Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Madden 08: 60 frames on the 360; 30 frames on the PS3

TSO

By TSO
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

TSO

TSO

Posted
Posted

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160709

America's favorite pastime will come to consoles, later this summer. 1up.com has confirmed that the Xbox 360 versions of Madden NFL 08 (August), All-Pro Football 2K8 (July), and NCAA Football 08 (July) will run at 60 frames per second, whereas the PS3 editions are locked at just 30fps. In the simplest of terms, this means that the 360 versions will run smoother and faster, and you'll have an easier time noticing subtle animations.

Updates:

Todd Sitrin, EA's vice president of marketing sports branding, replied:

"We want to make sure that we give the best experience we can on each platform. In designing a game, there are all sorts of tradeoffs that include frame rate, visuals, features, AI, etc. Football is an extremely challenging sport to replicate because of the number of people on the field, their interaction, and the scope of the environments. As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps. We certainly believe that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are our football products are outstanding experiences and recommend that each gamer look at the entire experience, not just one aspect. We think they'll be very happy no matter which version of the game they play."

^^ Click link up top for full article.

Wow... All I can say is, this hurts for Sony and PS3 owners. The only thing that remains to be seen is just how much truth is in the statement made by Todd Sitrin and whether or not there are some differences in the visuals, AI, and features that are significant. I'm thinking the statement was more about damage control than anything else, and if it is, this is a blow. Madden, no matter how much all of us know sucks, is a huge release every year. The game simply sells massively. If it looks and runs better on one console than the other... that's simply a HUGE ADVANTAGE for the other system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shadowplay

Shadowplay

Posted
Posted
The human eye cant really distinguish anything over 30 frames per second anyway (edit) in most cases, depends on the refresh rate(s)

That's not true. There's plenty of videos that show the difference between 30fps vs 60fps. The current benchmark for video games is 60fps, everybody tries to shoot for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattGeorge85

MattGeorge85

Posted
Posted

I hope they modify the playing style a bit on the next gen systems. Madden 06 and 07 felt more like an arcade game to me compared to the PS2 version which has been fine tuned to feel more realistic.

Additionally EA give us some freaking throwback jerseys on the 360/PS3 if you are going to charge $60!! Hell my PS2 Madden 05 has more options!!!:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSO

TSO

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That's not true. There's plenty of videos that show the difference between 30fps vs 60fps. The current benchmark for video games is 60fps, everybody tries to shoot for that.

Yup, there's actually quite a significant difference between 30fps and 60fps. It's the reason why Sony touted it's PS3 hardware as capable of not only running 60fps at ease, but maybe even 120fps! They hyped themselves out of the game, and they deserve it.

Put simply; 60 fps is smoother, faster, and just better than 30fps especially when it comes to sports games that require twitch gameplay like football. One of the biggest knocks on Madden for quite some time now has been that it only runs at 30fps, while the 2k series ran at 60fps and simply felt right. I know this firsthand as I had to adjust once EA purcahsed the NFL license. It was really hard for me to get used to the feeling that my guys were tanks, and not the extremely athletic beings the 2k series made you feel like you were controlling.

Needs to be in the Madden forum. It's not official info from EA. 1up has been known to be Xbox lovers. We'll see what happens in a little over a month.

Actually, it is official info. Check the update part where an EA rep commented. Sorry.

So I'm guessing you're the resident Sony fanboy? Look, don't worry man. It's a severe blow no matter how you look at it, but the PS3 is still a great piece of hardware. It's just gonna take time. As soon as Sony can cut the price of the PS3, things will look up for them. They got some great games in the pipeline, so there's no reason to come on here and flame. Microsoft just played their cards extremely well this generation, making an easier platform to develop on and releasing it earlier to force publishers to think financially and develop for the 360 first and then port over to the PS3. This was nothing short of a genius business move... you should be able to see that and not be so blind as to believe Sony is infallible.

Sony aint going anywhere soon, and this war still has a long way till it's over. The PS3 is much more future-proofed, but the problem with that is, we just don't know what the future holds. What if Blu-Ray/HD-DVD becomes obsolete because of downloadable HD content becoming widely available to the masses? What if the time it takes for developers to actually get a hang of the Cell processor and the PS3 architecture ends up being proportional to the time where the gaming/computer technology industry begin to transition to even more advanced methods of computing? Sony gambled on the PS3, and so far it hasn't worked. That may change though, and it's all about how fast Sony can show what the PS3 is supposedly capable of. So far, it's been disappointing, and if it takes too long it just may end up becoming irrelevant. By that time, Microsoft will probably be unveiling the next Xbox forcing Sony to compete with the even further advanced technology that will surely be incorporated into it.

All I'm saying is, why be tied down? There are way too many great games coming to the 360. The multi-platform games almost always look and run better too. Why feel like you owe a corporation like Sony or Microsoft anything? They just want your wealth to themselves, both of them. Take advantage of what they're giving you and don't get angry when you see others enjoying the system you chose not to own. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JaimeDeCurry

JaimeDeCurry

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure I remember learning that humans can actually see up to 72fps. Movies only use 30fps and motion blur, so it looks real to us. Anything over 72fps and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but you could definitely tell between 60fps and 30fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyinO

FlyinO

Posted
Posted

I am willing to bet that the reason for the difference in the frame rate stems from the fact that since more people own a 360, hence, EA was willing to put more into the game on that platform. It probably has nothing to do with hardware. Not many persons can afford a 700 dollar system. EA is also notorious for skimping on the quality of it's products to turn a higher profit. Their schtick is getting big time liscenses and big time naming rights for their product. They love the marketing strategy of name recognition, because it works on so many tools in our consumer nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enter Apotheosis

Enter Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
I am willing to bet that the reason for the difference in the frame rate stems from the fact that since more people own a 360, hence, EA was willing to put more into the game on that platform. It probably has nothing to do with hardware. Not many persons can afford a 700 dollar system. EA is also notorious for skimping on the quality of it's products to turn a higher profit. Their schtick is getting big time liscenses and big time naming rights for their product. They love the marketing strategy of name recognition, because it works on so many tools in our consumer nation.

Sounds about in line with what I was thinking. EA is easily one of the worst (if not outright the worst) major gaming companies around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TorresA

TorresA

Posted
Posted

Do the make totally different games or do they make one game and port it to the other systems? IMO this is similar to PS2 and Xbox Madden. The Xbox was better hardware but was said that Madden looked better on the PS2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
Do the make totally different games or do they make one game and port it to the other systems? IMO this is similar to PS2 and Xbox Madden. The Xbox was better hardware but was said that Madden looked better on the PS2.

i'm pretty sure that they port it. that's how most cross-platform games are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggins77

Riggins77

Posted
Posted
Wow.

Hopefully you actually *play* for the REDSKINS to be able to afford that.

haha. It's all how you save your money man. At my work we get gift cards for performance so I always would stockpile them up to one place Best Buy or Circuit City, then I waited until after Christmas (when I got alot of money from relatives) and bought my Xbox 360. Now the PS3 is another story, I had gotten promoted and was dead set on buying it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enter Apotheosis

Enter Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
Do the make totally different games or do they make one game and port it to the other systems? IMO this is similar to PS2 and Xbox Madden. The Xbox was better hardware but was said that Madden looked better on the PS2.

Definitely ported. They pretty much developed it for the PS2, ported it to the 360 and spent a little time fixing it up, and also ported it to the PC where they spent practically no time fixing it up.

Porting really does not work as well when you have as much variance on the hardware level as you do with the PS3 and EA has never been the type to spend time, effort, and - most importantly - money on making the game consistent across all platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
Porting really does not work as well when you have as much variance on the hardware level as you do with the PS3...

that is actually one reason why the gamecube did so poorly. it was actually a better system than the PS2, but because that was the more popular system, games were made for it first and then ported over. unfortunately for nintendo, its system was quite different from the PS2 so even though the system itself was better, the cross-platform games for it sucked. If you look at some of the games that were made specifically for the nintendo compared to the ports, some of them are actually quite graphically nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Williams

Coach Williams

Posted
Posted

To edit and then confirm something.....

the human eye can not see over 32 frames per second.

If something appears better at 60 than at 32 than the one that claims to be 32 is NOT actually 32. In some game tests there is a variance.

For example...the ps3 average may be 30, but the range will be 20-35.....understand?.....

the 360 avg may be 60 but the range is 25-95.......

not unbelieveable, just good marketing to take advantage of the ignorant when it comes to graphical framerates

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...