Post by: incognegro on November 09, 2006, 05:06:00 AM
brings up some points on the sixaxis and stuff.......interesting review. It would be cool if this thread becomes the ps3 vs. 360 game thread, since so many ppl are interested in such a comparison.
Post by: dvsone on November 09, 2006, 09:57:00 AM
Not a great comparison review for the PS3.
Didn't mention anything about the lack of rumble in the PS3 controller. Maybe I'm the only one that cares about it.
This post has been edited by dvsone: Nov 9 2006, 05:58 PM
Post by: incognegro on November 12, 2006, 04:17:00 AM
Tiger Woods (SD)
Tiger Woods (in HD)
Tony Hawk ( In SD)
Tony Hawk (In HD)
Post by: Pheidias on November 12, 2006, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: Deftech on November 12, 2006, 12:50:00 PM
my
Post by: KAGE360 on November 12, 2006, 12:37:00 PM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 12 2006, 01:50 PM) 
I think m_hael and the team should have spent some more time on their engine seems like both the 360 and ps3 versions are less then stellar. Well lets just hope they do a better job on the next installment.
i was VERY impressed by THP8. the graphics are very clean and beautifully rendered IMHO. just the animation alone is a huge leap. when you consider how well it all gells together and how smooth it is, i believe its one of the most impressive games in the fall line-up.
if your dissapointed with this, your going to be dissapointed with many next gen games
Post by: Mr Invader on November 12, 2006, 03:39:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 12 2006, 01:44 PM)
if your dissapointed with this, your going to be dissapointed with many next gen games
very true
I still think its funny that Sony a year or so ago stated that the PS3 was 2x as powerful than the xbox 360 and that games for the PS3 wouldn't work for the 360 because it was so far ahead. And now... some 360 games look better and even feel better than the PS3 counterpart.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 12, 2006, 04:50:00 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on November 12, 2006, 05:04:00 PM
other then this, they look the same to me
This post has been edited by KAGE360: Nov 13 2006, 01:04 AM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 12, 2006, 05:18:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 12 2006, 07:35 PM) 
after watching the comparison videos, i think that TW looks the same on both systems. however with THP8, the color looks deeper on the 360 version and more washed out on the ps3 version. anyone else see this?
other then this, they look the same to me
I can't tell esp from the crappy videos. You really need full size stills. I watched last night and thought; "and this is showing me what exactly?".
I have a hard enough time seeing PQ differences when HardOCP uses full size stills for ATi & NVIDIA comps, let alone streaming video.
Post by: Pheidias on November 13, 2006, 02:53:00 AM
This post has been edited by Pheidias: Nov 13 2006, 10:54 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 13, 2006, 03:07:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 13 2006, 02:24 AM)
Seems the 360 can't handle neither COD 3 nor Project 8, both are not even running in 720p, COD is 1040x624 and project 8 is 1040x584. I'm not sure what they are running on the ps3 though but I guess the 720p minimum on x360 just went out the window.
I call BS until you can give a link to back up your claim.
And just because some of the screenshots have that resolution, does not mean that the game is not true 720p, nucklehead.
There are 720x1280 screenshots of CoD3, as well:
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 12 2006, 04:21 PM)
I was dissapointed to hear about framerate issues on either console.
And worse on the godly ps3, to boot.
But i notice very little framerate issues on the 360 version.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 05:27:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 13 2006, 06:14 AM)
And worse on the godly ps3, to boot.
But i notice very little framerate issues on the 360 version.
I read that on game spot in their review, but have heard conflicting remarks elsewhere. I can't comment as I only played the THP8 demo on the 360.
heh just noticed that you and Pheidias started postinf in thissection at about the same time. Like moths to a flame.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 13 2006, 01:28 PM
Post by: incognegro on November 13, 2006, 04:58:00 AM
Anybody got anything in terms of comparisons to add to the thread?
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 05:01:00 AM
QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 13 2006, 08:05 AM)
Pheidas seems to be crying for attention today...he saying the most outlandish things
Anybody got anything in terms of comparisons to add to the thread?
Probably not.
Post by: Pheidias on November 13, 2006, 05:03:00 AM
Post by: Deftech on November 13, 2006, 07:45:00 AM
Post by: Pheidias on November 13, 2006, 08:09:00 AM
Those last highres 360 pics look like shit, Is the game that out of focus or is the screenshot maker a tool?
Post by: incognegro on November 13, 2006, 08:58:00 AM
Post by: incognegro on November 14, 2006, 09:11:00 PM
Once again frame rate issues on the ps3 version. I guess the less ram really bothered them.
It seems to have some minor unimpressive texture as well......where have I heard that before
?
Post by: cerberus414 on November 14, 2006, 10:18:00 PM
After all, maybe there are benefits of being the first one in the market, I mean you get the game and the other console gets the port.
NOW LISTEN, I am not bashing the PS3, it is a powerful system, I'm just trying to show how it can't always mean superior graphics, frame rate, etc. Most games that are made for PCs and Xbox 360 are usually developed on the PC first and then ported to the 360. Why do you think Prey, Oblivion and Quake 4 are so choppy and laggy? I mean it is the truth, porting is bad and it barely takes advantage of the console's hardware.
All the exclusive 360 titles I've seen are smooth and flawless. Dead rising has a bazillion people on the screen at once, yet 360 can cope with it and yet still have a smooth frame rate, same with Lost Planet, Gears of War, etc...
Any follow-up thought on my argument?
Post by: silentbob343 on November 14, 2006, 10:32:00 PM
QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Nov 15 2006, 01:25 AM)
I doubt its the resolution though. I mean let's break it down. Call of Duty 3 was made with textures being at some native resolution. I say that because with all the comments about sub-720p, I'm confused, so we'll assume that it is lower than 720p for a sec. Why would a company reduce the resolution for the 360 for better frame rate as opposed to PS3. I mean any idiot knows that frame rate is a lot more important than the resolution of the textures. So, if this is the case and Xbox 360 is benefiting from the smoother frame rate, then why PS3 isn't?. I think there is a bit more to this whole frame rate issue. You see, I have a feeling that the games with this gen will be made on the Xbox 360 (as of now, easier to develop for) from the ground up and then ported to the PS3 (for the multi-platform titles at least). Since their hardware architectures are so different, not as many optimizations can be made to the PS3 once the game is already built on some code. Unless, a company wants to spend an extra year and money to start from scratch and rebuilt the whole game just for the PS3.
After all, maybe there are benefits of being the first one in the market, I mean you get the game and the other console gets the port.
NOW LISTEN, I am not bashing the PS3, it is a powerful system, I'm just trying to show how it can't always mean superior graphics, frame rate, etc. Most games that are made for PCs and Xbox 360 are usually developed on the PC first and then ported to the 360. Why do you think Prey, Oblivion and Quake 4 are so choppy and laggy? I mean it is the truth, porting is bad and it barely takes advantage of the console's hardware.
All the exclusive 360 titles I've seen are smooth and flawless. Dead rising has a bazillion people on the screen at once, yet 360 can cope with it and yet still have a smooth frame rate, same with Lost Planet, Gears of War, etc...
Any follow-up thought on my argument?
I agree it could be port issue as well. We know RFOM runs rock solid as well. The worst ports go to GTA3 and up on th PC, IMO.
Here are twisted's thoughts on the resolution issue.
http://thoughthead.com/?p=19
I really don't care if a game were to use lower resolution to achieve a better framerate if it looks as good or better, in some respects of course. MS said all games 720 and Sony said the same. Then the games should run at 720P, on both systems, smoothly. If that can't get that without the game looking too " bad" then give me smooth.
I don't know what Treyarch did for the 360 and the PS3 and why they might do something to one and not the other.
My only point in my original response was that problems exist on both versions and it is not a completly level comparo. I also thought the texture comments being the same for both systems was kind of funny. Both machines are powerful, on that I think we can all agree.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 14, 2006, 11:19:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:46 PM)
"The textures feature a lot of detail and look nice when viewed up close. "...."Even though most of the textures are quite good, some of them aren't all that impressive and some of the indoor environments, houses in particular, are repetitive."
Sounds like ther are some other issues as well, both the PS3 and 360;
"It never happened to a soldier that was alive, but after you kill them, dead soldiers will occasionally get stuck in walls and even float in midair. It's also possible to see the sparks from weapons fire through solid walls."
The good:
"The textures feature a lot of detail and look nice when viewed up close. It's hard to appreciate every little detail when you're trying to escape death, but the cutscenes offer a chance to enjoy the improved presentation without having to worry about getting shot because you stopped to admire the falling rain, planes flying overhead, or a puddle that has collected in a hole left by a grenade. The game's effects are outstanding. Throwing a smoke grenade results in a thick cloud of smoke so dense and so realistic you'll sometimes find yourself squinting in an effort to see better. Explosions from grenades, rockets, and bombs are similarly impressive."
lol I just read the 360 reveiw and it's almost a carbon copy, thought it was funny.
360 version:
"Even though the textures are better than last year, some of them aren't all that impressive and some of the indoor environments, houses in particular, are repetitive." Sound familar?
"The textures are an area of the game's graphics that have been vastly improved, as they're more detailed than ever. It's hard to appreciate every little detail when you're trying to escape death, but the cutscenes offer a chance to enjoy the improved presentation without having to worry about getting shot because you stopped to admire the falling rain, planes flying overhead, or a puddle that has collected in a hole left by a grenade. Once again, the game's effects are outstanding. Throwing a smoke grenade results in a thick cloud of smoke so dense and so realistic you'll sometimes find yourself squinting in an effort to see better. Explosions from grenades, rockets, and bombs are similarly impressive."
360 also has some framerate issues:
"The frame rate isn't locked at 60 frames per second all of the time, but outside of some occasional slowdown, it's fast and smooth even during some of the most intense firefights. Every once in a while there will be a hitch in the frame rate as the game loads new areas of a level. While this hiccup is certainly noticeable, it only lasts a few seconds and it rarely affects gameplay since it usually happens after you've accomplished an objective and there's a lull in the fighting."
Honestly I know I will be pegged a fanboy, but perhaps the reduction in resolution has some credence. Two titles have more framerate issues on the PS3. but also have framerate issues, albeit less, with reduced resolutions. I agree with twisted , this is unaccpetable from either camp. If you are going to release a game, do it correctly.
Now for the non 'watered down' version:
QUOTE
Call of Duty 3's visuals are great, though a problematic frame rate leaves the game looking decidedly less impressive than it does on the Xbox 360.
QUOTE
There are a couple of visual issues that mar the otherwise great graphics. Key amongst these is the erratic frame rate. It was fast and mostly smooth on the 360, but the game's extremely choppy on the PlayStation 3. This problem isn't limited to hectic battle sequences either--it'll chug in rooms that are completely empty.
QUOTE
Call of Duty 3's online component is more robust on the Xbox 360, but there's still a lot to like on the PlayStation 3. Twenty-four people can play online, but whereas four players per Xbox 360 could go online, just one person can play on a single PS3, and there's no ranked play.
QUOTE
However, an inconsistent frame rate and fewer multiplayer options make the PlayStation 3 version slightly inferior to the Xbox 360 version.
Also what makes you think that if it be true that the 360's versions are at a lower res then 720p, that the ps3 will not be as well? If the ps3's version is already suffering from EXTREME framerate issues, then do you honestly think they would bump up the resolution? Highly unlikely.
Post by: Pheidias on November 14, 2006, 11:38:00 PM
I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...
And they aren't bumping up they are bumping down the resolution. I think this all comes down to activision aiming to high or being presurred by MS to try and put some extra umpfh in the 360 versions.
Post by: nickthegreat on November 15, 2006, 02:23:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 08:45 AM)
I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...
well when you have someone as honest as sony in the market you have to resort to devious behaviour such as lying..............
Post by: incognegro on November 15, 2006, 02:25:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 07:45 AM)
Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?
I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...
And they aren't bumping up they are bumping down the resolution. I think this all comes down to activision aiming to high or being presurred by MS to try and put some extra umpfh in the 360 versions.
Yes because MS are the ones that made the game.
Why do ppl think the resolution is higher on the ps3? If that was the case, it should've been mentioned in the review.
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 15, 2006, 07:47:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 01:45 AM)
Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?
playing only 1 player is actually a big deal. It's quite common this generation to drop split screen modes because they're incredibly resource intensive, if such a mode is dropped in a particular version of the game it speaks to the console's ability to handle such a game type.
MS pressuring Activition is pure speculation on your part. For all we know Activision held them hostage basically saying they had to run at that resolution or the other consoles would get a release date advantage. These are dealings behind closed door and any speculation as to who said what to who is just that.. SPECULATION.
QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 15 2006, 04:32 AM)
Yes because MS are the ones that made the game.
Why do ppl think the resolution is higher on the ps3? If that was the case, it should have been mentioned in the review.
To be fair it is MS to blame here as well. 720p is supposedly a requirement of their certification process by allowing the game to ship at a resolution below 720p broke their "guarantee" (their word not mine) that all games would be "optimized for" and run at "a minimum of 720p".
If I had to guess I'd say that the resolution is actually higher on the PS3... simply because it doesn't have an internal scaler meaning the game actually has to render at the desired output resolution (though I suppose the game developers could have pulled together a software scaler, it's doubtful).
While this keeps PS3 resolution figures honest I still think the built in scaler is one of the Xbox 360's best features.
For the best picture possible resolution take a 4th place back seat to a number of other figures dealing with contrast and color, meaning in the gaming world things like shadows, lighting effects, and in some aspects textures are more important then the output resolution.
obviously someone somewhere in this situation decided that these details were more important then the resolution as well. I'm sure it would have been just as easy to drop a few intensive effects and get the resolution up to a real 720p.
But here we have the problem MS and Sony have been playing a numbers game with resolution, when that isn't as big a contributer to picture quality when compared to many other factors... the dilemma
ends up being
1. make the game look better but break my guarantee of 720p resolutions or
2. keep my promise of 720p resolutions but let the game graphics and or playability suffer.
neither situation is very good. but by breaking their own guarantee they lower their credibility and loose clout when pointing out their competitor's shortcomings.
I think the COD3 game comparison is a good example of what can happen if you place RESOLUTION above other factors
you risk
-lower frame rates
-lack of features like split-screen multiplayer
-lower detail in the textures
-simpler 3D models (X shaped trees instead of fully modeled ones etc.) or removed 3D models
-less lighting effects/less impressive lighting effects
the PS3 version didn't have the benefit of running at a lower resolution and it's clear where it can suffer as a result
HD resolutions are there so you can see more of the details on the screen, if you have to remove those details for the sake of gaining HD resolutions then it's pointless because you'll be exemplifying all of the LACK of details on the screen and the game suffers as a result. Think of it as a pretty woman in a bar. From across the bar she's not in HD, but sitting next to you she's in HD... I'd rather have her be beautiful and sit across the bar then ugly and sitting next to me. the non-HD resolutions Activision went with was a compromise. She walked half way too you but stayed beautiful. meanwhile on the PS3 she's sitting next to you and you begin to notice her lazy eye, and blemished skin etc.
To be perfectly honest I'd rather have a slightly lower resolution if it means the graphical details and gameplay will be salvaged as a result. Though it still doesn't change the fact that MS had to break their guarantee to deliver that.
Post by: incognegro on November 15, 2006, 11:41:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 15 2006, 04:02 PM)
Good response twisted. To the other repsones.....I give you guys an 8.2
yea that pretty woman analogy was pretty funny.
Oh well i could give a shit. Don't like COD and could careless if they missed the res by a hair. Its really not that serious...
Post by: Mr Invader on November 15, 2006, 11:46:00 AM
QUOTE(nickthegreat @ Nov 15 2006, 03:30 AM)
well when you have someone as honest as sony in the market you have to resort to devious behaviour such as lying..............
uuh, i've haven't been paying attention to the forums since gears of war came out, and i seem to be lost.
How did microsoft lie?
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 15, 2006, 11:50:00 AM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 15 2006, 01:53 PM)
uuh, i've haven't been paying attention to the forums since gears of war came out, and i seem to be lost.
How did microsoft lie?
Tony Hawk Project 8 and COD8 were found to be running at less then 720p (about 30-33% less the resolution to be exact)
I've covered it in detail here http://thoughthead.com/?p=19 or you can just re-read this thread.
Post by: Mr Invader on November 15, 2006, 02:39:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 15 2006, 12:57 PM)
Tony Hawk Project 8 and COD8 were found to be running at less then 720p (about 30-33% less the resolution to be exact)
Wow, i couldn't tell with Tony Hawk Project 8, that game is graphically stunning. I thought perhaps CoD3 might be, but i wasn't sure.
I don't think this to be a LIE, a lie is telling false info when you know the truth. Considering that these are both third-party titles, its not Microsoft's fault that they are made like this. PGR3 was a first-party game that wasn't in 720p, THAT was there fault but the game still is one of the best 360 games in gameplay and graphics IMO.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 15, 2006, 08:01:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 15 2006, 07:54 AM)
If I had to guess I'd say that the resolution is actually higher on the PS3... simply because it doesn't have an internal scaler meaning the game actually has to render at the desired output resolution (though I suppose the game developers could have pulled together a software scaler, it's doubtful).
Hmmmm...I though a game could be rendered at a particular resolution, and then output at whatever they chose...independent of hardware upscaling?
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 14 2006, 11:45 PM)
Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?
fetus
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 16, 2006, 06:33:00 AM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 15 2006, 04:46 PM)
Wow, i couldn't tell with Tony Hawk Project 8, that game is graphically stunning. I thought perhaps CoD3 might be, but i wasn't sure.
Which is exactly why resolution isn't all that important compared to other factors. Most people don't even notice when the resolution is lower if the rest of the elements are done well. REALISM makes a games graphics impressive, not resolution (it helps but it's not the most important).
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 15 2006, 04:46 PM)
I don't think this to be a LIE, a lie is telling false info when you know the truth. Considering that these are both third-party titles, its not Microsoft's fault that they are made like this. PGR3 was a first-party game that wasn't in 720p, THAT was there fault but the game still is one of the best 360 games in gameplay and graphics IMO.
Activision Lied because the box says 720p even when it's not
MS didn't lie but they broke their promise, because the guaranteed all games would run at 720p and then they allowed the Activision games to be released at less then that.
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 15 2006, 10:08 PM)
fetus
I might not agree with him but but I've had enough of this name calling... The next person to call him "fetus" or any other name gets a suspension PERIOD, I don't care if you're the f-ing pope.
btw I'm moving this thread to game chat since we have a forum for that now.
Post by: Probizzle on November 16, 2006, 12:25:00 PM
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 16, 2006, 03:25:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 16 2006, 06:40 AM)
I might not agree with him but but I've had enough of this name calling... The next person to call him "fetus" or any other name gets a suspension PERIOD, I don't care if you're the f-ing pope.
I wasn't really calling him "fetus", but just find it funny when i hear that word; just has a commical ring to it and makes no sense.
Plus is it really that bad of a name? It is not a four letter word or bye word or something. "Fetus" is pronounced the same way as his user name, after all. And by definition, all it is is an unborn child. I don't know, i just don't see the harm in it unless he is 12yrs old and cannot handle life in general.
But........i'll of course respect your wishes.
Post by: thax on November 17, 2006, 09:46:00 AM
Calling someone names is a key sign that you are not thinking or arguing rationally. For example children do not have well developed mental capabilities rely on name calling to resolve conflicts, in addition "fan boys" also are unable to argue from a rational and logical point of view.
This philophy is thousands of years old, so old that it has a Latin name which you may be familiar with, "Ad hominem", which generally means "Attack the Person".
In our journey to understand the truth the act of calling people names does not help us get there.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 17, 2006, 09:56:00 AM
QUOTE(thax @ Nov 17 2006, 09:53 AM)
The reason that people don't call other people names when discussing topics is because it is not relevent to the discussion at hand.
Calling someone names is a key sign that you are not thinking or arguing rationally. For example children do not have well developed mental capabilities rely on name calling to resolve conflicts, in addition "fan boys" also are unable to argue from a rational and logical point of view.
This philophy is thousands of years old, so old that it has a Latin name which you may be familiar with, "Ad hominem", which generally means "Attack the Person".
In our journey to understand the truth the act of calling people names does not help us get there.
No shit.
Post by: smitty2003 on November 17, 2006, 12:44:00 PM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 13 2006, 01:24 AM)
Seems the 360 can't handle neither COD 3 nor Project 8, both are not even running in 720p, COD is 1040x624 and project 8 is 1040x584. I'm not sure what they are running on the ps3 though but I guess the 720p minimum on x360 just went out the window.
I don't know man, i was watching some gameplay for COD3 on my HDTV (which is 1080i) and it looks damn good. i nearly pissed myself.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 18, 2006, 09:42:00 PM
Post by: PromiscuousRacoon on November 18, 2006, 09:51:00 PM
Post by: calderra on November 19, 2006, 07:22:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 07:45 AM)
I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...
"All launch games will be running in 1080p at 120fps."
-Ken Kutaragi
"Resistance will ship at 1080p."
-Ken, Kaz, Phil
"Killzone was real gameplay."
-Ken, Kaz, Phil
"Killzone now looks even better than the real gameplay did at e3 2005."
-Phil, just last week
Er, who lied?
360 versions of games are getting reviews stating they have less slowdown, etc virtually across the board at this point. Ridge Racer, CoD3, Tony Hawk... it's not just one isolated case. And no one's saying the 360 doesnt' have ANY issues on these games- but you can clearly see people are saying PS3's problems are worse.
What I still don't get is- RR6 on 360 apparently looked better and had less slowdown, and was basically the exact same game, but RR7 is one of PS3's hottest titles, while RR6 on 360 was one of the worst launch games. Just seems odd to me.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 20, 2006, 05:42:00 AM
QUOTE(gonhunter @ Nov 18 2006, 05:51 PM)
Good find.
Post by: Pheidias on November 20, 2006, 09:38:00 AM
That story is insightful but has its flaws. Another strange point I found in it is that it states that the ps2 had just as the ps3 has today almost twice the G-flops the xbox xbox360 have.
If you added in the comments into his article you'd get a more honest and unbiased article.
As one commenter says
"The XBox 360 is an excellent system.. it really, really is. It's so good a system, in fact, that it's not necessary to downplay the PS3's own honest strengths in processing, bandwidth, and storage in order to defend it's honor."
Post by: thax on November 20, 2006, 12:53:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 20 2006, 07:21 PM)
Worst? It received an 8.1 for the 360. Maybe worst as in lackluster game that people don't care for, i.e. not popular.?
Taking ratings from that average of press reviews we get the following rankings among the launch titles. If we as equally as possible divide the launch titles into the 3 groups of Best, Average and Worst we get the following list:Best Games
1. Project Gotham Racing 3 - 8.9/10
2. Call of Duty 2 - 8.5/10
3. Condemned: Criminal Origins - 8.3/10
4. Need for Speed: Most Wanted - 8.3/10
5. Perfect Dark Zero - 8.2/10
6. Kameo: Elements of Power - 8.1/10
Average Games
7. Peter Jackson's King Kong - 8.0/10
8. NBA 2K6 - 7.9/10
9. Amped 3 - 7.8/10
10. GUN - 7.7/10
11. NHL 2K6 - 7.7/10
12. Tony Hawk's American Wasteland - 7.6/10
Worst Games
13. Quake 4 - 7.5/10
14. Ridge Racer 6 -7.4/10
15. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 06 - 7.3/10
16. Madden NFL 06 7.3/10
17. NBA Live 06 - 6.5/10
18. FIFA '06: Road to FIFA World Cup 6.5/10
19. Every Party - 4.8/10
Tetris: The Grandmaster Ace - N/A (No Rating)
Ridge Racer is one of the worst launch titles, as Calderra stated.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 20, 2006, 01:45:00 PM
QUOTE(thax @ Nov 20 2006, 04:00 PM)
Taking ratings from that average of press reviews we get the following rankings among the launch titles. If we as equally as possible divide the launch titles into the 3 groups of Best, Average and Worst we get the following list:
Ridge Racer is one of the worst launch titles, as Calderra stated.
Thank you for the clarification. Calderra never stated his methodology hence my quesion for how it was determined that RR received a "worst" clasification. I kept it simple and used reviews from the same site and did not get the same outcome.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 21, 2006, 12:16:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 20 2006, 11:21 AM)
I don't think any of them had a crystal ball knowing that the final version of RFOM would be 720P
Then by that example/logic they should not have said it was going to be, correct?
Post by: Mr Invader on November 21, 2006, 10:09:00 AM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 20 2006, 10:45 AM)
That story is insightful but has its flaws. Another strange point I found in it is that it states that the ps2 had just as the ps3 has today almost twice the G-flops the xbox xbox360 have.
And did you notice how much better the xbox was in graphics and crispness than the ps2?
I guess G-flops really can't say much here.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 08:25:00 AM
QUOTE(calderra @ Nov 19 2006, 10:29 AM)
"All launch games will be running in 1080p at 120fps."
-Ken Kutaragi
QUOTE
On the subject of 120hz displays, people may or may not remember the presentation Ken Kutaragi made at the Tokyo International Digital Conference almost exactly one year ago to the day; unfortunately Western gaming media badly confused the slides and reported it as a claim that PS3 would reach 120FPS. But in truth it had nothing directly to do with PS3 at all.....In any event, Sony seems to view the 'present' ideal of HD as 1080p sets running at 120hz. They're getting the 1080p now, and the later is tentatively pegged at the ~2008 timeframe. We'll see what happens on that front, but anyway thought it was worth mentioning as there's sort of the perfect storm here of Playstation discussion, the 24fps issue with movies, and the 120hz display issue. Granted this may more reflect Kutaragi's own visions for the industry than an actual near-term concerted effort we'll see on the part of the CE players, but an interesting slide nonetheless.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 29, 2006, 05:30:00 PM
QUOTE
On the subject of 120hz displays, people may or may not remember the presentation Ken Kutaragi made at the Tokyo International Digital Conference almost exactly one year ago to the day; unfortunately Western gaming media badly confused the slides and reported it as a claim that PS3 would reach 120FPS. But in truth it had nothing directly to do with PS3 at all.....In any event, Sony seems to view the 'present' ideal of HD as 1080p sets running at 120hz. They're getting the 1080p now, and the later is tentatively pegged at the ~2008 timeframe. We'll see what happens on that front, but anyway thought it was worth mentioning as there's sort of the perfect storm here of Playstation discussion, the 24fps issue with movies, and the 120hz display issue. Granted this may more reflect Kutaragi's own visions for the industry than an actual near-term concerted effort we'll see on the part of the CE players, but an interesting slide nonetheless.
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 08:32 AM)
Crazy Kenny did say 120FPS, and not the refresh rate. Even that damn slide says FPS, not Hz.
"They are getting 1080p".....yes, if you consider two retarded games that have scored in the 4-6 "getting 1080p".
Seriously, why do you defend this BS?
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 29, 2006, 09:27:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 08:02 PM)
I see what the slide says, PC not PS3, and I'm telling you what was said over at AVS. RR7 got greater than 4-6, so did MUA.
Defend BS? I'm just not taking your Sony hating word and it appears you were wrong Foe.
And what an ushering in of 1080p games that is.
Wrong on what? THat was not just a slide for the PC. Only the bottom figures were for the pc, and the other was for TV and Video FFS. Why would sony show that slide at one of their ps3 conferences if it was not for the ps3. Just to show it for the hell of it? YOu are not that thick, are you?
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 10:20:00 PM
I tossed out your quote on AVS and had two members tell me that was incorrect and I ended up looking like an ass. So I come here to give some more information on the issue and you want to start a pissing match with me. Treating me like a fanboy because I don't believe that quote of yours was correct. Even if he did say the PS3 could run games at 1080P at 120FPS if the displays could support it, we don't know what titles he would be referrring to, i.e. Blast Factor could run at that level were as COD could not.
"Why would sony show that slide at one of their ps3 conferences if it was not for the ps3. Just to show it for the hell of it? "
I already supplied my own answer in the post above, but it was also in the original quote; "In any event, Sony seems to view the 'present' ideal of HD as 1080p sets running at 120hz. They're getting the 1080p now, and the later is tentatively pegged at the ~2008 timeframe. We'll see what happens on that front, but anyway thought it was worth mentioning as there's sort of the perfect storm here of Playstation discussion, the 24fps issue with movies, and the 120hz display issue. Granted this may more reflect Kutaragi's own visions for the industry than an actual near-term concerted effort we'll see on the part of the CE players, but an interesting slide nonetheless."
My answer was pretty close; "Sony is also in the display business, both TVs and PC monitors, so why not show their roadmap of resolutions and how they feel the market is going or how they want the market to go?"
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2006, 12:04:00 AM
But that slide was during a PS3 CONVERENCE.
And in order to see a full 120fps, your Vertical Frequency (refresh rate) has to match it..120Hz.
And i know your not a fanboy, but don't try to hide that you prefer the ps.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2006, 12:04:00 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2006, 02:55:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 30 2006, 01:02 AM)
From some more reading it seems Kaz said the PS3 could do 1080P at 120FPS, but current displays could not keep up. He then showed the slide about where he/Sony want the display market to go, segue via PS3. He was simply taking the time to push Sony's other business, display technology. Now what he meant by the PS3 being 1080P 120FPS capable is anybody's guess.
The funny thing is, that is one of crazy kenny's least ridiculous claims about the ps3. He has said some pretty off the wall crap.
Here are some of his better ones:
QUOTE
"Microsoft is trailing behind us, but they are not a threat. They are good at improving [on products], but we will be advancing to the next level with revolutionary technology...Microsoft shoots for the moon. Sony shoots for the sun."
"With the PS3, our intentions have been to create a machine with supercomputer calculation capabilities for home entertainment...You can experience the 4D world."
"We want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else...The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline."
"With the PS3, our intentions have been to create a machine with supercomputer calculation capabilities for home entertainment...You can experience the 4D world."
"We want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else...The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline."
Post by:
java script:open_image_viewer('928655',74);
if picture not working, compare the pictures when they are in the back of the truck thing.
http://www.gamespot....l...mg;2&page=4
http://www.gamespot....creenindex.html
xbox 360 on top, ps3 on bottom