Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Xbox 360 COD 3 Better than on PS3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    If you watch this http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

    Jason Rubin makes a very good point about how the time/cost of developing a PS3 game will be hard to recoup unless they can penetrate the market to the same extent as PS1/2.

    I didn't know PS1 games still sold - that's insane ><

    Comment


      #17
      No doubting the sales power of playstation, just some doubt to the horse power of playstation 3 it would seem

      Does resistance look better than COD3 on PS3 ? From video reviews resistance to me falls short of even CODII on 360 release, and I'm therefore surprised by all the gushing graphical praise it is getting !
      Last edited by Simmy; 16-11-2006, 12:19.

      Comment


        #18
        I wonder if we'll get a situation where the cross platform stuff looks better on the 360 (due to ease and speed of development) but the PS3 only stuff will eventually end up pulling away a bit once the developers can get their heads around the hardware?

        Have to agree on Resistance though, it looks nice enough but I don't understand why there are so many statements about how incredibly wonderful it looks.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by HumanEnergy
          I wonder if we'll get a situation where the cross platform stuff looks better on the 360 (due to ease and speed of development) but the PS3 only stuff will eventually end up pulling away a bit once the developers can get their heads around the hardware?
          Yeah that's what I think.
          Look at FFXIII, MGS4, HS... all good potential.

          Comment


            #20
            TBH, IMO, a choppy framerate on a console that's as powerful as the 360 and PS3 are talked up to be really isn't acceptable to me. If it's choppy, scale the graphics back. For me, a choppy frame rate is far more embarassing for a hardware manufacturer than slightly less detailed graphics.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Nijo
              Yeah that's what I think.
              Look at FFXIII, MGS4, HS... all good potential.
              That's not to say there's not any untapped potential in the 360 of course. Kojima himself did say that he thought MGS4 was possible on the 360 after all. It'll be very interesting to see what developers can pull out of each console.


              Originally posted by vertigo
              TBH, IMO, a choppy framerate on a console that's as powerful as the 360 and PS3 are talked up to be really isn't acceptable to me. If it's choppy, scale the graphics back. For me, a choppy frame rate is far more embarassing for a hardware manufacturer than slightly less detailed graphics.
              I'd agree with that, I'd have taken less detailed graphics in a game like PGR3 if if meant a frame rate bump to 60fps.

              Comment


                #22
                What people have to bear in mind, is that what has been seen of MGS/FFXIII already can't possibly be in-game and even if it was, based on the amount of PS3 titles with hardware related issues, the games will bring about a new meaning to the word "Slideshow"

                Comment


                  #23
                  Gears of War looks way better than MGS4 graphically (imo of course)

                  And I hear Epic are having problems getting UE3 to run smoothly on PS3 - surprising considering it was pratically the poster-child of the RSX announcements at E3'05

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Nembot
                    CoD3 was always 360 exclusive, that`s why PC fans of the game (like me) have been kicking off but there is going to be a 4th and I believe PC exclusive game. It gives me time to put my order into NASA to get them to build me a PC powerful enough to play it!

                    It has been mentioned that it will involve "future combat", hopefully this means battles in the present day rather than aliens and ****, we`ll see.
                    IW are making both Call Of Duty Modern Combat and Call Of Duty 4 (a return to form : the banishing of treyarch)

                    Modern combat will be about the first gulf war (so it is thought)

                    Originally posted by Yoshimax-UK
                    Gears of War looks way better than MGS4 graphically (imo of course)

                    And I hear Epic are having problems getting UE3 to run smoothly on PS3 - surprising considering it was pratically the poster-child of the RSX announcements at E3'05
                    Gears is finished and on the shelves MGS4 is still a long way off

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Yoshimax-UK
                      There is no PC version - console only !!!
                      Yeah but it is blatently running the same engine as COD2, albeit a slightly jazzed up one.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by vertigo
                        TBH, IMO, a choppy framerate on a console that's as powerful as the 360 and PS3 are talked up to be really isn't acceptable to me. If it's choppy, scale the graphics back. For me, a choppy frame rate is far more embarassing for a hardware manufacturer than slightly less detailed graphics.
                        In some games, yeah. Although 60fps is talked of around here with holy reverance I actually only prefer it in arcade-style games. Would single-player games really feel as cinematic with everything running as fluid as Ridge Racer what we're used to at 30fps?

                        In an ideal world... racers, first-person shoot'em'ups, sports titles, scrollings shoot'em'ups, beat'em'ups etc would deadlock themselves at 60fps and slower paced cinematic affairs would deadlock themselves at 30fps. This will never happen because learning hardware is just that - a learning curve where people are trying new things and finding different ways to maximise potential. For that reason we'll never get deadlocked frame-per-second rates - programmers and artists don't want to scale back their ambitions to hit a target only a small minority actually care about anyway.

                        I know lots of people will disagree with me but it's easy to use a film analogy. Should all movies be made on handheld cameras? Nope.

                        There are different ways of involving the audience dependent on frame-rate.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I dunno, I just instantly prefer the look of any game thats 60fps, though obviously it hardly matters on slower paced games, I don't think any of the 3D Mario games for example have suffered from being 30fps. I definately prefered the visuals of say Billy Hatcher over Mario Sunshine purely because of the frame rate though.

                          30fps doesn't kill a game, contrary to what many people on here seem to think, it's just 60fps is most definately preferable for me

                          Comment


                            #28
                            As long as its 30 or over and locked to the chosen frame rate im cool

                            Comment


                              #29
                              When was the last time you went into the cinema and complained the projector was running at 24FPS :P

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Film is very different. Motion blur that film captures, for example, goes a long way towards smoothing out the 24fps.

                                In any case, locked at 30 > unstable 60.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X