Source (gamepro.com) (http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/features/164668.shtml)

Rather than copy/paste the entire 4 page article, I'll let you go read it if you want... bottom line, they compare Assassin's Creed, Burnout Paradise, COD4, and DMC4 for the Xbox 360 and PS3. In their opinion, the PS3 version bested the Xbox 360 in three out of four of those games... I'll leave it to you to read and see which one they think is better on the 360. ;)

BTW, in case it's not clear from the thread title... this is their article, I'm just the messenger....

OMG!!!!! PS3 botz!!!!! Someone call the haxorz!!!

Seriously though, the review stated that the PS3 edged out their 360 counterpart in 2 of the 4 games by employing a SUPERIOR (?) online functionality compare to the XBL, and in the other 2 games by having a relatively superior controller scheme advantage. But in terms of overall graphical prowess, the 360 is equal and only better in one game, AS.

"Watches as the poop flinging begins anew from 70% of the 360 owning, PS3 bashing forumites as he reclines back into his sofa playing PC games."

But what do i know, i'm just another tard from the oudated Jurassic Era of PC gaming :confused:

To me, the fact that this is even something people are willing to discuss/debate marks a milestone. A year ago there no way anyone would claim a multiplatform title might be better on the PS3. Even if his "3 out of 4" value is completely wrong, the fact that this is happening is proof that things are improving which is MUCH more important than any journalistic spooge from GamePro... :D

Hmmmm... Did you find this article before or after making the new subforum, Rothbart :p?

But the article's not that big of a deal imo, the differences were usually minor. As long as one console doesn't stand out significantly, it really doesn't matter.

Hmmmm... Did you find this article before or after making the new subforum, Rothbart :p?

After. This forum has needed creation for quite some time... there are many misplaced threads buried out in the other forums...

I didn't even read the article since the title doesn't make any sense to me since 2 of the games used came out months ago. Lost Planet and Turok are recently released games yet both run pretty bad on PS3(IGN gave the PS3 version of Lost Planet a 5.5) and turok got a lower score for PS3 as well. I don't see why CoD 4 and Assassins Creed were used instead of these recent games. Sounds to me like they were just trying to use games that support there point. Even the Orange box is more recent than Call of Duty 4 and Assassins Creed yet they didn't use that game either. I wonder why...

I didn't even read the article

you SHOULD have stopped right there... but to make a counterpoint to your "lost planet" and "turok" theory, how many people do you think play(ed) those, compared to assasin's creed and COD4?

i think they are much more worth mentioning than lost planet and turok...

*Reads Sinfulate's comment of derision...and Ala Douche's tasteful retort..*

Let the mayhem commence!!

Let the mayhem commence!!

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/Mission20Accomplished202.jpg

Hahaha... you should've posted the picture where Dubya is posing for that infamous Mission Accomplished banner on the deck of that Aircraft carrier after claiming victory against the 'terrorists' in Iraq.

Hahaha... you should've posted the picture where Dubya is posing for that infamous Mission Accomplished banner on the deck of that Aircraft carrier after claiming victory against the 'terrorists' in Iraq.

I have that one, but I came across this one sooner in my PhotoBucket list... the W one is many, many pages in... write it off to laziness! :D

I didn't even read the article since the title doesn't make any sense to me since 2 of the games used came out months ago. Lost Planet and Turok are recently released games yet both run pretty bad on PS3(IGN gave the PS3 version of Lost Planet a 5.5) and turok got a lower score for PS3 as well. I don't see why CoD 4 and Assassins Creed were used instead of these recent games. Sounds to me like they were just trying to use games that support there point. Even the Orange box is more recent than Call of Duty 4 and Assassins Creed yet they didn't use that game either. I wonder why...

And yet when you have games like the ones mentioned in the article, it is now clearly the developer's fault as to why the game isn't that good. 4 companies have proven that it can be done. The other ones just need to get off their lazy asses and do some actual work...

And btw, Lost planet got a 5.8 from IGN for the PC review. Now If developers aren't even bright enough to port a game from the 360 to the PC (Which I've been told is rather easy due to the similarities) then I highly doubt that they could port it to the PS3 properly...

And apparently the same people who did DMC4 didn't even touch the PS3 version of LP...

also as far as lost planet goes, metacritic has it at a 7.9 for 360, a 7.0 for PS3, and a 6.6 for PC.

i would imagine it's so much higher on 360 because it came out so early in it's lifespan. coming out now on PC and PS3, of course a port is going to get a lower score, it's been out on 360 for over a year! it would have had to be REALLY spiced up in order to keep a similar score.

Was that article actually made by someone who prefered sony by any chance?

I don't understand how they can say a game is better because of the controls.. I think its simpler with the 360 controller as I find sixaxis really really awkward to use.

I also loved reading the comments on that article, brilliant! :p

Personally I don't really agree with the cod4. I realize burnout is better on the ps3 cause that what criterion does,PS3 was the lead SKU when making the game, and as for DMC4 i don't know it was probably better on the ps3.

I agree that assassins creed is better on he 360 doe to ps3 glitches. but cod4 is better on he 360 because of its control and community.

But what do i know, i'm just another tard from the oudated Jurassic Era of PC gaming :confused:

I dont call a survivor and carrier of the ancinet ways, retarded. :D

Personally I don't really agree with the cod4. I realize burnout is better on the ps3 cause that what criterion does,PS3 was the lead SKU when making the game, and as for DMC4 i don't know it was probably better on the ps3.

I agree that assassins creed is better on he 360 doe to ps3 glitches. but cod4 is better on he 360 because of its control and community.

what are you talking about? the controls are the same, they have the exact same control scheme, they have the exact same amount of buttons all in the same order, you my friend have been smoking a bit too much on the crack pipe. Also Community = what? Xbox Live? Thats a valid argument for it being better on the 360? So i could say, its better on the PS3 as i dont have to pay for playing it online, or anything for that matter.

Oh and Assassins Creed was glitchy for about a week because Ubisoft is ****ing lazy and couldn't be bothered to get off their fat asses and code it properly. When i got the game it ran perfectly, i had no glitches, no crashes...went to a mates house to go see assassins creed before i got it..guess what, froze and crashed on his 360..Wow, no one would have thought it

you SHOULD have stopped right there... but to make a counterpoint to your "lost planet" and "turok" theory, how many people do you think play(ed) those, compared to assassin's creed and COD4?

i think they are much more worth mentioning than lost planet and turok...I didn't have time to read the whole article because I was on campus and had a class at 5:45 but the article says : "GamePro examines four recent multi-platform titles to determine which console has the better games--PS3 or Xbox 360. What we discovered challenges the common wisdom that "Xbox 360 is better." Read on!". What does the amount of people playing the game have to do with anything? The article even says this is "suppose" to prove which console has better multiplatform games. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer knew as he was writing this that he had to make the PS3 come out on top because that would bring in the most traffic so he chose his games accordingly. Gamers would be surprised at what alot of gaming magazines/sites do just to attract more people to there site or magazine.



Oh and Assassins Creed was glitchy for about a week because Ubisoft is ****ing lazy and couldn't be bothered to get off their fat asses and code it properly.*sigh* not even necessary. I have so much respect for developers as they have to put up with nonsense comments like these. Show some respect or go make a game yourself.

*sigh* not even necessary. I have so much respect for developers as they have to put up with nonsense comments like these. Show some respect or go make a game yourself.

Between terrible PC ports, being notorious for their use of Starforge in PC titles, and the amount of raw crap they have put on the Wii, Ubisoft has lost alot of respect from me too, to be honest.

Well, in my personal dealings with Gamepro, I've noticed that they seem to give the bias to Sony, at least, from what I've seen. I'm going to stay skeptical. I believe that they stated that the PS2 was more powerful than the Xbox 1, back in the day, and I've been wary ever since.

*sigh* not even necessary. I have so much respect for developers as they have to put up with nonsense comments like these. Show some respect or go make a game yourself.

you know, thats the funny thing, because thats what i am doing, im doing a computer games tech course at university, so i know whats entailed idiot, as i have helped in the making of one for one of my modules.

Between terrible PC ports, being notorious for their use of Starforce in PC titles, and the amount of raw crap they have put on the Wii, Ubisoft has lost alot of respect from me too, to be honest.

There we go! I just couldn't resist, sorry!

But back to the topic at hand, yeah.. Ubi really screwed the PC pooch many times over with their PC ports. They employed an extremely malicious disc protection system called Starforce which bar none, is the worse ever invented. It practically destroyed many peoples DVD ROM drives. Its a good thing that they've abandoned it after their consumers told them to take it off.. Their optimisation record for games since the debacle known as RB6V is horrible...

Well, in my personal dealings with Gamepro, I've noticed that they seem to give the bias to Sony, at least, from what I've seen.

well that's not necessarily a bad thing, since virtually everything else gives bias to the 360. i'm not a regular reader of GP, so i can't say for certain, but unless it's blindly following a platform like a zombie, i don't mind them showing the gaming world more about a system that not many other magazines are.

Good point. The thing is, this bias has been there since the Playstation 1 came out, and they were there to gush over it. It's just always chapped my a$$ that they put Sony consoles on a pedestal.

Why does it always have to be extremes with gamers? So Sony's multiplatform games are starting to get the edge on the 360, isn't that a good thing? I don't even own a PS3 and I think it's wonderful that straight-PS3 owners are finally starting to feel the love - they deserve it after the crappy year Sony's had. Does that mean the complete and utter downfall of Microsoft Game Studios and the Xbox brand? Of course not - they're here to stay at least for one more console generation.

Microsoft has always had the bias because they simply had the better games for longer than Sony (in this generation, of course). Everyone is talking about the 360 because the big-name games are on 360, and everyone has one. This is the year Sony will get their legs beneath them. Developers are more familiar with the hardware, so multiplatform games will no longer be the atrocities that EA released near launch. That does not mean, however, that the 360 titles, multiplatform or not, are going to become steaming piles. They may not be as good as the PS3's, but from everything I know about the console (and Bluray), the PS3 is slightly superior in terms of hardware and disc size - plus, it has a guaranteed Hard Drive.

This is good, for PS3 owners, and for Gamers all around. If you think this is a bad thing, you might want to check your priorities.

I agree with anamathias. I also wanted to share this tidbit from an article (http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/NEWS/NEWS/tabid/1482/Default.aspx?CID=7cb53aa9-31a9-4168-b4cf-a215d010d711) I just read about the upcoming Bourne Conspiracy game:

Well the bravery of local distributor Vivendi, and representatives from developer High Moon Studios, says a lot: they literally stood the two versions of the game side-by-side and let us play them both.

Our verdict?

Maybe the Xbox 360 version looked a little crisper, and was slightly less jaggy. Maybe. They were that comparable it was hard to tell. Frame-rates: fine. Controls: fine (except for that little rumble, or lack thereof, problem).


So yeah, the big news… there is no news. Which is a good thing. PS3 and X360 version of The Bourne Conspiracy are on track to be identical. About bloody time, no?

Why does it always have to be extremes with gamers? So Sony's multiplatform games are starting to get the edge on the 360, isn't that a good thing? I don't even own a PS3 and I think it's wonderful that straight-PS3 owners are finally starting to feel the love - they deserve it after the crappy year Sony's had. Does that mean the complete and utter downfall of Microsoft Game Studios and the Xbox brand? Of course not - they're here to stay at least for one more console generation.

Microsoft has always had the bias because they simply had the better games for longer than Sony (in this generation, of course). Everyone is talking about the 360 because the big-name games are on 360, and everyone has one. This is the year Sony will get their legs beneath them. Developers are more familiar with the hardware, so multiplatform games will no longer be the atrocities that EA released near launch. That does not mean, however, that the 360 titles, multiplatform or not, are going to become steaming piles. They may not be as good as the PS3's, but from everything I know about the console (and Bluray), the PS3 is slightly superior in terms of hardware and disc size - plus, it has a guaranteed Hard Drive.

This is good, for PS3 owners, and for Gamers all around. If you think this is a bad thing, you might want to check your priorities.

fantastic post! and refreshing to see from a non-PS3 owner!