Played about 4 hours on the ps3 today and it only farther proved to me that statements like "this is Unplayible consoles" is just PC wankery of the hightest caliber.

Standards man. They differ from person to person. I just played SR:TT on PS3 via PS+. I had a great time. But it certainly is all kinds of grungy in every respect, in comparison to how games *could* run on PC given an appropriately powerful system.

Standards and perspective man. I really doubt he would have the same reaction had he played it first on console.

But yeah we're talking framerate and draw distance here, hardly the end of the world compared to shit like less players or less enemies.

Man, that's the nice way of putting it.

I did not believe that PC could be that much better until I was playing every game at 60 frames per second. It's not just smooth visuals, it also makes the game simply feel better all around and you can feel those frames shredded off when you play a console game. No, console games aren't unplayable, but there's always something a bit off when going back. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, play Rage through to completion and, as soon as you finish, jump into Far Cry 3 on consoles. That's the difference. It's unpleasant and jarring.

I'm playing at 1080p on ultra settings (everything maxed out) I'm getting a solid 60fps on my year old PC. No hitches, no freezing.... It's smooth.

I've also played it on consoles, and yeah, not even close. The PC version pretty much blows it away in every aspect. Current consoles are really struggling with it.

Hopefully they will port this to Xbox One and PS4 in the future so you guys can play it like the PC people are.

Ive got it on PS3 as well and its pretty damn playable so far. Few frame rate drops but mostly stable at more or less 30 frames. Graphics seem to have taken a hit though.

The biggest thing here is the people who have a gaming PC AND consoles and play the game on both. Of course the PC version is going to be miles better, but if all you have is a console, it is totally fine there. When I think unplayable on a console, I think Far Cry 3. Man, that game chugged like crazy on consoles. Saints Row IV doesn't chug near as bad on consoles as compared to FC3, but I'm sure it runs better on PC. I for one have a great PC, but I bought SR 4 on consoles because my friends all have the console version and don't have a PC.

I believe it will be completely playable

Brad bitched a lot about Far Cry 3 being unplayable on consoles as well, at that is very far from the truth. It was one of my favorite games of last year and I never once even touched it on a PC.

Not all of us have tons of money to throw around on building great PCs, I certainly don't. I don't really have any option except to play on console. I guess I don't really know what I'm missing, but as long as I stay ignorant I think I'll be fine.

Picking this up on PS3 later today.

@demoskinos:

30 FPS is definitely playable, but if it has the somewhat occasional framerate hitch...it's still a fault. While the hitch sucks, it's definitely not unplayable. Don't think most console players are going to care too much because they're going to have fun regardless of the occasional hitches.

If you're consistently playing everything on PC, I guess I can understand how it might be tough to play some of these games that push consoles to their limits, but personally, I just completely dismiss these complaints about frame rate.

Sure, there are console games (like the first Mass Effect) that do have some pretty major frame rate issues, but I personally had no problems with Far Cry 3, so it makes it tough for me to know how to interpret the disgust that the GB crew level towards most console games.

@believer258: I went from RAGE to Uncharted 3 back in 2011 (pretty sure that game is only 30 FPS) and I could not tell the difference between the two, in terms of frame rate. Granted, U3 is a solid 30 FPS, as opposed to something like Far Cry 3 that isn't solid (though the PS3 version seemed pretty good to me, only had a really noticeable frame drop once or twice).

Maybe I just have weird eyes though.

Edit: Either way, it's nice to see that the PS3 version of SRIV isn't completely broken. I guess I will get that version after all. Or, if the 360 version does run a bit better, I might get that one. Have one more new 360 game before the next generation starts.

I got some crazy slowdown during a UFO Rampage when I flew low and blew up a bunch of stuff and flew past a bunch of trees.

I blame the trees.

You can't see this? Or this?

I remember seeing some framerate drops in Uncharted 3 but that game usually sticks to 30 pretty well. Forza Horizon is another game that admirably sticks to a rock-solid, unchanging 30 frames and it looks pretty smooth. When they showed Far Cry 3, though, it looked only slightly better than the first box in that link. It's terrible. Seppli, up there, said it's a difference of standards, and that's true, but I cannot believe that you don't see the immediate difference when they switch to PC's in that FC3 Quick Look. Not in the detail, but simply in how much smoother it looks on the PC. It's so apparent to me, it's like the difference between night and day and that is no exaggeration. You must be able to see it.

Saints Row IV on consoles looked playable. Not preferable, but definitely playable, though I can understand that getting pretty bad when things get too busy.

Yeah, it seems that most of the time when console versions are called "unplayable" it's just a bunch of nonsense.

Seemed like an okay thread, turned into shit instantly.

I'm playing on the 360 and while I can see issues with it, it is most definitely playable.

Actually the bigger issue I have over the graphics is the audio; they had to compress the shit out of it or something. It's got that tinny, underwater-ish (I'll be amazed if that made sense to anyone other than me) sound pretty bad.

Yeah, all that stuff looks the same to me. The 15 FPS in the first one looked worse, but all the rest looked the same. Lucky me?

Playing on 360, 3 hours in, and so far the only frame rate hitches I've encountered are if I'm speed running, jumping, and gliding across the map. It's fine and hasn't impacted my enjoyment of the game at all.

SR3 didn't run great but it took 2 minutes to get used to it.
I'm sure the PC is better here too, but ignorance is bliss!

Can't speak for the PS3, but on the Xbox 360 it is at the same level as SR3. I can't imagine it being any worse, It seems like they are using the same rendering engine with some tweeks as far as gameplay goes.

As far as PC vs. Consoles goes it like getting drunk off a expensive bottle of scotch or a case of domestic beer. If you can afford the refined taste of the scotch, it will be a much more satisfying experience.....but either way your going to get drunk (on fun).

I rented it on PS3 and it looked so fucking bad that I couldnt even play it. I just went ahead and bought it on steam. Its like night and day.

Playing games on even a moderately geared PC made me roll my eyes every time I'd hear someone wonder why we needed a next gen.

People are their own worst enemies. If you own a game capable PC and a console and you buy a multiplatform game on the console you deserve to suffer. Anyone who only has a console won't even notice the difference.

30 fps is completely fine. Not sure how well sr4 runs on ps3, but if it's a rock solid 30 that's completely fine. Honestly, 60 fps looks way too fast to me. I watch a shit ton of movies, so I actually prefer the blurring lower fps causes, especially if it's a cinematic game.

Take the last of us: It would look goddamn hokey if it ran at 60fps. The lower fps adds something to the atmosphere; makes it more mysterious and foreboding (as pretentious as that sounds. Sorry, not trying to come off like that).

I can understand wanting 60fps for competitive play (more frames makes = quicker reaction time, but I really think cinematic single player games benefit from running at 30fps.

Just look at the team ico collection. both of those games could EASILY run at 60fps in the resolution they're at on ps3, so why don't they? I have no proof of this, but I'm guessing it must be a stylistic choice. And I'm glad for it since those games would look so weird running at 60fps.

@grantheaslip: The thing about consoles is correct, the thing about using earbuds instead of good headphones because you're afraid it will ruin your perspective on music is... True, I guess? Still kind of dumb since you're losing content by not listening to it through quality headphones

Go pick up some audiotechnica cans for 50 bucks on amazon. For christs sake, there's so much depth you are losing by listening to all of your music through shit earbuds. Fuck mobility, music is one of the only pure artforms left (besides stupid pop shit). Experience it the way it was meant to be experienced

I reckon I can almost guarantee if The Last of Us ran at 60fps not a single person would complain ever.

I bought Far Cry 3 on PS3 despite being able to run it on PC and it was perfectly fine. Not once did I ever think I bought the inferior version. I chose co-op with friends over better graphics.

I'm so glad I don't have a problem with 30 fps like so many people seem to. This is kinda a half serious question to the primarily PC gamers, do you guys just not play console games? I wonder what Brad would think of his beloved Red Dead now that he's used to PC games.

@topsteer:

I still play on consoles when I have to (although, this is becoming less and less). Hell, I even bought a Wii U. But I resent the shit framerates and terrible image quality.

@grantheaslip: I guess it depends on the person. I could go from listening to pink floyd through my great headphones and listening to them through a shitty phone speaker without really caring that much. I know where the quality lies, but that doesn't really diminish the quality of their music. I can still tell how great they are on a shitty phone speaker, and that's all that matters.

And I was being facetious when I said you should only listen to music through good headphones ;)

And the portability factor is completely true as well.

@topsteer: It's not PC gamers, it's just some people. I play games interchangeably on many platforms and different PCs/laptops with different specs and have no issues with "worse" graphics.

@geraltitude: Poor choice of words on my part, I didn't mean to generalize, that question was aimed at people who say stuff like Far Cry 3 on consoles is unplayable when it seemed to run just as fine as other console games. I tend to prefer the PC version of games but the decision often comes down to which version goes on sale first.

From listening to some of the GB, crew I was led to believe it was almost unplayable on consoles, but from what I saw in the quick look it looks perfectly passible.

Maybe I'm completely crazy, but I can swear that it's hitting 60 frames on PS3 from time to time. Hardly locked there (far from it), but I'd compare it to playing Bioshock with the Vsync turned off. Like without a ton of particles or AI on screen, it does run really well IMO.

The textures and pop-in on the other hand...I would totally re-buy a copy of this game on PS4 if it performed as well or better than the PC version.

It totally does, on rare occasion, run at what looks like something reaching 60. Those sections where you're taken to the empty world to practise your new powers in particular ran really well, and wall-sprinting seems to do alright frames-wise, too. I would have much preferred if they could just lock it down to a consistent 30 overall, though, instead of dipping up and down all over the place like it does.

Anywhoo while I wouldn't say it plays 'great' on PS3, it's still perfectly fine, and this is coming from someone who couldn't bear to play any more than 2 hours of Far Cry 3 on PS3 because of its shitty framerate.

Not too surprising. I played both SR3 and Sleeping Dogs in close succession on PS3 and 360, and in both cases, the PS3 performed measurably better.

The whole "unplayable" notion is a bit hyperbolic, but I totally get the sentiment. I've always been a console guy but have found gaming on my PC infinitely more enjoyable in the last 2-3 years, so much so I ended up building a new machine and unplugging my consoles for good.

The real turning point for me was Skyrim.

I originally bought it for the 360 as it was my go to platform. I played it for 20 hours and really struggled with it. It wasn't until I haphazardly bought it on my PC on a steam sale that I felt like I was actually playing the game. It wasn't just the graphics (even though the boost in fidelity was significant), but the load times. Instead of walking into a room and waiting for what seemed like 20 seconds, on PC it was almost instant. This changed the game for me and made Skyrim a pure unadulterated pleasure.

I get why it pisses people off when a PC guy is all like "f*** dem consoles", but to be honest, f*** dem consoles. The imminent next gen is the first gen where I don't buy anything, as oppose to everything.

I understand where you are coming from, I played through Saints Row 3 on PS3 and I thought it was fine but I can also see how it would bug the shit out of other people, the PC version simply runs and looks way better on the right hardware.

It plays fine on 360 too. It kinda reminds me of San Andreas in that the scope of the game is clearly greater than what the console can handle, but at this point that just excites me for new consoles haha

Good to know. In that case I might be playing the PS3 version come this winter.

I wouldn't say it plays "great" on PS3. It's certainly playable, but I'm about 15 hours in and have experienced tons of freezes that last almost a minute each and Jeff's complaints about the chunky aiming are a hundred percent valid.

I own a 360/PS3/Wii and bought each one of them at launch (However, both the 360 and PS3 were replaced since both died outside their warranty period.)

Outside of Rockband, they're all hardly used. I don't touch FPS games on consoles; the narrow FOV does not play nice with me (And if it's not adjustable on the PC, I don't play it there, either). I do however play a lot of Marvel vs. Capcom 3, as the game is smooth and the action is a blur of colors that the aliasing doesn't bother me.

The load times, however. That is what really kills my enjoyment of console games. Open world games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls? Without mods, I can transition from an area just about instantly. Fully modded with textures 3-4 times larger than the originals, it'll take 3-5 seconds to move from one area to the next.

It's like trying to play Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy 6 on the PSX after you've played the SNES versions. If you never played the SNES versions with instant loads, the disc seek pauses that happened between every menu/load screen/battle screen were probably ok. But if you played the originals, the 15 second load times before every random battle? The worst.

I hope this runs great on PS3, because I just bought it.

It's perfectly playable but kinda looks bad with the frame drops and screen tearing. I played Far Cry 3 on PS3 so I don't give a shit but still the games kinda look like ass.

Honestly, if GTA V runs like the videos on current gen hardware I'm really impressed by Rockstar's ability to program in the same respect as Naughty Dog.

Had some weird issues with missions not loading and some constant crashing at the start of one specific mission on the PC.
I switched it to Borderless Windowed Fullscreen or whatever and all that jazz went away.
Played the PS3 version as well and yeah that holds up nicely but also has a few issues and the same apparantly goes for the 360 (at least a bunch of people I know have issues there too but nothing major either)

So again, I'm glad I'm not in some weird "PC GAMING IS FLAWLESS" bubble of denial.
Games always have issues, it's been going on like that for the past two decades (and more) for me.

It's been playing fine for me on 360. The only time the framerate really struggled was during a loyalty mission where I dumped about 15 rapid-fire fireballs into the exact same spot, thanks to unlimited juice. That was...a lot of fire. I can understand why it struggled a bit with that. But for stuff like the races and everything, I haven't had any issues at all.

Yeah, from my perspective Saints Row 4 runs just fine on my 360. Honestly, the biggest technical issue I have with the game has to do with volume and how raising the voice setting and lowering the sound effect setting makes certain cutscenes really hard to hear because they don't use the settings properly. The rest is fine. Maybe it's because I came in braced for the worst but whatever. Yeah, it reminds me too of what they said of Far Cry 3. Now that I do not understand, I didn't notice any issues playing it myself.

Maybe it'll be hard to go back to in a year when next gen consoles have spoiled us all good and proper. For now though I'm having a damn good time.