Has the PS3 finally caught up to its competition?

[tomster2300]

From the amount of new threads appearing in the Mech's gaming section, it looks like more people are beginning to pick up PS3s (and are asking more questions about them as well). Since I've never played one myself, I'm beginning to wonder what they're like. Do you guys feel they're better than the 360? Have all the initial bugs and issues been worked out finally? Are they worth the purchase? And, would you choose one over Microsoft's creation? I'm not looking for fanboy responses as much as solid comparisons, so please, no flaming.

As for myself, I have a 360 and a Wii, so I probably won't be getting another console anytime soon. When this generation of systems first debuted I chose the 360 due to backwards compatibility and promises of Halo 3 and GTA IV. (The irony of that is I've yet to buy Halo 3 and have played it but once at a LAN party). Throw in the PS3's initial price and the fps issues that plagued the first generation of games (which can even be seen in Madden 08 I've read), I've always felt that I made the right decision in my purchase. Online wise, I've been impressed with xbox live, even though I still feel it's unfortunate to have to pay to play; especially when free is the norm on the pc.

While I still view my 360 as an adequate investment, I'm becoming increasingly curious in Sony's latest offering. So, I open it up to the masses: How do you feel about the Playstation 3?

[Tiretool]

It's come a LONG way since it's debut tomster. The fps issues that you point out were real, but they were so because of the completely new architecture the PS3 brought to bear upon game designers. One of the really big pros that comes with ownership of a PS3 is the fact that you don't have to pay for online play. That was a big contributing factor towards my buying Sony.

As for the graphics... at this moment there are few titles that fully take advantage of the Sony's advanced graphics processing features. In that same breath I will also say that Devil May Cry 4 is one of the most amazing pieces of artwork I've ever seen. I've also played NHL 08 on the XBox 360 and it is stunning. There were times when I had to blink a few times because the game looked so real.

I guess a safe thing to say is that they are both great systems. They both have pros and cons. The future tends to be brighter for the PS3 though...

PS: I'm looking forward to Gran Turismo Prologue. It's supposed to take BIG advantage of what the PS3 offers.

[tomster2300]

I forgot to ask about the blu-ray support. I've heard it's similar to the PS2 when it debuted - it has brand new technology (DVD player), but it's only a half-baked form of it. Basically, the PS3 cannot do blu-ray at 1080p. Is that true?

It's good to hear that the PS3 has indeed come a long way, Tire. (P.S. - Go dawgs!)

[Tiretool]

I've not heard that rumor... my TV isn't 1080p compatible, but Sony's web site states the following about Blu-Ray: "Pristine picture quality with the capability for full high-definition resolution up to1080p".
I do know how some stats can be misleading though... so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it doesn't support that res. I only own one Blu-Ray disk (Spiderman 3) and it looks FANTASTIC at 1080i, so I'm not sure how much better it could possibly look at the "p" level.

Oh yeah... and also.... "sick em' WOOF WOOF WOOF!" I'm looking forward to this football season. UGA's schedule is a real test!

[tomster2300]

Well maybe it is true then. One of my professors made a crack about it the other day, but I guess I need to do my own research on it to find out. I don't have a TV large enough to test it on though unfortunately. I run my 360 on my 19" lcd computer monitor through the vga adapter Microsoft makes. It looks great on here, but I'd love to see my games at 1080i or p (heck I'd just like to see them on anything higher than 1280 x 1024). I know Halo 3 was pretty nice on that 37" Olivia I played it on that one time.

This is what I get for being a broke college student. I need to find a loaded roommate .

[tomster2300]

Anyone else have an opinion on the PS3?

[Jimmy0]

I think it got off to a really slow/bad start, but its 2008 now and blu-ray has won the format war, so it is rolling off the sales from people buying into that. Also some more big Sony exclusives are expected to hit this year, which will also help boost sales. So I can effectively see 2008 being the 'PS3s year'.

Some people have complaints about the online capabilities of the PS3 compared to Live and the services that the 360 offers. Now we all know Home is going to hit later this year, and if this makes a big hit then that will obviously be extremely beneficial for the PS3, because I know a lot of people who go "Well I like to play online, and Live>PSN so I will get a 360", so if Sony can change these people's minds then that will be a good thing.

Also in 2008 we will be seeing more of the big, exclusive games coming out on the PS3, which will only help. (Anyone see the article about there already being 1million pre-orders for GT5P?)

By the way, I don't own a PS3 (or 360 or Wii for that matter), but I will certainly be getting a PS3 later this year, MGS4 being the very latest date I will get one.



P.S. Sorry if there is any grammatical errors/general bad writing in this post, I blame these on me being extremely tired! lol

[tomster2300]

Man I was in the dark about Home. I saw it on the new advertisement video we run in the retail store I work in, but thought it was something like the Sims for the PS3. I asked a fellow co-worker and he thought the same.

If that works out as planned, then it may just challenge 360's achievements. I don't know though, the simplicity of achievements is pretty hard to beat.

On a side note, I'm in a Second Life / virtual worlds class at my University (yeah I'm not joking). and we talk about the social implications of Second Life and its possible uses in the business environment. It's pretty fun in a dorky sort of way .

[juppy]

Originally Posted by tomster2300 Basically, the PS3 cannot do blu-ray at 1080p. Is that true?

What I've heard (or read) about that, and again this could just be rumor, is that the PS3 is supposed to be able to play Blu-Rays at 1080p, DVD's it will upscale to 1080p, but any games will have to be coded to take advantage of the 1080p resolution (in other words, don't get some old early release game and expect it to be capable of playing in 1080p). Again, could just be the version of the rumor that I heard, but that's my 2 cents anyway.

[keith_mahoney]

Originally Posted by juppy What I've heard (or read) about that, and again this could just be rumor, is that the PS3 is supposed to be able to play Blu-Rays at 1080p, DVD's it will upscale to 1080p, but any games will have to be coded to take advantage of the 1080p resolution (in other words, don't get some old early release game and expect it to be capable of playing in 1080p). Again, could just be the version of the rumor that I heard, but that's my 2 cents anyway.

That makes sense since not all 360 games will play at 1080p either. I have a 42" plasma that I play on and it only supports up to 1080i. I leave the 360 set at 720p though because it is a higher frame rate than 1080i and I cannot tell the diffence between 720 and 1080 even though I only sit 4' in fron of the screen. When reclining in my lazy boy my feet are literally only a foot from the screen. 1080p only makes sense on a huge screen like my buddies 55"

[tomster2300]

That makes sense to me too. Are there normally framerate issues on either system when you play in the higher resolutions? I know that's the typical occurrence, but for some reason I was under the naive impression that console games would be coded to somehow escape those problems. You know, since their marketing push is "play in HD"...

[juppy]

Originally Posted by tomster2300 Are there normally framerate issues on either system when you play in the higher resolutions? I know that's the typical occurrence, but for some reason I was under the naive impression that console games would be coded to somehow escape those problems. You know, since their marketing push is "play in HD"...

I would think ANY system would have the possibility of framerate lag. I mean, it all depends on how much the programmers try to push the hardware's capabilities. If they make it where it can easily run in the lower resolution, then the higher res will probably do okay. BUT, if they try to put a lot of fancy additional graphics or other resource-hogging stuff in there, and they optimize it for the lower resolution, then the higher res gamers are likely to see lag and have problems. Basically, they *need* to design it to work at the highest resolution possible and there would not be any problems, but sometimes they write it for whatever the vast majority of users are running at the time, and if that's lower-end to middle-range equipment (or lower res tv's in this case), then the high-end folks might not be happy with the performance on their equipment. At least that's my take on it. As always, I could be wrong.

[Hi Ho]

Originally Posted by tomster2300 That makes sense to me too. Are there normally framerate issues on either system when you play in the higher resolutions? I know that's the typical occurrence, but for some reason I was under the naive impression that console games would be coded to somehow escape those problems. You know, since their marketing push is "play in HD"...

Consoles are just like PCs. You can only add so much eye candy and higher resolution before the frame rates drop. Developers must balance those factors.

From what I've read, Crysis would not run to it's full potential on the PS3 or the 360. It can barely run at decent framerates on the highest settings on the highest end gaming PCs which have already surpassed all of the consoles in terms of processing and graphics power.

[Tiretool]

Oh and just in case anyone was interested... with the latest PS3 system update I found that it does indeed display Blu-Ray disks in 1080p high def.

[keith_mahoney]

Originally Posted by tomster2300 Are there normally framerate issues on either system when you play in the higher resolutions? I know that's the typical occurrence, but for some reason I was under the naive impression that console games would be coded to somehow escape those problems.

Actually that is not what I was getting at. I was refiering to the way your tv processes 720p and 1080i.

With 720p the whole pic is displayed in one pass with 1080i it takes 2 passes each with only half the pixles.

I can not pull up many websites at work but I believe this website, even though I can not see it, gives the best laymans explanation,

http://neopoleon.com/blog/posts/16711.aspx

[Hi Ho]

With 720p the whole pic is displayed in one pass with 1080i it takes 2 passes each with only half the pixles.

All digital displays (LCD, Plasma, DLP...) are natively progressive. ALL interlaced video is first deinterlaced by the displays' processor. Some sets do this better than others but they all do it and it ends up being displayed in one pass.

[keith_mahoney]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho but they all do it and it ends up being displayed in one pass.

I am in no way a professional but I read everything I can before making any purchase and everything I have read leads me to believe this statement is incorrect. If my thinking is wrong please enlighten me. I am not being argumentative, I just want to know.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-5020359-1.html

http://www.canopus.com/canopus/techn...interlaced.php

QUOTE from a long article
Progressive scan differs from interlaced scan in that the image is displayed on a screen by scanning each line (or row of pixels) in a sequential order rather than an alternate order, as is done with interlaced scan. In other words, in progressive scan, the image lines (or pixel rows) are scanned in numerical order (1,2,3) down the screen from top to bottom, instead of in an alternate order (lines or rows 1,3,5, etc... followed by lines or rows 2,4,6). By progressively scanning the image onto a screen every 60th of a second rather than "interlacing" alternate lines every 30th of a second, a smoother, more detailed, image can be produced on the screen that is perfectly suited for viewing fine details, such as text, and is also less susceptible to interlace flicker. The primary intent of progressive scan is to refresh the screen more often.

[Hi Ho]

You are correct when it comes to the differences between progressive and interlaced video. However, digital displays do not display interlaced video.

Back in the days of CRT we watched interlaced video. Virtually all consumer CRT televisions display interlaced video. Some accepted 480p. A CRT can natively display interlaced video but a progressive scan CRT was generally more expensive to produce (CRT computer monitors are progressive scan).

Today we still have both interlaced and progressive video signals and digital displays accept both. They do not, however, display interlaced signals in their native form. The processors in digital displays deinterlace signals before displaying them on the screen. Therefore, displaying them in progressive form.

Wikipedia: Deinterlacing

Deinterlacing can cause all sorts of problems with the image if not done properly and poor deinterlacers are a major contributor to the less than stellar performance of many lower end TVs displaying interlaced video. The progressive scan DVD player craze spawned plenty of players with even worse deinterlacers and many cheap progressive scan players actually make things worse.

[keith_mahoney]

Ok thank you, I was under the ussumption that 720p and 1080 were progressive and 1080i was interlaced. But I never dug deep enoughinto it I guess.

Honestly I can not tell a diffrence on my plasma between 720 and 1080 but have kept it on 720 from what I have read. But honestly everything I have read tells me to use a HDMI cable to hook up my 360 but honestly I like the R-B-G component better for games. I do however like the HDMI for my dvd player.

OP sorry for jacking your post, I got off on a tanget (sp?)

[Hi Ho]

1080i is interlaced. It's simply deinterlaced before being shown on a digital display. 720p and 1080p are both progressive.

If the video processor in your TV is doing it's job well then you should not be able to see much, if any difference between the three.

[tomster2300]

Originally Posted by keith_mahoney OP sorry for jacking your post, I got off on a tanget (sp?)

Not a problem at all. We both learned something new, which makes it even better.

Hi Ho ~ So is there really a visual difference between 1080i and 1080p then?

[Hi Ho]

There can be. It's all in the processing. If a set has a poor deinterlacer but accepts a 1080p signal then the 1080p source will most likely look better. Motion artifacts are less likely with 1080p content; again, because of the lack of deinterlacing. The problem is that so many components interact differently. The only real way to tell is to actually try different components and settings.

[NoName6272]

Something that I've noticed is that several of the xbox games have been going onto the PC,such as Halo 2, gears of war, Lost Planet. (even though most were a year later then the xbox version). If the decent xbox games keep heading over to the PC, even if its 6 to 12 months later, then you can just buy those games for the PC and since (I might be wrong) the 360 controller is USB enabled so you can always use that as a alternative to keyboard.

I for one bought the Wii when it first came out, one because it was innovative, two because it was cheap. Only problem that I've ever had with the Wii was the fact I dislocated my knee, even though I wasn't playing . Long story short, the strap is important especially if there is another person in the room.

I've had great fun with the Wii and several of the games on it and haven't regretted my choice. Though some of the games were short for me (I am one of those guys who can speed through a game) I had gamefly so it was all good. Though online battling for the most part sucks .

Though I would love a 360 or PS3 the price isn't worth it to me currently. Though if I had to choice I would probably go with the PS3 because one, its the future, and two because the 360 games looks like they are going onto the PC.

DMC4 will be on PC sometime June I believe, hopefully Dark Sector will come to the PC and it would just be a crime if Fable 2 didn't end up on the PC. Supposedly Halo 3 will not be for PC, but then again they weren't going to make Halo 4 either and supposedly its already in development. I don't believe there are any PS3 exclusive games going to the PC at the moment.

Just my thoughts on what I've observed.

[nocturnx]

I don't think the PS3 has caught up yet but I'm sure it will eventually. Games on both systems are still selling quite a bit more on the 360. And from the recent ign poll which asked which system you plan on purchasing GTA IV on the trend looks like it will continue, 64% said they would purchase it on the 360. This could be because of the exclusive content the 360 will get.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/863/863431p1.html
I don't think 360 games going to the PC have anything to do with anything, of course the ones you named did because they were published by microsoft. In my opinion the PS3 has not had a single game come out thats made me want to buy one, but the 360 has had a dozen great games. And this is why the PS3 lags in sales, wheres the good exclusive games at? This year the PS3 will finally have a few, but still none that make me want to buy one. I really want to buy one and I probly will soon to use as a blu-ray player even if no games have come out that I want to play on it. The PS3 Blu-ray player is actually one of the best, especially since it is fully updateable.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=185113
XBL is leaps and bounds better than PSN right now. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Ahura]

Not surprise


I personally think 360 with MS is ultra dumb when they charge you access their stupid xBox Live, PS3 does not charge, so PS3 wins there.

[tomster2300]

Originally Posted by Ahura Not surprise I personally think 360 with MS is ultra dumb when they charge you access their stupid xBox Live, PS3 does not charge, so PS3 wins there.

They only charge for playing online with others, which is kind of a pain. It's only $50 a year though (or 13 months if you get the 12+1 months cards), so it's not too bad. If it were a monthly fee I'd say forget it.

[Ahura]

It does not matter how much and how long, they charge and that is stupid.

I don't want to pay for my internet AND THEN pay MS in order to play w/ friends or strangers like me. Unfortunately some people still got their head stuck under the sand to realize how retarded they are being whip.

[Alaron]

But remember the Xbox 360 costs less (even with the $50/year Live subscription) then the PS3 does. So, its more of a tossup there.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by Alaron But remember the Xbox 360 costs less (even with the $50/year Live subscription) then the PS3 does. So, its more of a tossup there.

The PS3 is $399 and comes with a 40GB hard drive, 1 controller with built in rechargable battery, free online play and built in wifi.

The XBOX 360 costs $279 and comes with a built in 512MB Flash Memory drive, 1 controller with a non-rechargable batter pack, no built-in wifi, and costly online play. The wifi for the XBOX 360 costs $129, so does the 20GB Hard Drive, the rechargeable battery pack will also set you back about $20, the online play will cost you about $50/year (depending on where you live) and then it still can't play HD videos using either blu-ray or HD-DVD unless you opt for an external HD-DVD drive which will only work with older HD videos since Blu-ray won the standards war.

[tomster2300]

For $349.99 the xbox 360 comes with a 20 gig hard drive and a wireless controller. The controller recharger cost around $20, and the wifi adapter is only $99 (still steep though).

What stinks is that they did away with the 80 gig PS3. I was told by a co-worker that the current 40 gig PS3's are no longer backwards compatible with PS2 games. Is that right?