Lost Planet - Xbox 360 vs. PS3

to be honest i was always a bit underwhelmed by lost planet. It came across as very 'gamey' and contrived anyway. The graphics on any sys were average at best. and dont get me started about the thermal ...

• 

  gnrlstuart wrote at 13:22 on 06 February 2008

  this is obviously bias, the playstation 3,(however graphically inferior it is to the xbox 360) does not have exactly the same angle and action on the screenshot, however, the 360 is easily outperforming the ps3 on all fronts here.......inevitably

• 

  mark wrote at 21:36 on 06 February 2008

  ^ haha.

• 

  Anonymous wrote at 03:35 on 08 February 2008

  graphically inferior? Its a port, it has nothing to do with anything being graphically inferior, port uncharted to the 360 and see how much worse it looks.

• 

  Shiny_Dragon wrote at 12:53 on 08 February 2008

  to be honest i was always a bit underwhelmed by lost planet. It came across as very 'gamey' and contrived anyway. The graphics on any sys were average at best.
  
  and dont get me started about the thermal energy needed on the volcano level. That was beyond absurd.

• 

  AKIRA wrote at 07:24 on 11 February 2008

  bothe bad game

• 

  Lhurz wrote at 13:42 on 16 February 2008

  LOOL
  
  Yes PS3 is more bad, it's not the angle because if it is the angle, why the motion blur sucks on PS3 LOOL
  
  Even my PC with 300€ buyed for a 1 half year wins the PS3 in this game!
  
  HDR high, motion blur and other features, like my sys is very weak i turned outthe shadows and the resolution is 800X600, sucks.
  
  But graphically is beatiful

• 

  moitouriousa wrote at 08:02 on 20 February 2008

  I didn't want her to think that I was imitating diligently I kept my smile pointed towards the T.V.

• 

  Razorx1337x wrote at 19:56 on 16 July 2008

  Gaming adict and IT wizard here. 1st of all Motion Blur is simply a way to cut down on graphical demand in a game... remember GTA 3? It eases the load on the system's GPU by blurring the textures and 'realism' of objects. The PS3 is clearly able to render higher graphical textures and realism without the over use of blur. Think of the early days of N64 and all the games that had 'shadows' and 'mist' in the background, again it was done to cover up the fact that the system couldn't render that much detail and texture when moving fast or in a highly detailed area.
  Both systems have incredible hardware that is impressive and very different. It's the developers use of the hardware that will make 1 system look better than the other. What I look at is the overall experience from the console. The Xbox 360 is very loud, highly defective and glitchy, and many services charge a premium fee (xbox live gold) vs. the super quiet, blue-ray, wifi, stock PS3 that comes with free online gaming and services comparable to xbox live.

Name:      Register Free (Why?)

Write your comment in English here.

Verify:   Type these characters into the text box (you can register to skip this step in the future):