Grade the PS3 in it's first year of existence...

[phranctoast]

Got to jump in here. I dont think steelmaker is a stealth troll. He's making good points but at the same time is getting defensive since some people think he's a stealth troll. Those people can relaz a bit too.

Its been said many times that the above mentioned games are inferior on the ps3 by various places. At this point, that is harldy up for discussion since its so widely known. Its also widely known why those ps3 games look inferior. Shabby porting.

Con #1 will soon be a thing of the past as many developers had said they plan on starting development on the ps3 and port to the 360 rather than the other way around.

I thought the developers had to develop the games so that the weaker machine can cope with it therefore reducing the quality on the ps3??

The 360 gpu is stronger than ps3 gpu, so some tasks that the 360 does needs to be done on the ps3 cpu. They then need to start the development earlier from the ground up to utilize this. A good for instance would be the orange box on ps3. EA didnt use the spe's of the cell and istead opted for using only the gpu. This is why there are some frame rate stutters from time to time. A more refined port built from the ground up would have utilized the spe's and made for a smoother experience.

[Go Blu]

Originally Posted by jocka06

I thought the developers had to develop the games so that the weaker machine can cope with it therefore reducing the quality on the ps3??

Lowest common denominator.
Basically we're getting allot of ports from games that were developed that way.
It def costs more to develop for the PS3 but the investment has to be justified for them. As the PS3 continues to gain more market share you'll see developers make the investments in development specifically for the PS3.

[Paden]

I'd rate it a solid B. I'm a tough grader. I think the fact that it plays Blu and has some great exclusive game titles has carried it through a bumpy first year. The point is, to grade this system, you MUST grade it based on the expected future. In this regard, the PS3 is an A+++. Of course, that assumes Blu wins and Sony gets developers to bring games to this system directly (rather than ports.) Since this is already happening and Blu looks like the odds on favorite in the format war, the PS3 will probably win the marathon after having struggled a little in the sprint.

[ikbradley]

I agree with what Steelmaker has to say, with the exception of Ghost Recon 2. I would say with the exclusion of better online play from paid network support, GR2 is better on the PS3. The big loss is going to be Orange Box. That is a massive port difference.

There are also a couple of titles where the PS3 is better, including Skate, DiRT, Oblivion, and Marvel Alliance (excluding downloadable content).

Most are now a wash including Call of Duty 4 and Assassin's Creed.

In the end, the 360 has been standing up well against the PS3. However, in my mind, the RROD and hidden fees make the 360 a less than tempting console to purchase.

PS3 is doing well, but given its market dominance from the PS2, it should have owned this generation and now it is fighting for second place in console sales.

Now that the price drop has happened, Sony needs Home, Little Big Planet, MGS 4, FFXIII and GT5 to deliver, while ensuring 3rd party titles such as GTA IV and DMC4 remain at least equal to the 360. If not, North America is going to remain XBOT paradise.

[phranctoast]

I agree with what Steelmaker has to say, with the exception of Ghost Recon 2. I would say with the exclusion of better online play from paid network support, GR2 is better on the PS3. The big loss is going to be Orange Box. That is a massive port difference.

thats funny that you brought up graw2. I was going to but didnt bother. The game got lower reviews than the 360 version, yet all indications within the review say its better than its 360 counterpart.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by ikbradley

I agree with what Steelmaker has to say, with the exception of Ghost Recon 2. I would say with the exclusion of better online play from paid network support, GR2 is better on the PS3. The big loss is going to be Orange Box. That is a massive port difference.

There are also a couple of titles where the PS3 is better, including Skate, DiRT, Oblivion, and Marvel Alliance (excluding downloadable content).

Most are now a wash including Call of Duty 4 and Assassin's Creed.

In the end, the 360 has been standing up well against the PS3. However, in my mind, the RROD and hidden fees make the 360 a less than tempting console to purchase.

PS3 is doing well, but given its market dominance from the PS2, it should have owned this generation and now it is fighting for second place in console sales.

Now that the price drop has happened, Sony needs Home, Little Big Planet, MGS 4, FFXIII and GT5 to deliver, while ensuring 3rd party titles such as GTA IV and DMC4 remain at least equal to the 360. If not, North America is going to remain XBOT paradise.

Thank you! And yes, I forgot about GRAW2's better online play on PS3. Thank you for reminding me. I was thinking mainly about the graphics being slightly better on 360 (at least I thought so). I also agree with your points about games that are superior on PS3 such as Oblivion and DiRT. However the ratio of good to bad 3rd party ports are still largely in favor of the bad.

I've been posting here long enough that most of you know I'm not a troll. I own 2 systems. The PS3 and the PSP. I am not a 360 fanboy in discuise trying to stir up trouble. However I do believe in telling it like it is and the truth is, for the most part of 07, the 3rd party titles have been inferior on PS3 when compared to the 360 versions. That's not a troll statement, that's a fact and I thought it was something that had to be factored into grading the PS3 for 07. Do I believe it will get better? Yes I do! I think we are slowly starting to see 3rd parties come around with titles like COD4 and Assassin's Creed. Hopefully other 3rd party titles such as Devil May Cry 4, GTA4, and Burnout will continue the trend. However I hope EA gets their crap together with their sports titles for the coming year. I completely skipped football gaming this year because of the inferior ports of NCAA and Madden. I won't do it next year. As I said before, if the PS3 versions of Madden and NCAA 09 are not at least AS good as the 360 versions, I'm going multi plat.

[hitechiowa]

As a gaming i console i would def give the ps3 an F, F- if i could. So far there have only been 2 or 3 solid games that have come out, and the games that have come out on ps3 and 360, the 360 versions dominate in every aspect. As far as blu-ray is concerned, A+ definitely best tech investment ive made, the blu ray player is just astounding, the picture, the audio through hdmi is absolutely gorgous. Hopefully the gaming portion of the console can catch up to the HD media portion.

[ikbradley]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Thank you!

I completely skipped football gaming this year because of the inferior ports of NCAA and Madden. I won't do it next year. As I said before, if the PS3 versions of Madden and NCAA 09 are not at least AS good as the 360 versions, I'm going multi plat.

No probs. I love my PS3 and I'm sure you do to, but it doesn't mean that Sony made loving it easy.

Sony needs to just drop Electronic Arts. Whoever, likes Madden (which is the only real EA seller), can choose another system. Electronic Arts has created so much bad publicity for the PS3, that I'm sure the licensing fees do not compensate for nation-wide editorials appearing in USATODAY and NBC concerning poor PS3 porting.

I can excuse the Darkness for 2K and RB6:Vegas for Ubisoft, but Electronic Arts has to go! Seriously, now that Microsoft has a direct line into EA, it's become more transparent that Sony needs to tell Electronic Arts to piss in the wind.

Almost every bad port is Electronic Arts. Sony's answer is, well that means they won't sell that many; or (REALITY HITS), the general populace says "the 360 must be better, because Madden run at 60 FPS".

GET RID OF ELECTRONIC ARTS. THEY HAVE BEEN SHITTY SINCE NHL WAS ON GENESIS!

[Wheelman1970]

Compared to what has come before it (and I have played from the days of the Atari 2600 & Intellivision) it is Fan-Freakin-Tastic!

[The Don]

my only gripe is I think it still needs more A-list games...

not that I could keep up with them anyways....but, still..

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Uh, no. Just stating the facts. Xbox 360 versions of NCAA and Madden 08 are superior to the PS3 versions, FACT!! Xbox 360 versions of Virtua Fighter 4 and Virtua Tennis have online play and the PS3 versions do not, FACT!!

Don't have any problem with those .. do have a problem with that you left out ..

Fact: Oblivion is superior on the PS3
Fact: NHL 2K7/8 are superior on the PS3
Fact: NBA 2K7 is superior on the PS3.
Fact: Blazing Angels is superior on the PS3.
Fact: Tiger Woods 07 is superior on the PS3
Fact: Virtua Tennis is way more fun in multiplayer with everyone using Sixaxis.

The only fact is people seem to leave out all the facts...which is the unfortunate point.

[ikbradley]

Originally Posted by hitechiowa

As a gaming i console i would def give the ps3 an F, F- if i could. So far there have only been 2 or 3 solid games that have come out, and the games that have come out on ps3 and 360, the 360 versions dominate in every aspect. As far as blu-ray is concerned, A+ definitely best tech investment ive made, the blu ray player is just astounding, the picture, the audio through hdmi is absolutely gorgous. Hopefully the gaming portion of the console can catch up to the HD media portion.

Heavenly Sword, Ninja Gaiden Sigma (I know this is a remake), War Hawk, Ratchet & Clank, R:FOM, Motorstorm and Uncharted are all "AA" game exclusives. Oblivion and Call of Duty 4 is "AAA" although multi-platform.

Sony was capable of producing an "A+", but they didn't put enough memory in and the video card needed to be an 8000 series nVidia. Kutaragi burned some bridges with developers which led to problems such as loss of exclusivity or poor porting. But an "F-"?

SAY AFTER ME:
"An F- is saved for consoles like Nintendo Virtual Boy, Atari Jaguar or the Sega 32x."

[Terjyn]

Odd that you included the Tom Clancy games in your "Better on 360" list, usually those are listed as amongst those that are equal cross platform. Rainbow Six Vegas had issues running at one particular resolution, but looked fine at a different one. Unfortunately I don't remember which was which. Other Tom Clancy games are largely regarded as identical (or opinion-based).

They complain about Slowdown in The Orange Box, yet completely ignore the fact that the 360 had it too. Maybe it wasn't as bad (although it's impossible to say since the PS3 version isn't out yet), but it wasn't even mentioned for 360. Anywhere.

This is the double standard that kills me.

If a PS3 title drops below 30 FPS it's an instant review killer. Mass Effect has slowdown all over the place...does it bother reviewers? Nope.

Similarly Uncharted gets panned for Texture pop-up, when Mass Effect has the worst case of that I've ever seen on a game, way worse than Uncharted, and again...not mentioned by reviews.

It doesn't stop with the 360 either. Lair would have got 7s-8s on the Wii, but people didn't want that style of motion control on the PS3.

If I had to rank them, I'd say the PS3 gets a B+ for it's first year, the 360 (had) a C, and the Wii a D.

The PS3 would have less than an B+ if it wasn't a Blu-Ray player, that's a big prop up in my opinion.

The only thing holding the 360 up to a C were Dead Rising and Gears of War. Nothing else really notable on 360 for the year.

The only reason I didn't fail the Wii was that Super Mario Galaxy just came out. Finally, a decent game for the thing.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by hitechiowa

the 360 versions dominate in every aspect.

Oblivion, Call of Duty 4, and DiRT say hi.

[Matt X]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

PROS:

1.) Very solid and reliable hardware. An excellently designed machine
packed with features that really do make it "future proof."

2.) Blu Ray playback is awesome and so far the library has been great!

3.) Very good 1st year exclusive titles such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted,
Resistance, Warhawk, Motorstorm, Fable, and Ratchet and Clank.

4.) A decent online structure (especially to be free) and I think the XMB is a
much more elegant interface than the folder slides found on the 360.

5.) A steady stream of updates that have improved the system.

6.) Very good exclusive downloadable games such as Warhawk, Everyday
Shooter, Calling all Cars, Pain, Go Puzzle, etc.


CONS

1.) Poor multiplatform support. Games coming out late or coming out inferior
to versions on competing hardware (hopefully getting better).

2.) Important missing features on PSN such as in game XMB access, custom
soundtracks, achievements, etc.

3.) Too many game delays (almost reminds me of the N64 days).

4.) Not enough downloadable content. Need more demos, videos, etc.

5.) Was way overpriced (yes this has been rectified but I paid 600.00 for it
and early on it really hurt the system as far as public perception and
sales. I will NEVER pay that much for a system again.)

6.) Horrid tv ads and an overall lack of information to the public as to what the machine is about
(though hopefully getting better.)


Overall I would give the PS3 a B- for it's first year of existence. 3rd party support really needs to ramp up! If the PS3 versions of NCAA Football and Madden are not at least AS good as the 360 versions next year, I will be forced to go multi-platform.

as a machine in general I'd give it a B+/A-, and that's only because of not fulfilling its full potential yet. compared to other consoles, it's an A+ by far. As far as the job Sony's done to launch/support it, I'd say a C/C-. this machine might succeed despite the screwups Sony has perpetrated, which is all the more frustrating. Sony's efforts are supposed to HELP, but sometimes they've been shooting themselves in the foot.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Odd that you included the Tom Clancy games in your "Better on 360" list, usually those are listed as amongst those that are equal cross platform. Rainbow Six Vegas had issues running at one particular resolution, but looked fine at a different one. Unfortunately I don't remember which was which. Other Tom Clancy games are largely regarded as identical (or opinion-based).

They complain about Slowdown in The Orange Box(TOB), yet completely ignore the fact that the 360 had it too. Maybe it wasn't as bad (although it's impossible to say since the PS3 version isn't out yet), but it wasn't even mentioned for 360. Anywhere.

This is the double standard that kills me.

If a PS3 title drops below 30 FPS it's an instant review killer. Mass Effect has slowdown all over the place...does it bother reviewers? Nope.

Similarly Uncharted gets panned for Texture pop-up, when Mass Effect has the worst case of that I've ever seen on a game, way worse than Uncharted, and again...not mentioned by reviews.

It doesn't stop with the 360 either. Lair would have got 7s-8s on the Wii, but people didn't want that style of motion control on the PS3.

If I had to rank them, I'd say the PS3 gets a B+ for it's first year, the 360 (had) a C, and the Wii a D.

The PS3 would have less than an B+ if it wasn't a Blu-Ray player, that's a big prop up in my opinion.

The only thing holding the 360 up to a C were Dead Rising and Gears of War. Nothing else really notable on 360 for the year.

The only reason I didn't fail the Wii was that Super Mario Galaxy just came out. Finally, a decent game for the thing.

PS3:A- XBOX360:F Wii:B the poor poor xbox has a 66% failure rate which is a 'D' lol, but come on, people going through 7!!! of them, it has to get an F theres just no other way ( Talk About throwing your $$ away ) !!

[phranctoast]

PS3:A- XBOX360:F Wii:B the poor poor xbox has a 66% failure rate which is a 'D' lol, but come on, people going through 7!!! of them, it has to get an F theres just no other way ( Talk About throwing your $$ away )

If we were only talking hardware, Id agree with you.

[ikbradley]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Unfortunately I don't remember which [resolution for RB6: Vegas] was which.

...
This is the double standard that kills me.

It was 1080i. 720 looks wayyyyy better.

You are right about the double standard.

Heavenly Sword gets a low 80% because it is too short, yet Gears gets accolades.

The guys that made Lair may as well been put before Pontius Pilate. The game is a really decent game. I really like it and as for challenge of the control scheme, my girlfriend completed 5 missions with ease (the one missions at night, which people stated was "soooo difficult").

However, with little XBOT scum like Greg Miller lurking around IGN's PS3 section, rest assured that a good, but flawed game gets a 4.9. The only functioning games that deserve such scores are games like Friday the 13th on Nintendo or E.T. on the 2600.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

If we were only talking hardware, Id agree with you.

What I put was based on hardware & everything over all really, not just video games, as this has turned in too.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by ikbradley

It was 1080i. 720 looks wayyyyy better.

You are right about the double standard.

Heavenly Sword gets a low 80% because it is too short, yet Gears gets accolades.

The guys that made Lair may as well been put before Pontius Pilate. The game is a really decent game. I really like it and as for challenge of the control scheme, my girlfriend completed 5 missions with ease (the one missions at night, which people stated was "soooo difficult").

However, with little XBOT scum like Greg Miller lurking around IGN's PS3 section, rest assured that a good, but flawed game gets a 4.9. The only functioning games that deserve such scores are games like Friday the 13th on Nintendo or E.T. on the 2600.

720p RB6 2nd that!!