Anyone see
Tom
advertising blitz there, and it did so aimed at the right market that would
have been watching that game. Also, they advertised the COD4 game (no
specific console mentioned, and the movie Hitman, which is a game also.
boodybandit
"Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:xo6dnbIfwqFnBrPa...@insightbb.com...
I brought this up last week. They are finally on the right track and they
have the best commercials to back them now.
I saw a couple commercials with COD4 & ACreed yesterday for the PS3. The
best part of their commercials is announcing the new price point.
I also read this morning that COD4 is native 1080p on the PS3 @ 60FPS.
boodybandit
btw. How about that Colts/Pats game?
I thought it was a really good game except for some of the penalties. Refs
need to get them right, lets the players play or not call them at all.
But back to the game. Is there a team out there that can seriously challenge
the Pats other than the Colts? Maybe Pittsburgh?
The King of Gaming
I think the Colts will be just fine. They basically pissed the game
away with mistakes, and I find it hard to believe that Harrison
wouldn't have been worth a few extra first downs. Give the Patriots
credit for winning though. They're clearly the best team at the
moment.
carlah...@hotmail.com
>
> I also read this morning that COD4 is native 1080p on the PS3 @ 60FPS.
People are mistaking 1080P upconvert capability for being rendered
natively at 1080P. Both versions render at 720P natively.
Mark Johnson
I think maybe your wrong, yes the 360 can upscale but the PS3 can't do
hardware upscaling, so if it says 1080p on the PS3 box then thats what
it is.
carlah...@hotmail.com
The developers are addressing the scaling somehow through the
software. The 360 upscales it using hardware, while it is up to the
developers of each title on the PS3 to add scaling functionality.
One of the developers has already stated on one forum that there is
minimal differences between the two titles, although there are some
things that are going to look superior on one console vs the other due
to the differences in hardware. textures, shadows, etc. Both run at 60
FPS.
Mark Johnson
I'll see if it is upscaled by the end of the week. Both my 360 and PS3
are set to 1080p as my TV is native. When a game upscales the screen
flickers a bit to start then settles down when the game starts (seems to
be trying to find correct mode), if the game is native 1080p the screen
doesn't flicker.
Big Daddy
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>Is there a team out there that can seriously challenge the Pats other than
>the Colts? Maybe Pittsburgh?
well as a Steeler fan, I say yes..Pittsburgh. For the Pats, the Steelers
would have to bring their A-game, but I think they could do it (especially
seeing as how well Indy's fast/quick RB chewed up yardage against them and
that is Pitt's fortay). We'll find out about that in a few weeks, I guess.
As for the colts, Manning has problems against the 3-4 defense (look at
their losses the last few years...Pats, Cowboys, Steelers, Chargers...all
run the 3-4), so Pitt has a shot against them as well.
That's not to say I'm picking Pitt (I still say both the Colts/Pats should
be the favored team), but I think Pitt certainly CAN beat them if they bring
their A game.
I personally think if the pats/colts meet again the colts can beat them as
they *should* have won despite missing some key players.
Tom
Yes, it was awesome! The penalties were off the wall, especially those two
pass interference calls against the Pats. But they did make a lot of real
penalty blunders (like those two personal fouls by Todd Light). The
officiating was plain ridiculous to be honest, but other than that, it lived
up to the hype. The Colts had that game, made a big mistake at the end, and
the Pats won it.
Pittsburgh doesn't have a prayer. Remember 2004? Pit was 15-1, the Pats 14-2
in the regular season. Pats lost bigtime at Pitt during the regular season,
but then Pitt lost at home bigtime to the Pats in the AFC Championship game,
that's what counts; the Pats this year are betteron "D" then 2004, and way
better on scoirng "O". I notice one thing about Pitt though, it seems if
Roethlisberger has to throw more than 200yds a game, they seems to lose,
lose and he make mistakes. Shut down their running game, they are dead. The
Pats have shown they don't need a running game this year (like they needed
in 2004) with the way they pass and score at will with that stiff defense
they have.
Tom
That's cool, looks like the PS3 version will look better, and if it really
can play up to that FR, it will be better. The 360 version is 720p.
Mark Johnson
I've just read somewhere that PS3 version has got a few jaggys going on.
Tom
"Mark Johnson" <mark-j...@freeola.com> wrote in message
news:fgo55v$187l$1...@energise.enta.net...
That wouldn't surprise me, the 360 has better AA capabilities than the PS3
as well as pixel fillrate and shading architecture. But seriously, unless
they are blatantly bad, jaggies don't bother me that much, because if you're
playing a game this intense, you are not going to be seeing them, or you're
not playing the game. But if you get smoother gameplay without framerate
issues, and still have nice graphics, what else could you ask for.
No actual press reviews exist yet for the PS3 version, but the 360 got one
and it is a 10 (from the official Xbox Mag, go figure). My buddy is going to
pick his up (hopefully) tonight at Walmart. He is off this week, and I am on
vacation from this Thursday all the way thru the 25th. I am definitely going
to check it out later this week at this place, and I will bring my copy over
to play on his 360, we can do a side by side comparison. I think both
version are going to smoke regardless, and I am ecstatic that we have
finnaly finished (after 62 years) WWII with the COD series.
boodybandit
If they are anything like the jaggies in Halo 3 I won't mind.
If the yare worst than that will be a problem.
boodybandit
>
> "boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qN6dnZ7eS6uov7La...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:xo6dnbIfwqFnBrPa...@insightbb.com...
>>> the PS3 advertisements during the Colt/Pats game?
>>
>> btw. How about that Colts/Pats game?
>> I thought it was a really good game except for some of the penalties.
>> Refs need to get them right, lets the players play or not call them at
>> all.
>> But back to the game. Is there a team out there that can seriously
>> challenge the Pats other than the Colts? Maybe Pittsburgh?
>
> Yes, it was awesome! The penalties were off the wall, especially those two
> pass interference calls against the Pats. But they did make a lot of real
> penalty blunders (like those two personal fouls by Todd Light). The
> officiating was plain ridiculous to be honest, but other than that, it
> lived up to the hype. The Colts had that game, made a big mistake at the
> end, and the Pats won it.
>
> Pittsburgh doesn't have a prayer.
You sure about that? You watching the game ;-) 35 - 7.
Now I will go to bed and wake up tomorrow to find out the lost 38 - 35.
Tom
> "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hq6dnYcZzZuaD7La...@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:qN6dnZ7eS6uov7La...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >>news:xo6dnbIfwqFnBrPa...@insightbb.com...
> >>> the PS3 advertisements during the Colt/Pats game?
>
> >> btw. How about that Colts/Pats game?
> >> I thought it was a really good game except for some of the penalties.
> >> Refs need to get them right, lets the players play or not call them at
> >> all.
> >> But back to the game. Is there a team out there that can seriously
> >> challenge the Pats other than the Colts? Maybe Pittsburgh?
>
> > Yes, it was awesome! The penalties were off the wall, especially those two
> > pass interference calls against the Pats. But they did make a lot of real
> > penalty blunders (like those two personal fouls by Todd Light). The
> > officiating was plain ridiculous to be honest, but other than that, it
> > lived up to the hype. The Colts had that game, made a big mistake at the
> > end, and the Pats won it.
>
> > Pittsburgh doesn't have a prayer.
>
> You sure about that? You watching the game ;-) 35 - 7.
> Now I will go to bed and wake up tomorrow to find out the lost 38 - 35.
>
Well, even if you're basing it on playing the Ravens, yes I still
think that, the Ravens have no offense, and they cannot hold on to the
ball when they have it. Look, when you see a 35-7 score with Pitt
winning @ halftime and Pitt doesn't have 50yds rushing and not even
200yds total "O", that says something. But, if you get Pitt into a
game where they have to try and keep up, or they are forced to pass to
win, they make mistakes. Pitt also hasn't had a barn burner schedule
so far either. They play the Pats @ Foxboro on Dec. 9, I'll be
watching that for sure, if my local shitty team doesn't have the same
air time.