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

Forums - Gaming - I think it's safe to say the PS3 is the definitive graphics king for this gen

lurkerwithnosoul on 09 March 2012

It's all about art style.





Around the Network
TadpoleJackson on 09 March 2012
Hynad said:


Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?


Yes, yes, you got me. A computer that isn't available to the general public is very relative to this conversation. 



Hynad on 10 March 2012
TadpoleJackson said:
Hynad said:


Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?


Yes, yes, you got me. A computer that isn't available to the general public is very relative to this conversation. 

That's the same for PCs.  Their tech isn't on the same gen as the consoles. We're talking about the current console gen. So bringing the PCs into the argument is ludicrous.

Those who do, basically say that the current generation of PC tech is better than the one that was available 5-6 years ago.



Well, no shit Sherlock!



Rainbird on 10 March 2012
Hynad said:
Rainbird said:
Hynad said:

Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?

Not that I care to get into this discussion, but I would like to hear you justify the comparison with super computers. In my head, comparing PCs to consoles with respect to gaming makes sense, seeing as they both play games, but comparing super computers to PCs with respect to gaming doesn't, seeing as super computers don't do gaming. So please do explain the reasoning to me.

Isn't the subject just graphics king? =P

I turned this PC thing into derision to illustrate a point.

People keep saying that PC is king, yet PCs are constantly evolving.  That's just a given that graphics would be better on PCs, from a purely technical point of view. 

When it comes to consoles, they're set in stone.  They're not evolving, or different depending on how much money you put into them.  
So when you're comparing the HD consoles, you're doing it to see which of those console designs, created with parts from the same time, actually ended up being the better one.  Adding PC in the argument is completely stupid [and redundant] if you ask me.  And when we say "this gen" we mean "this console generation".  PCs are not consoles.   And besides, can anyone say which gen the PCs are in right now?  Not the same as the HD consoles, that's for sure.   

Now that's a much better argument, and a much more sensible point that I can agree with parts of at least. However, as you say yourself, the goal here is to find the "better" console, yet nobody is doing that. The PS3 does graphics excellently for very linear and scripted games as illustrated by games like God of War III and Uncharted 3, but what about open world games? Or 60 FPS games? The 360 is better than the PS3 at those, but the "call" is being made from a single category of games.

They each have their strengths, with the PS3 being "stronger" in linear games and the 360 being "stronger" in open world games, yet everyone is looking at the prettiest screenshots and the prettiest gifs they can find and basing their judgement solely on that.



Hynad on 10 March 2012
Rainbird said:
Hynad said:
Rainbird said:
Hynad said:

Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?

Not that I care to get into this discussion, but I would like to hear you justify the comparison with super computers. In my head, comparing PCs to consoles with respect to gaming makes sense, seeing as they both play games, but comparing super computers to PCs with respect to gaming doesn't, seeing as super computers don't do gaming. So please do explain the reasoning to me.

Isn't the subject just graphics king? =P

I turned this PC thing into derision to illustrate a point.

People keep saying that PC is king, yet PCs are constantly evolving.  That's just a given that graphics would be better on PCs, from a purely technical point of view. 

When it comes to consoles, they're set in stone.  They're not evolving, or different depending on how much money you put into them.  
So when you're comparing the HD consoles, you're doing it to see which of those console designs, created with parts from the same time, actually ended up being the better one.  Adding PC in the argument is completely stupid [and redundant] if you ask me.  And when we say "this gen" we mean "this console generation".  PCs are not consoles.   And besides, can anyone say which gen the PCs are in right now?  Not the same as the HD consoles, that's for sure.   

Now that's a much better argument, and a much more sensible point that I can agree with parts of at least. However, as you say yourself, the goal here is to find the "better" console, yet nobody is doing that. The PS3 does graphics excellently for very linear and scripted games as illustrated by games like God of War III and Uncharted 3, but what about open world games? Or 60 FPS games? The 360 is better than the PS3 at those, but the "call" is being made from a single category of games.

They each have their strengths, with the PS3 being "stronger" in linear games and the 360 being "stronger" in open world games, yet everyone is looking at the prettiest screenshots and the prettiest gifs they can find and basing their judgement solely on that.


I'd argue that inFamous 2, an open world game, is one of the best looking game of its genre on console.  
To find better you have to go for multiplatform games.  Like Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim.  Which fared better on the 360, the PS3 getting the port versions.

I wonder how those 2 examples would have fared if they had been tailored for the PS3's architecture first and foremost, or if they had been developed by a first party studio.  



Around the Network
Nsanity on 10 March 2012

There is a lot of opinions getting thrown around as facts in here.



ZaneWane on 10 March 2012












Aldro on 10 March 2012
ZaneWane said:

Lovely of you to post pictures of a beta.

 

I concur:




























 













Cba with more :)



GameAnalyser on 10 March 2012
TadpoleJackson said:
Bullshots and trailer screens aren't proof of anything ^


C'mon now please post ur own shots and trailer screens that atleast beat those...!!



Sal.Paradise on 10 March 2012

Posting some .gifs now. 

Uncharted 3

Uncharted 2

God of War 3

Killzone 2, not to show off graphics, just because of those headshots. Cranberry juice everywhere. 

Ah go on then, have some more screenshots.