PS3 General Discussion

[Digital-Nitrate]

PlayStation 3 is "most pre-ordered console yet", says Play.com:

Online retailer Play.com is taking six times more pre-orders than it received for PlayStation 3 than Xbox 360 - and 15 times more than the Nintendo Wii.

It's not just Play which is seeing healthy pre-orders for PS3, according to Sony. A spokesperson told GI.biz, "With an unprecedented day one shipment of 1 million machines into Europe and a software catalogue of over 30 titles available at launch, retailer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

"Woolworths, Amazon and Play, to name a few, are reporting record breaking pre-orders and an overwhelming demand for PS3."

Looks like there will be a 3+ million PS3 install base in very short order.

 

[DuckRacer]

http://media.gameinformer.com/downloads/downloads2014/movies/2006/drake/gameinformer.mov

Guys, that's a "draggable photo" of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. It'll take a looong time to load, so be patient.

And it looks killer, though it needs some more anti-aliasing.

"Yes Duck, it look excellent. Thanks for posting it! Can't wait for this game. "

 

[Eric.]

PlayStation 3 is "most pre-ordered console yet", says Play.com:





Looks like there will be a 3+ million PS3 install base in very short order.

I think people are trying not to get killed on launch day when they wait in line.

 

[Vonie]

"Yes Duck, it look excellent. Thanks for posting it! Can't wait for this game. "

Awww...looks like nobody loves you.

But yes, it does look nice.

 

[Robin]

http://media.gameinformer.com/downloads/downloads2014/movies/2006/drake/gameinformer.mov

Guys, that's a "draggable photo" of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. It'll take a looong time to load, so be patient.

And it looks killer, though it needs some more anti-aliasing.

Hmm, I downloaded this aswell last night and personally I thought the graphics were shockingly horrible! I know its still early in development but to be honest it looked poor..... hopefully in motion it will look way better.....

Actually one game thats interesting me now is Rainbow Six Vegas..... it may be the only answer for now to gears of war (plays like it, reviewers say so), it looks very polished and alot of fun but I don't know if the PS3 version will be different to the 360..... better graphics?? (so far all ports look the same or worse than the 360 version), different content etc??

It still very worrying to me the most developers are making games for the 360 and then porting to PS3 without bothering to harness its slighty higher power! Is it really going to be like this for the next 10 years! Develop the easiest way! then you might aswell get a 360!

Yes first party will be different but how many of them are there compared to the tons of multiplatform ones... so far PS3 first party stuff hasnt exactly been mind blowing...

Robin

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

(so far all ports look the same or worse than the 360 version), different content etc??

Can you list all the ones that you know for a fact look worse than the XB360 version... and how many ports are there right now?

I can say that the only port I have seen so far in person was Fight Night Round 3. It was at a HD DVD vs Blu-ray shootout, and as one of the HD DVD players, two people brought their XB360's as well as some games. The person who brought the PS3 as one of the Blu-ray players also brought a few games including Fight Night Round 3, so after the shootout, they also set the two systems up for side by side comparisons of both versions, and everyone agreed, even the XB360 owners, that the PS3 version looked much better. On a 12080x720 display the differences may not be as noticeable, but even then everyone still agreed the PS3 looked better.

It still very worrying to me the most developers are making games for the 360 and then porting to PS3 without bothering to harness its slighty higher power! Is it really going to be like this for the next 10 years! Develop the easiest way! then you might aswell get a 360!

"most developers"? Again, please list them, and the games that you know for a fact are simple ports for the PS3 from the XB360 edition.

Yes first party will be different but how many of them are there compared to the tons of multiplatform ones... so far PS3 first party stuff hasnt exactly been mind blowing...

It's been how many months since the PS3 came out?

Seriously, you make a lot of claims that I don't think in reality bare out, but regardless, the PS3 hasn't even been released world wide yet, so I think its a tad premature to jump to any conclusions, especially making 10 year predictions based on a few short months.

As far as longevity, I'd be more concerned with buying or even owning an XB360 what with how quickly Microsoft abandoned the Xbox, and that the current XB360 lacks any digital and HDCP outputs, and no support for Dolby HD or DTS-HD, and can't support games on any HD optical media such that they are limited to only 7GB of game data. It also is currently supporting HD DVD for movie playback, which is quickly losing the limited support it has left.

Technologically speaking, the XB360 was outdated before it was even released, which doesn’t bode well for how long Microsoft plans on supporting it once developers and consumers realize how crippled it really is.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information that leads you to say that all ports looks the same or worse, and that most developers are only going to develop for the XB360 and port to PS3. However, if you read through this thread, and even some of the XB360 threads, there are several links and quotes directly from third party developers that have made it quite clear that they are developing games to take advantage of the performance capabilities and much larger disc capacity of the PS3.

 

[DuckRacer]

Actually one game thats interesting me now is Rainbow Six Vegas..... it may be the only answer for now to gears of war (plays like it, reviewers say so), it looks very polished and alot of fun but I don't know if the PS3 version will be different to the 360..... better graphics?? (so far all ports look the same or worse than the 360 version), different content etc??

The only thing GoW and RSV have in common are its cover systems. And that's about it.

But still, you should buy it when it comes out. It's not a Gears alternative, but it's a very fun game nonetheless.

As for the better graphics part, I seriously doubt it.

It still very worrying to me the most developers are making games for the 360 and then porting to PS3 without bothering to harness its slighty higher power! Is it really going to be like this for the next 10 years! Develop the easiest way! then you might aswell get a 360!

First, the PS3 has only been out for 3 months. Give it time. Not to mention it's hard to develop for anyway.

And developers aren't going to be actively developing for the PS3 in 10 years from now. When Philly Cheesestake (Harrison) said it'd last for 10 years, he meant that the PS3 would be supported for 10 years (they'd still make controllers, have customer service, etc).

Can you list all the ones that you know for a fact look worse than the XB360 version... and how many ports are there right now?

Umm, you're kidding me, right? Practically every multiplatform launch game was worse on the PS3.

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

Not to mention games like Call of Duty 3 and Tony Hawk P8 lack features available in the 360 version...

It's pretty much lazy developing on EA's part mostly, but Activision takes some blame too.

I can say that the only port I have seen so far in person was Fight Night Round 3. It was at a HD DVD vs Blu-ray shootout, and as one of the HD DVD players, two people brought their XB360's as well as some games. The person who brought the PS3 as one of the Blu-ray players also brought a few games including Fight Night Round 3, so after the shootout, they also set the two systems up for side by side comparisons of both versions, and everyone agreed, even the XB360 owners, that the PS3 version looked much better. On a 12080x720 display the differences may not be as noticeable, but even then everyone still agreed the PS3 looked better.

True, but FNR3 had an extra 10 months of dev time to make those improvements. I'm actually disappointed it didn't look better. Some of the crowds in certain arenas look like they came from Gran Turismo 2.

As far as longevity, I'd be more concerned with buying or even owning an XB360 what with how quickly Microsoft abandoned the Xbox, and that the current XB360 lacks any digital and HDCP outputs, and no support for Dolby HD or DTS-HD, and can't support games on any HD optical media such that they are limited to only 7GB of game data. It also is currently supporting HD DVD for movie playback, which is quickly losing the limited support it has left.

With the HDCP and the DRM issues and all, when that crap will come into play, we'll already be on the X720.

And quite honestly, supporting HD-DVD doesn't hurt it all that much. Sure, it's going to lose, but MS isn't forcing it onto everyone. And the people that are buying it know the risks perfectly well. And MS has said if Blu-ray wins they'd probably make an add-on for it.

And what's so good about Dolby HD/DTS-HD? Is it just the 7.1 surround capability? Lossless uncompressed sound? If so, I doubt many people will actually take advantage of it for it to make the 360 seem outdated.

Technologically speaking, the XB360 was outdated before it was even released, which doesn’t bode well for how long Microsoft plans on supporting it once developers and consumers realize how crippled it really is.

The only thing that really cripples it is its choice in storage medium. Oh, and the Nyko Intercooler.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information that leads you to say that all ports looks the same or worse, and that most developers are only going to develop for the XB360 and port to PS3. However, if you read through this thread, and even some of the XB360 threads, there are several links and quotes directly from third party developers that have made it quite clear that they are developing games to take advantage of the performance capabilities and much larger disc capacity of the PS3.

Most developers will probably be developing on the 360 and porting it to the PS3 for the next several months. However, around fall everyone will have their act together and do things the other way around.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Just a note:

Burnout 5 is being developed on PS3, and ported to 360.

Madden, FNR3, Oblivion, and Tiger Woods look better on PS3. Don't believe me? Look for yourself, but honestly, don't take Gamespots word for it. Their journalistic ability is so far below "sub par" at this point, it's not even worth debating.

Their setups were not calibrated correctly for either system, they just kept the same settings for both, a huge no no, as each has different output levels, and must be properly calibrated in order to be vewied properly. The contrast issues, "bloom" issues, they all disappear when you properly calibrate your TV (as you should do with any piece of AV equipment).

But, naturally, GS is a bunch of tools, and they wouldn't tell anyone that.

Point blank, Madden has higher res textures for jersey's, but longer load times. Fight Night had extremely better textures for skin, muscles, etc, and the detail is higher. Tiger woods is significantly more subtle, in that there are slightly more spectators, and the trees have more leaves etc, they're just "fuller".

Oblivion, though, shouldn't last long once the expansion is out with the new shaders.

Other than that, Def Jam and NBA Street both look and run the same, check out the comparison trailers on GameTrailers.com

 

[LaBounti]

And what's so good about Dolby HD/DTS-HD? Is it just the 7.1 surround capability? Lossless uncompressed sound? If so, I doubt many people will actually take advantage of it for it to make the 360 seem outdated.

There was a blog on IGN from a person that actually experienced 7.1. not just looking at it on paper and saying its not a big deal. He said Resistance's 7.1 support really added that 4th dimension and that he could tell right away the difference. On top of that the uncompressed audio was noticeable compared to the standard audio. You can thank the Cell(audio processing) plus Blu-Ray(storage medium) for the capability. Plus taking advantage of it is beside the point. Its there for when they are ready for it.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Umm, you're kidding me, right?

No. And you already agreed that FNR3 looks better on the PS3, so just in that case alone, not "ALL" multiplatform games are the same or worse. And while I have not compared any other cross platform game, if what Jeremy Ricci says is true, there is even more examples where the PS3 version is in fact better. The point though was to address the obvious exaggeration from Robin based on a VERY small group of games.

It's pretty much lazy developing on EA's part mostly, but Activision takes some blame too.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I have no idea how EA and Activision developed these games.

True, but FNR3 had an extra 10 months of dev time to make those improvements.

Only if you assume they were actually developing it for those extra ten months. Regardless, there is no doubt it looks better than the XB360 version, which is the point that needed to be made as Robin made a matter of fact statement that no PS3 versions were better. This is obviously not true.

With the HDCP and the DRM issues and all, when that crap will come into play, we'll already be on the X720.

Debatable, but then again, if MS drops the XB360 as fast as it did the Xbox, especially considering its deficiencies, then maybe you are right... in that in the near future a new XB will be released.

And quite honestly, supporting HD-DVD doesn't hurt it all that much. Sure, it's going to lose, but MS isn't forcing it onto everyone. And the people that are buying it know the risks perfectly well. And MS has said if Blu-ray wins they'd probably make an add-on for it.

It's not just about watching movies, its about supporting larger games. Much in the same way that the PS2 expanded game capacity by supporting games on DVD as well as CD. Microsoft decided to stick with DVD, which is already ten years old, and developers are already maxing out its capacity. That is not what I call forward thinking on Microsoft's part.. if anything it is backwards thinking considering the demand for HD content.

The PS3 already has at least one game (RFOM) that is more than twice as large as any XB360 game, and if what some developers are saying is true, we will soon see several games three to five times larger. And I don't see any evidence that developers for the XB360 will try and match that with multi-disc releases.

And what's so good about Dolby HD/DTS-HD? Is it just the 7.1 surround capability? Lossless uncompressed sound? If so, I doubt many people will actually take advantage of it for it to make the 360 seem outdated.

Well considering only a few weeks ago you also seemed to underestimate the benefits and demand for 1080p displays over 720p displays, then I can understand why you also underestimate the benefits and demand for HD audio. Spend some time in any of the home theater forums and you'll very quickly see there is a huge demand for HD audio, many of whom bought the PS3 because of it... and there are some very good reasons why there is demand for it, just as there is for 1080p displays.

The only thing that really cripples it is its choice in storage medium. Oh, and the Nyko Intercooler.

It is crippled by:

• Having only 1/7th the capacity per disc than the PS3 (which is especially noteworthy considering that developers have already been pushing the capacity of DVD for a while now).
• No HD audio support (once you listen to lossless multi-channel audio you'll never want to listen to anything else).
• Only having analog outputs (which is frankly unforgivable considering the XB360 is a digital device, the low cost of DVI & HDMI, and that DVI & HDMI have been the norm for some time now, and that the vast majority of TVs sold are digital displays - seriously, what on earth was Microsoft thinking when they decided to only output an analog signal???).
• No HDCP support. Yes, it isn't a big deal now, but considering how touchy the video content distributors are getting lately due to an ever increasing problem from piracy, it would be unwise to underestimate the possibility that this could become a big problem for the XB360.

It is in fact crippled because to add any or all of these features that in some cases have been used and demanded by consumers now for some time would require releasing a new version of the XB360, leaving the close to 10 million current XB360 owners left out in the cold. Certainly if they want to have access to the bigger games at higher native resolutions, and better audio and video quality.

 

[Robin]

Before I respond to everything... I would like to say that im actually a big sony fan and that the only reason why I am probably sounding like a 360 fanboy slagging it off it that I am quite disappointed with the console at the moment... sure its an amazing piece of kit but there has been quite alot of muck ups in this launch and I see along road ahead before something amazing happens to bring it into the limelight. Like for example Killzone not showing at GDC... quite a big dent in the console!

Can you list all the ones that you know for a fact look worse than the XB360 version... and how many ports are there right now?

I refer you to this post made by Duck... most of the original PS3 launch games ended up looking worse than the 360 version!

Umm, you're kidding me, right? Practically every multiplatform launch game was worse on the PS3.

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

I can say that the only port I have seen so far in person was Fight Night Round 3. It was at a HD DVD vs Blu-ray shootout, and as one of the HD DVD players, two people brought their XB360's as well as some games. The person who brought the PS3 as one of the Blu-ray players also brought a few games including Fight Night Round 3, so after the shootout, they also set the two systems up for side by side comparisons of both versions, and everyone agreed, even the XB360 owners, that the PS3 version looked much better. On a 12080x720 display the differences may not be as noticeable, but even then everyone still agreed the PS3 looked better.

Not everyone... Gamespot for sure didnt, I personally havent seen it but they are a gaming review website.

Quoted for Gamespot...

"Fight Night Round 3 was one of the first games to really show off the Xbox 360's graphics power with fantastic lighting and incredibly detailed player models. The PS3 still has great looking player models but the crowds are less detailed and the lighting effects are definitely inferior. If the graphical losses weren't enough, the PlayStation 3 version takes almost twice as long as its 360 counterpart to load into the menu screen, and a third longer to load a quickplay."

"most developers"? Again, please list them, and the games that you know for a fact are simple ports for the PS3 from the XB360 edition.

Well for a start alot of EA stuff, Madden, Fight Night, NFS Carbon are all ports. Activision's COD3 & Tony Hawks P8 same again. Then there are countless other games scheduled for multi platform released primarily been developed on the 360 first.

It's been how many months since the PS3 came out?

How many years has it been in development when they had time to sort these things out?... they started work on it like a month after the PS2 launch.

Seriously, you make a lot of claims that I don't think in reality bare out, but regardless, the PS3 hasn't even been released world wide yet, so I think its a tad premature to jump to any conclusions, especially making 10 year predictions based on a few short months.

I said is it going to be like this for 10 years as a rhetorical question, it wasnt meant to be a solid prediction. I haven't claimed anything, its based on what I have so far seen. Whatever happens I am definitely going for a PS3.

As far as longevity, I'd be more concerned with buying or even owning an XB360 what with how quickly Microsoft abandoned the Xbox, and that the current XB360 lacks any digital and HDCP outputs, and no support for Dolby HD or DTS-HD, and can't support games on any HD optical media such that they are limited to only 7GB of game data. It also is currently supporting HD DVD for movie playback, which is quickly losing the limited support it has left.

Xbox are working on an Xbox 360-2 as it where because now they realize they have to up their game, I think they are adding a HDMI port, built in HDDVD and a larger HDD... bit of a mess up in my mind and the people who have already bought them will probably be slightly annoyed.

Technologically speaking, the XB360 was outdated before it was even released, which doesn’t bode well for how long Microsoft plans on supporting it once developers and consumers realize how crippled it really is.

I agree the launch was rushed and its not quite up to par but its odd that they didnt really receive as much slagging off (about the games or hardware) when they launched whereas sony has seemed to have taken the brunt of the media mockery, I dont get why that is...

I'm not sure where you are getting your information that leads you to say that all ports looks the same or worse, and that most developers are only going to develop for the XB360 and port to PS3. However, if you read through this thread, and even some of the XB360 threads, there are several links and quotes directly from third party developers that have made it quite clear that they are developing games to take advantage of the performance capabilities and much larger disc capacity of the PS3.

So far most (not all) of the multi platform games I have seen are ports from a 360 developed version and suffer abit of graphical problems on PS3 hardware due to harder coding. I would love to see more developers doing it the other way and develop for PS3 but currently they are reading the media and going where (in thier eyes) the money and market is... which Xbox (at least outside of Japan) is managing to hold, alot of people are put of buy the PS3's price. Just look at the amount of 360 exclusives.

The only thing GoW and RSV have in common are its cover systems. And that's about it.

But still, you should buy it when it comes out. It's not a Gears alternative, but it's a very fun game nonetheless.

I agree, I know its by far and away not a gears of war clone but Im buying it because it looks really neat and I like the idea of controlling a team. It just has a slight GOW essence in, as you said, the cover system. Will hopefully give me my fix till Killzone.

As for the better graphics part, I seriously doubt it.

Again, wheres the developers saying we are going to hardness the full power of the PS3... when is this happening exactly!

First, the PS3 has only been out for 3 months. Give it time. Not to mention it's hard to develop for anyway.

I can wait, its the people who don't have any console allegiance that wont, they will think, xbox 360, cheaper, more games, its all next gen...... and BUY! How many sales can sony loose!

And developers aren't going to be actively developing for the PS3 in 10 years from now. When Philly Cheesestake (Harrison) said it'd last for 10 years, he meant that the PS3 would be supported for 10 years (they'd still make controllers, have customer service, etc).

They better get a move on then!

Not to mention games like Call of Duty 3 and Tony Hawk P8 lack features available in the 360 version...

It's pretty much lazy developing on EA's part mostly, but Activision takes some blame too.

Exactly! Why does this keep happening, 360 gets downloadable content, extra features etc etc... PS3 gets a port and squat else! WHY! I hear this all the time on shows like On The Spot..... "oh we will have some cool stuff for the 360 but nothing extra as of yet is planned for the ps3 version"

Most developers will probably be developing on the 360 and porting it to the PS3 for the next several months. However, around fall everyone will have their act together and do things the other way around.

I really do hope so!

Just a note:

Burnout 5 is being developed on PS3, and ported to 360.

Finally something thats going the other way!

Madden, FNR3, Oblivion, and Tiger Woods look better on PS3. Don't believe me? Look for yourself, but honestly, don't take Gamespots word for it. Their journalistic ability is so far below "sub par" at this point, it's not even worth debating.

Ok I do agree that gaming website can twist stuff and be bias and I will make my own judgment when the see the stuff here at UK launch.


Robin

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Let's be honest. Can you really say the 360 one "looks" better? Absolutely not.

 

[LaBounti]

IMO PS3 has much better games now than PS2 had when it came out. I dont see whats to be so disappointed about. The games are good enough and the launch titles aren't bad. I own just 3 games and I'm happy with em since i dont burn through games. I like to play games, not just beat em.

 

[G.T]

The audience in the PS3 shot is awful. It looks worse than the cardboard cut-outs in GT4.

But yes - the character models look better on PS3.

 

[DuckRacer]

No. And you already agreed that FNR3 looks better on the PS3, so just in that case alone, not "ALL" multiplatform games are the same or worse. And while I have not compared any other cross platform game, if what Jeremy Ricci says is true, there is even more examples where the PS3 version is in fact better. The point though was to address the obvious exaggeration from Robin based on a VERY small group of games.

Okay, I agree then.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I have no idea how EA and Activision developed these games.

They probably rushed the games to make it in time for the launch.

Debatable, but then again, if MS drops the XB360 as fast as it did the Xbox, especially considering its deficiencies, then maybe you are right... in that in the near future a new XB will be released.

...And that's what makes me say that, unfortunately.

It's not just about watching movies, its about supporting larger games. Much in the same way that the PS2 expanded game capacity by supporting games on DVD as well as CD. Microsoft decided to stick with DVD, which is already ten years old, and developers are already maxing out its capacity. That is not what I call forward thinking on Microsoft's part.. if anything it is backwards thinking considering the demand for HD content.

Well, they did want to get the 360 out before everything else, and because of that they had to choose DVD. And quite honestly, if they chose HD-DVD, the price would be about the same as the PS3 and of course they'd have a losing format that could go against them. What would you buy for the same price, a PS3 with the winning format or a 360 with a losing format?

Well considering only a few weeks ago you also seemed to underestimate the benefits and demand for 1080p displays over 720p displays, then I can understand why you also underestimate the benefits and demand for HD audio. Spend some time in any of the home theater forums and you'll very quickly see there is a huge demand for HD audio, many of whom bought the PS3 because of it... and there are some very good reasons why there is demand for it, just as there is for 1080p displays.

Alright.

Before I respond to everything... I would like to say that im actually a big sony fan and that the only reason why I am probably sounding like a 360 fanboy slagging it off it that I am quite disappointed with the console at the moment... sure its an amazing piece of kit but there has been quite alot of muck ups in this launch and I see along road ahead before something amazing happens to bring it into the limelight. Like for example Killzone not showing at GDC... quite a big dent in the console!

Why is not showing Killzone at GDC a major blunder? They'll show it when they're ready, they don't want everyone and their cat making comparisons between the E3 2005 trailer and real time shots that may be cruddy.

And if you're disappointed in the system so bad, buy a 360 now and save yourself £150, and have fun now. Just don't complain when MS drops the sucker less than 3 or 4 years from now.



I refer you to this post made by Duck... most of the original PS3 launch games ended up looking worse than the 360 version!

Not everyone... Gamespot for sure didnt, I personally havent seen it but they are a gaming review website.

Quoted for Gamespot...

"Fight Night Round 3 was one of the first games to really show off the Xbox 360's graphics power with fantastic lighting and incredibly detailed player models. The PS3 still has great looking player models but the crowds are less detailed and the lighting effects are definitely inferior. If the graphical losses weren't enough, the PlayStation 3 version takes almost twice as long as its 360 counterpart to load into the menu screen, and a third longer to load a quickplay."

And I agree with GameSpot on everything except the lighting. In some arenas, I prefer the 360's lighting. Others I prefer the PS3's lighting. And I know some will disagree, but I prefer the motion blur in the 360 version. Makes it seem more... refined. Plus there's no framerate drops.

Nonetheless, you're looking at the character models the most of the time you're playing.

How many years has it been in development when they had time to sort these things out?... they started work on it like a month after the PS2 launch.

You can't blame Sony for 3rd party blunders.

Xbox are working on an Xbox 360-2 as it where because now they realize they have to up their game, I think they are adding a HDMI port, built in HDDVD and a larger HDD... bit of a mess up in my mind and the people who have already bought them will probably be slightly annoyed.

MS would be retarded to add in HD-DVD, unless they made it a third model (or the "premium" system would replace the "core" system) that retailed for $500 or something.

I agree the launch was rushed and its not quite up to par but its odd that they didnt really receive as much slagging off (about the games or hardware) when they launched whereas sony has seemed to have taken the brunt of the media mockery, I dont get why that is...

Because people want to see someone else challenge them. Dunno why.

So far most (not all) of the multi platform games I have seen are ports from a 360 developed version and suffer abit of graphical problems on PS3 hardware due to harder coding. I would love to see more developers doing it the other way and develop for PS3 but currently they are reading the media and going where (in thier eyes) the money and market is... which Xbox (at least outside of Japan) is managing to hold, alot of people are put of buy the PS3's price. Just look at the amount of 360 exclusives.

The 360 has "a lot" of exclusives because they've had a year long headstart.

Again, wheres the developers saying we are going to hardness the full power of the PS3... when is this happening exactly!

Never. No one harnesses the full power of any game console. however, you could argue that Resistance showcased some of its power.

I can wait, its the people who don't have any console allegiance that wont, they will think, xbox 360, cheaper, more games, its all next gen...... and BUY! How many sales can sony loose!

Not many. If people really wanted a 360, they would have one by now. Everyone has waited this long for a PS3, they're not going to be suddenly persuaded to buy one of the competition.

Exactly! Why does this keep happening, 360 gets downloadable content, extra features etc etc... PS3 gets a port and squat else! WHY! I hear this all the time on shows like On The Spot..... "oh we will have some cool stuff for the 360 but nothing extra as of yet is planned for the ps3 version"

To be honest, that's one of the things that irks me. You have to have a 360 to get all the goods.

 

[Robin]

Why is not showing Killzone at GDC a major blunder? They'll show it when they're ready, they don't want everyone and their cat making comparisons between the E3 2005 trailer and real time shots that may be cruddy.

The longer they leave it not showing any progress the more people are going to laugh at them like MS..... I mean all we ever had was a pre rendered video clip was was amazing..... then boom 2 years of silence, people like to be fed new bits of info... look at Gran Turismo, at least we get an update on their progress now and then. They really do have to show something! Gears of War for example didnt take that long to produce, they showed early shots which people thought looked okish but now look at how well its done. Killzone could come out of this silence with the end product and still be rubbish which would lead to even more mockery that they kept it silent (especially after all the hype).....

With Halo 3 for example MS have at least showed something which is real time and in game... Something maybe Killzone should have done so that if it looked bad we could be pleasantly surprised when it comes out but with the E3 trailer they set themselves a high starting benchmark.

And if you're disappointed in the system so bad, buy a 360 now and save yourself £150, and have fun now. Just don't complain when MS drops the sucker less than 3 or 4 years from now.

I would never buy a 360... I will always stick with Sony and Playstation.

You can't blame Sony for 3rd party blunders.

Oh yes I can because Sony provide the Dev Kits, Sony teach them how to code for it... Sony gives them all of the know how, if after all that its hard and complex then it is Sony's fault for not making it easier. Yes Developers can be slightly to blame for like their ability and maybe lazyness but its all on Sony to make games work well on their system.

MS would be retarded to add in HD-DVD, unless they made it a third model (or the "premium" system would replace the "core" system) that retailed for $500 or something.

Its almost certain that a new 360 is comming soon, its been spied all over the net, there are even afew videos on you tube of the prototype... The HDMI port and bigger hard drive are almost certain... the HDDVD built in is still uncertain. Im sure this will be the new replacement for the Premium System.

The 360 has "a lot" of exclusives because they've had a year long headstart.

True, but I think they have bought alot of exclusivity aswell... I think something which Sony needs to do more on.

Not many. If people really wanted a 360, they would have one by now. Everyone has waited this long for a PS3, they're not going to be suddenly persuaded to buy one of the competition.

You never know, people are still undecided like in the UK for example where they havent seen the PS3 yet. The average Joe may just go for the system thats cheaper after seeing the PS3 and thinking that theres nothing special.

To be honest, that's one of the things that irks me. You have to have a 360 to get all the goods.

I know its a pity, Its MS again controlling the market.

Robin

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Duck, nice comments, and I think we are much closer to being on the same page. Just a couple additional thoughts though:

Well, they did want to get the 360 out before everything else, and because of that they had to choose DVD. And quite honestly, if they chose HD-DVD, the price would be about the same as the PS3 and of course they'd have a losing format that could go against them. What would you buy for the same price, a PS3 with the winning format or a 360 with a losing format?

Quite true, and because of their need to release it before the PS3 it really has put them in a very tough spot. Although they could have at least released it with HDMI and a better DVD drive and cooling system without having to delay the release. Doing so would have at least given the current install base of nearly 10 million XB360 a significantly better console.

Instead Microsoft has already been tweaking their XB360 with some recent builds making up for some of these deficiencies. Including an improved DVD drive and fan, and if rumors are true, they will now be releasing a new version of the XB360 based on their zephyr prototype. Unfortunately, in order to benefit from all of these improved features the current 10 million install user base will have to buy a new XB360.

So basically, while Microsoft can, and will likely keep calling all of these new editions XB360's, they are effectively a new console as the older versions cannot be upgraded with the same hardware as the newer ones. This is undoubtedly going to cause a great deal of dissention between Microsoft and many of their loyal customers.

This will become a real problem for Microsoft if and when the time comes where they are forced to release a new version of the XB360 with a blue laser drive for games to match the PS3 for game capacity. If that were to happen, it would mean that owners of the current XB360 models would not only be without any of the hardware enhancements, but now they also wont be able to play the higher capacity games, and be left with lower resolution trimmed down versions.

On the other hand, if Microsoft doesn't release a new edition of the XB360 with a blue laser drive for games, they are going to rather quickly lose their lead in the nextgen console war as developers are already taking advantage of PS3's significantly greater capacity for game data, higher resolutions, and much better audio. The more games that come out showcasing this difference, the more gamers are going to turn against the XB360.

Basically Microsoft has put themselves in a position between a rock and a hard place and will be damned if they do release better XB360's, and damned if they don't.

And if you're disappointed in the system so bad, buy a 360 now and save yourself £150, and have fun now. Just don't complain when MS drops the sucker less than 3 or 4 years from now.

And don't complain each time Microsoft releases new hardware enhancements such that to be able to enjoy them you'll have to keep buying newer XB360's.

And I agree with GameSpot on everything except the lighting. In some arenas, I prefer the 360's lighting. Others I prefer the PS3's lighting. And I know some will disagree, but I prefer the motion blur in the 360 version. Makes it seem more... refined. Plus there's no framerate drops.

Despite not liking the game, I can say quite confidently that the PS3 version looks much nicer, has a great deal more detail resolution of the individual fighters, and much richer colors and gamma acuity. Even the diehard XB360 owners at the shootout were quite disappointed on how much better the PS3 version looked.

As for motion blur as being refined... I do find it rather bizarre that a undesirable artifact like motion blur, which occurs due to the limitations of equipment and the abilities of a cinematographer and that the film industry is constantly trying to improve both equipment and technique to prevent motion blur... yet some how gamers have it in their heads that motion blur is a good thing. I suspect it comes from the fact that early on motion blur was used in games to hide the lower resolution and frame rates of early or poorly developed games, and now it has somehow become something gamers expect and want. I can tell you from conversations with actual cinematographers, they find it all terribly perplexing.

Never. No one harnesses the full power of any game console. however, you could argue that Resistance showcased some of its power.

From some of what I've read it sounds like MGS4 is going to really utilize a great deal of what the PS3 has to offer. Although my real hope is that GT5 and Ace Combat will push the envelope!

 

[FoolKiller]

Instead Microsoft has already been tweaking their XB360 with some recent builds making up for some of these deficiencies. Including an improved DVD drive and fan, and if rumors are true, they will now be releasing a new version of the XB360 based on their zephyr prototype. Unfortunately, in order to benefit from all of these improved features the current 10 million install user base will have to buy a new XB360.

So basically, while Microsoft can, and will likely keep calling all of these new editions XB360's, they are effectively a new console as the older versions cannot be upgraded with the same hardware as the newer ones. This is undoubtedly going to cause a great deal of dissention between Microsoft and many of their loyal customers.

And I thought the gaming division was separate from the PC divisions. Sounds like the same stuff, different system.

This will become a real problem for Microsoft if and when the time comes where they are forced to release a new version of the XB360 with a blue laser drive for games to match the PS3 for game capacity. If that were to happen, it would mean that owners of the current XB360 models would not only be without any of the hardware enhancements, but now they also wont be able to play the higher capacity games, and be left with lower resolution trimmed down versions.

On the other hand, if Microsoft doesn't release a new edition of the XB360 with a blue laser drive for games, they are going to rather quickly lose their lead in the nextgen console war as developers are already taking advantage of PS3's significantly greater capacity for game data, higher resolutions, and much better audio. The more games that come out showcasing this difference, the more gamers are going to turn against the XB360.

Basically Microsoft has put themselves in a position between a rock and a hard place and will be damned if they do release better XB360's, and damned if they don't.

I honestly believe the mentality at Microsoft is so conceited that they are sure everyone will just cough up the cash for their new and improved system(s). And then enough people will probably buy into it to keep them alive.

As for motion blur as being refined... I do find it rather bizarre that a undesirable artifact like motion blur, which occurs due to the limitations of equipment and the abilities of a cinematographer and that the film industry is constantly trying to improve both equipment and technique to prevent motion blur... yet some how gamers have it in their heads that motion blur is a good thing. I suspect it comes from the fact that early on motion blur was used in games to hide the lower resolution and frame rates of early or poorly developed games, and now it has somehow become something gamers expect and want. I can tell you from conversations with actual cinematographers, they find it all terribly perplexing.

In CGI you are trying to recreate as realistic an image as possible. Wave your hand in front of your face, it appears to blur. Any blur on film/cameras is additional to natural blur, thus increasing the blur and lowering quality. Most commonly this is/was a problem in sports as natural motion blur meant lower quality slow motion.

So, to a cinematographer he would be perplexed at someone talking about adding motion blur because from his perspective he needs to remove it, but to a CGI artist he needs to add it. They both want the same quality image but have to come at it from different angles.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

The longer they leave it not showing any progress the more people are going to laugh at them like MS..... I mean all we ever had was a pre rendered video clip was was amazing..... then boom 2 years of silence, people like to be fed new bits of info... look at Gran Turismo, at least we get an update on their progress now and then. They really do have to show something! Gears of War for example didnt take that long to produce, they showed early shots which people thought looked okish but now look at how well its done. Killzone could come out of this silence with the end product and still be rubbish which would lead to even more mockery that they kept it silent (especially after all the hype).....

Just to put it out there, but the "first shots" of Gears of War were all rendered without normal maps (extremely high poly counts) and extremely high res textures, they looked MUCH better than the final product.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

True, but I think they have bought alot of exclusivity aswell... I think something which Sony needs to do more on.

Last I heard there was close to 100 exclusive PS3 titles announced for the PS3 so far, several of which are top selling franchises. I suspect by Christmas there will be even more exclusive titles announced.

In CGI you are trying to recreate as realistic an image as possible. Wave your hand in front of your face, it appears to blur. Any blur on film/cameras is additional to natural blur, thus increasing the blur and lowering quality. Most commonly this is/was a problem in sports as natural motion blur meant lower quality slow motion.

So, to a cinematographer he would be perplexed at someone talking about adding motion blur because from his perspective he needs to remove it, but to a CGI artist he needs to add it. They both want the same quality image but have to come at it from different angles.

Very interesting take. The problem I have though is that the CGI motion blur is replicating film/video, not real life. In real life the images no matter how fast they are moving are not blurred, it is only what is not being focused on that is blurred, especially when it is moving. If you focus on your hand, even moving quickly it is still in focus.

The point though is that when watching images from a game, shouldn't they be as clean and as high a resolution as possible as they would be in real life, and let any motion blur occur from the player watching the screen? Faking motion blur only lowers the quality of the image and makes it like you are just watching the game via a poor TV broadcast rather than actually being "in the game". I understand that is not possible with consoles and games that do not support 1080p/60, but those that do I would think should not use motion blur.

 

[LaBounti]

Sony never banks on one title for their system's overall success, thats why they dont feed us news about Killzone, The Getaway or any of their PSN downloadable games. Killzone is not the end all be all title. We havent heard much about the Getaway and I'm looking forward to that. PS3 has a strong future a head of it and the evolution of PSN will shine with time. God of War had little to no hype from Sony GoW2 the same. Its the media who hypes these games. Killzone is not being mention at all in any of Sony upcoming software plans much like The Getaway.

Example, Konami hypes the crap out of MGS4, by presenting these trailers every 6 months or so well befor its release. Sony on the other hand does nothing for Killzone, the only hype it has is people waiting to see how much it doesnt look like the E32005 trailer. After that it will be compared to Gears of War.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

I think (hope?) Sony learned their lesson with Killzone 1 - It was hyped to no end and was the suck.

 

[Jedi2016]

I think (hope?) Sony learned their lesson with Killzone 1 - It was hyped to no end and was the suck.

That's what LaBounti is talking about. It wasn't Sony that was hyping the game, it was the media. The media and the fans were the ones who started throwing around the "Halo killer" tagline. The game got hyped up to such a huge amount that it never could have met the expectations. But it wasn't Sony that was doing the hyping.

Sadly, the same thing is already happening with KZ2. No thanks to that video they showed at E3 '05, I'm sure. It'll be hyped up to no end, and at the end of the day, it'll be a very pretty-looking, but overall average, FPS, just like the first game was.

 

[Earth]

Sadly, the same thing is already happening with KZ2. No thanks to that video they showed at E3 '05, I'm sure. It'll be hyped up to no end, and at the end of the day, it'll be a very pretty-looking, but overall average, FPS, just like the first game was.

Are you setting your expectations low? Smart move. I would think so considering we have seen or heard pretty much 0 about the REAL Killzone 2.

It doesnt matter to me, though. Whether Killzone 2 is great or not shouldnt matter to PS3 fans. It's not like Halo, which is the only good franchise on the Xbox 360. If Killzone 2 fails there will always be Resistance Fall of Man or some other great series/game like GT or Final Fantasy to take it's place.

Once again the hopes and expectations of PS3 gamers is not all on Killzone 2. Things are different on the Microsoft side. If Halo 3 were to turn out 'average' it would be a big blow to Xbox 360. An average Killzone 2 wouldnt hurt PS3.

 

[FoolKiller]

Very interesting take. The problem I have though is that the CGI motion blur is replicating film/video, not real life. In real life the images no matter how fast they are moving are not blurred, it is only what is not being focused on that is blurred, especially when it is moving. If you focus on your hand, even moving quickly it is still in focus.

Which is why in a racing game the goal for motion blur should be to blur the peripheral images, because in real life at over 100mph you aren't going to realistically focus on anything to the side of the road well enough to remove blur. Unfortunately many developers think it looks cooler if it looks like Fast and the Furious.

The point though is that when watching images from a game, shouldn't they be as clean and as high a resolution as possible as they would be in real life, and let any motion blur occur from the player watching the screen? Faking motion blur only lowers the quality of the image and makes it like you are just watching the game via a poor TV broadcast rather than actually being "in the game". I understand that is not possible with consoles and games that do not support 1080p/60, but those that do I would think should not use motion blur.

Games also have unrealistic camera angles and whatnot so that when they do add motion blur it occasionally doesn't make sense. Properly using it to create a tunnel vision effect in a driving/racing game is realistic due to speed. However, using it in a sports title or fighting title has a limited use, as you point out. A running football player appears to not be blurred when I focus on him and follow him down field, which the camera in the game is doing. However, if you have a punching fist appear to blur while everything stays on a wide focus shot of both fighters it would be realistic. If you have a replay that zooms in on the blurring fist, then it becomes more like a bad TV signal because you have now focused on the fist.

Basically, it has a proper place and is sometimes overused or used poorly for effect in hopes of creating the "cool" factor. It's like any other aspect of a game. It is good when properly used, but bad when not. How it affects the game overall is up to the individual player.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

The problem with fight night and motion blur is that the parry window is smaller than the blur allows for you to react on the action.

The only way to react to a punch with a follow up parry in fight night (360) is to either anticipate the first punch, or get hit with a punch and anticipate and react to the second. But complete "reaction" does not work as well on the 360 as can be accomplished on the PS3.

I'm kind of a nit picker when it comes to fighting games though....


PS: VF5 is very fun, but ONLY if you have a friend who will play with you. Playing by yourself will probably get boring quickly.

 

[Touring Mars]

Can someone tell me whether or not the DFP still works with force feedback in GT4 when played on a PS3???

If it does, I'll probably get rid of my trusty old PS2, but if it doesn't, then I'll have to keep it...

 

[DuckRacer]

Can someone tell me whether or not the DFP still works with force feedback in GT4 when played on a PS3???

If it does, I'll probably get rid of my trusty old PS2, but if it doesn't, then I'll have to keep it...

I think it still works, but without FFB.

 

[Touring Mars]

Without FFB???

 

[DuckRacer]

Without FFB???

Unfortunately, yes.