PS3 News: Modern Warfare 2 To Render At A Sub-HD 600p Resolution - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Modern Warfare 2 To Render At A Sub-HD 600p Resolution

Despite the fact we'd love to see every game rendered in true high definition, there are reasons why some developers choose a lower resolution. ...well, we assume there are good reasons, at any rate.

Take Infinity Ward, for instance: according to GameZine, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will boast a resolution of 600p, which is equivalent to 1024 x 600 pixels, and this has been confirmed by the Beyond3D technical forums. For the record, the first Modern Warfare was also shown in 600p, and everyone is asking the same question: is this a significantly negative point of interest? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a sequel two years later, especially in this HD-crazy generation, might use a higher resolution? Perhaps it's important to note that the game should run at a silky smooth 60 frames per second - just like the original - and I don't recall critics or gamers having a problem with the visuals. And based on what we've seen thus far of Modern Warfare 2, it should be another graphically stunning title, so maybe we don't necessarily need something higher than 600p. Maybe it's better to keep a slightly lower resolution and avoid the slower 30fps; some of the more visually advanced titles won't run faster than 30.

So what say you? Should Infinity Ward have tried for a higher resolution? Do you think they could've kept 60fps with more pixels flying around the screen? It's your chance to show off your technical knowledge...

Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

7/28/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (169 posts)

godsman
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:12:10 PM
Reply

A quick action game, where the slightly delay means life or death, requires a higher frame rate. Just do whatever it takes to make the experience fun.

Note that there are still many people that cant tell the difference between DVD upscaling and true high definition. 600p is better than dvd quality. I think its good enough.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:15:11 AM

apparently "good enough" isn't good enough for some people...

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:17:53 PM
Reply

Could they have? Duh, only if it were an exclusive. This is soooo weak.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

LightShow
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:35:15 PM
Reply

i'm not sure exactly why games run anywhere higher than 30fps. i'm pretty sure that thats how fast the brain can process, any faster and it cant tell the difference. maybe its just a buffer to keep it up during high-stress computing...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:37:24 PM

Indeed. A good human reaction time is somewhere around two tenths of a second. 30 frames a second means each frame lasts a thirtieth. An above average person reacts in 6 thirtieths, or six frames of action. At 60 frames per second, 12 frames pass by before even a fast human can react.

Our ability to react to events in a game is not significantly altered by the frame rate. However the 60 frames per second is smoother and more comfortable to view. This is because the human eye, and bran is fast enough to process the image at 60fps, even if the human body takes twelve frames to actually move in reaction to the events on screen.

So 60 frames per second is better, it's smoother, and easier on the eye. It may not help speed the reactions of players, but it is less fatigue on the player's eyes.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:33:00 AM

you would be surprised how important 60fps is to the 3d fighting game community like Tekken and Soul Calibur

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:07:58 AM

@aaronisbla

Not really, I'm well aware that some of that community believe that frame rates as high as 240 frames per second aren't enough. The trouble is that at frame rates of 60fps and higher you may perceive that the image is steady and motion is smooth. But your ability to react is what it is. Your reaction time is in the order of 12 times the amount of time a single frame is visible at 60fps. When you're playing any fast game like this you are far more affected by the flow of the game and action than you are by anything else. You anticipate actions and react accordingly. The ability to anticipate the actions of an opponent have nothing to do with frame rate.

If you have a link that points to actual research on this that proves faster frame rates actually have a pay off in reaction times, I'll gladly read it and retract my statements. But I've never read any such research. I've been gaming for more or less as long as most of the folks on this site have been alive, and I have yet to notice any major benefit of frame rates much higher than 60fps, although I can confirm that frame rates that drop below 25 frames a second, or frame rates that vary are distracting enough to slow down reaction times.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:59:51 AM

The average person can detect a difference up to about 60fps. After that, it just takes more work for nothing. Really though, I think 30fps is just fine. If they could have reasonably got 60fps with no slow down without spending too much money and working themselves to death, I bet they would have.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:15:25 AM

@TheHighlander

Earlier when i said that 60fps is important to the communities of Tekken and Soul Calibur, trust me, i know what im talking about here.

I never said something higher was needed. Who in these communities said something higher is needed? thats new to me. Look at their respective gaming websites (Tekkenzaibatsu and 8wayrun) and took a look at their frame data that gets compiled for each game. Its all based on the frames being locked at 60. Personally, id hate to see any new fighting games moving at 30 frames.

The games run at 60fps, therefore people in these communities can actually count how many frames a move will take. Yes, they actually come up with pretty damn accurate data. You might not think it helps with reaction times but it does and this is how.

We study the moves we do and the moves that other characters do. If we say a move comes out in 15 frames, we are saying it comes out in 1/4th of a second. Pretty basic but it goes deeper. By counting frames, we can determine which moves are safer to use than others and to see what can punish other moves, whether they hit or are blocked. It can be pretty hard to explain if you are not use to the lingo that tekken or SC players use. But basically, by knowing how many frames a move takes to connect, how fast you recover from block stun ( which is also counted in frames ) you can then determine the best course of action from situations

On SC4, my main character is Astaroth, big guy with a huge axe. He isnt the fastest guy in the game, so when he blocks a move, its really important to know what moves you can use at that time. By knowing the amount of frames it takes a move to actually connect, you can determine all sorts of things, like whats the best attack in a certain situation, what's the worse option that will get you hurt, things of that nature

Its not like you have to know the frame data of every move on the game, just the more important ones. Frame Data is extremely important in fighting game communities and it 60 fps, it makes it a easier to deal with. Whats the last good fighting game that moved slower than 60fps?

Last edited by aaronisbla on 7/30/2009 1:19:04 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 5:05:53 AM

A slight correction: the study I saw said humans can distinguish images up to about 45 or 50 frames per second.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 11:23:28 AM

The other thing to understand is that the human eye doesn't perceive data in the way of 'frames per second'. You have to understand it's data being transmitted through rods/cones in your eye, through to the optic nerve, which is then dispersed throughout the rest of the brain. As such, what you tend to happen BEYOND 60fps, is, the information/data is there, however, your brain starts missing details of the images you're seeing, because it lacks the ability to decipher all the data it's taking in that quickly.

Point being, as Highlander indicated, 60fps is actually proven to appear smoother, and more fluid. And, to be honest, we can see perfectly fine images higher than that, it's just going too high becomes meaningless as we aren't able to pick out all the data/detail.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:52:13 PM

@All

Human vision is analog. We do not specifically distinguish individual frames. A human can perceive that there is a difference between two images even if the difference is only visible for a moment, be it a hundredth or a thousandth of a second, I'm not sure. But the perception of a difference is not specific to a given frame rate. Most people would be able to tell you that video playback on a 240Hz screen with 240 frames per second look smother than 120 or 60 frames per second, but they wouldn't be able to individually distinguish one frame from another during live playback. By that I mean, they'd know that there was a change. But not necessarily what the change was, on an individual frame by frame basis.

With gaming, yes 60 frames per second is important because at the alternative - 30 frames per second - each frame lasts a significant portion of the reaction time. The lower the frame rate the greater the possible reaction time gap between two players who are a few frames apart in terms of action and response. The faster frame rate reduces the amount of perceived lag between action and reaction. However, as frame rates climb past 60, the significance of the frame to frame lag drops from significance. That's why I don't see the importance of frame rates beyond 60. That said, I have read so many articles on so many hardcore PC gaming sites where the 'willie waving' PC gamers are trying to out do each other's frame rates and extolling the virtues of frame rates in excess of 120. So, when I mentioned that some want frame rates higher and higher, it was these gamers I was referring to.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:32:04 PM

Yeah, Highlander is right. 60 fps is better than 30 fps. Looks much smoother.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 10:32:21 PM

yeah pretty much agree with you, maybe its cuz ive never been a pc gamer but i dont see the need for all games to be in the upper regions of fps.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 11:55:48 PM

Heh, please don't add me into that Highlander, I do prefer a higher frame rate, but beyond 70 is getting to the point where there's no noticeable difference. 60's just fine for games, imo.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

somethingrandom
Sunday, August 02, 2009 @ 12:44:24 AM

The vast majority of times you will not notice the difference even between 60fps and 10000fps. This is because the vast majority of TV's do not support refresh rates over 60Hz (Hz=cycles/second). Even if you have a plasma TV or an LCD with higher refresh rates, this is done with software in the TV to create new frames in between existing ones. There is no HDMI cable I've ever heard of that could support the amount of data needed to display at much higher than 60 fps...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ThePearlJamer
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:39:08 PM
Reply

what were MGS4 and KZ2?

Btw...Does anyone think that KZ3 might be in the works...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Reccaman18
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:43:40 PM

based on what Guerrilla games has said about their future, no. Apparently, they want to do something else.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:31:43 AM

mgs 4 ran at 1074 x 764. Frame rate was 30 fps but rose near or at 60 frames when night vision goggles was used on the solid eye.

Killzone 2 was 720p at 30fps

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:50:45 PM
Reply

MW looks great in motion. For the type of game it is and how fun it can be, I'll forgive IW for dropping the resolution in favor of 60fps.

Fluidity really helps when its a fast paced game.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:53:09 PM
Reply

I honestly see Modern Warfare 2 as COD4 with a different plot. MW2 having the same graphics as COD4 supports my opinion even further. I will be getting MW2 only because I enjoyed COD4. I have seen nothing so far that would make me want to say, "Oh I can not wait to play this game!".

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Morals
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:36:46 PM
Reply

The ps3 could handle the 1080p res at 60 FPS.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

huskerfan_101
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:48:10 PM

Then, why didn't Killzone 2 run at 60 FPS?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

LegendaryWolfeh
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:16:08 AM

Hardware capabilities are not equal to the developers limitations in coding and other things. Sure they could run it, but I doubt it'd be stable, unless you limit textures and other enhancements.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:01:45 AM

Yes, but it's like this. PS3 can push 1080p at 60fps with an image that has a certain complexity. Let's call that amount of work A. If you increase the amount of work needed per fram by 100% so that the work load is now 2 x A, the PS3 can no longer push 1080p at 60 frames per second, it'll have to switch down either to 1080i, or 720p or the equivalent. 720p is roughly half the workload of 1080p, the pixel count is about half 1080p.

If a lot of additional visual effects are being used then depending on how well they are implemented and how they are applied, it may not be possible for any GPU or CPU to manage 1080p60. so the render target is adjusted downwards depending on the goals. In the case of MW2, they want 60fps, so they dropped the resolution. Dropping the resolution and/or frame rate has a directly proportional effect on the workload. If they'd been ok with 30fps then they could have rendered at a higher resolution.

It's all about trade offs, balancing the resolution, framerate and the number of visual effects used.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

raztad
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:05:21 AM

Example of 60fps/1080p:

Wipeout HD, GT5:P, GT5 is expected to run at 60fps/1080p

KZ2 runs at 30fps/720 cause its engine heavily uses postprocessing/a lot of light sources/particle effects. Besides, KZ2 is far from reaching 100% of PS3 theoretical power so we can expect even better graphics, higher resolutions in upcoming interations of KZ. I dont think GG is aiming for 30fps. KZ2 gameplay is slow paced, not twitchy like COD.

GoW3 is expected (said by the same project leader at E3) to reach 1080p with resolutions fluctuating between 30 and 60fps. It will drop down to 30fps wwhen a lot of enemies/action is going on on screen.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Juanalf
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:46:55 PM
Reply

I am sure the PC gamers will mock this and possibly gloat; as well they should.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:50:35 PM

Well, I'm not getting MW2, I have a severe hatred for the Modern Warfare era/fake scenario style that comprises that game. However, when they reskin it and call it W@W2 in either the pacific theater, or vietnam. Yes, I'll be getting it for my PC, and I'm certain I'll be running it at 1920x1200 ;)

Only buy exclusives for my PS3, all else goes to PC.

Now...give me Gran Turismo 5!

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

LegendaryWolfeh
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:14:53 AM

How can you hate the modern era? The past is just to too used up in my opinion. I mean hell there's at LEAST 20+ games about WW2. Just because they're 'fake' scenarios doesn't change the fact that they can really happen and those situations are actually possible in todays world.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:28:06 AM

It's tough to gloat when the PC has been a declining platform for a decade.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:16:18 AM

@ LegendaryWolf - Ok seriously, we're not going to see eye to eye here. It's just my personal preference. I went to the CoD franchise for accuracy and to tell me a story of amazing camraderie. Sure, there've been 20+ games based upon WW2 (I'd actually argue there are more). However, you can't tell me that every story has been told. For me, and for many rabid fans of the franchise from day 1. It's always been about WW2 or a real conflict, and following a story that only few lived to tell of.

Personally, I can't wait to see the cascade effect that'll occur when 'The Pacific' is finished. It's a new HBO 10-part series, just like Band of Brothers, except obviously...about the pacific theater. They've got a $250 million budget, and have survivors from the encounters helping with the detail. It's exciting because it'll undoubtedly push IW/Treyarch/Grey Matter/whoever the fuck, to pump out a new line of Pacific oriented WW2 games, based upon those series...as they did with COD1/UO-2.

@ Ben - You're wrong, actually. I can gloat perfectly easily, other than Sony exclusives, I can play virtually every other game out there, at 10-50x the resolution the consoles can achieve. Better physics, better framerates, easier modability, downloadable patches for free. I'm sorry, but the PC community still has PLENTY to gloat about.

Make no mistake though Ben, I still own a PS3, and will continue to get Sony machines, as long as it's necessary. Sony is quite intelligent insofar that it doesn't release it's epic stuff on PC. Whereas, MS usually ends up caving and doing so. But, the PC does most gaming better, from a hardware perspective, it's undeniable...however, there are some genre's of gaming that I prefer on console also...like your fighters, Tekken/SF/CvSNK, racing games, etc..

Even still though, take Street Fighter IV, as an example. My PC Runs SFIV @ 1920x1200 60hz C16xQAA at an average 65.96 FPS....have you seen what it looks like on a decent PC? It actually feels like a Turbo street fighter...not like the slo-mo on the consoles. You just get better performance on PC.

Anyway, as stated, will probably get W@W2. But, not interested in the MW series.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:20:42 AM

@ Ben - I do however, choose to keep my gloating to a relative minimum...as this is a PS3 oriented site. Still, there are plenty of reasons why PC gaming is not only badass, but truly superior. I think too many people choose the cheap, immediate satisfaction item. Rather than working for something greater. Sounds like the 360 vs PS3 argument, no?

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

ArnoldK PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:00:10 AM

I have to say, Mornelithe DOES have a point. If I was a gamer with some extra dough, I'd just buy a competent PC and enjoy my games without any of these limitations.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:13:29 AM

@Mournelith

10-50x the resolution a console can manage?

Really? So you have how many PCs that can pump out anything between 10 Mega Pixel and 50 megapixel images at 30-60 frames per second? Console games of today run on average in 720p which is essentially a one mega pixel image. If you have a PC that has the capability of running anything at 10-50 Megapixel resolution with a frame rate between 30-60fps I'll be shocked beyond belief.

I understand the reaction to Ben's statement about PC gaming dying (although I agree with Ben), but really?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 5:58:25 AM

That's a bit of a generous average, don't you think Highlander? I probably over-estimated a bit, but the point is, rarely do any of the serious multi-platform games, heck, even some of the big-time exclusives, don't hit 720p. Halo 3, comes to mind. Ghostbusters, GTAIV. As I stated previously, my system runs GTAIV, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Farcry 2, CoD W@W, Company of Heroes, Prototype, Stalker: Shadows of Chernobyl, and Stalker: Clear Skies @ 1920x1200. That's higher than 1080p (Which is 1200x1080). Resolution is negligible however, as most TV's can't go beyond 1080p. PC Monitors can however.

Beyond that, there's also the tremendous RAM increase, as well. Not to mention the severely underpowered GPU's in both machines. Again, remember here, I own a PS3 and am quite avidly awaiting many a-game... But the facts speak for themselves.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:05:44 AM

@ Highlander+Ben & Co, sorry if I seemed upset or annoyed or something there. Totally wasn't, and don't mean to come off that way.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

vicious54
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:00:57 AM

@Morne

I don't know where you get your information but 1080p's resolution is 1920 X 1080.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:18:00 AM

That's fine. I'm just waiting to hear about all those PC exclusives that are supposed to be far superior to the console exclusives.

...oh wait, this isn't 1998. ;)

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:52:05 AM

@mornelith

I didn't get the impression you were upset or annoyed.

720p is 1 megapixel, that's the resolution. 1080p is a 2megapixel image. Most PS3 games render at 720p, some render at 10880p, some render below 720p, but by and large the average game renders at 720p. 10 to 50 times that resolution is 10-50 megapixels, it's just math.

I agree that in light of today's GPUs the GPU in the PS3 (and the 360) is underpowered compared to the current state of the art. However for the purpose that they are designed for - pushing 720p/1080i/1080p images, both GPUs are more than adequate.

PC gaming is still doomed. It may never die, but it's doomed to a niche existence in specific genre of game.

That said, I also wonder how many game developers will continue to devote resources to PC games at high resolution with the attendant costs (game devs are always complaining about the costs associated with 720p games, imagine their dismay with resolutions higher than 1080p). Game piracy on PC is, and always will be, a huge issue. The return on investment just isn't there in a lot of cases.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:30:54 AM

@ Ben - PC Exclusives? You mean...like....Stalker: Shadows of Chernobyl? Stalker: Clear Skies? Crysis? Crysis: Warhead? World of Warcraft? Diablo 3? Starcraft 2? You mean those exclusives?

I've yet to see any 'console' game engine, come close to looking like Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast. Whether you like the game or not is irrelevant. Crysis: Warhead is nearly a 2 year old game, that's only matched by it's 3 year old counter-part (Crysis). Want to see a real difference in power? Let's compare and contrast the CryEngine 3, on console vs PC, when Crytek finishes their next game.


Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Juanalf
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:17:08 PM

@Mornelithe

For some reason you think that a game is about graphics and resolution alone,Nothing else matters.The PC exclusives you named are superior and better to the console's because they have better graphics and better resolution *wink*.Would it be a safe bet to call you a specs whore?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:46:33 PM

No, not at all. I still thoroughly enjoy playing NES, SNES, N64, PS1 and PS2 games. However, I _prefer_ to play games, at the resolutions the developer intended. Not, I repeat, NOT, the resolutions, textures, load times et al, that they're FORCED to utilize, when limited by console hardware.

And, as with PS3 gaming, the PC also has free online play (as well as some Pay games not available for console), mods are a dime a dozen, which creates a huge amount of variety. Patches are not only free, but available from so many different sources that snagging them on a knee-jerk fancy, is a matter of a few minutes wait. Again, I realize this is preference we're talking here. Some people want to just play the games, and that's fine. I however, just like to see the games be all they can be.

It's interesting though, I've been questioned on my desire for the best possible performance before. And...I keep asking myself...who WOULDN'T want their favorite game, to play, look, and feel....better? I mean....sure, not everyone has the income, even though it's quite easy to set aside some money here and there over a long period of time to build your machine...but, given the opportunity, I find it just...a foreign concept, to not want to improve the experience. Call me crazy.

As for _why_ I like them, and named them. Well, Ben referred to PC exclusives that were 'supposedly better than the console exclusives'. I gave 7, off the top of my head. I'll add in Company of Heroes as well, as that's an insane RTS, and plays great on a DX10 rig. And to clarify, I didn't just list those games because they're gorgeous. Some of them are rife with issues, but are still vastly superior games (In my opinion). CoH trumps Red Alert on PS3, no doubt about it. Crysis/Crysis Warhead trump and physics/realism the PS3/360 have managed thus far. Stalker was a very very very interesting series. And incredibly under-appreciated in my opinion. A vast, vast sandbox style, tons of weapons, multiple endings to the game...absolutely fantastic. Sure, it was a little less buggy than AC, but, the gameplay and plot made up for it, imo.

Graphics _aren't_ everything though, I'm not trying to say they are. However, leaps and bounds in graphical acuity, realism, physics, and such, DO advance the industry as a whole. And I really like to see what new bounds they're pushing.

Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/29/2009 12:53:08 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:13:26 PM

Additionally, you may or may not notice the difference in _when_ and how often the game loads, on PC. There's a reason why the Crysis series, and Stalker series didn't make it to console. It's because of the map size. A big problem with Fallout 3 on console imo, not to mention GTAIV. The bigger the map/area you're in, the more they have to section it up, and cut down texture detail in order to toss it on console. A more current example, would definitely be Rage. There's supposedly 2 huge maps, so it'll be a good way to guage if they've closed the gap on that or not.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:57:03 PM

I just think even your average working joe can get himself a PS3, while keeping your PC up to gaming specs is a serious financial investment. My PC is pretty old, it does everything I want, and I have no desire to sit at my desk and play anyway. Getting a big rig to a giant monitor out near my couch would be an even bigger investment. I think what Ben is getting at is when you go to any store, the PC games shelf is shrinking and the sales aren't doing too well anyway. No one wants to argue that games don't look better on PC, but the platform is becoming less viable as time goes on. But I don't blame you, if I had a badass PC I'd probably be a little proud of it too.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:31:16 PM

Well, I'm proud of the investment certainly. This rig will last me for some time, and has potential for upgrading in the future. The thing is, I buy PC and PS3 games, pretty much evenly. And spend time doing both, on a consistent basis.

As for not being a viable platform? Really, I'm not so sure. I think allot of PC gamers are a bit more finicky in some regards. But, if you can capture their attention...ala WoW. There's a revenue source that makes consoles pale in comparison. Blizzard generates what, 2 billion a year alone, on the $15 subscription? Say what you will about WoW, but that's a huge chunk of change. And merely indicative of the size and scale of the PC base. Make a game, that doesn't depend on graphics (but does support hardware scaling), that hits the hearts of many, in that way, they generate revenue to take more risky endeavors. Think Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 as examples of where the PC base is at in the coming future.

Lastly, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I have to admit, several people seem to be quite oblivious to the rampant piracy issue on the 360. I know it takes less than an hour to mod one. And games hit the net days in advance of street launch. So, it's already begun, and will most certainly get worse as time progresses for that consoles revenues.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:24:37 PM

Good for you. You named about two or three decent exclusives and a few that don't even exist yet. How many exclusives have come out that everyone needs to play on PC in the past five years? Want me to run down the list of console exclusives that have been as good or better in that same time frame?

Here's the bottom line. PC hasn't dominated the Game of the Year nominations and victories as it once did. Every year these days, you can BET that a PC exclusive title WON'T win Game of the Year. If anything it'll be ALSO on PC but it will NOT be best PLAYED on PC. Last year, big winners were MGS4 and LBP (the latter swept up at the AIAS Awards). This year your nominations will likely go to Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 and others.

You seem to forget something. If there was a reason to own a gaming quality PC, I would own one. I only want to play the best of the best. However, the best of the best simply aren't on PC and haven't been in quite some time. I won't have any need of a PC for GT5, FFXIII, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed II, GTAV, Heavy Rain, God of War III, The Last Guardian, Alan Wake, etc. And PC freaks can brag all they want about resolution; significant differences in HD resolutions can only be seen on larger screens, anyway, and I'm not missing much of anything with my 1080p, 40" screen.

And I don't care what anyone says, an action game has NEVER been best played on a PC, nor has a sports game. This doesn't excuse the obscene lack of variety on PC, though; of all the great PC titles in the past decade, which of them CAN'T be classified as a FPS, RTS, or Western RPG? ...any? I'll be awaiting that answer.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/29/2009 3:26:16 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

bamf
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:36:17 PM

@Morn
I have to point out that those resolutions are too high to be important. You take Blu-ray for instance, the HD quality at 1080p and 1080i for smaller TV's is that crisp now, no one is going to care about even higher resolutions unless you plan to buy an 100" LCD. 1080p is where its at that and the HD image is good enough to convince everyone to ugrade their standard definition TV's for HD ones. I think it ends there and super HD TV's will never take off as the increase in resolution isn't noticeable due to the fact that 1080p is so crisp and sharp anyway.
If there's a choice of 2 PS3's, one that's just powerful enough to play 1080p at 60fps and the other with more juice that will also do 60fps and will output games at 1920x1200 but this means the second PS3 is 5
3 times more expensive. I would choose the first PS3, paying 3 times the money just for a higher resolution than 1080p just isn't worth it.
We all know that its down to the demand of the PC gamer why GPU's and CPU's would become faster and more powerful. I think those days have gone now, and I think this is also what Ben means about the PC fading out. Spending more money on dual cards just for 120fps and 1920x1200 is pointless.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:45:27 PM

@ Ben - Reading all this I was completely losing it over this crazy argument of PC gaming supremacy. I just knew there was something amiss about the PC argument. Your last comment there, well, it hit the nail on the head.

Besides, if PC gaming was so awesome and can't be touched for all it's greatness, why does he also have a PS3?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 5:31:02 PM

Um, you asked for exclusives Ben, I gave them, you didn't indicate that X number of exclusives would be required in order for my point to be valid. If you really want to have a conversation about this, maybe set the rules in advance, before making up the conversational architecture as things progress.. No need to cop an attitude, I'm simply offering up my personal opinion, based upon hardware FACTS. Like it or not, there's just more you can do with the horsepower PC's afford. Again, you somehow think that what you qualify as 'good or better' means anything to me. Remember, it's personal preferance here Ben. Not, this is the world according to Ben. I made it quite clear that it was my opinion, and some enjoy certain genre's of gaming on certain platforms, respectively. I made no attempt to state everyone felt the same way I did.

Beyond that, yes, some exclusives I named are not out yet (Amusingly enough, all 9 of the ones you listed aren't either...and yeah, GTAV won't ever come out on PC...really??). Then again, some of the exclusives we talk about here all the time, aren't out yet either. It makes them no more or less valid to the genre. And if you go back and read what I was stating, I indicated that those games (D3/SC2) would be a good indicator of the health of the PC market, outside of WoW. Yes, PC's have been taking a back seat to consoles for a little bit, but that's honestly to be expected in an emerging market such as this. PC's were once the red-headed step-child of entertainment. Now, it's being tapped into by multiple sources and spread to newer constituency's. This does not take away from the fact, that there are more PC's in the world, than there are any one type of console. As such, it will always represent a huge base for publishers to depend upon.

Then we move onto PC/PS3 why need what blah blah. Seriously Ben, take a deep breath and re-read what I said. I own a PS3 for Sony's exclusives. Period. If Sony's released their games on PC, I would most likely buy the majority for PC, and have games such as LBP, Tekken, SFIV, KoFXII, Wipeout, Gran Turismo etc... for my PS3. I enjoy those types of games on a console more, controllers and such. But Uncharted on PC? Hell yeah. I love GTAIV on PC...it's freekin fantastic. Vastly...vastly superior to the PS3 version (I have both). But, make no mistake, I _like_ Sony's 1st party developers. It's why I purchased a PS3. Why else?

I try not to brag about the machine, although, I definitely have in the past (Trying to tone it down honestly). But...I have the option of running at whatever performance I want on most games...whereas the consoles are stuck to something quite a bit lower. My Street Fighter IV example was about as clear as you can get. GTAIV is only further proof.

As for lack of variety...you're somewhat right. I mean, there's Uru, the next chapter in the Myst games, but I guess that'd be a Western RPG, although, it's more of an intelligent adventure if you ask me. The problem is, remember, the PC market is where gaming gained allot of traction, and was, for quite some time a targeted audience of FPS/RPG/RTS gamers, for one...that's still a monsterous demographic. Huge...especially the RTS, and especially the 2 RTS' that are still played ad-nauseum today (Starcraft/Diablo2), Starcraft 2 is going to sell...quite a bit, and that's probably an understatement. But, I digress...I think that honestly the PC market is going to have to prove that it's capable of sustaining other genre's of gaming as well, before it'll get too much more variety. But, it'll still have the best performing/looking FPS'/TPS' and RTS' (MY opinion), for years to come.

Anyway, take it easy Ben...not everything is attack on you personally.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:26:00 PM

...who took anything personally?

I'm sorry, but I really don't care about hardware. I wouldn't care if a PC or console had the power to send me to Mars. If it doesn't have the software, I - and nobody else - will care. Look, there's a reason why the PC market has been on the steady decline, and the most obvious explanation is that console gaming simply provides an overall better experience.

All I care about are the games. The total number of great games I can play on any given platform. I'm sorry, but when the PC can't even produce more than one or two titles I might want to play in a full year, I consider that a dead platform. PC exclusives fail to gain acclaim, fail to gain the attention of gamers, and in general, fall well short in terms of just about everything that makes games entertaining.

Technical superiority only goes so far, and like I said, this isn't 1998. The gap in technology between consoles and PC, along with the fact that one group of systems has the diverse and top-notch software and the PC doesn't, has contributed to the aforementioned decline. You can play whatever you like. If you have fun doing what you do, then fine. I have no problem with that at all, and never have.

But to say the PC is still valid is closer to denial than truth. Sales numbers alone should end that debate.

P.S. Bear in mind that I WAS a PC gamer for a long time; the Tandy IBM was my first computer and I probably played it more than any other console until the PS1. It was also a huge part of my multiplayer gaming with friends and helped with my RPG urging. Remember that I loved many of the PC classics (and still do). But as my priorities have never changed - just find all the best games I can - something else DID. So I had to adapt.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/29/2009 7:30:52 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:47:58 PM

Ben...just last year, Warcraft sold 2.8 million copies in one day. 8.6 million units in the US as of July 2009, and roughly 11.5 million monthly subscribers. That hardly sounds like a dying market.

I expect Dialbo 3 and Starcraft 2 to be equally as impressive in their sales figures. Maybe not here in the US, but there are millions waiting for Starcraft 2. And a whole slew of people waiting for Diablo 3 also.

You argue it's a better experience. I argue it's a better experience in some regards, worse in others. I will, however, tell you straight up, it's a much easier system for publishers to nickel and dime consumers to death with. Much easier.

As with most exclusives, and things I desire though, I can wait. I can wait for the sick games to come out. Look how long I've been foaming at the mouth for GT5. I've had PS3 games preordered in excess of a year. Yes...a year. So, I have no problems waiting for a game to come out, and if all they can put out is 2 or 3 badass exclusives for the PC a year. And then a slew of multiplatform games that absolutely annihilate on PC. So be it, win win for me.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 8:43:20 PM

Terrible idea to use WoW as an example. Is there ANY other PC game that even came close in terms of sales? At this point, it could almost be argued that the ENTIRE PC market revolved around WoW last year, which only proves my entire point.

And to say multiplatform titles are automatically better on PC, or that they "annihilate" the console iterations in any way is, I'm sorry, a flat-out lie. NOBODY believes that anymore. NOBODY would opt to play a game like DMC on the PC. NOBODY said it was better than the console version. And really, no offense, but that's hardly the only example. There are actually more examples of multiplats that are better on consoles these days, if only for stability reasons.

I firmly believe that many PC gamers still believe certain things to be true when in fact, they're not. I have yet to come across one who honestly accepts the reality of the current industry. I swear I don't mean this to be an insult, but it's just my own personal experience.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 8:51:55 PM

ben, yes retail sales is declining but online pc game sales is still going strong.

look at Steam ;)

even in my country, where almost no-one buy original game, buy games from steam.

because we cant get any original games on gaestore or shopping mall.

steam give great accessibility ;)


---

as for multiplatform games on PC..

most multiplatform games look better on PC.

i'll take GTA IV as an example. GTA IV is a BAD PORT. the pc version is really need much power to play. unoptimized game enigine.

but despite that, GTA IV still look best on PC.

remember, on PC you can throw as many AA as your hardware can deliver. and also anisotropic filter.

and back to topic about MW2,
i myself just got radeon HD 4770. very cheap graphic card with great performance. it can play cod4 (same engine will be used on MW2) in 1440x900 all max, 8xAA, max anisotropy filter. and its still running above 80fps avg on MP.


for me, multiplatform game = buy pc version
exclusive game (like JRPGs) = buy console version

Last edited by orangpelupa on 7/29/2009 9:01:08 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:40:51 PM

Wow Ben, no, don't apologize to me, apologize to your own intellect. If you actually think console performance is anywhere remotely close to PC...well, I'm sorry man, you're just plain wrong. You don't have a gaming rig, you've professed this yourself. As such you're unable to comment on this in an unbiased manner.

I provide example after example after example of my side of the discussion, and none of them are good enough for you, to the point where...you know, you don't have a good PC, but you sure know better than I do what's what, right? Sorry Ben, I have a decent gaming rig, and I have a PS3. And I _Don't_ write for a blog that focuses entirely on one machine. So, I think I'm a little more qualified to objectively determine what's higher quality. If you're truly interested, you should check into it yourself, rather than blindly arguing against something you know very little about yourself.

Oh, and other examples of games that did well on PC. GTAIV, The Sims, Modern Warfare, World at War. Yeah, only 4, and I don't care if that's enough to make my point valid in your eyes. Nothing short of the destruction fo all consoles would do that for you.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:12:25 AM

I'll just say this:

-You can't play greatness like StarCraft 2, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Diablo 3, or World of WarCraft on consoles.
-And some game genres just don't play as well on a console when compared to PCs like RTSs, RPGs, snd Shooters.

And the PC game market is changing. I don't think it "shrinking" or "dieing". I think that now PC gaming is shifting to fewer quantity, higher quality games.

I feel a metaphor coming on. Don't think of PC gaming as a shrinking pond. But more like pond (constant in size) with fewer, bigger fish. We can't prove #s-wise just how accurate this theory is yet. But thats because NPD and similar organizations generally don't count micro-transactions, subscription fee revenues, and digital sales. PC gaming thrives of these new tactics.

Last edited by King James on 7/30/2009 12:24:42 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:26:01 AM

RIP PC?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1005720p1.html

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:05:07 AM

You're done. The instant someone makes a retarded assumption about what I play, my life, and ESPECIALLY that I somehow only have the PS3 as a frame of reference because of this job here, they lose all credibility in my eyes.

I don't give one flying fu** what the PC CAN do. I have more than a few friends who have gaming-quality PCs - and brag all you want, but they have monster machines, too - and I continually see games I've played on consoles running on those PCs. Some are just as good. Some are better. Some aren't as good.

If you want to live in denial and waste your gaming time by deluding yourself into thinking that every single multiplatform game is better on PC (yeah, I'm SURE you've done as many compare and contrast sessions as me, someone who does this sh** for a living and has been playing games for 25 years), fine by me.

But again, it just proves my point. Anybody who plays predominantly on PC has lost touch with reality and basically doesn't deserve an opinion anymore. And I just LOVE how that PC elitism never seems to die. Just hysterical.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:06:42 AM

Oh wait, let me say it again:

The PC is a sh** platform.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 10:44:30 AM

You're right Ben, I am done, I'm done trying to have a logical conversation with a raving fanboy. Which you are. I come to this site for info on PS3 games (sure, the articles are usually hours past the point where the news was broken, but sometimes there's a bit of extra info in there). I don't honestly care what you do with your free time. The fact that you don't 'believe' me, when I say PC's have the horsepower and ability they do. Tells me all I need to know. I didn't read the rest of your post, so seriously, don't bother continuing it. Have a good day fanboy.

Oh, and by the way, back onto the question/topic at hand. PC Gamers still have plenty to gloat about, console fanboy ignorance is one of them.


Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/30/2009 10:53:16 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Juanalf
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 2:38:33 PM

Mornelithe & Ben

The Consoles(of today) aren't great b/c they could never reach the technically specs of a gaming PC and PC is not great b/c most developers really don't give a shit about it and it will never win GOTY in any category(except RTS)so it's purposely being ignored.Point is neither are all that and fall short of the great systems of the past.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sir Shak
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:53:52 PM
Reply

MGS 4 ran at 1024 × 764 and looked great .

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:11:22 AM

what else runs at that res?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:28:55 AM

there are other games that run at sub hd resolutions that turn out to be great looking. MGS4 is technically a sub hd game, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the best looking games for its time

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:00:22 AM

Gran Turismo 5: Prologue and Wipeout HD+Fury both run at 1200x1080p native. Look amazing. But, you're also right, MGS4 looked damn sexy just the way it was. Loved that game.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:32:38 PM

WipeoutHD/Fury runs at 1080p, which is 1920x1080. But Wipeout dynamically alters the resolution it renders at to make sure the frame rate remains locked at 60fps. So it's possible that Wipeout may reduce the resolution during a particularly action packed moment, and then boost it back up as things calm down.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:39:06 PM

It's possible, yes, but it's still one of the handful of PS3 games that run natively @ 1080p. Not to mention that it looks absolutely gorgeous on a HD set.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:00:21 PM

Indeed!

Hey, have you had any freezing with Wipeout Fury? I'm finding that with certain teams on certain tracks I can consistently freeze the game by winning the event with a record time.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:16:41 PM

Hmmm, not that I'm noticing. In fact, I don't think it's locked up on me once w/ Fury. What model are you running? I've got an original CECHA01 60g. What FW are you running as well? I don't think I've bumped up to 2.80 yet.

Also, I've just about finished golding through 'Nuked', so haven't gotten to the point where I'm replaying to smash records. I'll let you know when I reach that point.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:14:44 PM

Mine is an original NTSC 60GB model upgraded to a 250GB disc.

I'll have to check the forums and see if anyone else has had a similar issue.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:20:02 PM

Hmm very strange, well let me know if you recently updated your FW version to 2.80, I'll hold off until I know there's a Wipeout HD patch lol.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:36:01 PM

@Mornelith

As soon as I find out anything concrete about Wipeout Fury and a new patch I'll post a thread in the PS3 forum here at PSX. There has been a patch for Fury, we're currently on 2.01, but that's the version I'm running ans till getting occasional freezing. It seems to specifically affect speed lap sessions.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:01:03 AM

I meant the FW of your PS3. There's a 2.80 patch out now, I believe. I just don't think I've downloaded it yet. But, I'm already running the new patch for Fury, certainly. But thanks for the heads up. Hope you figure it out man.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 11:09:24 AM

Gotcha. I'm running 2.80 FW also.

Seems like the speedlap 'bug' is becoming more well known. I think it may be related to the craft you use. If you use one of the new Fury craft, or any that you've unlocked since buying Fury (or applying the most recent game update), it seems that the game has a problem registering your lap time/record and freezes. If you use one of the original craft and skins, there doesn't seem to be an issue.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 11:30:19 AM

Very interesting, I haven't updated to 2.80 yet, I'll try playing around with the cars for speed laps and seeing if I can/can't recreate the issue. If not, it may be a problem with the firmware. Then I'll try updating the firmware and seeing if that causes the problems to start.

Will let you know.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:55:43 PM
Reply

y is everybody criticising mw2? its got EVERY fps beat this year. ladies and gentleman... this is the game of the year.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 11 down Disagree with this comment

Masterofallz
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:51:31 AM

GOTY? Havent I argued with you before on this?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:53:14 AM

as far as what? Multiplayer? Probably. But it won't stand up to KZ2 in graphics or realism. (See 100point death animations)

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:56:38 AM

i was all about CoD4 until i played Killzone 2.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:13:54 AM

Mmmm..
De ja vu

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ironman505
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:20:20 AM

dear "worldendswithme"

"KZ2 has better "realizm" u said than modern warefare? modern warefare is real day fighting terrorist and wat not. KZ2 is in the future on a different planet where they make blowing guys up fun. oh yeah, KZ2 is deffinetly more realistic then modern warefare.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:28:03 PM

There are far, far too many other games coming out to call MW2 GOTY yet.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:00:03 PM

@ ironman, not situational realism mind you, but instead in the realm of AI and the reaction of a body through which a bullet is passing as well as right down to the realistic and less floaty feeling of your own character.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:46:39 PM

Watch, this year belongs to Nathan Drake.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:42:53 AM

ppl! ppl! ppl! We all know that the game of the year is Halo: Recon.

Ppl?...Where are you going?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:58:06 AM
Reply

resolution doesn't mean anything if the graphics themselves are not good.

for instance, i would rather play MW2 graphics at 600p, 60 frames per second, than play Resistance 2 graphics at 720p 30 frames per second.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:01:20 PM

blasphemy against R2.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/29/2009 2:01:38 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:41:51 PM

its really not, as i own both. you just gotta admit cod 4 looks better.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:29:16 AM

I like R2 more. Maybe you just don't like the art style of R2. Or maybe you're TV's lying to u. ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:43:56 AM

*maybe YOUR TVs lying*

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:05:46 AM
Reply

How is it 1024 x 600? What ratio is it at? 16:9 would be 1066.7 x 600P.

Last edited by fluffer nutter on 7/29/2009 1:06:49 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:57:35 AM

That's a good question. From a scaling point of view, it's easier to scale a 960x540 to 1080p resolution than it is scaling up 1024x600. I'd guess that rendering at 960x540 would be poorly received in the gaming community.

Wanna bet that MW2 runs at this resolution so that they can use the 'free' full frame anti-aliasing provided for in the 360s Xenos daughter-board? With only 10MB of RAM available, that feature is only 'free' up to a certain resolution. Unless my memory and math are bad, 1024x600 just happens to be the maximum resolution that can be used with the 'free' 2xFSAA provided in the Xenos GPU.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:25:05 PM

If you are indeed accurate, then this would be just another "notch" to the "favoring the 360 version" listing. I won't be buying this game but I hope that those that get it do enjoy it. It just amazes me just how many of these FPS are out there. I wonder if they'll just start adding '10, '11, and so on like the sports series.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

phantomMenace
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:09:55 AM
Reply

Honestly I have played Killzone 2 about three times as much and I played both Modern Warfare and World at War combined so I really don't think I'll be getting it. Personally Killzone 2 is a better game and I don't think that this game will be much better than MW. I'll get MAG instead.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:14:07 AM

to be honest, i wasnt to impressed by the graphics MAG pulled out. im a graphics freak and unless they dont polish those graphics i might have to skip this one.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:12:27 AM

@ Ninja, MAG is one instance where the graphics are something I will allow to be a little below epic proportions because the whole point of it is the unprecedented online multiplayer capabilities.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:15:27 AM

Yeah, 256 players whattt?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:17:06 AM

yea you have a point. in terms of creativity, MAG is a game that deserves a lot of respect. which is something this boring economy needs.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

daizycutter
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:37:20 AM
Reply

i dont mind the the low res as long as they amp up the anti-aliasing!!!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:45:14 AM

NO SQUARES!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kreate
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:41:24 AM
Reply

so.... considering the funds, resources, and manpower infinity ward and its publisher has, is it just impossible to make it any higher reso with near 60 fps? or is like one of the psxextreme users said about matching the "lower denominator" deal again? they are compensating to match the 360's hardware.

*idk, and thats why im asking

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SkantDragon
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:46:48 AM
Reply

It's multiplatform. The PS3 version could probably be tweaked for a higher resolution, but they'd never do that. It's gawd awful important to maintain the illusion that the two consoles have identical umph. For who knows why.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Natalisrubbish
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:58:51 AM

It's kept hush hush and "equal," because one corporation simply pays more for advertising than the other. Guess which corporation does that? Thats right.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:02:38 AM

To be honest, you'd see performance increases for both machines, if developement was done separately. This is my biggest concern about console gaming these days. The only real games worth the brand new price tag, are the ones that're created for that console specifically. The multi-platform work, just hasn't gotten to a point where I can justify spending $60 on a game that runs at sub-par levels.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:08:10 PM

if ps3 get higher res, it will get lower fps -___-

MW2 engine is still based on CoD4 engine. an engine originally built for PC.

for taking PS3 multicore CELL power, infinity wards need to creating new engine specially for PS3.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

convergecrew
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:20:56 AM
Reply

It doesnt really matter. Most people wont notice the difference unless they look for it.

Just play the game and enjoy it. Itll look good anyway.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:04:37 PM

lol good point.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:57:03 AM
Reply

while pc games are often better, they get screwed over allot.
games like DMC4 red faction gurilla bionic commando are released months after their console brothers, and are almost exactly the same.
the only 2 PC games i can think of recently that had a upper hand on the consoles is mirrors edge and RFG, wheres all that extra dev time going?
down the drain.
im a idiot, i got cought in the PC gaming thoughts.
spent 3K on building my own PC, if i bought instead would of cost me over 4K from dell.
and theres only 2 games that give me that advantage.
3K for 2 games.
and 50 bucks says all PC titles will be like that till crysis 2 comes out or HL epp3 or RAGE or doom4.
till those come out my pc will be giving me almost exactly what my consoles can.
ohwell at least PC games are free :D

Last edited by ___________ on 7/29/2009 4:59:46 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:04:03 AM

Prototype, World at War, CRysis + Crysis Warhead, but the consoles could never run those anyway. Street Fighter IV, Grand Theft Auto IV. There are plenty out there that are just plain sexier on PC.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:05:55 AM

Yes but the PC also delivers countless games online for you to play, for example, WOW, Runescape, and others, and those games always run better with a juiced up CPU. Trust me.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

JofaMang
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 8:53:55 AM

Over clocking can double the return on your PC investment, and then some. With heavily overclocked triple core AMD CPU and an OC'd AMD 4870 video card, I have a $1200 computer that compares favourably against friends stock 2-3g computers.

But I would OC my toaster, given half the chance, so take it with a grain of salt, heh.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:36:41 AM

weird you spend 3k for a PC.

i just spend about 350USD for a PC.
it have
Radeon HD 4770 512MB GDDR5
AMD Phenom II X 550 then unlocked to 4 Cores ;)
Biostar mainboard
etc etc

it already can run CoD4 all max, 8xAA
in 1440x900 resolution and avg fps i got about 80-100fps (MP)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:49:56 PM

I spent $2300 on mine, but I chose to spend that much because I don't want to have to constantly be upgrading it over the next 2 years. Right now, the biggest bang for my buck is tossing another GTX260 core 216 GPU in for SLI, and if need be, a third for Tri-SLI.

Given that a good chunk of games right now still don't properly utilize dual GPU's anyway, I've got time before it'll be a necessity. Once it is, I can just go overkill and leap to 3. Point being, I won't have to rebuild from the ground up, 2 years from now, simply because software development takes a couple years to utilize newer tech.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

TEG3SH
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:25:37 AM
Reply

yeah??!! i have no idea what does this thing means

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TH3G4MEMASTER
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 6:52:08 AM
Reply

Look who cares???I play PS3 in standard defenition and it looks perfectly fine anyway... there isn't much difference between SD and HD and those adverts on Sky tv in the UK is a total lie just to make people buy Hd tv it costs like an extra 20 pounds for 15 channels a rip off yes Hd is obviuosly better because it's a sharper image that's it . When there are circles in Hd u c like mini squares instead of a clear circle that u c in Sd soooo..... Let's just enjoy the ABSOLOUTLY AMAZING 60 yes 60 frames a second!!!!!!!!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 11 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:01:47 AM

I'll agree the PS3 looks fine on a SD TV. However, the difference between 1080p and 480i/p, are night and day. I cannot disagree with this opinion more. The problem is, pricing. The hardware required to output at those levels, is still quite costly. Not to mention the sound system to compliment the HD video. Also, quite costly. However, Band of Brothers in hi-def, is literally night and day, different than the SD version. I have both SD and BR boxsets, have seen them both.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:08:05 PM

agree with morn, I only recently put a HD into my bedroom where the PS3 was and it was an eye opener let me tell you. I thought it looked great in SD but holy poop it really rocks in full HD.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:41:45 PM

Indeed, and congratz Mike, I'm betting you're enjoying the experience thoroughly.

Another thing to remember Ezio, and it actually supports your statement. Not many (if any), cable, satellite, etc... providers, output at the maximum that a 1080p BR disc will. Most of these providers will use compression to make the files smaller to allow for streaming or quicker downloading. Actually streaming a straight rip from a Blu Ray movie, lossless, would...well, it'd take a long time.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:51:12 AM

Somebody show this man to an optometrist and a blu-ray movie!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Andysw
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:40:01 AM
Reply

In other words, the xbox 360 can't handle 720p because the game used up the 7gb available on the xbox 360's dvd format.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Effi
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:59:30 AM

actually thats not quite right even though i'm a strong ps3 supporter.

i am not going to write an essay about why thats not right but come on ps3s have more REAL good points and doesnt need ANY fabrication to thwart the truth.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:06:45 AM

i agree with you Effi

its not an storage issue but purely because GPU and CPU performance.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

nath08
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:41:41 AM
Reply

hey, i have some un-related Q's and i was hoping you guys wouldnt mind asnwering them for me?

1.whats the highest reseloution on anything?

and 2. what mega-pixel would the human eye be? now i know that a few people might say you cant measure it but... what about around about

and finally Q 3. what storage capacity would the human brain have in giga-bytes or terra-byte ( i think thats the word) or would it be unlimited?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Effi
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:05:10 AM

1.) highest resolution on single panel is around 30(?)mpix. on multiple panels is around 200(?) mpix. i cant rem should google it later

2.) there isnt. dont let others try to convince you there is. if you cant make out the details, use a bino,telescope,hubble or stand closer. there is no resolution. i dont want to not be able to make out a tattoo on Amy's shoulder

3.) im sure highlander can answer that

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:28:11 PM

1. Not sure. That's like asking how long is a piece of string. An answer today, could be out of date by tomorrow. There are quad HD screens now (3840x2160), everything else is multi-panel arrays. NASA has something with a quarter billion pixels, but uses a super computer to drive it...

2. LOL! A biologist would probably point out that it depends on how many rods and cones there are in the retina of a particular eye...

3. Lots.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:44:29 PM

studies have shown that an average human brain can store up to 4 terabytes of storage. yet only the average human only uses 15-20 percent of their memory.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Effi
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:56:42 AM
Reply

60fps makes my motion sickness go away.
thats a fact.

cos we all know when they say 30fps, wat they mean is 20-31fps.

and 20fps is crap. makes me giddy as hell

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:53:27 AM
Reply

i think for FPS that need fast action and so many moving things on screen, 60fps i a good choice.

gamer will get fast response and smoother movements. less motion sick.

but if you feel 600p look blurry, you can just play MW2 on PC.
its multiplatform game so its up to you where you want to play.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Strker777
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:46:53 AM
Reply

@ Nath08
Well, My proffessor at UNC said the Human Brain can hold the max memory imput depending on how big the medulla oblongata and the cerebrium is. So, everybody's max is different. Like einstein, He was so smart that he was dumb. I.E, He couldn't remb the address of his house and his telephone numbers but could rememb complex formulas and equations.

Last edited by Strker777 on 7/29/2009 11:50:15 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 11:52:04 AM

yups, everyone's max is different

btw being so smart but also so dumb, isn't it's called "genius"


and sorry for my bad english

Last edited by orangpelupa on 7/29/2009 11:53:36 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:22:16 PM
Reply

ppl (worldendswithme) are so stupid on this website... play ur little killzone 2 thn. well just wait. november 10, 2009 will be the death of killzone, and any other mediocre shooter out there.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:27:48 PM

What's with the negativity and name calling? I'm just curious because that obviously isn't a productive approach to conversation. If you're egging on for a reaction, then I applaud you for giving me the opportunity to ask you some genuine questions.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:11:20 PM

148 IQ buddy, what's yours?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

mexgeo86
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:52:41 PM

"november 10, 2009 will be the death of killzone, and any other mediocre shooter out there. "

that's a good one. Now tell us one about cowboys and indians.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:21:35 PM

Don't forget the Alamo!

Off topic, Fury Expansion Pack, I lurve ya.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:31:04 PM

I think i may have a contender on the most hated poster on this site :)

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 4:49:26 PM

We get the "ppl on this website are so stupid" comment every once in a while. The person who says it can later be found apologizing his ass off in hopes of gaining his respect back.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 1:25:37 PM
Reply

btw anyone know is MW2 will be V-Locked or not? (Vsync)

from the trailers its look like v-locked but im not sure.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BeezleDrop
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 2:12:50 PM
Reply

Yea -booze- go along with the trend and think the COD franchise is King among shooters, your missing important facts. COD games are in fact fun but they lack a few things, graphics, and animations. The trend following the HUGELY OVERRATED COD franchise is immense but to be under estimated. MW was fun but not that great, KZ2 has unmatched graphics that the COD franchise could only dream of achieving. Respect goes to COD games but KZ2 on so many levels shows COD can only put out similar games over and over and over again every year. KZ2 is a masterful achievement that PS3 owners are excited to experience. So keep your opinion about your inferior COD crap to yourself and show respect to gaming excellence where its deserved you chump!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Strker777
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:14:30 PM
Reply

@ orangpelupa
ur english is perfectly fine.:)

Last edited by Strker777 on 7/29/2009 3:16:58 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xnonsuchx
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 3:56:22 PM
Reply

Isn't 1024x600 'netbook' resolution?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 8:38:57 PM

yups, its the resolution used by many netbook

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 5:15:48 PM
Reply

alienange. as u can tell by my comment, i dnt want anybodys respect. worldendswithme, who cares about ur iq? cuz i dnt. beezledrop, gameplay over graphics buddy, cuz all killzone has is graphics. and mexgeo86, the REAL cowboys were mexican, and indians live in india, not america. tht was boozeys telling it wat it is moment.
"KZ2= overrated"

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 10:08:56 PM

called me stupid, so I had to disabuse you of that notion.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/29/2009 10:09:19 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Juanalf
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:02:51 AM

@WorldEndsWithMe

How the hell did you understand what he wrote.I am puzzle how a literate person can write like that.Any way if you really want to know if KZ2 is overrated(like you claim) you should check out Metacritic or Game Rankings and see scores from people who actually know shit.If the Overall score it's over 75 then is not overrated(It's 91).

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 5:18:12 PM
Reply

THIS will piss a few of u off.... HALO is better thn killzone for christs sake, and MW2 evn beats halo. most hated poster title HERE I COME HAHA

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:58:58 AM

Sounds like an opinion to me. God bless America!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BeezleDrop
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:09:02 PM
Reply

Responding to the very definition of ignorance can be my justification for this one instance, you try and "Piss people off" but all your really doing is making yourself look worse. I don't believe for anyones sake, let alone Christ's. That Halo is better than anything, by now it just seems like an experiment from microsoft and the developers to see how much money they can squeeze from the gaming public, it appears to be a resounding success. You boast gameplay on a game that hasn't been released yet? Classy, MW at first seemed pretty impressive but after awhile it just boiled down to trash talking wanna be tough guys that play none stop and know where to go to pick people off every time in the exact same spot, which gets old. Just like every COD. No one really gives a hoot what you have to say or post your just some annoying person that thinks an overrated fps will be game of the year. If I had a sure choice for game of the year I would choose Uncharted2. I wont defend KZ2 anymore because you obviously have only witnessed sub par action gaming at best, which is MW.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 7:23:15 PM
Reply

nah i own killzone 2. thts sub-par.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Karosso
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 9:20:44 PM

My 8 years old nephew told me he wanted to a brain surgeon because he wants to cure stupid people...
You sir, just earned the right to be his first patient.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Friday, July 31, 2009 @ 11:16:12 AM

LMAO. I just wanted to congratulate you on getting a very loud belly laugh out of me right now. That was great. I still haven't played KZ2 because I suck at FPS but I watch it and am in awe of it. I'm sure I'll break down and get it one day just to see the glory of it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 8:48:34 PM
Reply

@boozebooze,

HALO, KZ, COD.

all of them give different FPS feel.

HALO series -> action on big area
KZ2 -> action on "corridor" area.
Cod4 -> sometome on big area, sometime on small area, sometime on corridor (remember the sniper mission?)

thats on of many reasons why KZ2 graphic look so awesome despite its only running on console (PS3).

but if you want to see real gread visual with big area, try look at Uncharted and the unreleased Uncharted 2.

i think both of them have the best visual.

btw i put "" on "corridor" because i cant find the right english word for what im going to say from my brain. i'm sorry.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:21:21 AM
Reply

imagine Infamous running at higher frames per second like at the first boss battle or when you are by the docks after recovering from dying. that would have been even more awesome than the frames its locked at during normal play.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 6:47:58 AM
Reply

ben,
i think you should not call "PC as a s*** platform".
it make you sound more and more like console fanboy.
and i think that will make the neutrality of this site is questionable.

===

many multiplatform games look better on PC. i think only a few that look worst on pc, like Iron Man.

and pc games also cheap. and usually the mods also give the PC games i buy have more value. by using mods the "old game" feel new again.


and for those that already accustomed to PC visual quality, to see console games visual quality can get irritating.

i myself being PC and console gamer for years, i really dislike the Aliasing and the low res textures on console. low res texture (MGS4 environment, etc etc), also texture with not-smooth transition between near and far (look at the ground on the last remnants, etc etc).

consoles for exclusive games,
PC for multiplatform games and PC exclusive games.

btw my current pc only eat about 350USD, and it already very fast to run games in 1440x900 with 4xAA and anisotropic filter.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 11:15:09 AM

I wouldn't bother even 'trying' to explain it to the man, he is completely wrapped up in his own deluded world.

It's funny though really, because he sounds exactly like the same raving lunatics who've said 'The PS3 is dead', for the past 3 years, that he's been railing against in many of his articles lol. It's so funny seeing the real colors of people sometimes.

Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/30/2009 11:16:24 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 8:21:24 AM
Reply

5.1 surround sound speakers are dirt cheap.
i picked up a set of logitech Z5500 top of the line PC speakers for 400 bucks.
and jesus christ these things will blow a few windows the sub is MASSIVE!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 12:28:21 PM
Reply

PC hardware vs Console hardware.

Specifically with regard to the PS3.

CPU to memory bandwidth on the PS3 is approximately 3-4 times that of a PC, even the new i7 systems using triple channel DDR3 memory.

GPU to system memory bandwidth on the PS3 is several times that of PCs with the exception of a PC with a PCI Express 3.0 x16 or better PCI slot and compliant video card.

The Cell BE is an order of magnitude faster on single precision math than any PC processor currently available, although PC processors have finally begun to catch up on Double precision work. In terms of instructions per second, the Cell has 8 cores running at 3.2GHz and out does all PC CPUs with the exception of the new i7 quad core chips. I'm not sure that the i7 quad can push more instructions, but it's close because each i7 core has multiple execution units, so it can handle more than one instruction per cycle per core.

In terms of memory size, the PC is bound to win since you can upgrade it. The same is true of the GPU/video hardware, again because it's upgradeable.

Other than that the PS3 uses a BD drive which has a greater capacity than the standard DVD drive in a PC, and the PS3 uses 2.5 inch SATA drives, so it can be upgraded within the range of 2.5 inch SATA drives. With USB ports, wired and wireless Ethernet, HDMI, and Bluetooth interfaces, the PS3 has all the interface options required.

The single biggest difference between a PC and PS3 is the size of the RAM, the next biggest differential is the GPU. However I hope it's clear to everyone that with respect to the performance of the device, the three year old PS3 holds up remarkably well against a 'current' PC specification.

Finally, with respect to games, the PS3 is more than capable of handling a keyboard and mouse. There is no real reason why any of the games that a PC has that use keyboard and mouse could not also appear on the PS3.

Other than maximum resolution and a few graphical bells and whistles, there's nothing preventing any game from being implemented on the PS3 or PC. The argument is pretty pointless though. PC gaming is different to console gaming. Part of that difference is the high spending elitism of the PC gaming community and their ever changing gaming rigs, and part of the difference lies in the many budget games targeted at the lowest common denominator of the PC world. The final element that sets PC gaming apart is the rampant piracy of games. Someone mentioned Steam, are they saying that Steam based games are not available for free via torrents? Really? The incentive to make PC games is shrinking as fast as piracy grows. There are only so many people willing to lay down the cost of a PS3 on one or two components for their gaming rig.

We recently saw an article here discussing a single platform for games. I doubt that will ever happen, but people should not discount the benefit of a limited number of gaming platforms. The constantly evolving nature of PCs is a great thing for the hobbyist, but each generation of new hardware brings yet another hardware configuration for Developers to consider.Many current games simply will not play on PCs two or three years old, and it's perfectly possible to buy a brand new, branded PC that is incapable of playing any current game because it's video hardware can't cut it.

That's not something you'll see in the world of game consoles where the platform remains consistent for several years at least. Good grief, PS1 and PS2 have both lasted 10 years without change to the platform.

There's no argument that eventually PCs will exceed all the specs of today's consoles, but that doesn't mean that PC gaming is better, or a healthier industry than console gaming.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bearbobby
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:49:20 PM

It's official, TheHighlander is my favorite comment posting user on this site. Both informative and totally lacking in dickery.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 2:06:26 PM

For the most part you're correct... the Cell Architecture, and XDR Ram the PS3 has, affords it quite a bit of horsepower. However, the disparity between the console version and the PC version is far too telling at the present time. Yes, the _exclusives_ made for the PS3, are quite top tier. An order of magnitude higher in quality than most, if not all MP games. Which is why I own a PS3 and a gaming PC. I am not saying the PS3's games suck, I'm not saying the platform is shit. I'm saying multiplatform developement as a whole is garbage, and favors the PC performance wise, in the end. I'm not just saying it, I'm showing it. Street Fighter IV doesn't run at 65fps, on the PS3, and GTAIV doesn't hit 1080p @ 60fps ever. Both of which, my PC does. Get the point?

I still enjoy SF more on my PS3 though. Just wish it were faster. I had thought that the developers made the game slower, for the entry level players. However, seeing the game run on PC, I understood that they were employing the same tactic that Koei uses in Dynasty Warriors, you know what I'm talking about, there're far too many enemies/troops on-screen so it slows everything down until it becomes less intense.

The problem is, Sony's developement process is so different than PC/360 dev, the 3rd party games will always suffer in quality on the PS3 as a result. Developers have shown they're more in it for the money. What reason do they have to thoroughly optimize for it when all they care about is developement costs? Still, it doesn't matter to me. Sony's 1st party studios are badass, and plentiful. There's always a reason to have a Sony machine.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Friday, July 31, 2009 @ 12:53:26 AM

btw by the time sony can provide good SDK and easy to use API just like what MS done with X360 and DirectX on PC, 3rd party developers can make PS3 games that have great visuals like the 1st party games.

coding for PS3's unique architecture is taking more development time and cost. with great SDK and great API. more 3rd party PS3 games will get great graphic.


=========
btw about PS3's CPU Vs PC,
its hard to compare.

PC's CPU is CISC, so its designed for geenral purpose.
PS3's CPU (same with x360 cpu) is RISC, so its designed for some special processing.

sorry if im wrong, im not really remember about this CISC and RISC thing.

============

as for GPU, ps3's gpu is old in technology but cell can help GPU to process graphic i think.
the SPU's can be coded to process graphic.

argh, if only i can find the link on B3D....

Last edited by orangpelupa on 7/31/2009 12:57:27 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bearbobby
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 1:46:54 PM
Reply

I see where morne's coming from. Yes, the crossplatform games can indeed look smoother on a high end PC. And you can see it in a side by side comparison.

You just have to wait 6-8 months for it to be released on PC before you can make any comparisons.

I hope it looks better if it takes that long to port it over. You've probably had to buy an upgraded video card by then which can easily be the cost of a new console.

But yeah, it'll look better... for that price, I god damn f**kin' hope so!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Juanalf
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 2:58:28 PM

What was it 8-9 months for GTAIV to hit the PC; every console gamer had played it at least 1,000 times before the pc got it(which was played out by that time).Is it really worth it to wait that long just for a sightly better version of a played out game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 8:12:36 PM

Slightly better? The PS3 AND 360, barely touched 720p (if at all), with GTAIV. The view distance, loading times, glitches, pop-ins etc... were non-existant on the PC. It was worth it to me...I mean, I bought the game for the PS3 and the PC, after all.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Friday, July 31, 2009 @ 12:45:26 AM

@bearboy

i think that what make console gamer dislike PC.
they tend to think that in PC you need to spend A LOT of money and need to upgrade VGA card often.

if people stop buying "branded PC" and just buy their own PC with "gaming specification" you can ask on many PC forum, you can get cheap pc (cheaper or the same as console) that can play games for years to come and still look better than any console.

a 350USD PC can run faster than 1000USD PC.
its all depend on the pc specification you built.

PC is just like a gaming console but with too many SKU. confusing buyers.

it even confused me, it took a week for me to do some research what i need to buy with 350USD budget for a pc gaming -___-

luckily there radeon HD 4770 and Phenom II X2 550. damn cheap, and i just unlock all 4 cores >_<

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Friday, July 31, 2009 @ 12:27:25 PM

Indeed Orangepelupa - Most console gamers, hell, it's not fair to even single them out, most people in general, don't realize how much cheaper it is to put together the parts yourself. Granted, it takes a little extra effort, but the money saved is tremendous. Additionally, you don't have the seller, loading your system down with unneeded trial-ware, and other programs you've no interest in. All in all, I haven't purchased a pre-built PC, since I was 17. Best way to shop for a PC, imo.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SILVERAMMO
Thursday, July 30, 2009 @ 3:39:01 PM
Reply

i couldnt even tell the diffrence in cod4

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dveisalive
Friday, July 31, 2009 @ 6:49:27 AM
Reply

So That one dude lied then, cause I could of sworn he said that the game was running at higher resolutions than the previous MW. Just give me 720p please!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

KoldStrejke
Saturday, August 01, 2009 @ 10:21:04 AM
Reply

i am used to seeing 120+ FPS(frames Per Second) on my pc so when i see 30 FPS it seems slow to me and most of these games like dead space, killzone, pirates of the carabian and fear 2 (all on PS3) realy were not running smooth enough. so to my trained eye I know they were dipping below 30. and posably to the realm of 23-28 frames per second.

so if they need it to be at 1024X600 I say, yes realease it at that resolution. its way better then sub 800X600, LOL i will just not pay HD prices for a game thats hyped at HD and not realy 1080p so I will wait as i allways do untill the price drops to 29.99.

Last edited by KoldStrejke on 8/1/2009 10:25:27 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Sunday, August 02, 2009 @ 6:24:40 AM
Reply

Just get the game on PC, and you can play the game in whatever resolution you want! PS3 + PC = THE best gaming combo!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

poboy975
Monday, August 03, 2009 @ 3:33:15 PM
Reply

I gotta put my two cents in. I gotta admit, I own a launch 60G ps3, arcade 360, and several gaming pc's. there are games I love on all three machines. there are pro/cons to everyone. my pc can play some games better than any console, and some on consoles are better than on pc. there are games for pc you cant get on consoles. I do have to say I absolutly love the moddability of pc games. freelancer, sins of a solar empire, homeworld 1 & 2, Morrowind elder scrolls, doom1,2,3 and soon to be 4(hopefully), crysis, and crysis warzone, anno 1404, gothic 1&2...(and even gothic 3 even though it was buggy as crap), , everquest, WoW, Guild Wars, falcon 4.0 allied force, with I have saitek x52 joysticks that you cant get for consoles, there are a lot of really great games for pc that just dont cross over to consoles. but I am pretty upset that devs just dont seem to be making any new great games for pc like they used to. I mean the pc's are still there, the gamers are still there. I play games on whichever machine works best, looks best, or have the games that catches my eye. I originally bought a ps3 specifically just for final fantasy. that is my all time favorite franchise ever. but there are so many games for ps3 now that are truly amazing. but I do tend to split my time between both, with occasionally 360 time thrown in...(halo 3, mass effect, star ocean) to say that pc's are a dying market might be true, but its not because the gamers are not there anymore, its because the devs are not giving us great games anymore. its dying because they (devs)are killing it. I am sometimes disappointed in the ps3...its supposed to be the greatest console ever, and in some ways it is, (and dont get me wrong I absolutely love it) but there are games I can play on pc that do look a lot better.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a timed Xbox exclusive, and...
...I'm so pissed, I can't see straight.
...I'm annoyed, but I can be patient.
...I'm not caring much at all.
...I think it's actually a good thing.

Previous Poll Results