theonewhoisme said:
Michael-5 said:
theonewhoisme said:
Michael-5 said:
theonewhoisme said:
So you have really bad eye sight do you? And They never said anything about better or worse only different ME2 could go either way, dragon age origins looks better on ps3 after all, and multiplats don't really matter much anyways I said impossible in any practical way, they would of had to downgrade the graphics and put it on over 4 disks probably have to downgrade the AI too, who knows what would of happens to the framerate, yes the kingdom hearts team is the one doing versus and like I already mentioned unlike all the 360 games that get ported over there is the possibility that it will be far too impractical to port in a way that will make it playable if they used alot of the ps3s potential, of course if they anticipated possibly porting it (like they did for FFXIV) then it shouldn't be a problem but I don't think they did
|
My friends have been trying to push me into Dragon Age, after you ban ends, tell me if it's good. I really love ME, and people tell me it's similar. Either way that game is best played on a PC, and I'll look into that graphics bit (PS3 - 360).
Man 3rd person to get banned debating me.... I'm like some bad luck charm for overly strong PS3 supporters.
Anyway good point about Versus, and I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a feeling it's going multiplatform, without a drop in graphics. End of debate.
|
I haven't really played ME much, but from what I know the dialog tree is similar but not identical, and some of the character upgrades but for the most part it's a very different game, ME is more shooter then anything dragon age is full rpg, but that said, if you like rpgs you'll like dragon age, and it seems like anyone saying anything bad about MS gets banned no matter how true it is, and about versus, unless they hold back the ps3 version it's impossible for that to happen, I mean FFXIII was a turn based rpg and it was quite a drastic drop in graphics, and if you are right, they wouldn't have made the game the best it can be, so already gamers lose
|
The differences between the PS3 and 360 graphically are not much. They just process differently. PS3 can multi-process better, but the 360 can handle textures and total polygon counts better. A well made game (like Resident Evil 5, or Batman: Arkham Asylum) will look almost identical on both consoles, and still push the bar graphically.
As for Dragon Age, I love RPG's, but not all types of RPG's. I though FFX and Fable 2 were terrible, but Golden Sun, Lost Odyssey, Fallout 3 and ME2 are among my favorites. I'm going to play it at my buddy's house one day and see what it's like, but from what I hear, it's best to get the game on PC. Best graphics, the controls aren't forced onto a controller, and I can zoom out in battle, no fixed close up camera.
As for people getting banned, I think a lot of people here are very critical of Microsoft. Nintendo never gets this much scrutiny, it's generally accepted as the dominant form of gaming. However PS3 and 360 fans are always at competition, and Sony has had a more successful past (meaning, more loyal followers, and wishful thinkers). So, it's just stupid debating. It's best to leave opinions debatable, but leave them at opinions. If someone like me beleives FFXIII Versus will go multiplatform, feel free to debate me, but don't insult me please. I say things for all consoles that anyone could argue, thats why it's just opinion. Based on knowledge, but I'm not professional analyst.
P.S. If ME3 is multiplatform (which it will likely be), it will also be a timed exclusive, and I want to finish this story asap. I can't wait a year. Also without your own decisions from the first game, it's just not as fun..
|
PC is best for all bioware games, and if you go raw processing power the ps3 is almost twice as powerful as the 360, problem is that dev tools were literally decades behind the ones for 360 because no1 ever used that architecture for games before and the multiplat dev tools are still rather behind but exclusive is getting far better then what the 360 has, already we have already seen several games exceed the limits of what the 360 has done, similar or not the ps3 is capable of more, thats just a fact, it's up to devs to use it though, and I think you'd like dragon age based on the ones you said you liked
MS has done so much crap this gen, alot of it borderline illegal, and getting banned for pointing that out just lets them get away with it, they got off easy with the failrate thing, took them 5 years to redesign the console properly, the disk scratching was ignored(worst of any console ever, including original xbox), paying for live while offering nothing more then free competitors (and having more ads and ads that had nothing to do with gaming), and the thing I hate the most, paying devs to keep a game off the ps3 for a year or paying devs to dump down a game and port it equally
as for ME3 it's not going to be timed dude, the main reason for timed is to trick people into thinking it's exclusive when it's not, and with ME2 on ps3 that won't work, so they'll go for simultaneous release
|
I have never read or heard that the PS3 has twice the raw processing power then the 360, I've only heard they process differently. It's multi-processing compared to duel-processing. PS3 will get higher bus speeds, and if designed right, can handle multiple tasks better, but the 360 will always have more raw processing power, as long as the number of objects on screen remain little. PS3 is more powerful, that is a fact, but it's not as powerful as you make it out to be. Yes when the PS3 first came out people were not used to the architecture, almost all multiplatform games until 2008 looked better on the 360, and only now do most multiplatform games look about equal. Yes many PS3 games have exceeded what the 360 can handle, because it processess differently. 360 can't run GT5, and I'd be very surprised if PS3 could handle Forza Motorsport 3. Why? GT5 has 16 cars (better multi-processing), where Forza doesn't use pre-rendered graphics, but the raw processing power.
MS reliability has not been the greatest, but it didn't take 5 years to design a proper reliable console. It took about 2 (HDMI models post 2.5% failrate, compared to PS3's at 1.2% and Wii's at 0.2%).
As for the rest, Whats with all the hate? If you don't like X-Box thats fine, but don't hate the people who do. I really doubt users get banned for pointing out flaws. It's when they start flipping out, calling people fanboys or biased, or just plain trolling that they get banned. The two people who got banned arguing with me, lost a debate with me and resorted to calling me a fanboy, or just returned every pro-360 comment back as "biased" even though it had reasonable grounds (and I litterally mean every comment, even if I said the 360 just has sold more units then the PS3).
Even now as we debate, you mock the 360, critisize MS, and show a bit of anger. Do I mock the PS3? If more PS3 supporters get banned then 360 supporters this is why. I rarely see people go as critical on the PS3 and Wii as people do on the 360, and the simple matter is that PS3 fans and 360 fans are always at competition, and PS3 fans really don't like how the 360 is outselling the PS3, and holding it's lead.
Anyway this debate is just getting nowhere, it's no longer about 360 exlcusives for 2011. You have your own opinions, based off what you read in the past, I have mine. Realistically were probably both a little right and wrong, but the matter is neither of us is going to change the others opinion.
As for ME3, I just plain disagree. I know ME2 won't sell well on the PS3 as a timed release, but I just have a feeling ME3 will still be a timed release. Maybe only by a month (instead of the usual year), but it will happen. IF ME2 really does poorly on the PS3, ME3 may just be delayed longer, to give ME3 the appearance of exclusiveness on the 360 when it's released. Only time will tell.
