Quantcast
Greenburg : the most lame reply ever!

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Greenburg : the most lame reply ever!

Greenburg : the most lame reply ever!

very lame 78 66.10%
 
spot on 40 33.90%
 
Total:118

yeah, look @ FFXIII *laughs*



I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!

Around the Network

Gears 2 and Forza 3 are good but why did he name 2 multiplat games? What a weird response.



RAZurrection said:
KylieDog said:
Incredible how he talks of Modern Warfare 2 like its technically impressive in anyway at all.

Probably has something to do with the perfect 10 it got from IGN fro graphics and Gametrailers saying the only game that could challange it was Uncharted 2.

Plus Digital Foundry and Lens of Truth confirmed the game wasn't possible on PS3.

something smells wrong in your post ?



Time to Work !

libellule said:
RAZurrection said:
KylieDog said:
Incredible how he talks of Modern Warfare 2 like its technically impressive in anyway at all.

Probably has something to do with the perfect 10 it got from IGN fro graphics and Gametrailers saying the only game that could challange it was Uncharted 2.

Plus Digital Foundry and Lens of Truth confirmed the game wasn't possible on PS3.

something smells wrong in your post ?

 

yeah, Activision is pretty angry 'bout the money loss because they didnt bring MW2 on PS3, right? xD

 

(maybe he meant Gears2, but Lens of truth..? i mean, i could confirm that Super Mario 64 isnt possible @ Ps360 either, but this would be bullshit, as the statement of LoT is)



I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!

Its certainly not any more lame than your run of the mill PR talk, and to me it appears that the leading question they asked him was more lame, doubly so in the face of someone employed by the competition to the mentioned title.

"So, you have manufactured a car. Is is this car as good as or better than this car?"

"Yes."

Mindblowing.



End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

Around the Network
Reasonable said:
Twistedpixel said:

God of War 2 is possible on the PS2... Obviously God of War 3 would be possible on the Xbox 360. Degraded or not it doesn't matter, but in truth its a correct statement. If you took the statement God of War 3 = not possible on the Xbox 360 to its logical conclusion, then you would have to say games like Battefield: Bad Company 2 aren't possible on the PS3 OR Xbox 360. Im personally sick of the kind of statements like this, God of War is artistically amazing but in terms of sheer polygons/shaders/physics its surpassed by other titles and that magic isn't lost in the slight translation between the Xbox 360 and PS3.

To date I haven't seen any game on either that I don't think the other couldn't support in principle provided the engine was well coded and optimized for the plaftorm - any difference either way has for the most part been a matter of code optimization leaning towards one platform over the other.

The single definate advantage I see for the PS3 at this point is simply capacity - which impacted FFXIII and to an extent Rage from id.  This simply means that, on a single disk, PS3 can support greater variety of textures, etc. and/or higher resolution cinematics and better audio.

But in terms of the game engine and running it, both seem fairly similar in basic specs from a gaming perspective.

In this case the variety of textures is caused more by them prebaking lighting, SSAO etc into the textures themselves as a quick/dirty optimisation to make the game look better and free the processing power for other things. They haven't likely gone out and made 30GB of purely unique source textures, it just doesn't make sense, so the game can fit onto two discs at worst with just unique textures and dynamic lighting.

If the Xbox 360 can do a decent reproduction on 2 discs then theres no problem, it can run it and Alan Greenburg is correct.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

papflesje said:
kowenicki said:
papflesje said:
kowenicki said:
pointless thread... no good can come of it.

The he shouldn't have said it? :-/ Avoid the question meant to lure such responses out?


but in the face of a direct question that just looks weak... all company people from all 3 companies would answer like this.

 

A "well, despite good efforts from the competition, we are confident our own games shine brightly as well. We have Alan Wake - which is looking awesome with all its lighting effects - and ... blablablabla whatever he can say to not specifically bash or trash" answer would suffice as well and that wouldn't be weak.

Generally, acknowledging and then pinpointing your own strengths comes across way better, something you can even see when a rare "normal" statement comes out of a dev's or publisher's mouth.

you mean like saying "i'd rather take a bullet than have one of their exclusives on our console"... now thats lame.

lets face it, they all take shite very often....  best to ignore all of it really.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Twistedpixel said:
Reasonable said:
Twistedpixel said:

God of War 2 is possible on the PS2... Obviously God of War 3 would be possible on the Xbox 360. Degraded or not it doesn't matter, but in truth its a correct statement. If you took the statement God of War 3 = not possible on the Xbox 360 to its logical conclusion, then you would have to say games like Battefield: Bad Company 2 aren't possible on the PS3 OR Xbox 360. Im personally sick of the kind of statements like this, God of War is artistically amazing but in terms of sheer polygons/shaders/physics its surpassed by other titles and that magic isn't lost in the slight translation between the Xbox 360 and PS3.

To date I haven't seen any game on either that I don't think the other couldn't support in principle provided the engine was well coded and optimized for the plaftorm - any difference either way has for the most part been a matter of code optimization leaning towards one platform over the other.

The single definate advantage I see for the PS3 at this point is simply capacity - which impacted FFXIII and to an extent Rage from id.  This simply means that, on a single disk, PS3 can support greater variety of textures, etc. and/or higher resolution cinematics and better audio.

But in terms of the game engine and running it, both seem fairly similar in basic specs from a gaming perspective.

In this case the variety of textures is caused more by them prebaking lighting, SSAO etc into the textures themselves as a quick/dirty optimisation to make the game look better and free the processing power for other things. They haven't likely gone out and made 30GB of purely unique source textures, it just doesn't make sense, so the game can fit onto two discs at worst with just unique textures and dynamic lighting.

If the Xbox 360 can do a decent reproduction on 2 discs then theres no problem, it can run it and Alan Greenburg is correct.

Well strictly speaking he's spinning (understandably as that's his job) that 360 is better, which he clearly references, so a close match with lower resolution videos, etc. isn't 'better' as he puts it.

My point is that, for the most part, the only truly tangible advantage I see between the consoles is BR capacity over DVD, which is 100% factual of course.  However much you compress or pack onto a DVD you can pack more onto a BR, and obviously DVD impacts design (as with Rage) to minimise disk swapping.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Reasonable said:
Twistedpixel said:

In this case the variety of textures is caused more by them prebaking lighting, SSAO etc into the textures themselves as a quick/dirty optimisation to make the game look better and free the processing power for other things. They haven't likely gone out and made 30GB of purely unique source textures, it just doesn't make sense, so the game can fit onto two discs at worst with just unique textures and dynamic lighting.

If the Xbox 360 can do a decent reproduction on 2 discs then theres no problem, it can run it and Alan Greenburg is correct.

Well strictly speaking he's spinning (understandably as that's his job) that 360 is better, which he clearly references, so a close match with lower resolution videos, etc. isn't 'better' as he puts it.

My point is that, for the most part, the only truly tangible advantage I see between the consoles is BR capacity over DVD, which is 100% factual of course.  However much you compress or pack onto a DVD you can pack more onto a BR, and obviously DVD impacts design (as with Rage) to minimise disk swapping.

Hes spinning yes, but not in a bad way and certainly not nearly as bad as some of the shockers coming from both Sony/Microsoft this generation. Hes merely doing what we expect him to do and strictly speaking hes probably correct on the performance as games like Battlefield: BC 2 prove which make prodigious use of the Cell processor on the PS3 and yet the 360 version is keeping up fine. The differences do not lie in performance but the techniques used to make the game and the style of game made. A more powerful console than both these systems could do a game like GOW 3 using less space whilst making the game look and run better.

The quote never stated that God of War 3 would be better on the Xbox 360 he said "These games and our leading online experiences demonstrate that Xbox 360 is the most powerful games and entertainment console in the market today." Which can only mean as a market phenomenom really. 

The only games which really make use of the space would be:

1. Linear games due to the fact that the enviroment is controlled and they can use more 'last generation' techniques like prebaking the lighting. Since they can be pretty aggressive in removing spent textures etc from memory they can make better use of the memory available.

2. RPGs due to the quantity of spoken cutscenes in WRPGs and the quantity of FMV in the Japanese ones.

3. Games which require a high level of detail on different environments, racing games essentially. Rage is more a corner case than anything else as its using what would be termed 'next generation techniques'.

Most games are limited in what can be displayed simply due to how fast the games read and how much memory is available to them at any one point in time.

I had a look at a game install list of 506 games, only 16 of them used more than 6.8GB on the NXE update, probably 20 at most due to some games not being updated. So if you were to do a normal distribution curve, where would most games fall with say 90% confidence? In addition to this, most games which go over would probably not go over by much if you consider a normal distribution again.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

He does sound like a bit of an idiot there. He completely ignores Alan Wake and ME2 to point out... two multiplats? One of which doesn't even look as good as its PS3 counterpart?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores