't explain the fact that PS2 ports to xbox always looked better on the xbox. Surely u can't suggest that the Developers spent more time/effort with those ports. I am not saying that this means that the PS3 is weak but the number of poor ports surely suggests that the difference in power between the two is as large as sony suggests?
I don't care. I have a horrible computer and never had the chance to play this game, so I will be buying this game regardless of gamespots score.Not-A-Stalker
stupid devs are looking for quick cash, but make it seem like theyre improving the product by prolonging its releaseusers-name
Â
they have no choice in prolonging release for ps3 titles. the ps3 is so insanly difficult to program for that ALL games made for it require that extra time just to finish. It is impossible to make a ps3 title in the same time frame as a 360 title.Â
Simply put, PS3 can't hold a candle to the visuals found in Microsoft land. Especially considering the handful of bugs that have dead soldiers getting stuck in walls and twitching on the floor. The detailed environments and clear draw distances aren't found on PS3. If you had never seen the other versions of F.E.A.R., you still wouldn't be impressed with the PS3's graphics, but compared to the PC and 360, this version is graphically dead in the water.
Xenos > RSX confirmed
FEAR PS3 = 8.1
FEAR 360/PC = 9.1+
Pretty surprising since the PS3 version got a few more years of Dev time...Â
daveg1
We all know that the ps3 is capable of playing fear just as well as the 360, but its just so hard for the devs to port it to the ps3, but thats besides the point because they are still getting a nother crap port of a good game...sucks for them...Â
obviosly it cant since this version it got!
Obviosly it can since there are better looking games out on ps3 than the 360 version of fear, and my point was that even though its the devs fault that the game looks so **** it doesnt change the fact that the ps3 got a bad looking version of the game, people were posting that its not all that bad because its the devs fault not the hardware but really does that even matter? You payed more for your console and your getting a crap version of a game that has been out on the 360 for ages and the pc for even longer!
*sigh*..whatever happened to the days when people could say a game sucked without being "biased".......I long for those days...Omni-Slash
It's either bias or lazy development.
I feel sorry for the developers really, they put an extra 6 months of work into the game to get the visuals up to standard yet get called 'lazy' as soon as the graphics don't live up to expectations. Just plain ignorant.
Lmao. When the Wii gets a bad port, Cows say that it is just the Wii having last gen graphics. But when the PS3 gets a bad port, Cows say it's because of "lazy devs"
[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]The graphics were not impressive on the 360 either. So they must be really bad on the PS3.THETRUEDOZAH
They both look the same, thats the problem. The ps3 only has slightly better lighting for the extra dev time put into it.
I have to disagree here. Looking at the HD comparison vid, it is readily apparent that the PS3 version is washed-out, and some lighting effects are entirely absent. The 360 version looks much deeper and richer in color saturation, which really makes the games atmoshpere more appropriate.
I have to disagree with you. The trend at that site is that the PS3 is bright and the 360 is set properly. It takes a few minutes to adjust the picture setting for the PS3 via HDMI which is clearly not being done. Every device I have that uses HDMI is much brighter than the analogue equivalent. Anyone playing PS3 with those settings is an idiot or has a cheap TV that doesn't allow for picture settings per input.Â
Lmao. When the Wii gets a bad port, Cows say that it is just the Wii having last gen graphics. But when the PS3 gets a bad port, Cows say it's because of "lazy devs"mighty_shark
But that is true. Do you honestly think that the devs could ever make a game even as garbage as F.E.A.R look even remotely good on the Wii. The GC to Wii upgrade is the equivalent of upgrading your PC from a Pentium 4 2.2 Ghz with a Geforce 3 Ti200 to a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with a Geforce 3 Ti500.
FEAR was a good game, I played it max with SS at 1680x1050 with great FPS. The Graphics are very good. The console versions are obviously ports, so you can't expect the same quality.
[QUOTE="users-name"]stupid devs are looking for quick cash, but make it seem like theyre improving the product by prolonging its releaseIllumination77
Â
they have no choice in prolonging release for ps3 titles. the ps3 is so insanly difficult to program for that ALL games made for it require that extra time just to finish. It is impossible to make a ps3 title in the same time frame as a 360 title.Â
You have a point, I think that TEAM NINJAare the only ones who worked hard on their game, there has been a lot of improvement in the game NGS. Ninja gaiden on the xbox was the best action game of last generation and the xbox fans know a lot about the game.
[QUOTE="users-name"]stupid devs are looking for quick cash, but make it seem like theyre improving the product by prolonging its releaseSolidSnake2020
Â
they have no choice in prolonging release for ps3 titles. the ps3 is so insanly difficult to program for that ALL games made for it require that extra time just to finish. It is impossible to make a ps3 title in the same time frame as a 360 title.
You have a point, I think that TEAM NINJAare the only ones who worked hard on their game, there has been a lot of improvement in the game NGS. Ninja gaiden on the xbox was the best action game of last generation and the xbox fans know a lot about the game.
NGB was an Xbox title, NGS is a PS3 title. They are a generation apart, your argument is totally redundent.Â
Log in to comment