Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Peach
His point is that if the pre-rendered doesn't look any good - and pre-rendered always looks better than gameplay - then the chances of the gameplay looking good are very, very slim.

There have only been two games out so far that actually would have benefited from the amount of space available on a blu-ray. And one was a 360 exclusive. The amount of space available on a blu-ray disc, more than anything else, allows developers to be lazy by not having to compress the audio and video. There are amazing compression techniques available these days, and uncompressed is not a good thing.

-Then his point is stupid. Because the pre-rendered screens look as good as any other pre-rendered scenes you can find. Basically as meh as FF13 looked due to the 360 holding it back, its guaranteed to look much better than that.

-No. Every 360 game would benefit from Blu-Ray. 360 games by and large are moderate in scale, physics, on-screen activity, everything. Even Lair, a 2007 PS3 game, would not be possible on the 360. With bosses over a mile long, thousands of units on screen and single levels alone that would fill up a DVD to capacity.

FF13's image quality looks terrible on the 360 compared to the PS3. Where was Square's usage of this vague, amazing compression technique there?

The 360's games have been conveniently been able to work around its limitations because the demographic prefers shooters, which don't have to be particularly large scale. The 360's best games can be recreated on the PS3 faithfully, which is no bullshit because Mass Effect 2 is coming to PS3.

God of War 3, Killzone 2 & 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, etc, would not be possible on the 360 on the other hand.

It's undeniable, the PS3 is flat out the better technology. Blu-Ray is only part of it. Processing power wise its better too.

So I'm filling out an application, and it lists characteristics that they want their employees to have. One of them is "Detailed Orientated."

Not this "OMG PS3 is soooooo00000 vastly superior to the 360" horseshit AGAIN.

Yea, FF13 looked slightly better on the PS3(it ran at a bit higher resolution), but the 360 actually had higher framerates. Or rather, less severe framerate minimums, which is always a good thing.

It has to be incorrect for it to be horseshit.

link-rape

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
It has to be incorrect for it to be horseshit.

link-rape

Yep. Precisely.

Also, you should written "Cow Orientated." I made a funny.

So you agree with CC. Well dammit, now how am I supposed to get on your nerves.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
-Then his point is stupid. Because the pre-rendered screens look as good as any other pre-rendered scenes you can find. Basically as meh as FF13 looked due to the 360 holding it back, its guaranteed to look much better than that.

-No. Every 360 game would benefit from Blu-Ray. 360 games by and large are moderate in scale, physics, on-screen activity, everything. Even Lair, a 2007 PS3 game, would not be possible on the 360. With bosses over a mile long, thousands of units on screen and single levels alone that would fill up a DVD to capacity.

FF13's image quality looks terrible on the 360 compared to the PS3. Where was Square's usage of this vague, amazing compression technique there?

The 360's games have been conveniently been able to work around its limitations because the demographic prefers shooters, which don't have to be particularly large scale. The 360's best games can be recreated on the PS3 faithfully, which is no bullshit because Mass Effect 2 is coming to PS3.

God of War 3, Killzone 2 & 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, etc, would not be possible on the 360 on the other hand.

It's undeniable, the PS3 is flat out the better technology. Blu-Ray is only part of it. Processing power wise its better too.

No.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No.

The 360 has no games.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No.

That pretty much sums it up.

And I'm not sure what exactly he means by 'scope', but games like Killzone, GoW, Uncharted don't really have that much scope. GTA4 has tons of 'scope', but it's doing just fine on the 360. As a matter of fact, it runs at a higher resolution on the 360 than on the PS3.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the word 'scope' here, but yea...

Originally posted by CosmicComet
No. Every 360 game would benefit from Blu-Ray. 360 games by and large are moderate in scale, physics, on-screen activity, everything. Even Lair, a 2007 PS3 game, would not be possible on the 360. With bosses over a mile long, thousands of units on screen and single levels alone that would fill up a DVD to capacity.

FF13's image quality looks terrible on the 360 compared to the PS3. Where was Square's usage of this vague, amazing compression technique there?

The 360's games have been conveniently been able to work around its limitations because the demographic prefers shooters, which don't have to be particularly large scale. The 360's best games can be recreated on the PS3 faithfully, which is no bullshit because Mass Effect 2 is coming to PS3.

God of War 3, Killzone 2 & 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, etc, would not be possible on the 360 on the other hand.

It's undeniable, the PS3 is flat out the better technology. Blu-Ray is only part of it. Processing power wise its better too.

Bosses over a mile long can't be on the 360? FromSoftware's Ninja Blade says you're wrong. Thousands of units can't be seen on the 360? What about Capcom's Dead Rising 2, it's been confirmed that there's gonna be 6,000 zombies on screen. Congrats, you look like an idiot.

Bull$#!+

Yeah, port a sequel to another system while it's predecessor is only on two other systems. Since ME1 hasn't been on the PS3 as of yet (and never will be), PS3 owners won't be able to experience the world of Mass Effect entirely which sucks to be them.

Yeah no. Those games can be on the 360 but the companies who own them just don't want to do that.

Better technology? Microsoft is gonna give 360 motion movement via Kinect and what does Sony have to offer for the PS3? A Nintendo Wii rip off. Also, the online experience on Xbox Live is far more superior than that of the PlayStation Network. The only thing I see the PS3 winning in is the movie department, nothing else.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
That pretty much sums it up.

And I'm not sure what exactly he means by 'scope', but games like Killzone, GoW, Uncharted don't really have that much scope. GTA4 has tons of 'scope', but it's doing just fine on the 360. As a matter of fact, it runs at a higher resolution on the 360 than on the PS3.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the word 'scope' here, but yea...

Yeah, I'm not really sure what he's talking about either.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

Not this "OMG PS3 is soooooo00000 vastly superior to the 360" horseshit AGAIN.

Yea, FF13 looked slightly better on the PS3(it ran at a bit higher resolution), but the 360 actually had higher framerates. Or rather, less severe framerate minimums, which is always a good thing.

-Why don't you try debunking it with examples if its horseshit? I don't know what 'vastly' means in your mind, but all I'm arguing for is that it's significant and very noticeable, not order of magnitude or anything, but I'm sure you'll try to justify that there is no difference unless there is an order of magnitude difference. lol.

An appropriate analogy is comparing the PS2 to the Dreamcast. Dreamcast was easier to develop for but hit its ceiling pretty quickly. PS2 had a DVD drive a lot more space and more computing power, it outpaced the Dreamcast after the first year or so.

-It's a multiplatform game, it will cater to the lowest common denominator so of course you won't be seeing a major difference. That's pretty muchthe point of multiplatform games in the first place. Never heard of this supposed framerate minimum difference till now, but it wouldn't be noticeable anyway, especially in a game as slow paced as an RPG, and especially because framerate is going to be variable, so there might be all of a 5 minutes at most in a 40+ hour game where the 360's framerate is slightly higher.

Framerate difference will be basically nothing, the visual quality difference however was enough that that the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) in the UK requested that they take down FF13 footage advertising the 360 version because they were using PS3 footage instead:

A viewer complained to the ASA when he saw an ad for Final Fantasy XIII and believed that Square Enix was being deceptive by using PlayStation 3 footage. The ASA tested the game on both consoles and discovered that there was a difference between the two versions. The organization made this statement on its test results: "We noted that there was a discernible difference in the picture quality of the two - the PlayStation 3 image in video sequences appeared sharper and colors were more vivid than those of the Xbox 360."

The ASA ordered Square Enix to stop running the advertisement, saying: "Because the ad promoted the game on the Xbox 360 platform, it should have featured footage derived from that console. Because it did not, and because we considered that the use of PlayStation 3 footage in the ad exaggerated the quality of the footage available on the Xbox 360, albeit marginally, we concluded the ad was misleading."

Can the PS3 run Gears of War 2/3? Yes. Hell Unreal Tournament 3 also made by Epic runs the same engine and a similar art style anyway. Can the PS3 run Mass Effect 2? Yes, it already is.

Can the 360 run God of War 3? No. Can it run Lair? No.Can it run Gran Turismo 5? ...No.

You can prefer whatever console you want but the PS3 is clearly the more capable machine, which is all I'm arguing about.

All you need to know is that we'll see Final Fantasy Versus 13 next month and that it will look a lot better than 13 did. Nomura himself refused to make it multiplat because he didn't want the quality to suffer.

I'm trying to point things out but I'm being ignored it would seem.

I'm sure you'll try to justify that there is no difference unless there is an order of magnitude difference. lol.

Never heard of this supposed framerate minimum difference till now, but it wouldn't be noticeable anyway,

PS3 is better due to the fact Microsoft had Justin Bieber demonstrating the Kinect at E3.

Congrats NemeSis. You proved that the 360 can do certain things that the PS3 can, yet you couldn't name a single example of game that can do all those things at once like the PS3 can.

Kinect? Wow. Eyetoy did that years ago. Kinect is also buggy and has limited support as of now. Move has more support and is already functional.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Yeah, you're not too bright are you?

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Kinect? Wow. Eyetoy did that years ago. Kinect is also buggy and has limited support as of now. Move has more support and is already functional.

Not to mention Justin Bieber tainted it at E3

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Congrats NemeSis. You proved that the 360 can do certain things that the PS3 can, yet you couldn't name a single example of game that can do all those things at once like the PS3 can.

Kinect? Wow. Eyetoy did that years ago. Kinect is also buggy and has limited support as of now. Move has more support and is already functional.

Calling me NemeSis is getting about as old as me meeting your mother every night and already I'm getting that itchy sensation. What about Mass Effect 2, that game dished out a lot of enemies on screen and there was that one giant boss at the end and for Sony to want a game that was made for 360 says a lot.

Eyetoy kinda sucked and didn't Kinect look buggy because the prototype was shown at E3 or something? Dude, even the Wii >>> Move.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Yeah, you're not too bright are you?

Haha, you get riled up so easily. u mad cause i see your double standard? Hahahaha.