It's produced by Namco Bandai actually. It would be very stupid financially speaking for them to make it PS3 exclusive. They would only have a possible maximum of 3 million or so customers, of which only a small portion will buy the game. Sales of one million copies would be astronomical on the PS3 whereas they could easily achieve that with the larger pool of consumers ready to buy it for their 360s.
I konw that this has probaably been disscussed a thousand million times by now but do you NEED an HD TV to play on the PS3 or is an ordinary tv ok. I don't know because i only recently started considering buying a PS3.Custodian405
An ordinary TV works fine. BUT -- games are now designed with the hi-definition resolutions in mind so things like text will be smaller and harder to read on a standard TV. In terms of performance, it will work fine.
If you look back at early video games, almost all of them consistently had one goal: to get as many points as you could. That was the point. In arcades, people would proudly enter their initials on the Hi-Score list for all fellow geeks to see. They would come back and check to see if their hi-score held up over time (unless the machine got unplugged and reset -- a tragic incident). I remember scoring 99999 on some mini space invaders game and being very proud that the score had reached its limit.
Some people still like playing for points. Me, I like playing games for fun and when I get an achievement I'm usually surprised and don't even know which achievement I've unlocked until I look it up. It does add an element of accomplishment in some games and gives me a bit of a feeling of a "Hi-score" list of yesteryear. For the majority of people, I think it adds a little fun. Most people don't play just for achievements. There will always be some people that just don't "get" fun. Look at MMO's -- these people that play 10 hours or more a day just to reach whatever level before everyone else -- and then they complain that the game is boring. Same sort of thing.
The trouble with those devices is that they still must communicate with the input code of the games themselves, which are not programmed for keyboards and mice. So imagine using your mouse, but it moves at a steady rate like a controller's analog sticks as opposed to instantaneous movement of a mouse. It just doesn't feel responsive because it's only emulating mouse control without it being a true mouse input. It's hard to explain, but it will only work well if a game is programmed to use keyboard and mouse. As far as I know, only FF XI is programmed for KB / M and it's clunky because it's a pretty old game.
I'd love the option to choose controller or KB / M just because some games are so suited to that (personally I prefer KB / M to controllers for FPS games, but I have gotten a lot better over time with controllers) -- but that would mean programmers would need to tweak all the controls in the game for two entirely different input types. This would involve a lot of extra balancing, testing, and fine-tuning. They probably just don't want to bother with the extra work and time in most cases. Plus it may communicate an image that the consoles are less accessible, not as casual, and more PC-like -- something the console makers probably don't want people to think.
Yeah I don't know why RS:V would run poorly for you -- 95% of the time I'm in pretty much lag-free gaming for hours on end. I had Gears of War also and it ran fine too. I'm just on a regular DSL connection so that's nothing special. Maybe your router could be power-cycled or something? Like - I mean - unplug it and plug it back in, and turn off other stuff that's on the router and see if any other devices are interfering with the network performance. Or hook directly up with the ethernet cable to eliminate the variables.
I've found if I have stuff running on my PC through my router (like something being downloaded) while I'm playing then I get horrible performance in some 360 games but not in others -- maybe the way the packets are received and sent causes those sorts of problems - which might be different in RS:V than GOW. Try to get it working cuz once you switch to RS:V you won't go back to GOW.
^^ i thought the ps3 had more graphical power???damn wasent sure lil50cent
Nope 360 definitely more graphics power -- and the PS3 does have more POTENTIAL processing power, assuming a developer can get all the mulit-function processing running at peak efficiency -- whereas the 360's multi-processor set-up is much easier to program and is only slightly less powerful in terms of processing. Look at all the games for PS3 with frame rate issues. They're all multi-platform games that run more smoothly on the 360 because it's easier to program and it has more power in regards to graphics. Games that are developed exclusively for the PS3 could possibly look better than some other 360 games, but all multi-platform games will look and run better on the 360 for some time. Plus exclusive 360 games look fantastic anyways. Of course, if a game comes out a year or half a year after the 360, it could have some extra tweaking that might help it look better than the 360 version. But otherwise, the 360 version will generally run better.
I don't know if it's possible for them to fix that problem since there is no hardware resolution scaler in the PS3. Therefore, it would have to be done in software which would mean some sort of patch for all those games, some kind of bios update, and a performance drop since the processor would need to handle the scaling.
I use it for movies since it doesn't power-down after 5 minutes of non-usage. Now that I'm used to having the remote, I find that so annoying to have to turn on the controller and wait when watching a movie.
I have to say after seeing that footage of Heavenly Sword on Heroes yesterday, I was pretty impressed. It looked amazing. Sure, graphcis aren't everything, but they were the best - looking graphics I've ever seen of a game anywhere. I'm a loyal Xbox 360 user, but I'm telling you, that footage has made me start thinking about saving up for the PS3. The one thing I didn't like was the gigantic X icon in the middle of the screen for an action - I mean -- it doesn't have to be THAT big does it?
Log in to comment