PSM3: Fallout ps3 version compares poorly to 360/PC version

Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.Salt_The_Fries

ye cos vibration was invented this generation :roll:

fail

i wouldn't be suprised if the 360 version was better than the ps3. i have played both versions of oblivion and the 360 version blows the ps3 version out of the water.and the ps3 version came out a year later, sure it looks slightly better but it doesn't run as smoothly and overall isn't as solid a the 360 version.

developers will not use ps3 as the lead platform as the 360 and wii have outsold it.the developers will make more money doing games for the platforms that have sold most. sure the ps3 has best specs but those are just numbers, what matters is the finished product. and if you are willing to sacrifice graphics slightly then get a 360 or wii. everyone i know who has a ps3 (very few people) is a graphics "whore" and don't care much for game-play. there are loads of games tht are on the 360 that were due for release on ps3 but were cancelled because it is easier to make 360 games. and it makes more sense to release games for the better selling consoles

i wouldn't be suprised if the 360 version was better than the ps3. i have played both versions of oblivion and the 360 version blows the ps3 version out of the water.and the ps3 version came out a year later, sure it looks slightly better but it doesn't run as smoothly and overall isn't as solid a the 360 version.

developers will not use ps3 as the lead platform as the 360 and wii have outsold it.the developers will make more money doing games for the platforms that have sold most. sure the ps3 has best specs but those are just numbers, what matters is the finished product. and if you are willing to sacrifice graphics slightly then get a 360 or wii. everyone i know who has a ps3 (very few people) is a graphics "whore" and don't care much for game-play. there are loads of games tht are on the 360 that were due for release on ps3 but were cancelled because it is easier to make 360 games. and it makes more sense to release games for the better selling consoles

guitarsrock4eva

you dont know what you are talking about do you :roll:

its actually been confirmed that developing on the ps3 first and then porting to xbox360 yeilds greater results. so the consoles outselling ps3 has nothing to do with it :roll:

oblivion was slightly better on the ps3 better loading and marginally better visuals. so no xbox360 version wasnt better :roll:

and your last few sentences......just no

Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.Salt_The_Fries

As far as any game that involves shooting and aiming. The mouse is more accurate, faster, and precise. This is fact.

Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.Salt_The_Fries

KB/Mouse >>>>>>>>>>>>> all. It's the most accurate and precise way of playing a game. Yes, the PC version is the superior version in every way. 8)

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"]Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.Blackbond

As far as any game that involves shooting and aiming. The mouse is more accurate, faster, and precise. This is fact.

So do is the fact that pulling the trigger on, let's say Xbox 360 controller resembles firing a firearm more than clicking a mouse. And I didn't imply that vibrations were invented this generation, just stated the fact that you don't have all features by default.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"]Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.Salt_The_Fries

As far as any game that involves shooting and aiming. The mouse is more accurate, faster, and precise. This is fact.

So do is the fact that pulling the trigger on, let's say Xbox 360 controller resembles firing a firearm more than clicking a mouse. And I didn't imply that vibrations were invented this generation, just stated the fact that you don't have all features by default.

:lol: dude seriesly you are fighting a losing battle you cannot justify anything being better and more accurate than a mouse no controller will beat it unless you have a guncon controller!

some consoles fps games are slowed down to compensate for the slower reactions as compared to the mouse.

and since when does having vibration = better? thats not fact thats opinion

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"]Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.superjim42

As far as any game that involves shooting and aiming. The mouse is more accurate, faster, and precise. This is fact.

So do is the fact that pulling the trigger on, let's say Xbox 360 controller resembles firing a firearm more than clicking a mouse. And I didn't imply that vibrations were invented this generation, just stated the fact that you don't have all features by default.

:lol: dude seriesly you are fighting a losing battle you cannot justify anything being better and more accurate than a mouse no controller will beat it unless you have a guncon controller!

some consoles fps games are slowed down to compensate for the slower reactions as compared to the mouse.

and since when does having vibration = better? thats not fact thats opinion

Dont' forget the autoaim in 99% of the shooters on consoles. KB/Mouse being much much more accurate is Fact. You are correct, he cannot dispute this.

If vibration were "necessary" for games then he'd have an argument but it isn't. Accuracy in games is necessary (in any genre). And, there, KB/Mouse >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"]Clicking a mouse isn't next-gen, plus it doesn't have vibrations. So, no, you won't have superior version in every aspect.superjim42

As far as any game that involves shooting and aiming. The mouse is more accurate, faster, and precise. This is fact.

So do is the fact that pulling the trigger on, let's say Xbox 360 controller resembles firing a firearm more than clicking a mouse. And I didn't imply that vibrations were invented this generation, just stated the fact that you don't have all features by default.

:lol: dude seriesly you are fighting a losing battle you cannot justify anything being better and more accurate than a mouse no controller will beat it unless you have a guncon controller!

some consoles fps games are slowed down to compensate for the slower reactions as compared to the mouse.

and since when does having vibration = better? thats not fact thats opinion

Perhaps. Mouse and keyboard may be more precise, but I have never liked the feel of a keyboard compared to a controller. It is just not as comfortable for longer gaming sessions. Even the ergonomic keyboard are just not as comfortable and easy to access as the controller. Then again, the 360 contoller does work with the PC. Regardless, this is still a console buy for me, should I choose to buy it. I'm not really that sure that I want it, tbh.

360 version FTW , bumped for snake360ps3gamer

pfft.

uninteresting game anyway.

considering bethseda.

get LBP, GeOW2, or Res2.

you'll be happy you wont even notice killzone2 will be out by feb.

[QUOTE="snyper1982"]

[QUOTE="king_bobo"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]Yeah, I posted this earlier, it's a shame. I'll wait for some more reviews for confirmation but I'm not really surprised. The 360 was the lead console for F 3.Erik_Lensherr

Because it isn't cost effective.

It isn't cost effective to make a game on PAR with a 360 multiplat ?

Try responding in context. I never said it wasn't cost effective to make a game on par. I said it isn't cost effective for them to take advantage of BD and the PS3, which for a multi-plat, it usually isn't.

i think the PC was the lead platform and it was just easier to port it to the 360 and the question is did they port it from the PC to the ps3 or did they port it from the PC to the 360 then port it from the 360 to the ps3, this game was designed for the PC so it doesn't suprise me that the 360 version is better, it is the PC's "little brother" after alldelta3074

Ok, first of all there is NO Porting. The engine they use is multiplatform and its strongest feature is versatility or at least that's how its marketed. The Gamebryo engine is just suited more for PC and Xbox. If you look at demos there won't be anything from PS3. If they wanted to have the same results on the ps3 as the xbox they should have used Unreal engine instead of this crappy gamebryo. As example bioshock looks the same on ps3 as on xbox because its unreal engine. To get a better ps3 version, you would need an engine that has been coded to take advantage of the ps3 rather than an engine that can be considered a jack-of-all trades.

I think people should learn more about how games are actually done before they start overreacting.

What I think really happened is that Bethesda got better at programming the 360 using gamebryo but the ps3 stayed at the level it was. If you look at oblivion well, the ps3 didn't have AA but the xbox had. However ps3 version was better because when the game release to 360 Bethesda did not have a lot of experience with the machine. The resolution was lower on xbox but it did have AA. On the ps3 there was no AA but the resolution was higher.

On this note I will assure people that the only difference between the two fallout versions is that the ps3 has no AA that's why it doesn't look as good but the rest is the same with the exceptions of this cell shaded outline that appears around characters at times (which I think is because of the engine) and of course the infamous bug where if you receive a message on PSN it will freeze while you're playing.(which will be fixed in a patch) Other than this, if there's a bug in one version there's a bug in all of them. They were doing cross development on a multiplatform engine. Which means they are programing the game once. There's no porting. They still have a lot of stuff to tweak but it's still the same game. Other than bugs related to the OS (like the psn message thing) the bugs are the same in-game.

Once they are done programming the game they compile the game for the specific platform. Its not a port its being programmed once not three times. The textures look just as good on PS3 or Xbox because they have the same resolution. The muddy texture thing that some reviewer said is false. They are not making the game three times: One with pretty textures and the other with higher-resolution ones another with .... This is just his impression. The textures are as blurry on the xbox as on the ps3.

The same thing goes the other side: For example,the ps3 reviewer of bioshock on IGN said there were higher-res textures in some spots on the ps3 version which is a lie obviously because the artists do not remake the textures for game twice. It was also said in an interview that the ps3 version of bioshock would not use the capacity of the blu-ray to house higher res textures.

In fallout 3, the lower draw distance statement is a lie invented by the reviewer. I have both 360 and ps3 version and did the test.I went to the school not far from the vault and the sign poped at the exact distance in both versions. I also did some tests with the scenary outside the vault and the objects pop at the same distance.

Pc version is of course the best. Again people just tend to exagerate things: The only noticeable difference is that there is between xbox and ps3 is that there is no AA in the ps3 version. End of the line. All the other things are just excuses invented by reviewers. By the way the ps3 version loads faster (well until Xbox gets the xbox experience) if this makes any of you happy.

The AA problem isbecause the ps3 GPU doesn't support both HDR and AA at the same time unless it uses an engine capable of emulating HDR which would in turn be able to free the GPU to output AA but gamebryo can't do this as it was aimed at multiplatform so its not focused on getting power out of the ps3 GPU. There is AA on the xbox due to the fact that the xbox GPU can achieve AA and HDR at the same time without such efforts. Why do you think Oblivion had AA on xbox but ps3 version did not! Its the same with fallout 3 except now they use the same resolution for both consoles!

So that's the reason it compares poorly. So if you don't care about some jaggy edges and want to get a good game the ps3 version is as good as any. The game is fun and that's what counts unless you're the type of person that likes to hunt for jaggies and stare at your tv set for hours to spot problems. I couldn't care less what some of the reviewers (IGN and gamespot) were paid to exaggerate the AA problem on the ps3 and turn it into something it's not.It seems the IGN guy finally ended up erasing the part of the review about the ps3 problems. He must have noticed people overreacted in the forums because of this.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i think the PC was the lead platform and it was just easier to port it to the 360 and the question is did they port it from the PC to the ps3 or did they port it from the PC to the 360 then port it from the 360 to the ps3, this game was designed for the PC so it doesn't suprise me that the 360 version is better, it is the PC's "little brother" after allbobly007

If they wanted to have the same results on the ps3 as the xbox they should have used Unreal engine instead of this crappy gamebryo. As example bioshock looks the same on ps3 as on xbox because its unreal engine. To get a better ps3 version, you would need an engine that has been coded to take advantage of the ps3 rather than an engine that can be considered a jack-of-all trades.

This paragraph alone renders you incompetent and makes your giant post a waste of space. Not to even go on to the other obvious errors (PS3 CAN do HDR+AA, see Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, and F1 Championship).

shame on the first guy for bumping a week+ old thread

shame on the second for bumping a day old thread and continuing it.

shame on the first guy for bumping a week+ old thread

shame on the second for bumping a day old thread and continuing it.

Janton3

and shame on me for even replying.........:x