PS3 General Discussion

[DuckRacer]

Oh, I seemed to have missed the part where a score is deducted points for being out later.

Go figure

Well, the final IGN score isn't an average.

tip: Maybe you shouldn't defend every review you come across, it really doesn't bode well for your credibility.

Oh. My. God.

The only reviews I defend are the IGN reviews, since 95% of them are pretty damn accurate IMO. Not to mention I think GameSpot, 1Up, and X-Play's reviews are dumb too. Mmkay?

Tekken 2 on the PSP would be cool for sure!

GT2 would be awesome too.

 

[land sea air]

im sure this has been mentioned before but where can i find these emulator downloads for psp? is it only on a website accessed from the ps3?

 

[Jedi2016]

Oh, I seemed to have missed the part where a score is deducted points for being out later.

Go figure

You're implying that you don't know how games are rated. I was going to use the phrase "common knowledge", but I'll change it to "MOSTLY common knowledge" that reviews are comparitive by nature. A game is rated based on other games available at the time that said game is released. You don't compare a new game to an old one, you compare it to other new games.

Ergo, FN3 was "better" compared to 360 launch games and PS2 games than it is compared to second-gen 360 games and other PS3 launch games.

If the PS3 version had launched first, the reviews would be opposite. This is nothing new, it's just the way reviews are done. It's always been that way.

 

[DuckRacer]

im sure this has been mentioned before but where can i find these emulator downloads for psp? is it only on a website accessed from the ps3?

If you're talking about PS1 games on the PSP, right now you have to use the PS3 to put them onto your PSP. Supposedly they're planning to make a service where you won't need a PS3 for the downloads, however.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

You're implying that you don't know how games are rated. I was going to use the phrase "common knowledge", but I'll change it to "MOSTLY common knowledge" that reviews are comparitive by nature. A game is rated based on other games available at the time that said game is released. You don't compare a new game to an old one, you compare it to other new games.

Ergo, FN3 was "better" compared to 360 launch games and PS2 games than it is compared to second-gen 360 games and other PS3 launch games.

If the PS3 version had launched first, the reviews would be opposite. This is nothing new, it's just the way reviews are done. It's always been that way.

It still is unjust. That's like saying the 2008 WRS is better than the 2007, but since it came out a year later, and you've already driven the 2007, which is very similar, but has less power and the interior isn't as good...you still rate the 2007 higher.

It's stupid, at best.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

If you're talking about PS1 games on the PSP, right now you have to use the PS3 to put them onto your PSP. Supposedly they're planning to make a service where you won't need a PS3 for the downloads, however.

They are also making a firmware patch so you can play the PS1 games on your PS3.

 

[DuckRacer]

Also, found this article showing mouse-over pics of PS3/X360 screens.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

You can definitely tell that there's pretty big contrast differences.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Also, found this article showing mouse-over pics of PS3/X360 screens.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

You can definitely tell that there's pretty big contrast differences.

If you really take the time to look at those, it's a contrast issue with the 360's output, not a game issue. The 360 by default outputs a significantly higher contrast image. If you crank up the brightness on your TV you will notice the 360 games look very similar to the PS3 titles.

I guess developers will just have to find way's to do the same on PS3...??

 

[Tornado]

Oh, I seemed to have missed the part where a score is deducted points for being out later.

But when you take the whole idea into account, it makes perfect sense:

you don't really see the massive graphical difference in motion

Which means that the lack of a major graphical leap despite being a nearly year-old game on a new console hurts it doubly so than just a lack of graphical update would, because they had plenty of time to do so.
Either way, the lack of any useful content hurt the Gamespot score (by .1) becuase they had already played the 360 version in January.

 

[McLaren]

Also, found this article showing mouse-over pics of PS3/X360 screens.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

You can definitely tell that there's pretty big contrast differences.

That's cool except for the fact that on ones like Madden, the time of day isn't the same and the backgrounds aren't the same, so you can't really tell if Sony made a good character and "crappy background."

The COD3 is the same. You see the face in one screen and the back in another. Other than that, the PS3 ones just look a bit nicer because they look brighter to me.

 

[LaBounti]

And not to mention pretty much all multiplatform ps3 games have framerate inconsistancies. Evidences of programing struggles. Resistance has zero framerate issues. They may get it in a year or two. PS2 launch titles left both co processors doing nothing at all the same may be with ps3's spu's.

Edit: Tekken 5 Dark Resurection is coming to PlayStation Store. To hold fans over until Tekkn 6 and includes playable Jinpanchi and 1080p60 graphics. If it stays true to the arcade there wont be a problem with the 500MB limit. PD really should have done the same with Gran turismo.

 

[DuckRacer]

If you really take the time to look at those, it's a contrast issue with the 360's output, not a game issue. The 360 by default outputs a significantly higher contrast image. If you crank up the brightness on your TV you will notice the 360 games look very similar to the PS3 titles.

I guess developers will just have to find way's to do the same on PS3...??

Crank the contrast setting up.

 

[Jedi2016]

It still is unjust. That's like saying the 2008 WRS is better than the 2007, but since it came out a year later, and you've already driven the 2007, which is very similar, but has less power and the interior isn't as good...you still rate the 2007 higher.

It's stupid, at best.

I'm not even going to respond to that. There's a level of stupidity where I just won't go.

If you really take the time to look at those, it's a contrast issue with the 360's output, not a game issue. The 360 by default outputs a significantly higher contrast image. If you crank up the brightness on your TV you will notice the 360 games look very similar to the PS3 titles.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the developers of those 360 games made the games look like that on purpose? Or are you implying that they don't know what the game actually looks like when it's played on the console it was programmed for? That maybe they prefer it that way?

Me, I like the higher contrast look. Games have had poor, flat lighting for far too long, I think it's frikkin' wonderful that developers finally have the tools to make things look the way they should.

You are a real tool, you know that?

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

I'm not even going to respond to that. There's a level of stupidity where I just won't go.



Did it ever occur to you that maybe the developers of those 360 games made the games look like that on purpose? Or are you implying that they don't know what the game actually looks like when it's played on the console it was programmed for? That maybe they prefer it that way?

Me, I like the higher contrast look. Games have had poor, flat lighting for far too long, I think it's frikkin' wonderful that developers finally have the tools to make things look the way they should.

You are a real tool, you know that?

Maybe you could take your personal insults somewhere else, they aren't needed.

My analogy stands, unless you can give me just reason why it doesn't. Fight Night Round 3 has more features, and polished textures / lighting when compared to the 360 version. The one omission between the two is motion blur, which I hated on the 360 version, it was irritating and unnatural.

As for the high contrast, I find it hard to believe the developers intentionally gave the 360 a high contrast set of textures and not on the PS3, it doesn't make sense, because the textures are essentially the same. But, think what you want, I'm sure there's *hundreds* of developers out there going crazy over the idea of editing all their textures for their ports, knocking down the contrast for certain consoles, I'm sure that's it!!

Your post has been reported btw.

 

[Tornado]

My analogy stands, unless you can give me just reason why it doesn't.

Perhaps because it is a 10 month old port that adds maybe 3 things to the gameplay (with only the first person mode being anything worth it), and hardly does much of anything to the graphics (with it still suffering from the graphical glitches of the 360 version). In addition, they had 10 months to improve the problems the game originally had, and they didn't.
And your analogy was still ass anyways, as it doesn't apply to this at all, and I can think of many examples that disprove it, both in automobiles and video games.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Perhaps because it is a 10 month old port that adds maybe 3 things to the gameplay (with only the first person mode being anything worth it), and hardly does much of anything to the graphics (with it still suffering from the graphical glitches of the 360 version). In addition, they had 10 months to improve the problems the game originally had, and they didn't.
And your analogy was still ass anyways, as it doesn't apply to this at all, and I can think of many examples that disprove it, both in automobiles and video games.

Oh sweet! let's dig in and say "blah blah blah"!

The purpose of an analogy is to simplify and explain. Not to be dissected and analyzed.

That being said.

Here. Ignore specs, as I'm just making them up, for example purposes.

FNR3 360 = 2007 WRX. 300HP. No Navigation. Cloth Interior.
FNR3 PS3 = 2008 WRS. 310HP. Navigation. Leather Interior.

2008 still has odd interior, and some turbo lag, similar to the 2007, but improvements have been made, though not major.

THey are still improvements.

FNR3 offers a new mode of play (which actually offers a lot of depth, seeing as how none of you guy's have played it, and I own it, you have no say really). It also offers up better minor details, such as sweat, blood, facial animations are greatly improved (their no longer look like disjointed pieces of bone and flesh) and the muscles "flex" etc. Combined with the improved texture work, it's AT MINIMUM deserving of the SAME score.

Again, scoring a game LOWER because the second one came out LATER suggests it's WORSE. However, if ANYONE say's this game is NOT as good, I can only point and laugh at their stupidity. Plain and simple.

 

[Tornado]

Oh sweet! let's dig in and say "blah blah blah"!

The purpose of an analogy is to simplify and explain. Not to be dissected and analyzed.

When the analogy is incorrect, however, that is not the case.

FNR3 offers a new mode of play (which actually offers a lot of depth, seeing as how none of you guy's have played it, and I own it, you have no say really).

Except every post you make is biased so far into the PS3's favor its hard to tell where the PR shlock ends and your opinions begin.

It also offers up better minor details, such as sweat, blood, facial animations are greatly improved (their no longer look like disjointed pieces of bone and flesh) and the muscles "flex" etc. Combined with the improved texture work, it's AT MINIMUM deserving of the SAME score.
Again, scoring a game LOWER because the second one came out LATER suggests it's WORSE. However, if ANYONE say's this game is NOT as good, I can only point and laugh at their stupidity. Plain and simple.

Oh, there is the problem. No, it does not suggest it is worse. It suggests it is, for lack of a better word, "dated," for various reasons. Is the PS3 version better graphically? Yes. Is it better graphically than other PS3 launch titles? No. Is the first person mode a good addition? Sure is. Does that make the game merit any higher of a score? Nope, because adding one or two features to a port or sequel and calling it a day has never done so. Ever. And it never will. Did it deserve to get a lower score? in my opinion, no. Did it deserve a higher score? Nope.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

When the analogy is incorrect, however, that is not the case.

Except every post you make is biased so far into the PS3's favor its hard to tell where the PR shlock ends and your opinions begin.

Oh, there is the problem. No, it does not suggest it is worse. It suggests it is, for lack of a better word, "dated," for various reasons. Is the PS3 version better graphically? Yes. Is it better graphically than other PS3 launch titles? No. Is the first person mode a good addition? Sure is. Does that make the game merit any higher of a score? Nope, because adding one or two features to a port or sequel and calling it a day has never done so. Ever. And it never will. Did it deserve to get a lower score? in my opinion, no. Did it deserve a higher score? Nope.

To re-release a game on the same system, I'd totally agree, however, since this version of fight night is on another system, which will be played by users who have not played the 360 version (because if you already own the 360 version, you won't buy the PS3 version) I can't agree.

Sure, if the 360 version came out twice, then I'd say it needs the lower score, but since this is on another system, selling to a different user base, it's not dated to anyone except for the reviewer who obviously is oblivious to the reasons he is writing. He is not writing a review for 360 owners, he is writing a review to PS3 owners. They will see the score, and think it's worse, that's fact. You don't say "oh well we saw this on 360". You talk about the PS3 version, and the PS3 version only. This offers a completely neutral honest opinion about that game and that game only, bringing in another version for another user base when you are NOT reviewing for THAT user base is pointless, as is scoring the game lower because you've played it on another system. Those are facts.

 

[Famine]

You are a real tool, you know that?

No more of this.

 

[DuckRacer]

Okay Jeremy, here's an analogy.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time got a 10 in IGN. Now, what if the exact same game was released yesterday on the PS2. Do you expect the game to be rated a 10 again?

In this case, it'd be rated an 8-8.5 at most, since it's dated.

 

[Pako]

Story line, game play, replay value are all categories that stand the test of time. Graphics, physics, frame rates are all subjective to current gaming standards, IMO.

 

[Jedi2016]

Okay Jeremy, here's an analogy.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time got a 10 in IGN. Now, what if the exact same game was released yesterday on the PS2. Do you expect the game to be rated a 10 again?

In this case, it'd be rated an 8-8.5 at most, since it's dated.

I'd be surprised if it even rated that high, but then again, the gameplay remains outstanding to this day.

Excellent analogy, though. At least you're talking about games.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Okay Jeremy, here's an analogy.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time got a 10 in IGN. Now, what if the exact same game was released yesterday on the PS2. Do you expect the game to be rated a 10 again?

In this case, it'd be rated an 8-8.5 at most, since it's dated.

Again, it wouldn't be fair to that GAME to rate it lower.

Why would you rate a game lower based on it's time release? That is ridiculous. You should rate the game based on it's merits, not based on another system it released on. The purpose of a review is to inform someone of their purchase. To someone looking to buy a game, they do not care about what it got on another system, simply because they are buying it to play it on their system.

If it released on something else, it should be irrelevant. If it's a RE-RELEASE on the same system, with little improvement (i.e. DMC3 Special Edition) I don't expect the same, or higher. However, to relase a game on an entirely different system, with NO relation to the other, and score it LOWER because it was already available, is unjust.

But, you guy's are set in your ways, whatever, apparently I'm more neutral, and you all think that if a game releases after another, it should score lower simply on that fact alone. Improvements aside, you think it should score lower...that's just silly, keep your beliefs, I'm done with this "debate". If you don't like my THOUGHTS then keep it to yourself, you basically are "siding" with eachother becuase you don't like me as a person, not because you disagree. Jedi has made that clear in his posts, and I'm positive you think the same Duck.

 

[Swift]

Story line, game play, replay value are all categories that stand the test of time. Graphics, physics, frame rates are all subjective to current gaming standards, IMO.

This is why old collections of games are constantly released on newer systems. Like, all the Zelda's on Gamecube or the latest Genesis collection for PS2/PSP.

Contrary to popular belief, graphics don't make a game. Controls, game play and replay value do. Look at games like Parrapa the Rapper. That had horrid graphics but was a huge success just because it played well. Same with most all of those rhythm based games. In fact, you can't even look at the graphics in most of those games because you're concentrating on th rhythm.

What Jeremy just posted is very valid. A release date for a game is irrelevant. I still play NBA street 2, Tony Hawk 3, SSX Tricky, Mario Kart DD, and even Daytona USA(dreamcast) on occasion. Why? Because it's fun. I know it's not running at 1080p and 60fps. But I don't care, I'm having a good time. Isn't that what gaming is about?

 

[FoolKiller]

This is why old collections of games are constantly released on newer systems. Like, all the Zelda's on Gamecube or the latest Genesis collection for PS2/PSP.

Contrary to popular belief, graphics don't make a game. Controls, game play and replay value do. Look at games like Parrapa the Rapper. That had horrid graphics but was a huge success just because it played well. Same with most all of those rhythm based games. In fact, you can't even look at the graphics in most of those games because you're concentrating on th rhythm.

What Jeremy just posted is very valid. A release date for a game is irrelevant. I still play NBA street 2, Tony Hawk 3, SSX Tricky, Mario Kart DD, and even Daytona USA(dreamcast) on occasion. Why? Because it's fun. I know it's not running at 1080p and 60fps. But I don't care, I'm having a good time. Isn't that what gaming is about?

Cue patriotic music! That nearly brought a tear to my eye.

👍 That's almost +rep worthy.

 

[DuckRacer]

Again, it wouldn't be fair to that GAME to rate it lower.

So you would rate OoT a 10 again if it was released on the PS2 yesterday when the N64 version has been out since 1998?

But, you guy's are set in your ways, whatever, apparently I'm more neutral, and you all think that if a game releases after another, it should score lower simply on that fact alone. Improvements aside, you think it should score lower...that's just silly, keep your beliefs, I'm done with this "debate". If you don't like my THOUGHTS then keep it to yourself, you basically are "siding" with eachother becuase you don't like me as a person, not because you disagree. Jedi has made that clear in his posts, and I'm positive you think the same Duck.

That's a load of 🤬, and you know it. I don't give a damn who you are in real life. You could be Santa Claus, or Peter Moore, or a 13-year-old pimple volcano, or a 19-year-old hardcore gamer. Or you could be a famous celebrity. Or George Bush. Or Kaz Hirai. But we don't care who you are personally because anyone on the internet can be faked. Stop acting immature. Jedi, Toronado, and I agree because you're reasoning is wrong, not because we have some kiddy personal grudge.

This is why old collections of games are constantly released on newer systems. Like, all the Zelda's on Gamecube or the latest Genesis collection for PS2/PSP.

Contrary to popular belief, graphics don't make a game. Controls, game play and replay value do. Look at games like Parrapa the Rapper. That had horrid graphics but was a huge success just because it played well. Same with most all of those rhythm based games. In fact, you can't even look at the graphics in most of those games because you're concentrating on th rhythm.

What Jeremy just posted is very valid. A release date for a game is irrelevant. I still play NBA street 2, Tony Hawk 3, SSX Tricky, Mario Kart DD, and even Daytona USA(dreamcast) on occasion. Why? Because it's fun. I know it's not running at 1080p and 60fps. But I don't care, I'm having a good time. Isn't that what gaming is about?

100% correct, and I totally agree. However, assuming you mostly agree with IGN's ratings like I do, would you rate Tony Hawk 3 (one of my favorite games by the way, Darth Maul FTW) a 9.8/10 again if they decided they wanted to release it on the X360 or PS3, with very few graphical improvements (so it'd look like total crap compared to even Project 8)? I'm not saying that these games aren't fun at all. I'm just asking if they deserve the same ratings if it was rereleased on next-gen consoles with very few, largely unnoticeable differences.

By the way, the only Zelda from older systems on the Gamecube was OoT (and you got it when you preordered Wind Waker, and it had the original game with a slightly higher res, and it had the same game but with the dungeon difficulty cranked up. And it got a 9.

 

[Jedi2016]

However, to relase a game on an entirely different system, with NO relation to the other, and score it LOWER because it was already available, is unjust.

You're missing the point. They're not scoring it "lower" because it was already released. They're scoring it based on how it stands against it's contemporaries, nothing more.

If the 360 version had been delayed until now, it would recieve the same "lower" score as the PS3 version, because it doesn't hold up well against it's contemporaries. The ONLY way to determine by score which version is "better" is when both versions are released day-and-date alongside each other.

Has it ever occurred to you that, all that aside, the PS3 version of FN3 might.. just might not be quite as good as the 360 version?

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Duck - Your example is retarded, and you should know better. I'm talking about a 10 month gap on two consoles of extremely similar power. You're trying to prove me wrong by using an example of a game that is a generation behind the console you'd wish to release it on. I'm talking 10 months, you're talking nearly 5 years. Huge different Duck, be intelligent here.

Jedi - What contemporaries? There is only Fight Night Round 3 on the 360 to base it on, and that is it. There are no other boxing games, let alone fighting games in the same league on PS3. What could they POSSIBLY compare it to, aside from the other version of FNR3, which has fewer features, and does not benefit from the visual improvements of the PS3 version?

I've played FNR3 on the PS2 for a year, bought a 360 so I could enjoy it on 360, play frequently on a co-workers PSP, and now I own it on PS3. And I can honestly say that the 360 and PS3 version PLAY the same, and the PS3 version looks SLIGHTLY better, with more features and tighter controls.

So, again, the lower score is unjust, and IGN again falls victim to being irresponsible with thier reviews. They need to tighten up and do their jobs. Soon they'll be as bad as the 1up crew.

 

[crooky369]

Duck - Your example is retarded, and you should know better. I'm talking about a 10 month gap on two consoles of extremely similar power. You're trying to prove me wrong by using an example of a game that is a generation behind the console you'd wish to release it on. I'm talking 10 months, you're talking nearly 5 years. Huge different Duck, be intelligent here.

Jedi - What contemporaries? There is only Fight Night Round 3 on the 360 to base it on, and that is it. There are no other boxing games, let alone fighting games in the same league on PS3. What could they POSSIBLY compare it to, aside from the other version of FNR3, which has fewer features, and does not benefit from the visual improvements of the PS3 version?

I've played FNR3 on the PS2 for a year, bought a 360 so I could enjoy it on 360, play frequently on a co-workers PSP, and now I own it on PS3. And I can honestly say that the 360 and PS3 version PLAY the same, and the PS3 version looks SLIGHTLY better, with more features and tighter controls.

So, again, the lower score is unjust, and IGN again falls victim to being irresponsible with thier reviews. They need to tighten up and do their jobs. Soon they'll be as bad as the 1up crew.

urm i think think your wrong

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-6.html

 

[TopHat]

No, the 360 does better in some of those games... only because the PS3 titles are ports from the 360. Wait a few months, the PS3 will have improved graphics. If only slightly more so than its competitors.