I mean with ghostbuster it was bad, but not that bad. They average consumer won't notice the difference between the Ps3 and 360 version, if so it is kinda small.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
the smallest of graphical differences is unfortunatelyenough to claim ownage in SW, i've had toadapt to this.
Graphics from a technical perspective is one of the least subjective parts of games, therefore when two supposedly identical games come out people primarily rely on the graphics to decide which platform is better off.
it depends. if you are playing on a SDTV you're probly right. If however you're playing on a big screen HDTV the low resolution of the PS3 version will become apparent.The difference between the 360 and PS3 versions Ghostbusters is hardly "small".
Menalque2
[QUOTE="aflakian"]
Non-gamers need something to argue about I guess.
No, I like to claim ownage too, but in the real world it really would not make much of a difference.
That's the point. There is nothing real about the world of SW....The best part is these same people who argue about the differences between a 360 and PS3 multiplat when the game is zoomed at 500X, argue about how there is not a big difference between Blu ray and DVD.I mean with ghostbuster it was bad, but not that bad. They average consumer won't notice the difference between the Ps3 and 360 version, if so it is kinda small.
Camer999
Next gen doesn't start untill Sony says so.
Sony States the 360 isn't next gen just a 1.5 console.
100 fps 2 tere flops of power 4D graphics.
Blu-Ray makes gaming better.
Thats why.
Because if they didn't come on here to exaggerate the minute differences in graphics between most multiplats (of course, there are exceptions like Ghostbusters) and claim supremacy for their console of choice, they would be forced to actually spend time playing the games.
Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Because if they didn't come on here to exaggerate the minute differences in graphics between most multiplats (of course, there are exceptions like Ghostbusters) and claim supremacy for their console of choice, they would be forced to actually spend time playing the games.
Mainframe52
Oh yeah but If Sony hypes somthing cows are all over it claiming it as the next coming. I remember some threads circulating touting over the PS3 version of Ghostbusters and how the 360 is maxed out and done for.
Do you actually go and count the pixels when you play?Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
GabeNewellsPie
What are you? Like the fanboys' lord?Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
GabeNewellsPie
[QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]Do you actually go and count the pixels when you play? Is Sony delivering teh all so hyped "true" HD?Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Wasdie
[QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]What are you? Like the fanboys' lord?Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Odrec
Hes the biggest Lemming in SW.
Seems to have taken up where GhostMLD left off.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]Do you actually go and count the pixels when you play? Is Sony delivering teh all so hyped "true" HD? Again, do you count the pixels when you play? I play Halo 3 and its sub HD and think it looks fantastic. Who cares? On a console you have the beauty of being able to do tricks like that, as long as whats on the TV looks good.Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Dystopian-X
Besides, I wouldn't go and say Sony isn't delivering seeing that Ghostbusters happens to be made by a 3rd party developer. Killzone 2, Uncharted, and all of the great looking Sony exclusives in the native 720p say that Sony does deliver the HD.
Again, do you count the pixels when you play? I play Halo 3 and its sub HD and think it looks fantastic. Who cares? On a console you have the beauty of being able to do tricks like that, as long as whats on the TV looks good. Besides, I wouldn't go and say Sony isn't delivering seeing that Ghostbusters happens to be made by a 3rd party developer. Killzone 2, Uncharted, and all of the great looking Sony exclusives in the native 720p say that Sony does deliver the HD.Wasdie
I do care. Having a low res is not about "counting pixels", a higher res can significantly enhance the way a game looks by showing off sharper details. Also the way they bloat so much about "true HD" when so many of these games don't even make it to average "HD" seems pretty pathetic to me.
[QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]Do you actually go and count the pixels when you play?Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Wasdie
Thats not the point though.
Sony touted the PS3 has the must have HD system.
Yet a good proportion of their games. in relation to the 360. run in sub-HD.
You're right,the general public probably won't notice this,and thats what Sony is banking on; to cover up the fact that for a lot of game developers,making games for the ps3 is a pain in the ass,and the result is PS3 owners have to pay the same as their 360 owning friends for an inferior product.
That just ain't right.
[QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]Do you actually go and count the pixels when you play? Odd coming from a PC gamer. If your average PC snob in this forum DIDN'T count pixels while they played, they'd lose half of their "It looks better on the PC" arguments.Small difference?
The PS3 version's reslution is 960x540. :lol: And I'll bet the framerate ain't to steady either.
Thats a far cry from those days of1080p and 120fps.
Who ya gonna call? Not teh cell,its dead on its feet trying to cope with an average looking multiplat. :lol:
Wasdie
The only people that exaggerate differences are xbox360 fanboys because thats really all they have to brag about(oh...and sales of course!!!)
oh please the cows are the majority and the 360 has a good lineup of exclusives, oh and sales is a good thing.The only people that exaggerate differences are xbox360 fanboys because thats really all they have to brag about(oh...and sales of course!!!)
kyussman1973
The only people that exaggerate differences are xbox360 fanboys because thats really all they have to brag about(oh...and sales of course!!!)
I think they brag about having more AA and AAA titles too... And the price. Exactly.The only people that exaggerate differences are xbox360 fanboys because thats really all they have to brag about(oh...and sales of course!!!)
kyussman1973
Which are pretty important. There is more downplaying then exaggeration going on here.
The PS3 cost more but you get less even with forced installs, who wants to deal with that?
They're actually getting more in the way of access to AA and AAA games. But you're right, they are losing a blu-ray player and wifi... Assuming they wanted either, it being a gaming console and all.Yes they are paying less..and they are getting less.
kyussman1973
Exaggerate my ***... I'm a PC gamer, but my buddy has both consoles. The PS3 sucks...-GeordiLaForge-
I honestly don't even think the PC version(s) of games are that much better looking beside the Frame-rate, the rez, and AA but it get to the point where you really just can't see the big difference, this will be even more prevelent next-gen.
I honestly don't even think the PC version(s) of games are that much better looking beside the Frame-rate, the rez, and AA but it get to the point where you really just can't see the big difference, this will be even more prevelent next-gen.
Camer999
Why is it people make a big deal about this being the "HD generation" and talk about how much better 720p is over "SD resolutions", but when a mid range PC does the game at more than twice the resolution of consoles and still squeezes in some AA and AF they are not impressed and scrutinize the differences?
If Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 did 1080p they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
[QUOTE="Camer999"]
I honestly don't even think the PC version(s) of games are that much better looking beside the Frame-rate, the rez, and AA but it get to the point where you really just can't see the big difference, this will be even more prevelent next-gen.
AnnoyedDragon
Why is it people make a big deal about this being the "HD generation" and talk about how much better 720p is over "SD resolutions", but when a mid range PC does the game at more than twice the resolution of consoles and still squeezes in some AA and AF they are not impressed and scrutinize the differences?
If Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 did 1080p they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
It's because it is new..
I mean with ghostbuster it was bad, but not that bad. They average consumer won't notice the difference between the Ps3 and 360 version, if so it is kinda small.
The best part is these same people who argue about the differences between a 360 and PS3 multiplat when the game is zoomed at 500X, argue about how there is not a big difference between Blu ray and DVD. Agree 100%, its laughable huh.It's because it is new..
Camer999
Only it's not new, they took a PC res from the 1990s, chopped it down to 16:9, called it 720p and marketed it as being some sort of revolution in gaming resolution. The 2005 conferences were talking about it like it was some previously impossible achievement, when in fact PC gamers were pushing more pixels before the PS2 launched.
Oblivion, 2560x1600, 16x AF, perfectly playable frame rate.
THAT is a true next generation resolution, yet it seems console users would turn their noses up at it. They don't care because it is beyond the capability of their systems, if they could access it then it would suddenly matter and people would fight over it.
Today you are telling me it doesn't matter, just like consoles did with PC resolutions like 1280x1024 last gen. In the future when TV's support the res and hence so do consoles people will be marveling at the resolution and laughing at console games under that standard, as they do with 720p now.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment