2008/11/28: Playstation 3: Bioshock, Midnight Club Los Angeles

[VideoGameCritic]

These games are absolutely top-notch in my book, but let's hear your take.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Glad to hear that these two games made it to the PS3 unscathed.  Thankfully, that has become the rule rather than the exception...those early multiplatform games were pretty rough.

Also be sure to check out Fallout 3.  Bioshock seems to have been inspired by the Fallout and System Shock universes.  Fallout 3 is certainly worth your time and money (and I think its even better than Bioshock).

Also if you are looking for more racing action on the PS3 you might want to pick up MotorStorm 2: Pacific Rift.  They put 4 player split screen into the game, so now you can finally enjoy this game with friends!

[Luke]

Once again, I find it amusing that another PS3 game (Bioshock) doesn't seem to look much or any better than the 360 version.

At this point, I'm convinced that the ONLY reason the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the Bly-Ray player.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=Luke]Once again, I find it amusing that another PS3 game (Bioshock) doesn't seem to look much or any better than the 360 version.

At this point, I'm convinced that the ONLY reason the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the Bly-Ray player.[/QUOTE]

Multiplatform games usually tend to be pretty similar (this was true even last gen).  The PS3 exclusives really do push the system.  I have yet to see a 360 game that looks better than Metal Gear Solid 4, Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted.  Those are some pretty games.  Though Gears 2 is pretty jaw dropping.

[Sudz1]

[QUOTE=Luke]Once again, I find it amusing that another PS3 game (Bioshock) doesn't seem to look much or any better than the 360 version.

At this point, I'm convinced that the ONLY reason the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the Bly-Ray player.[/QUOTE]

I think that's pretty much the case; more expensive hardware = more expensive console.  Plus since the established market for the 360 is so much larger than that of the PS3, developers 9 times out of 10 develop their games on the 360 (since they know that's the largest audience), and then port it over to the PS3 afterwards.  A port almost never gets more than the absolute minimum attention needed to get it working on the 'other' platform, and developers rarely want to waste time and resources to explore everything they can do with the new hardware.  It's just re-code, compile, squash bugs, and get it out the door!
Sudz

[andrew]

[QUOTE=Sudz][QUOTE=Luke]Once again, I find it amusing that another PS3 game (Bioshock) doesn't seem to look much or any better than the 360 version.

At this point, I'm convinced that the ONLY reason the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the Bly-Ray player.[/QUOTE]

I think that's pretty much the case; more expensive hardware = more expensive console.  Plus since the established market for the 360 is so much larger than that of the PS3, developers 9 times out of 10 develop their games on the 360 (since they know that's the largest audience), and then port it over to the PS3 afterwards.  A port almost never gets more than the absolute minimum attention needed to get it working on the 'other' platform, and developers rarely want to waste time and resources to explore everything they can do with the new hardware.  It's just re-code, compile, squash bugs, and get it out the door!
Sudz

[/QUOTE]

Nothing new there. It seems the first new console out the door gets priority and then the game is ported after. Last gen most multi-platform games were made on the PS2 first then ported later. Really though for Bioshock, what more did you really want? We should be glad they ported it over problem free instead of trying to marginally enhance the graphics.