Today another Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 comparison video. This time we will look at the game Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07. Do you see any major differences?
Dont just come on here and say 'PS3 looks way cooler then that rubbish 360 version' or 'that PS3 one looks crap, the 360 game looks amazing'!! There is barely any difference in these, even in HD! i Guaruntee if they had switched the names of the vids, no one would realise!!! These two look almost identical. The only subtle difference i could see was a slight change in colours of the grass, thats it!
of course the PS3 will still get sloppy ports of games developed for 360 for fanboys to jump on. Funny how fanbosy clammer 200 difference when really it is $100 difference. Be real. the Core 360 isn't ready out of the box like the baseline PS3. The core 360 doesn't even play every 360 game out of the box either.
the $200 difference?
...GREAT XMAS DEAL! The XBOX 360 has $500 graphics for only $300!!! sweet deal (unless you believe sony's comparison "fact sheet")
Hey ..i dont see why i need to pay 200$ more atleast now ..here now the xbox 360 version looks better without ne doubt ... its even got more colour ..will buy a ps3 when it shows me better results and when its cheap ...
If there are any differences they probably are caused by different developers working on each system version. Call of duty 3 is more interesting. Those steady 60 fps on the 360 version really gives the game a rich dimension. I love 60 fps! No clue how they were able to implement it considering it's by far the best looking 360 game following GOW.
In all honesty, there's barely any difference. The differences I thought I saw I think were down to different camera angles e.t.c. I think the 360 had brighter trees in the back ground, which makes it look better. But most people are forgetting the biggest difference...the 360 player was better! HA!
Small but for the extra $200.00 I want more. For an extra $200.00 I could get a sun roof put in my car or 2 360 games 1 year of xbox live and 1 play and charge kit.
Then send a petition to EA, 'cause they're the ones who made the game. I keep hearing the "I don't see a $200 difference" statement, but if you want 5 years of online and HD movie playback that's an extra $450 on the 360. The $100~200 difference is definitely worth it for me since I want those features. Me, I'm more interested in how good a game is, whether it's exclusive or multiplatform, not whether it looks 5% better one on console than another. It's up to devs to take advantage of the PS3. Some are like EA and don't put in much effort (which is understandable since people will buy the games anyway), and some are like Visual Concepts and aren't afraid to show us what's possible on the PS3. It costs extra, but as game developers they feel that it's worth the effort.
Really.. don't like EA, so this isn't exactly a fair judgement since they hate 'upgrading?'
Stop bringing movie playback into this. Were talking about the better video game system, not dvd player.
aren't taking advantage of the ps3 and cell, WELL guess what?! There isn't one to take advantage of!! It's an underpowered RSX and cell 256 each and no not freely accesable so don't use that crap, it's handicapped so the only way is to do 15 to 30 fps and 480P or 720P and restrict either backgrounds or AI info etc.. There is NO advantage to take.
What a genius you are. The RSX is underpowered? its equivalent to a 7800GT/GTX definitely not an underpowered gfx card at all. A gfx card that on the PC can match and surpass in many instances the ATi X1800XTX, which is a gfx card that is more powerful than the gfx chip (the Xenos) in the 360. And 256MB of GDDR3 RAM is to little? hm, you people really dont understand the way this works. They both have 512MB's of RAM in total, its just that the 360's RAM is unified whereas the PS3's RAM is separated into two 256MB banks. Meaning that in the case of the 360, lets say that they need 384MB's for gfx/texturing and only 128MB for System RAM, then they can do that easier than on the 360 than on the PS3, but you people are mistaken in believing that the same cant be done on the PS3. Lets take aside the fact that they have already stated that they do it on the PS3 (that they can use System RAM for gfx). Have you ever heard of "aperture"? thats when they use the System as VRAM. The only problem with this, is that usually in a PC your system RAM is running at either 200MHz to 533MHZ (and even 666Mhz), which is much slower than GDDR2/3/4 RAM running at 700Mhz with a 256-bit (on a PC, because the 360's and the PS3 bus with is 128-bit) wide bus versus only 64-bit to 128-bit at the most for the System RAM. Which causes much lower bandwith on the system RAM than on the VRAM. But the PS3's 256MB of system RAM runs at 3.2GHZ and has probably a least a 64-bit bus, if not a 128bit bus. Which is higher than your average PC's setup, and therefore alleviates that problem and allows you to use the system RAM far more effectively as VRAM. The 360 by comnparison, RAM runs at 700MHz, (just like the PS3's 256MB VRAM) but its System RAM is faster than 360's unified GDDR3 RAM. So i believe that it probably makes them they about the same, if not, the PS3 faster and gives it higer bandwith. Programmers just may not like the performance of the system RAM and therefore do not wanna rely on it to do texture buffering. But in reality it is possible. And thats just one way you could do it
Both look good as each other as far as I can see. Expect this on a lot of third party games. To be honest you wont really see the real power of either console till a couple of years in the future, thats when gamers investment becomes more justified.
I think that Gears of War has already show an example of how much power the xbox 360 has. That game is just jaw dropping with the gameplay, controls, physics and insane graphics. All running smooth without a hitch it was quite a technical aceivement in my opinion.
If you play ONLY or 90% of time multiplatform games, then it counts. But I don't have a single multiplatform game in my shelves. 200$ difference means nothing when you want the best games.
Thats the point. Sony's fanbase of core gamers didn't buy ps1 and ps2 for sony only games. They bought it because it had all the games that other consoles didn't have by the 3rd party developers. Thats not the case this time around. 3rd party games are supreme on the console that just so happens to be 200 dollars less. Thats good news for millions upon millions of casual gamers. You can stick with sony and justify the 200 dollar difference. But, you are not the typical gamer who has bought sony's other systems. You are hardcore and don't mind spending 200 dollars more for less. But todays economy is ruled by getting MORE for LESS. Thats why Walmart is dominating the way it is. Thats people mentality now a days for the most part. They bought the ps1 and 2 not because it was the best. They bought it because it had ALL the games. Right now, there are only a couple games exclusive to the ps3. And yes, those few games are exciting for hardcore sony fans. But the truth of the matter is....there is little to no hype with casual gamers for Resistance or Motorstorm. They both are good to great games possibly. But casual gamers go with what they know. Sports games, platformers, EA games, ect. And thats the sad truth of the way the video game industry is. I'm getting a ps3 as well. But even with me having thousands to blow. I still think its overpriced. It has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with GAMES. 600 plus with not one game that compares to Gears of War. Not one 3rd party multiplatform game that matches the 360's version. I'm sure eventually there will be great games. Did yall see the 1up video? Every editor there said that no ps3 game offers the graphics or memorable experience that Gears of War offers. One of them said that it was hard to enjoy Resistance after they got to play Gears of War first. They go on to say that Gears of War set the bar really high and is a hard act to follow. This is from the system that is 200 dollars less. You can enjoy Gears of War on the 299 or 399 xbox 360. Thats amazing. Sony fans will always have excuses. 2nd gen vs 1st gen. I don't want to hear it. Remember....Next gen wasn't suppose to start untill the ps3 launches. Bull dookie. Next gen started a year ago and sony only fans are just late to the party. Enjoy whatever system you get. Just understand that MOST casual gamers on a budget will see that their money is better spent on the 360. Better 3rd party games, exclusive 1st party games. WOW. Thanks Microsoft.
You're still comparing 1st gen to 2nd gen. And aren't you contradicting yourself when you first say that there's no difference in the 3rd party titles to justify the extra money, and then saying that the 360's 3rd party titles are superior? I thought there was no real difference for most multiplatform games. I don't understand this statement either: "you are not the typical gamer who has bought sony's other systems. You are hardcore and don't mind spending 200 dollars more for less." I would appreciate it if you could be so good as to teach us why PS3 owners will have spent extra money for 'less'. As far as we can tell, the included features more than make up for the extra $100~200. Traditionally, higher quality products cost more money, so I'd love to see your enlightening explanation on this matter. ----------------------------- --------------- Power of Green claims the system would be $300 without the Blu-ray Drive. There's actually no proof of this, and in fact it doesn't take into account how expensive the rest of the system is: RSX chip Cell chip XDR RAM Gigabit Ethernet HDMI Bluetooth wireless etc. If anything, we would be charged $100 less since the system supposedly costs $800 to manufacture. What bothers me is that a lot of the haters make the pretense that the PS3 is not more powerful or feature-packed than the 360 in order to make the claim that the price difference is unjustified. If you want the most powerful game system and the most bang for your buck, the PS3 is right for you. If you don't care about having the highest quality product and don't feel the need to play online or watch HD movies, there's other consoles up for grabs too. I brought online into it because assuming that the 360 lasts for 5 years, that's $250 for online gameplay. Maybe a little less if you get discounts.
PS3 would be a $300 dollar console without the Blu-Ray drive are you enlightend?. So whats the excuse for the PS3's online.
Your text is a huge lumb, make it more clearer and with lesser words. Make your point in few sentences, you don't make any sense there.
Can you guys count????? If you add that ugly HD player that you have to sit on top of ur 360 it cost the same price. Not to mention the $50 a yr your paying for ur onlinr service. Im an Sony guy and I have a 360. I think both of them are going to be good. But, stop throwing the price deffernce up when its really not one.
The Key word in your post is "IF". You have an option with the 360 CASE CLOSED!! Even with out the HD DVD drive you can still down load HD movies that are account specific. Meaning you can down lead and delete with only making one purchase. And that will come in handy for people who do not know how to manage a HDD or have an eternal HDD. So again CASE CLOSED on the you have to buy the HD DVD DRIVE because you do not. Top Gamer has the HD DVD drive and I do not. He wanted it I did not but you know what we still both have awesome games consoles with the option to upgrade at will.
On top of the 360?. Who said that all the consumers will buy a game console to watch movies on it? what if some consumer's already have HD-dvd players or just dont want or care about movie playing. Now don't come back please!, thank you. I don't think you own a 360. Only a Sony fanboy would be gripeing about $50 a year people loose $50 a year in the Sofa. lol
Well put power of green II. LOL
And they all look better and play better on Xbox bottom line. EA can only do what the hard ware allows them too "DJ". Why do you think Xbox games look better? How about better hardware dumb @ss. EA is lazy but Wow your pathetic. People are not even trying to be realistic or honest about this topic. It feels like trying to ask a crack head to stop smoking they always have an excuse that makes no logical since. People should just be upfront and say they are bias instead of saying Oh look at how great that PS2/3 is. The eyes never lie. I’ve got perfect 20/20. And countless reviews say the PS3 versions of games have frame rate issues and sub 360 graphics. Please stop with the lame excuses and blaming developers. You can’t hold them to that they develop games. But Ea is a good example of what happens when people just follow the leader. EA and Sony are not that different as far the way the products they offer are presented. EX: NFL 2K was awesome. It had better AI, graphics, game play and everything was better than Madden. But we as gamers kept buying Madden until now all of a sudden we see the error in our ways. Now if you DJ and any other Sony fan boy can read EA so well how about reading Sony or PS2/3 with the same type of energy you guys would stop making your self into hypocrites.
Everyone is going to upgade thier way of watching movies in the near future. So in the long run its going to be the same price. But, like I said ealier. I like them both. My problem is u guys bringing up the price defference when there really is none. As far as the two systems. I think its just going to if ur an Sony fan or an Xbox fan. Like I said they are both nice.
You're "FULLOFSHIT", there is a price difference when it comes down to a consumer that decides to buy a console and try out next-gen gaming. You try to add all the options to make the prices even but that's not the way MS selling the 360 and the consumer will see that. They can play the same games for hundreds less. None of this really matters all poorer consumers will care about is the difference in price in the check stands and these are the people that make up the bulk of Sony's fanbase; except this time the PS3 is $300 to $400 more than the PS2 when the masses actually started really snatching up the PS2.
If u never want to upgrade ur way of watching movies in the future ur right. 360 is less with less features. So its not a situation where you get the same thing from both systems and one is $200 more. Thats my only point!!!!!! I could care less on what system u think is best. Just dnt compare a Yukon SLT to a Yukon Denaili fully loaded.
The similarity that can be seen between the two versions of Tiger woods has nothing to do with the power of either console.In my opinion,this is a typical example of generic or modular programming techniques,basically you do not re-invent the wheel.If you are writting a multi platform game its a good idea to write routines that are easily transported to all platforms. This results in games that look very similar on many platforms, save for minor differences in the way the hardware displays colours etc.Why do you think all E.A games engines look vey similar? Many resuable routines thats why. Exclusives are a different kettle of fish, its worth the extra effort to take advantage of the consoles specific strengths, e.g G.O.W/R.F.O.M because usually the devs are sponsered by Microsoft,Sony etc. Just my opinion.
You definitely got that right.
Some folks that work hard and dont have much cash would be fine/happy/gitty with a Yukon SLT and could careless about the Yukon Denaili. The rest of you Sony fanboy's are missing the point the 360 is more consumer friendly period! theres no point in bringing up DVD players ect when people will be buying these consoles for games.
There is at most a $100 difference between the PS3 and X360. The 20GB SKU of PS3 undeniably contains more hardware features in the box than the X360 Premium...
PS3's a Rocket car and the 360's a Pagani and the industry is a whinding road for sure.
Ok so back to the topic, they look identical. Also, everyone has a valid point, the PS3 is a good value for what your receiving. All the stuff packed in the PS3 is worth every cent and I am sure it will serve all your ps3 fans well. Now with that said the Xbox fans are correct too, as far as what these machines are made to do, which is play games correct? Or am I mistaken? Correct their job is to play games, so if you take into account what these machines are simply made to do, $300 is by far the best deal of any console. It might be a tard pack, it might not have HDD, or a wireless controller, HD movies, or any of that other fancy stuff. But you know no console even had a HDD till the Xbox!! Everyone knows none of these features were necessary before, yet somehow their necessary now and their reasons to argue? You know tho you guys can sit here all day and compare apples to oranges, but at the end of the day their still going to be apples and oranges
Here’s a nice little chart put out by people who have an idea about what the actual cost of components might be in the PS3. http://arstechnica.com/news... People aren’t far off when they say BLU-RAY is a huge reason for the high cost, being the most expensive component in the PS3 however the Cell isn’t too far behind. I would say right now with all the shortages and the basic rules of supply and demand the price to manufacture BLU-RAY has gone up. DJ the rest of the stuff in the PS3 is just thrown in just to say they have it for the most part. Hard-Drive, USB, Memory, WiFi, Blue-tooth (can get that for dirt cheap). Also HDMI must not be that expensive because Sony threw it into the lower model without changing the price. I think what people are saying is valid. At current moment Sony isn’t showing how there system is so vastly superior to the Xbox360. Yes, it has the Cell processor which can do more calculations then the processor in the Xbox360. It has the BLU-RAY which has more space on it then Xbox360’s DVD player. However it’s not showing the consumer who looks at what they buy, why it’s a better product. Yes they have a few nice exclusives, however the 360 and the Wii have more. Not only that but most of the multi platform titles are performing a lot better on the Xbox360 or they look identical. So please enlighten all of us why we would want to spend an extra $200 dollars for a product that so far isn’t living up to the hype. I’m not saying this couldn’t turn around for the PS3, but right now it’s not showing how it’s worth the extra $200 dollars for a lot of us.
Someone answer me this, if blu-ray is that important for the future then why when the ps4/xbox912002 come out, there will be no discs? it will be all downloaded content? phil harrison" i will be very surprised if ps4 has a disc drive". so why the need for blu-ray? i dont understand. and i hate some of you for arguing childishly over which console is better, the worse part is some of you are actually over 18. get laid.
ok,according to the comparison it's a second generation xbox 360 title vs a first generation PS3 isn't it...? so what if they look identical......
If there are no challengers to one console then cool games will cease to exist. Ex. When the ps2 came out, what was there to compete? Dreamcast? It died and then what? PS2 made lots of money, and lots of games. The problem is, look at all those games after the dreamcast was gone. The time period between the dreamcast and xbox. All the games sucked. They were just blah! When the xbox came out, what was the major battle for consumers? Remember the commercials at the time? Should I get PS2 with that totally awsome GTA3 game, or xbox with that totally awsome war game Halo? That was the battle I faced. Even the PS1 was challenged by the N64, hence cool games were made and improved. So, if the 36 0 dies, ps3 will, and if the ps3 dies, the 360 will, and if the wii dies... who knows.
The truth is that the PS3 games dont look any different to the 360 ones. I admmit that, but its just ported version of 360 games made in a rush to meet the release date. Its that bad?? HEEL NO!!!! I remember that 360 games at launch looked like Xbox games with High Res textures. So if the Ps3 its having a launch line up of games that look on par with the best on the 360 thats impressive. Come on fanatics, You always defend the 360 saying that its the developers heaven. Given that assumption the PS3 is doing extremely well considering is NEW AND UNPROVEN TECH NOT MADE FOR GAMES, ITS HARD TO LAZY DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP GAMES ON IT. So im impressed. The only game on the CRAPPY 360 that makes the difference its Gears. So in a couple of months you are going to see an amazing improvement in PS3 games graphics with the launch of Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword and Lair. Let the time demonstrates this. FANATICS!!!!
None of those games look as good as gears of war. Nice try though
At least try to hide the fact that your a blind sony fanboy. "PS3 pwn$ gaybOx 1.2, its crappy" thats exactly what you sound like. I like my 360 as well as many other people like theirs. You have a lot of nerve calling everyone else "FANATICS" and then showing what a hypocrite you are by calling the 360 crappy because your a blind fanboy. How can you say the PS3 is doing extremely well also? Its only been released in Japan with 100,000 units, of course its going to sell out.
that now that Im saying the 360 is a crappy hardware, CAUSE IT IS; im the biggest SONY fanboy. LOL!! Im saying the 360 is bad because mine died playing Gears and Im mad because Im missing a really amazing game thats all. Have you read my others comments?? I dont think so. Well A$$HOLE. Im been playing video games since PacMan. I always tried to buy all the consoles, so the 360 was not an exeption. I consider that last gen the best hardware was Microsoft Xbox. But this next gen the 360 is REALLY having its problems. Im not saying the PS3 is going to do better. I just yesterday sold my preowned one to best friend; also a 360 owner who experienced the same problem when he bougths Dead Rising. He fortunately get a replacement unit, but he sold it because he was afraid of the Crappy 360 harware. So I respect your opinion. Im I a Sony fan?? YES I AM. I am a Microsoft fan?? YES I AM. Specially with the Xbox, it was great. Im I a NINTENDO fan?? I WAS. Im not into the Wii thing. So maybe now that I descarted Nintendo you can call me a fanboy. Its ok. But Im speaking the truth. If you dont like it dont read it. If you get mad with it. GO FK URS ELF!!!!!! OHHH AND THANKS MICROSOFT... FOR STOLE MY MONEY.
even if the 360 version looked freaking amazing, and the ps3 version looked like [email protected], or vice versa, IT'S STILL JUST TIGER WOODS...does anyone care?
Astaroth- You are one of the biggest sony fanboys on this site so for you to make that post is kind of ironic. lalaland- Um no. 1. I can buy a 300 dollar 360 and a memory unit for 50 dollars and save my games and go online so bump that up to 150. To all the little sony fanboys on this site who seem to be on their periods I would just like to ask you all why is that COD3 is 30 fps on ps3 while COD3 is 60fps on 360? And to add more fuel to the fire COD2 was also 60fps and came out last year. Also resistance is only 30fps. And why is it that MArk Rein said the ps3 wasnt capable of running a game like Gears of War? hmm. The developers of prey said the exact same thing. So average comsumer goes and sees all the multiplatform games looking equal on both consoles. Cant seem to understand why ps3 costs more money. And then sees the best looking game of the next gen Gears of War on the 360 for 200 dollars less. This is exactly how I see it and is why 360 will be my main console. I dont know about you all but I could care less about Hi-def movies and by the way should blu-ray loose the format war all you sony fanboys paid an extra 200 dollars for absolutely nothing and god if it does I will have so much fun laughing at all of you. Every multiplatform developer has came out and said they are equal so why sony fanboys (DJ for example) stay saying that ps3 is the most powerful console is beyond me.
that now that Im saying the 360 is a crappy hardware, CAUSE IT IS; im the biggest SONY fanboy. LOL!! Im saying the 360 is bad because mine died playing Gears and Im mad because Im missing a really amazing game thats all. Have you read my others comments?? I dont think so. Well A$$HOLE. Im been playing video games since PacMan. I always tried to buy all the consoles, so the 360 was not an exeption. I consider that last gen the best hardware was Microsoft Xbox. But this next gen the 360 is REALLY having its problems. Im not saying the PS3 is going to do better. I just yesterday sold my preowned one to best friend; also a 360 owner who experienced the same problem when he bougths Dead Rising. He fortunately get a replacement unit, but he sold it because he was afraid of the Crappy 360 harware. So I respect your opinion. Im I a Sony fan?? YES I AM. I am a Microsoft fan?? YES I AM. Specially with the Xbox, it was great. Im I a NINTENDO fan?? I WAS. Im not into the Wii thing. So maybe now that I descarted Nintendo you can call me a fanboy. Its ok. But Im speaking the truth. If you dont like it dont read it. If you get mad with it. GO FK URS ELF!!!!!!
People should just tell the truth and not try to make silly old lame excuses for no reason. It is about preference and choice. IF you want a console because it is the brand you like so be it. But do not exaggerate and make false and wild claims and act like they are facts because some other moron will agree. The problem is people act like they have to put on a front like just being difficult because they feel played. WTF
As long as there are these two behemoths duking it out, they'll both produce good products. I own 2 360's (neither has EVER broken) w/ 2 HD tvs, and I LOVE them. As it is, Sony has NO exclusives I'm interested in, but I know there are some Metal Gear fans out there. Folks, don't get religious about either one. They'll both be comparable (including tv resolution) and graphics. I love XBL and Sony will get there's comparable (at some point). If either loses, the remaining company won't have to work as hard (or will-- just ask EA Sports for their Madden monopoly). By the way, Gears ROCKS!! gCM
I bet any money DJ last year was stating the console was "twice" as powerful. Simple fact is, it cant be, the technology isnt there yet. For those who harp on about Cell, it excites me yes, potential wise but if Phil Harrison can only show off thumbnails of videos stored on the hard drive (dont dvds do thumbnails as chapter selections?) then that is not a good advertisement for it. It seems Sony fanboys are the worst, do you know why? Because a lot of them are casual gamers and dont know a bloody thing when they splutter out the statements they make. If Gears of War was a PS3 launch title they would ramming it down xbox/nintendo fanboys throats, same goes for the likes of Mass Effect and Lost Planet. Look at the idiot who defaced Wikpedia ? It was reported on many websites it was a sony fanboy who wrote "nintendo sucks". I bet any money the high execs at gaming companys wet themselves laughing at fanboys, how embarrassing they are, how narrow minded they are and most important of all, how stupid they are. They couldnt give a crap about you as a person, all they care about is the money, so why devote your times to defending their products as if its a member of your family. Sad.
pre-recorded. Your computer/standalone player isn't decoding those chapters on-the-fly. A pretty significant amount of disc space is dedicated to that chapter selection thumbnails. PS3 looks up your video files and re-encodes all of them at the same time as thumbnails while you go through the selection process, something that's fairly processor intensive. I'm not sure why the 360 doesn't offer that feature; we'll see if Microsoft adds that in later or ignores it. -------------------------- As for the console power thing, almost every console developer has stated that the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360. If you're wondering why you can't see the "$200 difference" yet, it's because both consoles are built on similar GPU shader technology(i.e. normal mapping, HDR lighting, etc). The difference is partially invisible in the form of complex physics and AI routines. But when you compare just a few smart characters onscreen to dozens of smart characters onscreen, the difference becomes more apparent. Just a quick look at Motorstorm, F1 Championship, NBA 2K7, Resistance, and Lair proves that not only is the PS3 very powerful, developers are getting a handle on the hardware fairly quickly despite only a short amount of time on final dev kits. Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Kojima Studios, Factor 5, Visual Concepts, Evolution Studios (just to name a few) are unanimous on PS3's power advantage. Hell, even Tim Sweeney of Epic Games was quick to shoot down Microsoft's E3 05 "fact sheet" and state that the Cell processor is more suited for physics/AI intensive game code than the Xenon. It's kinda cute that we have people comparing 2nd-gen 360 titles to 1st-gen PS3 titles, but it's unavoidable and in a way, understandable. There's the false pretense that PS3 devs have had more time with final hardware than 360 devs, which couldn't be further from the truth. Final 360 hardware was released last August, while final PS3 hardware wasn't released until May~June of this year. But that information won't change what they say.
Can you please post links about the developers stating that PS3 is "significantly" more powerful (don't include Insomaniac, Factor 5). All the ones I've read pretty much say each has its pros and cons but in the end pretty much even. Also, how long do you think RFOM, Lair, and Motorstorm have been in development? I would say atleast more than 1yr considering that the titles were mentioned when PS3 was suppose to be released in Spring 2006.
You said "The difference is partially invisible in the form of complex physics and AI routines". I believe that a representative from makers of Assasins Creed said that Xbox360's version would have better AI. I know that Ubisoft later corrected that statement, but they pretty did that so not to piss off Sony fans. Also, as far as graphics, I do believe that Xbox has the upperhand as far as textures. GOW has received awesome reviews regarding how detailed the graphics are. RFOM also got great reviews from IGN (9.1), but said " Each and every environment is noticeably different from one another as well, and while the texture work isn't overly detailed, it still looks pretty good". So I'm not sure where 16gigs for textures went. Probably more textures for more variety, but still not as detailed as GOW. That's all :) I will still get a PS3 sometime next year, since I seem to collect all consoles.
Why don't you accept the statements from Factor 5 or Insomniac? They're third party developers so I don't see what the big hangup is. BTW, if you want to know how long Gears of War has been in development, the development team bullied Microsoft to upgrade the RAM size of the Xbox 360 from 256MB to 512MB back when the system was still being put together. That's how long they've been working on the title. The normal mapping and texture work in Gears is incredible, and the blood effects are awesome. As for Resistance, it doesn't have the graphical edge of Gears, but exceeds its competition in other ways apparently (# of enemies, # of players online, multiplayer options, game length, etc). Both games have their share of advantages and disadvantages based on the reviews that have come out. The Assassins Creed statement was cleared up after having been taken out of context. Whether what was inferred from the statement is actually true or not has yet to be determined.
I don't count on Insomaniac, Factor 5s, Cliffy B only because they have a direct stake with the console they work for. I actually like that Epic was able to change MS' mind on the memory. Only shows that MS is willing to listen to developers. In my opinion, I don't think developers like a console at $600. And I do think that Blu-ray was added just to give Sony a lead in hd-dvd/blu-ray war. Here's a question... do you think that if Sony didn't help create Blu-ray and didn't get royalty, they would have used it? Or would have use HD-DVD? Seriously... would Sony have taken a chance at increasing the price an additional $150+ without some sort of return? I already consider the 360's $400 price on the high end. Btw, I don't know how long PS3 games have been in development, but how long for RFOM, Motorstorm, and Lair? I know RFOM was displayed at E3 2005. http://www.gamespot.com/ps3...
Here's a quote from Factor 5 regarding Lair: "Eggebrecht: Lair has been in production since 2004. For a long time the team was quite small, by now we have a whole army on it. The dev-kits evolved throughout that time, but the specs really didn't. We started with Lair at exactly the same time as the PS3 specs were specified and the hardware partners were locked-in. So we knew what to expect. Cell already was far along, the NVIDIA partnership made things very clean and clear on the graphics front, and Blu-ray never was in question, either." So as far as final dev kits in may of 2006... that doesn't really matter.. the specs were already there.. its not like they changed CPUs, GPUs. It would have been minor changes at best.
Xbox fans get a clue and stop being so blinded! The PS3 has only just come out in Japan and if the PS3 can produce a game identical (at this early stage of the console life span) to a system that’s been out over a Year already well there's your $200 different because if it can do that already well imagine what the PS3 will be in a years time. The 360 should be well advanced by now…devs getting used to building games on it but for me I’m seeing it fall well short of what it could be, The PS3’s new and is already producing identical games so if I was a 360 fan I’d start to worry
According to the Dev’s they have had the specs and were able to work on the games before they had the Dev kits. Given the facts, PS3 games that are releasing now have been in development since they got the specs way back when. Not only that most of the games that are coming out now for the PS3 were suppose to be release titles last year or to come out shortly after. This means dev’s have had a much longer time to work on titles because of the year delay the PS3 has had. That should give an edge to the PS3, as they had longer to work on there release titles.
wow this thread has become a warzone tiger's disgraced
hahah funny ppl say there is no difference but then say X (replace X with xbox360 or ps3) looks better, hahahah you bunch of morons ! no difference at allllllll and you wont even notice it when you play the game....al you do is put your mind on the ballll
Sony fans...Run to Target. You can play the ps3 there. Motorstorm and Nba07. Both games are very very very pathetic. Seriously. Motorstorms crash detection system is horrid and the graphics are "OK" at best. Nba 07 is a joke for a basketball game. WOW. At walmart you can see Resistance and Lair. Resistance looks like COD2 from last years 360 launch but with aliens. And Lair looked "Good". but it wasn't ingame video. Its the same cg video clip we have all seen before. All in all....the ps3 is not comparing to the 360 in any way so far. And the reviews that are coming in proves it. Just like I said months ago. No more excuses. The ps3 cost 200 dollars more. Thanks Microsoft.
yet NBA 2K7 is very superior to the 360 version. Yet Fight Night 3 blows away the 360 version.. The list will continue to grow. THe only games that will be better on the 360 are ones developed for the lowest common denominator (AKA the 360) and are sloppily ported over to the PS3.
...Dude, let's not bring up FNR3. A game that has an extra year of development is gonna look better. Let's not do it. I haven't seen NBA2K7 yet, but in "port" comparisons I've seen so far I doubt that it "blows away" the 360.
Seems to always be that way to Sony fans. When 360 has better ports (COD3, Rainbox Six, TH8..), its because of lazy devs. Yet when PS3 ports are better its because the hardware is superior.. LOL -Fight Night 3 (PS3 release is 1yr later.. so better have some enhancements) -NBA 2K7 (Again.. released later and should have some enhancements) -Virtua Tennis (Higher res and takes advantage of 1080p which 360 didn't have.. I'll give you that)
Motorstorm better looking than any Xbox360 racer? Really? Have you played Project Gotham Racing for the 360? I have. Have you played Motorstorm? I have. And I can tell you that the 360 blows Motorstorm out of the water in the graphics department. I can also tell you that pisses me off, because I was ridiculously excited about Motorstorm. The gameplay of Motorstorm was slow and retarded...sound familiar? The NBA game I played on the Playstation 3 was SO much fun that I put it down after about 30 seconds. It didn't have that FEELING. You know, that feeling you get when a game is fun and intuitive? And either every player was coated in Vaselline, or they were shiny, plastic people. I pick up my PS3 on Friday, and I was once REALLY excited to rip it open and jump in with both feet, but now I am wondering if I should leave it as it is, take a picture of it, and put it on Ebay for some ranting, raving fanboy, such as yourself, to buy for a ridiculous price. What do YOU think?
"Motorstorm better looking than any Xbox360 racer? Really? Have you played Project Gotham Racing for the 360? I have. Have you played Motorstorm? I have. And I can tell you that the 360 blows Motorstorm out of the water in the graphics department." I didnt stutter but I'll repeat what I said for the slow. Yes, it does look better than any 360 racer. Yes, I've played PGR3, I own it as well. The car models look great in the garage for PGR3, while racing though the resolution is dropped below 720p but they still look good just not as good. Yes, I've seen motorstorm as well, but the line was too long to play it. As for graphics I'm talking about the overall package in motion (gameplay), not still screenshots or for spectator cams. The physics, the destruction, etc all look much better on Motorstorm than PGR3. They are completely different types of games and I'll be happy to own both.
Lets assume 50$ a year for Live isn't much. Ok. Lets asssume you buy Premium PS3 for 600$ and assume you play it for next 6 years. That makes only 100$ for a year. Now that's cheap.
And the winner is?........................... ............................... .................PS3,....Again! !
HAHA i love how stupid some of you are. 1st gen vs 2nd gen game? What are you retarded? They arent going to redesign textures or models for each system, so why would it look any different? The only difference is the PS3 version is slightly darker, and the player playing on the PS3 sucks. Also, i meant no offense by saying that the PS3 player sucks, its merely what i observed.
Wasn't it Sony that pulled up all expectations by saying next-gen would start with the PS3? They are making an idiot out of theirselves now, since there is hardly any difference. Sony are the biggest liars and that's what is starting to annoy me. Btw; it is 1st. gen vs 2nd. gen but don't forget also the PS3 developers are a year further now, so it wouldn't really be fair to compare 1st gen with 1st gen either.