id Says Rage on 360 Runs Faster Than PS3, Brings the Ruckus

[Pendragon9]

snip

It doesn't matter what you say. The PS3 is not a waste of time. People bought it and they enjoy it. I am one of those people. SOME developers aren't lazy and they can make excellent games without these so called "hurdles" everyone talks about.

Just face it. You're using this as an excuse to once again say the PS3 is trash and that everyone who bought it should jump off a cliff for being so stupid.

I bet you're one of those people who thought the Dreamcast was garbage because it didn't sell as well. Yet the Gamecube and the XBOX aren't garbage despite not selling NEAR as much as the Ps2. Yeah, no bias there.

Now that they're making profits off of each unit sold, I bet a price drop will be in the works. But you won't care. You won't buy it anyway. Nobody here will. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If someone here says they'll buy the PS3 when the price drops, they're lying.

Besides, the Ps3 is proving ample competition to the 360. You NEED the Ps3 in this. Anything else is just ignorant.

Competition has bred some of the greatest games ever. And if the 360 no longer has a running mate (Wii doesn't count) then they can just be as lazy as they want.

But I'm going off topic. You are wrong. Just admit it. You're more than welcome to say "The Ps3 IN MY OPINION is a waste of time" but you're not allowed to try and throw your opinion in the ring as a fact.

It has games. They're good. Deal with it.

I am sick of the Sony hate in this thread.

Oh, and before someone says the multiplat games are zomg so inferior!!11!1, just be thankful you HAVE those multiplat games. PC players are constantly getting shafted when it comes to 360 games that are promised ports, but are then dumped. Better to have an inferior port then nothing at all. Of course, the PS2 has had inferior versions of games for quite a while (like Psychonauts, running better on the XBOX) but it was still great having it there.

But of course, nobody is happy for that. They just want more and more.

 

[Treblaine]

If that is so, why is the PS3 version of Rage running at One Third (33%) the speed of the Xbox 360 and PC version? In fact even PS3 exclusives, that are actually produced by Sony suffer from the same low and inconsistent frame-rate and screen tearing like the most recent Infamous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XI3EjBlyYA&eurl

Even dipping as low as 15fps, for a 1st party game developed 3 years into the console cycle... we have a problem. It is just John Carmack is one of the developers with the cojones to say what the problem is. I think we can expect Sony to give him a lot of shit in the future for "bad mouthing" their console.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying that because this one game has some frame drop, which is common for any game on any platform, that proves whatever it is you're trying to prove? News flash, those frame drops tended to happen when there was a shit load of explosions going around everyone, something that happens with every game. I never noticed a single frame drop with all the time I've played InFamous, and even then, the frame rate went up to 48 once in that video, or does that not matter because it went to 15 once towards the end when it was purposefully slowing down for the "Mission Acomplished" screen?

Carmack has hardly said anything on what the "problem" is, all he's said is that the "Rasterizers are slower", that's it. Why is it so hard to fathom that a company that's never worked on a PS3, with an architecture vastly different then a PC, would have a little bit of a hard time getting used to it? They'll get used to it, they'll fix up whatever it is that needs fixing, and it'll all be fine when Rage releases on the 3 platforms. How is him saying "Rasterizers are slower" any indication of the Ps3 being worse to develop for? So they're slower, big whop, if Carmack is as godly as people say then he and his team should get over this quickly and move on.

It is a big problem for all PS3 games, both exclusives and multiplatform. This is just one example, if you really want to know I suggest you go out and do the research for yourself but if you want to bury your head in the sand so be it. Anyway, if I DID post all the sources on how flawed the PS3 is then to spite how true it is, fanboys would just yell "troll" from how damning it is.

Jumplion said: "Carmack has hardly said anything on what the "problem" is"

Err, we know Exactly what the problem is, PS3 is running at a fraction of the speed of PC and 360! He has also said WHY that is the problem and it is because the rasteriser is too slow.

How id software is going to be able to eek out two to three times the performance is unknown but most likely they will do the same as developers did for GTA4, Bioshock, Bionic Commando and dozens of other multiplatform games, make graphical compromises for the PS3 version.

Developers can make cuts everywhere like lower native resolution, less texture detail, eschew anti-aliasing and not to mention loads of other graphical compromises.

 

[Sh0ckFyre]

I'm very surprised. OpenGL naturally works better on nVidia platforms, and PS3 uses an nVidia GPU.

 

[Slash Dementia]

Well id Software does say: "When it's done, it's done." I doubt they'll put out an inferior version.

Get ready for John Carmack to make the PS3 his *****!

Funny stuff. We need more ads like that.
That said, Daikatana was Ionstorm. I recently tried to play that game and it was awful. Poor Romero should have kept mind set and not lost it. Rage--although perfect to me--might have looked even better if Romero had some input.

 

[Jumplion]

Right, so explain why PS2 was able to beat Dreamcast to spite the PS2 coming out over 1 year later in North America and TWO YEARS later for Japan? Oh yeah, because PS2 was better! But that makes... oh no, that means XBOX 360 is Better than PS3! Noooo!

Better marketing strategy, maybe something with DVD playing? There's loads of factors besides head starts, of course, but why do you think Microsoft wanted to get their system out so early?

Conclusion: head start don't count for shit.

Um, so that means that the 360 is not better than the PS3 by your own accord and you have just defeated your own argument. And if you had read everything I wrote, then you would have known that the Ps3 is selling at a faster rate than the 360. But that makes.......oh no, that means the PS3 is better than XBOX 360!!@#!@

Or is it possible that it doesn't matter which is "better"

I could detail how wrong you are about your conclusions on PS3 sales being better than 360's, but I'll simply say you are clearly just cherry picking dates and comparing times when PS3 sold best and when 360 sold worst rather than compare sales of the same time period. If you did you'd see the 360 has pretty consistently sold 31% faster than PS3.

http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=------&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weeks=156

I assure you, I'm not cherry picking dates. 2 years after the release of the 360 (2007) it has sold 15 million. [http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=------&cons2=PS3&reg2=------&cons3=X360&reg3=All&start=39320&end=40020&weekly=1] 2 years after the release of the Ps3 (2008) it has sold 18 million [http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=------&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=&reg3=------&start=39320&end=40020&weekly=1]. It's just a higher rate of sales, nothing else, it's a business analysis. You can't compare something from 4 years out to something that's only been out 1 year, it doesn't work like that, you need comparable dates, so that's where the 2 years each come in.

Also, Infamous is hardly and example of the PS3's "POWAH" as you put it, the frame-rate for Infamous is as bad as RAGE on PS3 is a the moment: 20-30 frames per second, often dipping as low as 15 frames per second and terrible screen tearing. There is also atrocious texture pop-in on already low res-textures that the screen blur does a terrible job of trying to hide. For a first party title it is disgraceful how mediocre it looks.

I believe InFamous is, maybe you don't, but that makes me wonder if you have actually played the game or are just going by data sheets. In the amount of time I have played InFamous, it has always looked great and runned well, I never noticed any real dip in framerate, and even when I did it was when there was tons of explosions and shit going on. When there's 10 simoltaneous explosions about the size of a mini-nuke, I think a quick little dip in 15fps is acceptable. Oh, and then we get into the "Graphics aren't everything!" debate and how "It's the game part of game play that matters!" and stuff, but I don't want to get into that.

But if you want more examples MGS4 (taking up an entire blu-ray disk) and Killzone 2 (visuals nearing Crysis standards, if not at the standard) are both very much a showcase of the PS3's potential. Not to mention future games like MAG (256 players simultaneously playing), Heavy Rain (Basically a choose your own adventure game, no "wrong" choice, ect...), and God of War 3 (well, it's God of War ) easily show the Ps3's potential if developers use it right with the recent gameplay footage seen. Could they all suck? Sure, anything can. Does that mean that these aren't ambitious projects? Of course they are.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

They just need to code the worker threads to run on the SPEs, rest assured ID will have it running at 60fps by the time it's released. PS3's graphics system is only slightly slower than the 360s after they do a little reworking it should be nearly as good as the 360 version.

PS, PS3 cell processors have 6 SPEs available to the programmer. Only 1 is disabled and 1 is used by the OS (of the 8).

How come one is disabled?

sony claims that it is an manufacturing ploy ...
Martin Linklater. "Optimizing Cell Code". Game Developer Magazine, April 2007: pp. 15?18. "To increase fabrication yelds, Sony ships PlayStation 3 Cell processors with only seven working SPEs. And from those seven, one SPE will be used by the operating system for various tasks, This leaves six SPEs for game programmer to use."

And do any of you actually read what 73loup wrote or do you guys just enjoy ripping into each other?

http://moss.csc.ncsu.edu/~mueller/cluster/ps3/ This guy made a supercomputer using a stack of ps3, he has lots of information about programming in regards to the cell microprocessor. For those of you fighting out how much the PS3 sucks so much, take some time and actually read up on this stuff. It sounds to me it is difficult to program for whether or not it is in a gaming console or a supercomputer.

although if you are unable to comprehend the last link, this one got a pretty picture and diagrams...
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.arch.innovation.html

the more i read about this, the more I realize that for game developers to properly use the cell in the PS3 is that they would have to do what cormack is doing right now. Building a game from the ground up around each system and not just porting code over. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get.

 

[Treblaine]

Conclusion: head start don't count for shit.

Um, so that means that the 360 is not better than the PS3 by your own accord and you have just defeated your own argument. And if you had read everything I wrote, then you would have known that the Ps3 is selling at a faster rate than the 360. But that makes.......oh no, that means the PS3 is better than XBOX 360!!@#!@

Or is it possible that it doesn't matter which is "better"

Also, Infamous is hardly and example of the PS3's "POWAH" as you put it, the frame-rate for Infamous is as bad as RAGE on PS3 is a the moment: 20-30 frames per second, often dipping as low as 15 frames per second and terrible screen tearing. There is also atrocious texture pop-in on already low res-textures that the screen blur does a terrible job of trying to hide. For a first party title it is disgraceful how mediocre it looks.

I believe InFamous is, maybe you don't, but that makes me wonder if you have actually played the game or are just going by data sheets. In the amount of time I have played InFamous, it has always looked great and runned well, I never noticed any real dip in framerate, and even when I did it was when there was tons of explosions and shit going on. When there's 10 simoltaneous explosions about the size of a mini-nuke, I think a quick little dip in 15fps is acceptable. Oh, and then we get into the "Graphics aren't everything!" debate and how "It's the game part of game play that matters!" and stuff, but I don't want to get into that.

But if you want more examples MGS4 (taking up an entire blu-ray disk) and Killzone 2 (visuals nearing Crysis standards, if not at the standard) are both very much a showcase of the PS3's potential. Not to mention future games like MAG (256 players simultaneously playing), Heavy Rain (Basically a choose your own adventure game, no "wrong" choice, ect...), and God of War 3 (well, it's God of War ) easily show the Ps3's potential if developers use it right with the recent gameplay footage seen. Could they all suck? Sure, anything can. Does that mean that these aren't ambitious projects? Of course they are.

In Soviet Russia it is YOU who contradicts yourself!

Seriously, let me spell this out to you in plain English:

You implied 360 is only dominant this gen because it arrived 1 year earlier, I use Dreamcast as an example of why a 1 year head start is insignificant.

PS2 won over Dreamcast because quite simply it was a better console. Same with 360.

When I said "head start don't count for shit" I mean the one year advanced release date can't be cited as the soul reason for the console's success, it is down to how good the actual machine is! So many fanboys say the 360 is only doing so well because of the head start, Dreamcast shows even a two year head start doesn't guarantee anything.

In fact the similarities between Dreamcast and Xbox 360 are startling:
-Arrived "early"
-Made big moves into Online
-used "old" technology (CD and DVD)
-closer connection to PC gaming than other consoles
-Manufacturer's previous console underperformed
-err, white case?

The difference is Xbox 360 grew from strength to strength while PS3 floundered. While PS2 crushed Dreamcast to take 80% of the market share, PS3 has ended up with a measly 20% and falling.

Here are some simple numbers for you:

PS3 has sold in total = 22'996'576
in that time 360 has sold: 31'456'564 - 5'895'015 = 25'561'549

You may be able to dismiss 11% but there is no way you can twist that into the PS3 outselling the 360. Unlike with Dreamcast Vs PS2, there was not a huge surge of people waiting for the next Sony console, people who had held back due to
Now I have had this discussion before, now you comment how "Wii sells more consoles, does that make it better". Well Casio sells more calculators, we are talking different demographics. PS3 and 360 are directly competing.

Other games with similar levels of explosions and advanced physics don't suffer from the same frame-rate issues as Infamous and while we are at it frame-rate is a combination of the importance of graphics and gameplay, as it both doesn't look good but also you can't play as well as all the reflex aiming and moving you take for granted is not as sharp, you overshoot more as effectively your brain can only process interactions at 20-25 frames per second.

I used to play FPS games on my crappy old computer at 20-30fps and I'd end up with a headache and it turns out I'm not alone, watching stuttering screens is just nauseating, Playing them again on my new PC at a smooth 60fps no more shutter-vision! Yay! Games at least 2x as enjoyable and that's just on how they feel, the gameplay.
You may be able to suppress that headache/nausea feeling but more moderate people demand quality! And if PS3 cannot deliver that quality why should anyone pay for it and especially why pay MORE?!!

You probably don't want to hear what I have to think about some of the games you have mentioned like Heavy Rain *cough*FMV-game*cough*, excuse me, I just had to clear some subconscious out of my throat but I must say if you think Killzone 2 is anywhere near Crysis in terms of graphics, especially at max settings... either you have NOT played Crysis or you have some serious rose tinted glasses on.

Also on MGS4, when I played it and sat through the third 5 minute long loading screen I wondered how much quicker, easier and cheaper it could have been to distribute this game on 5 DVD disks and just have a 30 second disk change? Worked just fine for MGS1 to come on multiple disks and MGS4 is already separated into such neat chapters.

 

[Ushario]

*snip*

I already stated the reasons why I believe the PS3 is a waste of time. I'll state one reason again for you.

Intentionally increased development costs on the PS3 during a recession.

Do I really need to say more? Its a fucking joke of a business plan and Sony needs to wake up. The only way they will wake up is if developers start giving their platform the finger.

I am not a fanboy as you claim, I am a games programmer. I would love to have the PS3's power on tap as easily as the 360's is. It just isn't.

*snip*

I'm a fanboy but you are sick of the 'Sony hate in this thread'.
Please tell me that I'm wrong about development costs on the PS3. Tell me I'm wrong about there being a global recession. Tell me that Sony's business plan makes an ounce of sense.

Do it, I dare you. Do your research before trying to call me out for having formed an opinion that is based in fact.

 

[Shy_Guy]

But if you want more examples MGS4 (taking up an entire blu-ray disk) and Killzone 2 (visuals nearing Crysis standards, if not at the standard) are both very much a showcase of the PS3's potential. Not to mention future games like MAG (256 players simultaneously playing), Heavy Rain (Basically a choose your own adventure game, no "wrong" choice, ect...), and God of War 3 (well, it's God of War ) easily show the Ps3's potential if developers use it right with the recent gameplay footage seen. Could they all suck? Sure, anything can. Does that mean that these aren't ambitious projects? Of course they are.

MGS4 took up all that space for all the wrong reasons. They just decided not to compress anything and be lazy. Which results in those painfully long load/install times before every level.

As for KillZone 2 nearing Crysis? I'm sorry, no.

 

[Pendragon9]

snip

"The 360 is garbage.

It RRODs all the time. It has terrible hardware, scratches disks, and has ZERO GAMES. I don't care about your opinion. I'm saying all it's games suck. The developers should stop wasting their time on the Piece of crap 360 and focus on the PS3, which has superior hardware and better games, because I SAY SO. And Microsoft sucks because they buy all rights to games and keep it from everyone. They're so selfish and people who deal with them are greedy jerks."

See how biased that sounds? Now compare that to what you said.

"The Ps3 is a waste of time, and has no games whatsoever. I don't care what you have to say about it, I'm right. Developers who work on the PS3 are retarded apes and I hope they all die because new technology is a bad thing and having to work harder on something is disgraceful. Everything should be easy and not trying to innovate. Development costs are everything, and even if a game is good, it shouldn't be made if it costs alot. I have a right to say what developers should make games for, and I say the ones who make Ps3 games should not be allowed to make games.

Development costs don't matter. The game is the end result. If you can make a good game, then stop worrying about how much money it costs. Games on any console can cost millions. The point is whether or not they're truly good.

The gaming world has been through worse recessions, and the Ps3 is still selling, so maybe YOU should do your research.

Wanna hear something? Alot of developers LIKE the Ps3. That's why they develop for it. So if it's a waste of time, I suggest you go to every developer and tell them that.

The Ps3 being a "waste of time" will always be your opinion. It will never be fact. It could be made of gold and cost millions, but if people are buying it, it's still not garbage.

In fact, alot of people can call the PS3 garbage. It's their opinions and I have no problem with them having an opinion. But that doesn't make it true.

And from now on, if you're going to say something like this, say it's "in your opinion", at least. Because it's perfectly fine to hate the Ps3 if you FEEL it's really crappy. But don't try to say costs are so high and it's crap and you're right and everyone else is wrong. BEcause it only shows arrogance on your part.

Now, can we let this argument rest? Please? I didn't even flame any of the other consoles, and yet you just had to have your way and say the Ps3 is nothing more than a paperweight without even saying why.

You kinda remind me of PC snobs who think consoles are a waste of time and that God himself is using a pimped out PC and can play Crysis on the highest settings, and anythinng else that plays games is blasphemy.

 

[Dys]

Spec wise the PS3 is absolutely more powerful than a 360

It really isn't. That's among the most baseless claims people on the internet ever make. This generation has different hardware (as oppose to ps2 and xbox having identical GPUs, ram and very similar processers).

This, of course, is different "absolutely more powerful", an example of a minor hardware victory for the xbox 360 (over the ps3) is the (overheating prone) GPUs, which are modelled off radeon 2900 architecture where the (relatively stable) ps3 GPU is modelled off the older, less powerful Nvidia 7800 chipset. The ps3 has a more powerful CPU than the xbox 360, and anyone with half a clue will quickly realise that trying to compare the two and labell one console the overall 'more powerful' is an impossibility, it's a bit like asking 'what's better, a gigabyte or a megahertz?'

At any rate, the spreading of misinformation bothers me and I can't help but correct it when people make baseless claims.

OT, meh. By release the game will no doubt be running stabily, and it's not new news that the ps3 is less than accomodating for the devs.

(Please note before reading this: I am a 360 fan, and don't own a PS3)
I was speaking from a pure computational power standpoint. I don't think your comparison of gigabyte to megahertz is valid. They are game systems of the same generation. Based on your example I couldn't compare a Ford Focus to a Acura RSX based on overall HP, because they completely different cars. Doesn't change the fact that the Acura has better overall HP, even if the Focus has nicer cup holders.

From a purely theoretical standpoint of pure processing power, the PS3 is the more powerful system. If you have additional spec and comparison data that proves that otherwise I would like to see it, because I do my best not to talk out of my ass and don't mind being corrected.

It isn't. The playstation 3 does not have more raw power (overall) than the xbox 360. If we're going to use cars as an example, I'll use the ford falcon (It's an australian car with a v8 'XR8' and a cheaper v6 turbo, 'XR6 Turbo' available). The v6 turbo can put out more power at the rev limit, but you wouldn't say it's a more powerful engine as the XR8 puts out more torque and delivers more power to the wheels (I don't think it does, but I can't be bothered finding another car with an engine that puts less but gets more on the road, take m word there are lots though). Overall, the PS3 as a whole does not put out more, sure it may have a better designed, shiny turbocharger (CPU), but it's limited by a poorer exhaust choice (GPU), or however you want to draw it up. The console is more than just a CPU.

That isn't to say the XR8 (in this case, 360) is the faster car either. In a straight line drag, I would expect probably expect the XR8 to come faster, around tight corners the lighter XR6 would probably go quicker. The point is, every possible comparison between the two is irrelevant without a relevant scenario, one isn't simply 'more powerful' than the other. Moreso because you can't measure the power output of a console (overall) the same way you can a car.

Yep, looking back I see I've slaughtered that car.

Now that they're making profits off of each unit sold, I bet a price drop will be in the works. But you won't care. You won't buy it anyway. Nobody here will. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If someone here says they'll buy the PS3 when the price drops, they're lying.

After my "a PS3 isn't more powerful than an xbox 360" rant this may seem odd, but I will, more likely than not, be buying a PS3 when the price drops (possibly secondhand). I'm not in the bussiness in spending $600+ on a console when I already have one from this generation, especially when the games are so expensive (on both consoles, $120 for PS3/xbox 360 new releases...pass).

...That said, there are some games on the playstation 3 I really would like to play (Much as I didn't think I would, I liked LBP after playing it at a friends and I need to play through MGS4 etc etc). The thing is, though, I don't want to be paying more than I can budget for 'top end' graphics that looked like low res, grey mush compared to what my PC puts out, I want the games but not the prestige and e-peen associated with the gigantic virtual cock peice that is the cell processor, so I wait until the next big thing comes out.

 

[Jumplion]

*snip*

I already stated the reasons why I believe the PS3 is a waste of time. I'll state one reason again for you.

Intentionally increased development costs on the PS3 during a recession.

Do I really need to say more? Its a fucking joke of a business plan and Sony needs to wake up. The only way they will wake up is if developers start giving their platform the finger.

I am not a fanboy as you claim, I am a games programmer. I would love to have the PS3's power on tap as easily as the 360's is. It just isn't.

I never claimed you were a fanboy, sorry if you thought that for whatever reason. But guess what, there wasn't always a recession, and nobody, not even Sony, could have possibly predicted that in 2008 a huge recession would hit everyone (Or was it late 2007? I forget). You can't blame them for something they could never foresee. And development costs all rely on the developers to optimize their cost efficiency, and hopefully get it back.

You implied 360 is only dominant this gen because it arrived 1 year earlier, I use Dreamcast as an example of why a 1 year head start is insignificant.

PS2 won over Dreamcast because quite simply it was a better console. Same with 360.

When I said "head start don't count for shit" I mean the one year advanced release date can't be cited as the soul reason for the console's success, it is down to how good the actual machine is! So many fanboys say the 360 is only doing so well because of the head start, Dreamcast shows even a two year head start doesn't guarantee anything.

Why can't a head start not give the competition an edge? I'm not saying it's a rule, I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work, I'm saying it's a strategy that Microsoft clearly capitalized on. I don't understand how you are denying a simple business strategy because it doesn't work with everything, so what if the Dreamcast did not sell better than the PS2 when it was released earlier? There are loads of other factors, manufacturing, support, advertising, ect.... It's just one aspect of others and it worked with the 360, that's all.

The difference is Xbox 360 grew from strength to strength while PS3 floundered. While PS2 crushed Dreamcast to take 80% of the market share, PS3 has ended up with a measly 20% and falling.

EDIT: I'll admit that the Ps3 did have a rough start at first, but even with the 360 that barely has 25 maybe 30% of the market next to the Wii. And that's not counting the handhelds, that makes both of them more like 10 and 15%.

Here are some simple numbers for you:

PS3 has sold in total = 22'996'576
in that time 360 has sold: 31'456'564 - 5'895'015 = 25'561'549

Where did you get, and why are you subtracting 6 million? All I am saying is the rate of change, the slope, M, whatever you want in math terms, is steeper for the PS3 than it is for the 360. That is all.

You may be able to dismiss 11% but there is no way you can twist that into the PS3 outselling the 360. Unlike with Dreamcast Vs PS2, there was not a huge surge of people waiting for the next Sony console, people who had held back due to

I have never claimed once that the PS3 is outselling the 360, you are overlooking simple math yourself.

Here is a chart [http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=------&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weeks=156].

This shows both of the consoles sales 154 weeks after their respective launches. As you can see, the slope/rate of change/rate of sales for the PS3 is steeper than the 360's line. I am not claiming that the PS3 is outselling the 360, I am merely stating that the rate that it's selling is faster than the 360 at this point. Will it outsell the 360? Who knows. But it is selling at a faster rate, that much I can prove, while you're going crazy over random numbers that I have no idea where you're getting from.

Now I have had this discussion before, now you comment how "Wii sells more consoles, does that make it better". Well Casio sells more calculators, we are talking different demographics. PS3 and 360 are directly competing.

In that respect, I completely agree with you.

Other games with similar levels of explosions and advanced physics don't suffer from the same frame-rate issues as Infamous

Many still do.

I used to play FPS games on my crappy old computer at 20-30fps and I'd end up with a headache and it turns out I'm not alone, watching stuttering screens is just nauseating, Playing them again on my new PC at a smooth 60fps no more shutter-vision! Yay! Games at least 2x as enjoyable and that's just on how they feel, the gameplay.

No wonder WipEout HD is like hookers for my eyes

You may be able to suppress that headache/nausea feeling but more moderate people demand quality! And if PS3 cannot deliver that quality why should anyone pay for it and especially why pay MORE?!!

Okay, now you're just getting whiny. Quality is quality, I had a blast with the time I've played InFamous, dipping frame rate or not. The PS3 can and does deliver that quality, it's just probably not what you're looking for. If you don't care about the games, fine, go look for whatever other system caters to your needs. As for me, I will be eagerly anticipating Heavy Rain and God of War 3.

You probably don't want to hear what I have to think about some of the games you have mentioned like Heavy Rain *cough*FMV-game*cough*,

Whatever you think of, I'm hoping that Quantic Dream pulls off what they're claiming to do. They've stated numerous times that the Ps3 gives them much freedom to do many things, and hopefully those freedoms include making a completely new experience.

I must say if you think Killzone 2 is anywhere near Crysis in terms of graphics, especially at max settings... either you have NOT played Crysis or you have some serious rose tinted glasses on.

Where does nostalgia come in here? Whatever, but I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Killzone 2 does have many visual parts to it that are easily Crysis levels. There's a huge amount of detail in every level, every single animation is thoroughly framed, every bit of explosion debris can be counted, and play the thing in surround sound and your ears will bleed sweetness of the cries of dieing Helghan. It's more of the details in the game that I love, really.

Also on MGS4, when I played it and sat through the third 5 minute long loading screen I wondered how much quicker, easier and cheaper it could have been to distribute this game on 5 DVD disks and just have a 30 second disk change? Worked just fine for MGS1 to come on multiple disks and MGS4 is already separated into such neat chapters.

God, I hated that to, you have no idea how much I would have preferred a 30 minute upfront install or something. Though it wouldn't have been much of a problem if Kojima compressed stuff, I'm sternly against the idea of using multiple disks simply for the fact that we should be past that barrier from a technological standpoint already.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Thats the big drawback with using uber technology nobody has caught up to yet.

 

[Ushario]

*snip*

I would let this rest but you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said any of the consoles lack games. I never said that developers who create games for the PS3 are retards. I never said that the XBox360 has superior hardware.

What I said was real simple, I'll try to dumb it down further for you though.
Sony made a bad business decision. Developers should put pressure on Sony to refine their SDK and reduce development costs.

*snip*

I apologise I must have been confused between who had posted what. No Sony could not forsee the recession. (again) What they can do is fix their SDK so its easier for third party developers to make games for their console.

 

[Treblaine]

Here are some simple numbers for you:

PS3 has sold in total = 22'996'576
in that time 360 has sold: 31'456'564 - 5'895'015 = 25'561'549

Where did you get, and why are you subtracting 6 million? All I am saying is the rate of change, the slope, M, whatever you want in math terms, is steeper for the PS3 than it is for the 360. That is all.

Not subtracting anything. That 5.89 million is the number of Xbox 360 that had been sold by the time PS3 was launched, Xbox 360 had a 5.89 million lead at PS3's launch yet now it has much greater than 5.89m lead. Xbox 360 now has an 8.46m lead, 46% increase.

You may be able to dismiss 11% but there is no way you can twist that into the PS3 outselling the 360. Unlike with Dreamcast Vs PS2, there was not a huge surge of people waiting for the next Sony console, people who had held back due to

I have never claimed once that the PS3 is outselling the 360, you are overlooking simple math yourself.

Here is a chart [http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=------&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weeks=156].

This shows both of the consoles sales 154 weeks after their respective launches. As you can see, the slope/rate of change/rate of sales for the PS3 is steeper than the 360's line. I am not claiming that the PS3 is outselling the 360, I am merely stating that the rate that it's selling is faster than the 360 at this point. Will it outsell the 360? Who knows. But it is selling at a faster rate, that much I can prove, while you're going crazy over random numbers that I have no idea where you're getting from.

This has just gotten very petty, I mean we are comparing as sales difference of as little as 10% now and we still can't decide what is the best way to even compare them. This is pointless, lets just focus on the games and actual quality rather than trying to interpreter which people are buying as indication of which is better.

You may be able to suppress that headache/nausea feeling but more moderate people demand quality! And if PS3 cannot deliver that quality why should anyone pay for it and especially why pay MORE?!!

Okay, now you're just getting whiny. Quality is quality, I had a blast with the time I've played InFamous, dipping frame rate or not. The PS3 can and does deliver that quality, it's just probably not what you're looking for. If you don't care about the games, fine, go look for whatever other system caters to your needs. As for me, I will be eagerly anticipating Heavy Rain and God of War 3.

Well it was all the fan fair for Heavy Rain that finally convinced me to get an Xbox 360 as Alan Wake, easily competitive in the graphics department and deep story only it is a fully free roaming and fully interactive game, not trapped inside cutscenes and pressing buttons in "quick time events" like a lab monkey.

Whatever you think of, I'm hoping that Quantic Dream pulls off what they're claiming to do. They've stated numerous times that the Ps3 gives them much freedom to do many things, and hopefully those freedoms include making a completely new experience.

What they seem to be trying to do is effectively bring back FMV-games. What REALLY pissed me off about MGS4 was how for literally HALF THE GAME was spent sitting watching cutscenes and they proved to be pretty damn boring (doesn't hold a candle to MGS1's story/cutscenes). Heavy Rain looks like it will be 80% cutscene and even the action sequences will be cutscene based and controlled by the dreaded quick-time events system.

Where does nostalgia come in here? Whatever, but I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Killzone 2 does have many visual parts to it that are easily Crysis levels. There's a huge amount of detail in every level, every single animation is thoroughly framed, every bit of explosion debris can be counted, and play the thing in surround sound and your ears will bleed sweetness of the cries of dieing Helghan. It's more of the details in the game that I love, really.

Well rose-tinted glsses, nostalgic for the PS1 and PS2 days when Sony made all the truly great games, it is a bit of a euphemism for a euphemism, So yeah, seeing the best in Sony rather than being genuinely critical. Not a single person who has played Crysis will agree with you on graphics or detail or anything you are talking about. And excuse me, if you need an expensive, bulky and inconvenient surround sound system just to appreciate the audio, I turn your attention to Black for the PS2, with just measly stereo speakers that game's audio had POWER, some punch! After KZ2 I actually went back to Black and enjoyed it more.

 

[Jumplion]

This has just gotten very petty, I mean we are comparing as sales difference of as little as 10% now and we still can't decide what is the best way to even compare them. This is pointless, lets just focus on the games and actual quality rather than trying to interpreter which people are buying as indication of which is better.

Oy, thank you, that was just getting annoying.

Well it was all the fan fair for Heavy Rain that finally convinced me to get an Xbox 360 as Alan Wake, easily competitive in the graphics department and deep story only it is a fully free roaming and fully interactive game, not trapped inside cutscenes and pressing buttons in "quick time events" like a lab monkey.

Heavy Rain is extremely interactive, at first glance it looks like a bunch of QTE but it's also you interacting with the environment yourself. There are multiple choices for you to make, none of them "Right" or "Wrong", if one of the 4 characters you control throughout the game dies it's not game over you simple continue without them, depending on the situation (calm, tense, suffering from withdrawl) the choices you can make blur out similarly to how you think when things get messy and you have to think on your feet or you'll be dead.

I don't think the main focus of Heavy Rain is gameplay, per se, as it's obviously focusing more around the story and environment interaction, but it's more than just sequential button pressing.

Of course, neither of us can really say anything about it because it's not out yet and neithr of us have played it.

What they seem to be trying to do is effectively bring back FMV-games. What REALLY pissed me off about MGS4 was how for literally HALF THE GAME was spent sitting watching cutscenes and they proved to be pretty damn boring (doesn't hold a candle to MGS1's story/cutscenes). Heavy Rain looks like it will be 80% cutscene and even the action sequences will be cutscene based and controlled by the dreaded quick-time events system.

If done correctly, QTE can be used efficiently and effectively. The thing about Heavy Rain, though, is that even if you miss a button all that does is rearrange the action into a new button to press and it goes on. You can't "fail" a QTE, and if some previews have led me to believe, trying to simultaneously press L2, R2, O, [], and R3 while trying to maintain focus after having withdrawal from a drug the character is addicted is quite suspenseful.

Well rose-tinted glsses, nostalgic for the PS1 and PS2 days when Sony made all the truly great games, it is a bit of a euphemism for a euphemism, So yeah, seeing the best in Sony rather than being genuinely critical. Not a single person who has played Crysis will agree with you on graphics or detail or anything you are talking about. And excuse me, if you need an expensive, bulky and inconvenient surround sound system just to appreciate the audio, I turn your attention to Black for the PS2, with just measly stereo speakers that game's audio had POWER, some punch! After KZ2 I actually went back to Black and enjoyed it more.

Well, I have seen Crysis graphics/visuals and Killzone 2 graphics/visuals. It may be that most of KZ2 is full of grays and browns, but I can say with a straight face that I do think (I do personally think) that Killzone 2 has as good visuals/graphics as Crysis (maybe not on maximum, I'll admit).

And the surround sound thing, I didn't mean you had to have that stuff to get the full experience, the standard speakers on my TV was enough to blow my ears out of my head. However, anything is better with surround sound (Holy crap, now I'm thinking of Patapon ringing through my living room, "PATA PATA PATA PON! DON DONDON DONDON! CHIKA CHIKA PON PON!" ooooooohhhhhhh my god, that would be heaven and hell at the same time.)

 

[Pendragon9]

*snip*

I would let this rest but you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said any of the consoles lack games. I never said that developers who create games for the PS3 are retards. I never said that the XBox360 has superior hardware.

What I said was real simple, I'll try to dumb it down further for you though.
Sony made a bad business decision. Developers should put pressure on Sony to refine their SDK and reduce development costs.

*snip*

I apologise I must have been confused between who had posted what. No Sony could not forsee the recession. (again) What they can do is fix their SDK so its easier for third party developers to make games for their console.

Well, alright then. That sounds way different from what you said before.

Though I don't think they should be giving Sony excess pressure. The fans are already doing that. Yelling to them about how the Ps3 should be a hundred dollars cheaper, how they should put BC back in, how it's THEIR fault that the exclusives are becoming multiplats.

If you put too much pressure on someone, they're not gonna listen anymore. Just look at the Sonic franchise. I think they listened to their fans way too much, it got to their heads, and now they no longer listen. And now we have Sonic the Werehog.

Though that's just my opinion. Since I get alot of crap on PSN free, I don't really feel the need to file a complaint.

 

[Treblaine]

This strand of thread (can I call a back and forward comment within a threat a "strand"?) has gotten quite off topic... but oh well. Further replies by PM might be better.

Heavy Rain is extremely interactive, at first glance it looks like a bunch of QTE but it's also you interacting with the environment yourself. There are multiple choices for you to make, none of them "Right" or "Wrong", if one of the 4 characters you control throughout the game dies it's not game over you simple continue without them, depending on the situation (calm, tense, suffering from withdrawl) the choices you can make blur out similarly to how you think when things get messy and you have to think on your feet or you'll be dead.

I don't think the main focus of Heavy Rain is gameplay, per se, as it's obviously focusing more around the story and environment interaction, but it's more than just sequential button pressing.

Of course, neither of us can really say anything about it because it's not out yet and neithr of us have played it.

What they seem to be trying to do is effectively bring back FMV-games. What REALLY pissed me off about MGS4 was how for literally HALF THE GAME was spent sitting watching cutscenes and they proved to be pretty damn boring (doesn't hold a candle to MGS1's story/cutscenes). Heavy Rain looks like it will be 80% cutscene and even the action sequences will be cutscene based and controlled by the dreaded quick-time events system.

If done correctly, QTE can be used efficiently and effectively. The thing about Heavy Rain, though, is that even if you miss a button all that does is rearrange the action into a new button to press and it goes on. You can't "fail" a QTE, and if some previews have led me to believe, trying to simultaneously press L2, R2, O, [], and R3 while trying to maintain focus after having withdrawal from a drug the character is addicted is quite suspenseful.

"I don't think the main focus of Heavy Rain is gameplay, per se,"

THIS is exactly why Heavy Rain turns me off. What is a game if it is not about gameplay?

I like interactive cutscenes, Mass Effect has shown their value but Heavy Rain just takes it too far and way too gimmicky with your example of "simultaneously press L2, R2, O, [], and R3 while trying to maintain focus after having withdrawal from a drug" reminds me of the recent Alone in the Dark game.
The only game that did quick time events well was RE4 from how infrequent they were. They were there to enhance cutscenes, not substitute actual gameplay.