gfoot

Xbox 360 vs PS3 (yawn?)

Recommended Posts

My favourite:

Microsoft shoots for the moon. Sony shoots for the sun.

Yea. Most of them don't look all that different. But who cares? PS3 is a supercomputer! Which means that you can calculate your own weather forecasts... and enjoy the universe in all four dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I really needed any more confirmation, but thanks for validating the 360 purchase I made earlier this year, 1up! It's starting to get so I almost pity Sony. All they seem to have going on right now is that they're holding Kojima on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's starting to get so I almost pity Sony. All they seem to have going on right now is that they're holding Kojima on their side.

And almost the entire Japanese console market. Apparently, more PS3s sold in Japan in the first two weeks after launch than Xbox 360s since its own launch last year.

I wonder what Japanese Wii sales are going to look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does that work?

I can understand to compare graphic quality of different video cards using the same base (hardware and software).

But how can you compare it when there is more than one variable!?

If a game looks like crap on a PS3, but ok on a XBox360 then they probably did a bad job porting it.

Which one looks better:

APPLE%20-%20ORANGE.JPG

...........Apple................ ..............Orange...........

Which one looks better:

APPLE_ORANGE.jpg

............. .........Orange........... ................. ................. .............Apple............ ...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the smug little apple.

The point is, does the "increase" in quality justify the increase in price? That's what sensible end users should care about.

Look back to the last generation... To a large extent the Xbox suffered in the last generation through lack of decent software, despite being technically more powerful than the PS2. That was mostly the developers'/publishers' choice, probably because there were at least ten times as many PS2s on the planet, and the Xbox never gained much momentum. It doesn't make the PS2 a technically better system, but it does make it a better choice for the gamer, unless you're particularly fond of some Xbox-only game. Yeah right.

Sony are selling the PS3 as being more powerful, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether it is actually more powerful or not - what matters is whether developers exploit this alleged power enough to justify consumers paying the extra cash.

Feel free to comment that as the PS3 only just launched it's not surprising if the games don't make best use of the system. I do think it's still a valid comparison, though - the better-looking PS3 launch titles are standing on the shoulders of the Xbox 360 versions they were ported from, and the original titles are looking decidedly ropey, IMHO. There will be a leap in quality for the original titles, as they figure out how to do next-gen graphics well, but the ones built on previous Xbox 360 engines are unlikely to experience that leap, because in effect they're already second-generation games.

I really feel sorry for the Japanese console-buyers, I think they've made a huge mistake - unless in actual fact 10x as many of them buy the Wii, in which case it will all make sense again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an issue of bad/good porting. This is a clear cut case against Sony constantly using their advantage of (or should I say taking advantage of) general consumers belief that somehow video gaming began with the PlayStation and that there is no other console that can ever come close.

With this generation, especially, Sony has banged on about the HD era and how integral the PS3 will be to our enjoyment of it through their games. (I don't count the Blu rays ability in it's film playback as it is not relevant in this discussion) They have continued to have consumers believe that games will look and play better on PS3, which obviously is a logical thing to say as it IS their job to do that, but the fact is that when Jonny Poppy Longcock shells out that much money for the unit in the first place, he expects to experience that difference. It is comparable under ANY variable simply because Sony has said repeatedly how much more powerful their console is. They have created the arena for comparison and now it is showing the holes in their promises.

I expect Kojima-san to produce stunning results with MGS4 but there is more to a console catalogue than a handful of sudo-firstparty games. We want our Maddens and NFS's each year (well some sick puppies do) and the general games that are made for multiple platforms. At least that is what the general games consumer wants. We (and I speak more for Idle Thumbers) have the blessing (?) of having a greater knowledge of what determines a quality unique game -ICO, SOTC, 'naughts, etc. but most folk wont have even heard of those games let alone played them.

This comparison is relevant only to a point but it is valid because it is really showing that Sony is once again relying on reputation of past to shift units and now we are seeing that infact there really isn't anything in it at all, and in cases, the 360 is proving the better unit for games and cost.

For shame Kuturagi, for shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My favourite:

Yea. Most of them don't look all that different. But who cares? PS3 is a supercomputer! Which means that you can calculate your own weather forecasts... and enjoy the universe in all four dimensions.

Once again I fail to understand Sony marketing. The 4th dimension thing is somewhat confusing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 4th dimension time? Is there a flux compassitor in it? Can I go back in time?

It makes about as much sense to me as Bravia: The first television for men and women!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again I fail to understand Sony marketing. The 4th dimension thing is somewhat confusing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 4th dimension time? Is there a flux compassitor in it? Can I go back in time?

It makes about as much sense to me as Bravia: The first television for men and women!

4th dimension isn't time, it's temporal change, which is sort of like time. The difference? well, as you said, you can go back or forward in time. But you can reset the position in the temporal field of an object (e.g. return it to it's initial state, for example restore a savegame).

anyway, I sort of fail to see how the PS3 does something special with temporal change that games haven't done since the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's useful to think of time as a dimension (e.g. 2D graphs often have a time axis), but there's nothing definitive about it, and I don't think it really helps you understand the idea of a fourth dimension, because you end up associating it too closely with time, which is more restricted than the three dimensions we're used to (e.g. we're used to only moving forwards in time, as you guys pointed out). I'm pretty sure arbitrarily travelling back in time really is impossible - if it was possible, we'd already know about it.

The choice of what to use as a fourth dimension is as arbitrary as the choice of what to use to represent two dimensions in a three dimensional world. It's like holding a piece of paper horizontally, and saying, "this is two dimensional", but then finding your friend is holding his piece of paper vertically - it's still two dimensional, just a different two dimensions, embedded in the three dimensional world we generally perceive and understand.

Since our perception is essentially three-dimensional, what would we see in a fourth dimension - what can we get out of it? Mostly, we're probably restricted to viewing projections into 3D, like shadows. Much as we often look at 2D images and perceive a third dimension, it's possible that while looking at a 3D image we could also comprehend a fourth dimension which it represents.

It's probably far more useful to consider the implications of having freedom in a fourth dimension - what does it allow us to do that we can't do already? Things like escaping from locked rooms might be possible, if they're not fully enclosed in the fourth dimension as well as the three we perceive.

Maybe Houdini used special 4D handcuffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not an issue of bad/good porting. This is a clear cut case against Sony constantly using their advantage of (or should I say taking advantage of) general consumers belief that somehow video gaming began with the PlayStation and that there is no other console that can ever come close.

With this generation, especially, Sony has banged on about the HD era and how integral the PS3 will be to our enjoyment of it through their games. (I don't count the Blu rays ability in it's film playback as it is not relevant in this discussion) They have continued to have consumers believe that games will look and play better on PS3, which obviously is a logical thing to say as it IS their job to do that, but the fact is that when Jonny Poppy Longcock shells out that much money for the unit in the first place, he expects to experience that difference. It is comparable under ANY variable simply because Sony has said repeatedly how much more powerful their console is. They have created the arena for comparison and now it is showing the holes in their promises.

I expect Kojima-san to produce stunning results with MGS4 but there is more to a console catalogue than a handful of sudo-firstparty games. We want our Maddens and NFS's each year (well some sick puppies do) and the general games that are made for multiple platforms. At least that is what the general games consumer wants. We (and I speak more for Idle Thumbers) have the blessing (?) of having a greater knowledge of what determines a quality unique game -ICO, SOTC, 'naughts, etc. but most folk wont have even heard of those games let alone played them.

This comparison is relevant only to a point but it is valid because it is really showing that Sony is once again relying on reputation of past to shift units and now we are seeing that infact there really isn't anything in it at all, and in cases, the 360 is proving the better unit for games and cost.

For shame Kuturagi, for shame.

Yeah, I agree 100%. It's comes with no surprise to me. The $600 price tag isn't the only reason I don't plan on buying a PS3 this generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think comparing screenshots of ports is necessarily fair. All games are most likely using the same exact art assets. During the development the teams weren't looking to make one system look better than another.

Only time will tell.

I've got my wii, I don't plan on buying a ps3 or xbox360 until I have an HD set, and even then I wouldn't pay over 300 for either one of them. And that's not including the 360 core system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says it's not great. Most of the time, the negative press has been based on Ken's comments and statements. Now that he's gone, maybe the negative press will go down a bit. Which is obviously good.

Also, the whole GTHD thing wasn't very well received. So now they'll release the same thing as a demo on the marketplace for a limited time. Which is good for the consumer. And they also opened up the possibility of releasing GT Concept games for download, like they did with GT4, only this time it's not boxed and only available for download, so it'll probably be a lot cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It is an admission, though, that they were planning to screw consumers by releasing the same game on a new platform with the old assets.

Anyway, releasing abandoned projects for free is good. Wolfenstein Enemy Territory is a great example of that, and it's been my favourite FPS game for years now. Because it's free, the online community will probably never die, so there will always be somebody to play against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think comparing screenshots of ports is necessarily fair. All games are most likely using the same exact art assets. During the development the teams weren't looking to make one system look better than another.

.

Then they (developers) should be ashamed of themselves because the whole point of more power is that you utilise it to the best ability of the hardware presented to you. Can you imagine if developers only used Geforce 9800 cards to produce original Quake graphical standards? It is a waste. So if the PS3 is THAT much more powerful then I as a consumer expect to see that power put to use. Just as 1080p is so much better than standard definition it is like them producing the Bluray and a film house producing discs with videotape standards from the master copy. Same assets - it's just what you do with it in relation to the hardware at your disposal. It goes deeper than graphics. There is the power for additional calculations for AI etc. I cannot see this currently in the titles lined up - at least not significantly greater than the likes of Lost Odyssey or Alan Wake.

Don't get me wrong, as anyone who knows me will tell you I will buy a PS3 just for Ridge Racer 7. What I am at odds with is the manipulation of consumers buy a company and a mis-informed media that the PS3 is the greatest console ever created. It is time people had a balanced view on what is available to them at a far more sensible price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but redoing art assets costs a lot of money, besides... what are they going to do for the `Game 2007` version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but redoing art assets costs a lot of money, besides... what are they going to do for the `Game 2007` version?

Heheheheh. Indeed.

But if that's the mentality then there would have been no need to make consoles past the SNES.

I don't hear any other company banging on about the next gen starts when THEY say so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding that statement. It's not meant in an arrogant way. It's meant in the way that the PS3 will probably be the one to lead us into the next-gen market. So far we've only had a taste of the next-gen market through the Xbox 360, but it really has been on the fence up until now. They just had a head start, like the Dreamcast had a head start. When the PS3 is is out worldwide, and with a reasonable amount of gamers having them, that's when the next-gen really kicks in. The next-gen race won't start until the PS2 is half-abandoned, and the PS3 has sold a million or more. And when the next-gen race has started, it becomes the current gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're misunderstanding that statement. It's not meant in an arrogant way. It's meant in the way that the PS3 will probably be the one to lead us into the next-gen market. .

Oh, please. You think Kutaragi made that statement through modesty? The man runs around his office in giant man nappies beating his P.A. with hams and kettle chips -possibly.

No seriously. SONY are arrogant. Even they admit it. That statement was said solely because Microsoft got out of the gate first and the next gen was off with a bang. The days of comparing console releases like ps1 and 2 with Saturn and Dreamcast are over. The next gen began with the DS. There are few who would have bet on DS kicking all them shades of shit out of the PSP to the extent where heads at EA find themselves advising Sony to redesign and market the PSP. They do that for the sole reason that they invested financially and mentally in that console dominating. Now even in the UK DS outstrips PSP at an alarming rate. I tell you SONY made that statement through confidence that their fanbase and the genral public seriously believe what they say. Just read the Telegraph or any other broadsheet that focuses on console news only when it relates to money or a social event like Chrimbo and see how they speak about the PS3. It is spoken of as though it could walk on water, eat bullets, and shit ice cream. The article reads as though the writer leaned over to his younger brother and asked what was the 'best' console out.

Come on people. We need to stop with this mentality of the my console is better than yours and everything starts and the fourth place. Where the hell is that? Sony did a great thing with the PS1 and created a fine arena for developers to start making certain ideas into reality but it has brought with it a society of people who just don't really know games and the variety out there. Imagine the equivalent if there was only EA? Yes we have to thank them in a great way for broadening the masses to the existence of games but would you want JUST them dominating games in the way that Sony has been?

Buy a PS3 by all means. I'll be queing for the Ridge Racer and other game that allows for massive damage such as motorstorm, but i tell you I will buy a 360 and Wii twice over first if only to mantain a social balance in this industy. THe day is coming when kids will tell you they have never heard of Crono Trigger or Shining Force and that they suspect Spyro the Dragon was the inspiration for Panzer Dragoon. Yeah, laugh now.

Kenty where are you? Expose the weak spot and deliver massive damage to the unclean!!! Now I sound like a fanboy. See what you have gone and done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to do something about that grudge of yours. You have an unhealthy view of a perfectly normal business corporation. Ken isn't the devil, and Sony isn't Hell. He gave an opinion on how things are for the moment, and I actually agree. The next-gen race won't really start until the PS3 is out. We're still in the preliminary stages of the next generation of consoles, and once the PS3 is out worldwide, the real battle will begin, and thus developers will start to focus on next-generation development, rather than just developing PS2 games and porting them to other systems.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the PS3 is any better or worse than the X360. They're both very powerful machines, and the both will provide us with next-gen content, just like the Wiii will, only on a different level. But once all the consoles are out and the next-gen market is big enough, that's when the battle starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a PS3 by all means. I'll be queing for the Ridge Racer and other game that allows for massive damage such as motorstorm, but i tell you I will buy a 360 and Wii twice over first if only to mantain a social balance in this industy. THe day is coming when kids will tell you they have never heard of Crono Trigger or Shining Force and that they suspect Spyro the Dragon was the inspiration for Panzer Dragoon. Yeah, laugh now.

I'm actually in agreement with you on that. I'd like to think of myself as a console moderate, no matter how much Sony has pissed me off lately. (Liksang, DRM, etc) If it has decent games, I'll pick one up sooner or later. (likely later, and used so Sony doesn't get my cash. Again, they've really pissed me off.) The problem is that Playstation games, at least the ones that the system is known for, have never really interested me. I saw the Motorstorm demo runnning in an EB yesterday and I gotta admit, it's really, really beautiful. The vehicles look like they could be done by the 360 easily, but I'm not so sure about the background. There was one cliffside that I was sure was just a photo right up until the guy playing raced along the side of it. Stunning. Still, this doesn't change the fact that I don't really like racing games. As such: *poof* interest gone. Resistance just looks generic, and Blue Dragon should fill my RPG quota for a while, so the PS3 really doesn't give me much in that department either. When something huge and refreshing hits, I'll take notice. In the meantime, meh.

I may have said this a couple of years ago, (not sure if I said it here or not...) but it still holds true. Each system has their attitude. Nintendo is joyously silly and proud of it. Microsoft is adult and enjoys being so. They're where you go when you want your truly "mature" (whatever that means...) games. Sony is like a teenager. Trying to be big, mature and impressive, but really too often glib and crass to truly engage a legitimately mature audience. Granted, when the next Gitaroo, Ico, etc hits, I'll be foaming at the mouth to get my hands on it. This is not, however, the kind of game that the company puts forward when showing off their system. Those games have subtitles like "Up Your Arsenal." Real nice there, Sony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now