The irony is of course that DX9 outperforms DX10 some times at a 10% performance advantage, when the developers said that DX10 would provide a 10-20% performance advantage... Still, the image quality has been understated....DX10 looks noticeably better. You can notice less screen tearing, some better lighting and textures...but the difference is so short it isn't worth the 5-10 frames you're losing in the process. If there really was a performance advantage or even if the performance was COMPARABLE or equal we might be talking, but this is nothing. Let's hope they don't know what they're doing. This does not bode very well.
All right. So the trailer wasn't BS. They just decided to scrap it in order to make the Beta footage look closer to Halo 2, so that you wouldn't notice the transition. That makes sense.
This is the greatest! Halo 3 comparison....TO HALO 2! One is 720p, next generation, on infinitely more powerful hardware, the other is 480p on the original Xbox. And they sit here, with both of them, and manage to show a literal comparison. And the fact that Halo 3 looks slightly better isn't even obvious on first glance. You have to look again to see a slightly improved shadow....or some better texture work (barely). It is literally the difference you'd see in swapping from med to high quality in a PC game. There is no generation gap here. This is the most embarrassing sequel I've ever seen, especially so for the MEGA-blockbuster game everyone's been talking about for years (especially Bungie and Microsoft). The difference between Halo 2 Xbox and Halo 3 Xbox 360 is equivalent to the difference in image quality between Halo 2 Xbox and Halo 2 PC. Hey, guys, I've got a great idea for the next graphics comparison. Let's compare the BS "in-engine trailer" to the Beta footage. This is not only not impressive, this is pathetic. Halo 2+Halo 3 graphics comparison.....ROFL!
If Gamespot is not interested in the features the Playstation 3 has to offer, it does not need to regard it in any way, shape or form. Bi***, bi***, bi***. That's all Gamespot can do with regards to the Playstation 3. I have found more than one justification for the purchase price and right to own the Playstation 3, while I find more unfounded nonsense on this site than out of any 12-year-old Xbox owner on the planet. Therefore, I think Gamespot should donate their PS3 to charity and stop reporting on the PS3, stop reviewing their games, and stop giving their viewpoints, because no single PS3 user on the planet is asking for their services. While the 360+Wii owners, on the other hand, cheer every time the PS3 is laughed and poked at by the idieditors of this website. Therefore, their articles are fan-service for 360 owners and Wii owners. This article is not for me. I am a PS3 owner. How about you give me something to read for once?
This article is disgusting. Besides being completely satisfied with my purchase as everyone I know that owns one is and multiple threads on the PS3 forums have shown, I already know this article is complete and utter nonsense. For example, threads in the 360 and PS3 forums have shown, that comparatively, the PS3 is MANY TIMES less prone to hardware failures as the 360 is. Hardware issues have been minimal, contained, and addressable. Consider this: each Playstation 3 is airlifted and given a 1 year warranty from Sony. Consider this, alternatively: reports about poor customer service, a warranty extension, and widespread reports of failing Xbox 360's states that this is exactly where the PS3 is excelling where its predecessors failed. This is a non-issue, and Gamespot should be ashamed for bringing it up it's so contrary to what is written here. I couldn't be more excited about home. Downloadable content is there, full movies are there, content sharing and communication is there, joining games with friends is there, and HD content all over the place is there. Shopping, marketing, advertising, and a superior service to Live is visible in every facet of Home. This is a complete non-issue. If Gamespot is not interested--they are misinformed. Period. The interface is a non-issue. I prefer it to the Xbox Guide interface. Period. The price is a non-issue. Everything contained in the Playstation 3 is worth the price of admission..it even provides comparable value and then some to the 360 when decked out with similar features. Developer support has been committed to and responded to. Internal developers, which Gamespot failed to mention, are largest in Sony studios. Developer communicative efforts begin here and have begun to fan out. Sony is only implementing these achievements in sharing them with third-party developers. Downloadable games? Tekken? Little Big Planet, anyone? Warhawk? Non-issue, and Gamespot knows it. Feature sets in software is only limited in one form: Virtua Tennis 3. This is the only game that provides online for 360 and not for PS3. Virtua Fighter 5 does not have online in both 360 and PS3 versions. This is contrary to Gamespot's supposition that 360 has guaranteed feature sets. If Blu-Ray was poorly implemented in the PS3, why is Blu-Ray achieving a lead in both software and hardware sales over HD-DVD? The only reason it is not as successful as DVD was is because not everyone has an HDTV atm, and not everyone sees an immediate reason to commit. This reason can only be exemplified in the PS3...therefore, it is a success. It has been proven to drive Blu-Ray sales. The only true problem with the PS3 ATM is games. Lackluster launch? No. Lackluster 5 months following up launch. One "worth-it" game exists, and that is Motorstorm. Frequent delays are the only issue. Playstation Edge proposes to fix this problem, cutting development times and costs, guaranteeing better third-party support and potential. This article is not only misinformed, it is misinforming. It deserves to be destroyed. I am satisfied with my Playstation 3, and that is all any of you need to know. Just because the Playstation is not offering you feature sets you cannot see in any console existing on the planet does not mean you can discount it as a worthless piece of crap...Sony is making clear and concise attempts to fix each of their problems and make the PS3 more accessible.
The one and only thing that I can afford right now will be a DX10 card and any accomodations (maybe 500 extra RAM, new processor, new OS [Vista]) So I gotta say screw consoles : ( Maybe my options will open for a Wii, but I'm really focused on optimizing the DX10.
Okay, 5 grand? 5 grand on a PC, are you kidding me? For 5 grand you could get the highest end PC from 5 years in the future teleported to you. If you want a monster of a PC (I.E. all the latest dual-core crap etc, etc) it's not going to cost you more than 2 grand. That's what PC wackjobs spend. For a high-end PC that can tackle any game on the market today and stay relevent for years to come, no more than 1 grand is required. Myself...I have the demo of this game. I can play it with an absolutely fine framerate with high quality graphics and no features disengaged at a resolution of 800x600. Yeah, not perfect. But consider this: my videocard is sub-$100...and the 360 doesn't achieve high quality textures. Apparently they're only medium quality, according to the developer. With a $300 videocard my PC could stomp the piss out of a 360. Hm, what should I do, upgrade my low-mid-end PC or BUY A CONSOLE? At any rate, whose doing either for THIS game? Come on, people, read the reviews! If you're looking for a console and don't own a PC...which, assuming by the fact that you're reading this, you probably do...buy a Wii. Otherwise, get a $150 videocard and stack up on some RAM. The 360 is nearly spent, and its inability to rock this game's face in shows it.
Redfingers' comments