Actually, FFXIII is better on the PS3. But yes, generally, PS3 cross platform games are worse. I believe the PS3 version of SSFIV has 2 frame input lag...
Want to take a guess why the 360 version of MW2 always got the Map Packs first?
I just wish they had put their all into the PS3 update... No party and slow/faulty matchmaking = Not much fun.
I must admit, I didn't own MW2 on release, so can't comment on the lobby/party problems that were around then, but it is total BS to say Treyarch are not to blame as they can't copy the MW2 code/protocol. It worked, this doesn't! They could've at least learnt from MW2's mistakes/successes and implemented something similar. Hell, I doubt anything would come of them using the exact same lobby/party system. COD is the brand is it not!? Activision must have the final say, when it comes to governing the two development companies!
Do you not realize that BO was long in development when IW was "fixing" MW2? You act as though BO's development started on the latest and greatest engine used for MW2, when in fact BO's engine is actually a modified World at War engine. The alternating nature of the development of COD means devs CAN'T take advantage of all that came from the last title's engine.
There is still NO excuse for such piss poor multiplayer in the MMOFPS release of the year. Rant over..
..Now, I'm off to join my friends party... DOH! :thumbsdown:
I'm not sure what that has anything to do with the technical inferiority of the ps3 port. The ps3 version of virtually every cross platform game is inferior in some way. Thats what you get when you make a system that's a PITA to program for.
I'm sure they did the best they can, they have no reason to intentionally make it worse. Sorry your ass is bruised about it, but theres no conspiracy here.
If you want to close your eyes and ears to the reasoning behind why the reality is what it is, that's up to you. All I'm doing is explaining to you the fallacies behind your ranting.
You: "Why can't they just do it like MW2?!?!"
Me: "Because of a, b, c, and d"
You: "There's still NO excuse..."
Me: facepalm
Microsoft paid for exclusive rights? Again, nothing to do with morals or bad business strategies. In fact, those are good strategies for MS.
I love how everyone is praising MW2 as if it didn't have its problems. Remember trying to get in a match when the glitched lobbies were around? That was a few weeks of total crap. Remember the infinite ammo glitch? Remember the modded 10th prestige games where kills gave negative 10000000 xp?
It's obvious microsoft paid them...give me a break.
There is no reason why the port of a 9 digit AAA title should be this horribly bad. Ress is 100p lower, framerates have dropped for me as low as 15FPS( I can tell you this from my previous experiences with low end video cards, i can easily tell the framerate at times) and even then, the game doesn't play at a full 60 FPS, on or offline. The saddest thing of all is that no one at 3arch has admitted or wants to take responsibility for the POS of a porting job they did. I don't care how much MS paid them, they have a responsibility to give me a product, if i paid $60 for the PS3 version, i have as much of a right to get the same product that the person buying the 360 version did for $60.
That's an absolutely insane conspiracy theory.
Black ops isn't the first game to run at a lower resolution and frame rate on the ps3, and it won't be the last. Theres a huge host of technical issues as to why this is usually the case, but you're clearly not interested in hearing them. Regardless of which system has more or less brute force, the 360s architecture is far more flexible and conducive to having games that run at a consistent frame rate. There's simply less bottlenecks.
Im personally glad they didn't gimp the 360 version to have the appearance of parity between the two ports. They could easily have gone that route, but when they aim at the lowest common denominator, no one wins.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. When you're dealing with the ps3 only, you can do very nice things. Same with the 360.
When you're dealing with both at the same time, the rigid ps3 architecture is an absolute impediment, especially when you're aiming for a high frame rate. It's not a matter of money, it's s matter of the degree that programmers can bend these maxed out consoles to their will. The 360 is nice and flexible. The ps3 is not. It requires intense effort to get all it's parts working together, and it's not simply a matter of time or money.
/Failed reply
Like I said, you're obviously not interested in the reasons why it is the way it is.
Bad Company 2 was hand-in-hand on both consoles. What do you have to say about that? Maybe the PS3 just sucks?
Bad Company 2 was hand-in-hand on both consoles. What do you have to say about that? Maybe the PS3 just sucks?
MW2 had it's problems, but at least you were able to get into games with your friends. This game has had the lobby/party system issue from the get go and it's still not completely resolved.
Honestly, it's been a little better recently, but it's still not as good as it should be.
Bad Company 2 was hand-in-hand on both consoles. What do you have to say about that? Maybe the PS3 just sucks?
I know what I have to say about that: you're delusional. Bad Company doesn't look nearly as good as MW2 -or- BO, and it runs like shit on both consoles. The only argument you could possibly make is that it ran the "same" on both consoles... "same" meaning "SHIT". 30fps != 60fps
what about the other 90% of multiplatform games that are 'better' on 360 than ps3?
stop cherry picking your argument.
this is probably the only thread on these forums that people were actually responding to you in a normal fashion and you weren't being a douchebag. but now that has changed since your heart has been broken since blops looks better on 360 than ps3.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true, and this is what I've been trying to say: people have VERY quickly forgotten how awful the MW2 launch was. Parties were bugged to hell and back - MUCH WORSE than what we're seeing on either console now. On top of that there were a handful of gameplay glitches that all but ruined multiplayer for the first two months. Again, multiplayer wasn't even functional on the PS3 for the first several days.
Now, two months from now, we'll be able to compare apples to apples. But comparing the launch of BO to the launch of MW2, BO wins all week long and twice on Sunday.
I know what I have to say about that: you're delusional. Bad Company doesn't look nearly as good as MW2 -or- BO, and it runs like shit on both consoles. The only argument you could possibly make is that it ran the "same" on both consoles... "same" meaning "SHIT". 30fps != 60fps
There is now reason for ports to run so poorly, have lower texture depth and have lower framerates. Reason i stick with first party games most of the time, most third party, multi console developers focus on improving the version of the game that shells out the most money. I can name several PS3 games that graphically destroy any 3rd party game you can bring up, as a matter of fact, most(if not all) 3rd party game get smoked by first party games on PS3.
Theoretically, my heart is not broken, i needed something to feed my FPS needs for a little bit, once KZ3 comes out, BO is gone.
Either way, Third party developers aren't having issues porting the games to PS3, they are just too fucking lazy to put in the effort, that is a fact.
BC2 is running better than BO on PS3 right now