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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Final Fantasy XIII 360 PS3 Comparison

SpartanFX said:
Legend11 said:
It seems like the vast majority of multiplatform games are superior on the 360 compared to the PS3 but when the odd ones does show up that is different talk about endless threads.

Imagine what a game would be like if it was built to the 360's strengths for four years and then given a three month PS3 port job, would it even be playable?

well we had discussions for all of those so why not for this???

Having a discussion once and having it 20 times are two completely different senarios......I think this is grounds to ban the op.



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

Around the Network

Based on gamerankings, has the ps3 version rated higher than 360 version, but the ps3 version has 21 reviews vs. 360 only has 10 reviews, so the comparison isn't fair.  Even so, the ps3 version is the better version, that doesn't make the 360 unplayable.



pbroy said:
SHAME ON YOU SQUARE. It's not like you couldn't have used another freaken disc so that compression wouldn't be so bad. But lets blame it on the 360 for this problem.


Well it's not like Square can up the price of the game to cover the cost of millions of extra discs.  So yeah in this case the blame lies where it belongs: with the 360.



geddesmond2 said:
Kreshnik said:
ch1town3ra said:
because these are the same douche bags that didnt give GOW3 a 10. i just think they are biased.

the only biased person here is you for thinking GOW3 deserves a perfect 10.

it just dont.

 

both FFs look the same, except the PS3 version running at 720p and the 360 version at 576p.

IGN gave the 360 version a 0,5 lower score for graphics, but the overall score was the same.

Well considering GOW3 isn't out yet. Both of yous can't comment on weather it deserves a 10 or not and for you saying it doesn't deserve a 10 without playing it yet makes you biased.

are you kidding me?

the demo was great, but not perfect. nor will be the final game - sorry, but a perfect game needs more than Kratos on the cover. (its still one of the best games of its genre though) GOW is a great series, may deserve a 9/10 from gaming-sites and a 8/10 from me.

there will most likely never be a game which "deserves" a perfect score.

you know the meaning of perfect, dont you? (most review sites most likely dont, they review like: 10=awesome, 9=great, 8=good, 7=average, 6=bad, 5=very bad...)



@maximus

Ohh I'm sure M$ paid a good amount of cash for the game. Square had the money to spend. They could have used a better codec for video compression also. HD DVD and Blu-ray both use M$ developed codecs.







VGChartz♥♥♥♥♥FOREVER

Xbone... the new "N" word   Apparently I troll MS now | Evidence | Evidence
Around the Network
Kreshnik said:
geddesmond2 said:
Kreshnik said:
ch1town3ra said:
because these are the same douche bags that didnt give GOW3 a 10. i just think they are biased.

the only biased person here is you for thinking GOW3 deserves a perfect 10.

it just dont.

 

both FFs look the same, except the PS3 version running at 720p and the 360 version at 576p.

IGN gave the 360 version a 0,5 lower score for graphics, but the overall score was the same.

Well considering GOW3 isn't out yet. Both of yous can't comment on weather it deserves a 10 or not and for you saying it doesn't deserve a 10 without playing it yet makes you biased.

are you kidding me?

the demo was great, but not perfect. nor will be the final game - sorry, but a perfect game needs more than Kratos on the cover. (its still one of the best games of its genre though) GOW is a great series, may deserve a 9/10 from gaming-sites and a 8/10 from me.

there will most likely never be a game which "deserves" a perfect score.

you know the meaning of perfect, dont you? (most review sites most likely dont, they review like: 10=awesome, 9=great, 8=good, 7=average, 6=bad, 5=very bad...)

All I'm saying is both of yous don't know what the game is like until yous play it so neither of yous can comment on a score. Also to say a game deserves a certain score before you even play it makes you biased no matter which way you look at it. Also your going by a demo that was made a year ago seriously?

Look I'm not saying the games perfect. I don't know what its like and I also don't know if it deserves a 10 either but your jumping ahead of yourself man. Nobody said the games perfect. You brought that up all by yourself. He did say the game deserves a 10 and as you stated most reviewers consider that awesome.

Now to get onto the subject of this thread. IGN gave the xbox 360 version of Fallout 3 a 96 and it gave the PS3 version of Fallout 3 a 94. I know exactly what the OP's talking about because both versions of Fallout 3 had a lot of bugs so why the extra marks for the 360 version there?



LOL @ the guy thinking because he played the demo he can just go out and say "this game dont deserve x score" funny too since its comming from a person with halo all over his profile....I can also just go play halo reach for 30 sec when beta comes and say this game dont deserve x score, see how retarded that idea sounds like?

OT: give it a rest I think 360 fans alrdy accepted this...



geddesmond2 said:
Kreshnik said:
geddesmond2 said:
Kreshnik said:
ch1town3ra said:
because these are the same douche bags that didnt give GOW3 a 10. i just think they are biased.

the only biased person here is you for thinking GOW3 deserves a perfect 10.

it just dont.

 

both FFs look the same, except the PS3 version running at 720p and the 360 version at 576p.

IGN gave the 360 version a 0,5 lower score for graphics, but the overall score was the same.

Well considering GOW3 isn't out yet. Both of yous can't comment on weather it deserves a 10 or not and for you saying it doesn't deserve a 10 without playing it yet makes you biased.

are you kidding me?

the demo was great, but not perfect. nor will be the final game - sorry, but a perfect game needs more than Kratos on the cover. (its still one of the best games of its genre though) GOW is a great series, may deserve a 9/10 from gaming-sites and a 8/10 from me.

there will most likely never be a game which "deserves" a perfect score.

you know the meaning of perfect, dont you? (most review sites most likely dont, they review like: 10=awesome, 9=great, 8=good, 7=average, 6=bad, 5=very bad...)

All I'm saying is both of yous don't know what the game is like until yous play it so neither of yous can comment on a score. Also to say a game deserves a certain score before you even play it makes you biased no matter which way you look at it. Also your going by a demo that was made a year ago seriously?

Look I'm not saying the games perfect. I don't know what its like and I also don't know if it deserves a 10 either but your jumping ahead of yourself man. Nobody said the games perfect. You brought that up all by yourself. He did say the game deserves a 10 and as you stated most reviewers consider that awesome.

Now to get onto the subject of this thread. IGN gave the xbox 360 version of Fallout 3 a 96 and it gave the PS3 version of Fallout 3 a 94. I know exactly what the OP's talking about because both versions of Fallout 3 had a lot of bugs so why the extra marks for the 360 version there?

oh man, i said only a perfect game deserves a perfect 10 in my book. which means none game deserves a 10. end of story.

and anyone who complains a 9 is too low, is just very very .......... :/ saaaad.



Honestly the best game I  played that was a perfect game IMO was MGS4. I dont know if GOW3 is a perfect game but from what I have seen it looks awesome. But I do believe IGN is a bit biased. I can really care less but there reviews show it all.



Legend11 said:

It seems like the vast majority of multiplatform games are superior on the 360 compared to the PS3 but when the odd ones does show up that is different talk about endless threads.

Imagine what a game would be like if it was built to the 360's strengths for four years and then given a three month rush PS3 port job, would it even be playable?

Stop living in 2007, in fact the vast majority of multiplatform games RUN THE SAME ON BOTH PLATFORMS

with the exception of earlier PS3/360 games were most run better on 360, and later PS3/360 games were some run slihgtly better on ps3.

 



 

mM