mr_bishiuk
Banned
cjelly said:
I like this one...
J-Rzez said:
I only read that as pre-emptive excuses!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Eurogamer 360 vs PS3-Face: Round 15
- Thread starter squicken
- Start date
I like this one...
I only read that as pre-emptive excuses!
cjelly said:
If you don't think that KZ2 looks better than multiplatform titles even, there's something wrong with you and roots run deeper than though. Oh, I didn't read:
"will gladly bend over and grab ankles for Microsoft"
That's our cjelly!
Look at the person I quoted. Trying to dismiss what I said that KZ2 looks better than all the MP titles out there. If anyone thinks that it's on par with MP titles, they're insane, or need a vision plan.
Karma said:
We'll see I suppose.
Gears II I really don't think will have much to worry about. Neither will the original Uncharted,PGR4, or Heavenly Sword,these set the bar to me and still haven't been beaten.
Wish I owned a PS3 just to see how it turns out. I'm thinking it'll be a good looking game but I have my doubts about it beating the games I listed above. Plus I don't really trust Gaf opinion nowdays,the GTA IV head to head thread proved people are full of crazy nonsense for example.
Karma said:
I hated, absolutely hated the first KZ because it's gameplay was utter trash. This one's gameplay has made equal strides with visuals and audio. I'm trying to think of a way to put it. Perhaps, CoD4, slightly slightly slower, with more weight behind everything, especially your character. Gameplay as in MP game modes, it does something that really hasn't been done before in MP games before, and now I wonder why no one ever really used it. It's so simple, but it's so damn fun, and keeps things going at a non-stop action pace. Controls are tight.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
yes, but what you fail to realise is that even bringing up KZ2 AT ALL does nothing to change the whole point of this debate, which you even agree with!
Ports are usually better on x360 , great - we are all agreed.
Bring up KZ2 is just sony fans trying to shift the argument - even if it IS the best looking console game ever, it still pans out that you have THE BEST LOOKING CONSOLE GAME EVER, a couple of very good looking games, then 95% that look worse than on the "less powered" X360. I'm not sure what it proves ? if you have a team of 100+ people, a huge budget and 4 years to make a game it'll look good? Really?! that's surprising!
DCharlie said:
It proves that all these "graphical issues" can be fixed if effort (not matter how much) is put in. Period. All Killzone is going to do, is show off how the multiplatform devs are far behind the game.
People are implying the 360 is a superior machine power wise, thus KZ2 negates that. It's all about the devs, and what you want from the machine. Then you told me to prove that KZ2 wouldn't look better on the 360. So yeah, I'm done "discussing" this with you. If you honestly think CoD4 looks as good as KZ2, you need a vision plan.
And "worse" is too strong of a word considering how close the difference can be now, and with them slugging it out with different advantages anyways. Like it or not.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
So..... I just want to be clear... we PC gamers aren't allowed in these threads right? i don't want to get banned for stating the obvious or anything.....
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
KZ2 does not negate that at all though, not by a long way. As you even say yourself, the DEV teams is what is important (coupled with budget/time constraints etc). In case you haven't noticed, the PS3 and X360 are the same rough performance class - any differences coming out are down to DEV TALENT and approaches and nothing to do with one being more superior than the other because there just isn't that much of a difference.
KZ2 proves absolutely nothing other than dev teams with big budgets and no time constraints on a machine in the X360/Ps3 perfomance class can produce games that look great.
The only truth is that Sony have much stronger technicians at their first party houses. You think Guerilla wouldn't be able to produce something equally as impressive with 4 years , the X360 and the same team given the limited differences between the two systems?
PC is already the king, so this is like the two offsprings fighting for the right to possibly be king if he were to die.... which isn't going to happen (though you might tease someone into making some comments about how <game> looks better than Crysis - which is always good for a laugh/extra 20 pages)
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Bookmarked this thread.
I fall asleep much faster and cheaper this way than when I do any kind of drugs.
I fall asleep much faster and cheaper this way than when I do any kind of drugs.
sol_bad
Member
So what was with people saying that Mirror's Edge was a jaggy mess on PS3 and a crystal clear extravagenza on the X360? I decided to download the X360 version just to check out how crystal clear it looked on my screen.
To my disappointment it was just as jaggy as the X360 version. So sick of GAF over-exaggerating everything, it's bullshit. Controls for Mirror's Edge feel better with a Dual Shock 3 and the audio is better on the PS3 version.
To my disappointment it was just as jaggy as the X360 version. So sick of GAF over-exaggerating everything, it's bullshit. Controls for Mirror's Edge feel better with a Dual Shock 3 and the audio is better on the PS3 version.
WickedLaharl
Member
sol_bad said:
link to a post that claimed the 360 version was "crystal clear"?
and the 360 version isn't as jaggy because it uses anti aliasing while the ps3 version does not.
both are still jagarific tho.
MWS Natural
Member
Nafai1123 said:
For what it's worth, 5mins of google/wiki:
Of course most of this is rumor but it seems like a case of you get what you pay for.
MWS Natural said:
Even if it is true, both studios have the same number of staff and roughly the same amount of development time (yes, Halo 3 came out last year, but then again the 360 came out a year before the ps3, which presumably means they got their dev kits long before Guerilla did). I fail to see how cost is the sole determining factor here.
AZ Greg
Member
What is up with the weird qualifications to make a point this gen?
360/PS3 is the sales leader! (Wii doesn't count!)
Killzone 2/Gears 2 is the best looking game! (On consoles, PC doesn't count!)
Hate to break it to you, but both groups are simply arguing to be middle of the road. Or more simply, 1st place loser.
360/PS3 is the sales leader! (Wii doesn't count!)
Killzone 2/Gears 2 is the best looking game! (On consoles, PC doesn't count!)
Hate to break it to you, but both groups are simply arguing to be middle of the road. Or more simply, 1st place loser.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
Even if this ends up being true, i still don't get how this is RELEVANT to this thread though?
I get the point that the PS3 is potentially some beast that has the best looking console games, but it doesn't help in the X360 vs PS3 run of on multiplatform games.
It's just a null argument. It doesn't help the fact that PS3 is getting the worst versions. Okay, so let's take it that WITH MORE EFFORT and technical nouse like Guerilla you could get the versions even.
GREAT!
but that's not happening - and that's the whole point.
The easiest route to parity might even be to hamstring the X360 versions of these games so they look the same!
X360 has the better versions of MP games. KZ2 is , according to you, the best looking console game ever. Great! So in this thread discussing the difference between both versions, KZ2 is neither here nor there.
Warm Machine
Member
J-Rzez said:
Technically lots of games. But in terms of Art Direction and straight up visuals serving the game it is pretty amazing. I loved what I played in Germany of it at the GC. It was my game of the show. That said I've never seen Gears 2 in any meaningful way.
DCharlie said:Even if this ends up being true, i still don't get how this is RELEVANT to this thread though?
I get the point that the PS3 is potentially some beast that has the best looking console games, but it doesn't help in the X360 vs PS3 run of on multiplatform games.
It's just a null argument. It doesn't help the fact that PS3 is getting the worst versions. Okay, so let's take it that WITH MORE EFFORT and technical nouse like Guerilla you could get the versions even.
GREAT!
but that's not happening - and that's the whole point.
The easiest route to parity might even be to hamstring the X360 versions of these games so they look the same!
X360 has the better versions of MP games. KZ2 is , according to you, the best looking console game ever. Great! So in this thread discussing the difference between both versions, KZ2 is neither here nor there.
The point is that there is no "potentially" to it. We have already seen what the ps3 is capable of doing, and it surpasses anything that exclusive 360 developers have done (still waiting for a response to my last post btw). If you want people to accept that MOST mp games perform better on the 360 (and I'm not denying that it's true), then man the fuck up and accept that MOST ps3 exclusives are more impressive than 360 exclusives. Don't beat around the bush with your "potentially" and "it solely depends on the developer" bullshit unless you are claiming that Bungie, Epic, Rare, etc. don't know what the hell they are doing.
UntoldDreams
Member
This thread is a social commentary on how people derive their fun.
You might not realize it... but most all of this silly discussion comes off very juvenile.
I'm sorry to say this but it frankly it looks like many of you are in High School or something.
You might not realize it... but most all of this silly discussion comes off very juvenile.
I'm sorry to say this but it frankly it looks like many of you are in High School or something.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
I said exactly this several posts back - YES Sony have better technicians than there are at MS.
here :
But as i said, i think it's the teams that make the difference and not the tech and the self same teams work on the X360 would produce something as good.
DCharlie said:
Because. It's CLEAR that issues like framerate and jaggies can be dealt with, as a game like Killzone 2 shows. How don't you understand that? It just clearly shows that porterhouse devs don't want to go that extra yard, and are happy with doing "enough" on each system, or they're just incapable. Why even argue over the differences in visuals in games like R6 and CoD4 when there's a game that's real, and it's superior visually. Can these devs make a "fun game"? Sure, no one's arguing that. But they're not to be used as a measuring stick by any means. And all it should do is piss people off that they're not getting max potential from some really fun games. For example, I wonder how CoD4 would've turned out if focused clearly on one of the systems.
:lol , holy fuck.
I don't lose any sleep over it. I'm bored at the moment. None of my clan mates are on, no one's on in the guild, no one's on vent, and I kinda don't feel like playing games atm (downloading some shows). So i'm just browsing the web.
I own both systems, so I really don't care. I don't miss out on any of the good games. Only thing I wish MS would do is dump some of their resources into some 1st party studios to push their machine to the limit as well. It may not matter to the sales world, but just as a gamer, I'd like to see what the machine could do if they had stables as competent as their competitor.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
Huh? Halo is a great game and series, but i don't think it's particularly that great on a technical level.
Epic have concentrated on making a multi platform engine - Gears 2 being the best looking game out of it. I've not actually seen Gears 2 in the flesh yet - it might end up being the best looking console game, it might not, but Gears 1 has long since been surpassed.
As i said, this is all somewhat moot because i thought KZ2 -wasn't- that great looking when i played the TGS demo, but i think that demo was simply old and things sound like they have gotten better - so for the purpose of this argument i'm going with JR's assumption that this is the best looking console game ever because for the purpose of the MP argument it doesn't particularly MEAN anything either way.
The point still remains that a first part built game doesn't instantly translate into helping the PS3 in the MP face offs. And by JR's last post í don't think he even thinks it does either - it's just a way of saying "who cares if 90% of the games on the platform look worse, these couple are the best looking ever !"
HallucinatingElvis
Banned
Fafalada said:You should also be arguing the same on multiplatform releases, where 90% of the time, 360 version gets bigger teams, more time, more resources etc.
Oh re.....
Fafalada
He's a game dev, a programmer, and far smarter than you.
(Today, 05:56 AM)
Reply | Quote
shit :/
DCharlie said:
I just find it hard to believe that the technical issues with H3 lie in the developers hands and not in hardware itself. And when it comes to Epic and UE3, they were working intimately with MS to optimize that game one the 360 for a long time. Hell, they used Gears of War assets to showcase UE3 when it was finally revealed. No doubt the game was impressive, but as you said, it has long since been surpassed.
My point is that mp game performance is more determined on budget/time constraints than first party titles. Games like Gears or Halo or KZ2 are optimized to a systems strengths much moreso than mp titles, and as such it is better to compare exclusive titles when determining which system is truly more powerful. It's not a big surprise that ported, lower budget version of a mp game will be inferior. The people that flaunt this fact like it proves that one console is superior to the other are just downright annoying. 99% of the people buying these games only have one console, and they don't care if one texture is slightly better in the other version; however, they do care when an exclusive game comes along that blows every other game on the market out of the fucking water (eg. Gears 1).
MWS Natural
Member
Nafai1123 said:
It really all depends on where that extra ~$30 Million is going. If it is going to outsourcing a good amount of the game to another development house then I definitely think Killzone 2 having a blank check from Sony makes a difference. I really wish MS would focus a bit more on 1st party development like Sony. It does look like MS could possibly be going in that direction with their new Halo Dream Team they are putting together.
Private Hoffman
Banned
DCharlie said:
Not to start any shit, but there are a lot of games that fit that bill (big budget and multiple years in development), but look nowhere near as good as KZ2.
I won't mention names, but I'm sure you know what other notable FPS those are.
DCharlie said:
You don't know that at all. Yes, GG seems to be very technically competent, but at the same time they are harnessing the power of the PS3's processor to produce the stunning visuals you see, and all of the processing effects to give it that CG look.
I do think Killzone 2 looks better than Crysis. Crysis is more technically demanding, but it's not artistically efficient and it doesn't impress me as much as KZ2. It has a lot of high res textures, but in many instances it still has a very 'PC shooter'ish look to it.
Having actually played Gears 2 I'm confident in saying that there's nothing about the game that the PS3 couldn't handle given the proper development. Even the 360 chokes on some of the bigger setpieces. At the end of the day it's still UE3, it's still a middleware engine and it still has the same limitations as two years ago, albeit slightly alleviated.
Honestly I feel the graphics capabilities of the two consoles are a bit of a wash. I think ultimately the PS3 is the more capable console, simply for its undeniable audio abilities and extra storage capacity. Once this generation is over I think most people will agree that it had the most horsepower for graphical output as well, but we're not talking night and day here.
Honestly I feel the graphics capabilities of the two consoles are a bit of a wash. I think ultimately the PS3 is the more capable console, simply for its undeniable audio abilities and extra storage capacity. Once this generation is over I think most people will agree that it had the most horsepower for graphical output as well, but we're not talking night and day here.
Private Hoffman
Banned
Chrange said:
Why would Crysis look better if it were on the PS3? If it were ported to the PS3, it would obviously look much worse.
And similarly, if KZ2 were ported to a high end PC, it would look better.
That has nothing to do with the fact that I think KZ2 looks more impressive visually. I am not arguing hardware power when comparing KZ2 to Crysis. For the most part, it's all in the artistic design and the technical efficiency.