Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ps3 impressions

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 2, 2008 11:07:16 PM

Hey everyone,

I am seeing more and more PC users whining claiming that game makers sold out and it's time to buy a console. People are upset about BF: BC, GTA IV, and a bunch of titles being console only etc. After reading all this and hearing claims of how amazing and powerful the new gen consoles are (2TFLOPS) I went out and bought a PS3 and GTA IV.

I played the game for a bit but right away I was shocked about how crappy the graphics looked. Since the game play was pretty good and since it's not an FPS I let it go. I only got one title so I decided to download more demos (timeshift, some racing games, etc). Basically, after trying a few demos (on my 24" lcd via hdmi which does 1080p/720p just fine) I basically saw that the visuals of all the games were worse than anything I have played on my previous 3 year old build (x800xl, x2 4200). Now I basically play 1920x1200 on 8800GT,q6600 and it completely blows any console graphics out of the water. The mouse and keyboard are more intuitive to use, easier to play with, and less frustrating. The PC games install faster, they look better, they have more extensions, etc.

Also, I've looked at the top console games (scoring 85 and above) and 3/4 of that list was available on PC and actually came out months or years earlier (oblivion, half life 2, ut3) Those games obviously look and play better on a PC and there's no reason to buy the overpriced POS console versions. The other 1/4 consisted of titles I wouldn't even play for free and some good ones like GTA IV.

Basically, I want to tell all the PC users to be happy that you don't own a console. To all the console users, please get a PC you don't know what you are missing.


-steelthorn3

More about : ps3 impressions

May 2, 2008 11:43:13 PM

Did you really expect a game being rendered at 1280x720 to look great stretched on your 24" 1920x1200? It's not even the correct aspect ratio, so the image is going to be slightly distorted. Monitors simply do not scale the image properly at all in comparison to a good Plasma or DLP TV. I tried using my Xbox360 and PS3 on my 28" 1920x1200 monitor, but the games look so much worse on it in comparison to my 65" 1080p DLP. Of course PC games look better, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
Related resources
May 3, 2008 1:17:28 AM

Perhaps you don't understand; 1920x1200 is a 16:10 aspect ratio, where 720p and 1080p are 16:9 aspect ratios. Not only that, but images below native resolution simply don't scale on an LCD monitor the way they do on a 1080p DLP TV.
May 3, 2008 1:27:30 AM

I understand the differences and how interpolation is done. The interpolation is pretty smooth with an upsample, low pass filter, and then downsample.

I am talking about the lacking visuals, pretty low res textures, and the lack of unified shaders on the nvidia rsx. It's can't handle the same quality as any 7 or 8 series cards can. Furthermore, I have played crysis on a non-native resolution WITHOUT any visible aliasing (due to interpolation).

Heyyou27 said:
Perhaps you don't understand; 1920x1200 is a 16:10 aspect ratio, where 720p and 1080p are 16:9 aspect ratios. Not only that, but images below native resolution simply don't scale on an LCD monitor the way they do on a 1080p DLP TV.

May 3, 2008 4:13:13 AM

steelthorn3 said:
I am seeing more and more PC users whining claiming that game makers sold out...



"Sell out" is a meaningless, and overused term. If someone paid you $1,000,000/yr to draw smurfs you'd do it, so stop that BS. The second you do anything for $1 you've "sold out" so just stop it. Anyone claiming a company, in business to make money, has "sold out", should be slapped. Twice. More if needed.



May 3, 2008 10:18:56 AM

KingLoftusXII said:
"Sell out" is a meaningless, and overused term. If someone paid you $1,000,000/yr to draw smurfs you'd do it, so stop that BS. The second you do anything for $1 you've "sold out" so just stop it. Anyone claiming a company, in business to make money, has "sold out", should be slapped. Twice. More if needed.
Word up homie. Peoples gotta eat and pay fo teh hookas, and if developing PC games doesn't bring in the revenue, then they have to find an alternate method... namely consoles.
May 3, 2008 11:46:17 AM

Graphics are not everything.

Frankly my impression of the PS3 is that it's interface is crap, the game selection is lackluster, and the online system is outright inferior to both the 360 and the PC.

All in all... I'd rather just have a PC and a 360.

Now the 360 is a surprisingly good unit. The live marketplace is exceptionally well designed and thought out. The fact that there are free playable demos for just about everything is awesome. The HD-DVD drive is something that I am very glad I bought for $50 because it is quiet... very quiet. It makes the 360 an excellent media player. And finally the game selection is spectacular.

Plus there is none of that stupid 30 minute install crap you get on the PS3.

Neither of them stand a chance graphically against a PC, but they also cost less than a PC...
May 3, 2008 12:20:57 PM

If you equipped a 360 to PS3 specs, it'd cost you $900, at least. Of course the 360 has more games, it's been out longer. Just like PS2 vs Xbox.

As for the online system, it's free, where M$ makes you pay... Have you actually tried the PS3? There's many more options and tweaks with it than 360, including the ability to load an operating system.

May 3, 2008 12:48:52 PM

I actually have a PS3. And I would contend that the exclusive content on the 360 1 year ago beats the crap out of the exclusive content on the PS3 now.

More options does not mean that it is more usable or better designed. Quite frankly, the fact that the PS3 has to install everything is a bit of a problem. On the lowest end version you will have to start uninstalling things after not too long because you will have run out of space on its pathetically small hard drive. To be fair you can replace that hard drive with a larger one without voiding the warrantee but that doesn't change the fact that it still takes bloody forever.

Then there is the problem with its online demo catalog being woefully incomplete and poorly laid out. Also unless you want to play against others online, which I couldn't give two twigs about, the live marketplace is free as well. I have a silver account and I am quite pleased with it.

I just don't like the PS3. I think it was poorly thought out and poorly designed. I was very disappointed after the PS1 and PS2 revolutionized console gaming. I gave it a fair shake and it fell down.

As for the PS3's much hyped technical superiority... well too bad it will never be fully utilized if it truly exists at all. Most high production value games will come out on both it and the 360 and there won't be a significant difference in quality between them. On the few exclusive titles that the PS3 has managed to cling to, you might see a bit of a difference, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
May 3, 2008 2:58:29 PM

You prefer the 360 over the PS3, that's cool. Different strokes for different folks. I wanted a Blu-ray player and a stand alone unit was $399 and the PS3 was $399. It was a no brainer... Halo and Grand Turismo aside, there really isn't much difference between the two. 360 crushes PS3 in titles, PS3 has wireless internet and Blu-ray built in. Can't go wrong with either, and it boils down to personal preference.
May 3, 2008 4:43:01 PM

Yes. A 400 dollar PS3 is equivalent to a about 500-600 dollar PC at this point. When PS3 fist came out, it cost as much as a full system upgrade.

You cannot compare the price of a PS3 to PC directly. What are you using to write this post? Ah. A PC? So you have both a PC + PS3. You still have to upgrade your PC to run newer applications. So when comparing gaming PC to a console, consider the fact that you still need to have a PC. If your PC sucks, you can't get your work done and hence the cost difference of owning a console is at par with owning a high end PC.
May 3, 2008 6:57:51 PM

infornography42 said:
Graphics are not everything.

Frankly my impression of the PS3 is that it's interface is crap, the game selection is lackluster, and the online system is outright inferior to both the 360 and the PC.

All in all... I'd rather just have a PC and a 360.

Now the 360 is a surprisingly good unit. The live marketplace is exceptionally well designed and thought out. The fact that there are free playable demos for just about everything is awesome. The HD-DVD drive is something that I am very glad I bought for $50 because it is quiet... very quiet. It makes the 360 an excellent media player. And finally the game selection is spectacular.

Plus there is none of that stupid 30 minute install crap you get on the PS3.

Neither of them stand a chance graphically against a PC, but they also cost less than a PC...
Owning both, my experience has been a lot more negative with the Xbox360 than it has with the PS3. I've suffered through the red ring of death, sent the system away for more than a month, and then have had to deal with their customer support line trying to restore the licenses from my downloadable content. Any sort of account management requires a phone call as well, and I've spent literally hours trying to have my credit card information removed from my account, which still has yet to be done. As far as that "install crap", GTA IV was the only game I've owned that had to be installed, and it took about 7 minutes to complete the 3.3GB install.

Don't get me wrong, the Xbox360 does have a better online setup and a larger library, but Microsoft **** up, and it's going to become increasingly obvious by the end of 2008. Microsoft is alienating their customers with crummy hardware and pathetic call center support in other countries, as well as a Live service that hasn't been nearly as stable as they initially claimed. Pair this with the fact that Blu-ray has officially beat out HD-DVD, PSN is 100% free, 3rd party PS3 titles are now about on par with their 360 versions, and the PS3's exclusive library this year is going to be quite solid, Microsoft has a reason to be scared.
May 3, 2008 10:17:25 PM

Heyyou27 said:
As far as that "install crap", GTA IV was the only game I've owned that had to be installed, and it took about 7 minutes to complete the 3.3GB install.


Only GTA IV and Grand Turismo Prologue for me...no others I've run across.
!