Brink on PS3

(MatthiasK75) #1

in one of the new reviews, at the end the author stated
“Finally, I’d played a version of Brink at Gamescom in Germany last year on the PC, an experience I recall being visually rich, noticeably smooth. This version (played on a PlayStation 3) was far less impressive, with a less sturdy frame rate and lower visual detail.”

as a ps3 player this worries me, ive been excited for brink for around a a year and this kind of worries me, i dont want to be put on a disadvantage because of the system i play on

his is the review, posted by maaw in the ‘in the news’ thread

(Herandar) #2

Graphically, the console games are going to inferior to high-end gaming PCs. Since you will only be able to play with other PS3 gamers, you will not be at any disadvantage. And I think the graphics will be as good as most other contemporary releases. (Stylized design will age better too.)

(MatthiasK75) #3

i didnt really mean disadvantage, im at school in the music computer lab doing what im not suppose to so i didnt have time to pick my words well, the thing that worries me is the frame rate dropping, could be very annoying

(DarkangelUK) #4

Since then they also geared a beta specifically for the PS3 I’m guessing to iron out such issues as performance and network management. Remember back then it was an alpha.

(Nail) #5

you want the game to look as good on your $200 console as it does on my $2000 PC, why should I be held back to your standards ?

(engiebenjy) #6

I would hope that the PS3 version runs as good as the xbox version. In my opinion any game that doesnt simply hasnt been developed well enough for the PS3 hardware. As far as comparing it to the PC release, thats just silly - the PC release will always look better, and this applies to all games not just brink.

As dark has said, they have done a private PS3 beta - so I am hoping this has solved any network issues that might have been around at launch. It cannot be a crashing mess like black ops on PS3 was surely!

(II Captain K II) #7

well seeing as the PC is a struggling niche market I wouldn’t expect them to put mass amounts of extra effort on that front.

(Herandar) #8

Yes, yes, PC gaming is dead. They’ve been announcing that for like a decade now.

(nincek) #9

+1

One of the best comments that I’ve read yet.

(SockDog) #10

Given the PS3 version of ETQW had issues compared to the 360 I wonder how much the modifications the the id Tech 4 engine made a difference in developing Brink. I agree that the 360 and PS3 versions should be near similar or SD won’t have met their promise.

As for the PC version. I totally understand developers aiming at multiple platforms but I’m always a little shocked when they don’t take advantage of the freedom the PC can allow them to add a few finishing flourishes. As Nail said there is a reason people happily game on PCs.

(MatthiasK75) #11

i never said i wanted the ps3 version to best the PC, or to hold the PC back, my main concern was the frame rate, the thing about low visual detail was from the author not me, i just figure i should quote the entire sentence. really i think the anticipation is making us mad and we are starting to snap at each others necks!

(Striker92) #12

“Finally, I’d played a version of Brink at Gamescom in Germany last year on the PC, an experience I recall being visually rich, noticeably smooth. This version (played on a PlayStation 3) was far less impressive, with a less sturdy frame rate and lower visual detail.”

  1. Alot can change in one year, im guessing he would of played an earlier verison of the game. and there probably have been many improvements since then.

  2. The PC version should always be able play better then a console version in terms of FPS due to the hardware

  3. PC gaming isnt a niche market: [Insert Coin]

(X-Frame) #13

Less visual detail is a given, but frame-rate is something I don’t like to hear.

Still, like others have said that was from a year ago. A LOT can happen in a year.

(trigg3r) #14

actually, the version he played a year ago was on the PC (the one he mentioned was smoth and more visually reach) He played the PS3 version more recently.

(Striker92) #15

hahaha good point trigg3r

(beute) #16

[QUOTE=X-Frame;265494]Less visual detail is a given, but frame-rate is something I don’t like to hear.

Still, like others have said that was from a year ago. A LOT can happen in a year.[/QUOTE]

We dont know anything about the PS3 framerate… NOTHING.

He says that the PC version was way more impressive in that regard…
the PC will probably be uncapped, but it probably wont drop below 60 frames per second.

If the guy is less impressed with the PS3 version it could mean several things…
the game could run with 60fps but cant keep that standard for long and drops to minimum of 30fps.
it could mean that the PS3 version is capped at 30fps (most likely).

in both cases the PC version is far more impressive as it easily doubles the framerate.
but that’s not an issue for the PS3 as almost all games run with 30fps or even less sometimes.

I doubt he refers to framerate drops to below 25… the PS3 version was available in E3/quakecon and I’ve havent seen/heard about something like that.

(DouglasDanger) #17

You also have to take this into account-- game journalism is a new field. Literally anyone can become a gam journalist. Game journalism, like any writing about art, is extremely subjective. Different journalists say completely different things about the same aspects of the game. For example, the devs have said they made grenades weaker than other FPS games to try and limit grenade spam. However one of the journalists from the post-NDA deluge has said something about the grenades being awesome, while another journalists through a grenade at group of guys and only stunned them.

The second guy didn’t say what type of grenade he through-- it could have been a stun grenade, and there might be multiple types of grenades. Or it could be a stun grenade and that is it-- no frags, no flashbangs, no smoke… Or it could be a very weak frag grenade and that is only type of grenade there is.

(Nail) #18

“it could mean that the PS3 version is capped at 30fps (most likely).”

yeah, but he was playing on system link (or w/e ps3 has) not p2p online, still shouldn’t be choppy

(tapout) #19

I understand the whole “$2000 pc should be better then $200 console” but what avearage kid or kids parents can afford to buy one. Trust me if I could dish out that much money for a gaming computer I would but just about all the people I know play on consoles and plus I much rather use that money to buy a car. Wow it just donned on me, u have a pc that cost as much as a car, damn.

(wazups2x) #20

$2000? I just built a $700 PC that can run anything max settings. There’s really no need to spend that much on a gaming PC unless you purchase an overpriced Alienware. :tongue: