Top
420°

Videogamer: Lost Planet: Xbox 360 Vs PlayStation 3

Videogamer writes:

"Lost Planet is a game we've all played a fair bit of here at VideoGamer.com. Despite its annoying problems, the Xbox 360 game sports brilliant visuals and some rock-hard old-skool gameplay that make it well worth owning, especially if you have a soft spot for giant bugs. PS3 owners have had to wait a long time for their chance to play in the snow, but has it been worth it? Read on for our verdict on which console version of Lost Planet is the one to buy."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
weazle3437d ago

Does anybody really care about this game or its comparisons? This is one game that is definitely not on the top of my list of must buys anyway.

decapitator3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

Another one of these things...seriously is anyone interested in this title anymore ? After it been on 360 and later on PC and now PS3 owners get the leftover ? I would feel offended this happened to me.

As having played the PC version and as a proud PS3 owner, I will gladly not give a ***** about this game. Thank You.

SUP3R3437d ago

I don't care about this game, but from the comparison video, Capcom clearly gave the PS3 version a good finger up the a$$.
Do they really even care about the PS3? Why did they waste their time?
I wasn't planning on buying it, but I might have changed my mind. After watching that video I'm definitely not buying it unless they release a patch.

decapitator3437d ago

Well they care when PS2 was king, but it seems things have changed quiet a bit. First stab was DMC4 going multi but then again it made a lot of sense from a business stand point. But am not getting it again when I played it on PC and tried a 360 version.

Megaton3437d ago

Don't care about this game at all really, since it's just not good. Ranks up among the worst character controls I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with. The mere act or turning your character is a slow and sluggish hassle. You'd think that after so many years in the industry, Capcom would be able to avoid something so fundamentally terrible.

Turd vs. Turd: Which one smells less offensive?

Greysturm3437d ago

Still there are arcade 360s or people that dont have an internet connection

wow4u3437d ago

Funny, that video makes me more interested in the game now than before.

Oh, what do the metacritic reviewers say?

Xbox 360 Lost Planet: 79 / 100
PS3 Lost Planet: 76 / 100

Chaos Striker3437d ago

It appears that you let Metacritics dictate everything that you decide on. What's next? Will it tell you whether pizza is rated higher than hamburgers? Your argument is limited by your blind enthusiasm for one measly statistics and not taking into account many other views. But then again, whatever makes sleep at night eh?

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3437d ago
Bazookajoe_833437d ago

Or have i seen it somewere else..

toughNAME3437d ago

2 separate games have been proved better on the 360 TODAY

Greysturm3437d ago

Not that it makes any difference though. The only reason to get the ps3 version of lost planet is if you dont have anything to play or wanna see what the dlc was all about

Kleptic3437d ago

ToughName, you didn't seriously just refer to the 360 version of Denied Ops as 'better' did you?...so the horrid graphics are only slightly less horrible on the 360...and it still ranks as one of the ugliest games of this generation...kind of funny how 1up is the only crap site to actually try to throw that around...not one other site mentioned the differences...only that the game was not worth a single persons time...I figured 1up was above that, but whatever...

caffman3437d ago

just to let you know the article was wrong in one big respect. You don't have to pay anything for the DLC on lost planet since about june last year

wow4u3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

@2.1
@2.3

What is your point? Toughname is right, we see (again for the seemingly 100th time) that when all things are equal (ie, the same game in two places) the Xbox 360 version comes out on top.

This is confirmed by not just subjective opinions on graphics, but average review scores.

The trend is clear and damning. Stop dismissing the situation simply because it suits your world-view. This is the gamer-zone, at least try and pretend to have a neutral manner.

This is Yet Another demonstration of the trusim: Multiplatform games are better on Xbox 360 than the PS3.

By every objective measure, that is accurate.

Chaos Striker3437d ago

I hope you mean objective opinions because otherwise your argument again fails. And your are a hypocrite because you are telling other people to stay neutral while you yourself are making extremely one sided statements.

In regards to the article, I really could care less about this comparison because this game is somewhat interesting and I shall look into it further after I purchase some other games that are on my radar.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3437d ago
scrillakiller3437d ago

dnt care im still buying it

Truplaya3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

Bad comparison to do. Do they take into account the price difference? The 360 version could be picked up for half the price of the PS3 version now, and after reading the article it seems the 360 version is still better.

Animal Mutha 763437d ago

I think the point here folks is that a year old game on the 360 still looks better than a 'newer' port on PS3 which is 100% reason not to buy it. If the devs can't be bothered when why should we bother to buy it?

It just shows what happens when devs lazy port over. If they don't optimise for the system then it might as well be running as a 360 emulation on the PS3 and this will not play to any strengths the Cell/RSX combo might have.

wow4u3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

That is one interesting work of fiction you have there.

Firstly, this is a port not an emulated game (my god, how ridiculous bwahaha). The PS3 isnt capable of emulating a PS2 let alone an Xbox 360.

Even on 1st party titles, there hasnt been any demonstration that the CELL has any worthwhile benefit unless it is used to compensate for the memory or GPU shortcomings.

This compensation isnt a question of "lazyness" but of economics. And, if the Development Team has to spend $$$ to overcome the PS3 design only to deliver a version that is LESS than equal to Xbox 360, it is money wasted isnt it?

More effort for less no results. The fundemental design decisions that Sony made on the PS3 shouldnt be a zero-gain situation for developers.

Yet, time and time again, it is demonstrated to be the case.

Keyser3437d ago

this game was not done correclty on the PS3. It would need to be built from the ground up to take advantage of the PS3's ability.

This is another (100th time) display of what happens when you develop on the 360 and port to the PS3. It's not that it can't be done it's that the results are always poor.

These poor results doesn't mean that the PS3 is bad or that the 360 is bad it means this is the wrong process if they want want to get GOOD results. If they are fine with poor results I'm sure the PS3 fans will show them with their wallets that this is unacceptable.

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.