The reason games are starting to look better on the PS3 now is because developers are using it as the lead platform, unlike in the begining of the PS3's life.

Games that start with the 360 as a lead platform was leaving us with a good 360 game , sub par PS3 game. PS3 as lead platform leaves consumers with great 360 game, Great if not Spectacular PS3 game. You see, with the PS3 as lead platform, both versions end up looking and playing better. It is easier to port from the PS3 too 360, yet more cost efficient to start 360 and have a bad port to PS3. I am so glad that period is over.
It is just like using an outdated program, lets say MS word. MS word 07 can work with all the ones before it but not well with MSword 08 files, that takes some reworking. MSword 08 can utilize MSword 07 as well as MS word 08 files because it's tech is superior.

@ makingmusic476

Correct, but Halo 3 does not feature anti-aliasing, instead they implemented HDR.

The ATi chip was pretty powerful for its time, you just have to look at a launch game like Kameo (which also had no AA though and used up to 85% of available resources from all 3 Xenon cores, the lack of AA was already a clear early indication that Anti-Aliasing isn't really free). Gears of War was eyecatching and likely Gears 2 will be too, getting the most out of what is possible to do on the 360.

Going with the EDRam approach having some more of it would have made it far more useful/powerful, considering it is meant to be a high definition console.

The PS3 and 360 GPUs are about on par with both chips offering their own advantages and disadvantages, a crucial difference however is how the RSX was styled to take advantage of the Cell processor. The Xenos would not fit well within the PS3 architecture, especially the shared bus for both GPU/CPU, a shared memory approach wouldn't. The Cell needs dedicated fast low latency RAM to work with to get the most out of it. Some people may want to point out the 360 can even do 1080p with AA. But that's linked to small predictable environments or bad framerates.

Nice if Ubisoft pushes more out of the PS3, but IMO that's still only the tip of the iceberg of what's possible to achieve for the long run.

Some will say a high end PC can be much more powerful and that's true (upgradeable RAM, GPU, CPU, etc, etc, a big advantage as well as a disadvantage to some extend), but is reflected on the price, as a new graphics card alone can cost more than a full PS3 with a Blu-Ray drive, harddrive, GPU/CPU, controller, etc costs. Yet it's not even that much of a clearcut victory for the PC with regard to long term potentials for currently sold configurations. There are other factors as well, the Cell can be a lot more powerful at multi-media and games than even the most powerful of PC CPUs of today, the PS3 has Blu-Ray by default which means that potentially PS3 games may provide more diversity in graphics, higher quality audio and/or more other content on the PS3 as it's not yet a default on the PC. Also PCs come with Windows which is quite a resource hog and there are far better long term opportunities for hardware optimizations on a console (due to predictable attributes across a large uniform user base for a very long period of time).

The most noticeable difference between PC and PS3 may be the for many people much nicer user experience, more comfortable to use the device with a large screen HDTV and a well supported wireless gamepad by default.

I AGREE WITH forevercloud3000

I have a feeling that in the end the difference will not be noticeable.

ps3 version is set for a better looking game with better aa. ps3 version will have less load times and less texture pop up thanks to an incredible hd space with every ps3

360 version will also be a good game but i feel its going to hammmer the dvd drive and cooling fan. this can be fixed a little with the new feature to install games, so if like the majority who hav 20gig machines like me, u have about 14gig of install space which should get u 2 games installed but then no room for dmo downloads or music or themes.

this can be further fixed by upgrading ur hardrve, 120gig should be about 100pounds and a rumoured 60gig should be 70pounds . its a difficult one to call but if i have enough money left i might pick ps3 version over the 360 version

Skeeuk said: ps3 version is set for a better looking game with better aa. ps3 version will have less load times and less texture pop up thanks to an incredible hd space with every ps3 360 version will also be a good game but i feel its going to hammmer the dvd drive and cooling fan. this can be fixed a little with the new feature to install games, so if like the majority who hav 20gig machines like me, u have about 14gig of install space which should get u 2 games installed but then no room for dmo downloads or music or themes. this can be further fixed by upgrading ur hardrve, 120gig should be about 100pounds and a rumoured 60gig should be 70pounds . its a difficult one to call but if i have enough money left i might pick ps3 version of the 360 version

you always speak with such  clarity skeeuk for moderator!

 

The part with the dislocated arm grossed me out. That's happened to me before and you don't just get back up and walk off after it's popped back in. You hurt like hell.

No matter how jolly the news are, these threads that reek of fanboyism always make life as a Sony supporter a little sadder :(

Even so, Far Cry 2 will be quite awesome!

BenKenobi88 said: Oh...better than 360. Not PC...

 

you know thats not possible right?

even there is never going to be a game 360>pc either.

makingmusic476 said: Diomedes1976 said: I was under the impression that the built-in AA of the 360 GPU was slighty superior to the PS3 GPU. But ,I heard Ubi tell that they learned that the SPU were extremely efficient for some graphics routines so they were porting some of those to one SPU. At the end its all 0s and 1s on the virtual space being moved ,the machine with the bigger horsepower in processing power was the one that would manage in the end the better results.More so if they have a bigger disc space as BR and obligatory HDD for cache if needed.Its only a question of time.Its a testament to the 360 power and easy architecture that it took some time at all.   From what I understand, the edram that theoretically provides free AA is not large enough to hold a full 1280x720 image, which is why most 360 titles that utilize the free AA are 600/640/685p (Halo 3, NGII, etc.), while games like Gears of War are full 720p, and have little to no AA. I mean, obviously the former titles should've been capable of pushing a higher resolution out of the 360 if the developers chose to do so, but they didn't, for reasons most likely explained by option of free AA. Of course, I could be completely wrong on the matter. @Benk: Hehe.

 

The XBox360 hardware supports tiling, so the size of the edram shouldn't affect the resolution.  In the case of Halo 3, the developers were lazy (yes, I said it) and didn't utilize tiling which is why the size of the edram DID affect Halo 3's resolution.

The reason that no UE3 games (AFAIK) supports antialiasing is that it uses deferred rendering and that doesn't play nice with MSAA performance-wise. Which is why a lot of people were interested in Killzone 2, and it's supposed 4xQAA and deferred rendering.