360 Holding back PS3 limitations.

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

Which is why the PS3 exclusives (games NOT shared with or developed for 360) has had so many more AAAs than on 360... oh wait!! :o

Listen, I know I will piss some people off here with this but its true.

360 does hinder the quality of games for PS3. In order for things to fit on DVD they have to compress the hell out of them. And although compression gets better and better over the years, it most certainly does not equal uncompressed. Not to say that if all games were totally uncompressed that the PS3 could handle them. Just that PS3's blu-ray allows for less compression = better quality.

When I play a multiplat on PS3, the images are very pixelated. Shoot, even the intro tags for the devs look like crap due to so much compression. Its a joke. And it isn't due to who dev'd on what first. Its a simple issue of fitting everything on the DVD and having to reduce quality to do so.

Most recent example I've seen is Condemned 2. Can be a pixelated maess sometimes. And I know its that way on the 360 too.

But if you look at the PS3 exclusives, where devs didn't need to use so much compression to fit into DVD because they have blu-ray. The images are sharp, crisp and free of the pixelation.

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

ps3 has more potencial??

err...no

Did you guys complain last-gen when PS2 was holding games back??

no? didn't think so

this is just cows again trying to feel good about ps3

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

That is the beauty of multiplats, they dont push any console to the limit, they are just one size fits all type of games. But the good part is it gives you something to play while waiting for the solid exclusives.

[QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.AdobeArtist

Which is why the PS3 exclusives (games NOT shared with or developed for 360) has had so many more AAAs than on 360... oh wait!! :o

That's GS for you.

Blu-Ray is useless at the moment. If sony wants to use compressed images they need more ram for it to run efficently otherwise blu-ray fails. A format does not decide the graphics of the console but the console itself.

After two years of hyping the cell and the awesome power of the PS3, even on PS3 exclusive games I am hard pressed to see any more then the slightest difference between the two.

This gen graphically, 360 and PS3 are basically Coke Vs. Pepsi.

Blu-Ray is useless at the moment. If sony wants to use compressed images they need more ram for it to run efficently otherwise blu-ray fails. A format does not decide the graphics of the console but the console itself.

platinumxofhell

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.Javy03

Which is why the PS3 exclusives (games NOT shared with or developed for 360) has had so many more AAAs than on 360... oh wait!! :o

That's GS for you.

ok. go look at gamerankings then. :|

Blu-Ray is useless at the moment. If sony wants to use compressed images they need more ram for it to run efficently otherwise blu-ray fails. A format does not decide the graphics of the console but the console itself.

platinumxofhell

Blu-Ray is useless at the moment. If sony wants to use uncompressed images they need more ram for it to run efficently otherwise blu-ray fails. A format does not decide the graphics of the console but the console itself.

platinumxofhell

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.CaseyWegner

Which is why the PS3 exclusives (games NOT shared with or developed for 360) has had so many more AAAs than on 360... oh wait!! :o

That's GS for you.

ok. go look at gamerankings then. :|

That isn't fair, you have to go to different game reviews and pick out the highest. Then you will have the fair PS3 reviews. (For the 360 and Wii it is the same but you pick the lowest). :D

No the 360 is not holding the PS3 back. I do wonder why people are acting like the most powerful system wins the war. The PS2 won big time, but it was kinda the weakest system in terms of power.

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

Link? I'm thinking you can't find one.

Ah, the potential arguement. Never gets old.MacaroniMoses

The "last gen's hardware is alright for this one" argument never gets old either.

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

It is the other way around, developers never use all 360 cores, or DX9.5 GPU features, because then they could never port to PS3, with the last gen DX9 only GPU, and the one core CPU

Also they use less texture detail, because they could not fit 512MB textures 360 can handle, to PS3 256MB video ram

That is why Gears still looks a lot better than any PS3 game IMO, after all that time

Nothings holding the PS3 back, whats holding it back is sony for adding complicated and complex hardware....so devs need to invest more money and time to achieve and tap into that power/awesome stuff. Which many feel isn't worth it.

Obviously OVER TIME that will change.

[QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.saolin323

It is the other way around, developers never use all 360 cores, or DX9.5 GPU features, because then they could never port to PS3, with the last gen DX9 only GPU, and the one core CPU

Also they use less texture detail, because they could not fit 512MB textures 360 can handle, to PS3 256MB video ram

That is why Gears still looks a lot better than any PS3 game IMO, after all that time

After two years of hyping the cell and the awesome power of the PS3, even on PS3 exclusive games I am hard pressed to see any more then the slightest difference between the two.

This gen graphically, 360 and PS3 are basically Coke Vs. Pepsi.

cosmostein77

Where the **** are you xbox fanatics getting this crap from? :| PS3 just reached it's one year mark last november. Why do you xbox fanboys have to be so pathetically desperate when makeing arguments against PS3, it's as if you're so full of bias you can't even think straight.

Come back with that with that little "after two years" comment when PS3 has actually turned 2 years old in Nov of 08, then see if all the rest of your comments still hold weight.

Listen, I know I will piss some people off here with this but its true.

360 does hinder the quality of games for PS3. In order for things to fit on DVD they have to compress the hell out of them. And although compression gets better and better over the years, it most certainly does not equal uncompressed. Not to say that if all games were totally uncompressed that the PS3 could handle them. Just that PS3's blu-ray allows for less compression = better quality.

When I play a multiplat on PS3, the images are very pixelated. Shoot, even the intro tags for the devs look like crap due to so much compression. Its a joke. And it isn't due to who dev'd on what first. Its a simple issue of fitting everything on the DVD and having to reduce quality to do so.

Most recent example I've seen is Condemned 2. Can be a pixelated maess sometimes. And I know its that way on the 360 too.

But if you look at the PS3 exclusives, where devs didn't need to use so much compression to fit into DVD because they have blu-ray. The images are sharp, crisp and free of the pixelation.

The_Dan_K

The texture quality has nothing to do with the disc format. Its actually a RAM issue, the reason why PS3 has worse textures than the 360 is because of its divided RAM 256mb for video and 256mb for system(the OS takes around 88mb). That doesn't leave much room for high quality textures. Which is why multiplats such as Turok suffered the worst on the PS3 due to it having large detail textures. 360 has nothing to do with PS3s problems, they would exist if 360 wasn't around. The only difference is that you wouldn't have a superior muliplat to compare whatever game to. Thus making the texture quality look good because you never seen better.

[QUOTE="The_Dan_K"]

Listen, I know I will piss some people off here with this but its true.

360 does hinder the quality of games for PS3. In order for things to fit on DVD they have to compress the hell out of them. And although compression gets better and better over the years, it most certainly does not equal uncompressed. Not to say that if all games were totally uncompressed that the PS3 could handle them. Just that PS3's blu-ray allows for less compression = better quality.

When I play a multiplat on PS3, the images are very pixelated. Shoot, even the intro tags for the devs look like crap due to so much compression. Its a joke. And it isn't due to who dev'd on what first. Its a simple issue of fitting everything on the DVD and having to reduce quality to do so.

Most recent example I've seen is Condemned 2. Can be a pixelated maess sometimes. And I know its that way on the 360 too.

But if you look at the PS3 exclusives, where devs didn't need to use so much compression to fit into DVD because they have blu-ray. The images are sharp, crisp and free of the pixelation.

Ramadear

The texture quality has nothing to do with the disc format. Its actually a RAM issue, the reason why PS3 has worse textures than the 360 is because of its divided RAM 256mb for video and 256mb for system(the OS takes around 88mb). That doesn't leave much room for high quality textures. Which is why multiplats such as Turok suffered the worst on the PS3 due to it having large detail textures. 360 has nothing to do with PS3s problems, they would exist if 360 wasn't around. The only difference is that you wouldn't have a superior muliplat to compare whatever game to. Thus making the texture quality look good because you never seen better.

QFTFT

[QUOTE="cosmostein77"]

After two years of hyping the cell and the awesome power of the PS3, even on PS3 exclusive games I am hard pressed to see any more then the slightest difference between the two.

This gen graphically, 360 and PS3 are basically Coke Vs. Pepsi.

killadread

Where the **** are you xbox fanatics getting this crap from? :| PS3 just reached it's one year mark last november. Why do you xbox fanboys have to be so pathetically desperate when makeing arguments against PS3, it's as if you're so full of bias you can't even think straight.

Come back with that with that little "after two years" comment when PS3 has actually turned 2 years old in Nov of 08, then see if all the rest of your comments still hold weight.

ERR, SONY hyped it before the PS3 debuted...starting from 05...yep about 2 years if not more.

[QUOTE="The_Dan_K"]

Listen, I know I will piss some people off here with this but its true.

360 does hinder the quality of games for PS3. In order for things to fit on DVD they have to compress the hell out of them. And although compression gets better and better over the years, it most certainly does not equal uncompressed. Not to say that if all games were totally uncompressed that the PS3 could handle them. Just that PS3's blu-ray allows for less compression = better quality.

When I play a multiplat on PS3, the images are very pixelated. Shoot, even the intro tags for the devs look like crap due to so much compression. Its a joke. And it isn't due to who dev'd on what first. Its a simple issue of fitting everything on the DVD and having to reduce quality to do so.

Most recent example I've seen is Condemned 2. Can be a pixelated maess sometimes. And I know its that way on the 360 too.

But if you look at the PS3 exclusives, where devs didn't need to use so much compression to fit into DVD because they have blu-ray. The images are sharp, crisp and free of the pixelation.

Ramadear

The texture quality has nothing to do with the disc format. Its actually a RAM issue, the reason why PS3 has worse textures than the 360 is because of its divided RAM 256mb for video and 256mb for system(the OS takes around 88mb). That doesn't leave much room for high quality textures. Which is why multiplats such as Turok suffered the worst on the PS3 due to it having large detail textures. 360 has nothing to do with PS3s problems, they would exist if 360 wasn't around. The only difference is that you wouldn't have a superior muliplat to compare whatever game to. Thus making the texture quality look good because you never seen better.

Read me again. I said nothing about "teh textures." I was speaking about the overall image quality. I am speaking on the screen as a whole, not just a wall texture or soemthing. Whether its pre-rendered videos or real-time rendered scenes, games needing to fit onto 360's DVD are pixelated.

But, of course, lemmings don't notice this, they are used to it.

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

[QUOTE="killadread"][QUOTE="cosmostein77"]

After two years of hyping the cell and the awesome power of the PS3, even on PS3 exclusive games I am hard pressed to see any more then the slightest difference between the two.

This gen graphically, 360 and PS3 are basically Coke Vs. Pepsi.

nWoEnforcer

Where the **** are you xbox fanatics getting this crap from? :| PS3 just reached it's one year mark last november. Why do you xbox fanboys have to be so pathetically desperate when makeing arguments against PS3, it's as if you're so full of bias you can't even think straight.

Come back with that with that little "after two years" comment when PS3 has actually turned 2 years old in Nov of 08, then see if all the rest of your comments still hold weight.

ERR, SONY hyped it before the PS3 debuted...starting from 05...yep about 2 years if not more.

[QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.trapper94

Hasn't that rumor been shot down about 9.999.999 times by now ?

There is NO Crysis on consoles, as the devleopers confirmed again and again and then some more

[QUOTE="trapper94"][QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.saolin323

Hasn't that rumor been shot down about 9.999.999 times by now ?

There is NO Crysis on consoles, as the devleopers confirmed again and again and then some more

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11

Um no, and if you were actually watching development instead of spouting BS, you'd know a lot of games are "now" being made on ps3 first, or in parallel. The reason being is the 360 handles ps3 ports better, then the ps3 handles 360 ports. It's easier, it costs less money, and it makes more people happy.

[QUOTE="saolin323"]

[QUOTE="trapper94"][QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.trapper94

Hasn't that rumor been shot down about 9.999.999 times by now ?

There is NO Crysis on consoles, as the devleopers confirmed again and again and then some more

The devleoeprs have said there is no console version in EVERY SINGLE major interview, no links needed for that i guess, there is no gamer that does not know that

You dont know that. Give me link that says it's not coming out. Your probably an Xbox jealus thats it's coming out for the ps3 and not the 360.trapper94

Why don't you give a link from Crytek saying it is coming. Right now these rumors are just as creditable as the rumors about FFXIII or MGS4 coming to the 360 (Totally not creditable)

Did you guys complain last-gen when PS2 was holding games back??

no? didn't think so

this is just cows again trying to feel good about ps3

onewiththegame

Er. Yes, ALOT of people did.

[QUOTE="trapper94"][QUOTE="saolin323"]

[QUOTE="trapper94"][QUOTE="fet11"]
Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.saolin323

Hasn't that rumor been shot down about 9.999.999 times by now ?

There is NO Crysis on consoles, as the devleopers confirmed again and again and then some more

The devleoeprs have said there is no console version in EVERY SINGLE major interview, no links needed for that i guess, there is no gamer that does not know that

because all gamers browse the internet looking up every bit of information, right? My mates that just play Halo for a few hours a day and that's it, they're still gamers and they don't evne know Crysis exists :P

Ok, lemme get this straight, the 360 Holding back PS3 limitations. :question:Nagidar

:lol: Wow, how did I not see that when glancing over the title. :lol:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/29/developer-studios-holding-back-on-ps3-games/

In an interview with Games Industry, Game Developer Conference organizer Jamil Moledina said many studios are holding back on starting PlayStation 3 games due to challenges when developing for the console's finicky Cell processor. "A lot of the developers I know are waiting out on the first round and focusing on handhelds; they're creating DS and PSP titles because that's actually a much simpler migration from the current-gen," he added.

While it's normal for developers to wait and see how consumers respond to consoles before dumping money into a game, it's interesting to see PlayStation, which has traditionally been the king of third-party support, get the same treatment. But Moledina ultimately believes developers will catch on, and the PS3 will be a success despite what he calls a PlayStation 2 like launch (not so good but look how that turned out). Smoke if you got 'em.

I've always said that. Developers are just shook of the Cell so its easier for them to for the 360 and port, its just a cop out.

Developers see that the PS3 sales are up so they will start puttin more work in on the PS3.

After two years of hyping the cell and the awesome power of the PS3, even on PS3 exclusive games I am hard pressed to see any more then the slightest difference between the two.

This gen graphically, 360 and PS3 are basically Coke Vs. Pepsi.

cosmostein77

Can the 360 be Pepsi? Please? I really dont like Coke. :(

Due do to most studios developing for both consoles, I do believe they just meet the requirements for xbox 360 then port the game over to the PS3, while the PS3 has so much more potential. Hopefully we will see a push of the system with titles such as GoW III, but that wont be anywhere in the near future.fet11