• Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
  • Read Evilhog's interview with Gregory Alper, the original composer of the music for WarCraft: Orcs & Humans 🔗Click here to read the full interview.

Final Fantasy XIII to come to Xbox 360!

Should a Final Fantasy game be on the Xbox 360?

  • Yes! This way, more people will come to enjoy the games,

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • FF only belongs on a Sony console.

    Votes: 24 36.4%
  • I really don't care.

    Votes: 27 40.9%

  • Total voters
    66
Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 17
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
1,122
Yes, I'm a PC fanboy. It's the primary system I use for everything :p

But I was talking about 360 users in general, since if anyone so much as mentions having played 360 in front of a PS3 user, they will be crucified as an ubernerdyultrafanboy.

Not really... But 360boys usually scream out their opinions in the wrong place at the wrong time...

wrong place = Ps3 exclusive game in youtube

wrong time= the game hasn't been released yet... wtf
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
Dreamcast hardware was better than anything else in its generation yet it still failed

Better hardware means nothing if the company behind the product can't get their ass into gear and market it correctly
I didn't say that it made it do better, I was just pointing out that it is better. I know about Dreamcast, and I know about Beta tapes. :p
 
Level 6
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
275
I didn't say that it made it do better, I was just pointing out that it is better. I know about Dreamcast, and I know about Beta tapes. :p

Didn't SEGA die just because the Saturn failed miserably? And history is repeating itself. Windows Vista was crap and now they're making a new OS already. Microsoft may be at the end of it's life... I mean even Bill Gates stepped down from the CEO spot, or something like that.

PS. This is getting off topic.
 
Level 17
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
1,122
Didn't SEGA die just because the Saturn failed miserably? And history is repeating itself. Windows Vista was crap and now they're making a new OS already. Microsoft may be at the end of it's life... I mean even Bill Gates stepped down from the CEO spot, or something like that.

PS. This is getting off topic.

Too much security when you could just get Avira Anti-Vir and end all of those stupid problems.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,964
Didn't SEGA die just because the Saturn failed miserably? And history is repeating itself. Windows Vista was crap and now they're making a new OS already. Microsoft may be at the end of it's life... I mean even Bill Gates stepped down from the CEO spot, or something like that.

PS. This is getting off topic.

It's not about the quality of the product. That doesn't bring in money, Microsoft is a fucking business GIANT. It KNOWS how to sell products. Even if they are big piles of smelly shit.

Vista has SOLD and made money. So has practically everything else they made. Our point is that Sony, while not necessarily making "Bad" products is not SELLING as well as it should. Which is why it is failing.
 
Level 17
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
1,122
Avira Anti-Vir was one of my best anti-virus.

Better than NORTON.

The thing is, Vista focuses in security, thus it slows the computer down because of the following reasons:

-Overuse of graphics
-Too much loading when it was about to load some simple shit
-Too much security and protection from all sides
and
-It lags my Counterstrike-Source.

Guys, when was the last time a program attacked you in Windows XP?

For me, it was 3 years ago before I got the largest update of Anti-Vir Avira.

I'm not advertising, but I'm merely saying that Vista got some useless security measures which significantly can slow some computers down if you don't tune down the graphics so much.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
Didn't SEGA die just because the Saturn failed miserably? And history is repeating itself. Windows Vista was crap and now they're making a new OS already. Microsoft may be at the end of it's life... I mean even Bill Gates stepped down from the CEO spot, or something like that.

PS. This is getting off topic.
SEGA isn't dead, they just don't make consoles.

No the Dreamcast was the last console they made, and their biggest failure. Which is too bad, it was a great system. I guess poor marketing and bad luck did it in.
 
Level 17
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
1,122
No, the Grand Theft Auto's being a prime example of why you're wrong. Same with Halo, the PC version was way better.

You think anyone will get jealous of an additional episode where you can play in a friend's house in one day?

Or, you have to play the game in your friends house everyday and wishing that you could steal his (put your console here) and the (game that supports the console and was released way earlier in this console)?
 
Level 17
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
1,433
No, the Grand Theft Auto's being a prime example of why you're wrong. Same with Halo, the PC version was way better.
Of course the PC version was better (I actually preferred the Xbox version because of co-op). You can't compare any multi-platform games between a console and a PC. You'd have a point if it was originally on the ps2, and then remade for the Xbox, for example.
 
Level 2
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
9
Dedicated well rounded gamers who want to play games like FF13 and CoD and SSBB?

Nintendo doesn't give a @#$% about you, they just want to generate a lot of cash with disposable shovelware and fanboys.

Xbox could give a shit about you either, they're aiming the barrel of their game gun squarely at the sons of Master Chief.

And the PS3 is a Blu-Ray player that runs a few games.
 
Level 13
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
1,198
well i guess what i meant was i wouldn't even vote for i don't care because i'm the wrong person to ask because i'm not bothering to buy ff13 after how bad ff12 was. so whether i need a ps3 or an xbox 360 to play a game doesn't matter to me. although in my opinion they don't need to release it on xbox 360 ps3 is enough. but yeah i mean i wonder why they'd even bother i mean is anyone going to have fun playing it? who's going to buy it anyway? if they do make another bad game then no one will buy ff14 for sure. don't you think?

edit: actually...thinking about it a little further...perhaps ff12 should've been on the xbox instead of ps2 and then ff13 also only on xbox. i mean all the worst games are on xbox right(from my perspective, at least)? so why wasn't ff12 on xbox?

So...thinking about all that...i guess it's worse on the ps3 than on the xbox 360.

after all, ps and ps2 had some good ff games, really really good ones. and then they made this xbox kinda game or something for ps2. how weird is that.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 65
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,289
Xbox 360 will have better loading times due to the use of HDD install, even if it needs multiple discs. As this game is really graphicly demanding, I would think that most of the RAM of both systems will be asigned to graphics, thus the 360 will have an advantage as its dedicated graphics RAM generally is faster as far as game developers have shown so it may have better textures. The PS3 however has more powerful graphics processor, so may use more complex effects or better looking ones. The 360 probably will use AA though as it is designed to get AA for almost no penalty, you can bet that the PS3 will not as AA will just cost too much.
Processor wise, its a hard choice as its 6 simultanious threads from the 360 VS something like 7 from the cell (one core is disabled for yeld). However, I think the PS3 may have a slight advantage as it seems they love using hair physics, thus you may find the physical effects being toned down a bit for the 360.

My conclusion is, the 360 one will probably look the best from a still image, the PS3 from actual effects and frame rate. The 360 one will probably have an annoying 1-2 disc changes beeing needed as apposed to PS3's all in one blu-ray, however it makes up for that by being able to install the discs to HDD, thus it should technically have the better of the 2 loading times as blu-ray is not as fast as the 360's HDD. Thus the whole multi disc scare is nothing to worry about as new HDDs for the 360 can easilly fork out enough space for all discs at once and with the right programming from square, you may not even need to take the disc out while you are playing. The game was made for the PS3 however, so the 360 may have compatibility problems at times (low FPS or graphic bugs).

Thus both versions will have their ups and downs. I personally may get the 360 version just because I have one, however the PS3 one may be recomendable if you have that system.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
127
@ DR SG
But to install the game on your 360, you would have to install once for each disc, and if the install is 7gb per disc, that could add up to 20 maybe even 30 or more gb. And seing how the 360 has a 60gb HDD (not counting elite), and the old ones have 20gb... that's gonna be a real problem. Which will force a lot of 360 owners to upgrade to the very overpriced 120gb xbox HDD... which would piss a lot of people off.

And the ps3 version will most likely have a 5gb mandatory install to make it run smoother aswell. And maybe even a full disc install like the 360's (a few ps3's games can do it).

Also I reckon the ps3 version will have the edge over the 360's. Seing how the xbox's is a port.

And DrSG you didn't mention the ps3 having the powerfuller cell processor and blu-ray (even though I don't know too much about blu-ray at this stage).

And the game is coming out later on 360, apparently they are not even starting the 360 version untill the ps3 version is complete or almost complete.

Also if none of you knew already the game (ps3 version atleast) will run in 720p and 30 framerates.

That's my 2 cents ... lol :p
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 65
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,289
Seing how the xbox's is a port.
Too bad they said this engine was designed for cross platform support, infact a large ammount of the development time appears to be in the engine. Thus like I said the 360 probably will sufer from the odd slowdown here and there, but it will not be anything game breaking.

powerfuller cell processor
Neithor does the PS3, it only uses a weak version of the cell with atleast 1 core disabled for improved yield. Processor wise they are about equal, although like I said the PS3 probably will handle the physics slightly better used on the hair due to better thread capacity (7-9 vs the 360's 6). Thus the 360 version may see slighly less impresive hair movements and stuff, but they will still be there.

As the engine is designed to be cross platform, they probably are working on both at the same time, but the PS3 one will definatly come out first as it is released in japan before everywhere else and they will only get the PS3.

Both versions will probably run in the same graphic settings.

May I remind you that blu-ray is not that much bigger than a normal DVD, being atmost twice the size or slighly more. Thus you should not expect more than 2 360 discs, atmost 3 if they have to recycle a lot of data, but in the end that should be compactable to a very small size by not reinstalling duplicate data.
 
Level 17
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
1,433
May I remind you that blu-ray is not that much bigger than a normal DVD, being atmost twice the size or slighly more. Thus you should not expect more than 2 360 discs, atmost 3 if they have to recycle a lot of data, but in the end that should be compactable to a very small size by not reinstalling duplicate data.
Bluray = 50GB
DVD-ROM = 8.5GB

Where did you learn math?
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 65
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,289
Do you honestly think they are using a duel layer blu-ray? If so I think your nuts. No game ever made has reached 50 GB, even WoW is at a megar 16 odd. If it does use a dual layer blu-ray, there is no way they could port it to the 360 as they would need a masive 6+ discs which would just be stupid.

Single layer blu-ray V Dual layer DVD is probably what it will be. That is 25 GB (not including regerstry) VS 8.5 GB (not including regestry) which is 1:3. As you could see my numbers were not off too much and thus I have to ask, where did you learn to do maths?
That is if they fill the disc to the brim with actual data and no duplicate data exists.
It is highly possiable that there will be duplicate data for improved game performance.
Also remember that the 360 reads the discs faster than the PS3 (higher transfer rate).

Although it is posiable to have 4 discs as they have done in the past, it starts to get a bit hetic if you constantly have to change them.
 
To put it simply and in words that make more sense, the PS3 will use one big blu-ray disc while the 360 will use more than one, something like 4 seems appropriate to me, since most big JRPGs like Blue Dragon or Lost Odyssey use 4 discs, I wouldn't be surprised if FFXIII reached that too. But really, no one knows how many DVDs it will take until the game is out.

Its really, really simple.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,964
The only reason you'd need a 50 gb fucking disc is because you really suck monkey fucking testicles in optimization. And that's the developers fault for being stupid, and then covering it up with the "Oh we used like the ENTIRE fucking Blu-ray 50 gb disc even though this game looks exactly like every other next gen game."

Look at Far cry 2 for example, optimized at 3.6 gb (As a PC Installation). (And thats relatively small for a it's size, also considering it's prequal took even more space.)


We don't need that much space in this generation of games (Except for a few odd cases maybe.), so any "omgweneedblu-rayspace" is poor optimization on the developers part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top