I don't either, I don't own either console. Do keep in mind that as many have stated in this thread installing the xbox version incorrectly sticks you with lower resolution textures which you can correct. Most of the videos with xbox footage have the lower textures in use.
But even if that were as good as the textures got, based on that video I still like the xbox version better because the framerate is already noticeably jumpy on the PS3, and none of these screens are particularly demanding screens... So you're probably going to turn down the texture quality any way to squeeze out some more frames per second once the game gets busy.
Can you take a look at the PS3 footage I posted earlier and see if you can notice any framerate drops? I didn't notice any, but am not very good at seeing that sort of thing. :D
So after 2 hours post-launch downloading the game when steam ate my preloaded version and another ~2 trying to get the game to actuly launch i played some, had a ton of trouble with the controls etc and im gonna wait for a patch fix or something, in 20 minutes of gameplay i met quite a few bugs... Heres a video of one of them, also threw in a shot of an unarmored guy surviving a sword blow to the head (with blood effects, and ~60% hp left) as it also happens with heavy 2h weapons and it kinda messes up realism i think.
Basically i was messing around with the fire magic stuff and aparantly i hit this invisible dude that was walking around, then his head, arms and boots appeared and he started chasing me around with a weapon, and a few more dudes decided to kill me for attempted murder or something? I have no idea...
I will be streaming again soon with my level 20ish character I had been playing all day.
If you guys want to see a look into the game 14 hours into the future, there you have it! Otherwise I hear there's a bunch of big names out there streaming too. This is exciting!
I don't either, I don't own either console. Do keep in mind that as many have stated in this thread installing the xbox version incorrectly sticks you with lower resolution textures which you can correct. Most of the videos with xbox footage have the lower textures in use.
But even if that were as good as the textures got, based on that video I still like the xbox version better because the framerate is already noticeably jumpy on the PS3, and none of these screens are particularly demanding screens... So you're probably going to turn down the texture quality any way to squeeze out some more frames per second once the game gets busy.
Can you take a look at the PS3 footage I posted earlier and see if you can notice any framerate drops? I didn't notice any, but am not very good at seeing that sort of thing. :D
I already did, the frame rate seems too low considering the light load on the given screens, regardless of console while using higher quality textures. The hardware in these machines is getting pretty dated, they're just not powerful enough to have it both ways.
Some people find 15 fps perfectly fine, maybe it's not a big issue for you. For contrast though, both machines struggle desperately under high load in fallout 3, and this new engine is probably slightly more demanding if anything.
I already did, the frame rate seems too low considering the light load on the given screens, regardless of console while using higher quality textures. The hardware in these machines is getting pretty dated, they're just not powerful enough to have it both ways.
Some people find 15 fps perfectly fine, maybe it's not a big issue for you. For contrast though, both machines struggle desperately under high load in fallout 3, and this new engine is probably slightly more demanding if anything.
Ok thanks... guess I'll wait a bit longer and see how it pans out.
On November 11 2011 13:06 screamingpalm wrote: PS3 v xbox comparison:
Still looks like PS3 is the way to go so far.
If you're only comparing the textures, but that video is disingenuous because you get the same texture fidelity on both of the consoles. The frame rate seems to be drastically higher for the xbox in that video by the way. None of these on the hardware level can compete with a typical computer built in the last 5 years of course so it's kinda moot on a starcraft forum where most of the people are going to have reasonably modern home computers.
You don't need a powerful computer to run SC2.
That may be true, but when upgrading from a computer that CAN'T run SCII to a computer that can, i doubt one would choose to build / buy a computer that just barely meets the minimum playability standards. That, and most SCII gamers are PC gamers to begin with... so No_Roo still has a point.
That may be true, but when upgrading from a computer that CAN'T run SCII to a computer that can, i doubt one would choose to build / buy a computer that just barely meets the minimum playability standards. That, and most SCII gamers are PC gamers to begin with... so No_Roo still has a point.
Yes that's true, but it's not my computer that is influencing my decision. I doubt I'm the only one. :D
If you're only comparing the textures, but that video is disingenuous because you get the same texture fidelity on both of the consoles. The frame rate seems to be drastically higher for the xbox in that video by the way. None of these on the hardware level can compete with a typical computer built in the last 5 years of course so it's kinda moot on a starcraft forum where most of the people are going to have reasonably modern home computers.
You don't need a powerful computer to run SC2.
That may be true, but when upgrading from a computer that CAN'T run SCII to a computer that can, i doubt one would choose to build / buy a computer that just barely meets the minimum playability standards. That, and most SCII gamers are PC gamers to begin with... so No_Roo still has a point.
Yeah pretty much, if you bought a computer within a year of SC2's release to have a machine to run it, you almost certainly have something considerably faster than an xbox or ps3.
EPT
