Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas Review

M

mrf088

Noob
Jul 31, 2006
3
0
Why would a port from 360 look worse on ps3 unless ps3 has inferior graphics capability?

I'm sick of hearing these ps3 fanboys talk about how it would be better if a game was build "from the ground up" for ps3, i dont think you have any idea what you're talking about.
 
I

Ironjake

Noob
Feb 24, 2006
1,817
0
Its not that the ps3 has inferior system specs, graphics wise. The ps3 overall is undoubtably the more powerful system, in all raw aspects (i own a 360). However, the ease that developers have when developing for the 360 makes it easier with 99% of all ported games to look better on the 360. R6V is a great example, but also look at F.E.A.R. as well, and other ports.
 
C

charlieeDeath

Noob
Feb 3, 2005
99
0
Yes that is very true, the ps3 is harder to develop for and also developershave had problems using the playstation network but hey its early days. And to mrf088 I'm just saying because the ps3 has more power than the 360 it means more could have been done to make the games look and play better but I'm thinking that the developers would rather make the multiformat games as similar as they can to make them easier to create and to avoid arguements like these lol.
 
L

lp47

Noob
Aug 26, 2006
50
0
Alright, alright. Sure the 360 version may look a little nicer. Thats because Ubisoft spent a year making it on a 360 and had time to figure the hardware out. They ported the 360 version over to ps3 thats why it may not look as good. Porting from 360 to ps3 is never that great. If you built a game form the ground up for ps3 then you see some good graphics and youll see better games then the 360. For instance, Resistance, Ninga Gaiden, Motorstorm built for the ps3 and look really good. Look at HAZE its PS3 excluive and it looks way better than any 360 game. COming from Ubisoft Haze is a dam good product. Do you want to now why HAZE looks awesome because it was made ground up for the PS3 and the PS3 is the lead project. So shut the hell up about 360 multi games are better than ps3. Just because its harder to port doesnt mean 360 better. PS3 has many good and upcomign games that are ll built just for the ps3 and thats where you will see the best graphics. What out 360 you rin for a hell of a fight.
 
I

IsmaalM15

Noob
Oct 1, 2006
13
0
It only got a lower score because it's the same game...not because they liked the 360 version more. I mean it would be the other way around if the PS3 version came out first. Really its just a matter of repitition...not presentation. Besides the only difference is that the PS3 version graphics seems more...defined than 360
 
L

legacyAccount

Old Account
Nov 10, 2011
4,466,398
1,693
hey IsmaalM15, were you reading the same review? They said specifically that the visuals on the PS3 fall short of the Xbox 360 version, more specifically textures and bloom lighting. I've played both games on two different monitors at the same time and tried to do a comparison of the two, and yeah the Xbox 360 version is sharper and overall more detailed than the PS3 version. Granted i'm not sure what you mean by more "defined"...now yeah it was developed on the 360 first and naturally it was tweaked for that. The PS3 version is simply a port, add the fact that it's harder to develop for, it makes sense why it's not up to par with the 360's version.
 
O

oweni9

Noob
Sep 2, 2006
3,325
0
guys can we stop with all this comparing of the consoles. there will be no end because these are all opinions and people never run out of them.
 
C

charandray

Noob
Apr 25, 2006
34
0
this game absolutely sucks for ps3. i just picked up ps3 version cause i liked the 360 verion which i had and traded for this piece of shit. i wanted something to play on my ps3. again 360 blows ps3 out of the water with graphics.im so stupid i accually did the same with call of duty 3. from now on if a game comes for both systems xbox all the way. man this game looks so blurry on hdtv this game is an ambarresment to sony. looks so detailed on 360.
 
W

wannaply1233

12/4/12
Sep 23, 2006
12,650
2,227
charandray said:
this game absolutely sucks for ps3. i just picked up ps3 version cause i liked the 360 verion which i had and traded for this piece of shit. i wanted something to play on my ps3. again 360 blows ps3 out of the water with graphics.im so stupid i accually did the same with call of duty 3. from now on if a game comes for both systems xbox all the way. man this game looks so blurry on hdtv this game is an ambarresment to sony. looks so detailed on 360.
Click to expand...
Okay you fanboy noob, you can get banned for not editting your profanity.
 
P

PS3_fannyboy

Noob
Jul 19, 2007
91
0
Well, I for one won't be losing any sleep over the fact that this port isn't quite as polished as its 360 predecessor. I don't think Killzone 2 would even be able to run on a 360 and although the Lair engine would apparently just about function the developers said that they'd only be able to fit two levels onto an xbox disc due to the high amount of detail lavished on everything. I think 1st party games are the way forward for Sony due to the complexity of the cell. I was gonna buy this game without question but may now rent it first. If it runs off the Sony servers then that alone will make up for the slight discrepancy in graphics. For me the most important thing is actually being able to play the game without people dropping out. It doesn't matter how pretty the game looks if most of your time is spent in the lobby waiting for more players cos everybody dropped out!
 
P

PS3_fannyboy

Noob
Jul 19, 2007
91
0
...and all this rubbish about 3 gpu's making the 360 graphically superior. This questionable statement is the oiled razorblade onto which the mass of drowning 360 fanboys desperately grasp. The Cell is a revolutionary new concept and so it is ridiculous to compare its specs with the more traditional Xeon used in the 360. It's like saying that the N64 is more powerful than a PowerPC because it is 64 bits rather than 32. Or like saying that the PS2 is more powerful than the PS3 because the former is 128 bit and the latter 64. You get my point! It has been recently been announced that the PS3 will be equivalent or slightly more powerful than the new "Dual Quad" pc's which are coming out. The 360 however is already lagging behind current pc's in the graphics dept. I'm not being a fanboy (well not intentionally) but these Microsoft babies really get my goat. I actually owned a 360 once - or to be factually correct I owned three. Problem was that they then kept repeatedly owning themselves and the red lights popped up time after time. When I was faced with the option of paying to have a fourth refurb I thought "not a chance" and I px/ed it for a PS3. I say let the graphics do the talking. True, the PS3 slightly underperforms with many of the 12-month-old ports that were initially developed for the 360. Look at Killzone 2 though and the other first-party games. These kick the sh1t outta anything on the 360 visually and no xbox owners talk about these (I wonder why). Halo 3 has so far drastically underwhelmed me and is certainly no competition for Haze IMO. A topical comparison would be to see whether Haze gets as good a review on 360 as it does on PS3 when it comes to xbox next century. GOW does indeed look pretty sweet but it has already been stated that the PS3 runs the Unreal engine better. I know these are only unproven statements but so is this bull about the 360 being more powerful due to its 3 gpu's. Sorry about the rant but I know these MS fanboys love it really.


 
M

Mariachi37

Noob
Nov 27, 2001
3,155
0
PS3_fannyboy said:
...and all this rubbish about 3 gpu's making the 360 graphically superior. This questionable statement is the oiled razorblade onto which the mass of drowning 360 fanboys desperately grasp. The Cell is a revolutionary new concept and so it is ridiculous to compare its specs with the more traditional Xeon used in the 360. It's like saying that the N64 is more powerful than a PowerPC because it is 64 bits rather than 32. Or like saying that the PS2 is more powerful than the PS3 because the former is 128 bit and the latter 64. You get my point! It has been recently been announced that the PS3 will be equivalent or slightly more powerful than the new "Dual Quad" pc's which are coming out. The 360 however is already lagging behind current pc's in the graphics dept. I'm not being a fanboy (well not intentionally) but these Microsoft babies really get my goat. I actually owned a 360 once - or to be factually correct I owned three. Problem was that they then kept repeatedly owning themselves and the red lights popped up time after time. When I was faced with the option of paying to have a fourth refurb I thought "not a chance" and I px/ed it for a PS3. I say let the graphics do the talking. True, the PS3 slightly underperforms with many of the 12-month-old ports that were initially developed for the 360. Look at Killzone 2 though and the other first-party games. These kick the sh1t outta anything on the 360 visually and no xbox owners talk about these (I wonder why). Halo 3 has so far drastically underwhelmed me and is certainly no competition for Haze IMO. A topical comparison would be to see whether Haze gets as good a review on 360 as it does on PS3 when it comes to xbox next century. GOW does indeed look pretty sweet but it has already been stated that the PS3 runs the Unreal engine better. I know these are only unproven statements but so is this bull about the 360 being more powerful due to its 3 gpu's. Sorry about the rant but I know these MS fanboys love it really.
Click to expand...

1) The 360 has one GPU not 3 GPU's. And it uses a three-core CPU setup(6 threads) simular to the Cell's CPU.(# of threads wise)

2) R6:Vegas uses the UE, so this is alone shows why the 360 runs the UE better.(so far, at least)

3) The reason why the ports don't look as good on the PS3 is simple: Sony choose to split it's 512MB of Ram into 2 banks of 256MB, which means it's less versital then the 360's unified 51MB of Ram. So if a game is graphically heavy(is..UE games) then the developer must use the CPU Ram for more GPU Ram, and in doing so, the game will have frame rate problems.

And that's if the graphics remain in tact, because for many ports(COD3, SC:DA, R6..ect) the texture quality takes a hit when ported to the PS3.

4)I have a PS3 and the Elite360, and i can assure you there is no magical way the PS3 will run Killzone 2 visually more impressive then the best looking FPS's on the 360. It just won't happen.

5)The PS3 has the added capacity of Blu-Ray, but it's bottleneck is it's internal Ram. And no magical dust will change this.

6)No console is perfect this generation, but the 360 is the most well rounded of the three in terms of performance. It's CPU/GPU/Ram/speed of storage..ect, has less bottlenecks then the PS3.

Again rememeber, i own a PS3(which i have not used since Dec 06'), and it not easy to admit a $1000 purchase was a mistake, but so far it has been.

I'm only keeping this PS3 for the exclusives and as a BR player.
 
P

PS3_fannyboy

Noob
Jul 19, 2007
91
0
This reminds of the situation with the gamecube and the original xbox. The gamecube was ergonomically designed and well-optimized to maximize the potential of its rather more limited power - like the 360. The original xbox was more akin to how the PS3 is now - lots of brute power but quite hard to program for. We may have seen a few shoddy ports but wait until they start to release stuff like Lair. Apparently they would only be able to get two levels on the 360!
 
T

TheArmouredMarch

Noob
Jul 24, 2007
6
0
breaking away for the moment from the ps3 over 360 discussion.

I have a serious gripe with the content of this game in terms of the weaponry. Ubisoft tends to pride itself with giving the best realistic interpritation of modern sp. forces/counter terrorist units. Well i gotta say they are failing.
Take for example the assualt rifles. with the exception of the Ak47 and H&K G3KA there should be no difference between range and damage because they use the same 5.56 x 45mm NATO round. the same charge behind the bullet so the same effective range and damage. There should be differences in accurucy at range due to barrel length which would probably put the bullpup(famas type) rifles infront.
This is all quite annoying to a nerd like me and i think is incredibly lazy on the part of reserch for the ubisoft team.

Another problem. The weapons in the game themselves. The XM8 and SCAR assualt rifles are weapons that have not entered frontline service and in honesty probably wont either. USSOC doesnt seem to think the benefits are substantial over the current generation M4 platform. There are no M4 rifles in this game, which by in large is the preferred weapon of most Spec op. CT units. Navy Seals/SAS/Delta etc. The only ones that are truly representitive of current units are the 552 and G36C(replacing the mp5), These are in use in the states and europe heavily and including most british counter terrorist units too.
I could go on forever with the other weapons, (what force nowadays uses a MAC11!! or a raging bull!) if your not bored to death already. Im not saying its not fun to have these other weapons included, because it is. but its just they missed the actual ones in use for the most part!

I just think it sucks that if a game is supposed to represent current and future short term weapons then it should. I am not impressed. also weapon custization is a joke in this game. you could easily fit at least 2 accesories onto most of the rifles/smgs's not just one.

rant done.

call of duty 4. hurry up please!
 
T

TheArmouredMarch

Noob
Jul 24, 2007
6
0
back to the ps3/360 battle...

aside from the technical aspects i admit i love my ps3 and although its centrainly not even firing on half its cylinders yet its future looks very very strong.

This is the 360's last year to have anything to shout about. and im sure most owners know that really, so please give up the hate. you fought well, but broke down too much. its over.
 
T

The_Yeti

Noob
Sep 11, 2003
23
0
One thing to note that wasn't mentioned in the review is that the PS3 version has PhysX which I don't believe is in the 360 version. Just something to think about.
 
D

dandan3000

Noob
May 27, 2007
24
0
Any intelligent gamer would tell you that as far as power of graphics and look of games that Xbox 360 and Ps3 are about the same. But as we all know graphics dont make the game.Shit according to Wii sales apparently graphics dont count for shit.

The difference though really lies in online support and bluray. Do you like to play online/ or you want fancy gadgets.I hear you cannot even listen to your own music while playing your ps3. or you have to quit your game to private chat. Not so cool when you pay for the "Best" and most "advanced" machine.

my honest opinion since the ps3 lacks titles, developers think a ps3 owner will buy he newest game available. Since the ps3 market has a big need for games, and time=money, the software company will make more money releasing a buggy/or graphically inferior game.
 
E

EBOYZ-X

Noob
Apr 20, 2005
13
0
dandan, come this fall, the PS3 will most definitely not be in any lack of titles. It's looking to put the 360 to shame, actually...
 
L

legacyAccount

Old Account
Nov 10, 2011
4,466,398
1,693
mmm I like the ps3 as a blu-ray player , and also cause i wanna play MGS!! (I havent even played MGS3!! shit!! [face_cry] ...but for now on I alrefy hav a blu-ray player , so the only thing that makes me want the ps3 is the mgs , oh and...I dont really like aaaany of the ps3 games...xD I dunno , they're sooooo frikin unrealistic!!! geez!!, (some of them I'm not saying all) , also the ps3 games cost way more than the 360's games , and they look nearly the same (yeah I admit ps3 look slightly better due to HDMI)

another decisive point is the xbox live , PS network its just a kid in dippers nowadays compared to xbox live, but...well yeah its free , but I think 360 has an overall better online gaming than ANY of the other consoles, also u would nedd to pay for the mic in ps3 version xD.

aaaalso If u want RV6 for ps3 and alredy have one for 360 DONT buy another , the ps3 version is full of..."annoying glitches" (like having ur character to be erased and loose all ur exp points(usually happens when u're a captain).

I'm just saying that I do like ps3 buuuut i feel that if I buy it, it will be shelved for months and I will nearly never touch it , since I'm gonna be playing 360 xD
 
B

brugalNrubberz

Noob
Aug 14, 2007
2
0
I have an Xbox 360 and all my friends that had either Wii or PS got a 360 b/c they thought it was better.... its not IGN's fault they are rating 360 games higher than PS3....it has to do with the developers like for instance Madden NFL 08 which was just released today got a better rating for 360.....and i wondered also why is it PS3 is getting crapped on again? Then i read that Madden on 360 runs at 60 FPS....while PS3 runs at 30FPS....ohh i forgot to mention...i heard it lags alot during online play especially when trying to hit stick a RB or whoever....The point of this post is....There is a reason for everything that occurs in life, and there you have it.
 
P

PS3_fannyboy

Noob
Jul 19, 2007
91
0
Mariachi37 said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have a PS3 and the Elite360, and i can assure you there is no magical way the PS3 will run Killzone 2 visually more impressive than the best looking FPS's on the 360. It just won't happen."
----------------------------------------------------------------------




IGN said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"While not featuring as much normal mapping in pro-pixel leatherization diffusion as Gears of War, it bests it in many other ways. For one, there's more polygonal detail in, well, everything. Soldiers' faces looked unbelievable and buildings are lined with stuff. While there aren't as many effects going on as we've seen in some UE3 games, there's unmistakably more detail to everything.

The lighting is also smoother. While UE3 games like Gears boast realtime lighting for everything, Killzone 2's lighting scheme mixes realtime and pre-canned lighting for an extremely smooth and, frankly, extremely impressive lighting model. I will personally say that I can't remember seeing a more impressive lighting model than this. More realistic? Maybe. But more impressive? No."
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Sooooooooooooo, it looks like what just wouldn't happen did just happen!

 
T

traxxadeth

Dealer Of Deth
Jun 29, 2007
173
6
I bought this game when it came out on the 360 and have loved it. So when it came out for the PS3 I decided I would pick it up (thinking that it would be better than the 360 version). I'm sorry but it's not even close to being as good as the 360 version. If you own both systems and already have the 360 version, don't waste your money. Also in almost every online R6V match that I've played in, more than half of the people don't even have a mic. For those of you that don't have a 360, do yourself a favor and buy one now because you are truly missing out on the best gaming system by far.
 
I

itchy1977

Noob
Aug 21, 2007
1
0
I bought this for the PS3 last week. So very dissapointed. Graphics, blurry until I changed the HD res to 720p and messed around with the contrast - even then only average graphics - then i have to change it all back for other games!!

The game - single player boring and uneventful. Completed it very quickly. Online - rubbish. Call of Duty 3 is back in the Machine now. Awesome multiplayer on COD3! I'll be trading in Rainbow for COD4 when it comes out.

What a complete waste of my time and money.
 
X

XxSocom_GoddessxX

Noob
Dec 13, 2007
1
0
well I bought this game for my boyfriend and we were both very dissapointed we have an HD tv and the graphics look like ps2 game play not to bad in the ten minute's he played it gonna trade it in call of duty 4 is way way better.
 
P

Phantom25_95

Noob
Mar 11, 2008
6
0
Why the f*** do the 360 versions of games always get higher ratings then the PS3 versions , honestly , I bet you can adjust the ligthing to make it better if that's how you would rather have it .

IGN is so biased
 
R

R3ponator

Noob
May 17, 2008
2
0
IGN is so wrong about the xbox360's graphics being better i mean the xbox characters look like they are made of playdough and all the war games on the 360 are colourfull and all happy looking wars arent supposed to be bright and colourfull
 
V

venom27c

Noob
Nov 12, 2006
1,179
0
all the war games on the 360 are colourfull and all happy looking wars arent supposed to be bright and colourfull
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just like GoW and CoD4, right?
 
F

faulkstation

Noob
Feb 8, 2008
100
0
i dont know why everyones rating this game cause i thought it was rubbish and yeah the graphics are alright but its just boring and to much stealth, i prefer games were you can just run in and shoot everyone and not die after 1 or 2 shots.
 
C

canucks99

Almost Not a Noob
May 31, 2007
727
0
i dont know why everyones rating this game cause i thought it was rubbish and yeah the graphics are alright but its just boring and to much stealth, i prefer games were you can just run in and shoot everyone and not die after 1 or 2 shots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is WOW.
 
B

beaver_vegas_creed

Noob
Dec 3, 2008
1
0
now this is a game! never has there been such a great mix of great guns great settings. the first Vegas in my eyes is better then Vegas 2 and u can pick Vegas 1 up nice and cheap of ebay
 
R

rohanseth8

Noob
Dec 18, 2011
1
0
People find it annoying because you have less health and it is all about stealth? Then guys you all should just go and play COD of battlefield because this is not the game where you can run around shooting people.
This game actually requires skill,timings and proper use of your team. This is one of the best games ive played and i never get bored of it. You cant expect to survive 100 bullets people, the low health system is actually pretty amazing because then it makes you think whether to use the gun or the brain. This game is not for no-brainer shooter(no disrespect intended) but those people who like to kill people without making creating a chaos.
Great Game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom