It manages to make the visually craptacular Guitar Hero: World Tour look even worse.
I didn’t think that was possible, honestly.
Is that the fault of the PS3, or the fault of Activision unwilling to spend the time to make it work at the same level?
Though personally I’m going to blame both, but I don’t know at what ratio to distribute the blame.
Yeah I’ve played it on the PS3 and it really does look horrible. The side by side shots make it look even worse though.
Wow.
Well, the only PS3 games I have are ones that are exclusives to the PS3: Metal Gear Solid 4 and LittleBigPlanet ('ve yet to watch MGS4 though). Any console game I buy I get the 360 version.
Yeah, slipshod port of what is already a very weak game. But I think it’s a really lazy effort on the PS3. Obviously they don’t need to be breaking barriers using the Cell processor for framebuffer effects, but there’s little reason you can give for not delivering a clean, 720p frame on just the nVidia GPU.
Fallout 3 also sucks on the PS3 compared to on the 360, let alone on the PC.
Actually, from what I’ve seen of Fallout 3 on the PS3 it’s actually much closer to the PC version in terms of textures and effects. It lacks the FSAA of the 360 version, though, and just runs worse in general. But the textures and lighting are better.
Bit of both in my opinion.
Sony overplayed their hand in this generation, and things are only going worse for them in the global economy.
While it’s been years since those critical decisions were made (and all the blame they can take has been given), it’s those decisions that resulted in Activision’s unwillingness. If the PS3 was even doing X360 numbers, they’d probably care more. But it’s not, and I highly doubt it ever well.
Isn’t that a bit like posting a screengrab from an Uwe Boll movie under the headline “this is how much my new Samsung 52” HDTV sucks!"?
There’s plenty of proof that in terms of graphic capabilities the PS3 doesn’t suck, so most of the blame should fall on Activision for being cheap and lazy… with a bit to share with Sony if it’s much harder and costlier to make the non-sucky graphics.
I never played it… and for me there seem to be very few differences of any importance.
Even after watching it a second time I only notice that the textures in the PS3 version are of lower quality and there is a stronger “grey light” filter over everything.
I don’t see anything that I would expect to influence a session on either system in the slightest…
If you press the guitar buttons (or drums or whatever) or sing, do you really stare like mad at the carpet and relish in the quality of its texture?
You have no idea. Multiple page treatises have been written on this very subject, and you don’t want to know what lies at the end of that road.
So if GHWT looked good on the PS3, would that prove that the console doesn’t suck? I’m just trying to figure out the logic here.
The 360 undoubtedly sux because Tomb Raider: Underworld runs in 720p on PS3 and in 576p on the 360.
Yes, this is quite objective.
I like my PS3.
The PS3 is ok.
I can spell PS3.
As fun as it is to pile on the system (and no sane person would call the PS3 or any other console perfect), it’s a little excessive. All these graphics wars are pointless.