Rage runs better on Xbox 360

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530

Well I’d thought they’d figure this out by now sounds like for the most part developers aren’t going to get it done as easily as on the 360.

I can say that they will find a way to make it work performance wise on the PS3 but here is what I am thinking (from JoyStiq) at this current build.

[Quote=The Phantomnaut]I can understand that each version differentiates in performance besides the hardware issue is the issue of the compression and content available for each version.

I guess the non-PS3 versions will come with two DVDs for installing (PC, Mac) and instantly streaming (Xbox 360). Maybe the streaming along with the compression for the Xbox 360 cannot handle the visual quality as opposed to the other versions and has the problem of using DVD9s as the disc for games; but in result can run the game faster. The PS3 might get the upper hand in fidelity but performance might just be sacrificed. Heck it’s still in development, let’s wait and find out.

Shortly put; Xbox 360 hardware - Multi Disc - Rage “compressed” = 60 FPS?

PS3 Hardware + BD-ROM + Rage less compressed = 30 FPS?[/quote]

hehe, I wonder how “well” it’ll run on Mac. :smiley:

Microsoft payed them to say that

[size=200]THERE. JUST SAYIN. HEAR ME OUT.[/size]

Guess Carmack just sucks at programming now. Already been a bunch of multi-platform games that run at 60FPS on both like CoD 4.

Tisk tisk the new kids on the block are outshining the relics of the past

[quote=“sbf717”]Guess Carmack just sucks at programming now. Already been a bunch of multi-platform games that run at 60FPS on both like CoD 4.

Tisk tisk[/quote]

Well that engine is built from the ground up and sort of used resources from id Tech 3 which powered Call of Duty to the sequel. But I see; 2010 is the release date and I bet there will be more done to take care of it.

Also at least id Software actually is working on the PS3 version instead of one particular developer…

That particular developer seems to have shitty memory calling out the PS2 version of Half-Life as sub-par when Gearbox made it have 4x the texture detail of the PC version, constant framerate, and even went so far as to add keyboard and mouse controls…

Just saying…

[quote=“sbf717”]That particular developer seems to have shitty memory calling out the PS2 version of Half-Life as sub-par when Gearbox made it have 4x the texture detail of the PC version, constant framerate, and even went so far as to add keyboard and mouse controls…

Just saying…[/quote]

I want my Aliens: Colonial Marines game now!

[quote=“sbf717”]Guess Carmack just sucks at programming now. Already been a bunch of multi-platform games that run at 60FPS on both like CoD 4.

Tisk tisk the new kids on the block are outshining the relics of the past[/quote]

Well yes there have been other games that were running at 60 FPS and for a while madden I believe was running at 30 FPS. As for the sepcifics as to why he is not getting PS3 up to 60 well I don’t know maybe it costs more and its not a cost he wants to pay.

Madden ran 30FPS to 60FPS compared on 360 for one year. After that it ran the same on both platforms.

Of course he doesn’t want costs to go up. When the thing people are talking most about your game is how many DVDs it fills up and the framerate on one console that doesn’t seem like a game that’s really gonna sell all that well.

Seems more like a tech-demo to fuel internet arguments.

[quote=“JPjuice23”]Microsoft payed them to say that

THERE. JUST SAYIN. HEAR ME OUT.[/quote]
This is usually the part where you link to a reliable source providing good evidence that what you just claimed is in fact true.

Otherwise we chortle at the raving loon and move on.

[quote=“sbf717”]Guess Carmack just sucks at programming now. Already been a bunch of multi-platform games that run at 60FPS on both like CoD 4.

Tisk tisk the new kids on the block are outshining the relics of the past[/quote]

Yeah but Call of Duty 4 isn’t HD. True HD cross-platform games are much harder to get running at 60. :wink:

I highly doubt we see this game this year or maybe even next year So I’ll just wait.

Multiplatform games perform better on 360! Shocking news.

[quote=“Teh_Sarge”]This is usually the part where you link to a reliable source providing good evidence that what you just claimed is in fact true.

Otherwise we chortle at the raving loon and move on.[/quote]

Its a theory.

Actually… it’s generally about half and half.

But if they both ran the same, then it wouldn’t be flamewar-worthy and undeserving of an article.

[quote=“nothere413”]Actually… it’s generally about half and half.

But if they both ran the same, then it wouldn’t be flamewar-worthy and undeserving of an article.[/quote]

half and half? :lol

Yes. Half and Half. :plain;

Yeah I don’t know about half and half. The reason for the games to run better on the 360, is probably due to the fact that developers focus on the 360 game, more on the PS3 game.

And thats fine, considering there’s more 360 in peoples homes than PS3’s.

[quote=“JPjuice23”]Yeah I don’t know about half and half. The reason for the games to run better on the 360, is probably due to the fact that developers focus on the 360 game, more on the PS3 game.

And thats fine, considering there’s more 360 in peoples homes than PS3’s.[/quote]

Or you could be like Valve and say “PROGRAMMING IS TOO HARD SO PS3 IS TEH SUXORS!”