| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (88)

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:48PM JoshMilewski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eric Von Shpeel:

"I cant imagine CoD without online, seems a bit pointless. Added to the fact that it will be the first CoD to ever take a backwards step in terms of graphics theres no way I would even consider getting the Wii version. If I want crappy graphics and a crosshair that moves depending on where I point I will go play CoD1 on the PC."

What? I play CoD for PC frequently and the game is just like any other FPS. The crosshair always stays in the center of the HUD.

I never got CoD 2, though, since I don't like the idea of having regenerating health in a WORLD WAR II GAME! Jeez...

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vince - established by who? If you look objectively at the specs, there is very little reason to believe the PS3 will have any graphics advantage over 360. The only place I could imagine a difference might be in the video output since that is what Sony does for a living, but the 360 has a damned nice signal itself. In terms of texture handling, lighting, shaders, etc... it is practically a wash between the two systems. And in the case of a multi-platform game at launch, I would expec t360 to have an edge if only because the tools and pipelines will already be in place for a stable system with artists knowing how to exploit it. As opposed to PS3 where they will stillb e scrambling to get it together (like they had to do for 360 launch last year). IF they manage to make the PS3 version even comparable to 360 in time for launch, I will be amazed and they will deserve great credit.

And I'll believe on-line play for PS3 when I see it.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vince:

Not quite sure where you got a statement that generalized. For instance, Assassin's Creed, generally speaking appears to have sharper crisper textures under the 360 as opposed to the PS3. Both look visually incredible, but i think the ability to utilize more than 256 MB of video memory as well as the 10MB of extra buffer space give it an slight edge with regards to textures. It'll be slight, but your statement doesnt necessarily hold true.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:56PM HelghanSuperSniper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ logikil

Sure you can argue against it. Live is better but Nintendo Wifi does work. I've had great fun playing games online with my DS. Besides Wii is going to have one FC for the unit, not one for each game. Even aquiring FCs in games like Metroid is easy. Just invite the player to be a rival and their FC is saved to your DS. I'm sure Wii will offer a similar function for FCs.

Back on topic...I'm not buying a 360 or a ps3 this year. I'm getting a Wii so that narrows it down. The lack of online play is a hurt-piece and I have no idea why Nintendo wouldn't have Wii WiFi up and running at launch. But hey, it is what it is.
The wii version doesn't look as good as the PS3 and the 360 version but it's good enough. For a port, that's about what I expect. I'll look toward the exclusives and the first party titles to push the console graphically.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 6:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Striderhayasa:

"Live is better but Nintendo Wifi does work."

See you proved my point :). I've played Tetris and MK and Hunters all online and they are fun, but for ease of use and all Live really is the better online system. Not to say the Nintendo Wifi doesnt have its place...it's just behind Live.

I'm curious about older network enabled Gamecube games. It'll be interesting to see if you can run MK Double Dash over Wifi.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 6:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
logikil & joe smith

All I can say is - "It's the word on the street". (rolleyes)
From what I've digested from all the articles I've glanced at on the subject, it seems the RSX in tandem with the Cell processor should have the edge on screen, in theory.
I'm usually wrong though.


Perhaps my last post was a bit vague, I should have put

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 6:44PM HelghanSuperSniper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ logikil

Good point, would Mario Kart DD run on Nintendo Wifi?

Does anyone have any word on that? Could we dust off Phantasy Star Online and get it in on Wifi?

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 6:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Come on!! Why didn't you answer the question everybody wants an answer to: which version looked better, PS3 or Xbox360. If you can't answer because of an NDA or somesuch at least tell us that you can't answer. You're doing your readers a disservice.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:06PM tentaclesex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm so torn between the 360 and Wii versions! I can't handle the pressure of trying to decide between them, but I don't really think it would be worth getting both. The pain of it all!

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I almost thought you guys tried to "report" objectively here, but as always, your fanboyism comes through. I'm getting this game for 360 rather than PS3 because I prefer the controller for FPS games, but your bias is obvious. The PS3 motion control felt tacked on & too late? Why? You have an entire article to say anything about that, and you don't, yet you don't expand a bit. And you cite that the PS3 and 360 versions look different from each other, yet give no indication what the differences were, and if one is better than the other. If it were the 360 version, anyone who frequents here knows it would have been stated, most likely several times.

I couldn't really give two shits about which version looks better, but I did fully expect you to come out and say it was the 360 version, simply because of your apparent loyalty to anything MS. Your failure to say anything at all says more about your favoritism than any comment could have.

I know it makes your loins burn to say anything good about the PS3, but if it's the better version, say so & vice versa. And if the motion sensing doesn't feel right, say why. The longest paragraph in this story is about the controls with the wii-mote, but PS3 gets a couple subjective words and no elaboration? Journalism?......really?

I don't expect you people to throw undue praises at any of the 3 systems, I just expect you to report objectively. It's pathetic that an Xbox focused site can report more objectively than you guys can. What the hell was the point of creating Xbox360Fanboy when you guys are clearly that?

And you wonder why Phil Harrison wasn't smiling when you gave him a Joystiq shirt? I'm surprised that he didn't wipe his ass with it and tell you to piss off.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
According to EDGE magazine, they say the 360 version is the one that looks better.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You say they are different but how? Which is better? bye!

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@56

I'm not disputing that it very well may be. I'm not singing the praises of PS3. I'm simply pointing out that the coverage at Joystiq is extremely slanted, and this article shows that they can't report objectively, at least in regards to Sony or PS3. If the PS3 version looks better and they don't say so, it's because of their bias. If the 360 version looks better and they don't say so, it's because they don't want to be perceived as biased. It's a lose-lose situation that they created by their ameteur attempt at journalism & they'll continue to face that until they learn what "objective" means.

Journalists don't give a rat's ass about perception, they report the truth, regardless of their personal opinions. Joystiq has become the gaming news version of Fox News. That is sad, because if it weren't for the fanboyism on display, this would be in the top 5 of gaming news sites, if not the top 2. I don't expect to agree with them on everything, but I guess I expect a bit more journalistic integrity.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i like to be an unbiased gamer, but in the last year or so [since e3 2005] this site has become increasingly one-sided.

every other post on here, i find myself having to clarify some inaccuracy about sony or the PS3. i am a multi-console gamer. i have been since atari/ commodore days. i like to be a balanced gamer. i like to play games from both ends of the spectrum, and on systems from both ends of the spectrum.

if you want the site to be unbiased, you also have to be balanced. i like what MS has done with the xbox brand thusfar, but there is usually no need for me to comment; this site has tons of glowing praise for them already. even your critism of xbox360 titles is pretty lighthearted. at least it can be considered lighthearted in comparison to how you represent sony-based bad news. surely you realize that its really repulsing alot of people who are fans of the playstation system.

before e3 2k5, there were alot of ps2 fans looking forward to the ps3. you can go back and look at the comments. now you have only a handful of rabid eccentric diehards that continually post. as a site that requires patronage to survive, you have to understand that these people haven't really gone anywhere. they are just lurking and not posting. potential ps3 buyers have just accepted that they will probably not purchase a ps3 until the price drops, until systems are available freely, are available i ntheir country, launch bugs are worked out, or until major game X is released. let's face it, there are still alot of people waiting to buy a ps3, just not at the present moment in time. they may not post as quickly or in the same quantity as xbox360 fans, but they are out there. they don't post as much because no one likes to start posting in defensive mode every single story [except for those few SDF guys].

given the party line that "joystiq is not a news site, it is a journal featuring journalists' opinions", that is perfectly fine. however, i blame the management if they only hire journalists that lean towards one side of the fence. it took forever for you guys to hire solid guys [that actually reported news] over in PS3fanboy and PSPfanboy.

hopefully once the PS3 is released, whether good bad or ugly, the editors will lighten up their anti-sony stance.

back on topic: inquiring readers would really like to know what you really thought of the PS3 version [in your unbiased opinion, of course]. good or bad, it would help to respond.

oh! and for the record, since CoD3 is a third party game, how do you come of saying "The PS3 has tossed in an 'Oh crap! The Wii might steamroll us! Invent something!' motion senstive melee attack."

that is solely in the hands of activision how they wish to take advantage of the controllers/ systems. it has nothing to do with the PS3 or sony themselves. from what you wrote read about the wii version, except for the direct aiming [which may still be possible] it seems awfully trivial for them to add in the exact same mechanisms found in the wii version. a much more unbiased version of that sentence would read: "the activision developers have tossed in an 'Oh crap! The team working on the Wii version might steamroll us! Invent something!' motion senstive melee attack.". it's not as if sony walked in and said, "hey, you need to take advantage of the motion controls or else!". lol. no, activision did that.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Until I played COD2 on xbox live I didn't realise how good this game really is. Looking foward to COD3 on the 360.

Wii controllers will be interesting. But for games like this I look for good graphics and the Xbox 360 with a VGA cable on a large monitor does the trick.

I will buy a Wii for Mario not for this.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 8:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seventy5

My comment wasn't aimed at you in particular. I was just stating what EDGE Magazine stated to maybe answer the "which one looks better" questions. Sorry if my comment seemed as if was directed towards you. I do agree with you on the fact it is a lose-lose situation.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 8:29PM redspear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Poor Joystiq can't win.

If they were to state like EDGE that the 360 version looks better.. Than the fanboys have their heads. However the impression that I got is that they both look different and graphically impressive but neither one was much better or worse than the other.

This article goes on to mention how poorly hte graphics look on hte Wii cmpared to those two yet I don't see Nintendo fanboys jumping up and down about it.


As for the tacked one feel. Have any of you figured that maybe the way the motion control was added to the game didn't seem to fit the play of the game in general because it was only for one thing while the rest of the game was conventional gameplay sort of like when you buy an all in one device there is at least one feature that just doesn't feel right on it.

Instead I see people going on and on about how offended they are that they aren't hearing about the graphically superiority of the PS3 for THIS game.

Me I get the impression that after walking away they were fairly excited by the new gameplay with the wii even with the graphical downgrade but were dissappointed with the lack of multiplayer. Perhaps even to the point that they felt like what was offered in the PS3 version was not the same and felt more added on than the wii. Which is somethign that may happen when you go from one thing that does everything to another that is all or nothignin one area.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 8:44PM jakster4u said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/callofduty3/news.html?sid=6159452

check this out also, basically says the 360 and PS3 versions are the same almost.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 8:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And then an Activision spokesman chimes in:

"Hey guys, lol. I have a perfect solution to your problem! I have heard you kids talking about this crazy Wii60 combo idea, hell maybe even a PSWii combo, hell I don't care. The point is, then you can buy 2 versions of the game, hell maybe even all three. Then you get everything you're looking for! Graphics, online play, and fun innovative (definitely not tired FPS formulaic) gameplay, lol!
And all it will cost you is (250 + 400...or 600 + 50 + 60 =) your soul! Hell why do you think we are releasing marginally different versions for all the consoles. Give us your damn money, lol!"

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 8:56PM solomonrex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
HEY! the ps2 version wasn't running on final hardware, and until it does, there's no final judgement on graphics.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 9:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wii60 for me ;)

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 10:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Yes, it might have GameCube quality graphics, but it adds boatloads of a much more important element: fun."

I think that's the key sentence in this entire article. No matter how good graphics can be, "gameplay/fun factor" is what makes the difference!!! Like many of you have said already, if I want graphics I will get myself a new PC video card.

---

How many of you played games that where beautiful to watch but after playing for a few hours you just wanted to return/exchange the game?! -- That's right!

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 11:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#16: You're attacking him because of bias in something he didn't say, but you think he wanted to. Got it.

Every time I think I have you Sony fanboys nailed down, you just bring up new crazy. I love it.

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 11:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Seventy5:

First... ever stop to think that their may not be a difference? Read Gamespot's impressions.

Second... When did Fox News become the only biased news source? Ever hear of CNN or MSNBC? Oh that's right, your looking through rose colored glasses, as as such negate your entire argument about Joystiq's so called "bias."

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 12:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
-------------
55. Posted at 7:18PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Seventy5 0 stars
-------------

That's it.

What the frick is wrong with you people!? You'll fall into every logic hole you can to avoid facing any news that says anything but the Sun shines out of Sony's gold-pinned, HDMI-compliant rear. You'll take any excuse, any at all, to avoid the truth. And now you guys are attacking Joystiq for being biased in something you THINK they wanted to say. Bra-vo.

The funny thing is, you would have found something to whine about anyway. If they said the Wii version was the most fun, and backed it up with a 25-point, bulleted list, you'd accuse them of being Nintentards or whatever brilliant little affectation you guys use this week. If they had said the 360 version was best, they'd be M$ fanboys, and the PS3 version is just still in development, that's all. If Activision had walked Mr. Kelly into a room, scourged him with whips, and nailed him to a cross, and he wrote a negative review is a result, you'd claim the game was still in development, but was well on it's way to a true next-gen experience. If Kelly had said the PS3 version was best, you'd accuse him of not saying it with enough sycophantic adjectives, in order not to lose his from Ninty and M$ fans.

This may come as a shock to you, but sometimes people can't decide which version of a product is best. Or, perchance, he deliberately didn't give a bottom line because he wanted to avoid fanboy wanking. Which you seem to have managed anyway. It's like a bully going up to a guy and asking what he said about his mother. What, so his mother's not good enough for you? Are you saying his mother's trash? Is that it? All right, buddy, you asked for it.

That's you. You're spoiling for a fight so badly, you'll make a reason up. You're taking the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence.

Does a blind man know the difference between a candle and the Sun?

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 2:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me, all the fun comes from multiplayer. There is no way I'd buy a CoD game without multiplayer support.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 2:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sign me up for fun. Living room multiplayer is where it's at, anyway; none of my friends drop the F-bomb after any minor inconvenience.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 1:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Regarding the looks of both PS3 and Xbox 360 version:

This month's Edge magazine had this to say...

A somewhat reluctant deomonstration of PS3 code brings us back to present-day battles with a jolt. With a painful framerate and only rudimentary lighting and shaders in place, the game looks cold and flat next to the gritty bombast of its 360 counterpart, and far from a November launch.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 3:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I get CoD3, it will be for the PC. I get better sound, picture quality, and graphics on the PC than the PS3 and Xbox360. Did I mention the controls will be better on the PC than Wii? The only FPS I will buy for a console will be Red Steel and Metroid. Everything else will be on the PC.

Oh did I mention that UT2007 will have amazing physics on the PC, and that Crysis will have to be tuned down from its full glory to run on consoles. Never say that a console game has the best graphics. It wasn't true last year and it still isn't true this year. Sure it costs more $$ but you get more use out of PC's. "Next gen doesn't start till you get a PC."

DX10 GPU's will make the 360 and PS3 look like crap.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 3:56AM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

For fun (single): Wii CoD3
For fun (multi): XB

If Nin can get the game working (in 2007) on WiiConnect, and I don't mean with all their annoying friend code CRAP, I'll play it on Wii. Otherwise, time for me to finally buy a M$ console....BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE GAME IS NOT COMING TO PC!

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 4:04AM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Gamespot says, "The Wii version, as it turns out, is content-identical to the 360 and PS3 versions, for the most part. It's reasonable to expect that the relatively weaker system will have fewer enemies and simplified geometry in some parts, but in terms of storyline, basic level design, and so on, you're getting the same game across all three platforms. The Wii version naturally doesn't feature the extreme detail of the other versions, but it does play much like we're coming to expect first-person shooters to play on this unique new platform. Like Metroid Prime 3 and Red Steel, COD3 has you using the remote for fine aiming, and moving the cursor to the edges of the screen will make you turn. The analog stick on the nunchuk makes you move, and the various other buttons of the Wii's controllers let you perform other actions like ducking, jumping, and going to iron sights."
"Aside from this difference, the game played like you'd expect. All the core mechanics are the same here as in the PS3 and 360 versions--the difference is merely in how you interface with the game. Luckily, horizontal and vertical sensitivity adjustments were available in the build we played, so we could fine-tune the aiming to our liking, and afterward, we found the actual shooting gameplay to be more satisfying and skill-based than when played with a standard analog thumb stick. With the more flexible aiming, it became more realistic to switch to iron sights and squeeze off a quick headshot to take out that soldier just barely peeking over the barrier. We're looking forward to getting more time with this and other Wii games to get a better feel for this sort of unique FPS gameplay, which seems to approximate the feel of mouse aiming on the PC."
Woot...mouse feel on a console!

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 4:05AM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
fumar, no CoD3 on PC. (Bastards.)

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 1:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ben,
Within this article they clearly state that the two versions look different. Their words, not mine. Gamespot may feel differently, but I'm not posting there, and honestly, I dont care. Secondly, I didn't say that other news outlets aren't slanted, however Fox News is by far the most obvious in it's political leanings, which have absolutely no place in journalism. Sound familiar?

@ John
I'm not sure you managed to read my entire post. At no point did I say that the PS3 version was better looking or that it'll be the better version. I do not care if it is, I am getting the 360 version regardless because the controller is better suited to FPS games. That said, this article is a hack job. They go on & on about the motion control of the Wii version being fun & explain it in detail. All they can muster for the PS3 version is that it feels tacked on & too late, however they don't spend a single sentence elaborating on that. It's hardly informative & just gives this guys opinion. Is that what you call reporting? If he had said that the PS3 version was graphically inferior with a choppy framerate & drawn in issues, and the motion sensing was unstable & unresponsive, I wouldn't have had 2 negative words to say. But he didn't.

Fanboys are morons. If you think I'm a fanboy because I call a shitty "preview" that gives excellent details about two versions and barely even glosses over the third, then you are a moron too. My only point was that if they are going to play favorites, they need to stop parading as journalists and call their site an Xbox/Wii enthusiast site.

I was second in line last november to get my 360, and I play it daily. Don't give me this fanboy bullshit because I call poor journalism what it is.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 12:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, the x360 fanboyism was pretty obvious in this... uh... "news" article. Nice news, guys. Now go play those xbox360's that Microsoft gave you and keep bitching about Sony like they want you to do.

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 5:11PM redspear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seventy5

The graphics are different because each console previewed a different level. The PS3 was more of a forest and the XBOX 360 was in a thunderstorm with grermans running down a hill. Joystiq got the impression that the looks were different because they were different levels wiht different feel.

PS3 fanboys get over it they did not say anything negative about the PS3 here except for teh fact that they felt the use of motion sensing was tacked on. Probably because the same motion could be performed by a button as well so it seemed like an afterthought.

Posted: Oct 8th 2006 1:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why are you still asking which version looked better? They did answer that in the article.

"Looking across the field of battle through the field glasses on the 360 looked crisp and sharp. Running through a forest full of hidden Germans looked photorealistic, even with falling leaves that you could zoom in on and see every close-up detail."

As far as logic goes, photorealistic CG is best of all, they state that on X360 game looked great, and on PS3 it looked photorealistic. That's enough of a confirmation.

You could ask "hey, but maybe they are talking about X360 forest?", and some of you guys actually did. They aren't talking about X360 forest.

X360 level was in the fields, PS3 level was the forest, head to Gamespot for confirmation.

It's good to know that PS3 is getting all the best multiplatform versions.

Posted: Oct 8th 2006 5:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still remember when the PS3 was reported as having twice the raw power of the 360..how I laughed back then.
How I laugh still now....
Big up for the Wii for having extra fun....it will need it!

Posted: Oct 19th 2006 3:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Vince:

Not quite sure where you got a statement that generalized. For instance, Assassin's Creed, generally speaking appears to have sharper crisper textures under the 360 as opposed to the PS3. Both look visually incredible, but i think the ability to utilize more than 256 MB of video memory as well as the 10MB of extra buffer space give it an slight edge with regards to textures. It'll be slight, but your statement doesnt necessarily hold true."

Wrong about one things;

The PS3 (RSX) has access to all 512 MB of texture memory as well.

Furthermore, PS3 has more than twice the bandwidth when you add up the two busses it uses to access for textures which more than makes up for the 10 MB frame buffer. The only difference for this game will come down to frame rate - my moneys on PS3 for that.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW