The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
A friend of mine went to Bethedesa(sp), and played the PS3 version of Oblivion. He said it ran VERY well on PS3. I'm not a fan of open-ended western RPGs, so I'll pass, but its good to see a developer try to do a port correctly on PS3 (instead of doing a crappy job, like EA).
[quote name='TimPV3']Sony has had the most reliable console this generation. The 360 was
ed out of the gate, even worse than the PS2's DRE, hell, Microsoft knew the problem was so horrible they had to refund all the repair money for consoles made before January 1st 06, then extended the warranty to a year. Not to mention the fact that it gets hot, and is loud as . My PS3 never makes a sound, and besides reading about a few problems with disc drives, there have been no widespread problems whatsoever.
Even the Wii has had numerous issues, crapping out from firmware updates, DOA, and the same disc loading problems as some of the PS3's. This generation is very different. I won't bother mentioning the strap issue, as that's not completely Nintendo's fault.[/QUOTE]QFT. Almost everyone I know (loyal and non-loyal) MS supporter had their 360 break on them (I sure did). Its definitely the worst piece of hardware I ever encountered (I thought the fat PS2 wasn't too good of hardware, until I bought a 360).
People tell me Nintendo has the best quality, yet I hear about many Wii problems (no where near as bad as 360 though) and DS problems (like the hinges breaking easily).
[quote name='dpatel']The PS2 was a significantly weaker console, so it didn't matter how much they optimized it for the system, it was going to turn out worse.
With the PS3 and 360, its a bit different. The general consensus is that both consoles are pretty much equal with the PS3 excelling in some areas, and the 360 excelling in others. Neither is a clear cut 'more powerful' console. Because of this, the ports COULD be about equal to their original (or sometimes better), but it will depend on the developers. All PS3 launch ports look worse than their 360 counterparts because developers were rushing these ports out for launch, and didn't bother to improve them. Sure you could say that 'X' amount of months extra, but that is assuming the PS3 port began the same day the 360 version did. And the actual porting of the game isn't an easy process either. It's not like the PS3 version starts out where the 360 version left off. They have to optimize it for the PS3. So, in the end, if developers take the time with ports, they can look comparable or better, but it depends on if they want to devote the tiem and effort to do so.[/QUOTE]PS2 was stronger than Dreamcast, yet many Dreamcast ports came out terrible on PS2, like Grandia II. Xbox was stronger hardware than PS2, yet some games that were ported to Xbox from PS2, had issues (like MGS2 Substance with slowdown, all the Dynasty Warrior games ported to Xbox, etc.).
[quote name='TimPV3']Sony has had the most reliable console this generation. The 360 was
ed out of the gate, even worse than the PS2's DRE, hell, Microsoft knew the problem was so horrible they had to refund all the repair money for consoles made before January 1st 06, then extended the warranty to a year. Not to mention the fact that it gets hot, and is loud as . My PS3 never makes a sound, and besides reading about a few problems with disc drives, there have been no widespread problems whatsoever.Even the Wii has had numerous issues, crapping out from firmware updates, DOA, and the same disc loading problems as some of the PS3's. This generation is very different. I won't bother mentioning the strap issue, as that's not completely Nintendo's fault.[/QUOTE]QFT. Almost everyone I know (loyal and non-loyal) MS supporter had their 360 break on them (I sure did). Its definitely the worst piece of hardware I ever encountered (I thought the fat PS2 wasn't too good of hardware, until I bought a 360).
People tell me Nintendo has the best quality, yet I hear about many Wii problems (no where near as bad as 360 though) and DS problems (like the hinges breaking easily).
[quote name='dpatel']The PS2 was a significantly weaker console, so it didn't matter how much they optimized it for the system, it was going to turn out worse.
With the PS3 and 360, its a bit different. The general consensus is that both consoles are pretty much equal with the PS3 excelling in some areas, and the 360 excelling in others. Neither is a clear cut 'more powerful' console. Because of this, the ports COULD be about equal to their original (or sometimes better), but it will depend on the developers. All PS3 launch ports look worse than their 360 counterparts because developers were rushing these ports out for launch, and didn't bother to improve them. Sure you could say that 'X' amount of months extra, but that is assuming the PS3 port began the same day the 360 version did. And the actual porting of the game isn't an easy process either. It's not like the PS3 version starts out where the 360 version left off. They have to optimize it for the PS3. So, in the end, if developers take the time with ports, they can look comparable or better, but it depends on if they want to devote the tiem and effort to do so.[/QUOTE]PS2 was stronger than Dreamcast, yet many Dreamcast ports came out terrible on PS2, like Grandia II. Xbox was stronger hardware than PS2, yet some games that were ported to Xbox from PS2, had issues (like MGS2 Substance with slowdown, all the Dynasty Warrior games ported to Xbox, etc.).
