Sign of Things to come? Tomb Raider PS3 has the superior resolution

[mikejet]

Too bad the game sucks.

[dpomp]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Too bad the game sucks.

the reason there's "too many sony fanboys" on this site.......


whenever something's proven, there's "certain people " that still have to find a reason to say something.

[Rike255]

Meh, I probably wouldn't buy it either if it weren't for my girlfriend. She loves TR games, and I have to keep her happy lest I end up in the dog house.

[Monkey]

ES:IV was godly in 360 fans mind..... until the far superior PS3 version hit

[york weir]

Originally Posted by Monkey

ES:IV was godly in 360 fans mind..... until the far superior PS3 version hit

It's possible the improvements were from the extra 1 year they had to work on it.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by york weir

It's possible the improvements were from the extra 1 year they had to work on it.

They spent far more time working on the 360 and PC version of the game.

[york weir]

Originally Posted by Monkey

They spent far more time working on the 360 and PC version of the game.

Sure, entire development cycle to create the game and release it initially then another year to polish it after that for the ps3.

The question then comes in whether or not that extra year of polishing would have benefited the 360 version and my guess is a yes but it's only a guess.

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by york weir

Sure, entire development cycle to create the game and release it initially then another year to polish it after that for the ps3.

The question then comes in whether or not that extra year of polishing would have benefited the 360 version and my guess is a yes but it's only a guess.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by york weir

Sure, entire development cycle to create the game and release it initially then another year to polish it after that for the ps3.

Yes, over 4 years developing it specifically for the 360's hardware.. Then a port in far less time (less than a year) to the PS3 ( porting to a completely different hardware, not developing for from ground up with the hardware in mind like they did with 360 version ). This was all stated by Bethesda a long time ago.

And yes, they did release patches for the 360 version. Yet the PS3 runs at a much better framerate, draw distance, insanely faster load times, etc.

It's not surprising the best looking games this generation are on the PS3.

The question then comes in whether or not that extra year of polishing would have benefited the 360 version and my guess is a yes but it's only a guess.

The question should be, how would 3 extra years of development towards the PS3's hardware benefited the PS3 version? Instead of porting over a game developed for the 360's hardware for 4 years.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by york weir

Sure, entire development cycle to create the game and release it initially then another year to polish it after that for the ps3.

The question then comes in whether or not that extra year of polishing would have benefited the 360 version and my guess is a yes but it's only a guess.

Pointless.

This thread is about the sign of things to come, for PS3.

So stick to that, instead of trying to turn the conversation around.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by dpompeo

the reason there's "too many sony fanboys" on this site.......


whenever something's proven, there's "certain people " that still have to find a reason to say something.

I'm just saying why couldn't they have done this with Fallout 3? Where's my D/L content for Fallout 3? I wanted to get that for the PS3 but all the graphic issues and no D/L content kept me from doing it.

Theoretically it shouldn't just be Tomb Raider. All developers should strive to make every game for the PS3 1080p and not just settle for 720p.