MikeB said: Darc Requiem said: It seems that Sony Selective Memory Syndrome rears its ugly head again. We all know that if the 360 version was 630p and the PS3 version was 720p, you'd be roasting the system MikeB. Since the opposite is true, it doesn't matter all of sudden. True be told is a slight difference that most people wouldn't notice. Most people wouldn't even care about this issue on this board if you didn't make a big stink about it to begin with. Not if the 360 woud look better than the PS3 version, I would have said Rockstar made a mistake not to use the same approach. you'd be roasting the system MikeB I never roasted the system for being less powerful than the PS3 (just for being unreliable or noisy AFAIR), with regard to Halo 3 I stated I thought the game didn't push the system enough, that's more like criticism directed against Bungie Most people wouldn't even care about this issue on this board if you didn't make a big stink about it to begin with. You´re funny, I guess I must have started the hundreds of new reports and Bungie´s statement they could just as well have PMed me personally as I was the only person suprised the high profile first party exclusive wasn´t rendering in HD, nor having AA which many claimed to be free performance wise on the 360.

Mike, we all know that if the situation was reversed and the PS3 version ran at the higher resolution without a hard drive install you would have used it as a testament to the power of the Cell. You would but saying how Cell allowed GTA4 on PS3 to run at a higher resolution at a near identical frame rate without the benefit of a hard drive install. How the 360 hardware couldn't handle the game at 720p despite the hard drive install etc. etc. 

LOL true. but since even the mighty PS3 has to work in the parameters of reality and since Realtime graphics are still years away from CGI movies we shouldn't talk about infinity. For the forseeable future developers will need to adjust their resources.



Which can be true but doesn't have to. I am pretty sure for example that the cars in GT5-P do not have textures on the main body but shaders that are in effect infinitely detailled. Also texture resolution is only relevant for things near the eye of the beholder. In the distance polygon resolution and the pixel resolution of the rendered image are more important.
But your point is valid the render resolution is only one factor in many. Because of that discussing this on the simple level it is done is pretty stupid.

Besides of course the PS3 could do Call of Duty4 in 1080p but it wouldn't look as good as it does now.

The PS3 does have some headroom the 360 doesn't have, because its Cell SPUs can be used as very flexible and powerful shaders. If this will result in a significant graphical advantage in the long-run is another question. But who cares both 360 and PS3 can produce awesome graphics which I am very content with. At the moment there seems to be a clear draw on multiplatform games, and I would say that PS3 exclusives have a tiny, a really tiny edge. If this is because the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or because Insomniac, Polyphonic and Naughty Dog simply are great developers and make games that appeal to me visually I have no idea but the difference cannot be big.

Kyros said: It does, would the PS3 have been infinitively powerful the higher the resolution up to a level a human eye can distinguish would be optimal. LOL true. but since even the mighty PS3 has to work in the parameters of reality and since Realtime graphics are still years away from CGI movies we shouldn't talk about infinity. For the forseeable future developers will need to adjust their resources. I kept stating that texture resolution is where actual detail is in 3D graphics Which can be true but doesn't have to. I am pretty sure for example that the cars in GT5-P do not have textures on the main body but shaders that are in effect infinitely detailled. Also texture resolution is only relevant for things near the eye of the beholder. In the distance polygon resolution and the pixel resolution of the rendered image are more important. But your point is valid the render resolution is only one factor in many. Because of that discussing this on the simple level it is done is pretty stupid. Besides of course the PS3 could do Call of Duty4 in 1080p but it wouldn't look as good as it does now. The PS3 does have some headroom the 360 doesn't have, because its Cell SPUs can be used as very flexible and powerful shaders. If this will result in a significant graphical advantage in the long-run is another question. But who cares both 360 and PS3 can produce awesome graphics which I am very content with. At the moment there seems to be a clear draw on multiplatform games, and I would say that PS3 exclusives have a tiny, a really tiny edge. If this is because the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or because Insomniac, Polyphonic and Naughty Dog simply are great developers and make games that appeal to me visually I have no idea but the difference cannot be big.

What I meant was compared to screen resolution, texture resolution is more important for detail in 3D gaming. Even if you count all the mapping and shading, you still get more detail with a higher resolution in the mapping and shading as well. 

hum I read that a couple weeks ago... I assumed everybody was aware of that..... I guess not..... well anyway a better resolution doesn't improve the graphics of the game just the sharpness of it..... so it shouldn't matter that much

@ LTKN

On the 360 things have to fit the EDRAM, going beyond this seriously affects performance (coninuosly pushing data from main shared RAM to the EDRAM) . The system approach is very different on the PS3 and 360. The EDRAM approach is powerful, but mostly in lower resolution.

Kyros said: It does, would the PS3 have been infinitively powerful the higher the resolution up to a level a human eye can distinguish would be optimal. LOL true. but since even the mighty PS3 has to work in the parameters of reality and since Realtime graphics are still years away from CGI movies we shouldn't talk about infinity. For the forseeable future developers will need to adjust their resources. I kept stating that texture resolution is where actual detail is in 3D graphics Which can be true but doesn't have to. I am pretty sure for example that the cars in GT5-P do not have textures on the main body but shaders that are in effect infinitely detailled. Also texture resolution is only relevant for things near the eye of the beholder. In the distance polygon resolution and the pixel resolution of the rendered image are more important. But your point is valid the render resolution is only one factor in many. Because of that discussing this on the simple level it is done is pretty stupid. Besides of course the PS3 could do Call of Duty4 in 1080p but it wouldn't look as good as it does now. The PS3 does have some headroom the 360 doesn't have, because its Cell SPUs can be used as very flexible and powerful shaders. If this will result in a significant graphical advantage in the long-run is another question. But who cares both 360 and PS3 can produce awesome graphics which I am very content with. At the moment there seems to be a clear draw on multiplatform games, and I would say that PS3 exclusives have a tiny, a really tiny edge. If this is because the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or because Insomniac, Polyphonic and Naughty Dog simply are great developers and make games that appeal to me visually I have no idea but the difference cannot be big.

Final Fantasy 13 :p... might not be cgi .. but damn close.

 

And you are right.. it's not big.. it's freakin huuuge :D .. ofcourse it's all my personal opinion :P

what i'm concerned about is how the ps3 version has a 'visual edge' over the 360 version, when it's at a lower resolution. shouldn't the reviewers be at least saying that the 360 version has the edge or they both look too good to tell apart? i mean the ps3 version looks good enough for reviewers to point out that it looks better than it's rival.

i'm not saying this is defo false, but it seems pretty weird to me according to what the reviewers are saying.

@ Darc Requiem

No per se, it would depend on developer clarifications. Please back up your statements, I didn't claim the 360 couldn't handle Halo 3 in 720p at rock stable 30 FPS neither, actually I stated the 360 should be.

MikeB said: @ LTKN As for 1080p, the fact is that neither system has a huge frame buffer, so that 1080p in an expansive game may not even happen, or else would happen in both systems, since they have about the same RAM. The Cell perhaps could render things better, but the screen resolution would be about the same on both. On the 360 things have to fit the EDRAM, going beyond this seriously affects performance (coninuosly pushing data from main shared RAM to the EDRAM) . The system approach is very different on the PS3 and 360. The EDRAM approach is powerful, but mostly in lower resolution.

Sorry, but the PS3 is not free of resolution issues, which is what you seem to be implying. The PS3 has to cut into its 512MB for its frame buffer, while the 360 doesn't. It can be made up by the Cell optimizing the texture memory, but it still means the PS3 has about the same screen resolution restrictions as the 360.

That does not mean the PS3 can't eventually beat the 360 in terms of onscreen graphics, just that the screen resolution on such games will still work better by being 720p or lower, because that would still leave more room for the texture memory. 

MikeB said: @ Darc Requiem Mike, we all know that if the situation was reversed and the PS3 version ran at the higher resolution without a hard drive install you would have used it as a testament to the power of the Cell. You would but saying how Cell allowed GTA4 on PS3 to run at a higher resolution at a near identical frame rate without the benefit of a hard drive install. How the 360 hardware couldn't handle the game at 720p despite the hard drive install etc. etc. No per se, it would depend on developer clarifications. Please back up your statements, I didn't claim the 360 couldn't handle Halo 3 in 720p at rock stable 30 FPS neither, actually I stated the 360 should be.

Well it ran at 640p in 60fps, not 30fps. The only thing keeping it from 720p/60fps was the extensive lighting engine. Take that out, and the game would be 720p.