By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Why is there soo much negativity in any 360 related thread?

joeorc on 08 March 2010

I guess OPEN GL was not in Microsoft's best choice for Graphic's API's



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 08 March 2010

It seems like most websites are flooded with PS3 or Wii fans.

Based on sales 360 fans are clearly out there. Just not on message boards or leaving comments on websites.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

RAZurrection on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:

Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself  & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.

One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.

Yeah, see here's another problem, there's links and articles available which state the direct opposite, but you treat it like it's fact.

Let's have em.

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.



NightAntilli on 08 March 2010

And yet, neither reviewer calls Mass Effect 2  the best looking game ever. I'm not trying to hate on it, but I can find several - many reviews calling Killzone 2, God of War III, or Uncharted 2 just that.

In fact: God of War III

VideoGamer:

"Let's get this out of the way: the opening 45 minutes of God of War 3 are indescribably brilliant. Make no mistake; you won't have seen a video game with production values anywhere near this. It is utterly incredible, and a sequence that blows me away every time I play it (four times and counting). But it is just 45 minutes out of a game that spans 10 or so hours. Does the rest of the game live up to such a show-stopping introduction to the series on PS3"?

IGN UK

IGN AU

That does not necessarily have anything to do with which system is more powerful. There are too many factors involved. To name a few:

- How optimized the engine is (dedicated or not)
- Development time
- Budget spent on the game itself

I think you saw the budget of GOWIII on the frontpage. I think we all know most X360 games use UE. I think we all know most games on the X360 are made in 2 years, and barely any game passes the 10 million mark. I'm not trying to say the X360 is more powerful than the PS3, however, the arguments used to claim the PS3 can definitely produce better graphics has too many holes in them. Aside from that, gameplay elements (like how many freedom you have) affect graphics.



Mr Puggsly said:
It seems like most websites are flooded with PS3 or Wii fans.

Based on sales 360 sales clearly are out there. Just not on message boards or leaving comments on websites.

Most of them are probably playing Halo.. Lol



Truth does not fear investigation

selnor on 08 March 2010
Carl2291 said:
heruamon said:
Carl2291 said:

That one was actually from a Wii fan. But i see what you mean...

The point is, he compared it to Fallout 3. Which is regarded as one of the best RPG's this gen, if not ever. It's also available on the PS3, by the way.

Sorry, but I'm not following your point.  Fallout 3 was an awesome game, and I don't think Selnor was trying to make this out to be a case of Metro being better than Fallout, but instead making a flippant comments about how excited he is about this game, which, btw, isn't on most people's radar.  The comparison to how Fallout 3 performed on the 360 to the PS3 isn't much of a discussion point (2.96 vs 1.96), and I think it's safe to say the 360 was the dominant marketplace for Fallout 3 (early DLCs), so your comments as to it being on the PS3 doesn't hold water in this particular case.  Finally, I still don't see the connect to the PS3, and the rationalizing is exactly what I'm talking about.   Not to say Selnor is completely innocent, and as the thread onwer, he probably should have squashed it quickly and reported the poster, as I do in my threads, but after a while, it just starts to wear on you, when EVERY GREEN thread has this nonsense...

"Dare I say move over Fallout 3? Well Metro 2033 has fantastic graphics, fantastic idea, and looks to be more than Fallout 3 for realism and survival."

I wasn't talking about how they performed. I was talking about it also being on PS3, which will make PS3 fans defend it if they want to. Even some 360 fans were defending Fallout... As for he 360 version selling more and getting the DLC first... I don't see what that has to do with the quality of the game itself.

I understyand what your saying, but it's borderine grasping the only straw there. I even ? marked my first comment. and merely said the survival and realism elements looked more. Not that it was better than F3. They are different genres.



Around the Network
joeorc on 08 March 2010
NightAntilli said:
CGI-Quality said:
@ RAZ

John Carmack (ID Tech 5):

"They are both powerful systems that are going to make excellent game platforms, but I have a bit of a preference for the 360’s symmetric CPU architecture and excellent development tools," he said. "The PS3 will have a bit more peak power, but it will be easier to exploit the available power on the 360. Our next major title is being focused towards simultaneous release on 360, PS3, and PC."

http://playstation.joystiq.com/2006/05/15/john-carmack-talks-cell-and-ps3-development/

(Crytek)

http://pc.ign.com/articles/966/966403p2.html

Crytek expects the PS3 version to be "slightly better".

Again, makes no difference to me, but it completely rips apart your claims and provides the proof you claim was lacking.

That "slightly better" part is too vague to try to say anything objective about it. Especially with the word "here" behind it. That could mean anything. He could mean a specific task, he could mean the whole engine (which you want to believe), he could mean in that particular demo, we don't know.

And yes, the PS3 has more theoretical power and more peak performance. However, theoretical/peak power and actual performance can be very deceiving. That's also seen with graphics cards on the PC market. There have been many examples where one card would have more flops than the other, but the one with lower flops still outperformed the higher one. I'm not saying it's definitely the case with the X360 and PS3, however, the PS3 has an unnecessary complex architecture. This architecture is more prone to bottlenecks than the X360. It's like the X360 and PS3 having a race, the X360 having a car with max speed 100mph, the PS3 a car with max speed 150mph, the only difference is, the road the PS3 needs to drive on has 500 big holes per mile and a few horses crossing the road now and then, while the X360 only has 200 holes with bunnies crossing the road. You get the idea.

see that right there, do you even know why the PS3 is designed along those line's.?

do you even care?

more prone to bottle neck's?

how so..by multiplatform developer's who what develop mainly with The idea to avoid getting their code more streamlined.?

Mike Acton pointed out many thing's that's qrong with the development community in the very reason on how they look at development on the PS3.

o'l but your right , it's not that the developer's that need to change it's the PS3 design that needed to be more cookie cutter.

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Mr Puggsly on 08 March 2010

Mr Puggsly said:
It seems like most websites are flooded with PS3 or Wii fans.

Based on sales 360 sales clearly are out there. Just not on message boards or leaving comments on websites.

Most of them are probably playing Halo.. Lol


Well a lot of 360 gamers are on Live. I blame the 360 for not have a web browser.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

selnor on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:
@ selnor

Also, check out the GOWIII review thread to see what reviewer(s) MANY of them, think about it's visuals.

I wouldn't debate it without anything solid.


Yeah I have skimmed lots of them from Metacritic. Most just say top notch production, albeit small in scope. Small scope isnt somethin that jaw dropping perhaps against U2 or ME2 or Alan Wake.



Carl on 08 March 2010
selnor said:
Carl2291 said:
heruamon said:
Carl2291 said:

That one was actually from a Wii fan. But i see what you mean...

The point is, he compared it to Fallout 3. Which is regarded as one of the best RPG's this gen, if not ever. It's also available on the PS3, by the way.

Sorry, but I'm not following your point.  Fallout 3 was an awesome game, and I don't think Selnor was trying to make this out to be a case of Metro being better than Fallout, but instead making a flippant comments about how excited he is about this game, which, btw, isn't on most people's radar.  The comparison to how Fallout 3 performed on the 360 to the PS3 isn't much of a discussion point (2.96 vs 1.96), and I think it's safe to say the 360 was the dominant marketplace for Fallout 3 (early DLCs), so your comments as to it being on the PS3 doesn't hold water in this particular case.  Finally, I still don't see the connect to the PS3, and the rationalizing is exactly what I'm talking about.   Not to say Selnor is completely innocent, and as the thread onwer, he probably should have squashed it quickly and reported the poster, as I do in my threads, but after a while, it just starts to wear on you, when EVERY GREEN thread has this nonsense...

"Dare I say move over Fallout 3? Well Metro 2033 has fantastic graphics, fantastic idea, and looks to be more than Fallout 3 for realism and survival."

I wasn't talking about how they performed. I was talking about it also being on PS3, which will make PS3 fans defend it if they want to. Even some 360 fans were defending Fallout... As for he 360 version selling more and getting the DLC first... I don't see what that has to do with the quality of the game itself.

I understyand what your saying, but it's borderine grasping the only straw there. I even ? marked my first comment. and merely said the survival and realism elements looked more. Not that it was better than F3. They are different genres.

No it isn't. You are obviously comparing it to Fallout 3 and saying it could best it. This will make people also compare and if need be, argue against it.

If they are different genre's... Why did you bring Fallout 3 up in the first place?



                            

Akvod on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
selnor said:
I think people need to stop with it. It's ruining this site immensely.

There was a comment I disagreed with just tonight in the Sony forums. I PM'd the person in question, as to not derail that thread with 360 fanboy outcomes. If you dont believe me ask CGI. IT was him I PM'd.

IF I'm considered what is the most exastive 360 fan on here and I dont troll Sony forums with games I'm likely never to buy, then why do so many PS fans do it. Hell those loads of Sony threads I disagree with. But you dont se me trolling every Sony thread.

Every single 360 thread gets I reckon 70% posts from Sony fans with no intention of ever buying the game. So why comment? The threads get derailed and then locked by some random mod. Why have the mods not spotted this?

Something needs to change, because it's getting as bad as the GAF.

You of all people should not be the one to talk....most of your the gfx of this game is da best evah threads are full of troll bait and taunting....you Selnor imo is one of the reasons for this whole situation...and I am tlaking about recent activity as I am relatively new...so I 'might' be wrong but that's just my impression
WTF? Seriousy this comment is exactly whats wrong with the site now. There is at least 100 more best PS3 gfx games threads on here with no trolling. Sitting happily in the Sony forums.But when a 360 one opens with actual reviewer or technical backing, it's trolled to high heaven. It's all because Sony shouted a false promise to it's fan. And one they have all run with from day one.Until you see that, this site will stay the same.

I really hate to do this, because I really planned on leaving this subject after my last post, but would you elaborate on what they lied about?

Ok. From day one, Sony have touted and touted about more power than the competition. M$ made one rebutle in 2006 against Sony's comments of more power, showing why 360 was more pwerful in a hugely detailed way. Now outside of Sony and M$ third party developers have said +'s for either console being more powerful. Some say 360 some say PS3. But Sony really touted the Cell like crazy. Even though we stand in 2010 with 2 games getting tremendous nods for graphics on both consoles ( and I'm talking about the best comments for tech and graphics ) it would seem niether is out of touch with each other. And 4 years into PS3's life, it would appear not to be ahead powerwise.

What am I basing it off? Third party opinions of the consoles ( outside of comapnies with a vested interest in either console ) and media for games.

Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself  & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.

One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.

Ok. Your take. But I can equally see ID Tech 5 and Crytek interviews suggesting the 360 has more power. The lead programmer on Crytek told in a video interview " PS3 being the weaker of the 3, you know the 360 and PC, it took longer to get the most out of it. However we now have it running on a par with the others.

Like I said, Third parties are split. And yeah many reviews side with MAss Effect2. So 2010 started with a lean towards 360. GOW3 will take some back. But what happens when Alan Wake heaves it over this way? People will ignore it and continue as normal saying the 360 has less power.

It's this that is exactly what this site has become.

It wasnt always this bad.

If that's true, have you any sources?

Also, I didn't see reviews claiming Mass Effect 2 had any graphical superiority. I did hear nothing but good things to say about it, however.

IGN and videogamer are in my sig. But then they likely get twisted here at VGChartz. Proving my point. Like GOW3's GN graphics comment got twisted for the better.

Oh the Crytek guy. I can do better than that. I'll provide the video. It's actually part 3 of 3. Big interview.

Go to 8:30.

And yet, neither reviewer calls Mass Effect 2  the best looking game ever. I'm not trying to hate on it, but I can find several - many reviews calling Killzone 2, God of War III, or Uncharted 2 just that.

Miles ahead to me means the same thing. And the Best vista you ever did see comment is strikingly similar to how the IGN GOW3 comment comes off. Best here but no there kinda feel.

But yeah. It should be interesting to see the reaction on VGC to Alan Wakes comments in reviews.

Read the edit.

Also, in reference to Alan Wake, I'd suggest not pushing too hard. That's where people get the ideas to start these types of problems in the first place, especially if reviews don't consider it to be the pinnacle of console visuals.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=99163

I don't think he ever cared about Bad Company 2, just wanted to use it for propaganda, as always.