Can't decide..360 or PS3?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NightSt@lk3r said:
GT5 Prologue runs at 640P on the PS3 aswell, i know its a PS3 exclusive, but just saying it runs at 640P.
Click to expand...

i am assuming you mean 640 fps if so then what is the point when the human eye from some guy on the street would not be able to tell the difference between that and 30/40 fps

and yes i do agree this needs closing as memphis has said its going no where fast because each fanboy is going to defend there console purchase by ticking the other side of :rolleyes:
 
steveo said:
i am assuming you mean 640 fps if so then what is the point when the human eye from some guy on the street would not be able to tell the difference between that and 30/40 fps

and yes i do agree this needs closing as memphis has said its going no where fast because each fanboy is going to defend there console purchase by ticking the other side of :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They're talking about pixels / resolutions. Not frames per second.
 
steveo said:
i am assuming you mean 640 fps if so then what is the point when the human eye from some guy on the street would not be able to tell the difference between that and 30/40 fps

and yes i do agree this needs closing as memphis has said its going no where fast because each fanboy is going to defend there console purchase by ticking the other side of :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, unless I'm misunderstanding him too, I thought it was known that GT5p is rendered considerably higher than 720p (1280x720), at 1280x1080 in fact, and then scaled back up to 1920x1080 with 2xaa.

You can tell when you play it on a 1080p screen, that it looks a lot crisper and detailed than a 720p game. It may not be "true" 1080p, but it certainly looks a lot nicer than 720p, so a good compromise I think. A shame more games couldn't manage it, 1280x1080 2xaa and 60fps.

Vin.

EDIT: and speaking of games that run at 640p, isn't COD4 another one? Again, I guess it's a fair compromise in this case, as it still looks pretty good, although the jaggies are of course more obvious, especially when you compare to the PC version, but still, if that's what it took to get it running at 60fps, then good on them, as that's one thing you can't fail to notice when you play it on a console, how nice and smooth it is. Really quite refreshing.
 
Last edited:
A definitive list of rendered resolutions can be found here..

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

This is the main source for all this type of thing, and before any questions the credentials of the source, there are a lot of developers contributing to that forum and the way the resolutions are found is acknowledged as correct by the developers.
 
Demon said:
A definitive list of rendered resolutions can be found here..

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

This is the main source for all this type of thing, and before any questions the credentials of the source, there are a lot of developers contributing to that forum and the way the resolutions are found is acknowledged as correct by the developers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that ;)

Yep, I'm a geek, I admit it, I'm reading through the list, and finding some of it interesting ;)

Vin.
 
Useful link there, thanks.

I think one interesting thing it shows is that, with everyone going on about how amazing HD is and how all the consoles benefit from it, they're still not capable of running games at HD resolutions. Obviously a lot of it is down to the developer and their expertise at getting the most out of the hardware, but it still makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.
 
edit: beaten above.

Some pretty random resolutions there tbh so much for 1:1. That Quaz51 dude got Bungie to release a statement after he had counted Halo 3 as running less than 720p.
 
Last edited:
TheVoice said:
He's not though, really. For the PS3 especially, most games have a set resolution of less than 1280x720, and are then upscaled by the console. Bearing in mind that the consoles don't really have the power to do much AA and AF, it wouldn't take a hugely powerful PC to run games at the same resolution and level of detail.
Click to expand...

Yup, and even at 1280x720 you do not need a powerful GPU or CPU.

I wonder if I would have gotten the same response if I ditched the PS3 instead. Don't understand why people can't grasp the reason I ditched the Xbox 360, it's not that difficult.
 
And I can't understand why everyone's ignoring the OP.

The guy wants a console for the kids to play; why the hell did PC's get a mention?
 
For the OP:

If it's for your kids, find out what most of their friends have.

I prefer my xbox based soley on the fact that I have about 30+ friends with 360s, so I get a lot of fun multiplayer. I have 2 friends with PS3s who don't even use them.

Consoles are only fun if you have someone to play with really. Although if it's going to be used for mainly single player (Maybe your kids are only young) I would say the Xbox because of a larger library of games that are generally cheaper.
 
exactly if its for his kids to go in there room then there not really going to use the blu ray on the ps3, the 360 has a bigger range of games for kids and adults, the controllers are better as well, there cheaper so its an easy option in todays dodgy money troubles
 
NightSt@lk3r said:
GT5 Prologue runs at 640P on the PS3 aswell, i know its a PS3 exclusive, but just saying it runs at 640P.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's BS.

V1N said:
Yes, unless I'm misunderstanding him too, I thought it was known that GT5p is rendered considerably higher than 720p (1280x720), at 1280x1080 in fact, and then scaled back up to 1920x1080 with 2xaa.
Click to expand...

It's good to see someone knows what they're talking about.
 
i would say go for a PS3 for several reasons, i don't personally own an xbox 360 but i have played numerous and they are seriously annoyingly noisy, theres just a constant whirling noise which is unforgivable TBH. another factor for me, matt (my best mate) his xbox disk tray gets constantly jammed, and its his third xbox, so reliability isn't great either. you have to pay to play online and even when you get online (halo 3 for example) finding games is a bit tiresome and needlessly time consuming and xbox live is full of annoying american kids whinging about whatever. so IMO PS3 advantages are:

1) they are far less noisy than the xbox 360, the only gripe with the PS3 is the annoying noise the hard disk makes while reading/writing.

2) notably more reliable than the xbox, no stupid disk tray to jam, no red rings of doom.

3) HDD swapping is simple as hell and you can use standard 2.5" SATA drives, which are cheaper and more capacious than the ones you get for the xbox, even the elite.

4) it has a blu-ray player, which to me is no biggy TBH, but apparently a selling point.

5) from a technical perspective, the xbox 360 has a power pack like a breeze block, whereas the PS3 is totally internal, which is impressive i suppose.

6) most games are available on both platforms, little/no difference in price for games and there are quite a few decent PS3 games due out in the not to distant future.
 
Yet another OCUK legendary thread.
For what it's worth (and interesting to note that the OP hasn't revisited the thread for a while), why don't you just get a PS2 if it's primarily for the kids?
My friend has done this for his kids (6 and 3) and they love it. Super cheap with an enormous back catalog of ultra cheap games - perfect for kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom