http://spong.com/article/22211/UK-Ad-Authority-PS3-FFXIII-Better-than-Xbox-360
PS3 FTW
PS3 officially is better quality
(83 posts)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Grow up.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I can just picture the sort of person who complained. :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
Look, i do prefer my PS3 over my 360 any day of the week, but the fact is, MOST games do look better on the 360, there are certain exceptions, such as this game, but most game differences are unnoticeable, it's just petty when you do pick on the slight differences & use it to say a certain console is better.
I will buy the game on my ps3 even if it's notably worst, the only exception is if it's exclusive to the 360 or the game was botched on the ps3 version (which i would normally get the pc alternative,if there is one, if not, i will resort to the 360 version)Posted 2 years ago # -
Edit - Oops, wrong place.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Honestly, this thread is pointless.
Although, PS3 FTW indeed. :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
I laughed. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
*cough* Mafia II *cough*
Posted 2 years ago # -
I demand they revisit all those adverts for 8-bit arcade conversions from the 80s! My Spectrum versions never looked anything like the pictures they used on the adverts and the back of the box!
Posted 2 years ago # -
FFXIII is the one and only multiplatform game I ever bought/will ever buy on the PS3. I regretted it massively. I made a sad face every time I got a trophy, as I dont give a stuff about trophies and they should have been achievements. Not a mistake I'll make again, no matter what differences in visuals.
It's true that most games look better on the 360, and most have better framerates which is more important. But XBL, the controller, friendslist and achievements are the deciding factors for me.
360 FTW! :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Grow up"
Seems a little blunt. But then I recall reading this statement made by the same person less than a day ago:
"I’ve got a good slogan:
Sony PlayStation: Yesterday’s 360 exclusives…TODAY!
:P"
I'm all for grown up debate, but far less content with double standards. Especially from a "Keymaster". Lead by example and all that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Gadzooks! i feel the opposite when i buy a ps3 game, i do not care about achievements/trophies, the controllers are virtually the same, just switched the D-pad with the left analog stick(the 360 controller feels a tiny bit better cuz it's thick, but i hate the 360's sticks & the 360's D-pad & the triggers-(on both controllers) & while i admit Live is better than PSN in some aspects, it's too similar to be worth the price & @least Sony doesn't force you to have the subscription model for many of their basics (demos for example) & it also offers an integrated internet browser & features a catch up tv service which i <3, simply put: PSN isn't as pretty as XBL, but offers more for free than XBL does @ a price
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike has the faint odour of an Xbox fan boy about him! They are pretty easy to spot.
I thought it was an interesting article from an independant body giving a fair assessment of system performance, but your clearly not happy with an Xbox biased test
Posted 2 years ago # -
also, another thing which gets me, people are complaining about not getting mass effect 1 for the ps3, yet the 360 only got Final Fantasy after like 12 or so prequels :P does playing the first one really change much in the next one? can't you just customize it to the exact same extent you previously were?
Posted 2 years ago # -
"the controllers are virtually the same"
There's actually a large difference between them. The dualshock physically gives me cramps as it is quite a bit smaller than a 360 controller with less grippable surface and the far back position of the left stick means you have an extended thumb, or 'open claw'.
The overly loose analog sticks and wierd convex is-it-a-trigger-or-a-shoulder-buttons also make it a pretty unpleasant controller for me to use for any length of time.
"while i admit Live is better than PSN in some aspects, it's too similar to be worth the price"
Not for me. XBL has a great many advantages that make everyday use much easier for me, and paying less than the price of a beer each month for it is absolutely nothing.
"Sony doesn't force you to have the subscription model for many of their basics (demos for example)"
Excuse me? I'd like you to go look at what you can play before buying with a PSN+ account compared to regular PSN. You may want to retract your statement.
Posted 2 years ago # -
<i>"also, another thing which gets me, people are complaining about not getting mass effect 1 for the ps3, yet the 360 only got Final Fantasy after like 12 or so prequels"</i>
Every Final Fantasy game bar FFX-2 has been completely stand-alone.
Mass Effect 2 is a continuation of a strongly story-driven series. Events in Mass Effect 1 even have a direct effect on events in ME2, so comparisons to FF are not valid.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sorry crysis but I disagree with you on PSN v Live.
No comparison imo.
Sure you get to play for free but that's it.
I mean something as basic as clicking on a friend or recently met player and joining there session is not available for goodness sake.As for party chat well I mean cmon.
PSN is a basic multiplayer service imo and Sony at this stage should have stepped up to the mark.
60 bucks is nothing to pay imo if your online experience is as smooth as live.Posted 2 years ago # -
@reask
You cant really say 'no comparison' on PSN vs Live. Its not that simple as it's very much down to how you use the services.
PSN does everything that a lot of people require, and while it may not be as integrated or elegant as XBL, it works, for free.
If you use community features, want demos of everything, party chat, etc. Then obviously XBL will be better, and more than worth the small fee.
Oh, and shop around for MS points and you can get XBL subscription for peanuts :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think it says it all if you actually have to make a thread when you stumble across a multiplatform game that looks better on the PS3.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Pad wise the PS3 only really has the d-pad on the 360 for me. Though I did see an EA branded adaption kit for a PS3 pad in Asda the other day. Aside from the separately available trigger additions it also added bigger grips to go round the controller and concave stick covers.
Regarding the main post, aside from the disparity of cross platform titles almost always favouring the 360 I do think they should have done the sensible thing and used 360 footage for the ads. They were MS sponsored weren't they? (big full screen 360 logo at the end).
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know Gadzooks my mate got a year for 35 Euro.
I just signed up for it a few years ago on the 360 and never got round to cancelling it.I suppose my point was on the waiting in lobbies shit.
I mean sometimes you just fancy a few games on line but you get stuck in the lobby for ages.
I remember been in the UC2 lobbies on more than one occasion and just logging out having waited ages without success.Maybe having come from live prior to PSN I just took it for granted.
Still I would not be a huge multi player but I do like to jump in and out when I just fancy a bit of a blast.
It might be my connection but at least having the option of joining friends or recently met players for a quick match means that option makes it seamless for the most part.I fully agree that PSN is free but I would not pay for it as it now stands and will be getting the likes of cod, moh etc on 360 for the reasons I have stated.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Speaking of ports, actually, there are games beyond Final Fantasy XIII that looks better on PS3 than 360, just saying. For example Borderlands or The Darksiders and much more.
Of course most of the multiplatform titles still have better framerate on the 360 and some games have benefit from the Anti Aliasing 2X from X360 and it's basically a traditional PC Multicore architecture.
Basically, Xbox 360 is a low-end PC and while framerates are better on the 360 there is no point to argue about that (except of fanboys like Gadzooks and e.t.c.) because they are at minimum. You need to be an idiot trying to see something on the screen. Buy yourself a decent TV and everything will be fine.
But on the other hand if you invest in to the PS3 and will program for all the cores than you can have not just framerates, but better textures on clothes, MLAA (Morphological Anti-Aliasing) that is possible only on the PS3 that can enable up to the 16x of anti aliasing, not to mention that 5 and 6 cores can have a different tasks that you can enable up to the 30 frames per second (Uncharted 2 train level where locations change in a second depending on your movement.)there is no reason to cry all over. If you want a gaming experience take PC as the main gaming platform because there are the best controls, performance, graphics, sound, blu rays, services, internet, there are a lot of stuff not to mention about Diablo 3, Starcrafts, Total Wars, Heroes of M&M and e.t.c.
and Ps3 for the multiplatform titles or Exclusives that rock. Team ICO, Naughty Dog, Media Molecule, Polyphony Digital are just GOLD. GOLD i tell ya.
Xbox 360? I have an almost Zero point to purchase that console, at least it is more reliable now and with Wi-fi and Gears, but thats it. If you don't have decent PC you can buy both consoles...
and arguing about what is the best service is stupid too. They both suck on 360 and PS3. On the 360 it costs additional 60 bucks, END of fucking story. I never paid for the online service in my life to play for the multiplayer. I'm just not a tool. PS3? No chat and other important stuff, but at least it is free. Play and forget about it. Well Ps3 plays blu ray. I'm as a gamer don't give a damn about it. I don't even have a blu ray on my PC and won't have it in the near future.
So end of story. I'm still probably going to buy 360 just for Gears Of War 3 and when i'm finally done with it i will crack the console and maybe sell it. If Gears Of War 3 was on the PC i could give a fuck...
Posted 2 years ago # -
"For example Borderlands or The Darksiders and much more."
Darksiders has slightly more detailed cutscenes. In-game they run identically.
Borderlands 360 gets SSAO, lens flare and better normal maps compared to a few higher resolution textures on the PS3 version.
There are only a very small handful of games that even attain platform parity, let alone performing better on the PS3.
.
"If you want a gaming experience take PC as the main gaming platform"
* No PC exclusives interest me
* Dont want to constantly configure/upgrade
* Prefer controller over mouse
* I like unified networks. Dont like bots, hacks and bogus servers.
* Can't trade in PC gamesSo thanks, but no thanks ;)
.
"MLAA (Morphological Anti-Aliasing) that is possible only on the PS3 "
Where do you come up with this shit? MLAA has not been done on the 360, but it's a postprocessing effect that ANY computer can do should the devs choose to dedicate the processor time to it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Borderlands 360 gets SSAO, lens flare and better normal maps compared to a few higher resolution textures on the PS3 version."
O'rly? http://www.gametrailers.com/video/console-comparison-borderlands/58079 Perfect example. I saw SSAO and bloom effect, but it is like trying to see something micro. Everything else just shows what you can do if you are developing for the cores. You see textures and loading speed in the game and that is the important part.
* Dont want to constantly configure/upgrade - buy decent PC and you will have a PC for the entire generation. Except if you want better visuals.
* Prefer controller over mouse - connect Xbox 360 controller to the PC
* I like unified networks. Dont like bots, hacks and bogus servers. - Saying a guy that never experienced PC gaming. In my entire life i never saw any BOTS, bogus servers or bots. Never. (except on the internet Cafe where people use it i saw 7 years ago)
* Can't trade in PC games - I don't know about that, but games are cheaper and thats important."Where do you come up with this shit? MLAA has not been done on the 360"
because that technology uses Cell processor cores. Any PC can do this if you have a videocard of the proper generation.
Xbox 360 can't enable it because it uses standard 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core processor (that is shit) and there is no videocard to do this.Posted 2 years ago # -
I hear what you're saying about PC gaming Erthazus but to get an all rounder you are most likely looking at a grand.
I mean one for the whole family so not worth it really imo.
Console graphics do me just fine.Posted 2 years ago # -
Erthazus you clown, you dont have the slightest clue about the subjects being discussed, as usual.
Posted 2 years ago # -
All consoles have their good & negative points.
PC-Positives/Obviously has the best potential, Cheaper games (normally $10 cheaper), better services (Steam is the best, do not deny this) & Trillions of other uses, also free to play online (excluding mmos)/Negatives-Costs MUCH more, suffers from viruses etc, countless 3rd party interferances, often encounter older software not compatable with newer OSs or hardware (graphics card), often very buggy, may need constant maintenance.360-Positives/Cheapest, few decent exclusives (Halo, Gears, Fable etc)/Negatives- pricey 1st party accessories (hdd, wifi adapter, headset all waaaay overpriced), subscription for online play, RRoD, open tray error, disk scratching.
PS3-Positives/Many decent exclusives, free online play, intergrated online features (catch up tv, internet browser etc), best media player on market(my opinion :P), upgradable hdd with any 2.5" HDD, Blu-Ray, built in wifi(all models except original)/Negatives-High price, shoddy 3rd paty ports, lousy online social features(in direct comparison).
Posted 2 years ago # -
"PS3-Positives/Many decent exclusives, free online play, intergrated online features (catch up tv, internet browser etc), best media player on market(my opinion :P), upgradable hdd with any 2.5" HDD, Blu-Ray, built in wifi(all models except original)/Negatives-High price, shoddy 3rd paty ports, lousy online social features(in direct comparison)."
My original PS3 has wifi.. i thought they all did
Posted 2 years ago # -
not the 1st gen, i don't think, i know the 2nd gen did & also played ps2 games, i got a 3rd gen console, no san andreas & timesplitters 2 for me :(
EDITS---My bad, the original ps3 does support wifi, but not the 20gb version, only 60gbPosted 2 years ago # -
@ Crysis
Agree with most of your points (Except 360 of course ;)).
Yeah on the PC thing I just find it to be good if you are a tech head and know what to get for the best performance.
If on the other hand you want to just have hassle free gaming the console has to be the obvious choice as you get what it says on the tin.You go in to a PC store to get a gaming rig not having a clue what you need the chances are the sales guy is going to wring what he can out of you so it will cost you.
Also things like anti virus software can affect the game unless you disable it when playing.
I know when I was playing nightfire on PC I had to disable mine.
Bottom line been the majority will prefer the console for the convenience.Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.