Like is said. There are a few quotes taken from articles that have direct comparisons that lean, somewhat heavily actually, toward the 360 versions of the game.
Cross platform game IGN scores PS3 vs 360
- Thread starter heliosphere
- Start date
- Status
Like is said. There are a few quotes taken from articles that have direct comparisons that lean, somewhat heavily actually, toward the 360 versions of the game.
Actually, if you want to get technical about it, we could argue that the PS3 developers have had "better" devkits than the X360 for a longer period of time. The PS3 devkits have had the Cell CPU and a G70 based GPU in them for about what? 2 years? Close to that.
While the X360 devkits were running on G5 mac's and R420s as close as a couple of months away from the X360 launch. The PS3 kits were a lot closer in architecture compared to the final product than the X360 kits.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I'd say the most simple solution is, as Scooby states, MS' development tools showing their ability.
PS3 developers have had their dev kits for just as long, if not longer, than the 360 developers. That's the primary reason everybody thought the PS3 games would be equal to, or already superior, to some 360 titles. Because of the PS3 delay, the "first generation" PS3 games were in reality closer to "second generation" games. Unlike the 360, which was laden with "true first generation" games at launch.
With that information, and the idea that the problems that the PS3 games are encountering (with the exception of online criticisms) are most certainly not hardware specific, they certainly seem software/coding issues, I'd say its an 'ease of development' issue.
Since 'ease of development' was supposed to be one of the main strengths of the 360, it seems to me like that is the most simple and obvious answer.
PS3 developers have had their dev kits for just as long, if not longer, than the 360 developers. That's the primary reason everybody thought the PS3 games would be equal to, or already superior, to some 360 titles. Because of the PS3 delay, the "first generation" PS3 games were in reality closer to "second generation" games. Unlike the 360, which was laden with "true first generation" games at launch.
With that information, and the idea that the problems that the PS3 games are encountering (with the exception of online criticisms) are most certainly not hardware specific, they certainly seem software/coding issues, I'd say its an 'ease of development' issue.
Since 'ease of development' was supposed to be one of the main strengths of the 360, it seems to me like that is the most simple and obvious answer.
Reading the IGN madden review suggests they're simply marking PS3 versions harder:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746506p2.html
Gameplay appears to be only improved, for example, yet it scores 0.5 lower than the 360 version. Lasting Appeal is supposedly the same as the 360 version, yet again scores lower. The overall score is lower.
We should know this already, though - you can't compare reviews even within IGN across platforms as the different sites tend to have different levels of harshness in reviews.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746506p2.html
Gameplay appears to be only improved, for example, yet it scores 0.5 lower than the 360 version. Lasting Appeal is supposedly the same as the 360 version, yet again scores lower. The overall score is lower.
We should know this already, though - you can't compare reviews even within IGN across platforms as the different sites tend to have different levels of harshness in reviews.
There seems to be two lots of info here. There's the score reviews, that are by different folks and so can't be considered comparable. And there's the in-depth reviews with comaprisons, where we should be able to trust these sites to notice frame-rate issues between platforms. I'd say the scores themselves (subjective) aren't too meaningful (PS3 Madden scores lower then XB360 Madden, so is an inferior game) but the reviews where they do do comparisons and identify problems should be indentifying actual problems with the software (objective).
Bah, sucks. I was never expecting so many issues with cross platform games on the PS3. And some of these games arent even demanding. Tony Hawk and Marvel for example when I saw them running on a 360 showed nothing spectacular. I could have confused them with an XBOX1 game. Imagine difference in quality in more demanding games like Rainbow Six
heliosphere
Newcomer
Madden is a slightly different case to the others because of the longer gap between the 360 and PS3 versions. The 360 version shipped in August so it would be reasonable to expect some slight improvements in the PS3 version - it's more like Ridge Racer 6 vs Ridge Racer 7 than like Tony Hawk's Project 8 where both versions ship at the same time. Madden 06 on the 360 would get lower reviews now than when it shipped because people expect improvements with extra development time. The Madden review does seem to suggest that the PS3 version is a bit better in most respects than the 360 version though, despite the lower overall score.
Rainbow six was delayed until the end of January for the ps3.I imagine that the devs are working very hard to prevent a disaster for this game.I'd expect it to look worse and run worse on the ps3 ,even woth the delay,based on what Epic has said about the UE3 and the ps3(that until Epic release UT2007 ,all other UE3 games won't run that well on the ps3,or something like that).
I agree with this, I was focussing on the use of scores to compare games even within IGN's own family of websites. Historically it has appeared to be true that different sites within that family have held games to different standards..just even between reviewers you cannot expect a uniform standard.
In some ways this may be legitimate. If you are paying a premium for a system, then logically you should expect a better experience.
If you can have the same experience on a cheaper system, then it's logical thet the version for the cheaper system should receive a higher recommendation, in this case in the form of a higher score.
The great battle of PR vs Expectations I guess.
well if devs do a straight lazy? port, wouldnt that influence the framerate for example?
box360 version of a few games are lower in resolution then their ps3 counterparts.
btw, about that other topic about no scaler and the way ps3 renders his resolutions.
could I have better framerates cause i play on 480i instead of someoby else who plays the same game on 720p?
(isnt it comparable with a pc game?)
box360 version of a few games are lower in resolution then their ps3 counterparts.
btw, about that other topic about no scaler and the way ps3 renders his resolutions.
could I have better framerates cause i play on 480i instead of someoby else who plays the same game on 720p?
(isnt it comparable with a pc game?)
The lasting appeal is not the same as with the 360 version. X360 version supports 4x splitscreen, which adds alot of fun, + online probably works better.
Well, I guess they figured that if they are supposed to give Wii graphics some slack in their reviews, scoring it based off of what the hardware is capable of rather than a direct comparison with 360 and PS3 graphics then it's only fair to score PS3 games the hardest when they don't live up to what it's hardware is supposed to be capable of.
What is 4 Player splitscreen? All the maddens I've played in the past 5 years support at least 4 players. By reading the review the PS3 version is improved over the X360 version but it scored lower.That's what I see. But then again IGN gave Excite truck a 8.0 for graphics
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746506p2.html
I noticed this as well. Very arbitrary. Even if the improvements in the PS3 are only slight (some SIXAXIS support, some better textures and mud/degredation effects), it being identical in every other way it's then weird to give it a lower score, even if only by 2 points.
I think it is definitely encouraging for the PS3 that the game is already up to par with the 360 version at launch (also with 2K's NHL, by the way it seems).
It's not likely to go downhill much from there.
Of course, if the 360 manages to undercut the price of the PS3 considerably for a long time, it can't rest at par and will have to go on showing that the PS3 stuff is really better ... (viewing the systems for a moment in gaming isolation)
Higher overall score perhaps, or rather value for money score, but if the graphics are identical, shouldn't they score the same for graphics? And same for audio? I'd also say that just because PS3 costs more, you shouldn't necessarily be expecting games. That price includes non-gaming functionality. If you want to play COD3 and by a PS3 just to play it, and don't care for BRD playback or websurfing or whatnot, that's a bad choice by you. The games shouldn't be rated lower because the platform costs more.
- Status
