ps3: need for speed carbon review.

bboncorr · 11-15-2006, 08:02 PM

ign gave it a 7.9. i didnt read the review but here is the link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746311p1.html

Steeb · 11-15-2006, 08:17 PM

From the review:

Quote:

Of the three, muscle cars are the most fun to drive as they kick and scream with power that forces you to watch the throttle and go easy on the gas when exiting turns. Sadly though, one of the things that made the muscle cars most fun on the Xbox 360 is the controller rumble, and as the SIXAXIS doesn't feature said ability, they're left a tad more lifeless.

Quote:

One disappointing aspect is that the PlayStation 3 version of the game doesn't have a couple of the "show off" features that the Xbox 360 game does. The 360 version lets you pause the game at any time and enter a photo mode. It's basic, sure, but you can spin and zoom the camera and take a snapshot of your vehicle in motion. You're also able to upload a photo of your modded vehicle for others to drool over, but the PS3 game lacks this feature as well, sadly.

Quote:

Visually, the PlayStation 3 version of Need for Speed Carbon falls short of its Xbox 360 counterpart. The two games run at roughly the same framerate, but the PS3's filtering effects, specifically the blurring, can be ugly. Road textures look nice and detailed at low speeds, but when you're flying down the road and the game blurs everything, they simply look poor. A few other odd things don't match up either, like the Drafter's wake, which is a transparent cylinder on the 360 and some rather ugly blue streamers on the PS3.

Not exactly a rave review.

bboncorr · 11-15-2006, 08:26 PM

so it lacks features, does not look as good visualy, and doesnt play as good but it got a higher score then the 360 version. i think they realized where catching on to the ps3 games all scoring higher and they gotta try to keep it fair. i guess we gotta read the review and not go by the scores anymore.

i really am baffled to why it got a higher score when they basicaly said the game feels lifeless and falls short of the 360 version visualy. what did they give the lasting appeal or sound a much higher score then the 360 version to even it out?

Jimmy Smith · 11-15-2006, 11:26 PM

This is dissipointing. Playstation 3 is suppose to be more powerful. I wonder what about the Playstation 3 could cause slightly inferior graphics especially when gamertv last week said it would look better. Either the devolopers fucked up or Sony has alot to answer for.

bboncorr · 11-16-2006, 12:56 AM

maybe the game developers were right to begin with. you know jimmy the same ones that we have been quoting and you refused to believe. they said from the begining that the ps3 was hard to work with and looking at the specs. as a whole the 360 was a more powerful system. i chated with someone from EA (who was very good at explaining both systems in ways i could only dream about learning) and he basicaly said the 360 was the better system hands down.

he got over technical with me and lost me but in the end he broke it down to saying the 360 was gonna look better and have better frame rates at first. but then the frame rates would improve for the ps3 but the 360 would be improving graphicaly alot quicker because the games are already running so smoothly. now add that with the 1 year lead and you got yourself a 2 year lead unless developers spend a whole lotta cash on working specificaly with the ps3. he said it wasnt gonna happen since so much cash and time is already spent on developing games. he tells me a 80 hour work week is not uncommon.

he also said once developers spend enough time with the motion controller it would definetly add some fun to games. he said there brainstorming like crazy on how to include that option into game that somone like us wouldnt think of. he is saying first person shooters and sports are easy, so there thinking of other ways.

godson · 11-16-2006, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

This is dissipointing. Playstation 3 is suppose to be more powerful. I wonder what about the Playstation 3 could cause slightly inferior graphics especially when gamertv last week said it would look better. Either the devolopers fucked up or Sony has alot to answer for.

I love saying "We told you so".....so there I said,damn that makes you feel good dont it?

bboncorr · 11-16-2006, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godson

I love saying "We told you so".....so there I said,damn that makes you feel good dont it?

go ahead and let it out. ive been doing it for a week now and its just not getting old.

"we told you so"

Gideon · 11-16-2006, 05:38 AM

There are 4 gamestops in my general vicinity and NONE of the employees at ANY of them have interest in the PS3. Now, without going into a lot of details, one HAS to ask why this is so. The common answer I get= "The 360 is the same machine with a lower price tag, more (and better) games, and great online ability." That was the answer I get from atleast 90% of them. Now dont forget.. these are some of the hardcore of the hardcores when it comes to games, and knowledge of consumer choices in this market.

Take it for what its worth, but these are the guys that sell the stuff and know the continual on-goings of the video game market from a little better perspective than the rest of us.

mshulman · 11-16-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

This is dissipointing. Playstation 3 is suppose to be more powerful. I wonder what about the Playstation 3 could cause slightly inferior graphics especially when gamertv last week said it would look better. Either the devolopers fucked up or Sony has alot to answer for.

Jimmy,

I think it comes down to a very simple issue. For example - Take 2 identical PC's. On one of them install a text editor. On the other install Microsoft visual studio. Have a developer code an application on each of the 2 PC's.

Which one do you think will be better? Sony is a hardware company, Microsoft a software company. When it comes to the tools for developing the games, all I hear is that the tools Microsoft provides are far superior.

EddieDZ · 11-16-2006, 08:26 AM

that makes alot of sense too. however it appears that all these games except Resistance suffer slightly somewhere in the graphics department(less visuals, frame rate issues. etc).. Resistance is a PS3 exclusive while the others are not. it seems that developers just didnt have the time OR didnt PUT the time into makeing their PS3 versions more optimized. however the PS3 is a brand new system while the 360 has been out for a year so the developers already know how to develop for a system that has been out for a year while they are completely new at the PS3, that to me makes sense. the developers for resistance where 101% focus on just developing for the PS3, to me thats the advantage they had over the other developers thus is why Resistances scored above the others(in the graphics department too), unlike the others where they where developing for multi-consoles. this is my view on all of this.

11-15-2006, 08:02 PM	#1
bboncorr High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,418	ps3: need for speed carbon review. ign gave it a 7.9. i didnt read the review but here is the link. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746311p1.html __________________ Living Room pioneer kuro plasma PDP-5010FD (9.9) Denon 4308CI (9.5) B&W 683's, HTM61, 685's (9.0) Sony PS3 (9.0) Sony BD-S350 (9.5) HSU VTF-3 MK3 sub (9.0) Harmony 1000 (9.5) XBOX360 + HD DVD (9.2) Nintendo Wii (7.5) Netflix Roku (9.0) Gaming Room 60A3000 (8.7) Halcro ssp200 (10. perfection) Deftech BP7004, C/L/R2002, BP2X (8.7) Sony Remote Commander (7.0) Toshiba HDA35 (7.9) Samsung 1400 (5.0) Bedroom Panasonic TH-42PZ85U (8.7) Tivo HD (9.7)

11-15-2006, 08:26 PM	#3
bboncorr High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,418	so it lacks features, does not look as good visualy, and doesnt play as good but it got a higher score then the 360 version. i think they realized where catching on to the ps3 games all scoring higher and they gotta try to keep it fair. i guess we gotta read the review and not go by the scores anymore. i really am baffled to why it got a higher score when they basicaly said the game feels lifeless and falls short of the 360 version visualy. what did they give the lasting appeal or sound a much higher score then the 360 version to even it out? __________________ Living Room pioneer kuro plasma PDP-5010FD (9.9) Denon 4308CI (9.5) B&W 683's, HTM61, 685's (9.0) Sony PS3 (9.0) Sony BD-S350 (9.5) HSU VTF-3 MK3 sub (9.0) Harmony 1000 (9.5) XBOX360 + HD DVD (9.2) Nintendo Wii (7.5) Netflix Roku (9.0) Gaming Room 60A3000 (8.7) Halcro ssp200 (10. perfection) Deftech BP7004, C/L/R2002, BP2X (8.7) Sony Remote Commander (7.0) Toshiba HDA35 (7.9) Samsung 1400 (5.0) Bedroom Panasonic TH-42PZ85U (8.7) Tivo HD (9.7)

11-16-2006, 12:56 AM	#5
bboncorr High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,418	maybe the game developers were right to begin with. you know jimmy the same ones that we have been quoting and you refused to believe. they said from the begining that the ps3 was hard to work with and looking at the specs. as a whole the 360 was a more powerful system. i chated with someone from EA (who was very good at explaining both systems in ways i could only dream about learning) and he basicaly said the 360 was the better system hands down. he got over technical with me and lost me but in the end he broke it down to saying the 360 was gonna look better and have better frame rates at first. but then the frame rates would improve for the ps3 but the 360 would be improving graphicaly alot quicker because the games are already running so smoothly. now add that with the 1 year lead and you got yourself a 2 year lead unless developers spend a whole lotta cash on working specificaly with the ps3. he said it wasnt gonna happen since so much cash and time is already spent on developing games. he tells me a 80 hour work week is not uncommon. he also said once developers spend enough time with the motion controller it would definetly add some fun to games. he said there brainstorming like crazy on how to include that option into game that somone like us wouldnt think of. he is saying first person shooters and sports are easy, so there thinking of other ways. __________________ Living Room pioneer kuro plasma PDP-5010FD (9.9) Denon 4308CI (9.5) B&W 683's, HTM61, 685's (9.0) Sony PS3 (9.0) Sony BD-S350 (9.5) HSU VTF-3 MK3 sub (9.0) Harmony 1000 (9.5) XBOX360 + HD DVD (9.2) Nintendo Wii (7.5) Netflix Roku (9.0) Gaming Room 60A3000 (8.7) Halcro ssp200 (10. perfection) Deftech BP7004, C/L/R2002, BP2X (8.7) Sony Remote Commander (7.0) Toshiba HDA35 (7.9) Samsung 1400 (5.0) Bedroom Panasonic TH-42PZ85U (8.7) Tivo HD (9.7)

11-16-2006, 08:26 AM	#10
EddieDZ PSN is Free Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Saint John, NB Canada Posts: 4,696	that makes alot of sense too. however it appears that all these games except Resistance suffer slightly somewhere in the graphics department(less visuals, frame rate issues. etc).. Resistance is a PS3 exclusive while the others are not. it seems that developers just didnt have the time OR didnt PUT the time into makeing their PS3 versions more optimized. however the PS3 is a brand new system while the 360 has been out for a year so the developers already know how to develop for a system that has been out for a year while they are completely new at the PS3, that to me makes sense. the developers for resistance where 101% focus on just developing for the PS3, to me thats the advantage they had over the other developers thus is why Resistances scored above the others(in the graphics department too), unlike the others where they where developing for multi-consoles. this is my view on all of this. __________________ Uncharted 2 l GRID l Killzone 2 l Battlefield:BC l BuzzQuiz l Pacific Rift l Dead Space l Burnout l Motorstorm l R&CF l Uncharted Fat Princess l Shatter l Zen Pinball l PJ Monsters l PJ Eden l Astro Tripper l Zuma l Soldner-X l Cuboid l Prince Persia l PowerUp l Magic Ball l WipeOut HD l R&CF: Quest Booty l Fatal Inertia l Stardust HD l flOW l Blast Factor AR l Nucleus l Everyday Shooter Samsung LN46A530

11-15-2006, 11:26 PM	#4
Jimmy Smith 50>30 Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,998	This is dissipointing. Playstation 3 is suppose to be more powerful. I wonder what about the Playstation 3 could cause slightly inferior graphics especially when gamertv last week said it would look better. Either the devolopers fucked up or Sony has alot to answer for.

11-16-2006, 05:38 AM	#8
Gideon High Definition: euphoria Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Somewhere between earth and hell... Posts: 873	There are 4 gamestops in my general vicinity and NONE of the employees at ANY of them have interest in the PS3. Now, without going into a lot of details, one HAS to ask why this is so. The common answer I get= "The 360 is the same machine with a lower price tag, more (and better) games, and great online ability." That was the answer I get from atleast 90% of them. Now dont forget.. these are some of the hardcore of the hardcores when it comes to games, and knowledge of consumer choices in this market. Take it for what its worth, but these are the guys that sell the stuff and know the continual on-goings of the video game market from a little better perspective than the rest of us.