PS3 FEAR

neocon · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:00

anyone got FEAR for the PS3?

How does it compare on the PS3 to the PC and Xbox360?

slambo69 · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:35

There is a video comparison that a site did, cvg perhaps? It was a video with the same enviroments running the 360 and the ps3 version side by side, there was absolutely barely any difference at all. In my opinion thats bad for the ps3, it doesnt help justify the bigger price tag plus no achievements.

V4NT0M · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:44

neocon said:
anyone got FEAR for the PS3?

Yea, its the shape, it creeps me out, every night I wake up in cold sweats thinking a PS3 is going to pop out from under my bed and eat my 360 :eek:

wedgie · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:45

All the info I've seen on the game has said that the PS3 version is the inferior of all the versions.

Judging by that I would say if you have the option to get it on either of the other two systems then that would be the best bet.

FrankJH · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:49

slambo69 said:
There is a video comparison that a site did, cvg perhaps? It was a video with the same enviroments running the 360 and the ps3 version side by side, there was absolutely barely any difference at all. In my opinion thats bad for the ps3, it doesnt help justify the bigger price tag plus no achievements.

So you are holding Sony responsible for lazy 3rd party companies?

Bit harsh dont you think?

Dont get me wrong FEAR is a relatively old game now, so it probably isnt worth the developers time to write things specifically for the PS3 when most people will already have the game for the X360 or PC, but even so thats no reason to blame Sony

wedgie · 20 Apr 2007 at 21:59

Also, I don't think games released on multiple platforms are the best method of gauging the power of any console.

V4NT0M · 20 Apr 2007 at 22:12

wedgie22 said:
Also, I don't think games released on multiple platforms are the best method of gauging the power of any console.

Totally true, depends which console they spend more time on etc...

neocon · 20 Apr 2007 at 22:16

im waiting to see what gamespot says next week.

KNiVES · 20 Apr 2007 at 22:20

Gamespy has said the PS3 one is noticeably inferior to the 360 version. For a start, there's no 1080i mode, and the textures are even lower resolution than the 360 version. Big woops. Lack of rumble hurts it too.

Bossy papa · 20 Apr 2007 at 22:59

at least we can look forward to oblivion,thats a better port and looks better than the 360 version
so it's not all doom and gloom

KNiVES · 20 Apr 2007 at 23:06

The expansions are lacking, and the texture LOD fix is done for the 360 version, so maybe you need to read up on your Oblivion stuff

There's no such thing as a multiformat game done best on PS3 right now, just accept it and get over it mate.

slambo69 · 20 Apr 2007 at 23:18

FrankJH said:
So you are holding Sony responsible for lazy 3rd party companies?

Bit harsh dont you think?

What I think is harsh, is charging double the price for what seems to be an inferior product at the moment, yet they keep comming out with nonsense about how its the most powerful, it does this and it does that. I'm just a consumer who wants the best gaming experience, for all we know it could be Sony's fault or it could be the publishers/developers. I wasnt really holding sony responsible anyway, was just trying to answer the OP's question, no need to get so defensive, just makes folk seem desperate when they jump to defend their overpriced purchase.

Robert · 21 Apr 2007 at 00:17

The ps3 version of oblivion looks the same as the 360 one to me :/

Bossy papa · 21 Apr 2007 at 00:26

as soon as i found out that oblivion was coming out on ps3 i traded in the 360 version ,hoping that the devs will take advantage of the ps3 hard drive .

sunlitsix · 21 Apr 2007 at 00:32

KNiVES said:
Lack of rumble hurts it too.

cant see how that would effect it, afterall there is no rumble on the PC version

Bossy papa · 21 Apr 2007 at 00:37

there's also saints row to consider , that surely cant look as bad as the 360 version

FrankJH · 21 Apr 2007 at 01:02

slambo69 said:
What I think is harsh, is charging double the price for what seems to be an inferior product at the moment, yet they keep comming out with nonsense about how its the most powerful, it does this and it does that. I'm just a consumer who wants the best gaming experience, for all we know it could be Sony's fault or it could be the publishers/developers. I wasnt really holding sony responsible anyway, was just trying to answer the OP's question, no need to get so defensive, just makes folk seem desperate when they jump to defend their overpriced purchase.

If you didnt do your research then its potentially overpriced - if however like many others you arent just interested in gaming then its actually a steal for what its capable of doing.

slambo69 · 21 Apr 2007 at 01:21

FrankJH said:
If you didnt do your research then its potentially overpriced - if however like many others you arent just interested in gaming then its actually a steal for what its capable of doing.

I am only interested in gaming, but as you say thats varied. I have however read time and time again that ultimately, it will be the games which decides the 'winner' of the console war. I believe what you have stated is the wrong mentality for that, I think Sony have lost focus on the gaming side of it, perhaps relying on the 'cheap blu ray player' card too much.

This angers me, I have yet to see the PS3 prove itself a worthy competitor in the next gen console war as a gaming machine. I am a gamer at heart and spend most of my spare time playing games, I dont listen to music, not bothered about HD movies and I really couldnt care if I can browse the internet from my console. Seems kind of sad to me that 'gaming' consoles use that as an important selling point, two come to mind.

Here is the video I was talking about, its very well done however the quality isnt that good. It still shows that the two versions are very similiar.

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/10662

FrankJH · 21 Apr 2007 at 07:26

Well I really dont think X360 was much better at launch - lets just see how much the PS3 has improved in the next year - by then I think there will be a lot less between them - but thats just my opinion

I think MS charge too much for their add-on bits , if they were a much fairer price then there would be a more sound arguement saying it was overpriced and Sony should have given the choice.

At the end of the day the games WILL improve dramatically in the next few months, there is no doubting that

Kreeeee · 21 Apr 2007 at 07:45

FrankJH said:
I think MS charge too much for their add-on bits , if they were a much fairer price then there would be a more sound arguement saying it was overpriced and Sony should have given the choice.

The joys of choice means that you can buy an £18 wireless ethernet bridge that does the same job as the official wireless adapter. Saying people HAVE to pay £50 if they want wireless is a blatant lie.