Oh, sorry, I didn't realise two wrongs made a right. You don't have to stoop down to that level *regardless*. And certainly, a terrible port has some minor framerate issues and generally looks a bit rubbish, but to paint that as the norm is far from the truth. On the vast majority of titles the difference is barely noticeable, and certainly nowhere near major enough to be a deciding factor. And this is coming from me, I'm about as pro awesome-graphics as you get.

Edit: And yes, there's a filter on the word fanboy, for good reason, it's incredibly overused and only ever used as an insult.

Well when one disregards rational discussion it is often necessary to talk to them "in their own language". I'm not sure having half the average framerate, increased screen tearing, lower res textures, and increased load times is just a "minor" issue (yes, I completely took the word minor out of context). Also, I didn't paint it as the norm. Firstly, in a prior post I started with the disclaimer that "when a difference is suggested" (or something to that effect) the 360 version was considered superior. I did not mention level of notice-ability beyond Bayonetta, just the fact that a difference existed. Neither did I say anything along the lines of "it should be a deciding factor". I was not trying to sell any consoles, that was "what's his face Sony guy". I was merely pointing out that the PS3's development structure was difficult and thus negatively affected the majority of multi-platform games brought to it. Would you disagree with that statement?

No, I wouldn't, but I would disagree with any significance placed upon it. With the obvious exception of outliers like Beyonetta, the differences tend to be incredibly minor and in no way worth [censored]ing about. Certainly not something you're going to notice unless you're directly comparing screenshots.

Yes, but I was not trying to reference degree in the discussion, just existence. The OPs question referenced multiplatform games and subsequent posts references differences between the two. I only intended to point out what difference existed, why it existed, and what it meant for Skyrim. Sadly, one antagonistic cave dweller wished to express the belief that this was a fabrication and I don't take kindly to people who lie and disregard factual evidence so the thread descended into a petty console war. If you read back on my posts you'll find that although I correctly portrayed the differences between 360 and PS3 in terms of difficulty of development and comparative quality of multi-platform gaming I still conceded that the PS3 was in the end the superior console (mostly due to disk format).

The PS3 version should be fine although I'll need to see it action before I fully commit to it not having issues.

Which is what I was trying to say before this thread was being overrun by Xbox really devoted fans ( <- I typed that no need to censor) but this guy shows up saying that the Xbox is far superior in all multiplatform games and it isn't the truth... should I sit back and let him gloat in his own small world?

I have said over and over again that I have both and can't see the difference between 99 percent of the games I play on both so I know for a fact it isn't true IMO, this guy spins off a couple of suspect links and whammo demands everyone to stand up and say the PS3 is inferior! He doesn't even have a PS3 has never owned one probably never even played one but that doesn't matter he knows best!

Its like saying that GM is better than Honda, GM owners will swear to their deathbeds that GM's are the worlds best car and likewise with Honda owners, but until you try the opposition you have a very limitied view of the world.

To that 'other guy' I actually was a PC gamer and when I bought my 52 inch Sony Bravia I got a PS3 free in a Sony Promotion, TBH I haven't really touched my Xbox since, I do everything through my PS3, play MP3's, watch Blu-Ray movies in 1080p, even set it up with a free program Sony offers with pictures of my little girl, it really is a multimedia centre whereas the Xbox is just made for games and I have to pay to use their network. I only really play exclusive games on it now and get the rest for the PS3. For you to stoop to a new low saying 'Mommy bought both for me' shows your lack of intelligence and maturity I am afraid, what is next, Mum insults? Did I really insult your beloved Xbox that much that it hurt? Maybe you should go and give it a hug better?

Can't get over how passionate Xbox owners are..... at any rate I will go and get a Asus G73 gaming laptop soon which will blow your Xbox's apart in every respect Once again for those who do not read my posts, BOTH are great systems and BOTH look great, Crytek have shown what both the Xbox and PS3 are capable of with Crysis 2 which for the record, numerous sites like IGN have reviewed and stated that both the Xbox and PS3 look pretty much identical and run the same as well with the exception that the PC version was a bit sharper (naturally).

i never had any problems with the framerate in oblivion on the ps3, i played it on both the 360 and ps3 and it played and looked better on the ps3, the lighting and textures were the main things that looked better. and on the ps3 thier was almost no glitching or freezing, on the 360 this happend to me alot. but the ps3 version was a ported version that bethesda had plenty of time to work on. so sony may have made it difficlut to develope games on the ps3, but the payoff is well worth the extra effort.

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

hmmm....I feel I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Xbox 360 being better than the PS3...And that statement is coming from an "X"- Xbox 360 f.a.n.b.o.y.!!! in 3 years time I got the red ring of death on 4 out of 5 consoles :brokencomputer: that I owned and my fifth was starting to crash every now and then before I traded it in to Gamestop :whistling: ( NO MY CONSOLES WERE NOT SITTING ON TOP OF A HEATER :swear: !!! )! lets see there's no Blu-ray player, up until the new console version that just came out there was no built in WiFi, and lets not forget that you have to pay an additional what $50-$60/year to play online...PS3= blu-ray player, free gaming online, built in WiFi from the start and most importantly NO RED RING OF DEATH!!! Now is the xbox easier to program games for...probably...but I don't think that would be the best reason to own an Xbox let alone say that it's a better console than the PS3!

:flamethrower: XBOX360

To debase myself with some horrible internet vernacular: epic, epic fail.

This thread is destined to fail.

Both consoles are exactly the same the only difference one has more CPU the other has better SPU in the end they are pretty much the same damn thing saying x console is superior to other console is very laughable because the difference between the two do not effect a game thats noticeable such Console vs PC at the most if you really wanted to say which one is the worst by the slightest it would the 360 but thats also including that M$ charges you for internet that you already are paying for..

With that said. OP you won't have to worry about Framerate if Beth does its job appropriately since consoles games these days rarely get above 25fps on both consoles if your not use to a PC game at 50FPS or more you won't notice any change at all.

This turns more and MORE into a console war.

OBLIVION RUNS FINE ON MY PS3 except for the vampire glitch and that's GOTY only

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

I thought this forum was above going into console wars whenever people ask this question...
OT: I hope not, and last I checked NV(not Beth. but still) was equally buggy on both systems.

The game's going tu run fine on both consoles, no need to worry. If you want absolute graphical fidelity, go for the PC version and the costs that come with it. The PS3 tends to get the short end of the stick when it comes to multiplatform for the same reason it has the most gorgeous exclusive titles: More complex engineering. One can't win them all, really. Since the game's apparently being built from the ground-up on the 360, with a significant amount of released content running on said console, I'd expect it to perform better. If it REALLY annoys anyone, take a break every thirty minutes to play Uncharted 2(or 3, it's coming out soon) to feel better.

Enjoy the game, be happy about your console of choice and take it easy.

the xbox 360 is the lead platform because its the most popular (taken from the sales of all the platforms, 360 versions of games usually sell the most)

I don't know. I'm hoping that the two will be close to equal, but past experience says otherwise. But, the real question is: will PS3 owners have to wait a year for DLC?

I have both consoles, but I only use my PS3. I do think both versions will perform the same, but unfortunately, I do think the 360 will get the DLC first. We won't have to wait a year for it to come to the ps3 though. It will be a gap similar to NV.

It sells more because first off all the 360 released a whole year ahead of the ps3, and because the system was cheaper to buy( because the parts were cheaper to manufacture). where as sony had to sell the ps3 at a high cost ( and they still lost a [censored] load of money because the cell processor initially costed quite a bit of money to manufacture) so of course the 360 has more sales. but bethesda is good at what they do and will make both versions equally good.

Try reading the post you quoted. At no point did I say "The Xbox is just a plain better console". I said that it is better to program for, a sentiment you echoed. So you AREN'T disagreeing with me and your post is irrelevant :facepalm:

Never said that, only said that when a difference was stated generally the 360 version was the superior one. Not to say "OH WOW! WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE". Just that there IS a difference and it IS visible. On some cases, such as Bayonetta, the difference is large enough that reviewers actually suggested people buy the 360 version. These cases were not common, but they existed. Instead of agreeing and saying "Yes, there is a difference but it isn't a huge issue" you said "No, there is no difference" or that you couldn't 'see' one 'in your experience (i.e. no experience) and that if there hypothetically was a difference it was because the developers were lazy



First you say you can't see the difference between the games you play on both then admit you don't BUY games for both, just exclusives for the 360. You can't even keep your lies straight. Also I hardly consider a 1up review with a side-by-side video, an interview with one of the most highly respected programmers in the industry (read: likely more respected for his programming ability than any individual programmer at Bethesda, which is in no way an insult), and a website that has side-by-side comparisons of dozens of games with frame rate numbers and screen tear numbers as well as mouseover texture comparisons to be suspect.

Bottom line: PS3 is more difficult to code for. In general, when a difference exists between multiplatform games the 360 version is marginally superior (often not noticeable unless side-by-side, sometimes noticeable regardless). If a multiplatform game ends up worse on the PS3 it is not because a developer is lazy, it is because the PS3 is more difficult and time consuming to program for.

Meaning, while children are starving in Uganda, you idiots are spending your entire day warring over who's console is better. Seriously, Please continue, my good sir. and do something else.

A mod should close this.