The Orange Box

[Samiam22]

Originally Posted by GLaDoS

Did you just toss that Aperture Science We Don't Know What It Does into the Aperture Science Emergency Intelligence Incinerator? That has got to be the dumbest-- whoah whoah whoah.

I find Portal fun too, I have it. (PC Version)

[Drunken_Shinobi]

Yes...everyone knows that Portal is a very awesome game.

[Sen]

Orange Box plays better on PS3 than on 360.

[Drunken_Shinobi]

Yeah of course...PS3 is a monster machine compared to the 360.

[Samiam22]

I looked up the wikipedia entries for both of them, and the PS3 doesn't really have a significant difference.

[Drunken_Shinobi]

Wikipedia isn't exactly 100% reliable with information as people can just go in and change it.

[Samiam22]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone changed the whole of the PS3 entry saying "PS3 sucks!" It has happened before, in the Cat entry

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Samiam22

I looked up the wikipedia entries for both of them, and the PS3 doesn't really have a significant difference.

It's not a huge difference but it definitely has a substantial lead over the 360 graphics-wise.

[Samiam22]

Graphics don't make the game.

[Drunken_Shinobi]

No the graphics don't have to make the game, but nevertheless you need a combination of graphics as well as the other elements that make a game good because if we made a 32 bit game with excellent game play and story today then nobody would really buy the game, let alone be interested in it. A game needs pretty good graphics to keep up with today's standards on video games.

[Samiam22]

They have to be good, but not so good as to compete with Crisis or such.

[MrNaPaLm32]

Originally Posted by Drunken_Shinobi

No the graphics don't have to make the game, but nevertheless you need a combination of graphics as well as the other elements that make a game good because if we made a 32 bit game with excellent game play and story today then nobody would really buy the game, let alone be interested in it. A game needs pretty good graphics to keep up with today's standards on video games.

What do you know about computer hardware? Do you even know what 32-bit means?

The 360 has far more physics and other raw computational floating point calculations. Making it more capable to render particle effects. The only advantage that the PS3 really has on the 360 is its superior texture filtering from the RSX(during this time, ATI was still working out the quirks in their texturing in the R5XX series that was later fixed in R600) which at the resolutions that both of these consoles display at, isn't really all that visible. The 360 even has preformance-tax-free antialiasing from the eDRAM on the Xenos die.

Not to mention the numerous problems with the Cell. Even wonder why it takes so long to load crap on the PS3? maybe because the blu-ray reader is only running at 2x disk speed as compared to the 360's 12x DVD read speed. 9mb/s for a blu-ray game thats up to 30gb isn't the best idea. in addition the Cells read speed to its own internal cache's is only 16mb/s. Thats slower than a hard drive. Considering on most processors this speed up to tens of gigabytes per second.

[Samiam22]

You're good with this type of stuff.

[MrNaPaLm32]

yeah, console fanboys rarely really know much about the console they're using. I've dealt with it before, so theres nothing new here.

[Sen]

What I said had little to do with the console itself, but w/e. All I said was that the PS3 version of Orange Box played better. Which it does. In fact, that's true about most games on both consoles.

Elder Scrolls, Rainbow 6: Vegas, Army of Two, Need for Speed... you name it.

[Snow]

Halo 3

[Sen]

... is not on both consoles. WTF? See, now this is why weed is bad for you.

[Drunken_Shinobi]

One day Sony shall steal it.

[Samiam22]

Also, Capcom lied I think, they said they'd port Dead Rising over to the 360, but I don't think they have.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Sen

... is not on both consoles. WTF? See, now this is why weed is bad for you.

Oh, you got me. Good thing I was totally serious.

[Heyyou27]

Originally Posted by MrNaPaLm32

What do you know about computer hardware? Do you even know what 32-bit means?

The 360 has far more physics and other raw computational floating point calculations. Making it more capable to render particle effects. The only advantage that the PS3 really has on the 360 is its superior texture filtering from the RSX(during this time, ATI was still working out the quirks in their texturing in the R5XX series that was later fixed in R600) which at the resolutions that both of these consoles display at, isn't really all that visible. The 360 even has preformance-tax-free antialiasing from the eDRAM on the Xenos die.

Not to mention the numerous problems with the Cell. Even wonder why it takes so long to load crap on the PS3? maybe because the blu-ray reader is only running at 2x disk speed as compared to the 360's 12x DVD read speed. 9mb/s for a blu-ray game thats up to 30gb isn't the best idea. in addition the Cells read speed to its own internal cache's is only 16mb/s. Thats slower than a hard drive. Considering on most processors this speed up to tens of gigabytes per second.

When it comes to raw floating point numbers, the Cell is currently the fastest processor on the market. The "RSX" not only has more TMUs, but it's dedicated pixel shaders are capable of more shader operations per clock cycle than that of the "Xenos" inside the Xbox360. While it's true that the 360's CPU is easier to program for, and the GPU itself is more flexible, neither component is necessarily more powerful. In fact, the Cell is much more capable of taking on graphics loads than the "Xenon" CPU inside the Xbox360. Why do you think Folding@home runs many times faster on the PS3 than it does on even the fastest desktop processors? While it's design may not be ideal for gaming, it does have some potential if development resources are allocated. Interesting how a game like Uncharted which released 1 year after the console's launch looks better than anything currently on the 360. Also 1x Blu-ray is actually 36Mbps while 1x DVD is only 11.08Mbps. When watching a Blu-ray movie such as "No Country for Old Men" you can actively view the bit-rate of the movie and it often jumps around 36Mbps.

Originally Posted by Sen

What I said had little to do with the console itself, but w/e. All I said was that the PS3 version of Orange Box played better. Which it does. In fact, that's true about most games on both consoles.

Elder Scrolls, Rainbow 6: Vegas, Army of Two, Need for Speed... you name it.

Actually, you've got it backwards; generally the 360 version looks better. Owning all 3 consoles and viewing them on my 1080p display, the Xbox360 version is generally sharper or performs better. In fact, the only title you named on the PS3 that could be argued as looking better is Oblivion, and that's because it came out an entire year after the Xbox360 version. In fact, other than Devil May Cry 4 and maybe Call of Duty 4, I have yet to see a PS3 version look and run as well as it does on the Xbox360. The Orange Box being one of the worst in the bunch. It was reported that not only did the game look considerably worse than the 360 versions, but there were portions of even the original Half-Life 2 that suffered from massive framerate drops. Valve didn't even program the PS3 version, and the job was left to a team of amateurs from EA. Unfortunately my Xbox360 Elite red ringed at the beginning of this month, and I still haven't heard from Microsoft on the status of my repair.

The truth is, both consoles have a lot of potential, but I'm afraid it's all downhill from here for Microsoft. Not only is their hardware extremely unreliable, but the PS3 is building up A LOT of steam this year. The Wii is in no danger from either console, and many project that it still won't be on shelves for another 6 months. I use to be a rabid PC gamer like Napalm, but in the last year it's been nothing but downhill. The vast majority of developers now spend more of their time developing the Xbox360 and PS3 versions, and simply porting the game to the PC. It's simply not an economically viable platform anymore and it's likely things won't turn around for at least a few years. Epic's most popular game ever was Gears of War on the Xbox360 and has sold an estimated 5 million copies; numbers they couldn't even dream of on the PC. Windows Vista and Direct X10, along with titles like Crysis have only hurt the industry. Even to this day with the release of the 9800GX2, there isn't a card in existence capable of running Crysis properly on High or Very High with antialiasing.

[MrNaPaLm32]

Originally Posted by Heyyou27

When it comes to raw floating point numbers, the Cell is currently the fastest processor on the market. The "RSX" not only has more TMUs, but it's dedicated pixel shaders are capable of more shader operations per clock cycle than that of the "Xenos" inside the Xbox360. While it's true that the 360's CPU is easier to program for, and the GPU itself is more flexible, neither component is necessarily more powerful. In fact, the Cell is much more capable of taking on graphics loads than the "Xenon" CPU inside the Xbox360. Why do you think Folding@home runs many times faster on the PS3 than it does on even the fastest desktop processors? While it's design may not be ideal for gaming, it does have some potential if development resources are allocated. Interesting how a game like Uncharted which released 1 year after the console's launch looks better than anything currently on the 360. Also 1x Blu-ray is actually 36Mbps while 1x DVD is only 11.08Mbps. When watching a Blu-ray movie such as "No Country for Old Men" you can actively view the bit-rate of the movie and it often jumps around 36Mbps.

Actually, you've got it backwards; generally the 360 version looks better. Owning all 3 consoles and viewing them on my 1080p display, the Xbox360 version is generally sharper or performs better. In fact, the only title you named on the PS3 that could be argued as looking better is Oblivion, and that's because it came out an entire year after the Xbox360 version. In fact, other than Devil May Cry 4 and maybe Call of Duty 4, I have yet to see a PS3 version look and run as well as it does on the Xbox360. The Orange Box being one of the worst in the bunch. It was reported that not only did the game look considerably worse than the 360 versions, but there were portions of even the original Half-Life 2 that suffered from massive framerate drops. Valve didn't even program the PS3 version, and the job was left to a team of amateurs from EA. Unfortunately my Xbox360 Elite red ringed at the beginning of this month, and I still haven't heard from Microsoft on the status of my repair.

The truth is, both consoles have a lot of potential, but I'm afraid it's all downhill from here for Microsoft. Not only is their hardware extremely unreliable, but the PS3 is building up A LOT of steam this year. The Wii is in no danger from either console, and many project that it still won't be on shelves for another 6 months. I use to be a rabid PC gamer like Napalm, but in the last year it's been nothing but downhill. The vast majority of developers now spend more of their time developing the Xbox360 and PS3 versions, and simply porting the game to the PC. It's simply not an economically viable platform anymore and it's likely things won't turn around for at least a few years. Epic's most popular game ever was Gears of War on the Xbox360 and has sold an estimated 5 million copies; numbers they couldn't even dream of on the PC. Windows Vista and Direct X10, along with titles like Crysis have only hurt the industry. Even to this day with the release of the 9800GX2, there isn't a card in existence capable of running Crysis properly on High or Very High with antialiasing.

Why was I not expecting this...

[viper.gtsr]

Originally Posted by Heyyou27

When it comes to raw floating point numbers, the Cell is currently the fastest processor on the market. The "RSX" not only has more TMUs, but it's dedicated pixel shaders are capable of more shader operations per clock cycle than that of the "Xenos" inside the Xbox360. While it's true that the 360's CPU is easier to program for, and the GPU itself is more flexible, neither component is necessarily more powerful. In fact, the Cell is much more capable of taking on graphics loads than the "Xenon" CPU inside the Xbox360. Why do you think Folding@home runs many times faster on the PS3 than it does on even the fastest desktop processors? While it's design may not be ideal for gaming, it does have some potential if development resources are allocated. Interesting how a game like Uncharted which released 1 year after the console's launch looks better than anything currently on the 360. Also 1x Blu-ray is actually 36Mbps while 1x DVD is only 11.08Mbps. When watching a Blu-ray movie such as "No Country for Old Men" you can actively view the bit-rate of the movie and it often jumps around 36Mbps.

Actually, you've got it backwards; generally the 360 version looks better. Owning all 3 consoles and viewing them on my 1080p display, the Xbox360 version is generally sharper or performs better. In fact, the only title you named on the PS3 that could be argued as looking better is Oblivion, and that's because it came out an entire year after the Xbox360 version. In fact, other than Devil May Cry 4 and maybe Call of Duty 4, I have yet to see a PS3 version look and run as well as it does on the Xbox360. The Orange Box being one of the worst in the bunch. It was reported that not only did the game look considerably worse than the 360 versions, but there were portions of even the original Half-Life 2 that suffered from massive framerate drops. Valve didn't even program the PS3 version, and the job was left to a team of amateurs from EA. Unfortunately my Xbox360 Elite red ringed at the beginning of this month, and I still haven't heard from Microsoft on the status of my repair.

The truth is, both consoles have a lot of potential, but I'm afraid it's all downhill from here for Microsoft. Not only is their hardware extremely unreliable, but the PS3 is building up A LOT of steam this year. The Wii is in no danger from either console, and many project that it still won't be on shelves for another 6 months. I use to be a rabid PC gamer like Napalm, but in the last year it's been nothing but downhill. The vast majority of developers now spend more of their time developing the Xbox360 and PS3 versions, and simply porting the game to the PC. It's simply not an economically viable platform anymore and it's likely things won't turn around for at least a few years. Epic's most popular game ever was Gears of War on the Xbox360 and has sold an estimated 5 million copies; numbers they couldn't even dream of on the PC. Windows Vista and Direct X10, along with titles like Crysis have only hurt the industry. Even to this day with the release of the 9800GX2, there isn't a card in existence capable of running Crysis properly on High or Very High with antialiasing.

I just got owned with information.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by MrNaPaLm32

Why was I not expecting this...

Because heyyou rarely posts and you made yourself the de facto master of technology on gprime.

[Sen]

Originally Posted by Heyyou27

Actually, you've got it backwards; generally the 360 version looks better. Owning all 3 consoles and viewing them on my 1080p display, the Xbox360 version is generally sharper or performs better. In fact, the only title you named on the PS3 that could be argued as looking better is Oblivion, and that's because it came out an entire year after the Xbox360 version. In fact, other than Devil May Cry 4 and maybe Call of Duty 4, I have yet to see a PS3 version look and run as well as it does on the Xbox360. The Orange Box being one of the worst in the bunch. It was reported that not only did the game look considerably worse than the 360 versions, but there were portions of even the original Half-Life 2 that suffered from massive framerate drops. Valve didn't even program the PS3 version, and the job was left to a team of amateurs from EA. Unfortunately my Xbox360 Elite red ringed at the beginning of this month, and I still haven't heard from Microsoft on the status of my repair.

I'm not saying this based on reviews. Having played Portal on both, I can honestly say that the PS3 version plays better. I've played Vegas 1 and 2 on both consoles (though admittedly only in passing on the 360) and the PS3 versions play better. In fact, 1 doesn't just play better, it has more bonus material by far. In Army of Two, the controls seem taylor made for the PS3. On the 360, they just seem awkward, a terrible thing combined with the fact that the AI is hella stupid. I might rate DMC3 higher on the 360, if only for the fact that it's same old same old for Play Station owners, but again, the controls don't feel entirely natural.

And as for the fact that there was so much time between the releases for Oblivion, the same can be said of Bully, and that totally sucks goat balls on the 360. The thing wreaks with crashes, bugs, and glitches. And let's not talk about inconsistent frame rate....


As for their Flagship, Halo, I know people who've purchased 360 just to play the final installment. And most promptly went right back to playing to playing Halo 2.


(Okay, even though the last part is true, I admit that it's my PS-fanboyism that made me add it.)