First Playstation 3 Reviews

Islandkiwi - 1164 days 17 hours ago

Ridge racer beats resistance? That's not encouraging to me.

And love hamster only got 21/40? Noooo!!!!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Ravenator529 - 1164 days 17 hours ago

These are Japanese reviewers! Japanese gamers are not the huge fans of FPS's like Americans and many Europeans.

The Japanese love their RPG's and racing games.

It doesn't suprise me that Ridge Racer is ranked higher.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

DC RID3R - 1164 days 16 hours ago

of the POOR state japanese gaming is in right now!!!!!

1. how can ridge racer7(a 10 year old ip with improved graphics only) be rated higher than ROF?

2. what the fuk do the japanese gaming public know about fps's?

3. i smell BS sony marketing schemes!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply

DixieNormS - 1164 days 15 hours ago

RR6 never even got past an 8 anywhere last year and now there is a big ass improvement this year. Get serious. Oh and an 82.5 is probably fair. It is just sad that some are saying PS3 is the Dommed and other are trying to defend it by saying that japanesse don't know what they are doing. LMAO.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

THELANDOFSAND - 1164 days 13 hours ago

i think when these launch games, especially RFOM is compared to GOW its pretty clear which system offers the best gaming experiance. ridge racer is something the japanese love, but even they get tired of the same old games with slightly better graphics- i mean 7! 1,2,3,4,5,6 clone games precede it will little innovation in the series.

my opinion of course!

;)

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Apocalypse Shadow - 1164 days 11 hours ago

TWO ACCOUNTS?I THOUGHT THAT WAS FORBIDDEN LIKE "REAL TOP DEAL GAMER"

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Deceased - 1164 days 10 hours ago

One quick question: How can the PS3 version look better if it can't even run the game at 60fps like the 360?

The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version.

There are several reasons for this.

First, the Xbox 360 has a much more powerful custom built Graphics Processing Unit that uses the new Unified Shader technology that Windows Vista uses. Playstation 3 still uses the outdated Non-Unified Shader technology that has been in use for the last decade.

Currently, there are no PC graphics cards that use Unified Shader technology, because Windows Vista has not yet been released. ATI will release a Unified Shader PC graphics card at the end of 2006 or early 2007 when it gets closer to the release of Windows Vista. This is the same form of revolutionary technology that the Xbox 360 uses. The Playstation 3 uses a non-customized Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit that is based on four-year old technology that is outdated.

The second major advantage that the Xbox 360 has over the Playstation 3 is the number of polygons that can be displayed on-screen at once. The Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons on-screen at the same time, while the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. This is the reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360, while the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 only runs at 30 frames per second.

The third reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more General Purpose CPU power than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 3 uses outdated parallel processing that is very difficult for game developers to work with. The CPU of the Playstation 3 has only two threads, which means that Artificial Intelligence in Playstation 3 games is not as good as the Artificial Intelligence in Xbox 360 games. The Xbox 360 uses a tri-core CPU, each CPU core runs at 3.2 Ghz, and each core has two threads!!!

Basically what this means is that the Playstation 3 has one CPU, which coincidentally runs at 3.2Ghz--although rumors say that this has been reduced to 2.8Ghz. The Playstation 3 then uses each of its two threads to send signals to different processors that run parallel. This is very similar to the design used with the Sega Saturn, and the developers didn't like that system either.

Originally, the Playstation 3 was supposed to have two CPUs, but when Sony saw the Xbox 360, they were forced to remove one CPU and add a GPU that was never planned. The Playstation 3 was not originally intended to use parallel processing like it now does. PS3 was originall supposed to be designed in a way that was similar to the original Playstation, which would have been a good thing.

From the point of view of the Xbox 360, basically, it has three CPUs, each running at 3.2Ghz. Each CPU has two threads. Tecmo and Ubisoft have said that they can literally devote one of the CPUs and the two threads on it to controlling nothing but Artificial Intelligence! Ubisoft has already publicly stated that the Artificial Intelligence in the Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed will be superior to the Artificial Intelligence in the Playstation 3 version.

One other reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 will be better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 RAM is so much superior to the Playstation 3 RAM. Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have 512MB of RAM; however, the Xbox 360 uses revolutionary new Unified RAM technology, while the Playstation 3 uses the same old Non-Unified RAM technology that has been used for decades.

Basically, what this means is that the Non-Unified 512MB RAM in the Playstation 3 has two separate sections of RAM: 256MB of RAM that can be devoted to help the CPU, and 256MB of Video RAM. No matter what happens, the Playstation 3 can NEVER use more than 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, even if only a small percentage of the other secion of 256MB of RAM is not being used.

The Xbox 360 uses 512MB of 100% Unified RAM. This means that the RAM can be used whenever and wherever the developers need it at any point in time. For example, if there is a need to use over 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, the Xbox 360 can devote more RAM to Video RAM. In a graphically intense section of a game where there is a need for much more detailed graphics, but a lower amount of Artificial Intelligence because there are fewer enemies on the screen, there might be a need for 384MB of Video RAM, while using 128MB of RAM to control things like Artificial Intelligence of the enemies. A boss encounter with only one enemy on the screen, but a GIANT boss with awesome graphics is a perfect example where the Xbox 360 has a HUGE technology advantage.

I fully agree with you and the editors of that website: The Xbox 360 version is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version. Actually, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 30 frames-per-second, while the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like the very smooth Call of Duty 2.

Here are some website links that you can visit that talk about the reasons why games like Call of Duty 3 end up so much smoother looking on the Xbox 360:

xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/ 617951p1.html

oxm.co.uk/articles/news/hardw are/ps3_to_have_half_the_polygo
n_power_of_the_xbox_360

msxbox-world.com/xbox/feature s/article/179/PS3-Hardware-issu
es-Teething-troubles-or-a-dee per-problem?.html

theinquirer.net/default.aspx? article=32171

gamespot.com/news/6157113.htm l

blogs.usatoday.com/tech/2006/ 05/index.html

Agree(9) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply

Retard - 1164 days 10 hours ago

Anyone know if these are final review score... I see it states first reviews, wonder if it's like.. his... preview review?

Right?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

kingboy - 1163 days 16 hours ago

call of duty looks same on both platforms graphically but one can notice how tree`s and grass respond more to wind on the ps3 version.
ps:i`v seen both in action so i`m not just saying it for flaming sake.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply

12Volt - 1163 days 16 hours ago

until the end of year 2.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

FordGTGuy - 1163 days 15 hours ago

Level 1 and level 2 caches sit logically (if not physically) between the CPU and main memory, replicating the contents of main memory and reducing the amount of time that the CPU has to wait on code and data. The complex process of moving code and data between main memory and different levels of the cache hierarchy happens out of the sight of the programmer and is under the control of the hardware, which also concerns itself with keeping the information that is stored and replicated at different levels of the hierarchy in sync. Thus the two hallmarks of a "cache" as it's conventionally understood are: a) that it temporarily stores (or "caches") information near the CPU and b) that it's managed by the CPU and not by the programmer.

Xenon's L1 and L2 caches can function in the conventional manner described above, but they can also function quite differently. More specifically, Xenon invests programmers with an unprecedented level of control over how their applications use the caches. Insofar as they can fall under the explicit control of the programmer, the Xenon's caches, and its L2 cache in particular, can function remarkably like the "local storage" that's attached to each of the Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs) in IBM's Cell processor. (For more on the Cell and its SPEs, see Part I and Part II of my Cell coverage.)
http://arstechnica.com/arti...

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

BURLY - 1163 days 12 hours ago

Staggerred thumb sticks are far better for any game that requires both: 1) aiming / looking and 2) moving at the same time. Thus, the Xbox 360's controller is superior to the PS3's controller in FPS's because there is no genre that is more demanding; with respect to the aforementioned control.

Furthermore; the thumb sticks on the 360's controller have the perfect amount of stiffness and are smaller than the PS3's - for better control and more precise aiming. The PS3's controller has thumb sticks that I consider to be floppy, lose, and relatively gripless (assuming they are the same as the dual shocks).

Considering the PS3's controller now also has no rumble and that it feels "uncomfortably" light (based on some initial hands on impressions); doesn't help much either.

However the dual triggers on the 360's pad is really neccessary for an authentic FPS feel and although the new PS3 controller did make some strides in this regard - early hands on testing has mentioned that it did not go far enough and may actually feel awkward.

The bottom line is that: I keep hearing PS3 fans talking about "Resistance this" and "Resistance that" but in the end it is not how a game looks but how it plays and unfourtunately the PS3 will always be handicapped because of its poor controller.

If you like FPS's then do yourself a favour and buy a 360, or stick to the PC - don't keep looking for an experience that the PS3 will never be able to offer you.

Personally, I am pissed off at Sony for not spending more time and effort designing their new controller but that is because I owned an Xbox and I am now a proud owner of a 360 - and I know how much better FPS's could be on a console with a superior controller in your hands.

The thought of another dual shock for FPS's makes me gringe and I would just love it if 360 players could play FPS's online against PS3 players (in Call of Duty, etc.) because Xbox 360 players would wipe the floor with PS3 players.

All because of the controllers! Your interface to the game world and invariably the game's potential gameplay limitation! I would never ever want to play a FPS on the PS3 if I could already do so on the 360!

Similarily, Resistance is a mute point to most Xbox players because we all recognize that the tool that you are forced to use (inorder to communicate and interact with the game) is primative - to say the least!

Yet I keep hearing PS3 fans complaining how they thought that Resistance should have gotten better reviews - like it is their primary reason for getting a PS3.

Sad really.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply

Apocalypse Shadow - 1163 days 11 hours ago

in japan they love drift racing.i love it.they love it more.which is why ridge racer is getting the high score.ANYONE EVER HEARD OF DRIFT RACING?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

power of Green - 1163 days 11 hours ago

Why is it so important for the PS3 to be leaps and bounds more powerful than the 360. Dam! will PS3 fans still like the PS3 if it turns out to be equal to the 360 or have not as nice looking graphics as the 360. #11 i guess i have to believe you sence you seen them both although i heard different you also gave Gow a 9/10 because you said the controls were strange/poop i heard the controls were fine just not controls you can learn right off the bat. Most say GoW feels next-gen, Game pro's feel different so i got to say i don't beleive what you say. We'll see if you're telling the truth soon enough i bet the score's of all the games you graded points off.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

HyperBear - 1163 days 10 hours ago

and RFOM got 82.5% for a FPS, rarely seen onPlayStation consoles, and reviewed by Japanese Gaming magazine, thats pretty good ill say. I wonder what Gears of War got in Japanese Score in %. Maybe a bit higher or a bit lower, but i think the Japanese ppl arwe finally giving some credit to some of the FPS games that all of us North Amercian ppl play non-stop. (ex. Halo 2 has had over 4 billion games. I rest my case)

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

MoonDust - 1163 days 10 hours ago

I'll just stay out of this one!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

gamerriffic - 1163 days 9 hours ago

i think resistence's reviews are amazing. FPS do very crappy in japan.. and for it to score a high scorelike that.. we can expect the north american reviews to be wayy better. the ridge racer doesnt surprised me...xbox 360's best selling game was ridge racer in japan

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply