Tiger Woods PGA 07 - Xbox 360 vs. PS3 video

RBlaze - 1146 days 16 hours ago

Dont just come on here and say 'PS3 looks way cooler then that rubbish 360 version' or 'that PS3 one looks crap, the 360 game looks amazing'!! There is barely any difference in these, even in HD! i Guaruntee if they had switched the names of the vids, no one would realise!!! These two look almost identical. The only subtle difference i could see was a slight change in colours of the grass, thats it!

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

devv05 - 1146 days 16 hours ago

the $200 difference?

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

neeharb - 1146 days 6 hours ago

Hey ..i dont see why i need to pay 200$ more atleast now ..here now the xbox 360 version looks better without ne doubt ... its even got more colour ..will buy a ps3 when it shows me better results and when its cheap ...

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

Jenzo - 1145 days 23 hours ago

If there are any differences they probably are caused by different developers working on each system version. Call of duty 3 is more interesting. Those steady 60 fps on the 360 version really gives the game a rich dimension. I love 60 fps! No clue how they were able to implement it considering it's by far the best looking 360 game following GOW.

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

Hayabusa 117 - 1145 days 23 hours ago

In all honesty, there's barely any difference. The differences I thought I saw I think were down to different camera angles e.t.c. I think the 360 had brighter trees in the back ground, which makes it look better.

But most people are forgetting the biggest difference...the 360 player was better! HA!

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

THAMMER1 - 1145 days 22 hours ago

Small but for the extra $200.00 I want more. For an extra $200.00 I could get a sun roof put in my car or 2 360 games 1 year of xbox live and 1 play and charge kit.

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

coxyefc - 1145 days 22 hours ago

Both look good as each other as far as I can see. Expect this on a lot of third party games. To be honest you wont really see the real power of either console till a couple of years in the future, thats when gamers investment becomes more justified.

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

Karibu - 1145 days 21 hours ago

If you play ONLY or 90% of time multiplatform games, then it counts. But I don't have a single multiplatform game in my shelves. 200$ difference means nothing when you want the best games.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

Elite24Gamer - 1145 days 21 hours ago

Thats the point. Sony's fanbase of core gamers didn't buy ps1 and ps2 for sony only games. They bought it because it had all the games that other consoles didn't have by the 3rd party developers. Thats not the case this time around. 3rd party games are supreme on the console that just so happens to be 200 dollars less. Thats good news for millions upon millions of casual gamers. You can stick with sony and justify the 200 dollar difference. But, you are not the typical gamer who has bought sony's other systems. You are hardcore and don't mind spending 200 dollars more for less. But todays economy is ruled by getting MORE for LESS. Thats why Walmart is dominating the way it is. Thats people mentality now a days for the most part. They bought the ps1 and 2 not because it was the best. They bought it because it had ALL the games. Right now, there are only a couple games exclusive to the ps3. And yes, those few games are exciting for hardcore sony fans. But the truth of the matter is....there is little to no hype with casual gamers for Resistance or Motorstorm. They both are good to great games possibly. But casual gamers go with what they know. Sports games, platformers, EA games, ect. And thats the sad truth of the way the video game industry is. I'm getting a ps3 as well. But even with me having thousands to blow. I still think its overpriced. It has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with GAMES. 600 plus with not one game that compares to Gears of War. Not one 3rd party multiplatform game that matches the 360's version. I'm sure eventually there will be great games. Did yall see the 1up video? Every editor there said that no ps3 game offers the graphics or memorable experience that Gears of War offers. One of them said that it was hard to enjoy Resistance after they got to play Gears of War first. They go on to say that Gears of War set the bar really high and is a hard act to follow. This is from the system that is 200 dollars less. You can enjoy Gears of War on the 299 or 399 xbox 360. Thats amazing. Sony fans will always have excuses. 2nd gen vs 1st gen. I don't want to hear it. Remember....Next gen wasn't suppose to start untill the ps3 launches. Bull dookie. Next gen started a year ago and sony only fans are just late to the party. Enjoy whatever system you get. Just understand that MOST casual gamers on a budget will see that their money is better spent on the 360. Better 3rd party games, exclusive 1st party games. WOW. Thanks Microsoft.

Agree(12) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply

Ark1205 - 1145 days 21 hours ago

Can you guys count????? If you add that ugly HD player that you have to sit on top of ur 360 it cost the same price. Not to mention the $50 a yr your paying for ur onlinr service. Im an Sony guy and I have a 360. I think both of them are going to be good. But, stop throwing the price deffernce up when its really not one.

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply

THAMMER1 - 1145 days 20 hours ago

And they all look better and play better on Xbox bottom line. EA can only do what the hard ware allows them too "DJ".

Why do you think Xbox games look better? How about better hardware dumb @ss. EA is lazy but Wow your pathetic.
People are not even trying to be realistic or honest about this topic. It feels like trying to ask a crack head to stop smoking they always have an excuse that makes no logical since.

People should just be upfront and say they are bias instead of saying Oh look at how great that PS2/3 is. The eyes never lie. I’ve got perfect 20/20. And countless reviews say the PS3 versions of games have frame rate issues and sub 360 graphics.

Please stop with the lame excuses and blaming developers. You can’t hold them to that they develop games.

But Ea is a good example of what happens when people just follow the leader. EA and Sony are not that different as far the way the products they offer are presented.

EX: NFL 2K was awesome. It had better AI, graphics, game play and everything was better than Madden. But we as gamers kept buying Madden until now all of a sudden we see the error in our ways. Now if you DJ and any other Sony fan boy can read EA so well how about reading Sony or PS2/3 with the same type of energy you guys would stop making your self into hypocrites.

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

Ark1205 - 1145 days 20 hours ago

If u never want to upgrade ur way of watching movies in the future ur right. 360 is less with less features. So its not a situation where you get the same thing from both systems and one is $200 more. Thats my only point!!!!!! I could care less on what system u think is best. Just dnt compare a Yukon SLT to a Yukon Denaili fully loaded.

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

Bullseye - 1145 days 20 hours ago

The similarity that can be seen between the two versions of Tiger woods has nothing to do with the power of either console.In my opinion,this is a typical example of generic or modular programming techniques,basically you do not re-invent the wheel.If you are writting a multi platform game its a good idea to write routines that are easily transported to all platforms. This results in games that look very similar on many platforms, save for minor differences in the way the hardware displays colours etc.Why do you think all E.A games engines look vey similar? Many resuable routines thats why. Exclusives are a different kettle of fish, its worth the extra effort to take advantage of the consoles specific strengths, e.g G.O.W/R.F.O.M because usually the devs are sponsered by Microsoft,Sony etc. Just my opinion.

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

power of Green - 1145 days 20 hours ago

Some folks that work hard and dont have much cash would be fine/happy/gitty with a Yukon SLT and could careless about the Yukon Denaili. The rest of you Sony fanboy's are missing the point the 360 is more consumer friendly period! theres no point in bringing up DVD players ect when people will be buying these consoles for games.

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

lalaland - 1145 days 19 hours ago

There is at most a $100 difference between the PS3 and X360. The 20GB SKU of PS3 undeniably contains more hardware features in the box than the X360 Premium...

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

power of Green - 1145 days 19 hours ago

PS3's a Rocket car and the 360's a Pagani and the industry is a whinding road for sure.

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

PS360WiiRocks - 1145 days 19 hours ago

Ok so back to the topic, they look identical. Also, everyone has a valid point, the PS3 is a good value for what your receiving. All the stuff packed in the PS3 is worth every cent and I am sure it will serve all your ps3 fans well. Now with that said the Xbox fans are correct too, as far as what these machines are made to do, which is play games correct? Or am I mistaken? Correct their job is to play games, so if you take into account what these machines are simply made to do, $300 is by far the best deal of any console. It might be a tard pack, it might not have HDD, or a wireless controller, HD movies, or any of that other fancy stuff. But you know no console even had a HDD till the Xbox!! Everyone knows none of these features were necessary before, yet somehow their necessary now and their reasons to argue? You know tho you guys can sit here all day and compare apples to oranges, but at the end of the day their still going to be apples and oranges

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

Thugbot187 - 1145 days 19 hours ago

Here’s a nice little chart put out by people who have an idea about what the actual cost of components might be in the PS3. http://arstechnica.com/news... People aren’t far off when they say BLU-RAY is a huge reason for the high cost, being the most expensive component in the PS3 however the Cell isn’t too far behind. I would say right now with all the shortages and the basic rules of supply and demand the price to manufacture BLU-RAY has gone up.

DJ the rest of the stuff in the PS3 is just thrown in just to say they have it for the most part. Hard-Drive, USB, Memory, WiFi, Blue-tooth (can get that for dirt cheap). Also HDMI must not be that expensive because Sony threw it into the lower model without changing the price.

I think what people are saying is valid. At current moment Sony isn’t showing how there system is so vastly superior to the Xbox360. Yes, it has the Cell processor which can do more calculations then the processor in the Xbox360. It has the BLU-RAY which has more space on it then Xbox360’s DVD player. However it’s not showing the consumer who looks at what they buy, why it’s a better product. Yes they have a few nice exclusives, however the 360 and the Wii have more. Not only that but most of the multi platform titles are performing a lot better on the Xbox360 or they look identical. So please enlighten all of us why we would want to spend an extra $200 dollars for a product that so far isn’t living up to the hype. I’m not saying this couldn’t turn around for the PS3, but right now it’s not showing how it’s worth the extra $200 dollars for a lot of us.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

coxyefc - 1145 days 18 hours ago

Someone answer me this, if blu-ray is that important for the future then why when the ps4/xbox912002 come out, there will be no discs? it will be all downloaded content?

phil harrison" i will be very surprised if ps4 has a disc drive".

so why the need for blu-ray? i dont understand. and i hate some of you for arguing childishly over which console is better, the worse part is some of you are actually over 18. get laid.

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

blueraven - 1145 days 18 hours ago

ok,according to the comparison it's a second generation xbox 360 title vs a first generation PS3 isn't it...? so what if they look identical......

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

Trickedbullet - 1145 days 18 hours ago

If there are no challengers to one console then cool games will cease to exist. Ex. When the ps2 came out, what was there to compete? Dreamcast? It died and then what? PS2 made lots of money, and lots of games. The problem is, look at all those games after the dreamcast was gone. The time period between the dreamcast and xbox. All the games sucked. They were just blah!
When the xbox came out, what was the major battle for consumers? Remember the commercials at the time? Should I get PS2 with that totally awsome GTA3 game, or xbox with that totally awsome war game Halo? That was the battle I faced. Even the PS1 was challenged by the N64, hence cool games were made and improved.

So, if the 36 0 dies, ps3 will, and if the ps3 dies, the 360 will, and if the wii dies... who knows.

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

Boink - 1145 days 17 hours ago

even if the 360 version looked freaking amazing, and the ps3 version looked like cr@p, or vice versa, IT'S STILL JUST TIGER WOODS...does anyone care?

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

Jay da 2KBalla - 1145 days 16 hours ago

Astaroth- You are one of the biggest sony fanboys on this site so for you to make that post is kind of ironic.

lalaland- Um no. 1. I can buy a 300 dollar 360 and a memory unit for 50 dollars and save my games and go online so bump that up to 150.

To all the little sony fanboys on this site who seem to be on their periods I would just like to ask you all why is that COD3 is 30 fps on ps3 while COD3 is 60fps on 360? And to add more fuel to the fire COD2 was also 60fps and came out last year. Also resistance is only 30fps.

And why is it that MArk Rein said the ps3 wasnt capable of running a game like Gears of War? hmm.

The developers of prey said the exact same thing.

So average comsumer goes and sees all the multiplatform games looking equal on both consoles. Cant seem to understand why ps3 costs more money. And then sees the best looking game of the next gen Gears of War on the 360 for 200 dollars less. This is exactly how I see it and is why 360 will be my main console.

I dont know about you all but I could care less about Hi-def movies and by the way should blu-ray loose the format war all you sony fanboys paid an extra 200 dollars for absolutely nothing and god if it does I will have so much fun laughing at all of you.

Every multiplatform developer has came out and said they are equal so why sony fanboys (DJ for example) stay saying that ps3 is the most powerful console is beyond me.

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

THAMMER1 - 1145 days 16 hours ago

People should just tell the truth and not try to make silly old lame excuses for no reason. It is about preference and choice. IF you want a console because it is the brand you like so be it. But do not exaggerate and make false and wild claims and act like they are facts because some other moron will agree.

The problem is people act like they have to put on a front like just being difficult because they feel played. WTF

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

coxyefc - 1145 days 16 hours ago

I bet any money DJ last year was stating the console was "twice" as powerful. Simple fact is, it cant be, the technology isnt there yet. For those who harp on about Cell, it excites me yes, potential wise but if Phil Harrison can only show off thumbnails of videos stored on the hard drive (dont dvds do thumbnails as chapter selections?) then that is not a good advertisement for it. It seems Sony fanboys are the worst, do you know why? Because a lot of them are casual gamers and dont know a bloody thing when they splutter out the statements they make. If Gears of War was a PS3 launch title they would ramming it down xbox/nintendo fanboys throats, same goes for the likes of Mass Effect and Lost Planet.

Look at the idiot who defaced Wikpedia ? It was reported on many websites it was a sony fanboy who wrote "nintendo sucks". I bet any money the high execs at gaming companys wet themselves laughing at fanboys, how embarrassing they are, how narrow minded they are and most important of all, how stupid they are. They couldnt give a crap about you as a person, all they care about is the money, so why devote your times to defending their products as if its a member of your family. Sad.

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