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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Carmack: "PS3 Better Than Anything... Except 360"

reviniente on 27 March 2011
pizzahut451 said:
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:


Wow, you call that better running? Thats an overstatment. I thought you were talking about some serious diffrence and lacking performance on one ps3 version of the game. When you say it runns better it usually means less loading times, no freezes, glitches or bugs and no HDD problems. A few missing textures, or slightly un noticable graphical superiority doesnt mean it runs better. If you wanna see a true gap in console graphics compare KZ3 with any FPS out there, or GOW3 with any action adventure game outhere.  An article also says MW2 put up better performance on Xbox 360, but we all know the matchmaking problems the xbox version had - that means PS3 version actually ''runs'' better - at least it did until hackers ruined it, but thats the not hardwares fault.

All in all, the article doesnt say it runs better on xbox, it says it looks better. And if you ask me, those diffrences are so god damn small you probably wont even notice them when you play the game. To use them to win in some graphics debate is dumb IMO. But correct me If I am wrong, but wasnt Xbox the lead console for developing Black Ops? If it is, than there is really no suprise it looks slightly better on Xbox, it has nothing to do with PS360 hardware, but with developers choice of choosing what will be the main console version and which one will be the port, which usually looks slightly inferior. Example, Burnout Paradise, PS3 was a lead platfor and thats why its version looked better. It has little to do with hardware capabilities and more with the development and porting of the game. But like i said, the diffrences on most multiplatforms are so small and un noticable its not relly worth arguing.

How many versions of the game are there for the PS3?

The PS3 versions where the game is seriosuly and considerably worse or PS3 version where game is considerably better?

I'm really not following.


Are you asking how many games on PS3 are superior to 360 version or inferior?

No, my original post referred to digitalfoundry's analysis between both versions of Black Ops and how, in their opinion, the X360 version is superior to the PS3 version of Black Ops. You mentioned 'one PS3 version of the game', not 'the PS3 version of the game', therefore implying there were several versions of Black Ops for the PS3. A simple misunderstanding, I guess.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 March 2011
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:


Wow, you call that better running? Thats an overstatment. I thought you were talking about some serious diffrence and lacking performance on one ps3 version of the game. When you say it runns better it usually means less loading times, no freezes, glitches or bugs and no HDD problems. A few missing textures, or slightly un noticable graphical superiority doesnt mean it runs better. If you wanna see a true gap in console graphics compare KZ3 with any FPS out there, or GOW3 with any action adventure game outhere.  An article also says MW2 put up better performance on Xbox 360, but we all know the matchmaking problems the xbox version had - that means PS3 version actually ''runs'' better - at least it did until hackers ruined it, but thats the not hardwares fault.

All in all, the article doesnt say it runs better on xbox, it says it looks better. And if you ask me, those diffrences are so god damn small you probably wont even notice them when you play the game. To use them to win in some graphics debate is dumb IMO. But correct me If I am wrong, but wasnt Xbox the lead console for developing Black Ops? If it is, than there is really no suprise it looks slightly better on Xbox, it has nothing to do with PS360 hardware, but with developers choice of choosing what will be the main console version and which one will be the port, which usually looks slightly inferior. Example, Burnout Paradise, PS3 was a lead platfor and thats why its version looked better. It has little to do with hardware capabilities and more with the development and porting of the game. But like i said, the diffrences on most multiplatforms are so small and un noticable its not relly worth arguing.

How many versions of the game are there for the PS3?


And while your beloved CoD runs 0,5 fps better on Xbox I'll play a game that i care for. KZ3, HR, some olders and others that will release this year... have a nice 2000 repetition of play on a yearly base.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

reviniente on 27 March 2011
DonFerrari said:


And while your beloved CoD runs 0,5 fps better on Xbox I'll play a game that i care for. KZ3, HR, some olders and others that will release this year... have a nice 2000 repetition of play on a yearly base.

I still have to go through The Orange Box, Wolfenstein and Bulletstorm before the release of Rage and Gears of War III.



smartbro on 27 March 2011

enough enough Crysis 2 On Consoles Is Same As Lowest PC Spec it is officially admited,

Proof:

http://gamenyusu.com/component/content/article/8-all-news/89-crysis-2-on-consoles-is-same-as-lowest-pc-spec.html

Crysis never good on console by all means if anyone want to get a full experince buy a pc version.



pizzahut451 on 27 March 2011
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:
reviniente said:
pizzahut451 said:


Wow, you call that better running? Thats an overstatment. I thought you were talking about some serious diffrence and lacking performance on one ps3 version of the game. When you say it runns better it usually means less loading times, no freezes, glitches or bugs and no HDD problems. A few missing textures, or slightly un noticable graphical superiority doesnt mean it runs better. If you wanna see a true gap in console graphics compare KZ3 with any FPS out there, or GOW3 with any action adventure game outhere.  An article also says MW2 put up better performance on Xbox 360, but we all know the matchmaking problems the xbox version had - that means PS3 version actually ''runs'' better - at least it did until hackers ruined it, but thats the not hardwares fault.

All in all, the article doesnt say it runs better on xbox, it says it looks better. And if you ask me, those diffrences are so god damn small you probably wont even notice them when you play the game. To use them to win in some graphics debate is dumb IMO. But correct me If I am wrong, but wasnt Xbox the lead console for developing Black Ops? If it is, than there is really no suprise it looks slightly better on Xbox, it has nothing to do with PS360 hardware, but with developers choice of choosing what will be the main console version and which one will be the port, which usually looks slightly inferior. Example, Burnout Paradise, PS3 was a lead platfor and thats why its version looked better. It has little to do with hardware capabilities and more with the development and porting of the game. But like i said, the diffrences on most multiplatforms are so small and un noticable its not relly worth arguing.

How many versions of the game are there for the PS3?

The PS3 versions where the game is seriosuly and considerably worse or PS3 version where game is considerably better?

I'm really not following.


Are you asking how many games on PS3 are superior to 360 version or inferior?

No, my original post referred to digitalfoundry's analysis between both versions of Black Ops and how, in their opinion, the X360 version is superior to the PS3 version of Black Ops. You mentioned 'one PS3 version of the game', not 'the PS3 version of the game', therefore implying there were several versions of Black Ops for the PS3. A simple misunderstanding, I guess.


When I said the sentence you bolded, I didnt mean Black Ops specificly. i just meant one multplatform PS3 game and I thought you were talking about some notable diffrences on it. I didnt mean Black Ops



Around the Network
AussieGecko on 27 March 2011
smartbro said:

enough enough Crysis 2 On Consoles Is Same As Lowest PC Spec it is officially admited,

Proof:

http://gamenyusu.com/component/content/article/8-all-news/89-crysis-2-on-consoles-is-same-as-lowest-pc-spec.html

Crysis never good on console by all means if anyone want to get a full experince buy a pc version.


and? wtf has that to do with carmack?



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Squilliam on 27 March 2011

???????????????????

 

Seriously it baffles me you're still going at it.

 



Tease.

DonFerrari on 27 March 2011
reviniente said:
DonFerrari said:


And while your beloved CoD runs 0,5 fps better on Xbox I'll play a game that i care for. KZ3, HR, some olders and others that will release this year... have a nice 2000 repetition of play on a yearly base.

I still have to go through The Orange Box, Wolfenstein and Bulletstorm before the release of Rage and Gears of War III.


At least you will have 3 games you like to play while you wait... but none of those interest me, i buy just a little FPS or TPS games, maybe one per year (Like KZ)



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."