Comparing PS3 graphics to X-Box 360 graphics without "Eurogamer"

[Reasonable]

selnor said:

MikeB said:
@ selnor

There are plenty of PS3 games which support splitscreen, it has just been added to UT3 for the PS3 as well, the same engine upon which a very large share of 360 games rely upon. Personally though I prefer a full-screen experience combined with solid online or LAN multi-player (like for example in Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, within which you can choose to play 4 player splitscreen, if you want to)

And yes Killzone 2 is well ahead of Gears 2, not only in terms of animation, the hundreds of on screen light sources for example is also amazing.

With regard to multi-player, Gears 2 only support 5 vs 5 multiplayer battles max. For Killzone 2 the developers had to style the game so that 32 players could gather in one room and all use grenades simultaneously, that's an important performance consideration.

 

This is exactly my point. I am not going to argue with a fanboy. But the most impressive lighting Ive seen is the underground cavern in Gears 2. Again it comes to preference of art MORE than anything. A game can be technically superior and still not look as good as another game.

That said I think KZ2 does look better on a whole than any other game. But I know that when I played it, I was nowhere near blown away by the graphics. They were just a slight step up from what I saw on the screen from games like Gears 2 or MGS4. The next round of games from either console exclusives will undoubtedly use post processing effects and better animation also. After playing through KZ2, I still play games like Gears 2 online, and think wow that likes damn good. Playing KZ2 didnt make me think the 360 wasnt capable at all. It actually made me think steps are going to get smaller and smaller.

Gears 1 was the only game that for me massively jumped above the other competition. From there it's been a couple of steps at the most. Personally I couldnt give a rats arse about how the game did it technically. It's what I see on screen that counts to me. And from where I'm sitting, niether console is struggling to continually impress.

And going to the multiplayer thing? I am talking about split screen on the same console. Yes Motorstorm may have it, but I'm referring to games people use in arguements for PS3 this or 360 that in graphics. UT3 for instance looks alot different to Gears 2 and has far less going on. So that is not a good example to use. I would like to see if the PS3 could handle KZ2 split screen coop campaign. Considering that KZ2 singleplayer drops to 24 FPS at times, I doubt it.

As I said in many other posts. I have seen nothing from either console which makes me say one is better than the other. At least I will be enjoying both consoles unlike the many fanboys who torture themselves into believing something and missing quality titles.

 

I pretty much see the best games on both (technically) as pretty equal also.  Neither console has a title that shows clear superiority, and I'm not convinced this will ever happen.

Split screen is nice but it is more down to the engine and level design vs the console.  Both PS3/360 have plenty of split screen titles.

The developers of KZ2 made clear a couple of times that due to the design they took (extremely heavy use of streaming) split screen wasn't an option in their eyes.  This is down to the game design, not the console.  It would be nice, but then again not every developer is going to follow the same path.

Look at resistance 2 as a different example, you can play split screen with buddies for coop and MP with huge amounts going on - but the game engine / levels were designed to make sure this was possible, just as Gears 1 / 2 took care and time to ensure the level design / engine was built to handle the splitscreen.

Fanboys are always going to claim some mythical big difference, but really its just not there so far and likely won't be IMHO.