 |
Re: Gamer (Unregistered) - 2007-06-30
|
|
 
|
» Stop acting dumb please.
"This is probably just because they had to stuggle to get it to run on the 360."
Struggle? What has the 360 got to do with it? If you expect GeOW graphics in an expansive game like GTA, then you're stupid. If you think the PS3 version should have higher res textures, more polygons and a bigger game world, then the PS3 version should be able to run the 'lower' quality game much better than the 360. But as we've seen so far in almost ALL multi-format games, it is the 360 version which usually offers the best performance, and even games which are PS3 ports appear to be improved on the 360 (as VF3 previews show).
And what has 50GB Blu-ray disks got to do with it? Which PS3 games are currently 50GB? Which PS3 coming out this year will be 50GB? Oh that's right, none. The biggest so far is STILL Resistance at 16GB.
So let's wait and see shall we! You're acting like a typical closed minded fanboy who always has to find reasons to attack another console, even when it has nothing to do with the actual topic.
|
Re: Gamer (Unregistered) - 2007-06-30
|
|
|
» And yeah...
...I meant VF5, not VF3. :)
As for episodic content. The whole point of it is that it comes AFTER a game has been released to help extend the life of the game. Just like extra levels/maps. The developement of episodic content continues AFTER the game has been released, it isn't shipped with a game, otherwise it wouldn't be episodic content!
|
Re: notsomeidiotlikeunrealblender (Unregistered) - 2007-06-30
|
|
|
» This again?
You Sony fans really need to get off the whole 50 GB thing. There will never be a game that big and you know it, unless the disk is filled with uncompressed HD videos, as has been proven with your precious OMGz 22GB Resistance. If the comments below aren't enough, you can actually put the Resistance disk in your PC (if you have a BR drive) and see for yourself.
Another thing, Gears of War isn't even very long nor does it even take up a lot of space (6 or 7 GB total I think), and it is reported it cost $10 million to make. Do you have any idea how much money it would cost to develop a 50 GB game?
50 GB games are almost as funny as "Next-gen starts when we say it does". Sony and its fans make me lol
|
Re: Eclipze_ (Unregistered) - 2007-07-01
|
|
|
» Re: Gamer
The only reason why multi-platform games are looking better on the 360 is because developers are lazy as hell. If they took time like Rainbow Six or ps3 exclusive games then somthing good would come out. All there doing is using the easier system to mess with and not worrying to much with the harder one (cause there lazy).
|
Re: Gamer (Unregistered) - 2007-07-01
|
|
|
» *Yawn* Please stop making excuses
"The only reason why multi-platform games are looking better on the 360 is because developers are lazy as hell."
Throughout last gen, I heard the same thing over and over again about the PS2. It is NEVER the fault of Sony for creating a complicated to program machine, oh no, it's always the devs fault for being too 'lazy'.
Look, games don't create themselves, people create them, and therefore they have to cope with many factors during the developement of a game, such as cost, time, ease of developement, support, console limitations, etc. So putting it ALL down to laziness is just, well, just being lazy instead of using your mind.
It's a fact that the PS3 has LESS memory than the 360 for games (428MB on the PS3, 480MB on the 360), because the PS3's OS takes a much bigger chunk out of memory compared to the 360. This means much more at present than disk storage space. So that's 12% more memory for 360 games, and that IS significant. Together with the 360's GPU being a little more powerful and the console being easier to develope on compared to the PS3 means multi-format games have every reason to look and perform better on the 360, although the difference should lessen as devs get to grips with the PS3.
So stop playing the 'lazy' card every time and start looking for the REAL reasons behind the differences.
