This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Wiiyou"]1080p and 60fps? Keep dreaming bro. Even at console settings that wouldn't be possible. And the PC version maxed out with physx also maxed, requires a good dual gpu rig to have an acceptable framerate. LMAOTo bad this not come to WiiU, 1080p/60 fps :cry:
parkurtommo
Consoles maybe not even have physX?
So you mean a cartoon-shooter require more than Call of duty?
Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.BPoole96PS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing.
I havent noticed any screen tearing yet in Boarderlands 2, I still need to save Roland so it will probably show up once I get into bigger fights, even then don't care game is awesome.
Also Hermits are pretty funny, cause they act like no games have performance issues on PC's is sooo cute ;)
Ballroompirate
They don't have performance issues if you know how to build a PC
sad to see dev being lazy more and more, thank god I don't care about that game
da_illest101
ikr? They're getting too complacent.
Oh look, it's the " PS3 is hard to devlop for" excuse. Just look at Saints Row the Third, it's open world and PS3 version wins. And Just Cause 2 on PS3 was on par with 360 (both has advantages and disadvantages.). Clearly Gearbox is at fault here.Oh look, it's the "lazy dev" excuse, right on schedule!
The_Game21x
:lol: Ya Gearbox is to blame even though the other versions function much better. I'm not exaggerating when I say the PS3 even suffers from screen tearing while using the browser. Rockman999Read my post above.
[QUOTE="BPoole96"]Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.ZenswordPS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing.So one example of a mutilpat that's better. Plus I thought cows don't like lems of truth?
[QUOTE="Rockman999"]:lol: Ya Gearbox is to blame even though the other versions function much better. I'm not exaggerating when I say the PS3 even suffers from screen tearing while using the browser. jackfruitchipsRead my post above.
Only displayed your wrongful opinion.
[QUOTE="BPoole96"]Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.ZenswordPS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing. Obviously a game built from the ground up specifically for PS3 can run okay. Any other open world game is either barely equal (such as cutscenes in Just Cause 2 having bad frame rates.) or worse on PS3. If you like open world games and aren't into PC gaming, the 360 is your best bet.
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]Oh look, it's the " PS3 is hard to devlop for" excuse. Just look at Saints Row the Third, it's open world and PS3 version wins. And Just Cause 2 on PS3 was on par with 360 (both has advantages and disadvantages.). Clearly Gearbox is at fault here.Oh look, it's the "lazy dev" excuse, right on schedule!
jackfruitchips
That faulty line of thinking implies that all open world games are the same, which they aren't.
the funniest thing about this thread is that borderlands 2 isn't even an open world game.
It's segmented mission areas, with hubs in between.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-39aRD5DtQ
"The PS3 version is amazing. All the networking is native to the PSN. It feels like a first party game. We have alot of PS3 fanboys in the studio that made the experience nice and really high quality."
I don't see the point of BSing like this when digital foundary and whatnot will disprove him but w/e, butthurt lolz have been provided which is all that ultimately matters to me.
Big surprise here, another garbage unreal engine game, chock full of screen tearing and framerate issues. This is kinda like every other unreal engine game. Glad I didn't buy this poorly coded crap. Too bad because the game itself is fun, the performance on the other hand is amateurish all the way through. I can't stand to play a beautifully v synced console game and then play a game that has screen tearing. It all comes down to lazy devs and a crappy engine powering the game and I won't reward that kind of incompetence.
Big surprise here, another garbage unreal engine game, chock full of screen tearing and framerate issues. This is kinda like every other unreal engine game. Glad I didn't buy this poorly coded crap. Too bad because the game itself is fun, the performance on the other hand is amateurish all the way through. I can't stand to play a beautifully v synced console game and then play a game that has screen tearing. It all comes down to lazy devs and a crappy engine powering the game and I won't reward that kind of incompetence.
Headpopper333
Im getting 0 screen tearing, so sucks for you
So it looks better on PS3 but performs worst than X360. Blazerdt47No, they both have pros and cons when it comes to visuals--but the 360 and PC versions undoubtedly are superior when it comes to performance and screentearing.
The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.
Shake thinks he's above the experts at DF. rofl. Cute.The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.
Master_ShakeXXX
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]Shake thinks he's above the experts at DF. rofl. Cute.The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.
Stevo_the_gamer
Experts, lol.
This thread once again shows that cows are the worst group of fanboys.
Let's be honest, many or most of them are narcissistic, and when the system they basically fap to isn't the best platform for something, them blame the dev.
They just think they're the best, and if somebody else appears to be the best, then they still claim to be supirior.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]inb4 "Digital Foundry is a site made for fanboys. There is no difference!"Miroku32
But teh cell 120fps and 4d?adamosmaki
INB4 Gearbox is a lazy dev even though they've crafted an amazing game just like Bethesda did.Frostbite24
holy f*cking sh*t
discuss the damn topic. not the fanboys
360 version looks a little cleaner to me, noticed some pop-in on the PS3 version.
PC version probably looks the crispest, but invariably will have problems on some systems, as well as weaker matchmaking and community for co-op.
Yep, experts. Professionals. You know, folks that do professional video/programming for a living? Unlike you, which... um... just plays games. Have you ever created a texture before, how about a mesh? Every dabbled in Blender? What about script making? Little forum peon thinks he knows things. Ha! Now that's some funnies.Experts, lol.
Master_ShakeXXX
Edit: Ironically, the only poster at Gamespot that can talk tech sh*t and get away with is Teuf.
Yep, experts. Professionals. You know, folks that do professional video/programming for a living? Unlike you, which... um... just plays games. Have you ever created a texture before, how about a mesh? Every dabbled in Blender? What about script making? Little forum peon thinks he knows things. Ha! Now that's some funnies.[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]
Experts, lol.
Stevo_the_gamer
Edit: Ironically, the only poster at Gamespot that can talk tech sh*t and get away with is Teuf.
We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.
And %99 of us have eyes.
Get off your high horse, thx.
Weaker? The dam thing doesn't even work. Every other game I own works in multiplayer with my router, be it on 360 or on my PC yet BL2 refuses to connect to friends games.360 version looks a little cleaner to me, noticed some pop-in on the PS3 version.
PC version probably looks the crispest, but invariably will have problems on some systems, as well as weaker matchmaking and community for co-op.
ZombieKiller7
There's some web developer programmers here, especially some of the IT staff here at GS that post sometimes. But tech savvy game developers, or actual modders? Please point them out to me, because I see none outside of Teuf here in SW. "having eyes." Ha. Yeah, most of the people here will try to assert x game looks better than y game, but can't do sh*t to go out and prove it because they know nothing about visual fidelity in games.We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.
And %99 of us have eyes.
Get off your high horse, thx.
ZombieKiller7
It's funny how console gamers don't notice these things. I was just watching my suitemate play some Borderlands 2 on the PS3 and the game looked like it kept dropping to 15fps to 20fps. The weirdest thing is though was that he wasn't noticing the slowdowns. I even asked him if it felt like the game was playing a bit slower and he said no.
I think each side of these "consolites" versus the "pc elitists" is mass confusion about what they are seeing and what they think the other is seeing. The "elitists" are seeing a game that performs and looks far under their expectations, that is they are used to the better resolutions. framerates and textures so to see console gamers not recognize the same issues as them is a bit absurd. Console gamers just see a fun game to play. They aren't thinking about the other performance issues and as far as they are aware they paid 200 or 300 dollars to play amazing and fun games. Both sides assume the other side sees the same thing as them so it perplexes both types of gamers as to why the other one cares so much.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!It's funny how console gamers don't notice these things. I was just watching my suitemate play some Borderlands 2 on the PS3 and the game looked like it kept dropping to 15fps to 20fps. The weirdest thing is though was that he wasn't noticing the slowdowns. I even asked him if it felt like the game was playing a bit slower and he said no.
I think each side of these "consolites" versus the "pc elitists" is mass confusion about what they are seeing and what they think the other is seeing. The "elitists" are seeing a game that performs and looks far under their expectations, that is they are used to the better resolutions. framerates and textures so to see console gamers not recognize the same issues as them is a bit absurd. Console gamers just see a fun game to play. They aren't thinking about the other performance issues and as far as they are aware they paid 200 or 300 dollars to play amazing and fun games. Both sides assume the other side sees the same thing as them so it perplexes both types of gamers as to why the other one cares so much.
whiskeystrike
[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]There's some web developer programmers here, especially some of the IT staff here at GS that post sometimes. But tech savvy game developers, or actual modders? Please point them out to me, because I see none outside of Teuf here in SW. "having eyes." Ha. Yeah, most of the people here will try to assert x game looks better than y game, but can't do sh*t to go out and prove it because they know nothing about visual fidelity in games.We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.
And %99 of us have eyes.
Get off your high horse, thx.
Stevo_the_gamer
Quantifying and qualifying moving art is a pretty tough proposition in the best case scenario, I'm not sure it's possible to "prove" anything.
If Dr Rottencrotch proclaims that steak A tastes the best, that could be true for him and a good guideline for people who want steak, but if I happen to eat Steak B and think it's better then I have a valid opinion, and bashing ppl over the head for not agreeing with the "experts" is poor form and not helpful.
Game sites exist by gamers for gamers.
We play the games, we rate the games, we make the mods, we write the reviews, and sometimes we even start our own gaming sites or become game developers.
In my experience all the "regulars" on this forum are tech-saavy individuals and dedicated gamers who put alot of time and energy into this hobby of ours, and I don't think their thoughts should be discounted so easily over the "experts."
My 2 cents.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment