Why is the PS3 ripped on so much?

superman22x

Golden Master
Messages
7,904
My friend hates it, I dont understand. He insists that it cant run anything. Every game is reported to have frame drops and everything. He says IGN will give the same game on 360 as PS3 a higher rating for 360. I tell him, just watch, the PS3 will start to take over, lots more power and all. He still insists that it's crap. He is now saying the PS3 CANT put out more then 35 frames per second, and the 360 can only put out 60. I said, they put out as much as they can, weather it be 5 or 600. Who is right, and what are your opinions?
 
Way more xbox 360 fan boi's then ps3 since it came out before.. thats all there is to it... also a mixture of haters..
 
PS3's hardware easily beats any other consoles hardware. If he is playing a PS2 game its the fact that it has to use an emulator to play it is the reason he gets FPS drops. PS3 games dont lag however, they probably go through extensive FPS testing
 
Haha, they could both put out 60, but if developers strive for ever more complex games as they are doing, 60fps won't be possible at 1080p, which is why many games you see are limited to 720p, which is basically 1024x720 in computer monitor terms.

Lag is something seen in some games though, and its sometimes the programmers fault, or the fact they've simply ported the game.
For instance Orange Box on the PS3 runs a lot worse than the Orange Box on the Xbox 360, due to a port.

Both systems have there minus and plus points. I personally prefer my 360 over my PS3, but I have them both to make a decision with.
 
Yeah, he has this tendensy to be stubborn. He is now saying games cant have motion blur unless the game is getting over 60FPS.

What is the most amount of FPS teh human eye can pick up?
 
The human eye can pick up many hundreds. The brain doesn't work in terms of FPS, but to fool the human eye, you only need 25fps.
But pause a film for example, and what do you see? Motion blur! Something the brain uses to fill in the gaps, to make the video smooth.

So, you can't see it in games under 60fps? Rubbish. If hes seeing FPS in games at 60fps, that aren't meant to have motion blur at all, get him to see a doctor.

Games have added the feature lately, to make games appear smoother when they are running at less, and to give a more life like feel, which really helps in my opinion.

Play a game without it, i.e Crysis, and it doesn't seem as immersive.
 
it varies greatly, i would say anything below 25FPS is low FPS, because movies run at 25 or 30 FPS depending on the standard, and movies dont lag, thats for sure
 
No because films stay at a constant 25-29.7fps, and don't move around a lot like you see in games.
Plus, the motion blurring as I said, helps a lot. They add another frame inbetween to the brain, so instead of 30fps in NTSC, your fooling your mind to think there is 60, or 50 in PAL.
 
My opinion hasn't changed in a while. I do not own a PS3 because I thought the in-game problems for certain games they had at launch were just hilarious and ridiculous. So what I'm trying to say here is my opinions may be skewed a little bit since I don't have much firsthand experience with them.

But here's what I think.
They need a new controller design, it's severely outdated and uncomfortable compared to everyone else's.

The hardware may be nice but if developer's can't utilize it it's useless.

It's severely over-hyped for above reason. It has power but in all honesty I can't tell much of a difference from 360 games graphically. It might be worth mentioning that I have never seen it played at 1080 res, but I am under the impression that the 1080 resolution is the only reason you should get this console if you're talking about graphical superiority.

There's not enough good exclusive titles for the PS3, at least none that I'm interested in.

Blu-ray still hasn't taken off yet IMO, but it's a good deal if you want a player (at least it was)

That's all for now. On the topic of FPS, there is research that states above and beyond 120 in certain cases. The human eye doesn't see in "frames" so there will always be problems with the way displays are now, despite FPS.
 
No because films stay at a constant 25-29.7fps, and don't move around a lot like you see in games.
Plus, the motion blurring as I said, helps a lot. They add another frame inbetween to the brain, so instead of 30fps in NTSC, your fooling your mind to think there is 60, or 50 in PAL.

well if you stay above 25FPS at all times you should be fine IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom