Top
960°
9.0

The PS3 difference in 1UP's Madden 08 Review: 8.5 for PS3 Vs 9 for 360

From the The PS3 difference part of review near the end:
"Sadly, just like with NCAA Football 08 and All-Pro Football 2K8, PS3 owners are stuck with an inferior version of Madden. While the game runs at 60 frames per second on Microsoft's box, Madden only clocks in at 30fps on Sony's console. The result? The gameplay isn't nearly as smooth as the 360 version and even stutters at times."

The story is too old to be commented.
Douche3633d ago

1UP loves to stir up whatever's given to them. This was pretty predictable of them. I can see them playing the PS3 version saying, "Ok now, we've been playin' for 10 hours straight lookin' for a glitch, let's give it a break." "Ohh wait!...Shoe, did you see that frame-rate stutter at the 2 minute warning?! "I don't think I...OMG, fine, w/e, can we go play Calling All Cars now?"

InMyOpinion3633d ago

Don't blame the site. It's not like they are making it up. The 360 version runs at 60 fps and the PS3 version at 30 fps. 60 fps is smoother than 30, their accusations are legit. In the end it's Sonys fault for not delivering proper SKU's (if it isn't a hardware issue).

You can bang your head all you want, it still won't change the fact that the 360 gets the better versions of multi platform games.

Real Gambler3633d ago

But since EA has decided that they are pulling the plug on online servers for most of their 2006 games (one year old!), there's absolutely no way I'm buying any of their games. For the price we are paying today, I expect to be able to play online more than one year. It's even worst for xbox owners, because they do pay $50/year to get better online support, and yet they loose online play as well.
EA is in for the money, but I'm in it for the fun, and not being able to play online after one year is stupid.
So they made my decision easy not by cutting corners on this game, but by being greedy a while back and cutting online servers after one year for their games.

Anything but Cute3633d ago (Edited 3633d ago )

only 30% of XBOX 360 owners know about it's HD capabilities. While we're all making a fuss about framerates, and a slow motion video. The average consumer won't give a crap about this.

jay33633d ago

I'm with you on that one

Sphinx3633d ago

You're right, the average consumer won't care about the frame rate differences because they will not be informed of the difference. However, we are not average consumers, and I do care.

Maldread3633d ago (Edited 3633d ago )

Yeah unfortunately you`re right Lorenzferus. Most people don`t notice or even care about fps- problems if it`s not pointed out for them. It`s almost like they don`t notice the identical sports-games that comes out every year too. How else do you think EA got so big ;)

Sphinx, i`m with you on that, it does matter to us gamers.

Mu5afir3633d ago (Edited 3633d ago )

People who are buying Madden won't care if it's 30 FPS or 60 FPS. Frankly your eyes will have a VERY HARD TIME, distinguish the difference between the two frame rates. As your eye is perfectly OK seeing in 23.976 FPS. How 1up noticed an "actual" difference boggles my mind.

Unless they saw a "frame drop" on the Ps3 version, they shouldn't have noticed an "over glaring" difference between the two versions. And it seems, they really didn't have anything negative to say about the game.

Since they gave it a 8.5, it seems a .5 points was dedicated to the 60 FPS that no one really cares about, and no one unless really looking hard will notice.

Oh, and I am amazed 1up didn't know that NCAA Football 08 is going to be 60 FPS on both platforms.

JsonHenry3633d ago

Lol, why did I even buy my PS3?! I had the better console a year earlier!

reaperxciv3633d ago

the SWEETSPOT for buying a ps3 is 2009

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3633d ago
cloud3603633d ago

hey why would it go lower fps on ps3. or was the game designed on a 360 engine

MK_Red3633d ago

I thought the devs said that of all EA sports games, at least Madden would run at 60fps on PS3 but with this and the vidoe comparison that was posted 2-3 days ago...

Omegasyde3633d ago

A Unknown EA person stated that. Not an official.

EA lost alot of Ps3 sales, this year I bet. I do hope they don't buy Ubisoft! OMFG games would be doomed to mediocracy and crappness, I can't play splintercell at 15 frames!

monoknacker3633d ago

with simulataneous releases will probably look better on the 360 for a while because it's a well known fact that the system is easier to develop for and has better developer tools at the moment; however the Sony edge tools which they reveiled at GDC will hopefully go along way to rectifying this situation as it's about giving third-party developers the same tools as the first-parties are using. So in the furture games on the PS3 theoretically should play just as good, if not better then their 360 counter-parts.

sjappie3633d ago (Edited 3633d ago )

Or does this only apply to the ps3?

spasticjustice3633d ago

I don't think that's what he was saying. He's just saying over time the ps3 may surpass the 360. He never said that was the only possiblity...

Bordel_19003633d ago

@ sjappie

No, it applies to x360 also.

Madden 2009 on x360 will be 90 fps and PS3 will be 60fps.

MetalProxy3633d ago

90 fps? your eye cant notice anything more than 60 fps so give it up. Sonys NBA game runs at 1080p and 60fps why cant EA do it?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3633d ago
SimmoUK3633d ago

EA built it on 360, Ps3 is a totally different machine processor wise having the cell, most studios have said they will build on PS3 then port to 360 because it's easyer that way, EA obviously isn't concerned about the frame rate on PS3 you only have to look at other PS3 games to know there's nothing that PS3 isn't capable of, EA have always been concerned about money more than anything and that won't change now Peter Moore is there eather...

It's a shame for the Madden fans but at the end of the day if you haven't played the 360 version you wouldn't know any difference anyway...

solidt123633d ago

Yeah that is the only problem with the first batch of third party games. 360 to PS3 ports aren't that great from lazy studios. You gotta start on the PS3 then port to the 360 and alot of developers are doing the next batch of game that way. There are some exception like Oblivion, and Rainbow 6 Vegas. These games were ported over and they run great. Oblivion actually looks alot better on the PS3. So it is challenging but if it is done right will be even better on the PS3.

I am sure there will be alot of flame from the 360 xbots.

sjappie3633d ago (Edited 3633d ago )

Does the reason for it make it any less bad? It is what it is.
"Jeah, well, ps3 is just harder to develop for, but they'll get the hang of it"
Maybe Sony shouldn't have made the ps3 so hard to develop for, also, devs are getting more familiar with the 360 to, so I think 360 will always have the edge in multiplatform games.
I'm not saying this to flame, but I'm getting sick of people acting like the ps3 is so superior, while it's obvious it's not. I think some people need to give the 360 some credit, instead of coming up with excuses and saying; "You just wait and see". I live and game in the present.

If you disagree, then please make a comment to back it up.

Sez 3633d ago

how many dev said that. i only know the dev for lair said that. countless dev said that the ps3 is hard to develope for and cost them more. it noone fault but sony. for not listening to dev's when creating their system like MS did.

SimmoUK3633d ago

PS3 is harder to develop for because of it's architecture it's multi core, which happens to be faster than 360's processor...

Ratchet and Clank, LAIR, Heavenly Sword, MGS4, Killzone 2 to name a few all look better graphically than madden...

rareairtone3633d ago

I love my 360 and the xbox brand but the physical hardware in the ps3 is marginally stronger: the 360 is like 2 GeForce 6800s and the ps3 is slightly stronger than that. Now when that is a clearcut benefit over owning the 360 remains to be seen.

supnub53633d ago

Sega Rally Revo, and Burnout Paradise, is first made on ps3 and then ported to 360, a lot of devs admitted that.

illizit3633d ago

I love the people that say 'the ps3 is only marginally stronger...'
Ok idiots, I'll explain it again, but please try to listen this time.

If you are looking at the graphics card only then yes, the ps3 is only marginally stronger than the 360 HOWEVER, the real power of the ps3 is with the CELL + RSX. Have you even seen what IBM has done with the CELL only? They were able to simulate a full city (in real time).
It's a fact of the technology world: The faster and better technology gets, the harder it is to program for. Back in the SNES days, it only took a few people to make games, now even for the 360 it takes hundreds to make an original game! It's costing almost as much to make movies, why you ask? Because it's HARDER to develop for!!! The ps3 is more difficult than the 360, it's not because Sony isn't providing the correct SDK tools but it's because it's architecture is more advanced, no one has seen it before, so of course it's going to be harder. Right now it wouldn't make sense for companies such as EA to develop for the PS3 first (waste money) and then port it to the 360. A lot of people are right when they say EA only cares about money.
The ps3 is more powerful, A LOT more, and the proof will come very soon (killzone, etc). Were just going to have to wait until the devs get more familiar with the ps3.

ip-student3633d ago

The PS3 - from a GPU perspective - is weaker. It is silly to suggest otherwise. It theoretically has more power for certain operations (such as those suitable for physics) but it doesn't help much in gaming software. It is possible to overcome the weakness of the PS3 GPU by utilizing the cell but then you lose elsewhere. Basically, the PS3 architechture is a poor choice for a console - it will always be poor. Sony screwed up. Now Sony is hoping developers can overcome the screw-up and do something with the PS3. Some are having success but the real issue is not whether it is possible but rather whether it is cost effective. If it is not cost effective then the potential is worthless.

I am sure Sony will produce some nice games (there is lots of power if you could just use it) but I wonder how much money the 3rd parties are going to spend trying to get the PS3 to run like they want.

Both MS and Sony would probably have been better to push a more capable CPU with less theoretical power and easier development. Oh well, the good thing about this is perhaps someone will advance the state of the art of multi-thread programming and then everyone will be better off.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3633d ago