Bad news for PS3 Madden/NCAA

[stepsukie]

http://www.ripten.com/?p=332

30 frames per sec. on PS3 for those games but 60 FPS for the 360.

[dogginbox]

wow what is up w/ ps3?

[slowpokemcgee]

it sucks. Always has always will. So PS3 bitches can groan me if they'd like. Won't change an opinion, just lets me laugh at people stuck playing that stupid console.

[stepsukie]

360 owns

[Darksyde]

PS3 is still my fav over 360......oh well.

[D34dm4n]

are they makin it for the PS2? if they are then thats good enough for me lol.

[BF_in_Indiana]

The PS3 is getting owned by both the Wii and the 360.

It's nice to see Sony finally fall on their faces.

[Carl J. Ironsides]

As a PS3 owner, I don't know what any of this nerdy "frames per second" crap means, but it sounds like some nice douchesauce mixed with lamesauce. I paid $1,000 for a lesser quality, much-ballyhooed system back on eBay in November? Come on!

[Woody]

30 frames is unacceptable on a system like this. I can't believe these games are being released. :niterider

[GrapeDRINK]

I can't believe EA is no longer in bed with Sony.

[dasaybz]

30 frames is unacceptable on a system like this. I can't believe these games are being released. :niterider

Ya, 30 fps pretty much is the lowest possible framerate you can play a game without getting a very jittery system. I can't understand how the PS3 is only 30fps, while the 360 is 60fps. There's got to be something major with the hardware going on that the PS3 can't handle.

[dasaybz]

As a PS3 owner, I don't know what any of this nerdy "frames per second" crap means, but it sounds like some nice douchesauce mixed with lamesauce. I paid $1,000 for a lesser quality, much-ballyhooed system back on eBay in November? Come on!

Dude, it's definitely not douchesauce mixed with lamesauce. It's really something to be concerned with. This doesn't bode will for future games coming out for the PS3. This proves that developers are right now finding ways to max out the abilities of the 360 vs. the PS3.

[pigpen65]

There's got to be something major with the hardware going on that the PS3 can't handle.


It's the programming. Every major game developer is developing games for the 360 and porting them to the PS3. In the future that may change, but it doesn't look good. The year between releases for the two systems hurt PS3 bad. Developers got a jump start developing for the 360 and haven't had to change. Especially since the 360 is easier to program for. The only way to make full use of the PS3's hardware is to natively develop for it. My understanding is that the cause of the year delay in releasing the PS3 vs the 360 was to include bluray. while that may have ended up helping bluray, it's taken a huge chunk out of the gaming segment.


as far as frames per second: more is always better. The reason developers would cap it at 30 is because of "tearing" which is a visible artifact that occurs when the frames per second get out of synch with your monitors refresh rate. Basically, they couldn't get it to run close enough to 60fps on the PS3 consistently enough, so the only way to avoid the artifacts is to cap it at 30 to keep synch. It's not really a bad thing though, as the PS3 is probably capable of running the game much higher than 30 fps, so while capped at 30 it should never dip below 30 either. Meaning it will be completely smooth and artifact free. Just won't ideally look as smooth as the same game running consistently at 60fps. People (the fan boy types) love to make big shit out of stuff like this, but most of the time if you did the pepsi challenge with Madden 08 running at 60 fps next to Maddden 08 running 30fps, most people couldn't tell the difference.

[dasaybz]

It's the programming. Every major game developer is developing games for the 360 and porting them to the PS3. In the future that may change, but it doesn't look good. The year between releases for the two systems hurt PS3 bad. Developers got a jump start developing for the 360 and haven't had to change. Especially since the 360 is easier to program for. The only way to make full use of the PS3's hardware is to natively develop for it. My understanding is that the cause of the year delay in releasing the PS3 vs the 360 was to include bluray. while that may have ended up helping bluray, it's taken a huge chunk out of the gaming segment.


as far as frames per second: more is always better. The reason developers would cap it at 30 is because of "tearing" which is a visible artifact that occurs when the frames per second get out of synch with your monitors refresh rate. Basically, they couldn't get it to run close enough to 60fps on the PS3 consistently enough, so the only way to avoid the artifacts is to cap it at 30 to keep synch. It's not really a bad thing though, as the PS3 is probably capable of running the game much higher than 30 fps, so while capped at 30 it should never dip below 30 either. Meaning it will be completely smooth and artifact free. Just won't ideally look as smooth as the same game running consistently at 60fps. People (the fan boy types) love to make big shit out of stuff like this, but most of the time if you did the pepsi challenge with Madden 08 running at 60 fps next to Maddden 08 running 30fps, most people couldn't tell the difference.

Nice post man.

You are almost as smrt as me am.

:beers:

[dasaybz]

I think Sony made a huge mistake by including the blu ray player on the PS3. They jumped the gun by a couple of years in my opinion. They should have made it an add on like the 360 made the HD DVD player an add on.

I think that developers are also having a hard time utilizing all of the cores in the PS3's CPU. I heard that there's something like 8 cores in the thing.

Anyhow, the 360 has had a huge headstart on the PS3 and I find it is going to be hard for the PS3 to catch up.

[two4trippn]

Can you say Betamax?