Yep, I agree it looks great. By the way, don't rely on Edge magazine for comments, or any magazine for that matter, as the info in magazines is typically 2 months old even when the magazine has just been released.
IGN's Take On PS3
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
- Status
Yep, I agree it looks great. By the way, don't rely on Edge magazine for comments, or any magazine for that matter, as the info in magazines is typically 2 months old even when the magazine has just been released.
Probably because it's irrelevent. It's shipping at the same time as the 360 and Wii versions, so if it's behind in development it's going to stay behind on development, and ship with less time spent developing it.
How is it irrelevent if a developer tells you a problem with a game is going to be fixed?? Thats the most odd case of reasoning I've ever heard. It doesnt matter what platform its on, I think thats a pretty important piece of information.
Motorstorm was running slow @ tgs, if the developer tells you they are going to fix it before release (or have already fixed it), you dont think thats important?
If it's shipping at the same time then the other versions can improve in other ways besides framerate aswell correct?
If you read the thread you'll notice this is a copy and paste from GAF.
The irrelevent part is mentioning that it's had less time in development. Regardless of if it did or did not have the same amount of time put into it, it's shipping at the same time, so brining it up is irrelevent.
Personally I never pay attention to frame rate issues in unreleased games. I'm welll aware that that is usually the last thing to be finalized.
I dont see why not.
What I mean is...Well I think its obvious they have slightly different development schedules. It's not 100% the same exact features in both games. It could be a matter of one was optimized before the other in the schedule, but thats just speculation on my part. My point is that, thats some pretty important information to just push to the side as "irrelevant". If something is planned to be fixed, why not include that information as well? I think that applies with anything, and not just games.
Arctic Permafrost
Banned
Just because of the so called *extra development time* and the fact that the PS3 has not yet been launched, both circumstances together do not allow to diminish the disappointment, the framerate and image quality drop are not in any way excusable.
They are not pardonable, period. I still remember CoD2 last year, running at 60 fps and FSAAx4 on a young and wild console.
X360 launchtime seemed so rushed in the early stages that developers didn't have access to the final kits until weeks before the launch, even so CoD2 -a port, remember- X360 version is superior to any other version out there. CoD3 should just run fine on the PS3, but it doesn't.
I wonder if it's due to hardware limitations.
________________________________________
"Unlucky in games, lucky in love"
Gamertag: Cyaneyes
Unless it's an issue of certain dev tools not being mature enough, I wouldn't say it's a hardware issue. It's probably more to do with development time and and dealing with Cell specific optimizations..
Yes, its hardware limitations. The PS3 is clearly insufficient to run COD3 since it runs so well on the 360 and so poorly on the PS3. Thats a reasonable assessment. I mean, developers just have to tell the console HEY, I want pretty graphics for my game at a smooth framerate and then it is up to the systems capabilities to assess and display its full potential with the request. The system wars have been put to rest. 360 wins.
You kidding right? Just as the people in the fight night round 3 thread would tell you, highly doubtful (ie. development time). If it's inexcusable then Activision should delay the PS3 version. Lets wait for the final game atleast, sounds like you are looking for an answer thats not there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did CoD2 have AA on Xbox 360?
Arctic Permafrost
Banned
What I tried to point out is the fact that developers were in a very similar situation with the XTS and they managed to get the work done.
I don't know if they are in a rush of uninspiration or something, but while PS3 is not my cup of tea, I must say that CoD is not the most hardware demanding game I've ever come across and it should run without problems on Sony's console. I mean, PS3 specs are fine to run the game.
_________________
"Unlucky in games, lucky in love"
Gamertag: Cyaneyes
How would you know what looks better? Thats the thing i dont understand the game hasnt come out yet, There not finished dev either, and gamespot and egm said the latter. Its funny that you think that magazines dont get paid to say something.....Anyways im not bashing the 360 I have one myself I was just hoping the COD3 would be spectacular on ps3 because iw anted to play on that system. When I bought 360 last year i love COD2 and i loved it mroe over cause of online and im really excited to see waht PS3 has for online capabilities but COD2 online had some major problems.
So why do you say it might be an hardware limitation?
In europe afaik.
Arctic Permafrost
Banned
Actually, wether it's a fact or not, we don't know what's going on, so if the issue continues and CoD3 on the PS3 is a failure, it is also a possibility that the computer (PS3 is a computer
) has a faulty processor, memory bus, etc.As it stands now, the game is a failure because it cannot be played in all its glory, and there's no excuse for that.
_____________
"Unlucky in games, lucky in love"
Gamertag: Cyaneyes
uhh...what?Actually, wether it's a fact or not, we don't know what's going on, so if the issue continues and CoD3 on the PS3 is a failure, it is also a possibility that the computer (PS3 is a computer
In that case, I think you are blaming the wrong person then.
I'm not sure if you are serious or joking actually.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
