Which version are you getting?  

199 members have voted

  1. 1. Which version are you getting?

    • PS3
      120
    • Xbox 360
      79


Recommended Posts

The more I hear all the hate, the more I want to play it.

I'm thinking complete it and trade it in for GoW3.

Linearity and FF just doesn't do it for me, although some reviews that said trimming the fat made for a better experience, I just have a feeling this is going to be "Final Fantasy on rails" and I really don't want that.

Plus it's already uber sci-fi star wars meets transformers, I prefer nitty gritty "realistic" fantasy. However that went out the window after FF9.

Still want to try it though, I'm a fan of the series for money value, I like SP games I can put a lot of hours into, but as Edge said it's whether or not you feel those hours were worthwhile this time around.

If a game is also too open and less tied to a deep story it bores fast. There's always a trade off, you want a more tight story or a more general one? It's clear Square likes to have alot of story vs very little in their RPGs. If they'd get off of the CGI crack they're on at some point and used in-game cut scenes more like other devs, they'd probably be able to do even more per GB of space given. Oh well.

When watching the comprison (side by side) video of the PS3 vs. the 360 the main thing i noticed is simply in the 360 version a lot of the Effects simply were not present, among other slight differences they looked remarkably the same. I know that unless you have them on a True HD screen you are never going to be able to tell the real difference being that recordings are not the true quality. However, as stated some effects simply are not present in the 360 version. So I honestly believe (as does Square-Enix, that No matter which version you buy you will be a happy customer as long as you enjoy the game and play style that comes with it. Visually you will be happy.

When watching the comprison (side by side) video of the PS3 vs. the 360 the main thing i noticed is simply in the 360 version a lot of the Effects simply were not present, among other slight differences they looked remarkably the same. I know that unless you have them on a True HD screen you are never going to be able to tell the real difference being that recordings are not the true quality. However, as stated some effects simply are not present in the 360 version. So I honestly believe (as does Square-Enix, that No matter which version you buy you will be a happy customer as long as you enjoy the game and play style that comes with it. Visually you will be happy.

I can understand compressed CGI that was a given, but 576p for a resolution is **** poor on Square's part, they have to get their act together on the 360. Star Ocean 4 had an even LOWER resolution than that - Even the PS3 International version is going to though I think.

Just looks like a case of made for PS3, rush job for 360. Again I'll say it's not a port, both are just running on different graphics engines.

Even although this will still sell well, it's not going down as one of the critically acclaimed FF's, so I think Square will be rethinking their next multiplatform iteration after 13 Versus.

Yeah im not too certain as to why they did not want to just keep the CGI uncompressed and simply add a Single extra DVD to the mix 4 disc games are not actually uncommon again. So adding a 4th disc to the overall thing they could have left the video uncompressed. seams a little odd to me however, not knowing the actual cost of doing it with the extra disk.

Yeah im not too certain as to why they did not want to just keep the CGI uncompressed and simply add a Single extra DVD to the mix 4 disc games are not actually uncommon again. So adding a 4th disc to the overall thing they could have left the video uncompressed. seams a little odd to me however, not knowing the actual cost of doing it with the extra disk.

4 x 6.8 = 27.2GB, still not enough space for 1080p AVC, let alone the game on top of that. The PS3 disc uses 38GB (32GB of which is CGI) or something, I can't remember it's 30 something anyway, on the last page.

They're already stacking 3 discs together, usually when you add a 4th disc it comes in a crappy plastic wallet, adding a 5th disc would be another crappy plastic wallet, and the more discs you add the more it costs you.

4 x 6.8 = 27.2GB, still not enough space for 1080p AVC, let alone the game on top of that. The PS3 disc uses 38GB (32GB of which is CGI) or something, I can't remember it's 30 something anyway, on the last page.

They're already stacking 3 discs together, usually when you add a 4th disc it comes in a crappy plastic wallet, adding a 5th disc would be another crappy plastic wallet, and the more discs you add the more it costs you.

I thought the DL disks held 8.5gb, However even then its only 34gb however, with the smaller in game textures i think they could have managed it also the audio is not loss less either so i think the 34gb would have been enough. Lol its too late now :D

I thought the DL disks held 8.5gb, However even then its only 34gb however, with the smaller in game textures i think they could have managed it also the audio is not loss less either so i think the 34gb would have been enough. Lol its too late now :D

Only 6.8GB is usable on each 360 disc, the rest is reserved for the security padding.

Only 6.8GB is usable on each 360 disc, the rest is reserved for the security padding.

Huh. I did not know that. Then again for an average user that is not really needed information. Also I no longer have a 360 anyhow.

Huh. I did not know that. Then again for an average user that is not really needed information. Also I no longer have a 360 anyhow.

Nah it's not, but a lot of people run around here saying just make it two discs (or 3/4 discs), 360 games can hold 8.4GB or whatever, when they can't.

Isn't it 720p?

The PS3 does 1080p AVC, the 360 is 720p bink for CGI.

In game cutscenes, PS3 is 720p, 360 is 576p.

Ouch, another 5/10 from TeamXbox - http://reviews.teamx...antasy-XIII/p1/

but

Editor’s note: Due to a malfunctioning disc (a Microsoft-supplied replacement disc also produced the same error), the reviewer was only able to play through the first 30 hours of Final Fantasy XIII. Although he plans on playing through the rest of the game—and TeamXbox will amend this review, if necessary—this score and these impressions are based on those 30 hours of gameplay.

wacko.gif

Ok OK all PS3 owners can applaud like a seal, SE was lazy or time was short with the 360 port etc etc ...... Can we go on?

It's my first time with a Jap game, like anime they abuse of the "Lolita" complex don't you think? :laugh:

Good role-playing games offer choices, engrossing worlds and the opportunity to figure out the best way to trounce your opponents on the battlefield. Final Fantasy XIII offers none of those things. It treats players like students taking a college exam?there?s only one right answer. And if you even dare to question authority?well, get used to academic probation in the form of the ?Game Over? screen.

From Team Xbox review

mmm, my first FF and look like it sucks :(

FFXIII: Worst First Hour Ever

We're not publishing our full Final Fantasy XIII review until the next issue of 360Zine hits the digital shelves on March 18th, but we can confirm that the gloriously attractive RPG from Square Enix does not start particularly well...

"After a searingly beautiful cut-scene that promises a world of wonder and unimaginable scope, Final Fantasy XIII drops players into a long, green corridor of despair. It's barely interactive, all you have to do is push upwards and jab A as you bash your way through the tutorials, endless weak enemies and shoddy voice acting. And just when you think it's going to end, you start the whole purgatorial trudge again as another character. For a Triple A game, it has to be the worst first hour ever"

Does it get better, though? Well, you'll have to wait until our comprehensive review in the next 360Zine.

Source: http://www.gamerzines.com/xbox-360/news/ffxiii-worst-first-hour-ever.html

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!