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

Reader Comments (94)

Posted: Oct 24th 2008 4:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jarhead you do realize the XBOX WAS more powerful and produced better quality than the PS2.. but the PS2 did better due to it's sheer amount of games.. it's happening all over again, except this time the 360 is representing the PS2.
Reply

Posted: Oct 24th 2008 4:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Another thing Jarhead.. I'm going to use an analogy.

lets say a man is building a wheel made out of stone using a hammer and chisel (this is the 360). The man will obviously know how to do it, and wont take too long to do so.

Now lets say someone comes along and says "Now make that wheel with only using the hammer" (This is the ps3). The man will be confused, and take twice as long to make the same thing rofl.

To say that Bethesda isn't skilled enough is idiotic. Their games far surpass that of things like Uncharted and CoD 4.. Oblivion was absolutely beautiful on both consoles.
Reply

Posted: Oct 24th 2008 9:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Like I said, the original xbox was better than the ps2. It had better looking, performing games. It had a hard drive, ethernet, xbox live and finally Halo. All ps2 had was instal base... which came from the popular ps1 and coming out a year before xbox. Now the tables are turned. Don't argue with facts, and don't twist my argument.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I feel no sympathy for those out there who own both PS3 and the 360. When word gets out that one game appears better on one system or the other, you have the ability to buy that game for said system. However, for those of us who aren't spewing money out our ears, we are stuck with the less quality version. In reality, the differences are usually minimal, so it doesn't really make much sense to whine about it in the first place. So, for all you out there boasting the fact that you have both systems (and ESPECIALLY those of you who have super-modded computers able to handle the graphics of today's PC games on top of the PS3 and 360), please quit your whining.

Or just give me the money to buy a new system. Whatever floats your boat.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:44AM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can get a used 360 core, still under warranty, for like 90 bucks on ebay.

Then MS will give you a hard drive for an additional 20 bucks.

Hell, they're well under $200 brand new several places.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, the 360 is not the problem actually. I've got one of those. It's the PS3 that I can't really afford at the moment. Nor do I truly want a PS3 at the moment. The only reasons I would buy a PS3 would be for LittleBigPlanet, the BluRay player, and Metal Gear Solid 4 (which looks like may come out for the 360 anyway).
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:17AM Hate Everything said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
No mate! no no... that's not what we meant! What we meant was.. er... the smooth and jag-less graphics on the Xbo-- no. Wait. Ah. The PS3's lesser quality... no. No. NO! Wait. Listen. Damn it. F&@K! What we meant was...uh... Bioshock is on PS3 and looks better! So there! Eat that with your breakfast beans!

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:39AM MrU2 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Great... more ammo for the fanboy war. I can't understand why people still don't get it. Both the PS3 and the 360 are great.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:45AM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is the PC version going to work with Games For Windows Live? I want to get this on the PC, but I really want to be able to be logged into Live while playing, and to get the achievements.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:55AM ExMcCloud said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh well....Nuff said

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 11:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It doesn't help that the author of the article on xbox360fanboy.com made it sound like the magazine was trying to cover everything up.

Guys, its a simple matter of the PS3 not being the lead development platform and the time required to develop for the PS3's tech and the dev teams experience. Leave it alone. If you have both a 360 and PS3, just buy the 360 version. Bingo, bango, bungo.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 11:12AM MyAbsolution said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
this is harmless teasing, no one is mud slinging like some people are making it out to be.

360 is usually the lead platform and it will always benefit from that, not to mention working with the PS3 architecture is difficult.

I personally think the 360 benefits tremendously from being structured similarly to the standard PC, so it should always look "good".

I love the picture for this article that you added Dustin. Keep up the good work.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 11:36AM vask said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i dont really care much for this one fable is out and gears 2 and last remnant is coming not to mention the brigade of ps3 games that are coming im gonna have my hands full this holiday. i can put this game on hold.

i own all 3 systems so im feeling the love in all angles ^_^

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 11:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
God the PS3 sucks!!! I have one 10 feet in front of me, and all it's played are blu-rays and 20 awful minutes of that MGS4 drivel (I like to play games, not cutscenes). Change your controller! If you make a 360-like controller for it (Hello 3rd partiers), then I'll give it another go.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed, I've never had a controller give me instant hand cramps like the PS3 controller. The 360 controller is the most comfortable controller I've ever used.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:35PM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IMO, the Dualshock is the best console controller ever, been using since the PS1. The 360 controller is a close second, only that the Dualshock beats it in fighting games, otherwise, both are pretty equal.
Reply

Posted: Oct 24th 2008 1:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
due to the triggers on the Dualshock 3, I think it's actually a step DOWN from the DS2.
Reply

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 1:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ha. then go become gay on fable 2. cuz thats you
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 11:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Look up any head to head comparison of games on both consoles and you'll see the 360 most always comes out on top. There is a game site (can't remember which) that does a head to head of the most popular games every 6 months or so. The 360 always wins in the end. The 360 generally has better framerate, anti-aliasing, loading time, and sometimes even runs at a higher resolution if you can believe that.

The PS3 usually wins on draw distance and anisotropic filtering, but it seems that is not the case with Fallout 3.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:10PM vask said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
that's a given though since the 360 has a better graphics device than the ps3 anyway so the games will always look a little better than the ps3. where ps3 really outshines 360 is in performance and actual animations in-game.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmmm, I'm not sure your comment could get any more vague. Performance is a very vague term. What kind of performance are you talking about? You say that the PS3 outshines the 360 in performance but then you also say that the 360 has a better graphics device. So do you not consider "graphics" to be performance? If you're talking about game performance, I'd say the 360 wins, and you've already agreed. I have no idea what you mean by animations in-game.

You essentially just said "the 360 is better at games, but the PS3 has better performance". That makes little to no sense.
Reply

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 3:27AM vask said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
well the graphics can factor in to the systems overall performance but its not limited to just visuals but rather how fluid the games play or how many processes can be done simultaneously before the system slows down or crashes, etc. and there still runs the issue of the complexity of the hardware the problems arent necessarily on the system but the developers that make the games for them.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unless you're playing both console versions,you won't know the difference.So gives a s?!t.Just enjoy the damn game for what it is.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Umm, I'm sorry but it's well documented that with some games the 360 runs at 60fps and the PS3 runs them at 20 to 30fps. That is very noticeable. The other stuff is maybe just nitpicky, but the framerate issue is the reason I own a 360. Maybe it's just the PC gamer in me. PC gamers live and die by fps. That's the first benchmark we reference when building a new rig.

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 3:42AM vask said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
im dying to see these documented statements that youre talking about since ive played quite a few ps3 games that run at 60fps as well.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 1:08PM bigd7387 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is why I got rid of the my PS3 since the games all looked worse than on the 360 and the framerates were horrible. The PS3 is a Blu-ray movie player and I didn't even think the Blu-ray looked as good as the HD-DVD did or have as many of the features that HD-DVD had.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 1:10PM xreadmore said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Any game they release Day and Date on both platforms will either be BETTER on the 360 or they will be equal. There has never been a case where a game has looked better on the PS3 where the developers didn't have to take an extra YEAR to work on it. Imagine the cost of spending a full year on a game? That is a lot of money. Most developers are not willing to spend the extra money making the PS3 version shiny, it's just not worth it until the PS3 has a proven install base. This has nothing to do with the skills of the developer and everything to do with the difficult-to-program-for PS3. Even the most skilled developer is going to need more time with the PS3 then the 360. Even GTA had to be pushed back so it ran well on the PS3.

There is no conspiracy, there is no lack of skill, there is no "lazy port". This is console architecture plain and simple.

This is business to a developer not fan-boy fuel. They are not thinking "How do we stick it to sony" they are thinking "How do we maximize profits". For Fallout 3, taking more time to get the PS3 version right was not financially viable.

End

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To determine which system is the more powerful we can really only to developers who who know each system well enough to comment and arn't in either Sony or Microsofts pocket.
I've seen a couple of posts on the reletive power of each system and what John Carmack had to say about it, so instead of twisting his words to our own ends, here is the link to what he actually said:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169112

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That was meant to say "To determine which system is the more powerful we can really only Turn to developers..." and "..relative power..".
Where's my brain when i need it?
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 3:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its not the developer its sony for thinking they can pull a ps2.The developer had no choice becuase of the ps2 install base.But this time around its in last place with more than 5 million less consoles in homes world wide than the 360.The 360 is the market share for hd gaming the ps3 is like the sega saturn in the time of the ps1 and saturn battles.

saturn was capable but hard to develop for and had a smaller user base.In the ends thats what killed it and games looked better on ps1.This time the 360 is easier to develop for has the biggest and best library now and coming and has the bigger install base between the two.

Developers go where the money is and less time is consumed.

would you work overtime for less money?

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 3:31PM OptimumEDGE said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't blame the developers for not "fully" utilizing the PS3's "power". The Xbox simply has superior development tools and focus as compared to PS3. This is why so many developers choose the 360 as the "base" platform to work on. Because it provides the most flexibility (at least on consoles) and is very similar to the PC architecture. It's simply more cost effect and better utilized.

Sony had to cut the cost of their development kits by 50% just to entice developers.

Even if the PS3 were (or is) more "powerful" than the Xbox 360, it doesn't mean much if developers cannot fully utilize the machine. That is not the fault of the developers, Xbox simply has better software (which makes sense considering MS is a software giant) in which to develop these games.

I'm really proud at Xbox and even MS in general. They have become very open and accessible with their platform development strategies. Xbox even offers free development kits for non-professionals to get a hand at creating games for the system.

This is quite simply a classic case of fundamental computing. The software is every much as important (if not more so) than the hardware.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 4:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly altho i dont agree on the ps3 being more powerfull.The cell maybe but what it has under the hood is not power in the form of usefull gaming.

If your talking about what matters for gaming in a machine that can actually be used for gaming the 360 has it all over the ps3.

So as far as the most powerfull gaming machine the 360 wins.

The reason the ps3 has a so called 10 year life span is because its gonna take atleast another 4 years for it to surpass the 360 and become a more chased after console.And by then the xbox will be out and will sell better than the ps3 due to full backwards compatability of the 360 titles and the future gaming titles that will outperform the ps3 easy.

The future looks bad for sony i dont think they will ever be top dog again.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:16PM ziggen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Are they gonna make an ATARI 2600 version of Fallout?

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 7:58PM johnpaul12 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did they for get to take the 1998 filter off the ps3 version?

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 1:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
k so.
im sick of xbox. i hate it
microsoft is ruining the gaming industry by paying out large amounts of cash to developers just to make themselves look better

because, seriously if you think about it, bethesda has already ported their engine to ps3 with everything looking better than the 360 version. now how come they port that same engine over with crappier results on the ps3.

hm. microsoft dished out the dough. along with exclusive DLC, 360 somehow magically is more superior, despite the fact bethesda already proved ps3 is more capable of running their games. (i.e. better textures in oblivion and less frequent loading times)

i owned a 360. and i dont even touch the damn thing. it broke within a year of purchasing (and i dont mean RRoD.) ... the system works fine. just that big selling point... the online... doesnt work! the ethernet port is dead.. it just stopped working. and i still had my remaining xbox live to pay for. M$ didn't wanna do anything about it.

and if i wanted any other way to connect i'd hafta dish out $100 for a stupid wireless adapter.

oh and did i mention that i have to keep replacing my controller batteries?? and no. i will not spend another $40 on a play and charge kit.

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 1:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Spend ten on normal rechargeable batteries.
Reply

Posted: Oct 25th 2008 1:54PM xNeverSavedx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
thank you for pointing that out

it makes me mad as well to see great games like this become of lesser quality when the do it for ps3.

i am sick of xbox as well. all the extra cash you have to put into a system thats not even worth it... the price drop makes sense thus M$ can still keep making money off of its over priced add-ons like a wireless network add on or yes play and charge kits...i work at an electronics store and i sell all three consoles and ppl come in to buy the 360 and tell me they wanna do this or that and i give them the cost of the other stuff they will need to buy and most of them are either put off and rethink the 360 or they get just the console and halo 3 (IMO is the worst shooter i have played) most ppl don't like the fact that they have to pay extra to put their game system on wireless or the fact that they have to pay $60 to play online. but thats just what i see and parents are very upset by the fact that their kid said the xbox is only 299.99 but they end up paying for so much more stuff they thought they didn't need.

xbox is a waste of money... who cares if it has more and so called "better" games... most of the good games can be played on both ps3 and xbox. and the xbox only titles ie Gears of War 1.5, i mean 2 and halo 3 and such are not that great of games so i can do without them. M$ must have some strange attraction to space marines and beefcakes why don’t they try to make something new and fresh I am sick of jacked up shooters that become less fun then...

superman 64

that is all

Reply

Posted: Oct 27th 2008 3:50AM Jae Brav said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, I'm totally convinced that chelsea_smile and Over 9000 are not the same person.

Seriously.

Lame.
Reply

Posted: Oct 27th 2008 3:31PM Paulmichael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm tired of this. The PS3 seems to be picking up some steam with the latest releases, but then its ports are still generally of poorer quality than the 360 versions...I got a 360 specifically for its exclusives since I've already built up quite the Trophy/game collection, but if the PS3 is going to continually get shafted I don't know what I'm going to do. Developers need to put in more time with the PS3, or Sony needs to buy better support/DLC much like Microsoft does.

Posted: Oct 27th 2008 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PC>360,PS3 lol you guys need to get to microsofts systems for true gamers the PC. The 360 is a crap bargain bin system for kids

Posted: Oct 28th 2008 8:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure the issue with the PS3 is the fact that, for some reason developers only make most of the PS3 games 720p while they make 360 games a full 1080p. I have all 3 next gen systems and almost every game I have on 360 is up to 1080p where as the only PS3 game I have that has 1080p supported is MGS4. All of the others only do 720p. I really don't understand this since the PS3 comes with HDMI and the only way to get HDMI out of the box for 360 is to buy the Elite system. My guess is that they were testing both games out at their highest res settings which would make the 360 obviously look better. I may buy the PC version, was going to get the 360 version, but my 360 RRODed last week, 2 days before Fable 2 released. Talk about about being p***ed

Posted: Nov 6th 2008 4:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guys, guys - seriously... stop it. You've been at it for YEARS... before the current gen was Xbox Vs. PS2... then it was Dreamcast vs. PS2... Saturn vs. PS1, Super Nintendo vs. Mega Drive/Genesis, Nintendo cs. Master System II... really, I could keep going... I own a PC, Xbox 360, PS3 and a Wii. I'm bought it for Xbox 360. Why? Because a)Bestheda originally intended it to be for 360, and began developing it as such... PS3 was ported b)I like the acheivement system and c)I happen to prefer the 360 controller - personal preference. When a game comes out for both and the PS3's deal seems sweeter, I'll buy it for that instead. But, please - let's not get too caught up in system specs etc. PS3 is more powerful - fact. Had the game been developed for PS3 from the get-go it's likely it would have run better than it does. Get over it - buy it for the system you have, and enjoy one of the best games in years.

Posted: Nov 20th 2008 6:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i personaly think that fallout could be better if developers built separately i have both ver and both have some problems hey anthony the cell processor has nothing to do developers need to stop putting so many excuses that they cant or take to much time ps3 development it's verry similar to ps2 anyway fallout3 was overhype

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 8:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah tbh i think the 360 beats the PS3 but then i think PC can top them all if you can afford to dish out for the best money can buy. I just think the PC gaming industry is too expencive, but then again the games are always cheaper so im happy staying as a pc gamer :).

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW