Metal Gear Solid 4 (No spoilers)

[Waffuru]

The blue laser is actually a shorter wavelength which also more data to be stored in the same amount of space.

[/nerd]

[Sage]

I had hoped that was obvious, Waff. I had known that years before the PS3 came out and just figured everyone knew. I guess not.

As far as all the wanton fanboyism goes, since the PS3 hasn't seemed able to competently unleash it's potential, most multi-platform games actually look better on the X360. Especially high demand games like Fallout 3, for instance. This is not opinion or up for debate. This is proven fact.

There are more exclusives to X360 than there are for PS3 as well, and there are fewer complaints of 'glitches' etc in multi-platform games than the PS3 on average. Soooooooo yeah. No point whatsoever in owning a 360.

I do agree, though, that the hardware issues are unacceptable. The fact rrod is so common it's needed a fucking acronym is absurd.

However I distinctly remember Sony committing the unreliability sin last gen. Since I had to fix my PS2 three times. What's more, Sony would never have paid for it had it not been for a class action lawsuit.

There's no clear winner in the console war and to think there is is pretty dumb.

[Kaden]

I do agree, though, that the hardware issues are unacceptable. The fact rrod is so common it's needed a fucking acronym is absurd.

Quoted for fucking truth. I love having a 360. There are some great exclusives, but its still way too much money to have the shit just stop working.

I never had a single problem with my PS2, though. Was it supposed to be common knowledge that the PS2 was buggy?

[Saz]

I thought the PS2 was generally considered to be one of the most reliable consoles. I certainly didn't have any problems with my PS2, and I had that for 5+ years.

[Sage]

Quoted for fucking truth. I love having a 360. There are some great exclusives, but its still way too much money to have the shit just stop working.

I never had a single problem with my PS2, though. Was it supposed to be common knowledge that the PS2 was buggy?

Yes indeed but only the very first generation. Common enough that people made FAQs as to how to speak with Sony in order to ensure you wouldn't get the runaround/denied/etc. It was a very serious issue.

It was a specific lot. Only available for the first 1-2 years. Extraordinarily buggy. Sony built them with unbelievably cheap laser readers which would almost certainly fail eventually (Go figure, I have a first gen PS2. It's now a table to keep the 360 off the floor). This was corrected for gen 2 and on, although apparently the slimline created a severe overheating issue (I have a slimline and have never had any issues, though).

[Waffuru]

Turned on the 360 a few days ago and all the dashboard was loaded with graphic artifacts and was all wonderfully fucked up. This is one of the newer 360s that is supposed to be "fixed" too. =)

Also, I don't know how your graphics thing is proven fact now? I actually think multiplatforms look great on both consoles.

Let's try this game here. Which one is 360 and which is PS3? (This is Madden 09 I believe)

choice A


OR

choice B


Though, it's not terribly shocking when a multiplatform looks better for the console it was developed on, that's how it goes and why Sony worked so hard to make the PS3 code easy to convert for 360. We're talking about tiny pixels of difference or often some lightning differences. Even compare the flapship exclusives and you see that the graphics are fantastic all around.

But hey when it comes down to games on my computer look just as good if not better. It's pretty much all the same.

[Cain]

A is ps3.

[Kaden]

But hey when it comes down to games on my computer look just as good if not better. It's pretty much all the same.

True story.

With all the talk of the awesome hardware power of the current generation of consoles, I often forget that my PC is equally awesome.

EDIT: I guess using the same case for the last six years has a disorienting effect.

[Sage]

Turned on the 360 a few days ago and all the dashboard was loaded with graphic artifacts and was all wonderfully fucked up. This is one of the newer 360s that is supposed to be "fixed" too. =)

Also, I don't know how your graphics thing is proven fact now? I actually think multiplatforms look great on both consoles.

Though, it's not terribly shocking when a multiplatform looks better for the console it was developed on, that's how it goes and why Sony worked so hard to make the PS3 code easy to convert for 360. We're talking about tiny pixels of difference or often some lightning differences. Even compare the flapship exclusives and you see that the graphics are fantastic all around.

But hey when it comes down to games on my computer look just as good if not better. It's pretty much all the same.

I wasn't trying to say the PS3 looked ugly or anything. In fact, like you just pointed out, the differences are practically indistinguishable. It's minor things. Like 'jaggies' and stuff. Stuff nobody actually gives a damn about. That was basically the point I was trying to make. The differences are minute. And people consistently claim they're not.

[Kaden]

And people consistently claim they're not.

Which only seems to support the underlying philosophy of "people are stupid."

[Sage]

I'm glad you understand.

[Waffuru]

I wasn't trying to say the PS3 looked ugly or anything. In fact, like you just pointed out, the differences are practically indistinguishable. It's minor things. Like 'jaggies' and stuff. Stuff nobody actually gives a damn about. That was basically the point I was trying to make. The differences are minute. And people consistently claim they're not.

most multi-platform games actually look better on the X360. Especially high demand games like Fallout 3, for instance. This is not opinion or up for debate. This is proven fact.

Mostly what I was responding to.

[Sage]

Yar! Thar be differences, true, negligible or no they still be thar!

I be hatin' to use a site like IGN or pretty much any gaming site for that matter, but thar be a general consensus among them that this be true! Again it's exceedingly minor stuff and therefore should not influence which console ye be wanting. It's mostly stability issues. Games like Fallout 3 and Jericho (Jericho sucks, by the way, don't buy it) and several others I'm sure you can look up yeself be running at better framerates and with fewer glitches and with mildly cleaner graphics. I suppose this be a fair trade-off to hardware what be tryin' to commit honorable seppuku at any point in time. I don't... I don't be knowin' how to further clarify, ya-har.

For what it be worth, I be considerin' buyin' a PS3 in the future, when thar be more than one exclusive I actually want.

So, yar. Very minor differences ye won't be seein' unless ye really care about yer graphics. And if graphics be meanin' so much to ye, ye don't be getting the point of video games.

[Jonathan Meer]

I'm sure Waff has explained this (I think so), but I'll just say it:

For any multi-platform game in which the 360 has superior graphics to the PS3, it is fault of the developers, who did not put effort into transferring the game from a 360-centric setup into a PS3-centric setup. If the game were developed separately for the PS3 and the 360, the superiority of the PS3 would be easily and immediately seen.

[Sage]

That's what they said about the Xbox and the PS2 and while it was often/usually the case sometimes the PS2 had better-looking games. Unfortunately though in the case of the 360/PS3, that would imply that almost every developer making cross-platform games is a complete idiot, or incredibly lazy. At least, according to your logic.

Obviously the PS3 has better hardware. O.o
But the software still fails to look better. I've also noticed most multiplatform games suffer more from glitching and framerate issues on the PS3 despite the better hardware on the Sony rig. Maybe the software's still ridiculously hard to code for like the PS2 was, I really don't know.

Exactly as you said, it is remarkable that the PS3 version of any game doesn't look noticeably better, even if it's not as good as it 'could' look because it has to be compromised for cross-platforming. It should still look better.

That said, for a machine as 'omnipotent' as a PS3, why would a crappy game like - for example - Jericho bog down to 13 fps on only the Sony port?

Do some homework. Cross-platform games typically are more stable on the 360 port and often (but admittedly, certainly NOT always) - in the case of, for instance, Fallout 3 - look slightly better.

I'm not saying 360 >>>>> PS3 or whatever. It's not true. Hardware-wise the 360 is pretty much your Kia equivalent. It'll crap out pretty soon. But despite Sony's obviously superior hardware, they're fucking the dog. Microsoft fucked the dog with the original Xbox before that and Nintendo fucked the dog with the N64 before that. Superior systems being handled by idiots.

I don't know if you think I'm attacking the PS3 or defending the 360 but I can assure you I'm not trying to do either. Honestly I think they're both being handled incredibly poorly. They both suck, in other words. The only thing that sucks worse is, predictably, anything Nintendo shovels out the door.

[Jonathan Meer]

You sound like you're blaming Sony. They can't be held responsible for the whims of the developers.

If Bethesda chooses not to re-write the code for the PS3, then that is their decision. If they had, you would notice a large (very large) difference.

[Sage]

I would notice a big difference - maybe - but since that would be economically suicidal I'm inevitably not going to see it.

"Should haves" and "could haves" aren't good enough to build a marketing platform on.

[Jonathan Meer]

It's not like these multi-platform games are the lifeblood of the PS3. It's still got games like MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, and the Resistance series to fuel it, with God of War, FFXIII Versus (which is still an exclusive), and an ICO game on the horizon (developers of Shadow of the Colossus).

Further, it's not like multiplatform games are unplayable on the PS3. They are still quite solid; I'm thoroughly enjoying Fallout 3 (despite some of the buggy-ness, which is present in both versions).

All I'm saying is, if you do have a problem with multi-platform 'mediocrity' on the PS3, don't fault the system.

[Sage]

Perhaps that's a matter of opinion.

I would say the multi-platform games are the lifeblood - for me - of either system. Neither console has any exclusives that interest me in the slightest, with the exception of MGS4 (which, btw, there is a lot of speculation that this will not be the case for very much longer) and therefore neither has anything besides multi-platform games to offer me.

Yeah I just checked. The only exclusive I have is Forza 2. And I'll get Forza 3 as well so I guess there's 2 exclusives I want but one doesn't exist yet. =\

But like I said, that's just opinion. There's a lot of die-hard Halo/Resistance/whatever fans that would kill people to get systems for that one game and that's fine. I personally find both Halo and Resistance to be horrible games. *Shrug*

Different strokes!

[Kaden]

Time and money are also a huge factor in optimizing a game for any given platform, and publishers aren't known for waiting around until everything is as polished as it could/should be.

I would pin very little of the blame on the developers.