The official Ps3 thread

Joebob said:
lol, just ran the figures thorugh a currency converter and Tekken works out at just over £8, but the PSP games are a steal at a little over £2 each :D
Click to expand...

Id say faslifying your address is bending on the edge of "Credit Card Fraud" though, so keep it quiet,lol.
Enjoy it while you can as im sure the loophole will one day get closed as Sony will come under pressure.

Very surprised the network doesnt actually check from which country you are in.

Unfortunately this has specifc issues with trading standards and regulators of content as its not passed for clasification/approval or licensced for each market be it a movie trailer or indeed a game.

Wait till Watchdog finds out, but this is one reason why Sony are against imports...
Get what you can quick...

PS You need a VAIO to totally complete your new sig mate.
 
Last edited:
Mr Latte said:
PS You need a VAIO to totally complete your new sig mate.
Click to expand...
I had one but I gave it to my wife to use instead as I wanted a gaming laptop but it only had some intel shared gfx carp! I didn't buy it intentionally because it was a Sony through - it was though the insurance after i erm.. accidentally, dropped my old TIME laptop off the kitchen table.

TIME = RIP & good riddance!
 
Last edited:
ElRazur said:
Rfom....Is so awesome man, i dont know why people slate the game at all. I think people think GOW is better because of the sepia theme that was used in RFoM unlike GoW.
Click to expand...

Nope.. from my perspective, it's the incredible textures and lighting used in GoW that does it for me.

For example, you go upto a bit of stone in the street, in GoW, the closer you get the better it looks, it's correctly bumpmapped or whatever, so the edges look genuinely rough and bumpy, in RfoM it just looks flat, blocks of stone/buildings as you get close you realise it's just a texture stretched over a flatish model and ruins the illusion..

The scenery in RfoM in the city areas is excellent though, it does create a large sense of scale that I liked, GoW is also great, but the city is more closed in.

RfoM is good, indeed excellent, but GoW is a bit better in almost all respects, graphics/immersion/animation/controls, the only thing you can say about GoW is it could be a bit longer.. although it's not exactly a 'short' game, it's just a shame when it ends..

I don't normally go for FPS on consoles, and never wanted GoW, as I just don't get on with console FPS controls, but since I was bought GoW as a present, I decided to play it, and OMG, totally hooked, I played it for 4 hours the first time, then did a marathon 8 hour stint to finish it, I just couldn't put it down..
I played RfoM for 2-3 hours at my brothers, and was getting into it quite well, but then after playing GoW, I went back to RfoM and it just felt so 'flat' in comparison, it just isn't drawing me in..

I'm not knocking the PS3, I still love motorstorm.. it has it's flaws, but it's a very good next gen game...
 
Last edited:
GOW has CO-OP and well for me to enjoy the single player game with a buddy is a major fun factor. I dont even know if Resistance has this but be a pity if it didnt.

People complain GOW is dark and murky but "Cliffy B" always said it was action/horror based within the Unreal Universe, did some people expect marioland or a yellow brick road?

Love or hate the art direction from a technical point of view the game really does shine. A superb technical achievement but all this looks good as to how UT will look on PS3 saying its coming from the same studio.
 
RFOM has the far superior story line. GoW doesn't really have one.

The textures etc on GoW are very nice, but the underground mines level looks terrible. With the high contrasting bright liquid and the rock, it didn't look much better than King Kong.
At first i liked GoW thought this is good. But i think the lack of story made the 'cover, shoot, cover shoot' get a bit boring. And when RS:V came out it really did show the best use of cover. And it had a great Story. And i can't help but feel the need to almost agree with people who say GoW just seems like a tech demo.

Nobody in their right mind can say RFOM is better looking than GoW, but bare in mind GoW is a 2nd or maybe even 3rd gen title on the xbox against a launch title. Compare PD0 with RFOM and see what one shines. PD0 has some wee shiney guns etc, but terrible framerate issues and chronic tearing (something found a lot in xbox 360 titles :()
RFOM is absolutly rock solid at 30fps, no tearing what soever and looks great. Although the shrubery/grasses when you get close to them look like they where lifted right out of SOCOM, not nice at all.
But wait till a year along with the PS3 and see. I think the titles a year into the PS3 life will look as good as the ones being released at the same time on the xbox 360.
 
JUMPURS said:
but the underground mines level looks terrible. With the high contrasting bright liquid and the rock
Click to expand...
Fine on my TV, and Vegas's cover system has nothing on Gears, especially the unfair advantage it gives in Multiplayer :o Gears admittedly gives some advantage but nowhere near as much as the advantage Vegas gives.
I heard Resistance suffers issues at 1080i with textures looking really rough, the guy who said this has a PS3 with a 50" TV :eek:
 
Jihad said:
Fine on my TV, and Vegas's cover system has nothing on Gears, especially the unfair advantage it gives in Multiplayer :o Gears admittedly gives some advantage but nowhere near as much as the advantage Vegas gives.
I heard Resistance suffers issues at 1080i with textures looking really rough, the guy who said this has a PS3 with a 50" TV :eek:
Click to expand...


I dont have any issues with playing RFoM on 1080i (panasonic thx42) It runs smooth...Perhaps it is because im new to next-gen gaming...
 
Jihad said:
Fine on my TV, and Vegas's cover system has nothing on Gears, especially the unfair advantage it gives in Multiplayer :o Gears admittedly gives some advantage but nowhere near as much as the advantage Vegas gives.
I heard Resistance suffers issues at 1080i with textures looking really rough, the guy who said this has a PS3 with a 50" TV :eek:
Click to expand...

Nah that mines level just looked Horrid in my opinion. I even went out and bought an MS VGA cable to see if it would help it any.

The Gears cover system can be very clunky and cumbersome. I just loved the cover in RS:V.

I haven't seen any rough looking textures tbh, aside from like i said the shrubbery.
In fact you can't run RFOM in 1080i that is the big issue with the PS3 at the moment. If he is showing it in 1080i then his TV is upscaling it from 720p and that might be where the issue is?
 
I am surprised at you JUMPURS!

The mines level on Gears of War is absolutely stunning with some of the best texturing Ive seen in a game. I also think the Gears of War cover system leaves that of Rainbow Six: Vegas (which is good) standing. You say it looks as bad as King Kong in some areas, however, in some areas of King Kong it is one of the best looking games I have ever seen, especially when the FSAA kicks in. I also loved the graphical style of Perfect Dark. Remember, its not bad graphically, rather its the graphical style that was attempted and was very hit and miss. I for one love the normal mapping in it.

I have also heard that Resistance: Fall of Man looked bad in 1080i, however I have only heard that from one report and would rather see it myself.
 
Nah i have always hated the mines level thought it looked bad. The nices looking level is probably the one with the rain when you come up to the old factory type building.
King Kong is terrible on the xbox 360. Even Ubisoft said don't play it on the 360 cos it looks so bad. You can't even see where you are going sometimes.
Yeap PD0 and RFOM are different styles, my complaint isn't the styles but the fact the tearing and framerate drops are terrible on it. RFOM has arguably lower textures, and even then i think that adds to the effect, it comes across to me like an old movie, but a rock solid framerate no matter how much is going on.
The cover system in Gears i find can get very clunky, maybe i am just not using it right, but sometimes to get to stick to things was just meh. and climbing over things with the stick to it then climb done my nut it, although i am sure someone is gonna tell me it can be done quicker lol
I just preffered the cover system in RS:V. But i do know that the cover system used in RS:V couldn't have been used in GoW and vice versa.

Like i said though RFOM is only capable of an output of 720p. This is where all the controversy of the PS3 comes. Because if you have a TV that will only do 480/1080i then it plays it in 480 as the PS3 can not upscale it to 1080i. It is possible it does look bad i suppose, but it would be the TV's scaler causing the issues not the game itself.
 
ElRazur said:
I dont have any issues with playing RFoM on 1080i (panasonic thx42) It runs smooth...Perhaps it is because im new to next-gen gaming...
Click to expand...

It looked fine on a sharp 46/52XD1E (1080p LCD), although it only runs at 720p?? so the panel does upscale this, and it upscales well on my brothers..

The problem with 1080i is that if the TV doesn't do a good job of de-interlacing it will look terrible, but that's not the PS3's fault..
 
News making rounds.


By 2010, Xbox 360 and Wii will be trailing behind PS3 as Sony's console reaches a worldwide install base of 75 million, reckons Dublin-based market research company Research and Markets.

The educated forecast has appeared in an abstract of a study titled "The Transforming Global Video Games Market: The Emergence of Next Generation Gaming", according to a report on Next-Gen.biz.

But while it's said the PS3 will lead in the console war, it won't enjoy the same huge dominance achieved by PS2. This is down to "late launch issues in the PAL region and the early lead of Microsoft's Xbox 360."

Well, in three - and a bit, we guess - years' time we'll see how on the money this educated forecast turned out to be...
Click to expand...

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=153153&skip=yes

What do you think?
 
Seen it a few times now.

I don't think many would refute it TBH, even most xbox 'fanboys' would agree the the PS3 will probably lead the console sales.
The problems are though they need to cover the costs enough to make the PS3 worthy enough of a succesor.
What i have been wondering is if MS decided to try get a jump on Sony again with the next xbox, i wonder if Sony have planned for the PS4 with the PS3.
The Cell is ideal in a multi CPU environment, and nVidia are no strangers to multi GPU.
Maybe they are thinking the PS4 will just be 2 cells and 2 GPU's slapped together. Would be a less painfull transition from the PS3 development. And would be pretty damn powerfull. Because i think E309 will see MS announce the next xbox and Sony need to be on their toes for it.
 
ElRazur said:
News making rounds
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=153153&skip=yes

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I will accept its more likely when.

1) PS3 price is a lot less
2) The games everyone is crying out for are actually available inc PS3 AAA exclusives
3) Blu Ray is established and is well advertised with a large catalouge of movies

Without going into my usaul (educated BS) i will say that for the above 3 factors to happen its going to take approx 1-2 years before PS3 gets in such a position before its meeting the 3 above targets.

What you have to then ask yourself is.....
Can the X360 maintain its current form over this 1-2 year period.
For a format to be successful it has to:

1) Cost within £150 - £200 bracket
2) Have a strong title lineup and large market presence including advertising and dedicated retail floor space.
3) Unique popular franchises that attract people only to that platform

Ask yourself whats more likely for the above two situations, who is meeting such targets or will do within the next two years.

If anything the market between the top 2 will be a lot closer this time around.
Microsoft have proved they are able and willing to take the mantle and the biggest concern for the PS3 will be its lack of exclusives and that Xbox 360 seems to now actually have more "System Exclusives" (someone wanna count)

At the end of the day if Sony up their game and get sorted then its "Gamers" who win because competition is what drives the market.
 
Last edited:
ElRazur said:
News making rounds.




http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=153153&skip=yes

What do you think?
Click to expand...


Erm 75 million?!

I have no doubts that the ps3 will do well (once the price falls) but 75 million is well just a tad optimistic in only 3 years (considering the initial problems sony had with cell yeilds / blu ray).

However one place where sony really have shot themselves in the foot is the price. For the average gamer who couldn't give a flying do do about HD media content (HDDVD / BLU RAY) why would you pay more for the ps3 over the 360?

The only real obvious answer would be game exclusives, however is there still enough exclusives for the ps3 to warrent its inflated price tag? (serious question taking into account blu-ray or HD dvd are not deciding factors.
 
JUMPURS said:
Seen it a few times now.

I don't think many would refute it TBH, even most xbox 'fanboys' would agree the the PS3 will probably lead the console sales.
The problems are though they need to cover the costs enough to make the PS3 worthy enough of a succesor.
What i have been wondering is if MS decided to try get a jump on Sony again with the next xbox, i wonder if Sony have planned for the PS4 with the PS3.
The Cell is ideal in a multi CPU environment, and nVidia are no strangers to multi GPU.
Maybe they are thinking the PS4 will just be 2 cells and 2 GPU's slapped together. Would be a less painfull transition from the PS3 development. And would be pretty damn powerfull. Because i think E309 will see MS announce the next xbox and Sony need to be on their toes for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the architecture is that important (as long as it's adequate), it's the ability to exploit it that seems to be a strong factor.

As of today, the 360 is easier to develop for
1. A Large chunk of networking and other services are given to the developer almost for free, such as Xbox live interaction and features, giving them more time on the main game.
2. The identical multi-core design draws some parallels with multicore PC's, and as PC developers find good ways to use the other cores, this knowledge is quite applicable to 360 development
3. The dev tools are more developed for the 360, they've had that extra year to allow all the devs to use more of the advanced features.

Clearly Sony are gambling that after some time, the synergistic approach they believe the CELL processors have will allow the PS3 to become more powerful then the 360 and overtake it. This is no given as it relies on the 360 development not to advance at the same rate it is today.

If the PS3 architecure is exploited well, and shows promise, then I think PS4 should jump ahead of MS, who would find it harder to change architectures due to the changes in dev tools and experience.

There is an interesting article about AMD stating that identical multicore is not the 'future' and that processor architectures closer the the PS3 may well hold the future for increased performance, but again this is all speculation, and it's going to be a few years before we see how it all pans out..
 
75 million sounds very optimistic given the lacklustre sales so far with consoles sat on shelves.

It's bound to do pretty well but that price needs to come down a heck of a lot to achieve that sort of numbers in a few years given the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom