Final Fantasy 14 PC vs. PS3

  • 103 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#1 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

"Action-packed MMORPG Final Fantasy XIV has been revealed to have hugely degraded graphics on the PS3 as compared to the PC, with textures a quarter the size and the usual pathetically low resolution – fortunately PS3 gamers need not worry, as Square Enix assures them You won't even notice."

can you spot the difference?

Avatar image for sayonara89
#2 Posted by sayonara89 (1985 posts) -

sankakucomplex?

And why you created this thread? PC > console, norm.

Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#3 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

sankakucomplex?sayonara89
yep

which is why i'm not linking to the source

Avatar image for windsquid9000
#4 Posted by windsquid9000 (3206 posts) -

There's no image :?

Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#5 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

There's no image :?

windsquid9000
I hate it when I hotlink and that happens anyway it's been fixed
Avatar image for XaosII
#6 Posted by XaosII (16705 posts) -

I think thats fairly noticeable. But then again, maybe console gamers are used to just barely HD resolution.

Whatever. This game is gonna suck anyways, so it doesn't matter. Its already shaiping up to be far too similar to FFXI and thats a game where they should've paid *me* to keep playing.

Avatar image for Human-after-all
#7 Posted by Human-after-all (2972 posts) -
Game has nothing on WoW, good day.
Avatar image for ManicAce
#8 Posted by ManicAce (3267 posts) -
If that's supposed to be the PC vs PS3 screenshot, then I don't see much if any difference in the textures, looks more like the usual lack of AF and AA which applies to all console games.
Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#9 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

I think thats fairly noticeable. But then again, maybe console gamers are used to just barely HD resolution.

Whatever. This game is gonna suck anyways, so it doesn't matter. Its already shaiping up to be far too similar to FFXI and thats a game where they should've paid *me* to keep playing.

XaosII

most likely it's the 360 version that's holding them back

If that's supposed to be the PC vs PS3 screenshot, then I don't see much if any difference in the textures, looks more like the usual lack of AF and AA which applies to all console games.ManicAce

then again this was just one character

Avatar image for Chemical_Viking
#10 Posted by Chemical_Viking (2145 posts) -

That character looks awful. Who is designing this rubbish?

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#11 Posted by Shewgenja (19229 posts) -

Looks like the difference is resolution. I'd bet money that the PS3 version will run in 720p whereas the FFXIV benchmark runs in 1080p

That character looks awful. Who is designing this rubbish?

Chemical_Viking

You're way off. Download and run the benchmark if your PC can handle it. These are beyond a shadow of a doubt the cleanest character models in any MMO.

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
#12 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17601 posts) -
The left breast looks less pixelated than the right breast.
Avatar image for sayonara89
#13 Posted by sayonara89 (1985 posts) -

most likely it's the 360 version that's holding them backohthemanatee

huh?

Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#14 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

most likely it's the 360 version that's holding them backsayonara89

huh?

isn't that how it goes? Every game that is not an exclusive the PS3 is somehow held back by the 360

Avatar image for lawlessx
#15 Posted by lawlessx (48753 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

I think thats fairly noticeable. But then again, maybe console gamers are used to just barely HD resolution.

Whatever. This game is gonna suck anyways, so it doesn't matter. Its already shaiping up to be far too similar to FFXI and thats a game where they should've paid *me* to keep playing.

ohthemanatee

most likely it's the 360 version that's holding them back

come again :?

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
#16 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17601 posts) -
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

most likely it's the 360 version that's holding them backohthemanatee

huh?

isn't that how it goes? Every game that is not an exclusive the 360 somehow holds it back

It's not on the 360?
Avatar image for Ontain
#17 Posted by Ontain (25501 posts) -
that image is pointless. character models can look good but in an mmo you'll have to take into account how many models will be on the same area and all the items and world textures as well. can all that fit into 512? i know WOW isn't advanced at all and it takes over that not even including video ram. so for FF14 to look close they'll probably also severly limit how many characters are visible to you at the same time or have very small detailed area which means you'll have a lot of pop in.
Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#18 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"][QUOTE="sayonara89"]

huh?

mrmusicman247

isn't that how it goes? Every game that is not an exclusive the 360 somehow holds it back

It's not on the 360?

I know

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
#19 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17601 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="ohthemanatee"] isn't that how it goes? Every game that is not an exclusive the 360 somehow holds it backohthemanatee

It's not on the 360?

I know

So how can the 360 hold it back?
Avatar image for ohthemanatee
#20 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] It's not on the 360?mrmusicman247

I know

So how can the 360 hold it back?

it's a reference to all PS3 fanboys who accuse the 360 as the cause for the PS3's inferior multiplats, or sub HD graphics or any other problem with any other game

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
#21 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17601 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

I know

ohthemanatee

So how can the 360 hold it back?

it's a reference to all PS3 fanboys who accuse the 360 as the cause for the PS3's inferior multiplats, or sub HD graphics or any other problem with any other game

Ah I see. Carry on :P
Avatar image for SamiRDuran
#22 Posted by SamiRDuran (2758 posts) -
the picture looks fake but i expect massive difference when the game comes out
Avatar image for DerekLoffin
#23 Posted by DerekLoffin (9035 posts) -
Not surprised at all. If you've run the benchmark and see what the scores translate to performance wise, it is a very demanding game on PC. My PC easily eclipses PS3's power, yet is only getting a mid range score.
Avatar image for santoron
#24 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

How is this news? We knew that the PC would support 1080p resolution, and the PS3 720p. Hence, "Half resolution."

Avatar image for santoron
#25 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

I know

ohthemanatee

So how can the 360 hold it back?

it's a reference to all PS3 fanboys who accuse the 360 as the cause for the PS3's inferior multiplats, or sub HD graphics or any other problem with any other game

So you think 720p is now sub-hd? Or did you get off your own topic?

Avatar image for Rahnyc4
#26 Posted by Rahnyc4 (6659 posts) -

That character looks awful. Who is designing this rubbish?

Chemical_Viking
its from square enough said.
Avatar image for Rahnyc4
#27 Posted by Rahnyc4 (6659 posts) -

How is this news? We knew that the PC would support 1080p resolution, and the PS3 720p. Hence, "Half resolution."

santoron
and no AA
Avatar image for Birdy09
#28 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -

I think thats fairly noticeable. But then again, maybe console gamers are used to just barely HD resolution.

Whatever. This game is gonna suck anyways, so it doesn't matter. Its already shaiping up to be far too similar to FFXI and thats a game where they should've paid *me* to keep playing.

XaosII

Whoa, someone with a WoW avatar claiming 14 sucks and is very similar to 11, what a suprize :roll: now actually look beyond the character designs and see they are not similar at all.

Avatar image for ianuilliam
#29 Posted by ianuilliam (4955 posts) -

Sure pc on highest settings will look better than ps3, Just like pc on highest settings looked better than ps2 on FFXI. My PS2 version of FFXI looked better than my pc version though, and the same will probably be true of FFXIV with my ps3/pc.

Avatar image for santoron
#30 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

Sure pc on highest settings will look better than ps3, Just like pc on highest settings looked better than ps2 on FFXI. My PS2 version of FFXI looked better than my pc version though, and the same will probably be true of FFXIV with my ps3/pc.

ianuilliam

Truth.

In fact, now that the benchmark has been released, a lot of people who assumed they'd be playing maxxed out on PC are considering buying a PS3 or making peace with the idea that their rigs will be running on the lower settings the PS3 version is built around.

Avatar image for felipebo
#31 Posted by felipebo (4170 posts) -

Both look terrible.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#32 Posted by Chutebox (43389 posts) -
Game has nothing on WoW, good day.Human-after-all
Cool, thanks. Anyways, PC is a little clearer with the obvious better textures... Getting it on PC so I can't wait!
Avatar image for Junsei
#33 Posted by Junsei (723 posts) -
Even thou i can run the Alpha version with no problem. it was my plan to get the ps3 version anyway. AS a FFXI player sence the ps2 now playing on the PC, and xbox 360 which is only a hi res ps2 version... (thats why it lags more). If they do announce FFXIV for the xbox 360 its gonna be euqal to the ps3. theres no way ether system will match the PC version. the PS3 cant even run the alpha build it looks that good
Avatar image for Hakkai007
#34 Posted by Hakkai007 (4905 posts) -

I tried the FF 14 benchmark and it ran smooth on my 8800GT at 1920x1080 res.

My monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 res so it should run even smoother but their is a problem...

The benchmark only lets you choose two settings 1280x720 and 1920x1080 with no other alterations and only windowed mode.

The scores that they officially put of for the standard are absurdly high.

My 8800GT only scored 1800 which is listed as low frame rate even on the lowest settings.

Even the top single gpu cards like the 5870 only scored around 4400 at best which is listed as default settings.

According to them even the 5970 couldn't run the game on max fluidly at all times at the max settings in 1080P.

The alpha did run horrible too so the benchmarks may not be lying.

If the developers don;t fix the coding then the game will fail on day one since only the highest end computer could run it at decents settings and frame rate.

I find it weird that the PS3 could run it just fine while it lists my 8800gt under low frame rate on lowest settings.

Avatar image for Chemical_Viking
#35 Posted by Chemical_Viking (2145 posts) -

Looks like the difference is resolution. I'd bet money that the PS3 version will run in 720p whereas the FFXIV benchmark runs in 1080p

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

That character looks awful. Who is designing this rubbish?

Shewgenja

You're way off. Download and run the benchmark if your PC can handle it. These are beyond a shadow of a doubt the cleanest character models in any MMO.

I'm talking about the general design not the graphics. That one character looks like one of those photoshop disasters you read about. Huge neck, odd proportions, looks like the person has been sprayed with a spraypaint can. It's just an uninspiring, odd looking character.

Avatar image for ianuilliam
#36 Posted by ianuilliam (4955 posts) -

I tried the FF 14 benchmark and it ran smooth on my 8800GT at 1920x1080 res.

My monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 res so it should run even smoother but their is a problem...

The benchmark only lets you choose two settings 1280x720 and 1920x1080 with no other alterations and only windowed mode.

The scores that they officially put of for the standard are absurdly high.

My 8800GT only scored 1800 which is listed as low frame rate even on the lowest settings.

Even the top single gpu cards like the 5870 only scored around 4400 at best which is listed as default settings.

According to them even the 5970 couldn't run the game on max fluidly at all times at the max settings in 1080P.

The alpha did run horrible too so the benchmarks may not be lying.

If the developers don;t fix the coding then the game will fail on day one since only the highest end computer could run it at decents settings and frame rate.

I find it weird that the PS3 could run it just fine while it lists my 8800gt under low frame rate on lowest settings.

Hakkai007

I don't think it's really a bad thing to require top of the line hardware to run highest settings when an MMO launches. If they make it so that mid-line machines can run highest settings now, then a few years into the games life cycle it'll will be extremely dated.

Avatar image for santoron
#37 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

I tried the FF 14 benchmark and it ran smooth on my 8800GT at 1920x1080 res.

My monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 res so it should run even smoother but their is a problem...

The benchmark only lets you choose two settings 1280x720 and 1920x1080 with no other alterations and only windowed mode.

The scores that they officially put of for the standard are absurdly high.

My 8800GT only scored 1800 which is listed as low frame rate even on the lowest settings.

Even the top single gpu cards like the 5870 only scored around 4400 at best which is listed as default settings.

According to them even the 5970 couldn't run the game on max fluidly at all times at the max settings in 1080P.

The alpha did run horrible too so the benchmarks may not be lying.

If the developers don;t fix the coding then the game will fail on day one since only the highest end computer could run it at decents settings and frame rate.

I find it weird that the PS3 could run it just fine while it lists my 8800gt under low frame rate on lowest settings.

Hakkai007

Remember, the alpha was limited to 1024x768, 30 fps, far lower textures, and without the new dynamic lighting system being prepped for the beta release. The benchmark video wasn't meant to be representative of how the game will run on your machine, it's just something to look at while the benchmark stress tests your system in the background. My 1 1/2 year old $450 laptop stayed around 10-15 FPS, and scored in the mid 200s. I have no illusions that I could get the XIV client to run at all on that machine, let alone achieve the framerates of the Benchmark video.

When they announced XIV last E3 they cautioned that the PC specs would be "quite high" and even made the statement that a good PC five years from then should be able to max it out. The PC able to run XIV on max settings just doesn't commonly exist right now. And to me that's a good thing. With 2 platforms available at release they have the ability to really put out an MMO that will push top end PCs for the next few years or so and not look instantly dated as so many do, while still giving the budget concious a cheap hardware option with the PS3 to play the game until the PC prices become more reasonable. If you want to make a game that lasts 10 years, that's the way to do it, IMO.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
#38 Posted by Hakkai007 (4905 posts) -

PC FF14 doesn't look that good anyway.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
#39 Posted by Hakkai007 (4905 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I tried the FF 14 benchmark and it ran smooth on my 8800GT at 1920x1080 res.

My monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 res so it should run even smoother but their is a problem...

The benchmark only lets you choose two settings 1280x720 and 1920x1080 with no other alterations and only windowed mode.

The scores that they officially put of for the standard are absurdly high.

My 8800GT only scored 1800 which is listed as low frame rate even on the lowest settings.

Even the top single gpu cards like the 5870 only scored around 4400 at best which is listed as default settings.

According to them even the 5970 couldn't run the game on max fluidly at all times at the max settings in 1080P.

The alpha did run horrible too so the benchmarks may not be lying.

If the developers don;t fix the coding then the game will fail on day one since only the highest end computer could run it at decents settings and frame rate.

I find it weird that the PS3 could run it just fine while it lists my 8800gt under low frame rate on lowest settings.

santoron

Remember, the alpha was limited to 1024x768, 30 fps, far lower textures, and without the new dynamic lighting system being prepped for the beta release. The benchmark video wasn't meant to be representative of how the game will run on your machine, it's just something to look at while the benchmark stress tests your system in the background. My 1 1/2 year old $450 laptop stayed around 10-15 FPS, and scored in the mid 200s. I have no illusions that I could get the XIV client to run at all on that machine, let alone achieve the framerates of the Benchmark video.

When they announced XIV last E3 they cautioned that the PC specs would be "quite high" and even made the statement that a good PC five years from then should be able to max it out. The PC able to run XIV on max settings just doesn't commonly exist right now. And to me that's a good thing. With 2 platforms available at release they have the ability to really put out an MMO that will push top end PCs for the next few years or so and not look instantly dated as so many do, while still giving the budget concious a cheap hardware option with the PS3 to play the game until the PC prices become more reasonable. If you want to make a game that lasts 10 years, that's the way to do it, IMO.

But making high requirements for a mmo will make the game fail.

If you need an expensive system to even run it at all then it's stupid.

Crysis looks a million times better and it runs much better and I could max it out with little to no problem.

The way to keep an mmo surviving is to make it accessible to many and constantly release new content and build up a fan community.

As much as I dislike WoW it looks like crap and still is going strong.

Now why would a PS3 run it but not my 8800gt (according to their benchmark scores and listings)?

Avatar image for mojito1988
#40 Posted by mojito1988 (2703 posts) -

Its not a big deal it was the same with Final Fantasy 11 the Ps2 version was not as good as the Pc version in the visual department. It will be good enough on either. This is going to be so much better than wow. Wow is so shallow it gets old fast. This will be a tough game all the wow fans will not be able to handle fighting a boss without many pieces of gear dropping every time lol.

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#41 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -
Game has nothing on WoW, good day.Human-after-all
very much so. /thread
Avatar image for Hakkai007
#42 Posted by Hakkai007 (4905 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I tried the FF 14 benchmark and it ran smooth on my 8800GT at 1920x1080 res.

My monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 res so it should run even smoother but their is a problem...

The benchmark only lets you choose two settings 1280x720 and 1920x1080 with no other alterations and only windowed mode.

The scores that they officially put of for the standard are absurdly high.

My 8800GT only scored 1800 which is listed as low frame rate even on the lowest settings.

Even the top single gpu cards like the 5870 only scored around 4400 at best which is listed as default settings.

According to them even the 5970 couldn't run the game on max fluidly at all times at the max settings in 1080P.

The alpha did run horrible too so the benchmarks may not be lying.

If the developers don;t fix the coding then the game will fail on day one since only the highest end computer could run it at decents settings and frame rate.

I find it weird that the PS3 could run it just fine while it lists my 8800gt under low frame rate on lowest settings.

ianuilliam

I don't think it's really a bad thing to require top of the line hardware to run highest settings when an MMO launches. If they make it so that mid-line machines can run highest settings now, then a few years into the games life cycle it'll will be extremely dated.

Well currently right now even the top 700 USD cards can't run it at max.....

My 8800GT supposedly can't even run it without low frame rates even on the lowest settings possible, so it doesn't make since that the PS3 can run it at all.

And they can always upgrade the graphics in the game later, graphics aren't the most important thing anyway.

FF11 is still running after all these years and a lot of people don't mind.

Plus FF14 doesn't look that great anyway.

It looks like a game from 2007 or earlier.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#43 Posted by Chutebox (43389 posts) -

What should my PC score if I want to play this on high?

Avatar image for Birdy09
#44 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -

What should my PC score if I want to play this on high?

Chutebox
Ignore Score, if it runs smooth it runs smooth.
Avatar image for santoron
#45 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

But making high requirements for a mmo will make the game fail.

If you need an expensive system to even run it at all then it's stupid.

Crysis looks a million times better and it runs much better and I could max it out with little to no problem.

The way to keep an mmo surviving is to make it accessible to many and constantly release new content and build up a fan community.

As much as I dislike WoW it looks like crap and still is going strong.

Now why would a PS3 run it but not my 8800gt (according to their benchmark scores and listings)?

Hakkai007

I disagree. Most mmos only have one platform to draw from, so they need to make sure they can attract as many as possible from that audience, because its all they have. With cross platform development you have various communities to draw from and hardware options to satisfy any budget. Sure Crysis looks better (not nearly "a million" but whatever). Crysis isn't an MMO. It isn't nearly as large, and doesn't have nearly as much going on.

Why will it run well on PS3? A couple reasons. One, the PS3 is gonna be running settings and resolution that bounce between the default and low setting of the PC version. Two, why does it take a PC with specs far above the PS2 specs to run a PS2 emulator? Simple, because consoles are highly specialized pieces of equipment that can focus all of their resources to that one game. PC's can't do that.

Which isn't to say your particular PC won't be able to run it. Some people have had new drivers released for their cards in the last couple of days that more than doubled ther scores, and better drivers will come out for XIV closer to release. There are also a host of other tweaks you can make to your OS to free up resources. Bottom line is we know there's gonna be an Open Beta before release. So you'll have a shot to see exactly what kind of performance your rig is capable of before release, with time to spare if a last minute shopping trip is needed :P

Avatar image for santoron
#46 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

What should my PC score if I want to play this on high?

Birdy09

Ignore Score, if it runs smooth it runs smooth.

That could not be less true. You aren't watching the game run in real time in the Benchmark. You are seeing the opening, non-interactive instanced portion of one of the starting cities' intro, portions of which are nothing more than CG. That would be akin to saying if you're getting smooth framerates in a WoW instance by yourself, or in a small building by yourself, the whole game will run like that. The video wasn't put there to represent gameplay, it's simply there for you to look at something while it runs the tests in the background. They put the scores there for a reason...

Chute, check the benchmark page of the official site, it lists scores and what they translate to there.

Avatar image for Birdy09
#47 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Chutebox"]

What should my PC score if I want to play this on high?

santoron

Ignore Score, if it runs smooth it runs smooth.

That could not be less true. You aren't watching the game run in real time in the Benchmark. You are seeing the opening, non-interactive instanced portion of one of the starting cities' intro, portions of which are nothing more than CG. That would be akin to saying if you're getting smooth framerates in a WoW instance by yourself, or in a small building by yourself, the whole game will run like that. The video wasn't put there to represent gameplay, it's simply there for you to look at something while it runs the tests in the background. They put the scores there for a reason...

I was under the impressions it was infact testing the graphics card, but not the CPU? well either way, im sure anything remotly modern will run this, its not exactly technically impressive. One thing I would like to know that I dont, is this game voice acted? it better be.
Avatar image for santoron
#48 Posted by santoron (8583 posts) -

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] Ignore Score, if it runs smooth it runs smooth.Birdy09

That could not be less true. You aren't watching the game run in real time in the Benchmark. You are seeing the opening, non-interactive instanced portion of one of the starting cities' intro, portions of which are nothing more than CG. That would be akin to saying if you're getting smooth framerates in a WoW instance by yourself, or in a small building by yourself, the whole game will run like that. The video wasn't put there to represent gameplay, it's simply there for you to look at something while it runs the tests in the background. They put the scores there for a reason...

I was under the impressions it was infact testing the graphics card, but not the CPU? well either way, im sure anything remotly modern will run this, its not exactly technically impressive. One thing I would like to know that I dont, is this game voice acted? it better be.

From people with their monitors out we've seen the test is GPU intensive, but they're pushing CPU loads too. But the GPU tests (almost always going up to 100% usage no matter the card in use) is no reflective of what you're seeing on the screen.

And yes, there is voice acting, though I don't know if every NPC is voice acted, or just quest NPCs.

Avatar image for Birdy09
#49 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -
[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]Game has nothing on WoW, good day.UnknownSniper65
very much so. /thread

You mean /fail... Honestly now, if you want to keep worshipping WoW for having such a huge pop, yet churning out the same thing every year destroying 90% of old content with each new expansion that gets easier and easier then by all means. I hope most of you PC Fanboys hating on this because its not WoW or ToR realize that WoW is the Halo/MW of MMO's you know, those 2 games that get heavily bashed for being noobish and casual glorifying?. Just saying. No all of us want that game to last forever, or think because its the most popular other MMOs cant do things better. because WoW is one of the least ambitious (in terms of ideas and content), not on release no, but its nothing but a cash cow now.
Avatar image for Hakkai007
#50 Posted by Hakkai007 (4905 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]But making high requirements for a mmo will make the game fail.

If you need an expensive system to even run it at all then it's stupid.

Crysis looks a million times better and it runs much better and I could max it out with little to no problem.

The way to keep an mmo surviving is to make it accessible to many and constantly release new content and build up a fan community.

As much as I dislike WoW it looks like crap and still is going strong.

Now why would a PS3 run it but not my 8800gt (according to their benchmark scores and listings)?

santoron

I disagree. Most mmos only have one platform to draw from, so they need to make sure they can attract as many as possible from that audience, because its all they have. With cross platform development you have various communities to draw from and hardware options to satisfy any budget. Sure Crysis looks better (not nearly "a million" but whatever). Crysis isn't an MMO. It isn't nearly as large, and doesn't have nearly as much going on.

Why will it run well on PS3? A couple reasons. One, the PS3 is gonna be running settings and resolution that bounce between the default and low setting of the PC version. Two, why does it take a PC with specs far above the PS2 specs to run a PS2 emulator? Simple, because consoles are highly specialized pieces of equipment that can focus all of their resources to that one game. PC's can't do that.

Which isn't to say your particular PC won't be able to run it. Some people have had new drivers released for their cards in the last couple of days that more than doubled ther scores, and better drivers will come out for XIV closer to release. There are also a host of other tweaks you can make to your OS to free up resources. Bottom line is we know there's gonna be an Open Beta before release. So you'll have a shot to see exactly what kind of performance your rig is capable of before release, with time to spare if a last minute shopping trip is needed :P

BS!

Even with all the concentration on making the PS3 perform the best it could if my 8800gt can't run it then the PS3 doesn't have a chance at all no matter what the settings.

Heck a GTX260 gets low scores and even a 5870 gets mid scores, there is no way no matter what that the PS3 can run the game unless the developer made the PC version have the most horrible code in existence.

The reason A PS2 emulator takes more power is the way it was set up and coded.

The Wii emulator runs better than the PS2 emulator.

I bet anyone a thousand dollars that FF14 would fail if the score descriptions they posted to the public are true in the final release.

And I have played Terra Online which is a complete open world with better graphics and it runs on max settings, So something must be wrong with FF14 and they need to seriously fix it or they will lose a lot of customers.

Time and again it has been proven that if something requires a high price then it will lose sales drastically.