In most of this thread people have overlooked the issue of RAM. The PS3's rigid RAM architecture limits its ability to maintain fast frame rates with demanding 3-D rendering. It's been proven in many games already available for the two consoles. In games made specifically for the PS3, this can be averted by not designing the game with elements that would cause it to be overwhelmed to an extent that the frame rate chugs -- but in cross-platform games this is much tougher to avoid without changing the content of the games themselves. This is why it's so tough to make a fair comparison. Cross-platform games will run better for the 360, and each console's exclusive games will run great on their respective consoles. So, I'd give the edge to the 360 - particularly for sports gamers since almost all major sports games are cross-platform -- but that's only if you prefer it's line-up of games.
A few games have been exceptions to this rule, such as Fight Night and supposedly Oblivion (yet to be proven), but those games have had considerable time and effort invested in improving their performance for the PS3 -- most cross-platform games are released simultaneously on both PS3 and 360, in which case the 360 version has consistently run more smoothly and with better dynamic lighting to boot.
Why wouldn't you want everything set to 720p since you have a 720p native TV? It makes no sense to have it scale to other resolutions and then be scaled to your 720p TV resolution anyways. Your TV will show in 720p no matter what is sent to it. It has a fixed pixel display -- so those pixels can't move around and change to different resolutions. The TV simply scales the image to fit the 720p resolution. The less scaling that happens, the better the picture quality will be. So set your PS3 to 720p for everything and leave it at that.
The thing about the graphics is -- SOME elements of the graphics look fantastic -- but MANY elements of the graphics are not as next-gen. The crowds, stadiums, grass, sky, blimp, etc. all have the familiar 2K look to them that dates back years now. They have got to stop re-hashing the lame background graphics and re-work the whole game's graphics. Many background elements are just up-rezzed versions of last-gen console graphics. Most of the faces of the players and their bodies, animation, and the interface look great. But it's like they're super-imposed on a PS2 background.
It reminds me of the launch NBA 2K6 and how the players all looked great and then there was the coach on the sidelines consisting of 5 polygons (that's a hyperbole, ok?). It's just really jarring and takes away from that next-gen feel. All the screenshots only show the players and are usually zoomed in really close, so of course it looks fantastic in the screenshots.
The gameplay in the demo is quite fun, though, and I'll take gameplay over background graphics any day (yes I've only played the demo, but the graphcis are exactly the same in the release version). But to get a higher than 8 / 10 mark for graphics -- everything needs to look next-gen, not just the players and the menus. Other game developers have done it -- these guys are just cutting corners to get the game done on time and on budget.
It depends on the maps. All the maps are fairly sprawling in nature, but they tend to have choke points where the battles concentrate. Just make sure you choose to respawn closer to the heat of the battle instead of always back at the main base. That way you won't have to travel nearly as much.Â
You knew you could select your spawn point, right? Just select it when you die. I forget the button commands to do it.
[QUOTE="zidura"]From what I've read the PC version is massively multiplayer while the 360 version allows up to 8 players to play cooperatively. I sure wish they took the extra step to make the 360 version massively multiplayer. Then i would not hesitate in buying this game. I love MMO's but so far there is no great next-gen MMO on the 360 (yeah yeah FFXI doesn't count as it's not next-gen and PSU isn't really an MMO). If not Two Worlds, then I'll wait for Conan.berzeker187
Is Age of Conan gonna be a MMO for the 360 or just have up to 8 people online?
At this point anyways, Conan is slated to be a full MMO on the 360 and even possibly interact with PC players on the same servers. It's coming out on PC first, as I imagine they'll fix a lot of the early glitches before porting it over to the 360. But as far as all the information goes, Conan will be a full MMO for the 360. Of course, this means it will charge a subscription. But anyone who has played a good MMO knows this is worth it if they like it.
I really wish the ps3 version had online, virtua tennis sucks anyways. And this is from someone who loves tennis. (Much, much rather play actual tennis than virtua tennis)munu9
Wow great argument. Sour grapes, anyone? You get what you pay for. Xbox Live is definitely worth my $4 per month. Enjoy playing the Virtua Tennis single player campaign cuz that's all you're getting!
[QUOTE="KeyWii"][QUOTE="Nedemis"][QUOTE="advertise_this"]ps3 version also looks slightly better. but yah i'd say online too. doubt it, both support 1080p, but the 360's hardware is better suited for games looking better. wonderful, wonderful RAM....:P PS3's ram is faster than Xbox 360's. PS3 has HDMI. PS3 has Cell processor. PS3 has Blu-Ray. No way is the 360 hardware better for games, thats a bold faced lie. Huh? Have you read ANY reviews of games that are available for both systems? Consistently the PS3 has had trouble with maintaining as high of a frame rate as the 360 and has lower texture detail. The PS3 has only 256 megs of RAM for Video and 256 for everything else. The 360 has 512 which can be allocated as needed, so it's more flexible. The one thing the PS3 has shown in some games is a few more texture effects in some games such as Fight Night, but they had an entire extra year to add those sorts of bells and whistles to that game. The next Fight Night for 360 will look better than the last PS3 version, too. Look at some reviews before you say it's a lie. It's been clearly documented in many games such as Tony Hawk, Call of Duty 3, and bunch of others.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"]interesting, as most audiophiles see no real difference in 5.1-7.1. infact most cant see the difference in analog to digital if you use a nice receiver and cables. the audio eventually has to be turned into analog. my pops is psycotic for this stuff, he has analog audio cables that push $600. sound is an interesting place, digital doesnt always make it better, since technically sound is an analog signal in the first place, a clean analog signal can actually sound better.BroweChisox
The difference is between uncompressed sound and compressed. Optical can simply not do uncompressed sound which leaves it trailing HDMI by quite a bit. Maybe you should see if your father's receiver supports HDMI in and check for yourself. The difference is large enough that my wife is able to tell. Until recently, what the previous poster was saying WAS true. But now that HDMI is available, offering UNCOMPRESSED audio, HDMI is clearly better than optical. If your receiver doesn't have an HDMI in, no worries, you won't get uncompressed audio on that system anyways. You'd have to get a whole new receiver for that purpose which might be worth it if you're a real audiophile. Only HDMI allows for the bandwidth needed for uncompressed sound. It's not really a question of digital versus analog -- it's compressed versus uncompressed. Of course, for the very best, most natural sound, the old purely analog record (as in vinyl) going through a purely analog sound system is best, since there's no compression or digitization whatsoever. But I can't play movies or games on a record so that point is moot anyways.
Log in to comment