Newegg: PS3/360 Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition - $19.99
- Thread starter Kaiser499
- Start date
[quote name='omyard']I didn't do a person head to head, but there isn't anything wrong with the PS3 version. It's not like there is a major difference in graphics. I'd imagine most people playing either game wouldn't notice any difference between the two. There isn't anything wrong with the controls either.
The graphic whoring this generation has to be the thing I hate most about this generation. Last gen there were clear differences between Xbox and PS2 on some games. This gen there are still differences, but they're so minor for the most part. Although I will admit there are some games where they're drastically difference, but for the most part they're not.
People just need to get the game for the system they play the most on and/or gives them more options they'll use (in this case Move support, DLC, LAN/system link co-op, etc...).
Kenshindono, this isn't directed at you, just in case you take it that way.[/QUOTE]
+1
This just remember me gametrailers.com graphics comparison videos between Ps3 and Xbox 360 "differences"... most of them are a total waste of time and full of crap
The graphic whoring this generation has to be the thing I hate most about this generation. Last gen there were clear differences between Xbox and PS2 on some games. This gen there are still differences, but they're so minor for the most part. Although I will admit there are some games where they're drastically difference, but for the most part they're not.
People just need to get the game for the system they play the most on and/or gives them more options they'll use (in this case Move support, DLC, LAN/system link co-op, etc...).
Kenshindono, this isn't directed at you, just in case you take it that way.[/QUOTE]
+1
This just remember me gametrailers.com graphics comparison videos between Ps3 and Xbox 360 "differences"... most of them are a total waste of time and full of crap
but bought the gold version for 
The Holy Pretzle
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='DoubleJG']I've already played through RE5's story and enjoyed it quite a bit. Is purchasing this for the DLC worthwhile?[/QUOTE]
Sort of. If you like RE as a whole and you liked the action in RE, sure. Desperate Escape took me 55 minutes (wasn't even rushing). Lost In Nightmares however took me an hour and 20 minutes. BUT I was playing it like a Resident Evil game and was playing from the classic camera angle (when you examine a certain door 5 times it'll switch) and taking it all real slow.
If you like the Mercenaries mini-game It'd be worth it I'd figure.
Sort of. If you like RE as a whole and you liked the action in RE, sure. Desperate Escape took me 55 minutes (wasn't even rushing). Lost In Nightmares however took me an hour and 20 minutes. BUT I was playing it like a Resident Evil game and was playing from the classic camera angle (when you examine a certain door 5 times it'll switch) and taking it all real slow.
If you like the Mercenaries mini-game It'd be worth it I'd figure.
Kenshindono
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='omyard']I didn't do a person head to head, but there isn't anything wrong with the PS3 version. It's not like there is a major difference in graphics. I'd imagine most people playing either game wouldn't notice any difference between the two. There isn't anything wrong with the controls either.
The graphic whoring this generation has to be the thing I hate most about this generation. Last gen there were clear differences between Xbox and PS2 on some games. This gen there are still differences, but they're so minor for the most part. Although I will admit there are some games where they're drastically difference, but for the most part they're not.
People just need to get the game for the system they play the most on and/or gives them more options they'll use (in this case Move support, DLC, LAN/system link co-op, etc...).
[/QUOTE]
While i agree that a lot of the times the graphical differences are minor, thats not always the case.. ever see Bayonetta on the PS3? YUCK. Still, if all other are equal, yet one version looks slightly to moderately better, why not get the better version? I do agree with you that the other factors are the most important though. Graphics only come into play if all the other features are equal, IMO. Unless the graphical problems are severe or impact gameplay, then they should be considered higher priority.
[quote name='Rodster']Is the screen tearing bad? Are the 2 versions close graphics wise or is the gap HUGE?[/QUOTE]
From what i've seen the screen tearing is minor. Im a stickler for screen tearing, it bugs the crap outa me and gives me a headache, but for the 360 version it seems to be most prominent in cut scenes, not really durring gameplay. I think its a better trade off than the dropped frames you see in the PS3 version, which actually DOES impact game-play. So visually i would say the differences are low to moderate, the biggest issue would probably be the PS3's frame rate
Look here:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article
2nd video on that page shows the the most noticeable graphic difference to me. THe way the AA just goes on and off on the PS3 version Look at the roof and palmtrees and stuff for the PS3 version. Pretty ugly looking. 360 version has a neat algorithm that lets it scale back the AA instead of just turning it off.
and if you want to see a performance comparison
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article?page=2
The top video there. You can clearly see that the PS3 versions framerate dips quite a bit while the 360 is locked in at 30fps. The aiming and panning is much smoother on the 360 version. Thats something that actually impacts the gameplay and is an issue for me. I really wish i could have gotten the 360 version, but the DLC thing is a deal breaker for me
[quote name='FerDK']+1
This just remember me gametrailers.com graphics comparison videos between Ps3 and Xbox 360 "differences"... most of them are a total waste of time and full of crap[/QUOTE]
Ya, a lot of US review sites cant seem to compare graphics for crap, or there usually isn't enough of a difference to bother. For some reason the UK ones go into more depth and give you real technical stats and explinations. I would think anyone could clearly see the differences with the links i posted. If you dont see the AA issues on the roof and stuff in that first vid, or how much smoother the gameplay in the 360 video looks in the 2nd video compared to the way the PS3 version drops frames, then I dont know what to tell you. That said, the AA issues are something you probalby wont notice in the heat of combat, and aren't really a huge deal. The frame drops though effect gameplay and aiming and are more of a problem.
In the end though, i personally bought 2 ps3 versions. The 360 is technically superior in pretty much every way other than some minor screen tearing, but the fact that they screw you with a DLC code instead of a physical copy of the game is a deal breaker for me. As some of you have mentioned, graphics aren't everything. I just wish it didn't have the lame frame rate drops =( And that it did system link co-op. I'm assuming I can just play online though with 2 systems in the same house.. at least im hoping so?
The graphic whoring this generation has to be the thing I hate most about this generation. Last gen there were clear differences between Xbox and PS2 on some games. This gen there are still differences, but they're so minor for the most part. Although I will admit there are some games where they're drastically difference, but for the most part they're not.
People just need to get the game for the system they play the most on and/or gives them more options they'll use (in this case Move support, DLC, LAN/system link co-op, etc...).
[/QUOTE]
While i agree that a lot of the times the graphical differences are minor, thats not always the case.. ever see Bayonetta on the PS3? YUCK. Still, if all other are equal, yet one version looks slightly to moderately better, why not get the better version? I do agree with you that the other factors are the most important though. Graphics only come into play if all the other features are equal, IMO. Unless the graphical problems are severe or impact gameplay, then they should be considered higher priority.
[quote name='Rodster']Is the screen tearing bad? Are the 2 versions close graphics wise or is the gap HUGE?[/QUOTE]
From what i've seen the screen tearing is minor. Im a stickler for screen tearing, it bugs the crap outa me and gives me a headache, but for the 360 version it seems to be most prominent in cut scenes, not really durring gameplay. I think its a better trade off than the dropped frames you see in the PS3 version, which actually DOES impact game-play. So visually i would say the differences are low to moderate, the biggest issue would probably be the PS3's frame rate
Look here:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article
2nd video on that page shows the the most noticeable graphic difference to me. THe way the AA just goes on and off on the PS3 version Look at the roof and palmtrees and stuff for the PS3 version. Pretty ugly looking. 360 version has a neat algorithm that lets it scale back the AA instead of just turning it off.
and if you want to see a performance comparison
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article?page=2
The top video there. You can clearly see that the PS3 versions framerate dips quite a bit while the 360 is locked in at 30fps. The aiming and panning is much smoother on the 360 version. Thats something that actually impacts the gameplay and is an issue for me. I really wish i could have gotten the 360 version, but the DLC thing is a deal breaker for me
[quote name='FerDK']+1
This just remember me gametrailers.com graphics comparison videos between Ps3 and Xbox 360 "differences"... most of them are a total waste of time and full of crap
[/QUOTE]Ya, a lot of US review sites cant seem to compare graphics for crap, or there usually isn't enough of a difference to bother. For some reason the UK ones go into more depth and give you real technical stats and explinations. I would think anyone could clearly see the differences with the links i posted. If you dont see the AA issues on the roof and stuff in that first vid, or how much smoother the gameplay in the 360 video looks in the 2nd video compared to the way the PS3 version drops frames, then I dont know what to tell you. That said, the AA issues are something you probalby wont notice in the heat of combat, and aren't really a huge deal. The frame drops though effect gameplay and aiming and are more of a problem.
In the end though, i personally bought 2 ps3 versions. The 360 is technically superior in pretty much every way other than some minor screen tearing, but the fact that they screw you with a DLC code instead of a physical copy of the game is a deal breaker for me. As some of you have mentioned, graphics aren't everything. I just wish it didn't have the lame frame rate drops =( And that it did system link co-op. I'm assuming I can just play online though with 2 systems in the same house.. at least im hoping so?
Ive got the pc version and the ps3 version (got the gold one later on because the dlc was never going to come out for the pc)
I have played through it several times. It plays just fine on ps3 and it looks fine too. I dont have an xbox 360 to compare it to, but you should have no reservations about how it looks or plays on ps3 imo.
I have played through it several times. It plays just fine on ps3 and it looks fine too. I dont have an xbox 360 to compare it to, but you should have no reservations about how it looks or plays on ps3 imo.
Thanks for those comparison videos. Tbh I saw very little to no stuttering on the PS3 and I was looking for it. I saw when the FPS dropped to around 28 FPS. It still wasn't bad. The 360 version does look slightly crisper with better AA applied to it but honestly I think both will look pretty jaggy when you put it on anything higher than a 40" display.
And yes having to be online in order to play the DLC is bullshit.
And yes having to be online in order to play the DLC is bullshit.
o
skateraXVIII
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 78 (100%)
Freaking DHL shipping sucks. I just got the game in the mail after getting home and saw that the package had been stuffed into my mail box instead of dropped off at my door.
I had bought a case fan for my computer along with RE5 on the same order so they had stuffed both the fan and the game into one big bubble mailer. The bubble mailer was crinkled to hell and when I tore it open, the case fan box was somewhat dented. Good news is that RE5 looks to be in good condition... haven't actually taken the shrink wrap off the game though to check it out.
Edit: Took shrink-wrap off the game opened the case and the disc was rolling around inside the case (the disc hadn't been on the spindle holder in the middle of the case).
I had bought a case fan for my computer along with RE5 on the same order so they had stuffed both the fan and the game into one big bubble mailer. The bubble mailer was crinkled to hell and when I tore it open, the case fan box was somewhat dented. Good news is that RE5 looks to be in good condition... haven't actually taken the shrink wrap off the game though to check it out.
Edit: Took shrink-wrap off the game opened the case and the disc was rolling around inside the case (the disc hadn't been on the spindle holder in the middle of the case).
giantqtipz
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Idk why. But I'm playing RE4 HD and I prefer it over RE5 by a mile.
youngavatar
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
I got my copy today...to bad i'm not going to play it since gears 3 keeping me busy.
falcinator
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Gotenks']Did anyone else's RE5 come shrinkedwrapped from newegg? (PS3 version)[/QUOTE]
Just got my PS3 copy today, and it's shrink-wrapped too. Seems a manufacturer job, not a junky Gamestop hack type.
Just got my PS3 copy today, and it's shrink-wrapped too. Seems a manufacturer job, not a junky Gamestop hack type.
[quote name='falcinator']Just got my PS3 copy today, and it's shrink-wrapped too. Seems a manufacturer job, not a junky Gamestop hack type.[/QUOTE]
Right, for anyone who is wondering about the shrink wrap, it is the manufacturer shrink wrap and not a newegg job. They are all new copies, its just been that way for a few months now concerning RE5 Gold. Ive seen them in targets, walmarts, etc with the same shrink wrap job.
So no worries!
Right, for anyone who is wondering about the shrink wrap, it is the manufacturer shrink wrap and not a newegg job. They are all new copies, its just been that way for a few months now concerning RE5 Gold. Ive seen them in targets, walmarts, etc with the same shrink wrap job.
So no worries!
Kenshindono
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
you guys SURE thats a manufacturer shrink job? It looks pretty cheap.. though i havent known newegg to do crap like that.
My main thing is: isn't the gold edition supposed to have a sliip cover? Im almost positive the 360 version had one, though im not sure about the ps3 version. Theres no slip cover with these.. was i just wrong or did they have a slip cover in the past? I feel like i got screwed
My main thing is: isn't the gold edition supposed to have a sliip cover? Im almost positive the 360 version had one, though im not sure about the ps3 version. Theres no slip cover with these.. was i just wrong or did they have a slip cover in the past? I feel like i got screwed
ragingst0rm6
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 94 (100%)
[quote name='Kenshindono']you guys SURE thats a manufacturer shrink job? It looks pretty cheap.. though i havent known newegg to do crap like that.
My main thing is: isn't the gold edition supposed to have a sliip cover? Im almost positive the 360 version had one, though im not sure about the ps3 version. Theres no slip cover with these.. was i just wrong or did they have a slip cover in the past? I feel like i got screwed[/QUOTE]
I can verify that the
version did have a slipcover in the past. It was gold-covered with Chris and Jill(?) on the front cover. The gold-color an unfortunate tendency to come off and reveal a silver base when peeling off annoying stickers.
EDIT: just to be clear, I did not order one from newegg on this particular deal.
My main thing is: isn't the gold edition supposed to have a sliip cover? Im almost positive the 360 version had one, though im not sure about the ps3 version. Theres no slip cover with these.. was i just wrong or did they have a slip cover in the past? I feel like i got screwed[/QUOTE]
I can verify that the
version did have a slipcover in the past. It was gold-covered with Chris and Jill(?) on the front cover. The gold-color an unfortunate tendency to come off and reveal a silver base when peeling off annoying stickers. EDIT: just to be clear, I did not order one from newegg on this particular deal.
Kenshindono
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
ya i thought so.. so what the hell. Did we all get some used shit resealed?
Alien Spider
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kenshindono']My main thing is: isn't the gold edition supposed to have a sliip cover? Im almost positive the 360 version had one, though im not sure about the ps3 version. Theres no slip cover with these.. was i just wrong or did they have a slip cover in the past? I feel like i got screwed[/QUOTE]
I remember seeing the Xbox 360 Gold version in stores, all the copies I've seen had slip covers.
I remember seeing the Xbox 360 Gold version in stores, all the copies I've seen had slip covers.
Thrinn
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kenshindono']ya i thought so.. so what the hell. Did we all get some used shit resealed?[/QUOTE]
It's highly doubtful. Companies typically forgo the use of slip covers later in a product's life as a cost-cutting measure. If you still see a copy on store shelves with the gold cover, it's likely that it's been sitting there for a while.
The type of wrapping usually depends on what manufacturing plant the disc was produced at. Shrink-wrapping could also be another means to keep costs low.
It's highly doubtful. Companies typically forgo the use of slip covers later in a product's life as a cost-cutting measure. If you still see a copy on store shelves with the gold cover, it's likely that it's been sitting there for a while.
The type of wrapping usually depends on what manufacturing plant the disc was produced at. Shrink-wrapping could also be another means to keep costs low.
Kenshindono
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
hmmm so its a safe bet newegg isn't shipping us some used copies?
Did anyone get a copy from them with a slipcover or was it all just shrinkwrapped with no cover or y-fold?
Maybe i can swap these out with one from target or walmart or something. I just feel leery, thinking we got some used junk or something.
Did anyone get a copy from them with a slipcover or was it all just shrinkwrapped with no cover or y-fold?
Maybe i can swap these out with one from target or walmart or something. I just feel leery, thinking we got some used junk or something.
chimpmeister
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
[quote name='Curlis']Yea I bought the 360 version a year ago at walmart and it has a gold slip cover[/QUOTE]
Same here, bought mine on BF in 2010 at BB for $19.99, including gold slipcover.
Same here, bought mine on BF in 2010 at BB for $19.99, including gold slipcover.
Kenshindono
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
anyone know any stores i can try to swap these out with? I tried Target and Walmart but no dice.. i was thinking MAYBE fry's but thats a bit of a drive for me. Dunno if BB still carries these
Im assuming these are probably ok, but it just seems shady to me and id rather have a 'real' version. It sounds like EVERYONE got a shrinkwrapped, non y fold, non slip cover version
Im assuming these are probably ok, but it just seems shady to me and id rather have a 'real' version. It sounds like EVERYONE got a shrinkwrapped, non y fold, non slip cover version
third party vendors (that newegg buys from) will frequently out unneeded extras (to decrease overall weight/packing size.)
or the game had multiple print runs. happens all the time, exact packing materials change with later print runs (different type of shrinkwrap, different colored CD inserts for multiple disc games, different types of plastic cases used.) it's all about what's available and what's cheapest.
or the game had multiple print runs. happens all the time, exact packing materials change with later print runs (different type of shrinkwrap, different colored CD inserts for multiple disc games, different types of plastic cases used.) it's all about what's available and what's cheapest.
snatcher33
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
My 360 copy I got from this deal had a slip cover....
Thrinn
CAGiversary!
I stopped down at my local Best Buy yesterday. They had a couple new copies of RE5 Gold for the PS3 on the shelves: no cardboard sleeves and shrink wrapped. The vast majority of the games in their used-game section had the y-fold wrapping. Using the type of wrapping as an indication to whether a game is used or not seems questionable when it comes to buying games from repeatable retailers.
?
.......
Guest
For the ultra obsessive, the PS3 version actually had two different slip covers - one normal cover and another cover with the rather-annoying PS3 Move logo covering a portion of the box art. Personally though I could care less about slip covers and would rather just get the better deal. Some retailers also dispose of slip covers in order to fit the cases into security devices or later prints of the games get rid of them. If you're wondering if the game is used, just open it and check for yourself.
bread's done