RidgeRacer 7 or is it really??

Discussion in 'Games' started by MRU, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #1
    Just been watching the 720p video review over on IGN.

    What surprised me is that this is Ridge Racer 6.

    The courses are identical as the 360 game, so why the leap in number?

    Is it just a case that they didnt want to launch the console with a 12month conversion so they upped the number?

    IGN make no mention of the identical nature or this & RR6. But the video doesnt lie, its the same game albeit some different menu and version number :confused:
     
  2. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #2
    One site, I think it was Kotaku, said that the 360 version looked better than the PS3 version. I'll see if I can find a link to the post.

    EDIT: I can't find the original comparison, but here is what it showed.
     
  3. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #3
    Oh, and the screenshots. I don't get why the PS3 is "RR7" where it has the same tracks and co. as RR6, YET looks worse.
     
  4. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    Unfortunetly its not only RR7 that looks worse than its 360 counterpart.

    COD3, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Need For Speed Carbon, Tony Hawks and I'm sure more to follow have all been reveiwed by IGN & Gamespot, and in all the reviews they have criticised the PS3' giving the 360 the edge...

    So much for 2 x the power of the 360 (with dual 1080p screens) as promised at E3 05.... :eek:

    If you look in the dictionary under lies I'm sure you'll find an entry about Sony marketing...

    Their only hope lies in R:FOM and thats been outsold nearly 2:1 in Japan by RR7....



    edit ;) at least by the time it lauches in Europe there may be a better bunch of launch titles and exclusives. MotorStorm, WarhHawk, Lair etc... As long as there are enough people still interested in the PS3 that is... :eek:
     
  5. Abulia macrumors 68000

    Abulia

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Kushiel's Scion
    #5
    I think that's more to do with the Japanese preference in games, rather than the quality of "Resistance."

    Interesting to note that all the games you mentioned are ports that came out first on the 360. Reasonable to assume they were developed on the 360 first, hence why they look/perform better on the 360.

    It's damning evidence to be sure, and steals a lot of thunder from the pro-PS3 crowd ("HD gaming starts tomorrow...NOT?"), but I think we can all agree that launch titles != not the best indicator of a system's performance.
     
  6. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #6
    most definetly agree 100%

    But whilst a poor launch title lineup etc. also effected Microsoft last year. Sony are coming into a market where they have 2 competitors. And the one competitor its rivaling the most (360) is getting better comparisons for its version of multi-format games, it may make a lot of people who simply wont get a PS3 this christmas due to lack of units, reconsider purchasing one in the new year if all this bad publicity continues.

    Microsoft had its fair share of problems, but being the only one in the market at that time helped whether the storm, Sony doesnt have that luxury.

    Sony needed a really smooth launch especially after 12 months of bad press, but it really isnt looking that way. We wait with baited breath to see what the US launch and reaction / problems thats arrise in 7 days time...
     
  7. sikkinixx macrumors 68020

    sikkinixx

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    Rocketing through the sky!
    #7
    I think people had unrealistic expectations of the PS3 launch. Sony (ie. Krazy Ken) talked way too much about how great PS3 is and all that jazz and too many gaming sites (in my opinion) hyped it way too much. Now they are all saying "well....PS3 will be good NEXT year!". That said, it is a launch. PS2 had a crappy launch, so did Xbox (to me anyway), and so did 360. It is pretty funny how everyone is basing the opinion of the system on these first few games. 360 had s*** games last November. it's "Killer App" was PD0, which was crap-tastic. What is even funnier is that all the analyists are now all going "well....PS3 is screwed! Xbox = Win!" :rolleyes: Why don't they wait a year then they can tell us who is the 'winner'. (Btw, can you truly "win" when a major part,which is arguably the most important part, of the gaming world says you suck?)

    Anyway, all that said, I am getting a Wii on launch (if I can find one...I hope I can) instead of a PS3 now. Resistance looks sweet, and Insomniac is badass but I have a hard time justifying the money on a PS3 when a lot of the stuff I want (Linux, PSP link, PS1 emulation, ec) isn't even ready yet. So I will get one in Q1 or Q2 '07. So...go wii go!


    Edit: And I just noticed that Bestbuy.ca wants $110 for the extended warranty on a ps3!! :eek:
     
  8. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #8
    It is important to remember PS3 is a new console with a highly complicated architecture and development tools... developers are yet to tap the power of PS3 and that can obviously be reflected with the launch titles, give it a year and you'll see PS3 take an advantage as far as graphics go...

    It is not Sony's marketing hype, many developers are also saying PS3 gives them more to work with, more specifically Bethesda said they would be able to get rid of the "pea soup" that plagues the X360 and PC version in the PS3 version.

    I'm just saying, not fair to judge PS3 just yet.
     
  9. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #9
    thing is, the developers have had almost as much time with the PS3 dev kits as they have had since the 360 dev kits were around. the 360 was a rush-job, but games that were ready for last year's launch look better than the same games on the PS3 this year, that doesn't reflect people not having enough time to develop for the PS3, it reflects either that it's harder to do a PS3 game in the first place (guaranteeing that we'll be getting fewer games on the platform), or the machine isn't as powerful as sony wants us to believe (meaning we'll get plenty of games, but they won't be any better than 360 games.

    i'm betting that the PS3 isn't that much harder to code for than the 360. They both have quite a few processor cores, so they're multi-threading-happy, and they're both using dev tools that have evolved from an already familiar codebase despite the new cores in the background. The "cell" factor will primarily increase time in the fine-tuning phase...not in the general development phase. It's just another box with inputs and outputs just like every other processor. It has strengths and weaknesses, and most of those are shared with the 360.

    inferior launch titles is a bad sign.
     
  10. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #10
    The really bad part is that RR6 wasn't far off a 360 launch title, iirc, released almost a year ago
     
  11. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11
    I think I said that in the first post ;) :D Your right though, that is terrible.

    Actually the last interview with Bethesda I read. The developer stated that they had difficulty getting the game to run as well as it did on PC or Xbox because of the difference in memory. PS3 having less memory available to it. They are however planning on streaming a lot more onto the HardDrive so the loading stutters on the 360s exteriors might be improved.

    We'll have to wait and see.
     
  12. apfhex macrumors 68030

    apfhex

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Northern California
    #12
    I watched an HD video of RR7 today and frankly it not only looks worse than RR6, but looks very /noticeably/ worse. No better than Gran Turismo for PS2 IMHO. Plus the environment was sterile and boring, and the announcer was 5 times more annoying than the one from RR6.

    Well, I'm not a fan of the RR series anyway (in fact more than just being a non-fan, I think they're rather bad games) so take my comments with a grain of salt.

    What does the PS3 have, 7 cores? That's a lot of power if you can make use of it, but I'm willing to bet that developers will tell you it's pretty difficult to multithread things efficiently. Wasn't the PS2 already supposedly not too easy to program for, making the PS3 just that much harder?
     
  13. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    So the graphics of the PS3 aren't any better than the 360 for most of the games. I don't want to sound too mean but... apart from being a 'cheap' Bluray player, what would make people want to buy a PS3 over a 360?? This is a serious question, I'm not being sarcastic.

    The way I see it, both support HD resolutions. HDMI is not vastly superior to Component. I've heard that the big budget games for PS3 are coming out for the 360 too (like GTA). The games will be basically identical in graphics and performance and the games available will be basically idential. Anyone interested in PS1/PS2 compatibility would only be interested because they *have* a PS1/PS2 so they could just keep that instead of selling it to raise money for a PS3.

    Like Peter Moore from Microsoft said, Peopla are "going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3".

    You could either get a PS3 for $599 *or* Xbox 360 ($399) + Wii ($250) for $649. Hmmm... let me think...
     
  14. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14

    I agree with you. Sony postitioned itself as the moral superior of the HD next gen systems. We have 1080p because thats 'True HD' take that Xbox.. Except that most of the launch titles only support 720p. They dont even do 1080i let alone 1080p.

    Then we find out it cant even upscale a picture, so a 360 which can now output 1080p via component and vga, has more games it can play at 1080p than sony... how ironic....

    Then they said the RSX GPU would be 2 x the power of the 360 (hence 1080p and dual output) but dual output was dropped and very few things support 1080p :rolleyes: And to make matters worse a 12 month old launch title on the 360 looks superior to the PS3 title which has had an extra 12 months in development..... I mean come on.....

    So just HOW are you diferentiating yourself Sony. What have you got left?

    Everything boils down to BluRay and that's it... Hold on 360 now has a cheap region free HD-DVD USB2 drive that will eventually work in our macs and pcs, quite handy... So what's left???


    Price.... They positioned themselves as the most expensive and re-assured us all that the reason we were so expensive is because we were so much more advanced.

    But when an Xbox 360 bundle with 4 games + an extra wireless controller costs €50 Less than a core PS3 (€130 less than premium) even that is looking like a non starter...

    ----------
    I dont know... Sony doesnt need enemys or rivals, as it has it own biggest hurdle to triumph over.... complacency.




    And yet despite their BS and lies, all it will take is another Ico and I'll forgive them all their sins :)
     
  15. Krevnik macrumors 68030

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #15
    I really only take task to this comment. The issue I see is that the comparison that Kotaku showed was really messed up. The 360's input on the TV was calibrated all wonky, making things dark. I actually despise the horrid crushing of blacks which made the image look like trash. The PS3 was better calibrated, but was also washed out.

    Details were exaggerated on one, and washed out on the other. To be honest, neither one is quite up to snuff in terms of display quality that can be had from the game and an even remotely calibrated set (and yes, the PS3 version /is/ RR6 with some tweaks, I dunno why they call it 7 either).

    There are some definite differences that can be seen though:

    - PS3 version has some better draw distance, from what I can tell. Objects like trees/bushes are removed from the 360 at extreme ranges to keep detail up on the actual background (the terrain itself).

    - 360 version doesn't need to use mip-mapping as heavily, resulting in better texture display at a distance. The Kotaku images show this quite plainly. Roads that you can get a lot of detail on the 360, are blurred, and you can even see the 'step' in texture quality on the PS3. Ick.

    There are a couple differences I can see, such as the quality of the sky/mountain backdrops, the quality of the car models themselves, and the lighting/shading, but I don't want to comment too much on that, as it is hard to tell if it is the actual system, or the piss poor calibrations that are at fault for these other differences.

    To be honest, I am surprised that people actually like the crushed-black look of the 360 pic, and call it higher quality... a LOT of texture and shadow detail was lost, while detail in the middle of the gamma curve is highly exaggerated, which makes it hard to make a comparison without being completely subjective about it. :/
     
  16. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #16
    To be honest I havent seem the kotaku images at all.

    I downloaded the 1280x720 video review of RR7 on IGN, and as I already had / played / realised how crap it was and traded it in - the 360 version on RR6 months and months ago...

    So it was actually that I was comparing with, noth the Kotaku shots, it was another poster who mentioned those. ;) :)

    It was just a surprise to see a pretty much identikit game except they were now calling it RR7....
     
  17. Krevnik macrumors 68030

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #17

    It stops being surprising pretty quick... RR6 was a graphically shiny version of RR for the PSP.
     
  18. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #18

    Yeah and did you see that PSP RR2 is basically the EXACT same game as RR on PSP, with very minor differences... Same courses everything...

    I think someone needs to have words with Namco's Sequel Naming department.
     
  19. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #19
    Reminds me of this:
    [​IMG]

    1 + 6. And the problem is that 6 of them aren't really any good at all when it comes to game-related code. Read about it here - http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360
     

Share This Page