Lens of Truth: Dragon Age Origins Analysis
Sorry if old.
Lens of Truth: Dragon Age Origins PS3 VS. 360
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The game mainly gets framerate iffy since I have so much spells active on my party. Since I tried without them and it runs well.
Arguing over second place?PannicAtackjust like PS3 and 360 LOL
i have both PS360 and planning to get this game soon. cant decide if i should go for PS3 and 360 since both version has their pros and cons.The game mainly gets framerate iffy since I have so much spells active on my party. Since I tried without them and it runs well.
finalfantasy94
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]i have both PS360 and planning to get this game soon. cant decide if i should go for PS3 and 360 since both version has their pros and cons.The game mainly gets framerate iffy since I have so much spells active on my party. Since I tried without them and it runs well.
___gamemaster__
I have the PS3 version and its not unplayable. Also remember buy new. Since if you buy used you wont get the armore and rock DLC. You will have to pay for them.
Good article. I agree with it. However, like the staff, i'd side with the one which the superior frame rate, as opposed to the onle with better looking floor.
Stats_
And faster loading times. That seems to be omitted in opinions for some reason. Don't get me wrong, you can dig the 360 version, but you are giving up graphics and loading for better peformance (although far from perfect), albeit improved performance over the PS3.
That's a fine decision, but I just wanted posters that post that to be more accurate, because in it's current state, it's inaccurate.
Here's a few quotes from Lens :
"...both games had their fair share of performance problems…"
"The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system."
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
-------
For the record, it's not a big deal, really, but I just find those other threads claiming GS and KEVIN were biased to be a bit silly and premature now that so many sites have proved that not to be the case. In fact, one argument was that GS was too fast to analyze, and other sites didn't confirm yet. Where are those posters now?
i have both PS360 and planning to get this game soon. cant decide if i should go for PS3 and 360 since both version has their pros and cons.[QUOTE="___gamemaster__"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
The game mainly gets framerate iffy since I have so much spells active on my party. Since I tried without them and it runs well.
finalfantasy94
I have the PS3 version and its not unplayable. Also remember buy new. Since if you buy used you wont get the armore and rock DLC. You will have to pay for them.
LOL thanks for the early advise and here i am planning to get a used one on ebay. :D
you are giving up graphics and loading for flawed, albeit improved performance.
SolidTy
"Both systems had very close load times."
"While the graphics were extremely close, our frame analyzer was able to capture major differences."
Hmm. I'm sure one would be happy to give up faster load times and a tiny difference in graphics for improved performance.
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
Good article. I agree with it. However, like the staff, i'd side with the one which the superior frame rate, as opposed to the onle with better looking floor.
SolidTy
And faster loading times. That seems to be omitted in opinions for some reason. Don't get me wrong, you can dig the 360 version, but you are giving up graphics and loading for better peformance (although far from perfect), albeit improved performance over the PS3.
That's a fine decision, but I just wanted posters that post that to be more accurate, because in it's current state, it's inaccurate.
Here's a few quotes from Lens :
"...both games had their fair share of performance problems…"
"The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system."
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
-------
For the record, it's not a big deal, really, but I just find those other threads claiming GS and KEVIN were biased to be a bit silly and premature now that so many sites have proved that not to be the case. In fact, one argument was that GS was too fast to analyze, and other sites didn't confirm yet. Where are those posters now?
Load times are un-important when i can install the game ... Which makes them even. If not giving the edge to the 360
In a game like DA, framerate is more important then floor texture, or some trees.
Also, SteveO was notso much arguing about the review, but the score. Since it COMPLETELY depends on which you prefer, performence, or visuals, the scores should be the same. Lens of truth pretty much confirms this, it claims the framerate is more important then the MINOR difference in visuals and load times.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
And faster loading times. That seems to be omitted in opinions for some reason. Don't get me wrong, you can dig the 360 version, but you are giving up graphics and loading for better peformance (although far from perfect), albeit improved performance over the PS3.
That's a fine decision, but I just wanted posters that post that to be more accurate, because in it's current state, it's inaccurate.
Here's a few quotes from Lens :
"...both games had their fair share of performance problems…"
"The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system."
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
-------
For the record, it's not a big deal, really, but I just find those other threads claiming GS and KEVIN were biased to be a bit silly and premature now that so many sites have proved that not to be the case. In fact, one argument was that GS was too fast to analyze, and other sites didn't confirm yet. Where are those posters now?
Stevo_the_gamer
"Both systems had very close load times."
"While the graphics were extremely close, our frame analyzer was able to capture major differences."
Hmm. I'm sure one would be happy to give up faster load times and a tiny difference in graphics for improved performance.
That's fine, as that's an accurate post.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
Good article. I agree with it. However, like the staff, i'd side with the one which the superior frame rate, as opposed to the onle with better looking floor.
Stats_
And faster loading times. That seems to be omitted in opinions for some reason. Don't get me wrong, you can dig the 360 version, but you are giving up graphics and loading for better peformance (although far from perfect), albeit improved performance over the PS3.
That's a fine decision, but I just wanted posters that post that to be more accurate, because in it's current state, it's inaccurate.
Here's a few quotes from Lens :
"...both games had their fair share of performance problems…"
"The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system."
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
-------
For the record, it's not a big deal, really, but I just find those other threads claiming GS and KEVIN were biased to be a bit silly and premature now that so many sites have proved that not to be the case. In fact, one argument was that GS was too fast to analyze, and other sites didn't confirm yet. Where are those posters now?
Load times are in-important when i can install the game ... Which makes them even.
In a game like DA, framerate is more important then floor texture, or some trees.
Also, SteveO was notso much arguing about the review, but the score. Since it COMPLETELY depends on which you prefer, performence, or visuals, the scores should be the same. Lens of truth pretty much confirms this, it claims the framerate is more important then the MINOR difference in visuals and load times.
Even with a install (which by the way, I install all my 360 games save for Halo 3) it's still not as fast, but as long as you realize that.
In a game like DA, you feel framerate is more important, and some at lens agree, which like I said is totally fine.
It's not just one poster, many were jumping on Kevin, and I was of the mentality that everyone should at least wait. GS did another article on the differences, and so did Eurogamer, GT, etc.
GS was fast on that review, that's all (Which was also strange.). The score argument, well, that's up to the site, I guess. I know many that want better graphics/better loading, but I know others that would prefer improved performance, and of course others that bought it on PC for best of both.
I just wanted to make sure you and others who read this thread were aware of this, since not just you, but others in SW seem to post only part of the issue.
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
[QUOTE="___gamemaster__"] i have both PS360 and planning to get this game soon. cant decide if i should go for PS3 and 360 since both version has their pros and cons.___gamemaster__
I have the PS3 version and its not unplayable. Also remember buy new. Since if you buy used you wont get the armore and rock DLC. You will have to pay for them.
LOL thanks for the early advise and here i am planning to get a used one on ebay. :D
Yea the stone prisoner DLC is 15 bucks by itself. Also I just notice the armor isint on the store. So you just wont get it if you dont buy the game new. Heads up when you redeem your code for the armor you only get 1 piece and have to buy the rest in a shop. Each piece is only like 5 gold or something like that cant remember hte exact price. You will also have to be a certain level andstrength level. Its really good armor and cool looking. IDK if I would buy this from gamestop since you might get the "gamestop new" version.
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
And faster loading times. That seems to be omitted in opinions for some reason. Don't get me wrong, you can dig the 360 version, but you are giving up graphics and loading for better peformance (although far from perfect), albeit improved performance over the PS3.
That's a fine decision, but I just wanted posters that post that to be more accurate, because in it's current state, it's inaccurate.
Here's a few quotes from Lens :
"...both games had their fair share of performance problems…"
"The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system."
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
-------
For the record, it's not a big deal, really, but I just find those other threads claiming GS and KEVIN were biased to be a bit silly and premature now that so many sites have proved that not to be the case. In fact, one argument was that GS was too fast to analyze, and other sites didn't confirm yet. Where are those posters now?
SolidTy
Load times are in-important when i can install the game ... Which makes them even.
In a game like DA, framerate is more important then floor texture, or some trees.
Also, SteveO was notso much arguing about the review, but the score. Since it COMPLETELY depends on which you prefer, performence, or visuals, the scores should be the same. Lens of truth pretty much confirms this, it claims the framerate is more important then the MINOR difference in visuals and load times.
Even with a install (which by the way, I install all my 360 games save for Halo 3) it's still not as fast, but as long as you realize that.
In a game like DA, you feel framerate is more important, and some at lens agree, which like I said is totally fine.
It's not just one poster, many were jumping on Kevin, and I was of the mentality that everyone should at least wait. GS did another article on the differences, and so did Eurogamer, GT, etc.
GS was fast on that review, that's all (Which was also strange.). The score argument, well, that's up to the site, I guess. I know many that want top graphics, but I know others that would prefer performance, and of course others that bought it on PC for both.
That's fine, but anyone playing Dragon Age for top graphics is going to be very, very dissapointed, not matter what they're playing it on.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
Load times are in-important when i can install the game ... Which makes them even.
In a game like DA, framerate is more important then floor texture, or some trees.
Also, SteveO was notso much arguing about the review, but the score. Since it COMPLETELY depends on which you prefer, performence, or visuals, the scores should be the same. Lens of truth pretty much confirms this, it claims the framerate is more important then the MINOR difference in visuals and load times.
Stats_
Even with a install (which by the way, I install all my 360 games save for Halo 3) it's still not as fast, but as long as you realize that.
In a game like DA, you feel framerate is more important, and some at lens agree, which like I said is totally fine.
It's not just one poster, many were jumping on Kevin, and I was of the mentality that everyone should at least wait. GS did another article on the differences, and so did Eurogamer, GT, etc.
GS was fast on that review, that's all (Which was also strange.). The score argument, well, that's up to the site, I guess. I know many that want better graphics/better loading, but I know others that would prefer improved performance, and of course others that bought it on PC for best of both.
I just wanted to make sure you and others who read this thread were aware of this, since not just you, but others in SW seem to post only part of the issue.
That's fine, but anyone playing Dragon Age for top graphics is going to be very, very dissapointed, not matter what they're playing it on.
I'd agree with that statement too.
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
SolidTy
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
Stevo_the_gamer
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
Well, not specifically getting into a 3 page chat about that other thread derailing this thread, I can say that there was a tidal wave of posters siding against Kevin, a sentiment that carried in many other DA threads. It was all a bit too early as it all turns out.
In fact, I remember the argument that no other sites mentioned an issue to be used against Kevin, but all those posters probably won't even visit this thread.
As far as scoring, people have had many issues with GS over the years, from the recent Borderlands .5 issue, Perfect Dark Zero, Ratchet, the list goes on an on, that's my problem with one reviewer, I wish GS would adopt a two person review system like Game Informer, or even better a four person review system like old EGM did. Too much rides on one opinion.
I'm just glad that Kevin was vindicated by various sites, although Lens wouldn't directly agree with Kevin, they do mention issues he mentioned. The problem of how great those issues are seem to vary by user.
lol, why does everyone still think Bioware did the console ports? Bioware only did the PC version, and Edge of Reality handled the console ports.navyguy21
That's what I read too...but then I read from Posters (?) that Bioware had some control?
I haven't done enough research on that issue, as I'm more about the game. Is there any truth to Bioware handing the consoles at all, or is it all a EoR port job?
I'd like to know for sure, but I know when I did look it up, I see Edge of Reality, so I'm inclined to go with that overall.
[QUOTE="navyguy21"]lol, why does everyone still think Bioware did the console ports? Bioware only did the PC version, and Edge of Reality handled the console ports.SolidTy
That's what I read too...but then I read from Posters (?) that Bioware had some control?
I haven't done enough research on that issue, as I'm more about the game. Is there any truth to Bioware handing the consoles at all, or is it all a EoR port job?
I'd like to know for sure, but I know when I did look it up, I see Edge of Reality, so I'm inclined to go with that overall.
I was wondering who Edge of Reality were, when they shown upin the Start Up Screens.
whats up with those 360 treesi_am_interested
yeah, that is terrible... both has bad framerate anyway, 25fps vs. 29 fps.
xbox360 has a little better framerate, but25vs.29 is not much different. graphics on 360 is like a joke (tree part)...
so overall PC > PS3 > 360
I got this game for the PS3 and beat it already. However, after seeing that video, I'm questioning how there's a difference in review score. The PS3 version doesn't look much better, but the difference in performance is fairly noteworthy. Or at least, IMO, MORE noteworthy than the graphical difference. That's just another inconsistancy in GS reviews lately. Framerate problems matter in Mass Effect (8.5), but not in No More Heroes (9.0)lol, or in this game.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
Stevo_the_gamer
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
I remember that. I got modded (lulz) in that topic, and kevin V never answered. I still think the .5 difference was to balance out the Borderlands scores. No one could prove me wrong on this. I've tested both versions and there's nothing there warranting a .5 difference. Using HDMI of course..
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
Stevo_the_gamer
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
Again, I point out that while .5 seems like a lot, we don't have smaller increments to work with. Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9. However, I don't have the ability to tweak in that way. I certainly stand behind my thoughts on the matter. Honestly, the PS3 version just eked out the 9, simply because it was nicer to look at and loading times were slightly more bearable. I disagree with the poster who thinks that frame rate issues are more important in a game like DA, however. Dragon is an RPG in which you spend large amounts of time in dialogue, looking at characters at close range. The combat does not hinge on maximizing the frame rate. In Mass Effect, where combat functions as a third-person shooter, frame rate is important. In Dragon Age, where the frame rate is not going to affect your precision, it matters very little.And thus, frame rate problems won't be mentioned every time. it comes down to how much the issues effect the experience. To the poster who said it didn't matter in No More Heroes, well, that is silly. There is a bad entry right at the top regarding the frame rate; I clearly state that it can be erratic in No More Heroes--a game in which the issue rarely hinders the fun. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: Reviews aren't algebra. There is not a formula in which I plug in scores for framerate, voice acting, texture pop-in, and collision detection, and out pops a handy number we slap on a review. There is an entire experience at work here--an overall impression that is discerned from the sum of its parts. It is about what sticks out... what impaired your enjoyment, what elevated above other games, what stuck in your craw and what made it easy to overlook the flaws. This isn't math--it is evaluation.
As such, there is a written review to accompany the score, and it is up to you to decide how important the pros and cons described matter to you. If you don't care about teh pretty, then you can disregard the differences. I realize this is System Wars, where only score matters. But use your noggins. There was a big written review that detailed what I thought about Dragon Age. And it clearly mentioned that the PS3 version looks somewhat better, and the Xbox 360 version runs a little better. Using those words, you can decide which version is best for you. From our perspective, we all feel the PS3 version edges out the 360 version, and feel the difference is enough to affect the score. But we're not mind-readers. It's up to you to apply a little grey matter, read the review, and make a decision informed by more than a simple number.
You are welcome to disagree, but I didn't pull these scores out of my ass--they came after long discussions with my peers, and an office-wide look at both versions.
Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9.Kevin-VSo shouldn't an 8.9 be rounded out to a 9 in the new system? :?
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
xsubtownerx
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
I remember that. I got modded (lulz) in that topic, and kevin V never answered. I still think the .5 difference was to balance out the Borderlands scores. No one could prove me wrong on this. I've tested both versions and there's nothing there warranting a .5 difference. Using HDMI of course.. I have answered this to death, but again, I don't think the differences are minor. In fact, the differences between the visual fidelity on the PS3 and on the 360 are extremely clear in every graphics comparison made... including our own. Again, it is up to you to decide if that is important to you, but I have no more patience to defend a topic that I have already weighed in on. As to the other statement, it is born of such insanity and fiction that my mind is blown. The reviews state in English, a language you understand, information that explains why the PS3 version was scored lower (i.e., its multiplayer was semi-busted at the time of the review). We do not post one review to "make up" for another. Such conspiracy is a product of your imagination, and does not in any way reflect the real world in which we live.
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9.xsubtownerxSo shouldn't an 8.9 be rounded out to a 9 in the new system? :?
If its noticably inferior, then why give it the same. Same as Fallout 3.
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
Kevin-V
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
Again, I point out that while .5 seems like a lot, we don't have smaller increments to work with. Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9. However, I don't have the ability to tweak in that way. I certainly stand behind my thoughts on the matter. Honestly, the PS3 version just eked out the 9, simply because it was nicer to look at and loading times were slightly more bearable. I disagree with the poster who thinks that frame rate issues are more important in a game like DA, however. Dragon is an RPG in which you spend large amounts of time in dialogue, looking at characters at close range. The combat does not hinge on maximizing the frame rate. In Mass Effect, where combat functions as a third-person shooter, frame rate is important. In Dragon Age, where the frame rate is not going to affect your precision, it matters very little.And thus, frame rate problems won't be mentioned every time. it comes down to how much the issues effect the experience. To the poster who said it didn't matter in No More Heroes, well, that is silly. There is a bad entry right at the top regarding the frame rate; I clearly state that it can be erratic in No More Heroes--a game in which the issue rarely hinders the fun. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: Reviews aren't algebra. There is not a formula in which I plug in scores for framerate, voice acting, texture pop-in, and collision detection, and out pops a handy number we slap on a review. There is an entire experience at work here--an overall impression that is discerned from the sum of its parts. It is about what sticks out... what impaired your enjoyment, what elevated above other games, what stuck in your craw and what made it easy to overlook the flaws. This isn't math--it is evaluation.
As such, there is a written review to accompany the score, and it is up to you to decide how important the pros and cons described matter to you. If you don't care about teh pretty, then you can disregard the differences. I realize this is System Wars, where only score matters. But use your noggins. There was a big written review that detailed what I thought about Dragon Age. And it clearly mentioned that the PS3 version looks somewhat better, and the Xbox 360 version runs a little better. Using those words, you can decide which version is best for you. From our perspective, we all feel the PS3 version edges out the 360 version, and feel the difference is enough to affect the score. But we're not mind-readers. It's up to you to apply a little grey matter, read the review, and make a decision informed by more than a simple number.
You are welcome to disagree, but I didn't pull these scores out of my ass--they came after long discussions with my peers, and an office-wide look at both versions.
Despite knowing the insight that you don't review on a cold, numbered system where you just plug in the variables, I'm curious as to what you would've given the 2 versions if we're still running the old system.
What would you give the 360 and PS3 versions in the fields of gameplay, graphics, sound, replay value, and tilt out of 10 respectively?
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9.xsubtownerxSo shouldn't an 8.9 be rounded out to a 9 in the new system? :? I have answered to this as well over the years to the point where I am tired of repeating the obvious. There is no rounding. The new scoring is a new scoring system. We do not take old scores and round them. As it is, even should a game be an 8.9 in the past, why would we make it a 9? You believe that if we were to call it "great" before, we should now call it "superb" because we're suppose to round to the nearest half integer? Even if you believe that we somehow take the old scores and round, which we do not, a game that was great in the old system does not become magically superb in the new. That is simply common sense, and was outlined in Jeff's original blog on this subject. As always, it's fun to argue with my friends in System Wars, but I must bid my adieu--Saboteur ain't gonna play itself!
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
Stats_
The reason I am about to quit playing on hard is because enemies can spam moves with no penalty, ice attacks never freeze meaningful enemies but always freeze me 100% of the time, my magic is complete trash overall, my guys maximum attacks are about 40-50, but the Darkspawn have an archer that does 140 damage a shot against me, if I try to set shield defenses or other types of defense driven moves they do nothing...I just think it is unbalanced unless I have no idea what I am doing which I find a bit hard to believe. I mean, what the hell is the point in leveling up if a group of 8 normal enemies(spiders, darkspawn, wolves) can wipe you out...it is really irritating me and I am just gonna lower the difficulty to get through Orzammar and finish the game already.
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
Kahuna_1
The reason I am about to quit playing on hard is because enemies can spam moves with no penalty, ice attacks never freeze meaningful enemies but always freeze me 100% of the time, my magic is complete trash overall, my guys maximum attacks are about 40-50, but the Darkspawn have an archer that does 140 damage a shot against me, if I try to set shield defenses or other types of defense driven moves they do nothing...I just think it is unbalanced unless I have no idea what I am doing which I find a bit hard to believe. I mean, what the hell is the point in leveling up if a group of 8 normal enemies(spiders, darkspawn, wolves) can wipe you out...it is really irritating me and I am just gonna lower the difficulty to get through Orzammar and finish the game already.
The Game can be really brutal at times. ESPECIALLY that one fight with the mercs on the way to Orzammar. You just have to find a way to balance your team. This is really hard to do at the start with a limited party and abilities.
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
Stats_
It seems to me that the Xbox360 version only has a slight advantage in frame rate. It's not like the PS3 version was running at 24FPS and the XBox360 version was running at 50+. And besides, both console version can pause which kinda negates needing high FPS.
Oh, and one more thing to add--I do feel the folks regarding the difficulty. The PC version is much, much more difficult, though I hear that a patch mitigated that a bit. I breezed through the console versions (until the final boss at least, which was a big headache based on the party members I thought I would have that no longer had), but the PC version was a major challenge.
OK, now I am out!
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
OneLazyAsian
It seems to me that the Xbox360 version only has a slight advantage in frame rate. It's not like the PS3 version was running at 24FPS and the XBox360 version was running at 50+. And besides, both console version can pause which kinda negates needing high FPS.
Comparisons have shown the PS3 version to go as low as ... i think it was 17 fps during battles. Sorry, but for me, that's practically un-playable on anything above normal, pauses or not.
[QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
On the higher difficulties (Read, above normal) every second counts. It's possibly to be wiped out in every battle, unless you set yourself up correctly, and adapt to each enemy.
This is where the poor framerate comes into question. I can't count how many times i've lost a battle (That one on the way to orzammar) because of the iffy framrate whilst im attempting to wipe out a pesky mage, before he destorys my part with a fireball.
And that's on the 360 version, the PS3 version would fair much worse.
Stats_
It seems to me that the Xbox360 version only has a slight advantage in frame rate. It's not like the PS3 version was running at 24FPS and the XBox360 version was running at 50+. And besides, both console version can pause which kinda negates needing high FPS.
Comparisons have shown the PS3 version to go as low as ... i think it was 17 fps during battles. Sorry, but for me, that's practically un-playable on anything above normal, pauses or not.
It is annoying, but after playing AC on the PS3, nothing can be worse for me.
Frankly I'd rather the steadier frame rate. In the video the 360 version seemed to maintain 28-30 fps in combat while the PS3 would dip to sub 20fps too often. There is nothing more annoying than frame stutter.
If you want graphics and frame rate, play on PC. Otherwise I would go for the 360 version solely because of the frame rate.
[QUOTE="Stats_"]
[QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]
It seems to me that the Xbox360 version only has a slight advantage in frame rate. It's not like the PS3 version was running at 24FPS and the XBox360 version was running at 50+. And besides, both console version can pause which kinda negates needing high FPS.
Kahuna_1
Comparisons have shown the PS3 version to go as low as ... i think it was 17 fps during battles. Sorry, but for me, that's practically un-playable on anything above normal, pauses or not.
It is annoying, but after playing AC on the PS3, nothing can be worse for me.
What's wrong with it? I'm buying it tomorrow for the TREY. I read there's little to no difference, bar some screen-tearing.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment