@MikeB

Quote:

I think one reason why Gears received perfect scores in XBox magazines may have been due to Epic's claims and Microsoft's hype. This would never happen for Resistance in Playstation magazines.

This is a new one: Playstation magazines are impartial but Xbox ones are not.

Games TM - ALL-FORMAT - said it was vastly inferior to a five-year-old Xbox game. Their one-line summary was "Playable but ultimately uninspiring"

They must be comparing it with the awesome power of the PS3...

No, they said it wasn't as good as Halo. So, erm...

Perhaps they didn't enjoy the game. Hah! No that's just silly...!

That leaves only one thing...

They must be corrupt! Where are the Microsoft spies?

Chris

@MikeB

Quote:

Initially Amiga games didn't look too hot compared to Atari ST games.

No, but the Amiga was also the one with the better graphics chips and the ST had slightly more cpu muscle. Does that remind us of any platforms in particular?

Now that you bring it up... the 360 gui does have a bit more fashion sense where the XMB is a fair bit more like TOS

... oh .. oh... and you can tap into all of the 360 power with XNA. AMOS/Blitz anyone?

Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 07:53 PM.
Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 07:51 PM.

@Trezzer

I think Gears of War, if it were to have become an exclusive second generation game for the PS3 the game may even have scored less than Rainbow Six Vegas for the PS3, for online play the game would probably look weaker than is currently the case as Resistance already has 40 player online multiplay support with voice player communication.

The problem with good visuals is that when other games improve on them, people look more at the game's actual story line and overall lastability.

@Trezzer

Quote:

No, but the Amiga was also the one with the better graphics chips and the ST had slightly more cpu muscle. Does that remind us of any platforms in particular?

Yes. Amiga=PS3 and Atari ST=XBox 360.

The Atari ST was released before the Amiga and was initially available in higher numbers. Games companies ported Atari ST games over to the Amiga without taking much advantage of its special abilities. The Cell is very powerful to enhance graphics and game complexity, if you want to focuss solely on the GPU then both have their stronger and weaker points.

@MikeB

Quote:

I think Gears of War, if it were to have become an exclusive second generation game for the PS3 the game may even have scored less than Rainbow Six Vegas for the PS3

I doubt it. I've played Rainbow Six Vegas and it's both fun and looks great. But it's a far cry from Gears of War's quality.

The thing about Gears of War is that it follows the "Halo rule": 30 seconds of fun repeated ad nauseam. That's why it also has great replayability and the fact that it isn't longer than it is means that you can easily have a friend over and play through it over a weekend - or even a day if you start early enough. I haven't even gone online with Gears of War yet because I'm not done having fun offline even though I've already completed the game once.

Quote:

as Resistance already has 40 player online multiplay support

That's not exactly a proof of quality in itself. The question is how fun it is to play with the 39 other people. If it's not very fun what does it matter? I'm not trying to belittle its online component - just saying that more isn't necesarily better. It very much depends on the game design, quality and scope of levels and so on.

Quote:

The problem with good visuals is that when other games improve on them, people look more at the game's actual story line and overall lastability.

Yup. That's probably why Halo 2 was the number one Xbox Live game till Gears of War came out - after which Gears of War has consistently been in #1 spot.

Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 08:15 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

The Atari ST was released before the Amiga and was initially available in higher numbers.

... and that's actually the only thing where this comparison is valid.

Design-wise Xbox 360 is more like the Amiga (powerful and easy to program with a chip to help it scale video output and a far more advanced GPU) where the PS3 is really more like an older PC (we're talking before 3D acceleration, dedicated sound cards etc) in that it favours raw cpu power over a balanced system.

Quote:

Games companies ported Atari ST games over to the Amiga without taking much advantage of its special abilities.

That's largely true, yes.

Quote:

The Cell is very powerful to enhance graphics and game complexity

Yet the nature of the 360 processor is more geared towards running games as well as possible whereas the Cell is more geared towards multimedia and streaming and achieving the same results is more difficult. With tight development schedules this can hurt the PS3 in itself.

Quote:

if you want to focuss solely on the GPU then both have their stronger and weaker points.

The 360 GPU is technically capable of full DX10 compliance. The PS3 GPU is not.

Quote:

Yes. Amiga=PS3 and Atari ST=XBox 360

Bravo! Way to miss the point completely. Yes. I noticed the smiley.

Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 08:17 PM.

@thread

Here's some figures I worked out (I must be bored) from Metacritic. Hopefully they're all correct.

Gears of War - average over 81 reviews = 94. My workings:

Actual average with Xbox mags/sites included = 93.83
Actual average using only all-format magazines = 93.83


Resistance (EDIT: ta, Trezzer) - average over 41 reviews = 89

Actual average with PS mags/sites included = 89.20
Actual average using only all-format magazines = 88.40


The PS sites & magazines knocked the percentage up, and every one rated it above the average. Well, Mike, another black mark on your fanboy test.

Chris

Last edited by clebin on 06-Jan-2007 at 10:04 PM.
Last edited by clebin on 06-Jan-2007 at 08:43 PM.

@clebin

You put Gears of War twice.

Guessing the second one is Resistance: FoM.

@Trezzer

Quote:

That's not exactly a proof of quality in itself. The question is how fun it is to play with the 39 other people.

IMO it's awesome.
http://www.jeuxvideo.tv/resistance-fall-of-man-video-20181.html#toppage

@clebin

Quote:

The PS sites & magazines knocked the percentage up, and every one rated it above the average. Well, Mike, another black mark on your fanboy test.

What is your point? Grow up a little, how old are you?

@MikeB

Quote:

What is your point? Grow up a little, how old are you?

At least he's supplying facts instead of repeating falsities over and over.

@Trezzer

OK "factboys", no more replies from me to you and clebin. Just have fun playing Gears of War, maybe if some day you complete Resistance and played the game online you will have an informed opinion. Maybe then you may somewhat agree with me or maybe not, I don't care. CU

@MikeB

Quote:

The Cell is very powerful to enhance graphics and game complexity

So does X360's proto-DirectX 10 class Xenos GPU. Xenos in a lot of areas manages to meet many of the requirements that would qualify it as a DirectX 10 GPU.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@MikeB

If we cannot counter your wild claims and repeated trolling with facts, what else can we do? It's not as if you ever really reply much. You tend to wait a couple of pages and then repeat the same thing that was debunked a bit earlier.

FYI the only reason I bother posting here is because of what Hitler did. I just don't intend to sit idly by and let people be misled by propaganda (not that I'm saying you're a nazi, but the rhetoric is the same).

I don't think I'll be playing Resistance; games tend to get higher ratings than usual in the first period of a console's life span, so in reality the proper rating for Resistance is likely to be somewhat lower, since reviewers are typically more forgiving and happy that there's something pretty good out at all. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though, and if I read enough good things about it I'll change my mind and try it.

Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 10:05 PM.
Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Jan-2007 at 10:04 PM.

@MikeB

Nah, I'm not that keen on Gears of War!

As a 'factboy' I respect the journalists enough not to accuse them of corruption because they disagree with me. That's how old I am.

I hope Brian is still interested in your lovely thread, because in space, no-one can hear you FUD.

Nighty night.

Chris

@All

This is just getting silly.

Comparing early titles is just plain daft, we won't know what either system is capable of for YEARS yet. That applies to both computation power and graphics.

Quote:

Yet the nature of the 360 processor is more geared towards running games as well as possible whereas the Cell is more geared towards multimedia and streaming and achieving the same results is more difficult.

You should really go read up on these processors. They were designed for *exactly* the same sort of load - Xenon was also designed for streaming workloads.
To get existing code to work will be easier on 360 but to get the best out of either system the problems are actually remarkably similar.

Quote:

You're quite anxious to combat what you see as a biased and extreme media. Do have some good examples that you can link to?

There've been a lot of stories about the PS3 which have turned out to be rubbish.
The media will pick up and repeat anything they hear irrespective of whether it is true or not. This isn't unique to PS3, it also happened with the 360.

e.g.
It was widely reported that IBM had a yield rate of 10% with Cell. This was actually a misinterpretation of a quote referring to complex chips *like* Cell.

A story also came out about Xenon having bad yields and this held up 360 production. This was still reported after the CEO of MS stated it wasn't the case - twice.
The problem later came out that the problem was yields of RAM chips at the right clock speed.

Nobody has ever reported yield figures for either chip other than IBM saying they were "good" and had improved faster than anything else they've made.

The PS3 is being reported to be making a huge loss of anything up to $300 each, these figures vary wildly and I doubt if any of them are correct, especially now they are in mass production.

Same with the 360, it's now reported to be making a profit, however one report said it's now costing *more* to produce...

_________________
Whyzzat?

@minator

Quote:

You should really go read up on these processors. They were designed for *exactly* the same sort of load - Xenon was also designed for streaming workloads.

Got any interesting links? Everything I've found so far pointed towards what I was saying. I'd love to read more about 'em.

@BrianK

Quote:

You never mentioned your screen size.

The reason why I keep going on (just to follow the "good" example of Trezzer) is that there is some (not all!) unfair ciriticism towards MikeB, in my my opinion. When you (meaning all of us) want to have a good discussion, it would be nice if all of us would react to the posts themselves a bit more on the point and read the posts carefully.

Still you (BrianK) haven't mentioned the issue with the screen when going from 10' to 3'. You give the example of a 26" screen. I can't give you my screen size, as I will buy a new TV when I buy my PS3, but it will certainly be equal or larger than the 32" CRT I currently have.

And perhaps I'll buy a 60" just to make sure I need 1080p.

Somehow I have the feeling you are "preaching" to the world that they don't need 1080p. Perhaps because the 360 doesn't have any 1080p titles?

@jiyong

Quote:

Still you (BrianK) haven't mentioned the issue with the screen when going from 10' to 3'. You give the example of a 26" screen.

It's true that there is a correlation between screen size, viewing distance and all that and where you'll notice the change in visual quality if we assume you have regular vision and all that.

While there are some nice diagrams describing where you can see which, I find this to be an informative article on it in more general terms.

Quote:

Somehow I have the feeling you are "preaching" to the world that they don't need 1080p. Perhaps because the 360 doesn't have any 1080p titles?

That can't be it, really, since it does

@Trezzer

Quote:

Got any interesting links? Everything I've found so far pointed towards what I was saying. I'd love to read more about 'em.

There are slides here but the paper is better, (IEEE Micro) they were giving it away a while back but you have to pay for it now :-/

There's an IBM paper here but I don't know if it mentions specific features.

There's also some slides from a 360 dev conference about programming.

_________________
Whyzzat?

My opinion to the subject of the thread in general:

I found myself having pretty much the same opinion as MikeB some time ago. Last year I wanted to go high-def in gaming, so I did get an Xbox 360 and was quite impressed with it, but at the same time clearly planning to replace it with a PS3 over a year later upon the European release. At that time the PS3 was still a long way off and later delayed even more, so I needed something temporary.

The things that impressed me about the PS3, based on preliminary info, were obviously the Cell, what I believed to be superior graphics (the whole 1080p issue) and Blu-Ray. I thought that Microsoft was probably going to have better network gaming, but other than that I thought Xbox would be a real underdog much like PS2 was for the original Xbox.

The PS3 not only felt like it held more promise and innovation, I also thought it would simply kick Xbox 360's butt from the get-go.

I can tell you I no longer have a plan of replacing the Xbox 360. It isn't so much that my perception of the machine I have is changed, more that my perception of the PS3 has changed. And trust me, I would replace the Xbox if I felt I had any reason to - I have no need to justify the purchase of the Xbox because I always purchased it as a stop-gap measure anyway. If anything, I would have to justify myself why I'm changing my plan of getting a PS3...

First off, I couldn't care less about sales figures. The only sales figure I care about is the 1 with my name on it, so popularity isn't a factor (as long as we are talking about mainstream products with ample games coming). I want the best gaming experience (outside of PC), period. Since new consoles come out quite rarely, and I don't have a tendency of gathering huge game libraries since I am a quite casual gamer, I can upgrade when necessary.

Maybe I bought into the marketing hype, but while the PS3 still feels a bit more next-gen in some regards (namely HDMI, the Blu-Ray drive and nicer looks), I believe the reports that have been pouring in since its release have been a disappointment. What I thought to be at least one year ahead of the Xbox in graphics (PS3 did come out later), perhaps even more polished because of the delay in release, seems to be work-in-progress for software and hardware failing to impress.

Surely the PS3 would have obliterated the Xbox 360? It did not. When the original Xbox came out, it did obliterate the PS2 as far as I was concerned. First-gen Xbox original games looked better than PS2 current-gen back then. And I did own both consoles for years. No such difference this time around, the PS3 is actually having to defend itself with the "first-gen games" mantra, no matter the developers should have had ample additional time to finish their products because the release was so delayed... Talk about failing to deliver on the hype!

When in fact I was expecting the PS3 to knock Xbox 360 down with sheer graphics power, we are now learning that Xbox 360 has the more powerful graphics chip. When I thought PS3 would kill Xbox 360's 720p with its 1080p glamour, we know have learned that all/most PS3 lauch-titles are in fact 720p too, can't even be scaled to 1080p, while at the same time Xbox 360 now can do 1080p native, already has 1080p title(s) out there, and has a hardware scaler which the PS3 does not giving it additional flexibility as well as quality improvement when up-scaling is needed.

And it doesn't end there. The PS3 is missing rumble on the pad (I know, patent issues), and now even force-feedback is a question mark on the wheels? I would certainly hope these are addressed, otherwise a major, major shortcoming for someone like me who enjoys driving games. Xbox 360 with the Microsoft steering wheel is great fun and the rumble and force-feedback really add to both playability and "being there". The PS3 does have the added tilt sensor, but even the Wii relies on sounds and rumbles on the controller to add to the motion sensing experience... I fear the PS3 will feel more sterile in this regard with the controller not reacting to the players input.

Even the Cell is a mixed bag. I do put faith in Cell to give the PS3 longetivity as it is utilized more and more in the future, but I never expected it to have to compensate for shortcomings in the graphics department. It is also proving to be far tougher to code for, and the Xbox 360 still has three easy to code cores too. The PS3's CPU has potential, but it is not like it is crushing the Xbox 360 like a bug either - it will even be slower in some cases if the specialized units are not spesifically used or used well. PS2 was also told to have a lot of potential down under that wasn't utilized to the max, but this potential took a long time to emerge if ever. (I do believe Cell will be better in that regard, though. I hope it is.)

PS3 does have Blu-Ray, and seems to be a good player at that. HDMI 1.3 too is a great benefit, at least down the road when e.g. HDMI receivers start to multiply and truly work. These are clearly things which are better than the Xbox 360. As for games, I'm beginning to think Blu-Ray's benefit, while cool and enticing in some way, may be cosmetic. Blu-Ray capacity will benefit some games, but if a few games require the added space, really, an Xbox 360 game with a disc change here and there is no problem for me - at least not enough of a problem to dismiss the other merits listed above. I have very little interest in a console as a video player personally, but I do consider it a plus for the PS3. Load times for launch games seem to be longer for the PS3 so no benefit there either.

The PS3 is quieter than the Xbox 360, that is a plus for it, but for gaming I don't really care. I also don't consider standard harddrive on the PS3 a major plus since Xbox 360 Premium is pretty much standard anyway, I haven't felt games hurting from the Core on the Xbox - all I've seen use the harddrive just fine. I haven't run out of space in my use anyway, but I would welcome a larger drive someday for those who need it. Again, nothing so spectacular either way here.

Xbox Live costs a little money, but so far everyone seems to agree that this is where Microsoft shines. PS3 will hopefully get better and better (and certainly better than PS2 which was/is horrible in this regard compared to Live), but again something that I would have to give up somewhat moving to PS3 instead of gaining... Not too big a deal for me, PS3 might get my money even without network play entirely (and it does have network play) if it were the superior console.

I'm just fearing it isn't.

There may come a time or a game that knocks my socks off and justifies the PS3. That time doesn't seem to be now nor come March. And I have this nagging feeling that save for some few exclusives that are always hard to compare, we won't see the Xbox maxing out and the PS3 making a clear victory technically... the Xbox wil likely remain an equal for a long time to come, it might even remain the victor for all we know. Huge from a console that came out a year earlier! Maybe I expected too much from PS3, or maybe I didn't give that little white box enough credit, but for the moment I'm considering the Xbox 360 the best choice techincally and games wise, and sticking to that until something changes.

I have nothing against Sony (although they have their share of filthy business practices as does Microsoft, so I don't think either side should preach), the PSP and PS2 next to me should be ample proof of that. PSP rocks, btw. In this I have no agenda, I just want the best and so far Xbox 360 looks like it is going to fit the bill for years to come, even if not by any wide margin.

Life sometimes throws curveballs at you. Maybe the situation and my opinion will still change, but surprisingly it looks like the temp is here to stay. I wonder why I ever thought of the Xbox 360 as such, it is really a fantastic machine with great-looking games... I guess hype, this time Sony's, can do that.