Damn, PS3 version it is. I usually go with the 360 version for shooters since I like the controller better, but the 360 version just sounds awful.
You would lose your money. Digital Foundry says neither of the console versions run in HD (only when upscaled) and that the 360 has horrible screen tear and dropped frames for no reason. It's also an "unmitigated disaster." The PS3 is the clear console winner.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...rever-face-off
What we're seeing here looks like an 1152x640 framebuffer on both console versions, without the benefit of any kind of anti-aliasing whatsoever. The game is a mess of shimmering jaggies and high-contrast edges and there's very little in the way of post-processing (for example, motion blur or bloom) that would help to mitigate the very visible aliasing, which is only exaggerated as the game is upscaled by the consoles to a 720p output.The biggest difference seems to be in the implementation of the shadows - in many places, there's a feeling that they are missing on the Xbox 360 version of the game.Overall, the games appear to be fairly evenly matched on console in terms of imagery, but it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to performance. The Xbox 360 version of Duke Nukem Forever is nothing short of unmitigated disaster in this area, and easily one of the ugliest and most poorly performing shooting games we've tested in quite some time.It's a night-and-day difference between the two consoles. The Microsoft platform runs the game with an uncapped frame-rate, presenting some of the worst screen-tear we've seen in recent times. It seems that the people in charge of the conversion could only manage to get any semblance of a 30 frames-per-second refresh by updating the framebuffer as soon as a frame was rendered, and even then we still see some alarming drops in overall performance. The result is an unwelcome assault on both the look of the game and the way it plays.
The contrast with the PlayStation 3's showing is remarkable. In an interview with the PlayStation Blog, Randy Pitchford talked about "amazing optimisations" for the PS3 version courtesy of Piranha. The PlayStation 3's ability to run at what is effectively a locked 30FPS with only very minor outbreaks of screen-tear creates a remarkable difference to the experience of actually playing the game. While it's still objectionably ugly in many ways (hardly "amazing" bearing in mind the standard of the average FPS these days), at least the game provides a consistent level of visual feedback to the gameplay experience, with controls that feel solid and dependable.
In Eurogamer's damning Duke Nukem Forever review, Dan Whitehead points out that the game does have its moments, and that there are sections where interesting concepts provide a kind of experience very distinct from the usual FPS offerings. The PlayStation 3 version of the game makes these sections more fun to play, and even the meat-and-drink gunplay basics just feel better in comparison with the unfortunate 360 version. Performance is the key difference here, and the PC game is better still.
They all sound awful. What is wrong with you?
I only got to play the first 10 minutes because of a crippling bug and even that amount of time was enough for me.
Opaque: I want to believe! I'm not blind buying it though.
My bike crapped out on me so Duke's sidelined. I was going to bite the bullet and check it out, but I need my bike. $10 on Steam over Christmas it is.
James
$2 RedBox rental it is.
Xbox Live- SamuraiMoogle
This game really is middle of the road. It's neither Daikatana bad nor Half-Life good. A lot of the reviews that I've seen are railing on the humor above all else, when in reality the game's sense of humor is the least important thing ever.
I think I still have my copy of Daikatana. I should finally try to finish that game.
Bookmarks