Originally posted by CosmicComet
-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:
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.
-Because the horseshit is pretty much self-evident to someone who isn't biased at this point.
-I'm not sure if that's such an appropriate analogy, because the PS3 still hasn't outpaced the 360 after almost half a decade.
-While that can be true in some cases, what's preventing the PS3 of taking advantage of its supposed superiority and making these multiplatform games look better or run faster on it? Being multiplatform never stopped the PC from doing that.
I admit that the framerate thing isn't that big of a deal, but framerates dropping into the teens sometimes can be pretty frustrating for some people. People like me. I hate low framerates a lot.
-Yea, I guess it was enough for them. Even though they themselves said that it was pretty much a technicality since the difference was 'marginal.' I guess they're just nitpicky. And the difference is indeed marginal, marginal enough for most people to even fail to see a difference as Eurogamer.net and, more importantly me, concluded.
-Can the PS3 run any game that's now exclusive to the 360? Yes, of course it can.
Can the 360 run FF13, Dirt/Dirt 2, Crysis 2, Rage, Resident Evil 5, Metro 2033, MGS: Rising, BF2? Yes, of course it can.
-Actually, if I had to do console gaming, I'd almost definitely go for the PS3.
-Well, we'll see then, I guess. Maybe he meant production values and stuff, since porting games from platform to platform can be a pretty big *****.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Haha, you get riled up so easily. u mad cause i see your double standard? Hahahaha.
What does this corny laughing remind me of? Oh yeah...
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Haha, you get riled up so easily. u mad cause i see your double standard? Hahahaha.
So basically you aren't able to distinguish between different contexts of a single post I take it?
One section talking about hardware capabilities, and the other talking about an uncited difference between a multiple plat game?
Originally posted by CosmicCometOne section talking about hardware capabilities, and the other talking about an uncited difference between a multiple plat game?
Can I suppose that you have your claims that the 360 can't run the games you mentioned cited? And besides, I already provided the source, which is Eurogamer.net in this article.
Originally posted by StyleTime
You dodgin' his question?131
Not only is he dodging questions but replies as well.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
So basically you aren't able to distinguish between different contexts of a single post I take it?One section talking about hardware capabilities, and the other talking about an uncited difference between a multiple plat game?
What Blax just said: Stop.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
-Because the horseshit is pretty much self-evident to someone who isn't biased at this point.-I'm not sure if that's such an appropriate analogy, because the PS3 still hasn't outpaced the 360 after almost half a decade.
-While that can be true in some cases, what's preventing the PS3 of taking advantage of its supposed superiority and making these multiplatform games look better or run faster on it? Being multiplatform never stopped the PC from doing that.
I admit that the framerate thing isn't that big of a deal, but framerates dropping into the teens sometimes can be pretty frustrating for some people. People like me. I hate low framerates a lot.
-Yea, I guess it was enough for them. Even though they themselves said that it was pretty much a technicality since the difference was 'marginal.' I guess they're just nitpicky. And the difference is indeed marginal, marginal enough for most people to even fail to see a difference as Eurogamer.net and, more importantly me, concluded.
-Can the PS3 run any game that's now exclusive to the 360? Yes, of course it can.
Can the 360 run FF13, Dirt/Dirt 2, Crysis 2, Rage, Resident Evil 5, Metro 2033, MGS: Rising, BF2? Yes, of course it can.
-Actually, if I had to do console gaming, I'd almost definitely go for the PS3.
-Well, we'll see then, I guess. Maybe he meant production values and stuff, since porting games from platform to platform can be a pretty big *****.
The only bias is on your end for not acknowledging completely visible results, it only requires that you pay better attention and not take a cursory look a few screens and then make up your mind that you know everything. The 360's games are by and large shooters with minimal activity, number of enemies on screen, physics etc. While at the same time the PS3 can produce equal or better graphics with more of everything running at the same time.
-No action game on the 360 quite matches God of War 3 graphically. Let alone consecutively have boss battles that are 2 kilometers tall. Nothing on the 360 has matched how amazing Cronos looks.
-No game on the 360 has a scale like Lair where you start off on foot as a normal sized human, then hop on your 30 foot dragon flying across levels that span a couple of miles, all the while thousands of soldiers are on foot fighting it out, coupled with giant monster units there too. A game where you can readily drop down and then join in the fray with these thousands of soldiers and then go back up into the air to do battle with hundreds of enemy dragon units as well, all in a split second. All the while the models are still fairly detailed despite the amount of them on screen, on top of all that still, you have bosses that are of the magnitude of the Kraken from the recent Clash of the Titans remake.
Examples of screenshots from Lair if you haven't heard of it:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/740/740387/lair-20070211032040825.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/740/740387/lair-20070211032044091.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/780/780114/lair-20070412062405338_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/803/803709/e3-2007-lair-screens-20070711045939196_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/815/815958/lair-20070827025521240_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/777/777964/lair-20070403022948561_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/777/777964/lair-20070403022957280.jpg
Lair is a 2007 game. As of yet no 360 game is out there that needs that much computing power.
-No game on the 360 matches Gran Turismo 5. Forza 3? lol. The difference in graphics between the two is great Not only that, Gran Turismo is looking to have nearly 3 times as many cars as well (over a 1000 vs like 400).
Even if the 360 had the power to run those games in their entirety, it wouldn't have the space.
-Did you just seriously compare the PC to consoles? OF COURSE multiplat games can look better than a good margin on the PC, it is scalable to your specs and new video cards are constantly being put out. You have control over how good you want your PC games to look, consoles are static, and thus the developers settle at near equality. Undeniably it is the 360 that is the lowest common denominator however, it has limits that the PS3 does not. FF13 again is the key.
-Are you implying that framerates drop to the teens in the PS3 version? Be direct. Don't try to lead someone into a false conclusion with your silly wording. You've yet to produce a source saying there is a framerate difference either, this is the first I've heard of it. Not that it matters, as its a multiplat game anyway.
-Marginal, but they also said a 'clear' difference as well. Marginal in that it shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game, but clear in that its easily seen if compared.
-Cool we agree.
-Lol. You mentioned multiplat games.
-Cool.
-No. Did you read the interview that I linked to? He was talking about graphics specifically and things like a completely seamless world that is fully explorable outside of the mountains, no midgame load times etc. Things that the 360 would not be able to do.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
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.
-What was my argument here? That the PS3 can run the 360's games yes? Well, there you go. The 360's best looking game is coming to the 360. Sony has nothing to do with it coming to the PS3, that's EA.
-Eyetoy does everything Kinect does at this point. You said the Kinect had something to offer, what does it offer? It's shit. And it's nothing new. Don't care about either Kinect or Move though, screw optional peripherals.
And no, the PS move is better than the Wiimote. Trying to find the gif where it demonstrates full 1:1 movement. Some dude flipped the move remote in his hand and the sword on screen in his hand moved exactly the same way.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Can I suppose that you have your claims that the 360 can't run the games you mentioned cited? And besides, I already provided the source, which is Eurogamer.net in this article.
My source? The proof is in the pudding. 🙂
We both see what the 360 is outputting and what the PS3 is outputting, I believe you are not reading carefully enough in thinking I'm merely talking about textures and models and all that. I'm not. They are fairly comparable in just that regard.
Devs are constantly talking about now how the PS3 version will be the better looking version now. Crytek talking about how Crysis 2 will look better on PS3 than 360. Gabe Newell's fat ass talking about how the PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the better console version. Castlevania devs saying they refused to sacrifice quality so they put the new game on 2 dvds for 360.
This is not exactly unbiased, but PS3 devs are always talking about how 'this can't run on the 360', and hey, when you look through what the 360 is doing, you can't say it can do that when you see a lot of narrow corridor shooters, great looking graphics on these narrow corridor shooters mind you but they are doing little else. lol.
In KMC terms, 'feats', the 360 does not have the 'feats' to prove that it can. 😛
Cool, thanks for the link. First I've heard of it.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
The only bias is on your end for not acknowledging completely visible results, it only requires that you pay better attention and not take a cursory look a few screens and then make up your mind that you know everything. The 360's games are by and large shooters with minimal activity, number of enemies on screen, physics etc. While at the same time the PS3 can produce equal or better graphics with more of everything running at the same time.-No action game on the 360 quite matches God of War 3 graphically. Let alone consecutively have boss battles that are 2 kilometers tall. Nothing on the 360 has matched how amazing Cronos looks.
-No game on the 360 has a scale like Lair where you start off on foot as a normal sized human, then hop on your 30 foot dragon flying across levels that span a couple of miles, all the while thousands of soldiers are on foot fighting it out, coupled with giant monster units there too. A game where you can readily drop down and then join in the fray with these thousands of soldiers and then go back up into the air to do battle with hundreds of enemy dragon units as well, all in a split second. All the while the models are still fairly detailed despite the amount of them on screen, on top of all that still, you have bosses that are of the magnitude of the Kraken from the recent Clash of the Titans remake.
Examples of screenshots from Lair if you haven't heard of it:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/740/740387/lair-20070211032040825.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/740/740387/lair-20070211032044091.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/780/780114/lair-20070412062405338_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/803/803709/e3-2007-lair-screens-20070711045939196_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/815/815958/lair-20070827025521240_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/777/777964/lair-20070403022948561_640w.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/777/777964/lair-20070403022957280.jpgLair is a 2007 game. As of yet no 360 game is out there that needs that much computing power.
-No game on the 360 matches Gran Turismo 5. Forza 3? lol. The difference in graphics between the two is great Not only that, Gran Turismo is looking to have nearly 3 times as many cars as well (over a 1000 vs like 400).
Even if the 360 had the power to run those games in their entirety, it wouldn't have the space.
-Did you just seriously compare the PC to consoles? OF COURSE multiplat games can look better than a good margin on the PC, it is scalable to your specs and new video cards are constantly being put out. You have control over how good you want your PC games to look, consoles are static, and thus the developers settle at near equality. Undeniably it is the 360 that is the lowest common denominator however, it has limits that the PS3 does not. FF13 again is the key.
-Are you implying that framerates drop to the teens in the PS3 version? Be direct. Don't try to lead someone into a false conclusion with your silly wording. You've yet to produce a source saying there is a framerate difference either, this is the first I've heard of it. Not that it matters, as its a multiplat game anyway.
-Marginal, but they also said a 'clear' difference as well. Marginal in that it shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game, but clear in that its easily seen if compared.
-Cool we agree.
-Lol. You mentioned multiplat games.
-Cool.
-No. Did you read the interview that I linked to? He was talking about graphics specifically and things like a completely seamless world that is fully explorable outside of the mountains, no midgame load times etc. Things that the 360 would not be able to do.
-Sure, there are plenty of games like that on the 360, but they're not the only ones.
-Perhaps... not yet at least.
-You gotta stop overrating Lair so much. It has some clever optimizing like not rendering stuff if you're far enough away. That's nothing new or mindblowing. Also, you're overestimating the numbers by quite a bit. I mean, apparently Dead Rising 2 will have immense amount of zombies and whatnot.
-It's hard to match it since it's not even out yet, and while it looks impressive, it's just doesn't look any better than, say, Dirt 2 to me. Maybe it's just me.
Then they would just have to cram it into more DVDs, like they did with FF13.
-I did. And why not? If the PS3 is more powerful than why not take advantage of it? So what if it's 'static'? Besides, you don't have ultimate control of how good PC games look and they don't "scale" with your video card either. You have pre-set graphics settings and that's more or less it. Of course, we could go into modding and yadda, yadda, but that's hardly the point.
-That's exactly what I am implying. And yes, I did produce a source.
-Marginal and clear can co-exist. As I have demonstrated, to the end user, the difference is indeed marginal(except for some cutscenes). They just didn't want any potential trouble, that's all.
-Ah, screw me.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
My source? The proof is in the pudding. 🙂We both see what the 360 is outputting and what the PS3 is outputting, I believe you are not reading carefully enough in thinking I'm merely talking about textures and models and all that. I'm not. They are fairly comparable in just that regard.
Devs are constantly talking about now how the PS3 version will be the better looking version now. Crytek talking about how Crysis 2 will look better on PS3 than 360. Gabe Newell's fat ass talking about how the PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the better console version. Castlevania devs saying they refused to sacrifice quality so they put the new game on 2 dvds for 360.
This is not exactly unbiased, but PS3 devs are always talking about how 'this can't run on the 360', and hey, when you look through what the 360 is doing, you can't say it can do that when you see a lot of narrow corridor shooters, great looking graphics on these narrow corridor shooters mind you but they are doing little else. lol.
In KMC terms, 'feats', the 360 does not have the 'feats' to prove that it can. 😛
Cool, thanks for the link. First I've heard of it.
Oh...
I don't know what you mean, because last time I checked Crytek said that there's no difference between the two to them and it's going to look just as good on both the consoles. id Software also claimed that the 360 is more dev-friendly and just as capable if you know what you're doing... at least for them.
Personally, I haven't heard anything like that from devs sans blu-ray. Then again, if space proves to be an issue, you can use more than 1 DVD. Now I'm not saying that this is the ideal solution, cause it's not, but it's not something that can prevent you from making a game.
From what I can gather, the PS3 has more oomph than the 360, but not by a big margin and only if you really, really get into the needlessly encumbering and complicated Cell CPU.
And what's wrong with multiplat games? I don't get it. Why the hell does it always have to be an exclusive to some people? Does it not display the capabilities of the platform it's running on? Do exclusives somehow always manage to do that? 😕
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
And what's wrong with multiplat games? I don't get it. Why the hell does it always have to be an exclusive to some people? Does it not display the capabilities of the platform it's running on? Do exclusives somehow always manage to do that? 😕
Because people want to have their choices in which console to buy affirmed. Multi-plats don't grant bragging rights. It's a sub concious ego thing.
Also, PC is the best console ever. Bar nein.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because people want to have their choices in which console to buy affirmed. Multi-plats don't grant bragging rights. It's a sub concious ego thing.
I mean, CC almost made it sound like multiplat games, no matter how good they look, don't count for some mysterious reason.
