The screen tearing in GRID is horrible. All games perform MUCH better on 360! :)

Jessman said: Isn't it because alot of Multi Platform games are developed for the 360 then they get ported the the PS3?

 

Of course, the 360 had a one year headstart and a more mature development environment from the beginning (because the PS3 includes much better and newer cutting edge technology and Microsoft re-used tools on the 360 from Windows speeding things up) which resulted in the bulk of multi-platform games being lead on the 360 platform. Despite some very crucial hardware differences it's due to the PS3's bulk power the minor differences between current multi-platform games aren't really that big (basically most games are virtually identical in the eyes of many, some are slightly better on the PS3 and others on the 360) unlike what Eurogamer claims (they usually sound like 360 fanboys lacking technical knowledge).

The real specifications differences can be judged based on the exclusives. The PS3 exclusives are technically much more impressive than its multi-platform games, while 360 exclusives are usually of similar quality from a technical perspecitve as its 360 lead multi-platform games.

Likely the development of most future multi-platform games will be lead on the PS3 because the development requirements to get a good performance out of the PS3 are also beneficial to 360/PC versions. It's a better more effort requiring approach, but it will improve the quality of the game engine overall. Likely the differences between multi-platform games will not change dramatically in the PS3's favour in the short term as developers are unlikely to fully tap into the PS3's additional headroom. Like the devs behind Ghostbusters stated that they could have pushed twice as much on screen if the game would have been designed to be a PS3 exclusive.

It's the PS3 exclusives where you will see great differentations and I hope this will push multi-platform game designers to tap into the PS3's potential as well, so they aren't left behind in comparison.

IMO it's a similar situation as with the Amiga and Atari ST early on within their lifecycle. There's no doubt the Amiga was far more powerful, but early games were designed around the Atari ST hardware specs (for example using mono sound instead of the Amiga's superior stereo audio specs, for example using 16 colors from a 512 color pallette while later games used 100s of colors onscreen from a 4096 color pallette all Amigas are capable of, some early games used a flipscreen approach as the Atari ST wasn't that good at scrolling while later Amiga games had dozens of parallax scrolling layers, etc). Some early Atari ST / Amiga games were as good as identical and sometimes even ran faster on the Atari ST hardware.

MikeB said: Jessman said: Isn't it because alot of Multi Platform games are developed for the 360 then they get ported the the PS3?   Of course, the 360 had a one year headstart and a more mature development environment from the beginning (because the PS3 includes much better and newer cutting edge technology and Microsoft re-used tools on the 360 from Windows speeding things up) which resulted in the bulk of multi-platform games being lead on the 360 platform. Despite some very crucial hardware differences it's due to the PS3's bulk power the minor differences between current multi-platform games aren't really that big (basically most games are virtually identical in the eyes of many, some are slightly better on the PS3 and others on the 360) unlike what Eurogamer claims (they usually sound like 360 fanboys lacking technical knowledge). The reason why multiplatform games look identical is that they take the slowest platform and set the graphics level at that system and hey presto you've got an identical looking game. So most definately they are leaving performance on the table. The real specifications differences can be judged based on the exclusives. The PS3 exclusives are technically much more impressive than its multi-platform games, while 360 exclusives are usually of similar quality from a technical perspecitve as its 360 lead multi-platform games. NO! Subjective, subjective, subjective is the word. Its impossible to make a comparison unless the games are identical or of similar genres/art style. There aren't many yet and of those there are the Xbox360 holds its own. Likely the development of future multi-platform games will be lead on the PS3 because the development requirements to get a good performance out of the PS3 are also beneficial to 360/PC versions. It's a better more effort requiring approach, but it will improve the quality of the game engine overall. Likely the differences between multi-platform games will not change dramatically in the PS3's favour in the short term as developers are unlikely to fully tap into the PS3's additional headroom. Like the devs behind Ghostbusters stated thet could have pushed twice as much on screen if the game would have been designed to be a PS3 exclusive. They will not change for the most part. When developers get good at setting a decent graphics level that both systems can perform at, multiplatform differences will disapear. It's the PS3 exclusives where you will see great differentations and I hope this will push multi-platform game designers to tap into the PS3's potential as well, so they aren't left behind in comparison. It was funny, it was actually the PS3 fanboys screaming at the quality differences that caused the games to become similar. So its doubtful that they would risk a similar outcry from the larger Xbox360 userbase. Especially for developers in the U.S. It also pushed the price of Cell coders up and makes PS3 games more expensive to develop currently. IMO it's a similar situation as with the Amiga and Atari ST early on within their lifecycle. There's no doubt the Amiga was far more powerful, but early games were designed around the Atari ST hardware specs (for example using mono sound instead of the Amiga's superior stereo audio specs, for example using 16 colors from a 512 color pallette while later games used 100s of colors onscreen from a 4096 color pallette all Amigas are capable of, some early games used a flipscreen approach as the Atari ST wasn't that good at scrolling while later Amiga games had dozens of parallax scrolling, etc). Some games early Atari ST / Amiga games were identical and sometimes even ran faster on the Atari ST hardware.

 

 

Here we go again.

All these games' lead platform is the 360 and it seems to be a case of build the game on the 360 and then try and port to the PS3. Not the sensible way to approach these games.

When more companies start with PS3 as the lead platform, we will see either identical or better games on the PS3.

Another win for 360? Nothing new.

360 win here .... now i feel that the PS3 power is only a myth.

@ Squilliam

Yes most have been lead on the 360, well suboptimal game engine design decisions from a PS3 perspective. If multiplatform devs would be held back by porting to the PS3 there would have been a much bigger technical gap between 360 exclusives like Halo 3 or Gears of War in comparison to multiplatform games such as Call of Duty 4.

Call of Duty 4 is an interesting title, the devs claimed the PS3 version looks slightly better, but at its rendering resolution the 360 has a potential fillrate advantage when adding AA, interestingly that's not the case. Probably meaning they have added some significant PS3 adaptations to their game engine.



Of course you can, like you can compare Atari ST and Amiga exclusively lead games. You can count colors, judge audio channels, amount of parallax scrolling layers, comparing the ST's most impressive games with the Amiga's most impressive games it's easy to determine which platform was better specced even without digging into the hardware specs.

Similarly the best PS3 exclusives will be compared to the best 360 exclusives, counting polygons, judging geometry, world size/complexity/performance, amount of action on screen at once in relation to framerates, audio quality, graphics diversity or texture quality, size and complexity of enemies, lighting, etc.

This article was getting ripped to shreds on NeoGAF.  Apparently Eurogamer was focusing on the positives of the 360 versions of the games, and downplaying the advantages of the ps3 versions.

Just look at these Quake Wars screens captured from their own comparison video:

Full pic here.

Full pic here.

Which version looks better to you?

People in the thread were also saying that the demo for Grid on the ps3 had some tearing issues as mentioned by Eurogamer, but that they were just about gone in the retail version.

Read the thread here.

most of them are ports, and games that wasnt lead develped.

overall its a good comparison, but but still smells of fanboyism, they just totally focused on 360 good points..

comparisons should only be done when both are develped together.

ps3 has better graphics in the end, you just need to look at exclusive games not multiplats that are ported

davygee said: Here we go again. All these games' lead platform is the 360 and it seems to be a case of build the game on the 360 and then try and port to the PS3. Not the sensible way to approach these games. When more companies start with PS3 as the lead platform, we will see either identical or better games on the PS3.

 

 PS3 is the lead platform for GTA IV.