Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@ripfire: thats a bit exaggerated. You also have to account for a lot of people wanting a solid piece of hardware that will be reliable and last. There are more than just gaming reasons for buying a system today. Consoles are capable of a very large amount of tasks now.
@imTheKing: "Consoles are capable of a very large amount of tasks now."
That's a bit exaggerated. Although I could agree with you on one point that my 360 MCE extender is really handy on my home entertainment needs. But when people buy a console, chances are it's because of the games.
@TriggaHappy26: Let me ask you this: Name me the top 5 games that were ported from PS3 to 360.
From what I see, there are far more 360 games ported to PS3. Ever wonder why?
@ripfire: Because the 360 has been out longer, therefore has more games. There is no doubt that the xbox has a lot more games by a lot of 3rd party developers. Sony's best games are the ones that are made by Sony companies or franchises loyal to Sony. This is why you have Socom (sony game), Uncharted (sony game), and metal gear 4 (been on PS since PS1). There is no way Sony will allow their best games, made by them to be ported to the rival console. This is the same reason you will never find Halo or Gears of War on the PS3.
@ripfire: The 360 is easier to build for but is capped in how complex games can be. Thats why there are more games, easier development obviously makes for that. As a system, theres no arguing the fact that the PS3 is 95% more reliable and a better machine over all. You seem like your just trolling any posts having to do with the PS3 to justify why your Xbox is better with games. To be honest, I barely have time nor the wanting to play games to such an extent. I work, come home, run a side business and watch a movie now and again. I try not to base my existence on virtual reality.
@TriggaHappy26: Oh please. Only reason they get exclusivity is because they all run under Sony's paycheck. "Franchise Loyal to Sony"? Oh you mean Metal Gear? but I clearly remember playing MGSubstance on the Xbox. Where's the loyalty then? To be fair the same could be said for MS. Even though GoW was exclusive for 360 (paid for MS most likely), the same engine was still used for UT3 which came out for both platforms.
But one thing you will rarely see is a 3rd party initially developing for PS3 and porting it to 360 and there's a reason why.
@imTheKing: "The 360 is easier to build for but is capped in how complex games can be." Is that why 3rd party developers who port their games to PS3 have to "downgrade" their titles that's I'm recently hearing about from a Sony exec?
So now I'm trolling? You're saying that I'm justifying Xbox games are better than PS3 while saying that PS3 "a better machine over all"? Feeling comfortable on your high stirrups?
I have no problem with gaming platforms when it comes to games be it on PS3 or 360 (as long as its good). PS3 as a hardware is spectacular, but it leaves software as an afterthought which pretty much sums up Sony's model.
Am I the only one who is not impressed here? Seems like you could bolt for xbox's together to do the same thing (with a different game of course). There are no real technological break-throughs being displayed here other than the FED TV. That projector has been shown for over two years now and the PS3 is really just doing what a PS3 does.
@mpjohnst: I disagree, the PS3 has a far superior processor. Four xBox 360's hooked together, if possible, would maybe give you half of a single PS3's power.
@TriggaHappy26: No you are wrong. The power of the two machines is very similar. In some areas the PS3 wins, in others the 360 wins.
Sony's original marketing claims about the machine being much faster than the 360 were basically lies.
One of my best friends is a games programmer who develops for both platforms, and he tells me that the two systems are fairly close. So I'm not just blurting out fanboisms like you seem to be.
@LittleJon: Here is a nice objective article explaining how much better the PS3 is. I exaggerated it a bit, but as you can plainly see the PS3 is much faster.
this would make me want to go back to the arcade. i mean it was made obsolete by console tech because we could now all play tekken 5 at home for "free". I don't think anyone would buy 4 ps3's + games + projector just to play this, leaving only the larger arcades to pick this up.
does anyone remember that Ferrari driving game in the arcades about a decade ago? it was a driving simulator with 3 screens and was supposed to be super realistic? i always thought that was cool, even though i was crap at it. they need more stuff like that...
@ilves: I know, you'd have to fasten all seatbelts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the three ring circus, and secure all animals in the zoo?
Once you get passed a certain number of frames per second, I don't suppose it matters anymore, since your mind will still see the same kind of motion because it fills in the HOLY SHIT that's fantastic!
@Kaiser-Machead's Cookie-Powered LEGO Machine: 240FPS is misleading. If you look at the diagram, it's producing four separate quadrants each at 60FPS. They just add them together and say 240FPS.
@ripfire: Hate to disagree with you, but that's not how I interpret the graph at all.
It reads to me that they are interleaving each of the four separate full-image feeds to create a single 1920x1080 image. So, yes, it would be 240 full images per second.
@ripfire: Actually, if you look at the document, it shows that the image produced is indeed 240FPS. Each PS3 is producing 60FPS, and each PS3 is offset by 1/240th of a frame, then the frames are combined. Thus, each PS3 calculates every fourth frame of the 240FPS. It is indeed full 240FPS.
Perhaps you didn't realize that we're talking about two different pictures here; one 4K image @60FPS, and one 1080 image @240FPS.
Last time I checked, none of the digital interfaces go above 60Hz. Not DVI, Not HDMI, not Displayport. So that 120Hz TV you bought is really doing nothing that a well made 60Hz tv couldn't do.... and outputting anything over 60Hz is pointless.
@b0bcat: Does any of it really matter to the user? We get it, the PS3 has a powerful processor. But who is going to network four PS3s together like that in a real world situation?
One main reason that 120hz tvs exist is to watch movies at their native frame rate of 24 frames per second. A 60hz tv cannot evenly display 24 frames, so (simply put) , it does what is called a 3:2 pulldown, which converts 4 frames into 5, so that every other frame will be displayed slightly longer than the previous. A 120hz tv can do a 5:5 pulldown which eliminates the every other frame being shown for too long.
11/20/08
...That and the $114,000 projector.
11/20/08
Now...if only they would produce better games...
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
That's a bit exaggerated. Although I could agree with you on one point that my 360 MCE extender is really handy on my home entertainment needs. But when people buy a console, chances are it's because of the games.
@TriggaHappy26: Let me ask you this: Name me the top 5 games that were ported from PS3 to 360.
From what I see, there are far more 360 games ported to PS3. Ever wonder why?
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
But one thing you will rarely see is a 3rd party initially developing for PS3 and porting it to 360 and there's a reason why.
11/20/08
So now I'm trolling? You're saying that I'm justifying Xbox games are better than PS3 while saying that PS3 "a better machine over all"? Feeling comfortable on your high stirrups?
I have no problem with gaming platforms when it comes to games be it on PS3 or 360 (as long as its good). PS3 as a hardware is spectacular, but it leaves software as an afterthought which pretty much sums up Sony's model.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Am I the only one who is not impressed here? Seems like you could bolt for xbox's together to do the same thing (with a different game of course). There are no real technological break-throughs being displayed here other than the FED TV. That projector has been shown for over two years now and the PS3 is really just doing what a PS3 does.
11/20/08
xBox sucks!
11/20/08
Sony's original marketing claims about the machine being much faster than the 360 were basically lies.
One of my best friends is a games programmer who develops for both platforms, and he tells me that the two systems are fairly close. So I'm not just blurting out fanboisms like you seem to be.
11/20/08
Summation of article:
PS3 = 218 GFLOPS
Xbox 360 = 115.2 GFLOPS
So.... 4 of each is
PS3 = 872 GFLOPS
Xbox = 460.8 GFLOPS
11/20/08
11/20/08
does anyone remember that Ferrari driving game in the arcades about a decade ago? it was a driving simulator with 3 screens and was supposed to be super realistic? i always thought that was cool, even though i was crap at it. they need more stuff like that...
11/20/08
I remember this arcade game:
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Going plaid would just be ludicrously fast
11/20/08
11/20/08
Except in high-speed porn mode!
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
It reads to me that they are interleaving each of the four separate full-image feeds to create a single 1920x1080 image. So, yes, it would be 240 full images per second.
11/20/08
11/20/08
Perhaps you didn't realize that we're talking about two different pictures here; one 4K image @60FPS, and one 1080 image @240FPS.
11/20/08
11/20/08
Last time I checked, none of the digital interfaces go above 60Hz. Not DVI, Not HDMI, not Displayport. So that 120Hz TV you bought is really doing nothing that a well made 60Hz tv couldn't do.... and outputting anything over 60Hz is pointless.
11/20/08
11/20/08
One main reason that 120hz tvs exist is to watch movies at their native frame rate of 24 frames per second. A 60hz tv cannot evenly display 24 frames, so (simply put) , it does what is called a 3:2 pulldown, which converts 4 frames into 5, so that every other frame will be displayed slightly longer than the previous. A 120hz tv can do a 5:5 pulldown which eliminates the every other frame being shown for too long.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
what it reads:
"What's the team a Polyphony Digital doing besides finishing their upcoming Gran Turismo 5 racing simulator?"
What it should read:
"What's the team a Polyphony Digital doing instead of finishing their upcoming Gran Turismo 5 racing simulator?"
if it aint true, it most certainly feels like that to me... wasn't GT5 supposed to be a launch PS3 title?
lulz XD