PS3 version runs at a higher resolution according to Beyond3d's Quaz51 (respected by both "sides" of the console war).
Far Cry 2 on
PS3: 1.04M pixels/frame (960x1080)
360: 9.22M pixels/frame (1280x720)
They both have upscaled 1080P output but neither is true native 1080P.
I can get a 320GB drive for the PS3 for $85.
Yet Microsoft is charging $150 for 120GB.
Nice.
... as well as a lot of angry customers when they realize that it offers nothing more than a a last-gen gaming experience at a higher screen resolutoin due to the lack of online-multiplayer, the fact that the meager memory card will fill up quickily requiring constant deleting of old data, lack of wifi, and advanced multimedia functions.
looks bloody amazing!
1) These arent the best graphics on the 360, let alone PS3
2) Uncharted is much better both in stills and in motion for a number of reasons
3) You don't get "all this" for $299. You still need to pay for Xbox live if you ever intend to play online. That's $50/yr. Multiply that by the number of years you intend to use your 360.
4) If you want to know what the fuss with the Cell is all about, ask MIT which has a course dedicated to programming...
everything else does not have as detailed textures, and how the lighting and shadows are simplistic. Not the 360's fault, it can do better. This is a problem with Unreal Engine.
but it did not offer nearly the range of features or the usability of Xbox Live.
PS3 Online is a different story. It's about as good featurewise but it's faster, more reliable, and totally free.
PSN has always been faster and most reliable. I'd agree that apart from that there's little to choose between the two.
However, Xbox Live requires you to pay $50 every year to Microsoft ($250 over 5 years) while PSN is totally free.
dedicated servers (as offered on PS3 online) is not needed and that Xbox360 online has no lag. So it seems that Xbox360 online expensive, slow and laggy while PS3 online is free yet fast and reliable.
If anyone has sensible arguments to the contrary please explain your take on the issue.
but even as bull-shots they aren't technically impressive. Still, the lighting and shadows are very basic and even bull-shots can't hide that. The 360 hardware is certainly capable of more advanced graphics than this.
As far as Uncharted, that's not really a fair comparison since that's on stronger hardware. It makes more sense to compare it to other games on the 360, no?
not a patch on games like Uncharted which has smooth, natural lighting, superb shadows, a rich color palette, and much higher polygon counts for characters and environments, not to mention, incredible textures on virtually all surfaces.
http://i5.photobucket.com/a...
What's more, the lighting and shadows are not impressive as it gets the usual stepped lighting...
You are absolutely right man! The $199 model will not allow you to play online with your friends unless you pay $50 every year to Microsoft ON TOP OF what you pay for your internet access to Verizon or Comcast or whatever it is.
Unless you buy the hard-drive you cant even download movies and demos!
It's crazy that people think this is a good deal.
And what's worse is that it has a crummy outdated DVD player.
It's a cut-rate gimped conso...
If they have this running at 60fps I'd be very impressed. The lighting, shadows and textures look great for a 360 game (although the polygon count seems a bit low). Then again, if it's only running at 30fps then it's not all that impressive.
Couple of reservations:
Depth of field looks really bad from some angles. They need a better way to do it.
360s have to be reliable.
I'm not convinced by the gameplay concept they've pursue
... Vista sucks.
I'm sure it'll be a great game, I'm just not a fan of shooters in general. Given what I've seen of the first level, the graphics and physics look superb. The one question mark is the AI. The first video I saw had terrible AI. I'm sure Guerrilla has been working very hard to make the AI top notch. If they do that then this will be a truly incredible game.
... that's the point at which the game industry as a whole is most profitable.
If they charge more, although they would make more of each individual sale, the number of sales will drop so fast that total profit will be less. If they charge less than $60, they won't gain gaining enough customers to make up for the loss of profit in each sale.
Basic economics.
Best overall lighting system. Fabulous. They've cranked up the textures as well. For me however, this game would be really boring because shooters don't appeal to me. I would only play it to see the graphics.
2008 sales
PS3: 5.0M
360: 3.7M
The PS3 is running circles around the 360. Microsoft needs to do something really dramatic to come back from this.
Here are some things MS can do:
-Stop charging $50 every year for online when it's free for competitors
-Tell developers to only make games that require a hard-drive (not doing so holds back graphics). If people who bought the core complain, then send them each free refurbished 20GB ...
Fable II graphics are an embarrassment to the 360 which is capable of so much more.
On the other hand, they significantly improved the broken gameplay of the original and from that stand point it's reassuring that there's stuff out there that's fresh, different, and thought provoking to break the nearly endless monotony of space marine shooters.