Xbox doesn't really have better multiplats than PS3
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Heil68"]Hiding? Naw, look at my posting history, I've always said PC>PS3>Wii>360. I'm sorry you feel the need to once again question where my loyalty lies, but if it makes you feel better I still think the 360 sucks and that PS3 is better. waltefmoney
I was actually considered a lem at one point. ;) Heil68
Oh Heil.
I was :P I actually liked the 360, when it had games but then I bought a PS3 in 2008 and the magic happened and I discovered pure gaming bliss, all the while still favoring the PC. :)
And why is lumping together different gens when comparing a franchise not a good Idea? BibiMaghoo
Because different gens have different standards for the genre and standards are constantly increasing?
So what you actually mean then, is that the three games from forza this gen are better than the 1 game from Polyphony this gen?BibiMaghoo
Polyphony have released two games this gen - GT5: Prologue and GT5.
If it matters any, Eurogamer's pretty good at pointing out differences of a multiplatform game between platforms.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bulletstorm-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-batman-arkham-city-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/batman-arkham-city-360-pc-face-off-video
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/bulletstorm-360-pc-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/bulletstorm-ps3-pc-face-off
[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]Polyphony have released two games this gen - GT5: Prologue and GT5.Heil68Didn't they release a PSP game too?
Oh yeah, that too. Thank you Heil68. This isn't the first time you've had my back. :P
lol, dude, you are getting obsessed with this. this is what for you? the 25th or so topic on the same subject?There is hardly a different in multiplats (any one who isn't a fanboy knows this) and most of the time you can't even noitice. The whole "xbox has teh better multiplatz" is something that idiots who go to lens of truth and digital foundry believe. I can understand why they do though, someone has to make them feel less insucure about having a console with no more games coming out. And I can understand why sites like lens of truth and digital foundry do what they do, to make money off of idtiot fanboys. The more fanboys they get to watch ads on their site, the more money they recieve. I can't blame them, I would be doing the SAME exact thing in their postion.
What's funny though is that none of these people want to talk about exclusives. No they want to pretend that their is a VAST difference between multiplats because some site says so, but if you compare exclusives they don't want to admit it. No 360 exclusive comes close to PS3 exlcusives, nothing. Halo doesn't look anywhere near as good as Killzone, Gears is nothing special compared to Uncharted, and MGS4 STILL looks better than 360 exclusives, and that came out in 2008!
In multiplats the differences are minimal, but in exclusives there is a VAST difference. Some people don't want to admit it, sorry but it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
and besides as i have already told you in most of those 25 threads multiplats are not better because of the way they look they are better because of xbl.
(at least all the ones that are multiplayer or co-op)
how does almost everyone here agree xbl is a better service even though you have to shell out money for it yet that advantage does not count for playing multiplats?
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]And why is lumping together different gens when comparing a franchise not a good Idea? waltefmoney
Because different gens have different standards for the genre and standards are constantly increasing?
So what you actually mean then, is that the three games from forza this gen are better than the 1 game from Polyphony this gen?BibiMaghoo
Polyphony have released two games this gen - GT5: Prologue and GT5.
I think all gens share the same standard of games needing to be good. A game is either good or not, unless you define a good game based solely on its technical merits.......
Yes, you could well say they have released two games this gen, thats fair enough. I believe it is generally regarded as a demo though, more than a game.
How's Skyrim on PS3 compared to PC and 360? :][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]In multiplats the differences are minimalBlbecekBobecek
Well the PC version is the only way to play Skyrim right (esp. thanks to modding community), PS3 version is barely playable and 360 version sucks only a little bit less than PS3 version.
No the PS3 version is extremely playable.
[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]
Because different gens have different standards for the genre and standards are constantly increasing?
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]So what you actually mean then, is that the three games from forza this gen are better than the 1 game from Polyphony this gen?BibiMaghoo
Polyphony have released two games this gen - GT5: Prologue and GT5.
I think all gens share the same standard of games needing to be good. A game is either good or not, unless you define a good game based solely on its technical merits.......
Yes, you could well say they have released two games this gen, thats fair enough. I believe it is generally regarded as a demo though, more than a game.
O ye gods no. I have really old gaming magazines from the late 80s/early 90s, and they rave about games that are worse then your typical free flash game today. Times change, standards raise, in 10 years Forza 4 and GT5 will both be terribly outdated and hard to go back to.I think all gens share the same standard of games needing to be good. A game is either good or not, unless you define a good game based solely on its technical merits.......
BibiMaghoo
Technical merits are taken into account for when writing a review. Games don't get scored solely on them, but they do play a role. Obviously a game that released in 1998 won't reach the same metascore if it was released in the exact same state this gen(or even last gen, when Forza 1 was released).
Mate just go play your PS3. No one cares.There is hardly a different in multiplats (any one who isn't a fanboy knows this) and most of the time you can't even noitice. The whole "xbox has teh better multiplatz" is something that idiots who go to lens of truth and digital foundry believe. I can understand why they do though, someone has to make them feel less insucure about having a console with no more games coming out. And I can understand why sites like lens of truth and digital foundry do what they do, to make money off of idtiot fanboys. The more fanboys they get to watch ads on their site, the more money they recieve. I can't blame them, I would be doing the SAME exact thing in their postion.
What's funny though is that none of these people want to talk about exclusives. No they want to pretend that their is a VAST difference between multiplats because some site says so, but if you compare exclusives they don't want to admit it. No 360 exclusive comes close to PS3 exlcusives, nothing. Halo doesn't look anywhere near as good as Killzone, Gears is nothing special compared to Uncharted, and MGS4 STILL looks better than 360 exclusives, and that came out in 2008!
In multiplats the differences are minimal, but in exclusives there is a VAST difference. Some people don't want to admit it, sorry but it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
[QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Then you're lying it's a fact the 360 version has lots and lots of screen tearing.themajormayordont call me a liar charles, its not a fact, i have no screen tearing on skyrim on my TV. I use HDMI, maybe thats making a difference?Yes I will cause it's not the first time either. Both digital foundry and lens of truth reported high amounts of screen tearing. You can see it in this video too I'm pretty sure they're using HDMI too...you yourself said it was 8% screen tearing, that's less than 10% using logic i would say that was hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you really talk rubbish mate and you contradict yourself all the time,lol
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"][QUOTE="waltefmoney"]
Polyphony have released two games this gen - GT5: Prologue and GT5.
locopatho
I think all gens share the same standard of games needing to be good. A game is either good or not, unless you define a good game based solely on its technical merits.......
Yes, you could well say they have released two games this gen, thats fair enough. I believe it is generally regarded as a demo though, more than a game.
O ye gods no. I have really old gaming magazines from the late 80s/early 90s, and they rave about games that are worse then your typical free flash game today. Times change, standards raise, in 10 years Forza 4 and GT5 will both be terribly outdated and hard to go back to. Is that not down to personal preferance though, rather than a gaming standard? I find it hard to go back to PS1 FF games that I used to love, they are an eyesore, but that doesnt diminish the quality of a game, be it good, or not. I dont believe any standard exists that matters more than if a game is simply good, or not. This is regardless of technical merits, and I thank the gods thats the case every day, if it wasnt, then gaming would truely be dead.Is that not down to personal preferance though, rather than a gaming standard? I find it hard to go back to PS1 FF games that I used to love, they are an eyesore, but that doesnt diminish the quality of a game, be it good, or not. I dont believe any standard exists that matters more than if a game is simply good, or not. This is regardless of technical merits, and I thank the gods thats the case every day, if it wasnt, then gaming would truely be dead. BibiMaghoo
Here you go:
'We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time."
Review Guidelines
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="sts106mat"] dont call me a liar charles, its not a fact, i have no screen tearing on skyrim on my TV. I use HDMI, maybe thats making a difference?delta3074Yes I will cause it's not the first time either. Both digital foundry and lens of truth reported high amounts of screen tearing. You can see it in this video too I'm pretty sure they're using HDMI too...you yourself said it was 8% screen tearing, that's less than 10% using logic i would say that was hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you really talk rubbish mate and you contradict yourself all the time,lol What are you talking about???? When did I say less than 10% hardly is a high amount??
Is that not down to personal preferance though, rather than a gaming standard? I find it hard to go back to PS1 FF games that I used to love, they are an eyesore, but that doesnt diminish the quality of a game, be it good, or not. I dont believe any standard exists that matters more than if a game is simply good, or not. This is regardless of technical merits, and I thank the gods thats the case every day, if it wasnt, then gaming would truely be dead. BibiMaghoo
It's a comparitive thing, not an absolute thing. If the only FPS game I ever played was Goldeneye on N64 then yeah I'd still love it. But after playing Perfect Dark, then on PS2 games like Timesplitters, Black, Half Life etc, and then on 360 playing Bioshock, COD4, Halo 3, etc, Goldeneye is complete rubbish to go back to.
I guess you could say that's just my preference, but to me it's like gaming is a constant pursuit of better experiences. Stuff that is amazing today will be outdone in a few years, and that stuff will also be outdone someday. Gaming is still evolving so much based on tech, there's so much more potential to unlock. Devs are racing ahead and outdoing each other constantly, it's mental.
I don't see it as sad or bad that todays games will probably be mostly forgotten in 10 years, I see it as a positive that the games of the future will be so much better :)
Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Portal 2, SkyrimThere are quite a few games that play significantly better on 360 such as Borderlands, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. I can't think of one multiplat that runs smoother on PS3 then on 360.
superapo
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"] Is that not down to personal preferance though, rather than a gaming standard? I find it hard to go back to PS1 FF games that I used to love, they are an eyesore, but that doesnt diminish the quality of a game, be it good, or not. I dont believe any standard exists that matters more than if a game is simply good, or not. This is regardless of technical merits, and I thank the gods thats the case every day, if it wasnt, then gaming would truely be dead. waltefmoney
Here you go:
'We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time."
Review Guidelines
By this are you suggesting that you take GS's reviewing poilicies to be an authority on gaming standards? But then, you could claim the same about other review sites that grade games in different ways completely. There was a reason I used Metacritic scores, and thats because people look at gaming standards in different ways. Do you believe for a moment, that any reviewer worth bearing that title, would not first consider if a game is good, or not, before anything else? Any standard imposed beyond this I would question the validity of as a 'standard' at all. Preferance plays an important part, but no preferance can really be standard can it? Are we that focused on graphics and technical achievements, that we place higher value on it than quality gameplay? Than if its good or not? I dont believe so. If that were true none of our games would ever be any good, they would just be real shiny.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]Yes I will cause it's not the first time either. Both digital foundry and lens of truth reported high amounts of screen tearing. You can see it in this video too I'm pretty sure they're using HDMI too...themajormayoryou yourself said it was 8% screen tearing, that's less than 10% using logic i would say that was hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you really talk rubbish mate and you contradict yourself all the time,lol What are you talking about???? When did I say less than 10% hardly is a high amount??are you dense? I AM SAYING that less than 10% is hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you saying the game only has 8% screen tearing and then saying it's a 'high amount' is the contradiction,digital foundry never even stated it has a 'high amount' of screen tearing,they said it onlt tears when the engine i put under strain, when the engine is put under strain the Ps3's framerate drops to 20FPS or below, the 360 maintains 25FPS+ in this scenario but with screen tearing because the V-sync disengages to keep the framerate up to avoid input lag " the tearing we see is a worthwhile trade-off in order to preserve controller response, which would have otherwise been impacted by lower frame-rate refresh." " This is not an ideal situation on either platform, of course, but in terms of sheer playability stemming from sharper controller response, the 360 version is clearly the one optimised best for most situations. The tearing is indeed aggressive at these points, and that can understandably be off-putting for some players (and may well influence your purchase). However, there's more to be gained in translating the player's inputs to the game without delay than what is ultimately lost here in image quality. " so in other words, screen tearing is better than input lag from lower framerates which means,using logic, that the 360 version is more playable as it does not suffer from any input lag.
[QUOTE="superapo"]Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim No Skyrim has several issues on PS3 that i've heard of, and i'm talking about performance, not extra features such as Portal 2 steam support.There are quite a few games that play significantly better on 360 such as Borderlands, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. I can't think of one multiplat that runs smoother on PS3 then on 360.
themajormayor
[QUOTE="superapo"]Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim digital foundry (eurogamer) Games better on 360= 153 Games equal= 86 Games better on Ps3= 38 http://misterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-ps3/xbox-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/ Stop lying about skyrim running better on the Ps3, you will lose all your credibility if you keep it up,to say a game that runs at a lower framrate PLAYS better is just a joke, playability is about performance not graphics dudeThere are quite a few games that play significantly better on 360 such as Borderlands, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. I can't think of one multiplat that runs smoother on PS3 then on 360.
themajormayor
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="delta3074"]you yourself said it was 8% screen tearing, that's less than 10% using logic i would say that was hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you really talk rubbish mate and you contradict yourself all the time,loldelta3074What are you talking about???? When did I say less than 10% hardly is a high amount??are you dense? I AM SAYING that less than 10% is hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you saying the game only has 8% screen tearing and then saying it's a 'high amount' is the contradiction,digital foundry never even stated it has a 'high amount' of screen tearing,they said it onlt tears when the engine i put under strain, when the engine is put under strain the Ps3's framerate drops to 20FPS or below, the 360 maintains 25FPS+ in this scenario but with screen tearing because the V-sync disengages to keep the framerate up to avoid input lag " the tearing we see is a worthwhile trade-off in order to preserve controller response, which would have otherwise been impacted by lower frame-rate refresh." " This is not an ideal situation on either platform, of course, but in terms of sheer playability stemming from sharper controller response, the 360 version is clearly the one optimised best for most situations. The tearing is indeed aggressive at these points, and that can understandably be off-putting for some players (and may well influence your purchase). However, there's more to be gained in translating the player's inputs to the game without delay than what is ultimately lost here in image quality. " so in other words, screen tearing is better than input lag from lower framerates which means,using logic, that the 360 version is more playable as it does not suffer from any input lag. So I am contradicting myself because YOU have a different opinion on what is a high amount? Oh what a coincidence that DF didn't even give us the averages. Cause if they would have done so we would know that the average difference in FPS is only 2.5 whereas the screen tearing is 8%! So using logic I rather have a small unnoticeable difference in FPS than the huge amount of 8% screen tearing! I have skyrim now on PS3 and even the screen tearing you see in youtube videos is much worse than anything I've seen on my PS3
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="superapo"]Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim No Skyrim has several issues on PS3 that i've heard of, and i'm talking about performance, not extra features such as Portal 2 steam support. Portal 2 has better AA on PS3There are quite a few games that play significantly better on 360 such as Borderlands, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. I can't think of one multiplat that runs smoother on PS3 then on 360.
superapo
[QUOTE="Heil68"]It's funny to see consolites argue over who has the best multi plats when completely ignoring PC, it's cute. ^_^sts106matoh here he is, the biggest ex-PS3 fanboy on the site hahaha. if UC3 AAA editors choice had won GOTY, you'd be all over these threads, but now you are hiding behind the PC again, hilarious dude. yea, the guy is a joke...completely worthless, no integrity.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="superapo"]Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim digital foundry (eurogamer) Games better on 360= 153 Games equal= 86 Games better on Ps3= 38 http://misterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-ps3/xbox-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/ Stop lying about skyrim running better on the Ps3, you will lose all your credibility if you keep it up,lol He said he couldn't think of any game that runs better on PS3. I only gave him 4 examples. You keep your "credibility" while I am enjoying the best console version of Skyrim ;)There are quite a few games that play significantly better on 360 such as Borderlands, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. I can't think of one multiplat that runs smoother on PS3 then on 360.
delta3074
There is hardly a different in multiplats (any one who isn't a fanboy knows this) and most of the time you can't even noitice. The whole "xbox has teh better multiplatz" is something that idiots who go to lens of truth and digital foundry believe. I can understand why they do though, someone has to make them feel less insucure about having a console with no more games coming out. And I can understand why sites like lens of truth and digital foundry do what they do, to make money off of idtiot fanboys. The more fanboys they get to watch ads on their site, the more money they recieve. I can't blame them, I would be doing the SAME exact thing in their postion.
What's funny though is that none of these people want to talk about exclusives. No they want to pretend that their is a VAST difference between multiplats because some site says so, but if you compare exclusives they don't want to admit it. No 360 exclusive comes close to PS3 exlcusives, nothing. Halo doesn't look anywhere near as good as Killzone, Gears is nothing special compared to Uncharted, and MGS4 STILL looks better than 360 exclusives, and that came out in 2008!
In multiplats the differences are minimal, but in exclusives there is a VAST difference. Some people don't want to admit it, sorry but it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
No, it's kinda true. Facts are facts bro and the 360 has superior multiplats. Get over it.
:lol: No it doesn't. Gears of War 3 looks better than every PS3 exclusive except Uncharted 3 and those two are about even. MGS 4 has been outdone many times over.
[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"] Is that not down to personal preferance though, rather than a gaming standard? I find it hard to go back to PS1 FF games that I used to love, they are an eyesore, but that doesnt diminish the quality of a game, be it good, or not. I dont believe any standard exists that matters more than if a game is simply good, or not. This is regardless of technical merits, and I thank the gods thats the case every day, if it wasnt, then gaming would truely be dead. locopatho
It's a comparitive thing, not an absolute thing. If the only FPS game I ever played was Goldeneye on N64 then yeah I'd still love it. But after playing Perfect Dark, then on PS2 games like Timesplitters, Black, Half Life etc, and then on 360 playing Bioshock, COD4, Halo 3, etc, Goldeneye is complete rubbish to go back to.
I guess you could say that's just my preference, but to me it's like gaming is a constant pursuit of better experiences. Stuff that is amazing today will be outdone in a few years, and that stuff will also be outdone someday. Gaming is still evolving so much based on tech, there's so much more potential to unlock. Devs are racing ahead and outdoing each other constantly, it's mental.
I don't see it as sad or bad that todays games will probably be mostly forgotten in 10 years, I see it as a positive that the games of the future will be so much better :)
But is GoldenEye 64, at this time, a worse game than it was when it was released? is the game, actualy worse? I dont believe it is, I believe it is still that same quality, playable game that was released almost 15 years ago. Time doesnt degrade how good a game is, only what you expect from your money, or hardware.[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="delta3074"]are you dense? I AM SAYING that less than 10% is hardly a 'high amount' of screen tearing, you saying the game only has 8% screen tearing and then saying it's a 'high amount' is the contradiction,digital foundry never even stated it has a 'high amount' of screen tearing,they said it onlt tears when the engine i put under strain, when the engine is put under strain the Ps3's framerate drops to 20FPS or below, the 360 maintains 25FPS+ in this scenario but with screen tearing because the V-sync disengages to keep the framerate up to avoid input lag " the tearing we see is a worthwhile trade-off in order to preserve controller response, which would have otherwise been impacted by lower frame-rate refresh." " This is not an ideal situation on either platform, of course, but in terms of sheer playability stemming from sharper controller response, the 360 version is clearly the one optimised best for most situations. The tearing is indeed aggressive at these points, and that can understandably be off-putting for some players (and may well influence your purchase). However, there's more to be gained in translating the player's inputs to the game without delay than what is ultimately lost here in image quality. " so in other words, screen tearing is better than input lag from lower framerates which means,using logic, that the 360 version is more playable as it does not suffer from any input lag.delta3074So I am contradicting myself because YOU have a different opinion on what is a high amount? Oh what a coincidence that DF didn't even give us the averages. Cause if they would have done so we would know that the average difference in FPS is only 2.5 whereas the screen tearing is 8%! So using logic I rather have a small unnoticeable difference in FPS than the huge amount of 8% screen tearing! I have skyrim now on PS3 and even the screen tearing you see in youtube videos is much worse than anything I've seen on my PS3wrong "performance on PS3 drops down to 20FPS or lower for protracted periods of play, while the 360 tears constantly in a bid to prevent going further below 25FPS." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-skyrim 5+FPS difference when the engine is put under strain,8% screen tearing on the 360 WHEN THE ENGINE IS PUT UNDER STRAIN.
360
Global percent of torn frames: 7.66
Global average FPS: 29.70
PS3
Global percent of torn frames: 0.00
Global average FPS: 27.02
wrong "performance on PS3 drops down to 20FPS or lower for protracted periods of play, while the 360 tears constantly in a bid to prevent going further below 25FPS." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-skyrim 5+FPS difference when the engine is put under strain,8% screen tearing on the 360 WHEN THE ENGINE IS PUT UNDER STRAIN.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] So I am contradicting myself because YOU have a different opinion on what is a high amount? Oh what a coincidence that DF didn't even give us the averages. Cause if they would have done so we would know that the average difference in FPS is only 2.5 whereas the screen tearing is 8%! So using logic I rather have a small unnoticeable difference in FPS than the huge amount of 8% screen tearing! I have skyrim now on PS3 and even the screen tearing you see in youtube videos is much worse than anything I've seen on my PS3themajormayor
360
Global percent of torn frames: 7.66
Global average FPS: 29.70
PS3
Global percent of torn frames: 0.00
Global average FPS: 27.02
let me guess, lens of truth? digital foundry is far more credible for starters and you should really learn to do maths because by the figures you just posted thats a difference of 2.7 or 2.68 if you want to get technical, not 2.5, besides, playabilty is about performance, the higher the framerate the better the performance so either way the 360 version plays better, any way, most people would rather have sharper textures, more shadows and a cleaner draw distance with more foliage than blurred textures, a lower framrate, input lag when the engine is put under strain and the fear that you are going to get hit with a crippling savegame bug that requires rewriting the engine itself to fix permanently, stay in denial dude, the 360 version of skyrim is the best console version, the Experts have spoken, you are a nobody, nothing you say will change that.
I would remove gta4, rdr and borderlands from your list. I play them and they run just fine on the ps3. The rest do run like crapHere is a list of multiplats that are noticeably better on 360
- GTA4
- RDR
- Fallout 3
- Fallout New Vegas
- Borderlands
- Skyrim
- Bayonetta
All the others have such miniscule differences that they shouldn't even be noted
BPoole96
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment