PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports: The cold, hard truth

By PiracyX
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Sethos

Posted
Posted

What about the games that need to INSTALL files on the harddrive for the PS3, It's a console for crying out loud. Of course they will be faster if they start offloading files to the HD and it loads from there.

But It's still nice to see the PS3 edging ahead, only reason why I'd still stay on the Xbox 360 with all Multiplatform games is the better controller, achievements and an active friends list.

Contributor

Insanor

Posted
Posted
With multi platform games often you'll see it better on one system over another, but the differences are so small now. With the latest development tools for PS3 and 360 it's getting a lot easier to do a port then it use to be.

So it really doesn't matter witch one you get games on for the most part. Some games like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 I'll be getting 360 because I have more friends that are getting it on 360.

I agree, the differences are usually very minimal. It may also be down to the amount of friends you have on each console getting the game, I also have many friends on 360 who are getting RSV2 on it, so i'll be picking it up on 360 also.

Contributor

Insanor

Posted
Posted
What about the games that need to INSTALL files on the harddrive for the PS3, It's a console for crying out loud. Of course they will be faster if they start offloading files to the HD and it loads from there.

But It's still nice to see the PS3 edging ahead, only reason why I'd still stay on the Xbox 360 with all Multiplatform games is the better controller, achievements and an active friends list.

Personally, I don't mind waiting about 15 minutes to initially install a fraction of the game to my hard drive if it noticebly cuts loading times.

I thought the achievement feature on the 360 was pretty cool at first, but now i've grown to dislike it - which is a plus on PS3 for me.

Mentor

simmorya

Posted
Posted

This year nearly every single game company is going to start developing on PS3 as their lead system, then Xbox and Wii.

Mark. My. Words.

The only question is, when the PS3 takes the crown... will Microsoft release details of its Xbox 720???

Grand Master

soniqstylz

Posted
Posted
This year nearly every single game company is going to start developing on PS3 as their lead system, then Xbox and Wii.

Mark. My. Words.

The only question is, when the PS3 takes the crown... will Microsoft release details of its Xbox 720???

I wouldn't use the phrase "take the crown". Devs will start doing this because it will make porting infinitely easier and better overall, instead of getting lambasted for a poor PS3 port (**** EA).

The only time "take the crown" will be used is if it's a game that won't run on the Wii, but will be aimed at a Japanese or European audience.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
This year nearly every single game company is going to start developing on PS3 as their lead system, then Xbox and Wii.

Mark. My. Words.

The only question is, when the PS3 takes the crown... will Microsoft release details of its Xbox 720???

A lot of developers are already doing this, but it's not because the PS3 is the better platform - it's because it's so much more difficult to develop on the PS3, but the 360 is so easy to develop for that it'll do pretty much anything they'll throw at the PS3.

Explorer

darkproteus66

Posted
Posted
This year nearly every single game company is going to start developing on PS3 as their lead system, then Xbox and Wii.

Mark. My. Words.

The only question is, when the PS3 takes the crown... will Microsoft release details of its Xbox 720???

Wrong.

EA Tiburon you know the little studio behind the small niche game Madden prefers developing on the 360 and will continue to release games with the 360 as their lead platform.

Oh and many PC game companies will be releasing their console versions with the 360 as the lead. Companies like Valve just prefer working on the 360 and have it as their lead platform and either pass off the duty of porting it to a third party like the shoddy Orange Box release on the PS3 which was done by a relatively young EA programming team or just skipps the PS3 all together like the upcoming Supreme Commander and Universe at War. To be fair those last two were games for windows games so the process of remaking for the 360 is made easier with the availability of the xna toolkit but it still shows the point that MSFT is going to have strong dev leads for at least the next year to come.

But honestly as far as i'm concerned idc who gets the lead for development as long as the game isn't crippled when it comes out on one or another of the platforms. It's a shame that PS3 owners get a shoddy Orange Box port not to mention this is the second time Sony lovers have gotten the bum port (the original half-life on the ps2 sucked and I have a few friends who refuse to buy OB b/c of that bad experience)

Community Regular

Venomous

Posted
Posted

I couldn't care less about orange box scenario console owners are lucky they get the orange box at all IMO those games are best on pc and Valve makes the games the best on PC. In Fact I think Valve lead platform is PC.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
It's amusing to read squeals of "biased!!!1!" when it's barely noticeable differences he talks about and even says its just an edge a console has in some category, not a blowout. Some of you 'gamers' need to go outside more often. :p

In some cases that may be true, but whenever the "edge" is something like "the controller feels a bit better for the game", yet ignoring the 20minute install time, there's definitely a bit of bias going on there. If it's an "edge" as they describe, they should at least call it a draw, particularly since the edge in question is a matter of personal preference anyway.

Grand Master

Joel

Posted
Posted
In some cases that may be true, but whenever the "edge" is something like "the controller feels a bit better for the game", yet ignoring the 20minute install time, there's definitely a bit of bias going on there. If it's an "edge" as they describe, they should at least call it a draw, particularly since the edge in question is a matter of personal preference anyway.
Were it not for the lengthy install required on PlayStation 3, it'd be an easy choice. Devil May Cry 4 controls better on PlayStation 3, but is less of a hassle on Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 controller just can't match the feel of a Sixaxis when hacking up demons. When it comes down to it, controls trump loading times--especially in a fast-paced action game like Devil May Cry 4. PlayStation 3 eeks out a victory, but only by the slimmest of margins.

Yep, he just rolled right over that one. :rolleyes: And overwhelmingly gave it to the PS3, too. :laugh: What was he thinking? :blink:

Experienced

ienhz

Posted
Posted
What did you guys expect from Gamepro. That magazine/site has always been extremely biased.

Gamepro is just a terrible "magazine" overall. I'm surprised people even pay attention to the drivel that they write. It was bad in the '90s and it's still bad today.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Joel, read Vamp's post on the first page and tell me it's not somewhat biased (the portion which he quotes), which is all most people were saying. Pretty much everyone who said it was biased didn't claim it was overwhelmingly so, just that it was somewhat biased.

Furthermore, look at the games they chose. They could have easily thrown "The Orange Box" in there, but they didn't. It's 100% subjective, which is the very meaning of biased, is it not?

No one said "overwhelmingly gave it to the PS3." Re-read the posts. :)

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
Joel, read Vamp's post on the first page and tell me it's not somewhat biased (the portion which he quotes), which is all most people were saying. Pretty much everyone who said it was biased didn't claim it was overwhelmingly so, just that it was somewhat biased.

Furthermore, look at the games they chose. They could have easily thrown "The Orange Box" in there, but they didn't. It's 100% subjective, which is the very meaning of biased, is it not?

No one said "overwhelmingly gave it to the PS3." Re-read the posts. :)

The Orange Box was the only port done by different developers, maybe that's why they didn't include?

Valve done 360, EA done PS3.

You're bound to see more/major differences if two different developers tackle the same game.

Valve should of done the PS3 but big Gabe hates the PS3...

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
The Orange Box was the only port done by different developers, maybe that's why they didn't include?

Valve done 360, EA done PS3.

You're bound to see more/major differences if two different developers tackle the same game.

Valve should of done the PS3 but big Gabe hates the PS3...

The title is "PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports", not "PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports by the same developer". All ports should be subject to this comparison, not just certain ones that meet an unknown requirement.

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
The title is "PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports", not "PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports by the same developer". All ports should be subject to this comparison, not just certain ones that meet an unknown requirement.

I think I made a fair point.

The ports compared are all equal as they are done by the same developer.

Orange Box was done by different developers therefore has an advantage/disadvantage however you look at it.

When comparing subjects, you need to make sure your test is as equal as possible.

Not saying we have to ignore the Orange Box, just saying why it may not be included in this comparison.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
I think I made a fair point.

The ports compared are all equal as they are done by the same developer.

Orange Box was done by different developers therefore has an advantage/disadvantage however you look at it.

When comparing subjects, you need to make sure your test is as equal as possible.

Not saying we have to ignore the Orange Box, just saying why it may not be included in this comparison.

If you're comparing points and are trying to be as equal as possible, why let your own personal bias about the consoles' controllers factor in? That doesn't make any sense. :blink:

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
If you're comparing points and are trying to be as equal as possible, why let your own personal bias about the consoles' controllers factor in? That doesn't make any sense. :blink:

The end result is going to be biased whoever answers it, don't you see that?

You let someone compare who likes PS controllers, they'll give a 1up to the PS3. You let someone compare who likes 360 controllers, they'll give a 1up to the 360.

How can you get this "truely" unbiased answer all of you seem to be chirping on about... fact is you can't really. Every person who does one of these comparisons is going to show bias to some extent.

Or at least they're going to be accused of showing bias no matter what. If the result isn't what the end user wants to read, the claim of bias won't be long to come out.

A 5GB install may not bother Bob at all, but it may make Henry chuck a hissy fit and threaten to sue Capcom.

Being equal as possible, I was talking about the test subjects. Everyone of these games has been developed by the one developer and are therefore equal.

The Orange Box for consoles was developed by two different developers, and if you want to go out on a stretch, you could even say they are therefore two "different" games.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

Subjective comparison at best. IMO having to "install" games and still having load times almost comparable to 360 is a -ve factor for ps3. Then again I don't know why ps3 controller is best for running but is not good for FPS :blink:, I mean I do run a lot in COD4, don't you? (Personally I believe ps3 controller can't be better than 360 until they fix the stick layout)

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
The end result is going to be biased whoever answers it, don't you see that?

You let someone compare who likes PS controllers, they'll give a 1up to the PS3. You let someone compare who likes 360 controllers, they'll give a 1up to the 360.

How can you get this "truely" unbiased answer all of you seem to be chirping on about... fact is you can't really. Every person who does one of these comparisons is going to show bias to some extent.

Or at least they're going to be accused of showing bias no matter what. If the result isn't what the end user wants to read, the claim of bias won't be long to come out.

A 5GB install may not bother Bob at all, but it may make Henry chuck a hissy fit and threaten to sue Capcom.

Being equal as possible, I was talking about the test subjects. Everyone of these games has been developed by the one developer and are therefore equal.

The Orange Box for consoles was developed by two different developers, and if you want to go out on a stretch, you could even say they are therefore two "different" games.

That's why you're supposed to take an objective view on it and not let your own personal bias get in the way. This CAN be done, unfortunately it's not done often enough.

A mandatory, 20min long, 5Gb install is SURELY far worse negative point than "the controller doesn't quite feel as good" (Flip this around and compare consoles to the PC - most PC Luddites will argue that the Mouse+Keyboard is a far better control scheme, yet most console boys will argue that they don't want to spend an hour installing their games to play it, it's an argument that's been used for years and despite being a hardcore PC gamer at heart, I have to side with consolers here - installs suck ass), yet somehow in this article it doesn't matter. Lets not forget that the install isn't a benefit of the PS3 - it's to compensate for the slow read speeds of the Blu-Ray drive.

What I'm trying to say here is that on paper, there's no way the PS3 could "win" this one, yet their bias views state that the PS3 wins hands-down.

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted (edited)
That's why you're supposed to take an objective view on it and not let your own personal bias get in the way. This CAN be done, unfortunately it's not done often enough.

A mandatory, 20min long, 5Gb install is SURELY far worse negative point than "the controller doesn't quite feel as good" (Flip this around and compare consoles to the PC - most PC Luddites will argue that the Mouse+Keyboard is a far better control scheme, yet most console boys will argue that they don't want to spend an hour installing their games to play it, it's an argument that's been used for years and despite being a hardcore PC gamer at heart, I have to side with consolers here - installs suck ass), yet somehow in this article it doesn't matter. Lets not forget that the install isn't a benefit of the PS3 - it's to compensate for the slow read speeds of the Blu-Ray drive.

What I'm trying to say here is that on paper, there's no way the PS3 could "win" this one, yet their bias views state that the PS3 wins hands-down.

Joel has already proved they are not claiming anything wins hands down, they are claiming the PS3 edges out the 360 on minor points.

Maybe you should re-read and not just believe what you want. No one claims anything won "hands down".

Some of the points of advantage made in this article are subject to bias, as you either prefer the PS3 controller, or prefer the 360 controller. Ok you may like both, but certain games will feel better to you on one controller over the other.

You let a 360 gamer write the article and he'll say he prefers the 360 version due to controls, you let a PS3 gamer write the article and he'll probably say the opposite.

I think some of you missed this as well

Some games do perform worse on Sony's console--Blacksite: Area 51 has been plagued with performance issues, for instance, and The Orange Box suffers from groan-inducing load times and chugging framerates.

Don't put one persons views up on the pedestal. Some of you do that, and then tear the person a new a-hole as he/she isn't saying what YOU want to hear.

No escaping these articles/comparisons, journalists have the power to publish them through large gaming sites.

Some people will agree, others disagree - But when comparing minor points like some of these, there is no "correct" or "unbiased" answer - It's just down to what you prefer.

Edited by Audioboxer
Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
Joel has already proved they are not claiming anything wins hands down, they are claiming the PS3 edges out the 360 on minor points.

Maybe you should re-read and not just believe what you want. No one claims anything won "hands down".

O RLY?

While we can't definitively name one console as having better multi-platform releases across the board, there's a clear winner among these four games: PlayStation 3 beats the Xbox 360 handily.

Maybe you should re-read as well.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.