By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 Not Maxed Out By Killzone 3, says Guerilla

dsage01 on 26 February 2011

well i don't know if the graphics are maxed out or not but the american preorders defintly aren't! 



Around the Network
Squilliam on 26 February 2011
osamanobama said:

yeah, but bluray player for that cheap a shit.

ps3 is still one of the most affordable bluray player around, and its also the 2nd best bluray player there is, the best one is more than twice the cost.

For $129 you get a Blu Ray player with a remote or universal remote.

For $299 you get a Blu Ray player where you have to use a controller.

Functionally that is more important when they both play the discs identically.



Tease.

zgamer5 on 26 February 2011

no shit! skyrim is going to max out the ps3/360/ and pc.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

osamanobama on 26 February 2011
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

yeah, but bluray player for that cheap a shit.

ps3 is still one of the most affordable bluray player around, and its also the 2nd best bluray player there is, the best one is more than twice the cost.

For $129 you get a Blu Ray player with a remote or universal remote.

For $299 you get a Blu Ray player where you have to use a controller.

Functionally that is more important when they both play the discs identically.

they dont play the disks identically though. ps3 plays them back superiorly, just check cnet, up until a few months ago the ps3 was what the tested all of their HD tv's and blurays on because it was the best (now its 2nd best). also a controller is hardly inconvienent, and i doubt people would care (i know i dont) and if they wanted to they could buy a $20 dollar remote from amazon, which i know adds cost but not much, and they still dont need to (i have because it serves no purpose to get one, and ive owned a ps3 since 2006, with a major intent to use it for bluray playback)



Aldro on 26 February 2011
Slimebeast said:

Well I heard from a credible source (the biggest Swedish mag) that KZ3 looks clearly worse than KZ2 because it has to reserve resources for the 3D.

In my own eyes, Im not sure yet. KZ2 looked solid but boring. KZ3 looks about the same.

Either way there's a bit more potential left in the PS3 than Killzone shows. I mean, if multiplatform graphics still can improve like Skyrim, Crysis 2, LA Noire and Rage apparently have, PS3 exclusives must too.

This is wrong kiddo. I bet you are talking about Gamereactor. Go read the full review, the guy who said it takes it back. He only saw a preview which sucked clearly. The full game blows KZ2 out of the water and only Uncharted 2 can rival it (IF even that). GO READ THE KILLZONE 3 REVIEW AT GAMEREACTOR.SE

 

Killzone 3 rapes anything on console to date. Just take a look at all the reviews.
KZ3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War 3 > Killzone 2

Anyone else claiming something else than the above deserve a cockslap (talking firmly consoles). Gears 2... lmao.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 26 February 2011
Aldro said:
Slimebeast said:

Well I heard from a credible source (the biggest Swedish mag) that KZ3 looks clearly worse than KZ2 because it has to reserve resources for the 3D.

In my own eyes, Im not sure yet. KZ2 looked solid but boring. KZ3 looks about the same.

Either way there's a bit more potential left in the PS3 than Killzone shows. I mean, if multiplatform graphics still can improve like Skyrim, Crysis 2, LA Noire and Rage apparently have, PS3 exclusives must too.

This is wrong kiddo. I bet you are talking about Gamereactor. Go read the full review, the guy who said it takes it back. He only saw a preview which sucked clearly. The full game blows KZ2 out of the water and only Uncharted 2 can rival it (IF even that). GO READ THE KILLZONE 3 REVIEW AT GAMEREACTOR.SE

 

Killzone 3 rapes anything on console to date. Just take a look at all the reviews.
KZ3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War 3 > Killzone 2

Anyone else claiming something else than the above deserve a cockslap (talking firmly consoles). Gears 2... lmao.

3d doesnt degrade the 2d games quality at all. it just duplicates the data which bluray can clearly hold, and its degraded when in 3d (which still looks better than 90% of games)



Squilliam on 26 February 2011
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

yeah, but bluray player for that cheap a shit.

ps3 is still one of the most affordable bluray player around, and its also the 2nd best bluray player there is, the best one is more than twice the cost.

For $129 you get a Blu Ray player with a remote or universal remote.

For $299 you get a Blu Ray player where you have to use a controller.

Functionally that is more important when they both play the discs identically.

they dont play the disks identically though. ps3 plays them back superiorly, just check cnet, up until a few months ago the ps3 was what the tested all of their HD tv's and blurays on because it was the best (now its 2nd best). also a controller is hardly inconvienent, and i doubt people would care (i know i dont) and if they wanted to they could buy a $20 dollar remote from amazon, which i know adds cost but not much, and they still dont need to (i have because it serves no purpose to get one, and ive owned a ps3 since 2006, with a major intent to use it for bluray playback)

It either plays back Blu Ray or it doesn't. Being marginally better in ways which don't really matter doesn't actually matter, get it? Blu Ray exceeds the requirements of most people and often the capabilities of their TV sets to display it properly.

Finally you can't expect people to spend 20 years using remotes and then instantly want to forget about that and use the PS3 controller, mass market people anyway.



Tease.

Slimebeast on 26 February 2011
Aldro said:
Slimebeast said:

Well I heard from a credible source (the biggest Swedish mag) that KZ3 looks clearly worse than KZ2 because it has to reserve resources for the 3D.

In my own eyes, Im not sure yet. KZ2 looked solid but boring. KZ3 looks about the same.

Either way there's a bit more potential left in the PS3 than Killzone shows. I mean, if multiplatform graphics still can improve like Skyrim, Crysis 2, LA Noire and Rage apparently have, PS3 exclusives must too.

This is wrong kiddo. I bet you are talking about Gamereactor. Go read the full review, the guy who said it takes it back. He only saw a preview which sucked clearly. The full game blows KZ2 out of the water and only Uncharted 2 can rival it (IF even that). GO READ THE KILLZONE 3 REVIEW AT GAMEREACTOR.SE

 

Killzone 3 rapes anything on console to date. Just take a look at all the reviews.
KZ3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War 3 > Killzone 2

Anyone else claiming something else than the above deserve a cockslap (talking firmly consoles). Gears 2... lmao.

Oh.

Yes, it was Gamereactor. I'm gonna read that review now, thanks!



osamanobama on 27 February 2011
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

yeah, but bluray player for that cheap a shit.

ps3 is still one of the most affordable bluray player around, and its also the 2nd best bluray player there is, the best one is more than twice the cost.

For $129 you get a Blu Ray player with a remote or universal remote.

For $299 you get a Blu Ray player where you have to use a controller.

Functionally that is more important when they both play the discs identically.

they dont play the disks identically though. ps3 plays them back superiorly, just check cnet, up until a few months ago the ps3 was what the tested all of their HD tv's and blurays on because it was the best (now its 2nd best). also a controller is hardly inconvienent, and i doubt people would care (i know i dont) and if they wanted to they could buy a $20 dollar remote from amazon, which i know adds cost but not much, and they still dont need to (i have because it serves no purpose to get one, and ive owned a ps3 since 2006, with a major intent to use it for bluray playback)

It either plays back Blu Ray or it doesn't. Being marginally better in ways which don't really matter doesn't actually matter, get it? Blu Ray exceeds the requirements of most people and often the capabilities of their TV sets to display it properly.

Finally you can't expect people to spend 20 years using remotes and then instantly want to forget about that and use the PS3 controller, mass market people anyway.

not all bluray players are created equal.

also ps3 supports alot more audio tracks than most bluray players, also you have to take into account other the other features it has (directly related to movie watching (not even counting the games)

and what you say still doesnt mater, there are quality differences in bluray players and ps3 is the 2nd best and very cheap.

if some incompetant cant use a controller, then they can buy a remote for it. but not having a remote is a non issue and doesnt take away from the value or the quality of bluray play back that the ps3 has. but really the remote thing is a complete non issue



Squilliam on 27 February 2011
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

yeah, but bluray player for that cheap a shit.

ps3 is still one of the most affordable bluray player around, and its also the 2nd best bluray player there is, the best one is more than twice the cost.

For $129 you get a Blu Ray player with a remote or universal remote.

For $299 you get a Blu Ray player where you have to use a controller.

Functionally that is more important when they both play the discs identically.

they dont play the disks identically though. ps3 plays them back superiorly, just check cnet, up until a few months ago the ps3 was what the tested all of their HD tv's and blurays on because it was the best (now its 2nd best). also a controller is hardly inconvienent, and i doubt people would care (i know i dont) and if they wanted to they could buy a $20 dollar remote from amazon, which i know adds cost but not much, and they still dont need to (i have because it serves no purpose to get one, and ive owned a ps3 since 2006, with a major intent to use it for bluray playback)

It either plays back Blu Ray or it doesn't. Being marginally better in ways which don't really matter doesn't actually matter, get it? Blu Ray exceeds the requirements of most people and often the capabilities of their TV sets to display it properly.

Finally you can't expect people to spend 20 years using remotes and then instantly want to forget about that and use the PS3 controller, mass market people anyway.

not all bluray players are created equal.

also ps3 supports alot more audio tracks than most bluray players, also you have to take into account other the other features it has (directly related to movie watching (not even counting the games)

and what you say still doesnt mater, there are quality differences in bluray players and ps3 is the 2nd best and very cheap.

if some incompetant cant use a controller, then they can buy a remote for it. but not having a remote is a non issue and doesnt take away from the value or the quality of bluray play back that the ps3 has. but really the remote thing is a complete non issue

Very cheap? Regular Blu Ray are $129 or even cheaper... Finally the quality differences are over-stated typically. Most people don't care about how it looks so long as it plays hi def and upscales DVDs.



Tease.