🏈 EA NCAA 2011 demo

[kc]

With the new Xbox model the wireless is built in. 300 gets you everything including 250 gb hd. Not that I am going to drop 300 on new Xbox when mine works fine but for new buyers its about an equal playing field now with new model.

I have three different systems and see the live features are worth the cost...PSN is getting better, but is still a bit behind. It does not have all the bells and whistles.

 

[SpecThis]

[video=youtube;QfKxtdAJdYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfKxtdAJdYg[/video]

Check out the .22 second mark of the video. I'm pretty sure the South End Expansion is complete in the game. See how it shows the same play from different angles. You can clearly see the expansion in both endzones. 101,000 Bama fans. Way to go EA Sports

 

[RollTideinGA]

[video=youtube;QfKxtdAJdYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfKxtdAJdYg[/video]

Check out the .22 second mark of the video. I'm pretty sure the South End Expansion is complete in the game. See how it shows the same play from different angles. You can clearly see the expansion in both endzones. 101,000 Bama fans. Way to go EA Sports

I caught that too. I think in one video they pan the outside of the stadium and you can see it also.

 

[BamaJay73]

Top 25
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Texas
4. Oregon
5. Boise State
6. Florida
7. Virginia Tech
8. TCU
9. Nebraska
10. Iowa
11. Wisconsin
12. Georgia Tech
13. USC
14. Miami
15. Oklahoma
16. Pittsburgh
17. LSU
18. Penn State
19. Oregon State
20. Arkansas
21. Florida State
22. North Carolina
23. Utah
24. Cincinnati
25. Houston


From PastaPadre, who was at E3:

Can't wait to get my hands on this game. This will be the first time in the game where Bama was ranked #1. Should have a solid team!

 

[bama4life]

Downloaded the demo when it came out and Mizzou's playbook was interesting. Hope anyone that plays online this year will have your defensive audibles set as this year's game makes it even easier to run no huddle.

Anyone running a online Dynasty this year for 360?

 

[Big_Fan]

With the new Xbox model the wireless is built in. 300 gets you everything including 250 gb hd. Not that I am going to drop 300 on new Xbox when mine works fine but for new buyers its about an equal playing field now with new model.

I have three different systems and see the live features are worth the cost...PSN is getting better, but is still a bit behind. It does not have all the bells and whistles.

As I said, PSN does not have the flash of XBox live, but it works fine for online multiplayer games. If you want social networking and such, Xbox is better.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the new Xbox is out yet. It has been announced but will not actually hit the shelves until fall. Wired reported it was to start shipping immediately, but I am not so sure that is accurate. It would not surprise me to see the PS3 slim drop $50 when the new 360 hits the shelves.

Regardless, the 360 is still limited to 8 Gigs DVD storage capacity, while the PS3 has 54 Gigs on a disk. If only game developers would start utilizing the hardware available under the hood of the PS3 for cross-console releases. Games like Final Fantasy and Uncharted 2 are lightyears ahead of the Xbox which lacks both the CPU power and storage to keep up, but when the Xbox is used as the development platform, 5 of 6 CPU cores in the PS3 go unused and the game is limited to 8 Gigs like the Xbox. The end result is that the Xbox looks better when the reality is that the programmers were lazy - or at least lacking incentive to do more than a quick port of the game.

 

[lilstat]

As I said, PSN does not have the flash of XBox live, but it works fine for online multiplayer games. If you want social networking and such, Xbox is better.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the new Xbox is out yet. It has been announced but will not actually hit the shelves until fall. Wired reported it was to start shipping immediately, but I am not so sure that is accurate. It would not surprise me to see the PS3 slim drop $50 when the new 360 hits the shelves.

Regardless, the 360 is still limited to 8 Gigs DVD storage capacity, while the PS3 has 54 Gigs on a disk. If only game developers would start utilizing the hardware available under the hood of the PS3 for cross-console releases. Games like Final Fantasy and Uncharted 2 are lightyears ahead of the Xbox which lacks both the CPU power and storage to keep up, but when the Xbox is used as the development platform, 5 of 6 CPU cores in the PS3 go unused and the game is limited to 8 Gigs like the Xbox. The end result is that the Xbox looks better when the reality is that the programmers were lazy - or at least lacking incentive to do more than a quick port of the game.

The new 360 is out right now. My friend has one already. As for PSN and Xbox Live, I would rather spend my money on Live just for the Xbox Live Party Chat. I dont know how I played without it before that came out. lol

It is all preferences though, as I own both the PS3 and 360. My PS3 hasn't been touched in about 2 months as I am waiting on Gran Turismo to drop for some NASCAR racing. In my opinion, none of the games really look much better then the others. Mosy everyone I game with play 360 over PS3 because of the ease of multiplayer functions. Mainly just the chat aspect of it.

 

[Big_Fan]

The new 360 is out right now. My friend has one already. As for PSN and Xbox Live, I would rather spend my money on Live just for the Xbox Live Party Chat. I dont know how I played without it before that came out. lol

It is all preferences though, as I own both the PS3 and 360. My PS3 hasn't been touched in about 2 months as I am waiting on Gran Turismo to drop for some NASCAR racing. In my opinion, none of the games really look much better then the others. Mosy everyone I game with play 360 over PS3 because of the ease of multiplayer functions. Mainly just the chat aspect of it.

They have not hit here yet. I checked the stores today. I found them online at Gamestop, but they are $370 for a basic system with one controller. Gamestop is selling the PS3 slim 250Gb with one controller, Infamous, and Little Big Planet, for $349.

The chat falls under "social networking" which I couldn't care less about. The teamspeak type chat in FPS games works really well though. I just paired up a $20 motorola bluetooth headset to it and was done. The ability to use all bluetooth devices is a definite plus. File transfers between devices are a breeze and the networking setup with the PS3 makes it easy to config your PC to work as a streaming media server with your PS3 as a playback device. The browser is not the absolute best, but it is adequate, I mean...Want to watch Bama games that are not televised where you are and you don't have ESPN360? Find the feed on justin.tv and stream it live on your TV using the PS3. The XBox may be able to do that, but I don't know.

You are right that most games are not significantly different when ported from Xbox to PS3. The real difference is when a game is hard coded for the PS3. Final Fantasy PS3 is much better on the PS3, and there is no game on the Xbox to compare with a game like Uncharted 2. When developers port from the Xbox to the PS3, they just recompile the code and don't optimize it for the PS3 hardware at all. The end result is a game that looks almost identical - and usually a little worse because the XBox version was optimized for the hardware and porting screws up the black levels. It is really annoying when a game like Need For Speed is better on the XBox and runs choppy on the PS3 - since it only uses 1 cpu core and leaves 5 cores sitting there doing nothing. Lazy programmers. Sony is to blame though...they overshot the market with ridiculous pricing early on. Had they came to market at the same price as the Xbox, things might have been different...of course they were already losing a ton of money on each system since the thing is a virtual super computer. They probably would have been better off producing a dual core box, upgrading the graphics card slightly, and selling the machine for $200 less on day one. I imagine the additional horsepower comes in handy with blue ray though.

The XBox has more games, better social networking, and is the development platform of choice...they rule the roost in the USA - sad considering the PS3 is such a better platform. Even with the addition of wifi as standard, the XBox is way behind in terms of features.

 

[Big_Fan]

The new 360 is out right now. My friend has one already. As for PSN and Xbox Live, I would rather spend my money on Live just for the Xbox Live Party Chat. I dont know how I played without it before that came out. lol

It is all preferences though, as I own both the PS3 and 360. My PS3 hasn't been touched in about 2 months as I am waiting on Gran Turismo to drop for some NASCAR racing. In my opinion, none of the games really look much better then the others. Mosy everyone I game with play 360 over PS3 because of the ease of multiplayer functions. Mainly just the chat aspect of it.

They have not hit here yet. I checked the stores today. I found them online at Gamestop, but they are $370 for a basic system with one controller. Gamestop is selling the PS3 slim 250Gb with one controller, Infamous, and Little Big Planet, for $349.

The chat falls under "social networking" which I couldn't care less about. The teamspeak type chat in FPS games works really well though. I just paired up a $20 motorola bluetooth headset to it and was done. The ability to use all bluetooth devices is a definite plus. File transfers between devices are a breeze and the networking setup with the PS3 makes it easy to config your PC to work as a streaming media server with your PS3 as a playback device. The browser is not the absolute best, but it is adequate, I mean...Want to watch Bama games that are not televised where you are and you don't have ESPN360? Find the feed on justin.tv and stream it live on your TV using the PS3. The XBox may be able to do that, but I don't know.

You are right that most games are not significantly different when ported from Xbox to PS3. The real difference is when a game is hard coded for the PS3. Final Fantasy PS3 is much better on the PS3, and there is no game on the Xbox to compare with a game like Uncharted 2. When developers port from the Xbox to the PS3, they just recompile the code and don't optimize it for the PS3 hardware at all. The end result is a game that looks almost identical - and usually a little worse because the XBox version was optimized for the hardware and porting screws up the black levels. It is really annoying when a game like Need For Speed is better on the XBox and runs choppy on the PS3 - since it only uses 1 cpu core and leaves 5 cores sitting there doing nothing. Lazy programmers. Sony is to blame though...they overshot the market with ridiculous pricing early on. Had they came to market at the same price as the Xbox, things might have been different...of course they were already losing a ton of money on each system since the thing is a virtual super computer. They probably would have been better off producing a dual core box, upgrading the graphics card slightly, and selling the machine for $200 less on day one. I imagine the additional horsepower comes in handy with blue ray though.

The XBox has more games, better social networking, and is the development platform of choice...they rule the roost in the USA - sad considering the PS3 is such a better platform. Even with the addition of wifi as standard, the XBox is way behind in terms of features.

 

[kc]

299 in wally world and gamestop. Headset, wireless controller etc inc.

I will not say what platform is better, because it is all preference. Communication being a key component to the games I play is the primary reason I play my Xbox more....and you can do all the comp stuff with Xbox as well. Your OS is probably made by Microsoft? Apples to Apples.

 

[Swamptick]

No one is forcing you to buy anything. You can always wait until the game come out July 13th. I have played on the free play station network and xbox live. I would much rather pay the 49.99 a year to use xbox live than play for free on play station network because the play station network SUCKS!

I am in the video game industry and EVERYTHING you just said is completely, totally accurate. PSN is free (for now) and you get what you pay for. People complaining about XBL as a 49.99 per year service really tickle me. It's usually just Sony chogs trying to justify their own dogcrap network. XBL is .14 cents a day. For ANYONE who can afford a computer, monthly internet service and a current gen console, a 50 per year expense for a VASTLY superior service is chump change.

 

[RollTideinGA]

It's funny. This reminds me of two old Army buddies arguing Chevy vs Ford. LOL. "The only time I ever had to walk home was because of a @#&% Chevy!" says the big guy from Wyoming. haha

Its all in preference to the user. I remember when gamers used to say the XBOX was better than the PS2. Now that may have flipped a bit. Really the only people I know with PS3's say they only picked it for the Blue Ray. Are they true gamers, probably not but thats the line I always get when I ask why they chose it.

I like the 360 and I think I'll stick with it because thats what my buddies have and we play COD, BC2, Red Dead, and various sports games online.

 

[Swamptick]

The bottom line is they are both good systems. However, the 360 is a much easier system to develop games for. As a result, most developers - in the interest of lowering production costs - will make the game for the Xbox 360 and then port it over to the PS3. This generally results in a crisper, faster and more visually appealing game on the 360 when and if there is a noticeable difference in the two versions.

In terms of console exclusivity, my opinion leads strongly towards the 360. The system has a much larger library and it's console exclusives are better.

Xbox Live and PSN are not even comparable. Xbox Live is a peerless service. If you are a gamer who likes to play online, the 360 is for you.

Either system is going to give you some good times but if you could only have one (and I have both) you should probably buy a 360.

For what it's worth, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I want both systems to sell well and succeed. That puts food on my plate.
Still, I can't help but notice that in many circles, the Sony fans are VERY similar to Auburn fans. They obsess and obsess over Microsoft to the point of trolling on the gaming forums. They just can't let it go.

 

[Bama Los]

I'm new to the whole "next gen" systems as I just recently bought an xbox 360. I have played this game for years on the PS2, so my knowledge of the two nextworks are limited. That being said, I just downloaded the demo and the game looks great! Night and day compared to what I have been playing, duh right. Anyways, I've been really happy with the xbox live, to me it is not really expensive considering every game can be played with an online multiplayer.

 

[Big_Fan]

A few thoughts based on recent posts:

(1) I really didn't think the discussion had gotten that heated, other than a few xbox zealots and one saying "PSN sucks." It is hard to insult a free service. While the PSN is strapped by peers, as long as the host is fast, you really don't suffer lag any worse than a dedicated server. I have a 5 meg down/1 meg up connection, and there is little difference in PSN and my PC for FPS games. MW2(PS3) v/s CoD4(pc) pings are about the same.

(2) It is about time Xbox got onboard with wireless. With the PS3 price cut, they were losing market share. PS3 sales improved greatly.

(3) Cross platform titles are generally better on Xbox - not simply because it is easier to develop for, but because it is the established development platform. The PS3 has a slightly inferior GPU and a vastly superior CPU. Where the PS3 excels, is in games optimized to use its 6 core CPU and 54 gig blue ray capacity. Most developers just port the game directly, since DirectX to OpenGL is not a huge deal, and a single cpu core on the PS3 is adequate to handle (most) Xbox software. In some instances though, that is not the case. To the negative, racing games suffer framerate loss that could be resolved if the game utilized multiple cores. On the flip side, companies like Square Enix have optlized games and the results are stunning. Final Fantasy PS3 is amazing. The Xbox has more dedicated titles, but what is being produced on the PS3 now is unquestionably better. God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 are simply better than anything the Xbox is capable of due to the 8 gig limit of the DVD.

(4) PS3 OS is not a microsoft product. The API's are not Microsoft based. I rarely use Microsoft operating systems. Linux Mint works really well for me and I use a Macbook on the go. Creating a media server that is accessible via my wireless network from the PS3 is simple in Linux. I can dload Bama football torrents and stream to the TV with little fuss. That said, the comment one poster made about "not serious gamers" is both tired and misplaced. PC gamers have been saying that about console gamers for years. Both consoles are toys, really. I have a dual 9800gt SLI linux box that I can boot into Windows (when wine does not work for compatibility) and blow the doors off either game system. I don't have time to game as much as I used to but this system with dual 22" monitors is up to the task. Most of my game time is eaten by a rather nice cross OS MMORPG that I can run in one monitor while working in the other.

(4) From what I have seen, the issue with console zealotry is weighted more heavily toward the Xbox fanboys who can't believe that "Live" is not the end-all selling point for everyone. If I get 50ms pings on PSN, and have teamspeak via an off the shelf blue tooth, what does it matter if I don't have a cute little avatar and chat rooms? $60/year is not a fortune, but if it does not give me any added value, why spend it? A Ferrari does little good for someone hauling lumber, no matter how much better it is than a Ford F350.

(5) I am not a PS3 fanboy. I bought one because, for me, it held more value. At the time, a comparably equipped Xbox would have cost over $100 more, and Live offers no significant advantages for me in online gaming - even peer v/s dedicated. Our previous console was an Xbox (though we have or have had PS2, WII, and tons of earlier gen consoles). We have probably 70 or 80 xbox games, v/s 20-30 PS2. Had the XBox had wireless 6 months ago, I would have looked hard at buying one, but it didn't. Wireless + Blue Ray + Blue Tooth + free PSN made the PS3 a better value. Even with build in 802.11n, the Xbox still falls short in some areas (such as $20 off the shelf blue tooth headsets and a wide range of other accessories), and while Live is (no doubt) better than PSN, PSN does what I need it to do - and is totally free. After 6 months I can say I am happy with it, even if it doesn't have a froopy little avatars and a cool chat room setup.

Have fun with your Xboxes if you have one. At least with me on PSN there is one less person to pwn you.

 

[RollTideinGA]

...pwn you.

Oh god, I hate that freaking "word". Nothing like hearing a bunch of 10 year olds screaming it while playing COD or something in their squeaky little voices. "PWND!" Arent those games rated M for mature?

Both consoles have their benefits and their issues. To each his own. I still say its just like Chevy vs Ford.

 

[kc]

A few thoughts based on recent posts:

(1) I really didn't think the discussion had gotten that heated, other than a few xbox zealots and one saying "PSN sucks." It is hard to insult a free service. While the PSN is strapped by peers, as long as the host is fast, you really don't suffer lag any worse than a dedicated server. I have a 5 meg down/1 meg up connection, and there is little difference in PSN and my PC for FPS games. MW2(PS3) v/s CoD4(pc) pings are about the same.

(2) It is about time Xbox got onboard with wireless. With the PS3 price cut, they were losing market share. PS3 sales improved greatly.

(3) Cross platform titles are generally better on Xbox - not simply because it is easier to develop for, but because it is the established development platform. The PS3 has a slightly inferior GPU and a vastly superior CPU. Where the PS3 excels, is in games optimized to use its 6 core CPU and 54 gig blue ray capacity. Most developers just port the game directly, since DirectX to OpenGL is not a huge deal, and a single cpu core on the PS3 is adequate to handle (most) Xbox software. In some instances though, that is not the case. To the negative, racing games suffer framerate loss that could be resolved if the game utilized multiple cores. On the flip side, companies like Square Enix have optlized games and the results are stunning. Final Fantasy PS3 is amazing. The Xbox has more dedicated titles, but what is being produced on the PS3 now is unquestionably better. God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 are simply better than anything the Xbox is capable of due to the 8 gig limit of the DVD.

(4) PS3 OS is not a microsoft product. The API's are not Microsoft based. I rarely use Microsoft operating systems. Linux Mint works really well for me and I use a Macbook on the go. Creating a media server that is accessible via my wireless network from the PS3 is simple in Linux. I can dload Bama football torrents and stream to the TV with little fuss. That said, the comment one poster made about "not serious gamers" is both tired and misplaced. PC gamers have been saying that about console gamers for years. Both consoles are toys, really. I have a dual 9800gt SLI linux box that I can boot into Windows (when wine does not work for compatibility) and blow the doors off either game system. I don't have time to game as much as I used to but this system with dual 22" monitors is up to the task. Most of my game time is eaten by a rather nice cross OS MMORPG that I can run in one monitor while working in the other.

(4) From what I have seen, the issue with console zealotry is weighted more heavily toward the Xbox fanboys who can't believe that "Live" is not the end-all selling point for everyone. If I get 50ms pings on PSN, and have teamspeak via an off the shelf blue tooth, what does it matter if I don't have a cute little avatar and chat rooms? $60/year is not a fortune, but if it does not give me any added value, why spend it? A Ferrari does little good for someone hauling lumber, no matter how much better it is than a Ford F350.

(5) I am not a PS3 fanboy. I bought one because, for me, it held more value. At the time, a comparably equipped Xbox would have cost over $100 more, and Live offers no significant advantages for me in online gaming - even peer v/s dedicated. Our previous console was an Xbox (though we have or have had PS2, WII, and tons of earlier gen consoles). We have probably 70 or 80 xbox games, v/s 20-30 PS2. Had the XBox had wireless 6 months ago, I would have looked hard at buying one, but it didn't. Wireless + Blue Ray + Blue Tooth + free PSN made the PS3 a better value. Even with build in 802.11n, the Xbox still falls short in some areas (such as $20 off the shelf blue tooth headsets and a wide range of other accessories), and while Live is (no doubt) better than PSN, PSN does what I need it to do - and is totally free. After 6 months I can say I am happy with it, even if it doesn't have a froopy little avatars and a cool chat room setup.

Have fun with your Xboxes if you have one. At least with me on PSN there is one less person to pwn you.

LOL you are a PSN fan boy now....you are coming on here to defend why you think it is better. (just picking)...the point about the OS was that XBOX=MS=OS=can hook up all my comps and xboxs together. Not big apple fan...maybe one day but not atm. After playing PSN since it came out we both said there was no way we would buy another one(one is enough) and yes I can rip on a free service all I want( I own PS3 and have that right)...it is is better now but does not compare in reality to xbox live. Avatars are meh...the Xbox chat features are awesome. As far as programmers are concerned, yes they choose Xbox because they have worked with it longer and know how to build off the system....PS3 is coming along in that department but developers still prefer the MS software( really depends on who you talk to). Plus these are never meant be compared to PC gaming machines...or they would run in the thousands. My comps blow all them out of the water.

I still say to each his own and it is about time each developer gave the other one credit for being something that the other is not....and that is how it should be. Not opinions of why one is better than the other. They both have their strong points and weak points.
You have to understand it is not all about the bells and whistles but the fact that many have a huge friend base on xbox live and are not gonna give that up for PSN and to start over...so many clans on Halo/CoD/etc.

Final fantasy is great on both.
I am on Super Mario Galaxy 2 atm great game.....


Why must everyone use that word...it was something I got tired of seeing in chat on WoW...nothing like patting oneself on the back before I stick my sword in it lol

BTW I am a huge PS fan....cannot play tekken tag without it =)