Mazty said:
How does (GTA4) 'under' perform so badly?
The PS3 version has a native resolution of only 1152x640 with no anti-aliasing while the 360 version is in full 720p (1280x720) and proper 2x anti-aliasing, so only 80% the resolution. The 360 version also has a significantly better frame-rate and less screen tearing while the model detail is subtly better than the 360 version. Not to mention longer loading times to spite the extensive HDD pre-install and then there is all the DLC like Lost and the Damned and the upcoming Ballad of Gay Tony.
Nice and subjective. It's amazing how after a few hours of (uncharted 1 )gameplay you only got one trophy...
Well I DID only play it for a few hours... You don't get trophies just for turning up. As I've said, many people feel the same way about Uncharted's poor gameplay, this is not a load opinion.
You played until level 3, so very little races, and not even one online. Sure you own a PS3?
Yes, I'm sure, I can't even remember if I tried online, none of my friends on PSN were interested in playing online, only Resistance 2. In fact, have you ever tried the "players meet" option, literally every single result is nothing but people playing Resistance 2, not a single Killzone 2, Or Motorstorm, all just for one game.
No you didn't go online (on Killzone 2) - if you had, you'd be on the database. And the fact that one shot in the head kills you, it's a bit naive saying that the knife should be in multiplayer. Can you say "useless weapon"?
Well buddy, I have no idea what that database is your are talking about, but I entered multiplayer, realised how crap it was and left. Maybe I'm not on the database because I haven't played it in 6 months, I certainly don't remember signing up to anything to access multiplayer. All I remember is how naff it all was.
What proof you have a PS3? All you have said is "I have a PS3 and HD TV, while making gross errors about criticising games, while having next to no trophies, possibly meaning you have bugger all games for the PS3. This would suggest you don't own one.
Come on, I'm waiting for a pic of the PS3, your user name, the games, and the log-on screen. The fact you claimed your phone "doesn't sync" with your PC is hilarious as that doesn't even make sense. You haven't even posted what model number your parents HDTV is...
I have an active PSN account, we have actually corresponded in messages on PSN. How can you possibly explain that other than I ACTUALLY have a PS3 and AM using it. You know full well Trophy support has been very patchy for the line-up of PS3 games with even big games like MGS4 and Resistance FOM still without Trophies. It can also only show trophies earned in the past 12 months since trophies were even introduced, you could have played a game to death before July 2008 and not a single trophy would be retroactively awarded to you.
If you want good multiplatform graphics, play on a PC.
Not always the case. Not only do many multiplatform games not come out on PC (Army of Two, Blazblue, Condemned 2 as well as upcoming Bayonetta and Brutal Legend) but if you knew a thing about PC gaming you'd know that PC is inundated with poor quality ports of games that are usually well optimised for either PS3 or 360, as they often needing extremely powerful graphics cards to render relatively standard graphics. This is true with GTA4 and the likes of Riddick: Dark Athena, where you need a PC that can max out Crysis just to play the game at the same settings as the console. That is not including the bugs and graphical glitches as well as terrible support and hardly ever gets DLC.
However some developers are very good, especially those with backgrounds in PC gaming like Infinity Ward, Gearbox and Codemasters; COD4 plays very well on even low end PCs (while not even in true 720p but only 640p for either PS3 of 360) which is good as mouse + Keyboard pwns all for First Person Shooters, especially COD4 multiplayer which is all about twitch shooting.
But most games like sandbox games (Saint's Row 2) and especially platformers and fighting games are terrible on PC.
PC is far from optimal for Multi-platform games, in fact the best platform is usually Xbox 360 as Digital Foundry of Eurogamer has found on so many occasions.
I only play on my PS3 on Uni holidays. What's your point? You don't need a HD monitor to play the games, but it's exceptionally ignorant to criticise graphics when you haven't seen the games in their best light.
That is precisely why I don't take my PS3 to uni if I can only to play it on some crappy SDTV. I play the games as the developers intend it, so that's in at least the resolution the game is rendered in. You may be happy to have PS3 away from you for most of the year but not me, it totally sucks that Sony did not consider the PS3 would be tied to an expensive HDTV.
How is VGA more appealing than HDMI?...If you can afford a gaming PC, 360 and PS3, how can you not afford an adequate monitor?
I did get an adequate monitor, but last summer when I bought my monitor and built my PC (you should know gaming PCs are not as expensive as you think as I've already posted on this forum) the selection of HDMI compatible monitors was not as great as is available today. The biggest problem was even if I did HDMI-DVI and found a HDCP compatible monitor (usually with a premium attached) the PS3 does not support any 16:10 resolution, it just cuts of the side of the image or stretches it, which are unacceptable compromises. Xbox 360 via VGA doesn't distort or crop the image on a 16:10 monitor, just leaves thin black bars on top and bottom of the 16:9 image.
The only viable options I could find at the time were HDTVs and I did not want any sort of HDTV as that meant a £145 fee for a TV license every year and BBC iPlayer and various other online catchup facilities offer all the TV I need.
Even today, sticking to a monitor with plain DVI and VGA ports is often much cheaper for a similar resolution monitor that is HDMI compatible. You did suggest an LG monitor that is VGA, DVI and HDMI compatible but the price is still too high and more than I even paid for my monitor over a year ago.
There are also very few games that can even take advantage of that 1080p resolution on either console and my current graphics card can't quite play Crysis on Very High at 1080p. Maybe when there are more 1080p games for the consoles and I upgrade my graphics card and also a maybe drop in the price of that LG monitor, then the idea will seem appealing.
Till then, VGA is still very preferable as virtually anywhere I stay I can guarantee access to some sort of monitor with VGA input (unlike a HDMI compatible monitor or even a HDTV) so 360 is my choice for HD gaming when away from home and it travels well in a laptop case. Also most projectors take VGA input and VGA capture cards are considerably cheaper than HDMI capture cards. With my monitor (and most monitors) I can have my Xbox 360 plugged into the VGA port and my PC plugged into the DVI port, so no fiddling around switching between the two (as would be for a flawed HDMI-DVI arrangement). Overall it is a much more flexible plug than HDMI.
And my explanation makes perfect sense. It's worrying that you are at Uni, and yet you can't see the simple reasoning behind this (Polytechnic let me guess? If it's Bangor, I will cry laughing).
If the kept on selling the PS3 with software emulation, then people would only buy the PS3. If they don't include the emulation, then people who really want to play PS2 games will buy one, and a PS3 more likely at a future date.
Which makes more money? To sell a PS2 and a PS3 or just a PS3?....
And how is it failing to deliver? If you compare the sales since launch, the PS3 has outsold the 360, respectively. More research from you would be nice. And actual evidence, as your word is 60% drivel, 40% opinion.
It has always been perfectly clear to me why Sony is currently not supporting BC but the point I made that went completely over your head is why did Sony INITIALLY offer PS3 WITH Backwards Compatibility if it was their plan from the beginning to continue selling PS3 and PS2 together?
I think they expected the PS3 to do like the PS2 did, completely take over PS1 sales with PS1 overnight becoming old news and all the developers and customers flocking to PS3. Only that clearly didn't happen, if you are going to compare consoles from launch, compare PS3 to PS2.
The removal of BC, even the "free" software emulation option, is symptomatic of Sony backtracking due to its poor performance that is also illustrated at launch with PS3's stacking up in stores and nobody wanting to buy them while CEOs making ridiculous claims that they will pay $12'000 to anyone who finds one on a store shelf.
rake's Fortune had plenty of action and it was just long enough to get a high out of it, I'm hoping UC 2 does the same.
