How many multi-plats were held back this generation because of 360's DVD format?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sonic1564
sonic1564

3265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 sonic1564
Member since 2008 • 3265 Posts

[QUOTE="jonathant5"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.

But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.

Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,

Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),

Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,

and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.

It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.

The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.

ShadowMoses900

I am sorry but clearly you are a huge fanboy who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Yes developers are limited, but not because of only the X360, but also because of the PS3. The PS3 is not significantly more powerful than the X360, it is slightly better (slight being maybe what 5%?) but the systems are, for all intents and purposes, equal in terms of technical prowess. Therefore PS3 developers are not held back by also developing for the X360. As for those quotes, developers always say "this system is limited, that system has some more potential" and all it of that is just PR, nothing more. Sure Rockstar might be slightly constrained due to the DVD format of the X360, but due to good compression techniques, they can work around that. Most games, in fact, are nowhere near 9GB's (Crysis 1 is 4GB's and Crysis 2 is 7-8GB's after being installed) on the PC, so on consoles due to lower res textures and graphical fidelity, these games are even smaller). As for the MGS4 comment, have you played the game? There is nothing in that game that cannot be done on the X360, the game is in fact, graphically speaking, quite ugly (low rez textures, aliasing problems and etc). What Kojima meant was in its current, uncompressed form that it could not be done on the X360 (why he used loseless audio for it I dont get, 3-4min song in loseless is around 45mb as opposed to 5MB if its is 320kbps so its a waste of space, plus most console gamers are too cheap to have a sound system that can actually take advantage of such files, hell till 2-3 years ago, most console gamers were still using SDTV's). Anyway I am sorry, but u have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are a fanboy because you only have 1 system.

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

Say hi to your plastic wife for me. Yes Microsoft and Sony, continue making pieces of plastic (which I like equally) so fanboys can argue which is better. The mind that is then fanboy is funny to me.

Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts

[QUOTE="jonathant5"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.

But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.

Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,

Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),

Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,

and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.

It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.

The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.

ShadowMoses900

I am sorry but clearly you are a huge fanboy who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Yes developers are limited, but not because of only the X360, but also because of the PS3. The PS3 is not significantly more powerful than the X360, it is slightly better (slight being maybe what 5%?) but the systems are, for all intents and purposes, equal in terms of technical prowess. Therefore PS3 developers are not held back by also developing for the X360. As for those quotes, developers always say "this system is limited, that system has some more potential" and all it of that is just PR, nothing more. Sure Rockstar might be slightly constrained due to the DVD format of the X360, but due to good compression techniques, they can work around that. Most games, in fact, are nowhere near 9GB's (Crysis 1 is 4GB's and Crysis 2 is 7-8GB's after being installed) on the PC, so on consoles due to lower res textures and graphical fidelity, these games are even smaller). As for the MGS4 comment, have you played the game? There is nothing in that game that cannot be done on the X360, the game is in fact, graphically speaking, quite ugly (low rez textures, aliasing problems and etc). What Kojima meant was in its current, uncompressed form that it could not be done on the X360 (why he used loseless audio for it I dont get, 3-4min song in loseless is around 45mb as opposed to 5MB if its is 320kbps so its a waste of space, plus most console gamers are too cheap to have a sound system that can actually take advantage of such files, hell till 2-3 years ago, most console gamers were still using SDTV's). Anyway I am sorry, but u have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are a fanboy because you only have 1 system.

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

They are essentially equal bud. Have you seen Gears of War 3, the game looks as good as Uncharted 3 (they are very very comparable, which game looks better is in the eye of the beholder). And of course, if a game was made with only one system in mind it would look better than if it was made with multiple systems in mind, thats because developers can focus all of their effort on to that one system and figuring out how it works, rather than trying to optimize their game for 2 weak systems (both the PS3 and X360 are weak by todays standards). If you knew anything about IT and how things worked, you would know this, but clearly your level of education is under-par. People in SW should not speak about things they have absolutely no clue about. As for the hardware itself, although the PS3 has a better processor than the X360, the X360 has a better GPU (it is the equivalent of the ATI x1800) while the RSX is the equivalent of an 7800GT, which is a bit weaker. These 2 differences balance out the 2 systems. Also, how do you explain the fact that multiplat games generally either look the same on the PS3 and X360, or the X360 ones sometimes look better (GTA4 and RDR on X360 looks slightly better, 2 games that you said the X360 held back). Get a clue bud, and get a job so that you can get more than 1 system and therefore dont have to keep acting like a fanboy.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#103 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]the fact that PC's still use DVD's and has superior quality to the Ps3 kind of destroys your argument somewhat, also the fact that the Ps3 was the lead platform for ghostbusters and not only did the 360 handle it but it ended up the better version, and would you care to provide links to Rockstar complaining about the 360's power because the 360 version of RDR is the better version, more foliage and it's actually HD unlike the Ps3 version, i find it strange a developer would complain about the console there games actually run better on,loldelta3074

PC is better hardware so it makes up for it. The 360 is not, and I can't link anything because GS never let's me do it. Otherwise I would be, your lucky you can because I'm always at disadvantage.

And lol what's this about RDR not being HD on PS3? Do you honestly believe what your saying? Who told you it's not in HD? LooseENDS? I told you to stop buying drugs from him. And it has grass, have you ever played it on PS3? Guess not, just like you never played Uncharted but you love to talk about it like you did.

The fact is that the 360 could NEVER handle a game on the level of MGS4, or Uncharted, or God of War, or Killzone. It simply can't. Otherwise it would have been done.

the pixel counters at neo-gaf and digital foundry confirmed the Ps3 version of RDR is sub -HD http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/ "This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing." "There's no doubt about it: just in terms of the basic aspects of the image, there's little doubt that the 360 version presents more resolution and more detail, and this is rather more important than it would be in many other games. "

Lol you said no HD, and it's not that noticiale, of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't see both versions. That's like a 10% HD difference, it's not a drastic difference, and the 360 has slightly more grass, ooh big deal, winner confirmed. Nah the PS3 verison is betteer, it has extra gang hideouts and costumes, you want to talk about grass missing? Your missing an ENTIRE hideout :lol:

And I guess you like Halo being sub HD, because it is. In fact just about all 360 games are, they just upscale them. Gears is like the only one that's not, Halo Reach is sub HD, Halo 3 is sub HD, Forza is sub HD, ect.. I don't care though, I get to play the best looking games like Uncharted and Killzone, you get to play Gears and Halo sub HD reach :lol:

I'm sure your used to it by now.

Avatar image for Frostbite24
Frostbite24

4536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 Frostbite24
Member since 2003 • 4536 Posts

[QUOTE="sonic1564"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Manticores =/= fanboys. I have a gaming PC, iMac, iPhone4s, iPod4g, iPad2, 2 PS3s, 2 360s, 2 Wiis, 2 PS2s, 2 Xboxs, 2 Gamecubes, 2 PS1s, 2 Dreamcasts, 2 N64s, a 3DS, and a bunch of games for each, except for not very many games for the 3DS.

Yeah, I'm such a fanboy!!!

ShadowMoses900

Ain't really acting like a manticore, aren't ya?

Why are they called manticore? Are people even aware what that term means? On SW yes someone who owns all ssytems, but even if you own all systems you still favor some more than others, this is why everyone is biased.

Anyway manticore is a surveillance device I think.

A manticore is a creature from Persian legend that possesses a human head with rows of shark-like teeth, the body of a lion, and that of a dragon's or scorpions tail. Many different parts just like a gamer with many different systems. I am a manticore because I'm a gamer who doesn't want to limit myself this generation on what I can enjoy. I've also been called a lemming, cow, sheep, and hermit at different times depending on who I was calling an idiot :P +25 points to all my manticore brethren out there. arkephonic, no, just no.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#105 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="jonathant5"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.

But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.

Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,

Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),

Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,

and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.

It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.

The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.

ShadowMoses900

I am sorry but clearly you are a huge fanboy who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Yes developers are limited, but not because of only the X360, but also because of the PS3. The PS3 is not significantly more powerful than the X360, it is slightly better (slight being maybe what 5%?) but the systems are, for all intents and purposes, equal in terms of technical prowess. Therefore PS3 developers are not held back by also developing for the X360. As for those quotes, developers always say "this system is limited, that system has some more potential" and all it of that is just PR, nothing more. Sure Rockstar might be slightly constrained due to the DVD format of the X360, but due to good compression techniques, they can work around that. Most games, in fact, are nowhere near 9GB's (Crysis 1 is 4GB's and Crysis 2 is 7-8GB's after being installed) on the PC, so on consoles due to lower res textures and graphical fidelity, these games are even smaller). As for the MGS4 comment, have you played the game? There is nothing in that game that cannot be done on the X360, the game is in fact, graphically speaking, quite ugly (low rez textures, aliasing problems and etc). What Kojima meant was in its current, uncompressed form that it could not be done on the X360 (why he used loseless audio for it I dont get, 3-4min song in loseless is around 45mb as opposed to 5MB if its is 320kbps so its a waste of space, plus most console gamers are too cheap to have a sound system that can actually take advantage of such files, hell till 2-3 years ago, most console gamers were still using SDTV's). Anyway I am sorry, but u have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are a fanboy because you only have 1 system.

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.
Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

cows: mer! so and so from company x said so.

lems: 70% of multiplats say the opposite.

:lol:

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#107 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="jonathant5"] I am sorry but clearly you are a huge fanboy who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Yes developers are limited, but not because of only the X360, but also because of the PS3. The PS3 is not significantly more powerful than the X360, it is slightly better (slight being maybe what 5%?) but the systems are, for all intents and purposes, equal in terms of technical prowess. Therefore PS3 developers are not held back by also developing for the X360. As for those quotes, developers always say "this system is limited, that system has some more potential" and all it of that is just PR, nothing more. Sure Rockstar might be slightly constrained due to the DVD format of the X360, but due to good compression techniques, they can work around that. Most games, in fact, are nowhere near 9GB's (Crysis 1 is 4GB's and Crysis 2 is 7-8GB's after being installed) on the PC, so on consoles due to lower res textures and graphical fidelity, these games are even smaller). As for the MGS4 comment, have you played the game? There is nothing in that game that cannot be done on the X360, the game is in fact, graphically speaking, quite ugly (low rez textures, aliasing problems and etc). What Kojima meant was in its current, uncompressed form that it could not be done on the X360 (why he used loseless audio for it I dont get, 3-4min song in loseless is around 45mb as opposed to 5MB if its is 320kbps so its a waste of space, plus most console gamers are too cheap to have a sound system that can actually take advantage of such files, hell till 2-3 years ago, most console gamers were still using SDTV's). Anyway I am sorry, but u have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are a fanboy because you only have 1 system. jonathant5

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

They are essentially equal bud. Have you seen Gears of War 3, the game looks as good as Uncharted 3 (they are very very comparable, which game looks better is in the eye of the beholder). And of course, if a game was made with only one system in mind it would look better than if it was made with multiple systems in mind, thats because developers can focus all of their effort on to that one system and figuring out how it works, rather than trying to optimize their game for 2 weak systems (both the PS3 and X360 are weak by todays standards). If you knew anything about IT and how things worked, you would know this, but clearly your level of education is under-par. People in SW should not speak about things they have absolutely no clue about. As for the hardware itself, although the PS3 has a better processor than the X360, the X360 has a better GPU (it is the equivalent of the ATI x1800) while the RSX is the equivalent of an 7800GT, which is a bit weaker. These 2 differences balance out the 2 systems. Also, how do you explain the fact that multiplat games generally either look the same on the PS3 and X360, or the X360 ones sometimes look better (GTA4 and RDR on X360 looks slightly better, 2 games that you said the X360 held back). Get a clue bud, and get a job so that you can get more than 1 system and therefore dont have to keep acting like a fanboy.

lol Uncharted looks a million years better than Gears, Gears and Witcher are the best 360 can do. They look good, but not jaw dropping like Uncharted and Killzone. 360 can't do those graphics, this is why it's outdated. PS3 is way more advanced. There is a reason you don't see 360 games looking as good as PS3 games, it's because it can't.

Avatar image for cainetao11
cainetao11

38080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 77

User Lists: 1

#108 cainetao11
Member since 2006 • 38080 Posts
With the abundance of great games this generation, I'd say not enough to really care.
Avatar image for Frostbite24
Frostbite24

4536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 Frostbite24
Member since 2003 • 4536 Posts

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Manticores =/= fanboys. I have a gaming PC, iMac, iPhone4s, iPod4g, iPad2, 2 PS3s, 2 360s, 2 Wiis, 2 PS2s, 2 Xboxs, 2 Gamecubes, 2 PS1s, 2 Dreamcasts, 2 N64s, a 3DS, and a bunch of games for each, except for not very many games for the 3DS.

Yeah, I'm such a fanboy!!!

arkephonic

I own all 3 consoles and gaming PC. It's not what you own that makes you or doesn't make you a fanboy, it is the stupid things you say that incontrovertibly label you one. +20 points for educating you on the fundamentals of your own stupidity.

Oh the irony. You should be taking your own advice, not giving it to me.

Where was I giving advice exactly? You do know what advice is, right? Maybe I don't know what advice means. Are you giving advice when you call someone an obvious idiot? :lol: -15 points for being the physical embodiment of pure witlessness.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#110 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="sonic1564"]

Ain't really acting like a manticore, aren't ya?

Frostbite24

Why are they called manticore? Are people even aware what that term means? On SW yes someone who owns all ssytems, but even if you own all systems you still favor some more than others, this is why everyone is biased.

Anyway manticore is a surveillance device I think.

A manticore is a creature from Persian legend that possesses a human head with rows of shark-like teeth, the body of a lion, and that of a dragon's or scorpions tail. Many different parts just like a gamer with many different systems. I am a manticore because I'm a gamer who doesn't want to limit myself this generation on what I can enjoy. I've also been called a lemming, cow, sheep, and hermit at different times depending on who I was calling an idiot :P +25 points to all my manticore brethren out there. arkephonic, no, just no.

Oh, that's what it means. I was reading the newspaper a week ago and they were talking about troops using some servailance system called manticore that helped catch Bin Laden, so Ithought that's what the term was reffering to. Thanks for the info.

And I agree, I play a game on all systems if I like it. I like Halo Reach and I don't care if it's on Xbox.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#111 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

PC is better hardware so it makes up for it. The 360 is not, and I can't link anything because GS never let's me do it. Otherwise I would be, your lucky you can because I'm always at disadvantage.

And lol what's this about RDR not being HD on PS3? Do you honestly believe what your saying? Who told you it's not in HD? LooseENDS? I told you to stop buying drugs from him. And it has grass, have you ever played it on PS3? Guess not, just like you never played Uncharted but you love to talk about it like you did.

The fact is that the 360 could NEVER handle a game on the level of MGS4, or Uncharted, or God of War, or Killzone. It simply can't. Otherwise it would have been done.

ShadowMoses900

the pixel counters at neo-gaf and digital foundry confirmed the Ps3 version of RDR is sub -HD http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/ "This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing." "There's no doubt about it: just in terms of the basic aspects of the image, there's little doubt that the 360 version presents more resolution and more detail, and this is rather more important than it would be in many other games. "

Lol you said no HD, and it's not that noticiale, of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't see both versions. That's like a 10% HD difference, it's not a drastic difference, and the 360 has slightly more grass, ooh big deal, winner confirmed. Nah the PS3 verison is betteer, it has extra gang hideouts and costumes, you want to talk about grass missing? Your missing an ENTIRE hideout :lol:

And I guess you like Halo being sub HD, because it is. In fact just about all 360 games are, they just upscale them. Gears is like the only one that's not, Halo Reach is sub HD, Halo 3 is sub HD, Forza is sub HD, ect.. I don't care though, I get to play the best looking games like Uncharted and Killzone, you get to play Gears and Halo sub HD reach :lol:

I'm sure your used to it by now.

my point stands, Ps3 version is sub-HD, i was right you where wrong, no need to throw ypur toys out of the pram and go ona rant about other games, and nearly all multiplats on the 360 are native 720p and some of them like darkstar are 1080p native so you can't say that the 360 upsacales all its games, or do i have to provide a list of native resolutions for all 360 games, i do have one on my favorites list, don't push me moses or i will jus prove you wrong AGAIN.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#112 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="jonathant5"] I am sorry but clearly you are a huge fanboy who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Yes developers are limited, but not because of only the X360, but also because of the PS3. The PS3 is not significantly more powerful than the X360, it is slightly better (slight being maybe what 5%?) but the systems are, for all intents and purposes, equal in terms of technical prowess. Therefore PS3 developers are not held back by also developing for the X360. As for those quotes, developers always say "this system is limited, that system has some more potential" and all it of that is just PR, nothing more. Sure Rockstar might be slightly constrained due to the DVD format of the X360, but due to good compression techniques, they can work around that. Most games, in fact, are nowhere near 9GB's (Crysis 1 is 4GB's and Crysis 2 is 7-8GB's after being installed) on the PC, so on consoles due to lower res textures and graphical fidelity, these games are even smaller). As for the MGS4 comment, have you played the game? There is nothing in that game that cannot be done on the X360, the game is in fact, graphically speaking, quite ugly (low rez textures, aliasing problems and etc). What Kojima meant was in its current, uncompressed form that it could not be done on the X360 (why he used loseless audio for it I dont get, 3-4min song in loseless is around 45mb as opposed to 5MB if its is 320kbps so its a waste of space, plus most console gamers are too cheap to have a sound system that can actually take advantage of such files, hell till 2-3 years ago, most console gamers were still using SDTV's). Anyway I am sorry, but u have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are a fanboy because you only have 1 system. delta3074

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="sonic1564"]

Ain't really acting like a manticore, aren't ya?

Frostbite24

Why are they called manticore? Are people even aware what that term means? On SW yes someone who owns all ssytems, but even if you own all systems you still favor some more than others, this is why everyone is biased.

Anyway manticore is a surveillance device I think.

A manticore is a creature from Persian legend that possesses a human head with rows of shark-like teeth, the body of a lion, and that of a dragon's or scorpions tail. Many different parts just like a gamer with many different systems. I am a manticore because I'm a gamer who doesn't want to limit myself this generation on what I can enjoy. I've also been called a lemming, cow, sheep, and hermit at different times depending on who I was calling an idiot :P +25 points to all my manticore brethren out there. arkephonic, no, just no.

Yeah being a manticore is pretty awesome, you dont have to limit yourself to anything, or try and justify why you bough system A over system B and be a fanboy and try and defend it or attack other systems like an idiot (ahem jst like ShadowMosses900). Granted I do not have a Wii this gen but that was only due to the fact that its lineup did not interest me that much (paying $250 for a system that, in terms of its internals, was an overclocked GC did not equate, especially given that the GC was selling for a $100 at the time, but man the GC was an amazing console, imo the 2nd best of last gen). Its funny though how other posters will label you "cow, lemming, sheep or hermit" just for arguing against the stupid points they made (just like the TC's dumb points).
Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
FireEmblem_Man

20389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#114 FireEmblem_Man
Member since 2004 • 20389 Posts

Both the PS3 and 360 held back PC game development

And PS3 vs 360 threads holds back teh lulz on System Wars

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#115 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]the pixel counters at neo-gaf and digital foundry confirmed the Ps3 version of RDR is sub -HD http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/ "This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing." "There's no doubt about it: just in terms of the basic aspects of the image, there's little doubt that the 360 version presents more resolution and more detail, and this is rather more important than it would be in many other games. " delta3074

Lol you said no HD, and it's not that noticiale, of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't see both versions. That's like a 10% HD difference, it's not a drastic difference, and the 360 has slightly more grass, ooh big deal, winner confirmed. Nah the PS3 verison is betteer, it has extra gang hideouts and costumes, you want to talk about grass missing? Your missing an ENTIRE hideout :lol:

And I guess you like Halo being sub HD, because it is. In fact just about all 360 games are, they just upscale them. Gears is like the only one that's not, Halo Reach is sub HD, Halo 3 is sub HD, Forza is sub HD, ect.. I don't care though, I get to play the best looking games like Uncharted and Killzone, you get to play Gears and Halo sub HD reach :lol:

I'm sure your used to it by now.

my point stands, Ps3 version is sub-HD, i was right you where wrong, no need to throw ypur toys out of the pram and go ona rant about other games, and nearly all multiplats on the 360 are native 720p and some of them like darkstar are 1080p native so you can't say that the 360 upsacales all its games, or do i have to provide a list of native resolutions for all 360 games, i do have one on my favorites list, don't push me moses or i will jus prove you wrong AGAIN.

Why are you making this so personal? You sound like you hate me lol.

You didn't prove anything, I've played both versions of RDR, didn't see much of a difference. And 360 can't do native 1080p, it's 720p and upscaled. PS3 can do native 1080p though, that's because it's more powerful.

Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

ShadowMoses900

you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

You are aware that Gears 3 looks as good as Uncharted 2 right? Again stop being a blind fanboy (although imo gameplay and story wise, Uncharted 2>Gears 3). As for Sam Houser, you are aware that he is not that much of a "tech guy" right? As for Adam Sessler, a) he is an idiot and had no credibility, and b) what he probably meant by that comment was that he thought it was running on the PC because it looked very good and c) You are aware that Skyrim looks and runs better on the X360 than the PS3 right?. Take those goggles of bud, move out of your parents home, get an education, get a decent job, and stop being a fanboy.
Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
FireEmblem_Man

20389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#117 FireEmblem_Man
Member since 2004 • 20389 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.jonathant5

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

You are aware that Gears 3 looks as good as Uncharted 2 right? Again stop being a blind fanboy (although imo gameplay and story wise, Uncharted 2>Gears 3). As for Sam Houser, you are aware that he is not that much of a "tech guy" right? As for Adam Sessler, a) he is an idiot and had no credibility, and b) what he probably meant by that comment was that he thought it was running on the PC because it looked very good and c) You are aware that Skyrim looks and runs better on the X360 than the PS3 right?. Take those goggles of bud, move out of your parents home, get an education, get a decent job, and stop being a fanboy.

If I were you, I'd stay away because he doesn't seem so serious if he's using someone from Youtube as his source on why the 360 is weak compared towards the PS3

Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

I'm a real Manticore, not like these wannabe Manticores who say, "Oh, well I'm a Manticore, BUT I just decided not to buy a Wii because......".... Lol.....

I just call it the way it is, because I'm a Manticore.

I can make fun of Sony for having bad marketing.

I can make fun of the Wii for its 3rd party support and 3rd party waggle implementation.

I can make fun of the 360 for things like holding this generation back in gaming.

I can also praise them for things they do well. It's these wannabe Manticores who are hiding behind their fanboy goggles who are unable to accept reality when it comes to a well known fault.

"Well I'm a Manticore, but I just decided that so and so system didn't have enough games I liked, so I didn't wanna buy it".... LOL, that's not a Manticore.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#119 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.jonathant5

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

You are aware that Gears 3 looks as good as Uncharted 2 right? Again stop being a blind fanboy (although imo gameplay and story wise, Uncharted 2>Gears 3). As for Sam Houser, you are aware that he is not that much of a "tech guy" right? As for Adam Sessler, a) he is an idiot and had no credibility, and b) what he probably meant by that comment was that he thought it was running on the PC because it looked very good and c) You are aware that Skyrim looks and runs better on the X360 than the PS3 right?. Take those goggles of bud, move out of your parents home, get an education, get a decent job, and stop being a fanboy.

Someone else throwing personal insults? I'm sure winning this thread, the truth hurts and some people can't take it. That's why your upset about this. Gears looks good, but Uncharted looks GREAT! Sam Houser is a dev, are you? Didn't think so, he knows more than you do. Adam Sessler is a jack on a trash network, but he was surprised that the 360 was the system, he couldnt believe it because the system is so weak.

And Skyrim is the same on boht systems, I played both. Saw no difference. I would like to upgrade my PC though soon and play it on there, but I have too much money to spend on college. Can't handle different opinons is a sign of a child, that's what your doing.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#120 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Lol you said no HD, and it's not that noticiale, of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't see both versions. That's like a 10% HD difference, it's not a drastic difference, and the 360 has slightly more grass, ooh big deal, winner confirmed. Nah the PS3 verison is betteer, it has extra gang hideouts and costumes, you want to talk about grass missing? Your missing an ENTIRE hideout :lol:

And I guess you like Halo being sub HD, because it is. In fact just about all 360 games are, they just upscale them. Gears is like the only one that's not, Halo Reach is sub HD, Halo 3 is sub HD, Forza is sub HD, ect.. I don't care though, I get to play the best looking games like Uncharted and Killzone, you get to play Gears and Halo sub HD reach :lol:

I'm sure your used to it by now.

ShadowMoses900

my point stands, Ps3 version is sub-HD, i was right you where wrong, no need to throw ypur toys out of the pram and go ona rant about other games, and nearly all multiplats on the 360 are native 720p and some of them like darkstar are 1080p native so you can't say that the 360 upsacales all its games, or do i have to provide a list of native resolutions for all 360 games, i do have one on my favorites list, don't push me moses or i will jus prove you wrong AGAIN.

Why are you making this so personal? You sound like you hate me lol.

You didn't prove anything, I've played both versions of RDR, didn't see much of a difference. And 360 can't do native 1080p, it's 720p and upscaled. PS3 can do native 1080p though, that's because it's more powerful.

360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.
Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts

[QUOTE="jonathant5"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

FireEmblem_Man

You are aware that Gears 3 looks as good as Uncharted 2 right? Again stop being a blind fanboy (although imo gameplay and story wise, Uncharted 2>Gears 3). As for Sam Houser, you are aware that he is not that much of a "tech guy" right? As for Adam Sessler, a) he is an idiot and had no credibility, and b) what he probably meant by that comment was that he thought it was running on the PC because it looked very good and c) You are aware that Skyrim looks and runs better on the X360 than the PS3 right?. Take those goggles of bud, move out of your parents home, get an education, get a decent job, and stop being a fanboy.

If I were you, I'd stay away because he doesn't seem so serious if he's using someone from Youtube as his source on why the 360 is weak compared towards the PS3

Its still fun though :p, pretty sure some of it is troll bait, but some of it is serious, based on what I have seen that poster post in the past. Still fun to bait the troll though, as for the youtube link, Sam Houser is the president of Rockstar, although in terms of being involved in the games, he, to my knowledge was not involved in the tech aspects, but more so on the overall production and polish, as well as the writing. Just trying to kill time in between classes, but thanks for the advice!
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#122 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted. But devs want to make money so they have to keep the weaker system (360) in mind, becuase otehrwise the 360 wouldn't be able to handle the game.

ShadowMoses900

you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

John carmac> sam houser and cliff blezinski is always talking about the power of the 360, then again he said gears couldn't be done on the Ps3 so i take what cliffy says with a pinch of salt, carmac on the other hand is a developer god with more experience of developing games in his little finger than sam houser has in his entire body,lol
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#123 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]my point stands, Ps3 version is sub-HD, i was right you where wrong, no need to throw ypur toys out of the pram and go ona rant about other games, and nearly all multiplats on the 360 are native 720p and some of them like darkstar are 1080p native so you can't say that the 360 upsacales all its games, or do i have to provide a list of native resolutions for all 360 games, i do have one on my favorites list, don't push me moses or i will jus prove you wrong AGAIN.delta3074

Why are you making this so personal? You sound like you hate me lol.

You didn't prove anything, I've played both versions of RDR, didn't see much of a difference. And 360 can't do native 1080p, it's 720p and upscaled. PS3 can do native 1080p though, that's because it's more powerful.

360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

Avatar image for Frostbite24
Frostbite24

4536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 Frostbite24
Member since 2003 • 4536 Posts

I'm a real Manticore, not like these wannabe Manticores who say, "Oh, well I'm a Manticore, BUT I just decided not to buy a Wii because......".... Lol.....

I just call it the way it is, because I'm a Manticore.

I can make fun of Sony for having bad marketing.

I can make fun of the Wii for its 3rd party support and 3rd party waggle implementation.

I can make fun of the 360 for things like holding this generation back in gaming.

I can also praise them for things they do well. It's these wannabe Manticores who are hiding behind their fanboy goggles who are unable to accept reality when it comes to a well known fault.

"Well I'm a Manticore, but I just decided that so and so system didn't have enough games I liked, so I didn't wanna buy it".... LOL, that's not a Manticore.

arkephonic
Are you going to actually contribute to this thread that you created or do you have even more off-topic, meandering, upset-sounding, overreacting, arbitrary, idiocy-inflated, self-doubting posts to submit? -10 points for completely missing the point.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#125 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you are talking rubbish dude, 10 years ahead of the 360? really? with an obsolete GPU that needs to offload most of it's work to the CPU just to keep up with the Xenos GPU in the 360, less useable memory than the 360 due to a larger OS footprint, split memory architecture thats a pain in the butt, i actually thought you where resonably smart and had some idea about how consoles actually work dude, they both have 512 MB of RAM so niether console can push more than 512MB of textures, it's pretty obvious to developers and gamers that the Ps3 is NOT 'way' more powerful than the 360 and it most certainly isn't '10 years ahead', silly comments like that will get you nowhere sunshine.delta3074

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

John carmac> sam houser and cliff blezinski is always talking about the power of the 360, then again he said gears couldn't be done on the Ps3 so i take what cliffy says with a pinch of salt, carmac on the other hand is a developer god with more experience of developing games in his little finger than sam houser has in his entire body,lol

Do you know what Job Carmac recently said about Xbox? He said something that would piss Lems such as yourself off. And read the OP, Jon Carmacis quoted as talking about how weak the 360 and it's format is.

Avatar image for Chaos_HL21
Chaos_HL21

5288

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#127 Chaos_HL21
Member since 2003 • 5288 Posts

None; however there are a number of PC/PS3/360 multi-plats that where held beck because of hardware limiations on the PS3 and 360.:D

I'm a real Manticore, not like these wannabe Manticores who say, "Oh, well I'm a Manticore, BUT I just decided not to buy a Wii because......".... Lol.....

I just call it the way it is, because I'm a Manticore.

I can make fun of Sony for having bad marketing.

I can make fun of the Wii for its 3rd party support and 3rd party waggle implementation.

I can make fun of the 360 for things like holding this generation back in gaming.

I can also praise them for things they do well. It's these wannabe Manticores who are hiding behind their fanboy goggles who are unable to accept reality when it comes to a well known fault.

"Well I'm a Manticore, but I just decided that so and so system didn't have enough games I liked, so I didn't wanna buy it".... LOL, that's not a Manticore.

arkephonic

You know real maticores don't go around telling everyone they are manticores and saying they don't hide behind fanboy goggles. But if it helps you sleep at night go right ahead.

Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#128 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

None; however there are a number of PC/PS3/360 multi-plats that where held beck because of hardware limiations on the PS3 and 360.:D

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I'm a real Manticore, not like these wannabe Manticores who say, "Oh, well I'm a Manticore, BUT I just decided not to buy a Wii because......".... Lol.....

I just call it the way it is, because I'm a Manticore.

I can make fun of Sony for having bad marketing.

I can make fun of the Wii for its 3rd party support and 3rd party waggle implementation.

I can make fun of the 360 for things like holding this generation back in gaming.

I can also praise them for things they do well. It's these wannabe Manticores who are hiding behind their fanboy goggles who are unable to accept reality when it comes to a well known fault.

"Well I'm a Manticore, but I just decided that so and so system didn't have enough games I liked, so I didn't wanna buy it".... LOL, that's not a Manticore.

Chaos_HL21

You know real maticores don't go around telling everyone they are manticores and saying they don't hide behind fanboy goggles. But if it helps you sleep at night go right ahead.

Oh, I'm gonna be sleeping GOOD tonight!

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#129 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Why are you making this so personal? You sound like you hate me lol.

You didn't prove anything, I've played both versions of RDR, didn't see much of a difference. And 360 can't do native 1080p, it's 720p and upscaled. PS3 can do native 1080p though, that's because it's more powerful.

ShadowMoses900

360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

no it's not upscaled, you get over it, you can say what you like moses, you may not be interested in pixel counting but they DO know better than you what native resolution a game is, you are basically lying by making out you know better than the pixel counters at neo-gaf becaue you can't judge resolution with the naked eye thats why they have pixel counters and theres nothing wrong with my links, stop making excuses dude, nobody else has had a problem with them, you should also quit with the 'because i say it is' attitude, just because you say it doesn't make it any more real dude.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#130 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Uncharted 2 came out in 2009, you still have no game that looks as good as it does. This proves the PS3 is WAY more powerful, even sam houser said so. Youtube Sam Houser on PS3, he talks about how powerful it is. No dev ever talks about how powerful the 360 is, hell when Todd Howard was showing off Skyrim and said it's on the 360 Adam Sessler said he can't believe him. The 360 is outdated, it's dead. Next Xbox is on it's way. PS3 still has room , it's the power of the cell.

ShadowMoses900

John carmac> sam houser and cliff blezinski is always talking about the power of the 360, then again he said gears couldn't be done on the Ps3 so i take what cliffy says with a pinch of salt, carmac on the other hand is a developer god with more experience of developing games in his little finger than sam houser has in his entire body,lol

Do you know what Job Carmac recently said about Xbox? He said something that would piss Lems such as yourself off. And read the OP, Jon Carmacis quoted as talking about how weak the 360 and it's format is.

there is no quote from jon carmac in the OP, are you feeling ok shadow?
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#131 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.delta3074

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

no it's not upscaled, you get over it, you can say what you like moses, you may not be interested in pixel counting but they DO know better than you what native resolution a game is, you are basically lying by making out you know better than the pixel counters at neo-gaf becaue you can't judge resolution with the naked eye thats why they have pixel counters and theres nothing wrong with my links, stop making excuses dude, nobody else has had a problem with them, you should also quit with the 'because i say it is' attitude, just because you say it doesn't make it any more real dude.

It's upsalced, PS3 can do real HD, 360 can only do sub HD.

That was a joke btw. Stop being sensitive, the 360 is weaker compared to PS3. Go buy a PS3 if you want better graphics.

Avatar image for waltefmoney
waltefmoney

18030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 waltefmoney
Member since 2010 • 18030 Posts

This latest SW trend of "I can troll too you guize" is going fron cute to annoying.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#133 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]John carmac> sam houser and cliff blezinski is always talking about the power of the 360, then again he said gears couldn't be done on the Ps3 so i take what cliffy says with a pinch of salt, carmac on the other hand is a developer god with more experience of developing games in his little finger than sam houser has in his entire body,loldelta3074

Do you know what Job Carmac recently said about Xbox? He said something that would piss Lems such as yourself off. And read the OP, Jon Carmacis quoted as talking about how weak the 360 and it's format is.

there is no quote from jon carmac in the OP, are you feeling ok shadow?

It was a joke, I should have put the :P , I had a plan for it, but I lost intersest in it so it didn't turn out very funny.

However Carmack says stupid crap alot, he thinks 360 is easier to develop for than PC, and that consoles are at the same level as PC. That's just stupid, everyone knows PS3 is at the same level as PC. 360 is second weakest console, just above the Wii.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#134 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

ShadowMoses900

no it's not upscaled, you get over it, you can say what you like moses, you may not be interested in pixel counting but they DO know better than you what native resolution a game is, you are basically lying by making out you know better than the pixel counters at neo-gaf becaue you can't judge resolution with the naked eye thats why they have pixel counters and theres nothing wrong with my links, stop making excuses dude, nobody else has had a problem with them, you should also quit with the 'because i say it is' attitude, just because you say it doesn't make it any more real dude.

It's upsalced, PS3 can do real HD, 360 can only do sub HD.

That was a joke btw. Stop being sensitive, the 360 is weaker compared to PS3. Go buy a PS3 if you want better graphics.

whi said i wanted better graphics? i just don't like people spouting BS, especially when they lie about the things carmac has said, the last thing he said was that the Ps3 was 'marginally' more powerul than the 360 theoretically,lol
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#135 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no it's not upscaled, you get over it, you can say what you like moses, you may not be interested in pixel counting but they DO know better than you what native resolution a game is, you are basically lying by making out you know better than the pixel counters at neo-gaf becaue you can't judge resolution with the naked eye thats why they have pixel counters and theres nothing wrong with my links, stop making excuses dude, nobody else has had a problem with them, you should also quit with the 'because i say it is' attitude, just because you say it doesn't make it any more real dude.delta3074

It's upsalced, PS3 can do real HD, 360 can only do sub HD.

That was a joke btw. Stop being sensitive, the 360 is weaker compared to PS3. Go buy a PS3 if you want better graphics.

whi said i wanted better graphics? i just don't like people spouting BS, especially when they lie about the things carmac has said, the last thing he said was that the Ps3 was 'marginally' more powerul than the 360 theoretically,lol

Carmac on PS3- "The PS3 is the most powerful system I ever worked on, it destroys 360 in every single area. It's also the coolest system on the market and is catered to such people, I have seen the light"

Yep too bad you can't handle the truth.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#136 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Do you know what Job Carmac recently said about Xbox? He said something that would piss Lems such as yourself off. And read the OP, Jon Carmacis quoted as talking about how weak the 360 and it's format is.

ShadowMoses900

there is no quote from jon carmac in the OP, are you feeling ok shadow?

It was a joke, I should have put the :P , I had a plan for it, but I lost intersest in it so it didn't turn out very funny.

However Carmack says stupid crap alot, he thinks 360 is easier to develop for than PC, and that consoles are at the same level as PC. That's just stupid, everyone knows PS3 is at the same level as PC. 360 is second weakest console, just above the Wii.

you don't read many interviews by carmac do you dude? he actually said that the PC was far more powerful than consoles but it was held back by un-economical API's, and yes the 360 is 'marginally' weaker than the Ps3, thats not up for debate and something i have always known, i just don't like mistruths and 'hyperbole'.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#137 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It's upsalced, PS3 can do real HD, 360 can only do sub HD.

That was a joke btw. Stop being sensitive, the 360 is weaker compared to PS3. Go buy a PS3 if you want better graphics.

ShadowMoses900

whi said i wanted better graphics? i just don't like people spouting BS, especially when they lie about the things carmac has said, the last thing he said was that the Ps3 was 'marginally' more powerul than the 360 theoretically,lol

Carmac on PS3- "The PS3 is the most powerful system I ever worked on, it destroys 360 in every single area. It's also the coolest system on the market and is catered to such people, I have seen the light"

Yep too bad you can't handle the truth.

carmac never said that, he would never use the word 'coolest' for starters, your carmac impression sucks dude, think more 'rocket scientist',lol
Avatar image for waltefmoney
waltefmoney

18030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#138 waltefmoney
Member since 2010 • 18030 Posts

Get a room you two.

Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#139 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Why are you making this so personal? You sound like you hate me lol.

You didn't prove anything, I've played both versions of RDR, didn't see much of a difference. And 360 can't do native 1080p, it's 720p and upscaled. PS3 can do native 1080p though, that's because it's more powerful.

ShadowMoses900

360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

You are not a fanboy? Oh the irony. Let me ask you, how many systems do you have exactly? Do you blindly defend 1 system and blindly attack another? Oh you answered yes to both, then clearly you yourself are also a fanboy. Again PS3==X360 in power, nothing suggests otherwise. By you calling the X360 graphics bad and ugly, and by calling it weak, you are effectively calling the PS3 weak too. As for the graphics part, if you are such a graphics whore, why not get a PC, thats the system that has the best graphics (and imo the best games, but this part is just opinion, everyone is entitled to their own). As for me attacking you, I dont attack opinions, I attacked your lack of facts, knowledge, and reasoning, not your opinion. Saying Console A is more powerful than Console B is not an opinion statement, its a statement of fact, given that one can easily measure the theoretical power of both.
Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#140 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

A lot of my examples were from 2009 and earlier.

What about a game like Final Fantasy XIII that is on 3 discs on 360, and doesn't even have high definition cutscenes?

How does a publisher cope with being charged so much extra for additional discs, and not even being able to faithfully give the full experience?

"The rumours are true. Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox 360 isn't anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3. The real kicker is that it's a lot worse than it should have been.

Square Enix's latest epic - 4.5 years in the making - follows on the basic principles established by all of its PlayStation predecessors in combining an excellent 3D engine along with vast amounts of pre-rendered CG. This presented two very difficult issues for the developers tasked with porting an already mature PS3 work-in-progress over to the Xbox 360.

Firstly, the Crystal Tools engine needed to be translated across to the Microsoft platform. Secondly, the team had to find a way to compress over 32GB of CG to fit within the confines of three Xbox 360 DVDs - squeezed already by a copy protection mechanism that limits available space to a meagre 6.8GB, less than the storage potential of both PlayStation 2 and Wii.

The sheer idea of porting over a massive Blu-ray game like this onto the Xbox 360 seems like lunacy, but the good news from a conversion perspective is that the game itself is extremely linear. The core basis of the majority of the game is in negotiating very limited environments with just a few branching routes, following a yellow arrow to get to your next destination and fighting a myriad bunch of enemies as you do it.

Very rarely are you asked to return to previous locations - with just one chapter in the game dedicated to the sort of free-roaming JPRG gameplay for which Final Fantasy is renowned.

That being the case, while you can install all three discs to hard drive for a seamless experience, there really is little point over and above the convenience and noise-reduction elements. Disc-swapping on Xbox 360 is kept to an absolute minimum and has next to no impact on the experience of playing Final Fantasy XIII.

Ironically then, one of the main concerns about the conversion proves to be of little consequence at all. Unfortunately, the other niggling worries are of far greater significance.

Built from the ground upwards with an eye towards the storage limitation of the disc, and with the different architectures of the two HD consoles firmly in mind, Square Enix would have stood a good chance of getting the game looking pretty much like-for-like on both platforms. However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

First up, let's talk about the Crystal Tools engine. Square mentioned in an interview with the Dutch Official PlayStation Magazine that a "new engine" had to be coded up for Xbox 360, but it seems to look and act very much like the PS3 one, with just a couple of very noticeable differences.

Let's talk about the resolution then. A smattering of European and US-based websites have published pre-release Xbox 360 shots, showing a considerable drop in definition with some galleries exhibiting a somewhat washed-out look. The problem with drawing conclusions from media-derived assets is that there's little transparency in what tech they use to take their shots. Some grabs even appeared to have mouse pointers on them, indicating that some sort of PC "print screen" function was used in their making.

However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha.

For those curious about how we can be so certain, the principles of pixel-counting are pretty much foolproof. On a 720p game, a diagonal line 20 pixels in height will have 20 distinct steps from top to bottom. When you look at FFXIII, there clearly only 16. So... (16/20) x 720 gives you a vertical resolution of 576 pixels. The same principles - and indeed ratios, in this case - apply to the other axis, giving horizontal resolution of 1024 pixels. The only slight confusion here could come from the HUD, which is rendered at normal 720p resolution before being overlaid on top of the 576p image. This has been standard practice for many years now with sub-HD titles, and FFXIII is no different.

So sub-HD and 1024x576 it is then. Now, with careful handling and superior texture filtering, sub-HD stands a very good chance of competing with native 720p - as Tekken 6 demonstrates. However, Namco's game is pretty much unique in being the only console title running at a lower resolution that looks demonstrably sharper than when it's running at 720p.

Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM.

Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that.

So, with a focus on footage generated just by Crystal Tools itself, let's take a look at how the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Final Fantasy XIII measure up to one another. Remember to use the full-screen button to get HD resolution, or else use the EGTV link for a larger, more useful window. Alternatively, peruse this colossal comparison gallery of over 50 shots.

"Adequate but a touch disappointing" best sums up the Xbox 360 version. Fine edges lose precision, and while the effect is mitigated thanks to the MSAA along with the multitude of post processing effects the engine has at its disposal, the fact is that the lack of resolution can make the 360 build look sub-par. The clean CG look of the PS3 game in motion is unduly compromised, and while it's still a handsome enough title on Xbox 360, it lacks the pristine presentation of its sibling.

It could have been worse though. As you may have noticed in the movie, the quality of the scaling when watching the game in motion isn't bad at all.

The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-style effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game.

Introduced on PS3 presumably in order to address the bandwidth deficiency of the RSX, the fact that it has been retained on Xbox 360 in a scenario where this effect should have been easily replaced with a more conventional alpha test technique for handling transparencies is frankly puzzling.

More than that, as the alpha-to-coverage effect is now rendered at sub-HD resolutions, the process of resizing it to 720p makes it look a whole lot worse. This is where the initial "grainy" reports of the 360 build probably originated from. Below is a closer look at the phenomenon in effect.

Note that while the characters' hair is the most obvious effect of the alpha-to-coverage, you can see that it is also deployed where transparency is required in some of the backgrounds. Here the sub-HD effect blends away some of the problem, but causes an unattractive, shifting shimmering as a consequence.

The sad truth is that Square Enix's solution for transitioning the 32GB of CG video to DVD is unfortunately rather poor. A "one size fits all" encoding technique appears to have been used to compress the assets. Now, assuming the company also did this for PS3, this strategy can work fairly well: throw enough bandwidth at any image and the picture quality will hold up. Bearing in mind that FFXIII occupies more space for its videos than many commercial Blu-ray movies, this is perhaps not surprising.

Unfortunately, when any particular scene ramps up the motion, the encoding solution Square has employed collapses horribly. Detail disappears in a sea of macroblocking and banding, while the PS3 version remains pretty close to pristine thanks to the incredible amount of bandwidth (and thus video information) available.

The tragedy here is that the CG is a core part of the presentation in FFXIII and it seems to be the case that the company has paid little attention to the poor quality of the final assets on the Xbox 360 version. The Microsoft XDK ships with a VC1 decoder, giving it the ability to playback video files encoded using technology supported by Blu-ray discs and players. Indeed, movie pirates out there get excellent quality VC1 encodes of Blu-ray movies that manage to fit onto a dual-layer DVD and run from the Xbox 360 dashboard.

Decent encoding takes time and effort, but the results can look good - even on challenging material. Combine this with the fact that the game doesn't need the 1080p-sized video the PS3 version boasts, and we have the ways and means with which to attack the compression issue from two different angles.

Square-Enix has bought in the Bink compression system for FFXIII on 360 and its failure in high-motion, colourful scenes does suggest a constant bitrate is being used as opposed to variable bandwidth that allocates more data to maintaining image quality on more complex scenes.

This failure is compounded by the fact that Square-Enix hasn't even made full use of all the disk space it has available. Around 1GB of storage is left empty on discs one and two of FFXIII, and you have to wonder why all that empty space couldn't have been repurposed for higher bandwidth encoding. Perhaps it's because of the background loading taking place while the cut-scenes play out, but regardless, the hit to quality using Bink is often unacceptably bad.

Perhaps Square Enix might like to take some cues from the movie industry: top-tier studios employ compressionists whose sole job it is to make movie encodes look as good as they can possibly be within the confines of the disc space available. The parallel is not without some merit: the same encoding tools Microsoft developed for Blu-ray and HD-DVD movie compression might even be deployed for exactly this kind of thing, assuming that the 360's VC1 decoder is up to scratch.

Failing that, there are any number of h264 decoders out there that could be licensed and ported to the Microsoft console. The bottom line is that if FMV is so crucial to your game, and the storage on offer is limited, care needs to be taken so that every byte of available space makes a difference.

So, occasionally fine, sometimes grim: a statement that effectively sums up how much of Final Fantasy XIII looks on Xbox 360 when compared to the PlayStation 3 game, meaning that if you own both consoles, there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision.

But bearing in mind that Oli Welsh's Eurogamer review is based on the superior PS3 build, commentary for those who only own an Xbox 360 is probably worthwhile. In this respect, Final Fantasy XIII is clearly still a worthwhile experience, despite the resolution drop and the frequently awful cut-scene quality. In terms of basic content, story, and core functionality, it's all there.

Despite the cutbacks, the in-game graphics are still attractive, the gameplay is fundamentally the same as the PS3 version and it's clearly a cut-above much of the other JPRG fare available on the console. That being the case, despite falling short in direct comparison with its PS3 sibling it's still a decent game, though I daresay that the retooling of the formula into a more linear experience with obvious cutbacks in the exploration element is likely to frustrate many of the core fanbase.

However, with Crystal Tools set to become the in-house engine for future Square products, you can help but hope for more time to be spent improving the Xbox 360 rendition of the engine, and if the company wants to rely so much on streamed video sequences, clearly there are some very obvious lessons to be learned from the Final Fantasy XIII experience."

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#141 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

A lot of my examples were from 2009 and earlier.

What about a game like Final Fantasy XIII that is on 3 discs on 360, and doesn't even have high definition cutscenes?

How does a publisher cope with being charged so much extra for additional discs, and not even being able to faithfully give the full experience?

"The rumours are true. Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox 360 isn't anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3. The real kicker is that it's a lot worse than it should have been.

Square Enix's latest epic - 4.5 years in the making - follows on the basic principles established by all of its PlayStation predecessors in combining an excellent 3D engine along with vast amounts of pre-rendered CG. This presented two very difficult issues for the developers tasked with porting an already mature PS3 work-in-progress over to the Xbox 360.

Firstly, the Crystal Tools engine needed to be translated across to the Microsoft platform. Secondly, the team had to find a way to compress over 32GB of CG to fit within the confines of three Xbox 360 DVDs - squeezed already by a copy protection mechanism that limits available space to a meagre 6.8GB, less than the storage potential of both PlayStation 2 and Wii.

The sheer idea of porting over a massive Blu-ray game like this onto the Xbox 360 seems like lunacy, but the good news from a conversion perspective is that the game itself is extremely linear. The core basis of the majority of the game is in negotiating very limited environments with just a few branching routes, following a yellow arrow to get to your next destination and fighting a myriad bunch of enemies as you do it.

Very rarely are you asked to return to previous locations - with just one chapter in the game dedicated to the sort of free-roaming JPRG gameplay for which Final Fantasy is renowned.

That being the case, while you can install all three discs to hard drive for a seamless experience, there really is little point over and above the convenience and noise-reduction elements. Disc-swapping on Xbox 360 is kept to an absolute minimum and has next to no impact on the experience of playing Final Fantasy XIII.

Ironically then, one of the main concerns about the conversion proves to be of little consequence at all. Unfortunately, the other niggling worries are of far greater significance.

Built from the ground upwards with an eye towards the storage limitation of the disc, and with the different architectures of the two HD consoles firmly in mind, Square Enix would have stood a good chance of getting the game looking pretty much like-for-like on both platforms. However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

First up, let's talk about the Crystal Tools engine. Square mentioned in an interview with the Dutch Official PlayStation Magazine that a "new engine" had to be coded up for Xbox 360, but it seems to look and act very much like the PS3 one, with just a couple of very noticeable differences.

Let's talk about the resolution then. A smattering of European and US-based websites have published pre-release Xbox 360 shots, showing a considerable drop in definition with some galleries exhibiting a somewhat washed-out look. The problem with drawing conclusions from media-derived assets is that there's little transparency in what tech they use to take their shots. Some grabs even appeared to have mouse pointers on them, indicating that some sort of PC "print screen" function was used in their making.

However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha.

For those curious about how we can be so certain, the principles of pixel-counting are pretty much foolproof. On a 720p game, a diagonal line 20 pixels in height will have 20 distinct steps from top to bottom. When you look at FFXIII, there clearly only 16. So... (16/20) x 720 gives you a vertical resolution of 576 pixels. The same principles - and indeed ratios, in this case - apply to the other axis, giving horizontal resolution of 1024 pixels. The only slight confusion here could come from the HUD, which is rendered at normal 720p resolution before being overlaid on top of the 576p image. This has been standard practice for many years now with sub-HD titles, and FFXIII is no different.

So sub-HD and 1024x576 it is then. Now, with careful handling and superior texture filtering, sub-HD stands a very good chance of competing with native 720p - as Tekken 6 demonstrates. However, Namco's game is pretty much unique in being the only console title running at a lower resolution that looks demonstrably sharper than when it's running at 720p.

Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM.

Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that.

So, with a focus on footage generated just by Crystal Tools itself, let's take a look at how the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Final Fantasy XIII measure up to one another. Remember to use the full-screen button to get HD resolution, or else use the EGTV link for a larger, more useful window. Alternatively, peruse this colossal comparison gallery of over 50 shots.

"Adequate but a touch disappointing" best sums up the Xbox 360 version. Fine edges lose precision, and while the effect is mitigated thanks to the MSAA along with the multitude of post processing effects the engine has at its disposal, the fact is that the lack of resolution can make the 360 build look sub-par. The clean CG look of the PS3 game in motion is unduly compromised, and while it's still a handsome enough title on Xbox 360, it lacks the pristine presentation of its sibling.

It could have been worse though. As you may have noticed in the movie, the quality of the scaling when watching the game in motion isn't bad at all.

The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-style effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game.

Introduced on PS3 presumably in order to address the bandwidth deficiency of the RSX, the fact that it has been retained on Xbox 360 in a scenario where this effect should have been easily replaced with a more conventional alpha test technique for handling transparencies is frankly puzzling.

More than that, as the alpha-to-coverage effect is now rendered at sub-HD resolutions, the process of resizing it to 720p makes it look a whole lot worse. This is where the initial "grainy" reports of the 360 build probably originated from. Below is a closer look at the phenomenon in effect.

Note that while the characters' hair is the most obvious effect of the alpha-to-coverage, you can see that it is also deployed where transparency is required in some of the backgrounds. Here the sub-HD effect blends away some of the problem, but causes an unattractive, shifting shimmering as a consequence.

The sad truth is that Square Enix's solution for transitioning the 32GB of CG video to DVD is unfortunately rather poor. A "one size fits all" encoding technique appears to have been used to compress the assets. Now, assuming the company also did this for PS3, this strategy can work fairly well: throw enough bandwidth at any image and the picture quality will hold up. Bearing in mind that FFXIII occupies more space for its videos than many commercial Blu-ray movies, this is perhaps not surprising.

Unfortunately, when any particular scene ramps up the motion, the encoding solution Square has employed collapses horribly. Detail disappears in a sea of macroblocking and banding, while the PS3 version remains pretty close to pristine thanks to the incredible amount of bandwidth (and thus video information) available.

The tragedy here is that the CG is a core part of the presentation in FFXIII and it seems to be the case that the company has paid little attention to the poor quality of the final assets on the Xbox 360 version. The Microsoft XDK ships with a VC1 decoder, giving it the ability to playback video files encoded using technology supported by Blu-ray discs and players. Indeed, movie pirates out there get excellent quality VC1 encodes of Blu-ray movies that manage to fit onto a dual-layer DVD and run from the Xbox 360 dashboard.

Decent encoding takes time and effort, but the results can look good - even on challenging material. Combine this with the fact that the game doesn't need the 1080p-sized video the PS3 version boasts, and we have the ways and means with which to attack the compression issue from two different angles.

Square-Enix has bought in the Bink compression system for FFXIII on 360 and its failure in high-motion, colourful scenes does suggest a constant bitrate is being used as opposed to variable bandwidth that allocates more data to maintaining image quality on more complex scenes.

This failure is compounded by the fact that Square-Enix hasn't even made full use of all the disk space it has available. Around 1GB of storage is left empty on discs one and two of FFXIII, and you have to wonder why all that empty space couldn't have been repurposed for higher bandwidth encoding. Perhaps it's because of the background loading taking place while the cut-scenes play out, but regardless, the hit to quality using Bink is often unacceptably bad.

Perhaps Square Enix might like to take some cues from the movie industry: top-tier studios employ compressionists whose sole job it is to make movie encodes look as good as they can possibly be within the confines of the disc space available. The parallel is not without some merit: the same encoding tools Microsoft developed for Blu-ray and HD-DVD movie compression might even be deployed for exactly this kind of thing, assuming that the 360's VC1 decoder is up to scratch.

Failing that, there are any number of h264 decoders out there that could be licensed and ported to the Microsoft console. The bottom line is that if FMV is so crucial to your game, and the storage on offer is limited, care needs to be taken so that every byte of available space makes a difference.

So, occasionally fine, sometimes grim: a statement that effectively sums up how much of Final Fantasy XIII looks on Xbox 360 when compared to the PlayStation 3 game, meaning that if you own both consoles, there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision.

But bearing in mind that Oli Welsh's Eurogamer review is based on the superior PS3 build, commentary for those who only own an Xbox 360 is probably worthwhile. In this respect, Final Fantasy XIII is clearly still a worthwhile experience, despite the resolution drop and the frequently awful cut-scene quality. In terms of basic content, story, and core functionality, it's all there.

Despite the cutbacks, the in-game graphics are still attractive, the gameplay is fundamentally the same as the PS3 version and it's clearly a cut-above much of the other JPRG fare available on the console. That being the case, despite falling short in direct comparison with its PS3 sibling it's still a decent game, though I daresay that the retooling of the formula into a more linear experience with obvious cutbacks in the exploration element is likely to frustrate many of the core fanbase.

However, with Crystal Tools set to become the in-house engine for future Square products, you can help but hope for more time to be spent improving the Xbox 360 rendition of the engine, and if the company wants to rely so much on streamed video sequences, clearly there are some very obvious lessons to be learned from the Final Fantasy XIII experience."

arkephonic

No one reads anything you post because it's too long. I'm just telling the truth, don't get upset at me.

Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#142 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

Serious question,

Does anyone here know the difference between uncompressed audio and video compared to compressed audio and video?

Avatar image for FashionFreak
FashionFreak

2326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#143 FashionFreak
Member since 2004 • 2326 Posts

Being a manticore is nothing to brag about. :|

Avatar image for waltefmoney
waltefmoney

18030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#144 waltefmoney
Member since 2010 • 18030 Posts

Serious question,

Does anyone here know the difference between uncompressed audio and video compared to compressed audio and video?

arkephonic

No, explain it to me with examples, pie charts, quotes, and complex terms.

If you don't you're incompetent.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#145 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

Serious question,

Does anyone here know the difference between uncompressed audio and video compared to compressed audio and video?

arkephonic
the answer is in your question dude.
Avatar image for FashionFreak
FashionFreak

2326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#146 FashionFreak
Member since 2004 • 2326 Posts

Lossless compression is possible, so there's no difference except storage space.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#147 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

A lot of my examples were from 2009 and earlier.

What about a game like Final Fantasy XIII that is on 3 discs on 360, and doesn't even have high definition cutscenes?

How does a publisher cope with being charged so much extra for additional discs, and not even being able to faithfully give the full experience?

"The rumours are true. Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox 360 isn't anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3. The real kicker is that it's a lot worse than it should have been.

Square Enix's latest epic - 4.5 years in the making - follows on the basic principles established by all of its PlayStation predecessors in combining an excellent 3D engine along with vast amounts of pre-rendered CG. This presented two very difficult issues for the developers tasked with porting an already mature PS3 work-in-progress over to the Xbox 360.

Firstly, the Crystal Tools engine needed to be translated across to the Microsoft platform. Secondly, the team had to find a way to compress over 32GB of CG to fit within the confines of three Xbox 360 DVDs - squeezed already by a copy protection mechanism that limits available space to a meagre 6.8GB, less than the storage potential of both PlayStation 2 and Wii.

The sheer idea of porting over a massive Blu-ray game like this onto the Xbox 360 seems like lunacy, but the good news from a conversion perspective is that the game itself is extremely linear. The core basis of the majority of the game is in negotiating very limited environments with just a few branching routes, following a yellow arrow to get to your next destination and fighting a myriad bunch of enemies as you do it.

Very rarely are you asked to return to previous locations - with just one chapter in the game dedicated to the sort of free-roaming JPRG gameplay for which Final Fantasy is renowned.

That being the case, while you can install all three discs to hard drive for a seamless experience, there really is little point over and above the convenience and noise-reduction elements. Disc-swapping on Xbox 360 is kept to an absolute minimum and has next to no impact on the experience of playing Final Fantasy XIII.

Ironically then, one of the main concerns about the conversion proves to be of little consequence at all. Unfortunately, the other niggling worries are of far greater significance.

Built from the ground upwards with an eye towards the storage limitation of the disc, and with the different architectures of the two HD consoles firmly in mind, Square Enix would have stood a good chance of getting the game looking pretty much like-for-like on both platforms. However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

First up, let's talk about the Crystal Tools engine. Square mentioned in an interview with the Dutch Official PlayStation Magazine that a "new engine" had to be coded up for Xbox 360, but it seems to look and act very much like the PS3 one, with just a couple of very noticeable differences.

Let's talk about the resolution then. A smattering of European and US-based websites have published pre-release Xbox 360 shots, showing a considerable drop in definition with some galleries exhibiting a somewhat washed-out look. The problem with drawing conclusions from media-derived assets is that there's little transparency in what tech they use to take their shots. Some grabs even appeared to have mouse pointers on them, indicating that some sort of PC "print screen" function was used in their making.

However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha.

For those curious about how we can be so certain, the principles of pixel-counting are pretty much foolproof. On a 720p game, a diagonal line 20 pixels in height will have 20 distinct steps from top to bottom. When you look at FFXIII, there clearly only 16. So... (16/20) x 720 gives you a vertical resolution of 576 pixels. The same principles - and indeed ratios, in this case - apply to the other axis, giving horizontal resolution of 1024 pixels. The only slight confusion here could come from the HUD, which is rendered at normal 720p resolution before being overlaid on top of the 576p image. This has been standard practice for many years now with sub-HD titles, and FFXIII is no different.

So sub-HD and 1024x576 it is then. Now, with careful handling and superior texture filtering, sub-HD stands a very good chance of competing with native 720p - as Tekken 6 demonstrates. However, Namco's game is pretty much unique in being the only console title running at a lower resolution that looks demonstrably sharper than when it's running at 720p.

Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM.

Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that.

So, with a focus on footage generated just by Crystal Tools itself, let's take a look at how the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Final Fantasy XIII measure up to one another. Remember to use the full-screen button to get HD resolution, or else use the EGTV link for a larger, more useful window. Alternatively, peruse this colossal comparison gallery of over 50 shots.

"Adequate but a touch disappointing" best sums up the Xbox 360 version. Fine edges lose precision, and while the effect is mitigated thanks to the MSAA along with the multitude of post processing effects the engine has at its disposal, the fact is that the lack of resolution can make the 360 build look sub-par. The clean CG look of the PS3 game in motion is unduly compromised, and while it's still a handsome enough title on Xbox 360, it lacks the pristine presentation of its sibling.

It could have been worse though. As you may have noticed in the movie, the quality of the scaling when watching the game in motion isn't bad at all.

The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-style effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game.

Introduced on PS3 presumably in order to address the bandwidth deficiency of the RSX, the fact that it has been retained on Xbox 360 in a scenario where this effect should have been easily replaced with a more conventional alpha test technique for handling transparencies is frankly puzzling.

More than that, as the alpha-to-coverage effect is now rendered at sub-HD resolutions, the process of resizing it to 720p makes it look a whole lot worse. This is where the initial "grainy" reports of the 360 build probably originated from. Below is a closer look at the phenomenon in effect.

Note that while the characters' hair is the most obvious effect of the alpha-to-coverage, you can see that it is also deployed where transparency is required in some of the backgrounds. Here the sub-HD effect blends away some of the problem, but causes an unattractive, shifting shimmering as a consequence.

The sad truth is that Square Enix's solution for transitioning the 32GB of CG video to DVD is unfortunately rather poor. A "one size fits all" encoding technique appears to have been used to compress the assets. Now, assuming the company also did this for PS3, this strategy can work fairly well: throw enough bandwidth at any image and the picture quality will hold up. Bearing in mind that FFXIII occupies more space for its videos than many commercial Blu-ray movies, this is perhaps not surprising.

Unfortunately, when any particular scene ramps up the motion, the encoding solution Square has employed collapses horribly. Detail disappears in a sea of macroblocking and banding, while the PS3 version remains pretty close to pristine thanks to the incredible amount of bandwidth (and thus video information) available.

The tragedy here is that the CG is a core part of the presentation in FFXIII and it seems to be the case that the company has paid little attention to the poor quality of the final assets on the Xbox 360 version. The Microsoft XDK ships with a VC1 decoder, giving it the ability to playback video files encoded using technology supported by Blu-ray discs and players. Indeed, movie pirates out there get excellent quality VC1 encodes of Blu-ray movies that manage to fit onto a dual-layer DVD and run from the Xbox 360 dashboard.

Decent encoding takes time and effort, but the results can look good - even on challenging material. Combine this with the fact that the game doesn't need the 1080p-sized video the PS3 version boasts, and we have the ways and means with which to attack the compression issue from two different angles.

Square-Enix has bought in the Bink compression system for FFXIII on 360 and its failure in high-motion, colourful scenes does suggest a constant bitrate is being used as opposed to variable bandwidth that allocates more data to maintaining image quality on more complex scenes.

This failure is compounded by the fact that Square-Enix hasn't even made full use of all the disk space it has available. Around 1GB of storage is left empty on discs one and two of FFXIII, and you have to wonder why all that empty space couldn't have been repurposed for higher bandwidth encoding. Perhaps it's because of the background loading taking place while the cut-scenes play out, but regardless, the hit to quality using Bink is often unacceptably bad.

Perhaps Square Enix might like to take some cues from the movie industry: top-tier studios employ compressionists whose sole job it is to make movie encodes look as good as they can possibly be within the confines of the disc space available. The parallel is not without some merit: the same encoding tools Microsoft developed for Blu-ray and HD-DVD movie compression might even be deployed for exactly this kind of thing, assuming that the 360's VC1 decoder is up to scratch.

Failing that, there are any number of h264 decoders out there that could be licensed and ported to the Microsoft console. The bottom line is that if FMV is so crucial to your game, and the storage on offer is limited, care needs to be taken so that every byte of available space makes a difference.

So, occasionally fine, sometimes grim: a statement that effectively sums up how much of Final Fantasy XIII looks on Xbox 360 when compared to the PlayStation 3 game, meaning that if you own both consoles, there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision.

But bearing in mind that Oli Welsh's Eurogamer review is based on the superior PS3 build, commentary for those who only own an Xbox 360 is probably worthwhile. In this respect, Final Fantasy XIII is clearly still a worthwhile experience, despite the resolution drop and the frequently awful cut-scene quality. In terms of basic content, story, and core functionality, it's all there.

Despite the cutbacks, the in-game graphics are still attractive, the gameplay is fundamentally the same as the PS3 version and it's clearly a cut-above much of the other JPRG fare available on the console. That being the case, despite falling short in direct comparison with its PS3 sibling it's still a decent game, though I daresay that the retooling of the formula into a more linear experience with obvious cutbacks in the exploration element is likely to frustrate many of the core fanbase.

However, with Crystal Tools set to become the in-house engine for future Square products, you can help but hope for more time to be spent improving the Xbox 360 rendition of the engine, and if the company wants to rely so much on streamed video sequences, clearly there are some very obvious lessons to be learned from the Final Fantasy XIII experience."

ShadowMoses900

No one reads anything you post because it's too long. I'm just telling the truth, don't get upset at me.

i agree with this,500 word essay on changeing disks is a bit much.
Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#148 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Serious question,

Does anyone here know the difference between uncompressed audio and video compared to compressed audio and video?

delta3074

the answer is in your question dude.

That was the point.

Can anyone here argue that compressed audio and video is better than uncompressed audio and video?

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#149 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]360 can do native 1080p and RDR IS native 720p, you would realise this if you knew anything about pixel counting, Digital foundry only work in native resolutions, there ere a few games on the 360 in native 1080p including Darkstar one broken alliance, the irony here is that ALL games on the 360 can be upscaled to 1080p, not the case on the Ps3 because it uses software upscaling, the 360 uses harware upscaling. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkstar-one-broken-alliance-review "Yes, the graphics have been updated to a crisp 1080p" and heres a list of all the 360's games native resolutions from beyond3d http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 just scroll down past the resolutions for Ps3 games.jonathant5

It's upscaled, get over it. And I don't care about pixel counting because I'm not a fanboy. I don't go to dumb websites to try and justify my purcahse, DF says somethig that's cool. Ilike learning about tech stuff, but I don't care about which one is "better" because there's hardly a noticibale difference and you know it.

Most of their findings arn't even noticible to the naked eye and some of it is subjective. Only Lems like yourself care because you can't enjoy a game unless someone tells you it's "better" on your platform.

I don't think I've ever seen a 360 game that wasn't upscaled, mabey I would notice it if my HD TV was bigger. And for some reason I don't have to delete your link like the last ones, normally it says error all the time.

You are not a fanboy? Oh the irony. Let me ask you, how many systems do you have exactly? Do you blindly defend 1 system and blindly attack another? Oh you answered yes to both, then clearly you yourself are also a fanboy. Again PS3==X360 in power, nothing suggests otherwise. By you calling the X360 graphics bad and ugly, and by calling it weak, you are effectively calling the PS3 weak too. As for the graphics part, if you are such a graphics whore, why not get a PC, thats the system that has the best graphics (and imo the best games, but this part is just opinion, everyone is entitled to their own). As for me attacking you, I dont attack opinions, I attacked your lack of facts, knowledge, and reasoning, not your opinion. Saying Console A is more powerful than Console B is not an opinion statement, its a statement of fact, given that one can easily measure the theoretical power of both.

I owned a 360 first this gen, it RROD and sits in a box behind my TV, I have a Wii and PS3 and a PC that I play older games like FalloutNVon. It can't play the new games though, can't handle it. I've played all systems and I know the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water, the PS3 technology is like 10 years ahead of the 360's technology.

And I don't need to upgrade my PC to get good graphics, Killzone looks just as good as Crisis (even better in some places) and teh upcoming The Last of Us has better charecter models. That's right Hermits, PS3 can do great graphics too, and it doesn't need a stupid upgrade and lots of money to do it either.

Now I'm waiting for your response where you call me more names again and make assumptions that I live with my parents or unemployed or something.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#150 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

Serious question,

Does anyone here know the difference between uncompressed audio and video compared to compressed audio and video?

arkephonic

I don't know, who cares? HD is on both systems, only difference is that Blu Ray holds more memory. But it makes audio better, I noticed this, and I'm not being fanboy it is true. I also notice many PS3 games load faster than the 360 versions, and I play both regularly but I only buy PS3 versions.