"I got it from Google images."Well that's a slap in the face.
*comforts Agent J*
Game developer states PS3 is NOT more powerful than 360.
*comforts Agent J*
"Killzone might look good, but it looks ugly. If that makes sense. It's just another "gritty war game". No art direction whatsoever. Except the Helghast, but hey, give anybody glowing eyes on their helmets and they will look badass."There is NOTHING ugly about Killzone 2 when you are playing it on a large HD-TV, I can assure you that, my friend.
"Vinchenzo said:i second that, the bit when your in the capital, and lightining is all around is so atmosphereic, i stopped for a few minutes just to take it in"Killzone might look good, but it looks ugly. If that makes sense. It's just another "gritty war game". No art direction whatsoever. Except the Helghast, but hey, give anybody glowing eyes on their helmets and they will look badass."There is NOTHING ugly about Killzone 2 when you are playing it on a large HD-TV, I can assure you that, my friend."
"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually mgs4 is confirmed to only take 32 gigs of a dual layer bluray. *so much for kojimas 50 gigs isn't enough*"Scieran said:Actually the max is 50GB, didn't do much research when I posted. I was trying to oppose the topics statement which is pointless and brags about this endless charade that's been there since the early gaming years, just through different platforms; PS2, xbox etc. Just to correct the fact MGS4 the game topped 50GB.""I find it amusing that they say the 360 is less powerful than PS3 given that the 360 has a higher rate of hardware failures toppled with the fact they only run discs that are less than 10GB and lastly my favourite, 360 requires a vast amount of power to run a game which is displayed by the noise. PS3, however, has no noise and runs games that tops up to 60GB."not a single game on the ps3 has filled a dual layer bluray let alone taken 60 gigs."
P.S: and killzone 2 is an ugly game and its not graphically impressive at all, let alone gameplay impressive, story impressive...ect and Im playing on an samsung 1080p 32" tv.
Wow, he has word on hard hitting graphical games such as... Rock Band... and Guitar Hero. This guy must know what he is saying...! No...
Unfortunately Killzone and Heavenly Sword disagree. This might be true if it is a multi-platform game, but games made solely on the PS3 have the upper hand in my opinion. Killzone is fantastic and it barely has mid level loading and it has no install. Imagine if it did have an install.
"Wow, he has word on hard hitting graphical games such as... Rock Band... and Guitar Hero. This guy must know what he is saying...! No...Unfortunately Killzone and Heavenly Sword disagree. This might be true if it is a multi-platform game, but games made solely on the PS3 have the upper hand in my opinion. Killzone is fantastic and it barely has mid level loading and it has no install. Imagine if it did have an install."because it uses a comprehensive 1 gig cache just like drakes fortune, or do you actually think it some how loads magically that fast on just blu ray? the begining load of the game can take up to 20-30 seconds if not longer. Games on ps3 that don't installs use the harddrive extensively as a cache.
"LiquidPrince said:Did I mention anything about Blu-ray? Who gives a shit how they do it? It's the end result that is important. And Blu-ray is barely slower then a DVD drive. Not enough to make a noticeable difference."Wow, he has word on hard hitting graphical games such as... Rock Band... and Guitar Hero. This guy must know what he is saying...! No...Unfortunately Killzone and Heavenly Sword disagree. This might be true if it is a multi-platform game, but games made solely on the PS3 have the upper hand in my opinion. Killzone is fantastic and it barely has mid level loading and it has no install. Imagine if it did have an install."because it uses a comprehensive 1 gig cache just like drakes fortune, or do you actually think it some how loads magically that fast on just blu ray? the begining load of the game can take up to 20-30 seconds if not longer. Games on ps3 that don't installs use the harddrive extensively as a cache."
"Killzone might look good, but it looks ugly. If that makes sense. It's just another "gritty war game". No art direction whatsoever. Except the Helghast, but hey, give anybody glowing eyes on their helmets and they will look badass."
Killzone 2 has the most beautiful levels in console games. And the action sequences are the best.
Actually its quite slower then a dvd drive, i could bring up lots of proof but its simply a fact and you should do the research into it your self, Regardless of blu rays constant readspeed *which is a problem since that means stuff that could go faster on the inside track doesn't* 12x dvd in the 360 is quite alot faster then the ps3 2x bluray and it makes all the difference when your transfering such large files on bluray, as for that you didn't have to mention bluray you just matter of factly mentioned low load times like it was something ingenius when quite a few games on the ps3 use the same techiniqes to cut down load times.
"Scieran said:"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually mgs4 is confirmed to only take 32 gigs of a dual layer bluray. *so much for kojimas 50 gigs isn't enough*P.S: and killzone 2 is an ugly game and its not graphically impressive at all, let alone gameplay impressive, story impressive...ect and Im playing on an samsung 1080p 32" tv.""Scieran said:Actually the max is 50GB, didn't do much research when I posted. I was trying to oppose the topics statement which is pointless and brags about this endless charade that's been there since the early gaming years, just through different platforms; PS2, xbox etc. Just to correct the fact MGS4 the game topped 50GB.""I find it amusing that they say the 360 is less powerful than PS3 given that the 360 has a higher rate of hardware failures toppled with the fact they only run discs that are less than 10GB and lastly my favourite, 360 requires a vast amount of power to run a game which is displayed by the noise. PS3, however, has no noise and runs games that tops up to 60GB."not a single game on the ps3 has filled a dual layer bluray let alone taken 60 gigs."
I heard this story about the Blu-ray, but you never know what really happened. So there's no way of making affirmations like you are doing right now. This is fanboyism in its purest form. Maybe Kojima wanted to add more stuff, like the complete sound in both English and Japanese in the disc and it couldn't.
It is simple to prove how beautiful Killzone 2 is. Put Call of Duty 4 for some minutes and your eyes will get used to it. Then switch to Killzone 2 and you will see the difference.
"Actually its quite slower then a dvd drive, i could bring up lots of proof but its simply a fact and you should do the research into it your self, Regardless of blu rays constant readspeed *which is a problem since that means stuff that could go faster on the inside track doesn't* 12x dvd in the 360 is quite alot faster then the ps3 2x bluray and it makes all the difference when your transfering such large files on bluray, as for that you didn't have to mention bluray you just matter of factly mentioned low load times like it was something ingenius when quite a few games on the ps3 use the same techiniqes to cut down load times."
It is slower, but that fact alone means nothing, unless you are a fanboy. Many games have presented different ways of working around that. It means that it is not a problem.
Don't try to change the subject. A troll started a flamewar about the PS3 not being powerful enough, while the Cell is more powerful than the 360 CPU and many games have shown it. Just take it like a man and show some sportsmanship. Why every PS3 awesome game or anything related to it automatically receives attacks from fanboys no matter what?
This is getting tiresome. PS3 owners wherever they are they need to defend themselves from a mob lynch or justify why they prefer this or that as if it was somehow wrong. It is a fact that Killzone 2 is beautiful, and if you still have doubts just do the experience I talked about.
"You know... Up until that point, I was willing to give him a chance. He is a developer that knows a thing or two, after all. But something about that line just made him all the less credible, for some reason.(from vgchartz)Sony has said that the PlayStation 3 has more power than Microsoft's Xbox 360, but that it requires a bit of patience and legwork to leverage that power. Jason Booth, a game developer , just doesn't see it happening. He thinks game designers are trying to match PS3 games to 360 games at best.
Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, has posted some interesting comments on his blog regarding "PS3 misconceptions and spin."
"I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the PS3. They often mention how the PS3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin... ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and ...most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck," he says.
"WilliamRLBaker said:Lol, and you would know something about fanboys wouldnt you Thiago?"Scieran said:"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually mgs4 is confirmed to only take 32 gigs of a dual layer bluray. *so much for kojimas 50 gigs isn't enough*P.S: and killzone 2 is an ugly game and its not graphically impressive at all, let alone gameplay impressive, story impressive...ect and Im playing on an samsung 1080p 32" tv.""Scieran said:Actually the max is 50GB, didn't do much research when I posted. I was trying to oppose the topics statement which is pointless and brags about this endless charade that's been there since the early gaming years, just through different platforms; PS2, xbox etc. Just to correct the fact MGS4 the game topped 50GB.""I find it amusing that they say the 360 is less powerful than PS3 given that the 360 has a higher rate of hardware failures toppled with the fact they only run discs that are less than 10GB and lastly my favourite, 360 requires a vast amount of power to run a game which is displayed by the noise. PS3, however, has no noise and runs games that tops up to 60GB."not a single game on the ps3 has filled a dual layer bluray let alone taken 60 gigs."
I heard this story about the Blu-ray, but you never know what really happened. So there's no way of making affirmations like you are doing right now. This is fanboyism in its purest form. Maybe Kojima wanted to add more stuff, like the complete sound in both English and Japanese in the disc and it couldn't.It is simple to prove how beautiful Killzone 2 is. Put Call of Duty 4 for some minutes and your eyes will get used to it. Then switch to Killzone 2 and you will see the difference. "
all we need to do is post comparison screen shots of ps3 exclusives up against 360 exclusives. then we will know.
plus we can post comparison videos of the most amazing moments from each consoles best exclusive games. Resistance 2's sheer epicness against Gears 2's massive enemies would be a good way to start.
I own both a PS3 and a 360. I'm a Sony fan. The 360, in my opinion, is more powerful. There's no question about it. Most ports are superior on the 360, and I agree that Killzone 2 is not as pretty as Gears of War 2. Most PS3 games can't even run in 1080i. It's pathetic if you ask me. I'm only getting half the picture.
But I didn't buy a PS3 for the graphics, I have one because I love the games. That's why my name is blue.
And this whole argument is retarded anyway, because everyone knows the PC wins.
"I own both a PS3 and a 360. I'm a Sony fan. The 360, in my opinion, is more powerful. There's no question about it. Most ports are superior on the 360, and I agree that Killzone 2 is not as pretty as Gears of War 2. Most PS3 games can't even run in 1080i. It's pathetic if you ask me. I'm only getting half the picture.But I didn't buy a PS3 for the graphics, I have one because I love the games. That's why my name is blue.And this whole argument is retarded anyway, because everyone knows the PC wins."
Ok, most games don't run native 1080 (not Gears, not Halo, not any of the big ones for either console, not even RPGs like Star Ocean). Why? Because the current generation of consoles doesn't support it. What they do is to use 720p and then upscale it to 1080. Sometimes even lower than that.
What do you gain by running them at 1080p? Maybe if you are ignorant you can get a psychological effect by running it at 1080. But there are no visual quality improvements whatsoever. It is like running an upscaled DVD. The image will be the same thing. You can't just create content, you are just filtering it to fit the 1080 resolution.
Even then, if you feel masochistic enough, you can force the games to run on 1080. For example, GTA IV does 1080, but it defaults to 720. How do you change it? In your PS3 configuration just uncheck the 720 resolution. The game will automatically enter in 1080 mode, looking like shit and running at a lower frame rate.
The best action is always use whatever is default for the game.
If you want to see the difference of quality in graphics, just do the test I suggested previously. Put COD4 on, play it, then switch to Killzone 2. The differences will be striking.
"WilliamRLBaker said:So its slower...Meaning that it takes longer to load and specially so the large files *since sony fanboys claim uncompressed files are better the compressed* but yeah surfice to say you cannot prove its faster, you cannot prove its not a problem so you simply say it only matters to fanboys and theres ways around it, yes theres ways around it and i specifically mentioned one of them some thing you've yet to do and that doesn't change the fact a lower read speed=lower load speeds and thats a bad thing which is why all ps3 games compensate for this by either having lenghty installs or large cache files making for rather long initial load times and even then on multiplatform games after install or cache the games on average load slower AND if you install them on the 360 load slower by a larger %."Actually its quite slower then a dvd drive, i could bring up lots of proof but its simply a fact and you should do the research into it your self, Regardless of blu rays constant readspeed *which is a problem since that means stuff that could go faster on the inside track doesn't* 12x dvd in the 360 is quite alot faster then the ps3 2x bluray and it makes all the difference when your transfering such large files on bluray, as for that you didn't have to mention bluray you just matter of factly mentioned low load times like it was something ingenius when quite a few games on the ps3 use the same techiniqes to cut down load times."It is slower, but that fact alone means nothing, unless you are a fanboy. Many games have presented different ways of working around that. It means that it is not a problem.Don't try to change the subject. A troll started a flamewar about the PS3 not being powerful enough, while the Cell is more powerful than the 360 CPU and many games have shown it. Just take it like a man and show some sportsmanship. Why every PS3 awesome game or anything related to it automatically receives attacks from fanboys no matter what? This is getting tiresome. PS3 owners wherever they are they need to defend themselves from a mob lynch or justify why they prefer this or that as if it was somehow wrong. It is a fact that Killzone 2 is beautiful, and if you still have doubts just do the experience I talked about."
and I all so find it funny how you seem to think i changed the subject when liquid brought up load times like it was a built in and unique feature to killzone 2 and since kill zone 2 is exclusive to ps3 one can surmise that quickloading can be linked to the ps3 when that is infact false the ps3 does not allow for quicker loading, and it is infact slower even with installs and cache then the 360 its not a unqiue feature to killzone 2 all ps3 games have to compensate for the blu ray 2x slow read speed with installs or caches. I've played killzone 2 if you need to run tests, or do something special to make a game look good then its not that good looking to begin with.
thiago said:
"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually we do know what really happend, Kojima claimed 50 gigs wasn't enough for his game, and it came out that it was only 32 gigs in size i highly doubt there is much he could have added that would have used an entire 18 gigs, and if the english sound track took 10 gigs *which is likely* then he could have done that... so much for your theory, as for that Killzone 2 is simply subjective I don't find it graphically superior to any game released on ps3 or 360 todate and you do, But your simple method of proving it doesn't work because call of duty is down right beautiful *and its infact the better, funner game*"Scieran said:"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually mgs4 is confirmed to only take 32 gigs of a dual layer bluray. *so much for kojimas 50 gigs isn't enough*P.S: and killzone 2 is an ugly game and its not graphically impressive at all, let alone gameplay impressive, story impressive...ect and Im playing on an samsung 1080p 32" tv.""Scieran said:Actually the max is 50GB, didn't do much research when I posted. I was trying to oppose the topics statement which is pointless and brags about this endless charade that's been there since the early gaming years, just through different platforms; PS2, xbox etc. Just to correct the fact MGS4 the game topped 50GB.""I find it amusing that they say the 360 is less powerful than PS3 given that the 360 has a higher rate of hardware failures toppled with the fact they only run discs that are less than 10GB and lastly my favourite, 360 requires a vast amount of power to run a game which is displayed by the noise. PS3, however, has no noise and runs games that tops up to 60GB."not a single game on the ps3 has filled a dual layer bluray let alone taken 60 gigs."
I heard this story about the Blu-ray, but you never know what really happened. So there's no way of making affirmations like you are doing right now. This is fanboyism in its purest form. Maybe Kojima wanted to add more stuff, like the complete sound in both English and Japanese in the disc and it couldn't.It is simple to prove how beautiful Killzone 2 is. Put Call of Duty 4 for some minutes and your eyes will get used to it. Then switch to Killzone 2 and you will see the difference. "
The only thing interesting about what that dev said was how he essentially equated power of a console to graphic powers.
I hate system wars they are so annoying...
i own a 360 because it has games on the system that appeal to me, from what ive seen there isnt any difference betwee the graphics. i wouldnt know anything about "fill rate" but thats just my oppinion.
jakob187 said:
The thing about MGS4 for 360 sounds really interestin.... and i completely agree with you.Yes, don't forget MGS4...or the rumored surprise announcement of MGS4: Oxide for 360 at E3. This is a moot point if the game is seriously coming over to 360, and it will be even more of a moot point if it performs at the same level as the PS3 in terms of graphics. That would just embarrass Sony.______________Look, I hate console wars, to be honest. However, all of the things in that article...as well as the horror stories we've all heard over the years from the Bioshock team and Digital Extremes (and let's not forget the times when Kojima was pissed off at Sony as well)...it would seem that homeboy is right on the money. I mean, Killzone 2 took 4 years...5 years...to complete! IT TOOK HALF AS LONG AS DUKE NUKEM FOREVER'S DEVELOPMENT CYCLE!!! Yes, KZ2 does look good, but by all means, it's not the end-all be-all of graphics, as graphics will always be a subjective thing for the most part unless you are talking about strict and pure photorealism and that's all.Personally, I find it refreshing to see that a developer is willing to step out and say "look, man...the PS3 is a hoss to program for, and it's difficult, and it's not what everyone thinks it's cracked up to be". By all means, he's not going to BASH the system because his products are sold on the platform...but he will speak out about the trials and tribulations that are involved in getting a game out on the system.So bravo, Jason. I commend you for being upfront and honest so that the public can know at least a portion of the truth. 360 owners will surely use the comments to bash Sony's box, but whatever. They're all 'tards anyways. What's important about the statements he's made and the words that he's said is that we are CONSTANTLY talking about how games are always costing millions upon millions of dollars to make, and yet when we read something like this and see just how difficult a company has made it for developers to properly and effectively do their job, it says far more to me as a consumer than anything that a fanboy argument/rant could ever say."
"WilliamRLBaker said:You Sir.... are such a fanboy"Scieran said:"WilliamRLBaker said:Actually mgs4 is confirmed to only take 32 gigs of a dual layer bluray. *so much for kojimas 50 gigs isn't enough*P.S: and killzone 2 is an ugly game and its not graphically impressive at all, let alone gameplay impressive, story impressive...ect and Im playing on an samsung 1080p 32" tv.""Scieran said:Actually the max is 50GB, didn't do much research when I posted. I was trying to oppose the topics statement which is pointless and brags about this endless charade that's been there since the early gaming years, just through different platforms; PS2, xbox etc. Just to correct the fact MGS4 the game topped 50GB.""I find it amusing that they say the 360 is less powerful than PS3 given that the 360 has a higher rate of hardware failures toppled with the fact they only run discs that are less than 10GB and lastly my favourite, 360 requires a vast amount of power to run a game which is displayed by the noise. PS3, however, has no noise and runs games that tops up to 60GB."not a single game on the ps3 has filled a dual layer bluray let alone taken 60 gigs."
I heard this story about the Blu-ray, but you never know what really happened. So there's no way of making affirmations like you are doing right now. This is fanboyism in its purest form. Maybe Kojima wanted to add more stuff, like the complete sound in both English and Japanese in the disc and it couldn't.It is simple to prove how beautiful Killzone 2 is. Put Call of Duty 4 for some minutes and your eyes will get used to it. Then switch to Killzone 2 and you will see the difference. "
"thiago said:It is slower, but that fact alone means nothing, unless you are a fanboy. Many games have presented different ways of working around that. It means that it is not a problem.Don't try to change the subject. A troll started a flamewar about the PS3 not being powerful enough, while the Cell is more powerful than the 360 CPU and many games have shown it. Just take it like a man and show some sportsmanship. Why every PS3 awesome game or anything related to it automatically receives attacks from fanboys no matter what? This is getting tiresome. PS3 owners wherever they are they need to defend themselves from a mob lynch or justify why they prefer this or that as if it was somehow wrong. It is a fact that Killzone 2 is beautiful, and if you still have doubts just do the experience I talked about."So its slower...Meaning that it takes longer to load and specially so the large files *since sony fanboys claim uncompressed files are better the compressed* but yeah surfice to say you cannot prove its faster, you cannot prove its not a problem so you simply say it only matters to fanboys and theres ways around it, yes theres ways around it and i specifically mentioned one of them some thing you've yet to do and that doesn't change the fact a lower read speed=lower load speeds and thats a bad thing which is why all ps3 games compensate for this by either having lenghty installs or large cache files making for rather long initial load times and even then on multiplatform games after install or cache the games on average load slower AND if you install them on the 360 load slower by a larger %.
As I said, and you ignored it, this fact alone proves nothing. So what? Clearly it is not a problem because the games on the PS3 are so awesome.
If it was something to do with actual processing power I would understand, but drive speed? You are trying too hard. Now you have gone where no fanboy has gone before.
As for MGS4, this is all pointless because you know nothing about it. You are just speculating about it and taking your own conclusions as fact, as any fanboy would do.
"WilliamRLBaker said:"thiago said:It is slower, but that fact alone means nothing, unless you are a fanboy. Many games have presented different ways of working around that. It means that it is not a problem.Don't try to change the subject. A troll started a flamewar about the PS3 not being powerful enough, while the Cell is more powerful than the 360 CPU and many games have shown it. Just take it like a man and show some sportsmanship. Why every PS3 awesome game or anything related to it automatically receives attacks from fanboys no matter what? This is getting tiresome. PS3 owners wherever they are they need to defend themselves from a mob lynch or justify why they prefer this or that as if it was somehow wrong. It is a fact that Killzone 2 is beautiful, and if you still have doubts just do the experience I talked about."So its slower...Meaning that it takes longer to load and specially so the large files *since sony fanboys claim uncompressed files are better the compressed* but yeah surfice to say you cannot prove its faster, you cannot prove its not a problem so you simply say it only matters to fanboys and theres ways around it, yes theres ways around it and i specifically mentioned one of them some thing you've yet to do and that doesn't change the fact a lower read speed=lower load speeds and thats a bad thing which is why all ps3 games compensate for this by either having lenghty installs or large cache files making for rather long initial load times and even then on multiplatform games after install or cache the games on average load slower AND if you install them on the 360 load slower by a larger %.
As I said, and you ignored it, this fact alone proves nothing. So what? Clearly it is not a problem because the games on the PS3 are so awesome.
If it was something to do with actual processing power I would understand, but drive speed? You are trying too hard. Now you have gone where no fanboy has gone before.As for MGS4, this is all pointless because you know nothing about it. You are just speculating about it and taking your own conclusions as fact, as any fanboy would do."
and yet again more words, more spin, more no real argument except you trying to say i am circumspect...ect without giving any proof.
This fact alone that bluray 2x is slower then DVD 12x proves every thing from the simple facts i have put forth it proves much of every thing. Nearly all multiplatform game loads quicker on the 360 regardless of cache use on ps3 or install. A problem is something that needs to be fixed and or circumvented you have said your self that the ps3 has ways of working around *circumventing* its slow read speeds therefor slow load times are a problem by your words alone you've admitted this.
the funny thing is i realise now that we will never have a proper debate because i am not argueing The awesomeness of games *of which the ps3 has none* i am argueing simple system preformance and power where as your not even argueing that any more, I'm stepping out of my fanboy role and you are not which is why you continuely use simple words that prove no point and boil down to ps3 is awesome, your wrong ps3 games are awesome your wrong. (your wrong parts of the text are thiagos boiled down speech) The quality of games mean nothing when those games still take longer to load then a 360 equivlient the whole point of this thread was ps3 is not more powerful then 360 weither that is to mean its inferior or equal to the 360 means nothing at this point since the arguement is boiling down to superior areas, the 360 is superior in its read speed and specificially loading times because 360 uses far better and more agreesive compression. To load it is a proven fact that a compressed file on a faster drive will take less time to read and load then a uncompressed file on a slower drive.
P.S: I probably know more about mgs 4 then you do atleast i've given the surface proof to my side of the argument you haven't given a thing all you've given basically amounts to is mgs 4 is awesome. Where as i have given the proof that Kojima claimed 50 gigs wasn't enough yet the game only took in the end after any amount of compression it used 32 gigs if the english uncompressed PCM 7.1 track took up 10 gigs then at 32 gigs on a 50 gig blu ray then 10 gig japanese language track would have been doable.
Come back and give some proof, argue something instead of simply attacking me which is your main points * me going off topic or changing the topic when it was liquid prince that brought up load times initially*
"thiago said:I bet you thiago will respond to you by saying something along the lines of, hardware failures or the PS3 has the greatest games of all time and 360 games suck. But yes, you win against thiago. Although that may not be a hard thing to accomplish...still awesome :D"WilliamRLBaker said:and yet again more words, more spin, more no real argument except you trying to say i am circumspect...ect without giving any proof.This fact alone that bluray 2x is slower then DVD 12x proves every thing from the simple facts i have put forth it proves much of every thing. Nearly all multiplatform game loads quicker on the 360 regardless of cache use on ps3 or install. A problem is something that needs to be fixed and or circumvented you have said your self that the ps3 has ways of working around *circumventing* its slow read speeds therefor slow load times are a problem by your words alone you've admitted this.the funny thing is i realise now that we will never have a proper debate because i am not argueing The awesomeness of games *of which the ps3 has none* i am argueing simple system preformance and power where as your not even argueing that any more, I'm stepping out of my fanboy role and you are not which is why you continuely use simple words that prove no point and boil down to ps3 is awesome, your wrong ps3 games are awesome your wrong. (your wrong parts of the text are thiagos boiled down speech) The quality of games mean nothing when those games still take longer to load then a 360 equivlient the whole point of this thread was ps3 is not more powerful then 360 weither that is to mean its inferior or equal to the 360 means nothing at this point since the arguement is boiling down to superior areas, the 360 is superior in its read speed and specificially loading times because 360 uses far better and more agreesive compression. To load it is a proven fact that a compressed file on a faster drive will take less time to read and load then a uncompressed file on a slower drive.P.S: I probably know more about mgs 4 then you do atleast i've given the surface proof to my side of the argument you haven't given a thing all you've given basically amounts to is mgs 4 is awesome. Where as i have given the proof that Kojima claimed 50 gigs wasn't enough yet the game only took in the end after any amount of compression it used 32 gigs if the english uncompressed PCM 7.1 track took up 10 gigs then at 32 gigs on a 50 gig blu ray then 10 gig japanese language track would have been doable.Come back and give some proof, argue something instead of simply attacking me which is your main points * me going off topic or changing the topic when it was liquid prince that brought up load times initially*""thiago said:It is slower, but that fact alone means nothing, unless you are a fanboy. Many games have presented different ways of working around that. It means that it is not a problem.Don't try to change the subject. A troll started a flamewar about the PS3 not being powerful enough, while the Cell is more powerful than the 360 CPU and many games have shown it. Just take it like a man and show some sportsmanship. Why every PS3 awesome game or anything related to it automatically receives attacks from fanboys no matter what? This is getting tiresome. PS3 owners wherever they are they need to defend themselves from a mob lynch or justify why they prefer this or that as if it was somehow wrong. It is a fact that Killzone 2 is beautiful, and if you still have doubts just do the experience I talked about."So its slower...Meaning that it takes longer to load and specially so the large files *since sony fanboys claim uncompressed files are better the compressed* but yeah surfice to say you cannot prove its faster, you cannot prove its not a problem so you simply say it only matters to fanboys and theres ways around it, yes theres ways around it and i specifically mentioned one of them some thing you've yet to do and that doesn't change the fact a lower read speed=lower load speeds and thats a bad thing which is why all ps3 games compensate for this by either having lenghty installs or large cache files making for rather long initial load times and even then on multiplatform games after install or cache the games on average load slower AND if you install them on the 360 load slower by a larger %.
As I said, and you ignored it, this fact alone proves nothing. So what? Clearly it is not a problem because the games on the PS3 are so awesome.
If it was something to do with actual processing power I would understand, but drive speed? You are trying too hard. Now you have gone where no fanboy has gone before.As for MGS4, this is all pointless because you know nothing about it. You are just speculating about it and taking your own conclusions as fact, as any fanboy would do."
Also does anybody else find it slightly ironic how PS3 fanboys laugh at people and make fun of people for liking Halo and say its the worst game ever made, yet they orgasm over the thought of Killzone 2? OOOHHHHH GOOD GRAPHIX!!!! MUST BE GODLIKE! (even though MGS4 clearly has better graphics than killzone 2)
By the way, I'm not saying Killzone 2 sucks, I like it, i'm just finding it ironic.
We are still waiting for a 360 exclusive to match the already old Uncharted 1 for the ps3, I don't know which is more powerful but I know which console has the games with the most beautiful graphics, Gears of War could be impressive, but it uses the ugly Unreal 3 engine. I think this guy is comparing the GPUs and we have always known the 360 ATI GPU is more powerful, but the efficient use of the SPUs for rendering purposes bring us the unmatched graphics of KZ2 and Uncharted, so yes, multiplatform games will always run better or be easier to program on a 360, but exclusives games can heavily use SPUs to gain the extra horse power.
and yet again more words, more spin, more no real argument except you trying to say i am circumspect...ect without giving any proof.This fact alone that bluray 2x is slower then DVD 12x proves every thing from the simple facts i have put forth it proves much of every thing. Nearly all multiplatform game loads quicker on the 360 regardless of cache use on ps3 or install. A problem is something that needs to be fixed and or circumvented you have said your self that the ps3 has ways of working around *circumventing* its slow read speeds therefor slow load times are a problem by your words alone you've admitted this.the funny thing is i realise now that we will never have a proper debate because i am not argueing The awesomeness of games *of which the ps3 has none* i am argueing simple system preformance and power where as your not even argueing that any more, I'm stepping out of my fanboy role and you are not which is why you continuely use simple words that prove no point and boil down to ps3 is awesome, your wrong ps3 games are awesome your wrong. (your wrong parts of the text are thiagos boiled down speech) The quality of games mean nothing when those games still take longer to load then a 360 equivlient the whole point of this thread was ps3 is not more powerful then 360 weither that is to mean its inferior or equal to the 360 means nothing at this point since the arguement is boiling down to superior areas, the 360 is superior in its read speed and specificially loading times because 360 uses far better and more agreesive compression. To load it is a proven fact that a compressed file on a faster drive will take less time to read and load then a uncompressed file on a slower drive.P.S: I probably know more about mgs 4 then you do atleast i've given the surface proof to my side of the argument you haven't given a thing all you've given basically amounts to is mgs 4 is awesome. Where as i have given the proof that Kojima claimed 50 gigs wasn't enough yet the game only took in the end after any amount of compression it used 32 gigs if the english uncompressed PCM 7.1 track took up 10 gigs then at 32 gigs on a 50 gig blu ray then 10 gig japanese language track would have been doable.Come back and give some proof, argue something instead of simply attacking me which is your main points * me going off topic or changing the topic when it was liquid prince that brought up load times initially*"
You have given no proof whatsoever. You just insist in this stupidity. The drive speed means nothing alone. We could equally say that the Blu-ray can hold more data. So what?
The OP posted a fanboy rant about a nobody who worked on "graphical monsters" such as Guitar Hero and Rock Band, stating that the PS3 is not more powerful. Your post don't actually contain anything related to "power", but instead you change the subject to drive speed as if it was the one thing that makes all the difference. It doesn't.
If the PS3 games actually had loading problems, but they don't. Killzone 2 don't even do installation and it only does loading between areas after a long time of gameplay. So what is your point?
You have no facts. None. Your speculations about what a project you didn't participate in and didn't receive the information from someone who participated in it are just *speculations*, not facts.
Why are you acting all defensive? I didn't attack anyone. I only don't buy this BS you call argument.
"We are still waiting for a 360 exclusive to match the already old Uncharted 1 for the ps3, I don't know which is more powerful but I know which console has the games with the most beautiful graphics, Gears of War could be impressive, but it uses the ugly Unreal 3 engine. I think this guy is comparing the GPUs and we have always known the 360 ATI GPU is more powerful, but the efficient use of the SPUs for rendering purposes bring us the unmatched graphics of KZ2 and Uncharted, so yes, multiplatform games will always run better or be easier to program on a 360, but exclusives games can heavily use SPUs to gain the extra horse power."Uncharted doesn't really have that great of graphics to be honest..and the Killzone 2 character models are just downright ugly.
No joke..what exactly is so great about the graphics on these? They don't seem to be better than Gears, or MGS4.
"WilliamRLBaker said:The things I have bolded in this dumb asses post makes him sound more like a moron than he already is. Beings as yes, PS3 games have been proven to have longer load times and you attack anybody with a differing opinion of you and just blindly defend the PS3 with your life saying everything else in existence is the worst thing of all time and I also bolded "fanboy rant" because you have absolutely no right to complain about anybody being a fanboy..and yet again more words, more spin, more no real argument except you trying to say i am circumspect...ect without giving any proof.This fact alone that bluray 2x is slower then DVD 12x proves every thing from the simple facts i have put forth it proves much of every thing. Nearly all multiplatform game loads quicker on the 360 regardless of cache use on ps3 or install. A problem is something that needs to be fixed and or circumvented you have said your self that the ps3 has ways of working around *circumventing* its slow read speeds therefor slow load times are a problem by your words alone you've admitted this.the funny thing is i realise now that we will never have a proper debate because i am not argueing The awesomeness of games *of which the ps3 has none* i am argueing simple system preformance and power where as your not even argueing that any more, I'm stepping out of my fanboy role and you are not which is why you continuely use simple words that prove no point and boil down to ps3 is awesome, your wrong ps3 games are awesome your wrong. (your wrong parts of the text are thiagos boiled down speech) The quality of games mean nothing when those games still take longer to load then a 360 equivlient the whole point of this thread was ps3 is not more powerful then 360 weither that is to mean its inferior or equal to the 360 means nothing at this point since the arguement is boiling down to superior areas, the 360 is superior in its read speed and specificially loading times because 360 uses far better and more agreesive compression. To load it is a proven fact that a compressed file on a faster drive will take less time to read and load then a uncompressed file on a slower drive.P.S: I probably know more about mgs 4 then you do atleast i've given the surface proof to my side of the argument you haven't given a thing all you've given basically amounts to is mgs 4 is awesome. Where as i have given the proof that Kojima claimed 50 gigs wasn't enough yet the game only took in the end after any amount of compression it used 32 gigs if the english uncompressed PCM 7.1 track took up 10 gigs then at 32 gigs on a 50 gig blu ray then 10 gig japanese language track would have been doable.Come back and give some proof, argue something instead of simply attacking me which is your main points * me going off topic or changing the topic when it was liquid prince that brought up load times initially*"
You have given no proof whatsoever. You just insist in this stupidity. The drive speed means nothing alone. We could equally say that the Blu-ray can hold more data. So what?
The OP posted a fanboy rant about a nobody who worked on "graphical monsters" such as Guitar Hero and Rock Band, stating that the PS3 is not more powerful. Your post don't actually contain anything related to "power", but instead you change the subject to drive speed as if it was the one thing that makes all the difference. It doesn't. If the PS3 games actually had loading problems, but they don't. Killzone 2 don't even do installation and it only does loading between areas after a long time of gameplay. So what is your point? You have no facts. None. Your speculations about what a project you didn't participate in and didn't receive the information from someone who participated in it are just *speculations*, not facts.Why are you acting all defensive? I didn't attack anyone. I only don't buy this BS you call argument. "
Thiago haves all other systems, and loves to make the PS3 out to be much better than it is. Thiago, it's cool that you like your PlayStation, but don't be an asshole about it and make shit up.
"We are still waiting for a 360 exclusive to match the already old Uncharted 1 for the ps3, I don't know which is more powerful but I know which console has the games with the most beautiful graphics, Gears of War could be impressive, but it uses the ugly Unreal 3 engine. I think this guy is comparing the GPUs and we have always known the 360 ATI GPU is more powerful, but the efficient use of the SPUs for rendering purposes bring us the unmatched graphics of KZ2 and Uncharted, so yes, multiplatform games will always run better or be easier to program on a 360, but exclusives games can heavily use SPUs to gain the extra horse power."LISTEN TO THIS GUY! HE*S GOT THE IDEA! KZ2 was awesome because it used the SPU's potensial, and the 360 used it's gpu as a assistent for it's cpu.
there can be better games for either platform! but the 360's been out for 4 years now and you've got gears, halo (not perfect, but not bad) and your getting MGS4 (probably). and the PS3's been out 3 years and they've got uncharted, Mgs4, GT5: pro and KZ2.
STOP BITCHING!!!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment