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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 VS. X360 multi-plat Graphics Comparison

Deneidez on 02 July 2008
Kyros said:
Why does haze look near as bad as first games on X360?


Because the Haze developers sucked? I think we all agree on that. Making bad graphics is no problem.

Thats how we get back to this equation(, which I made on page 2),

Game graphics = artists+(engine capabilities)*(platform capabilities)

and thats how you really can't compare nothing but multiplatform games, if of course another one isn't much much better than the other. (Like these games vs crysis.)

 

@davygee

Actually its not that sure that The Force Unleashed will even come out, but if it does we will see whats the difference between these two when development is other way around.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/26/lucasarts-cuts-hit-force-unleashed-team-after-all/



New crap available on mi pages!

Around the Network
Reasonable on 02 July 2008

This is a stupid argument - more so as both these consoles are already pretty far behind latest PCs.

Got to say those Uncharted pics do not represent that game as I played it, and look suspiciously to have been picked to show the game in poor light.

I've yet to see any game on either PS3 or 360 where you can't find weak spots in the levels, textures, etc. and its amazing to watch each sides fanboys seek them out.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

makingmusic476 on 02 July 2008
Squilliam said:
makingmusic476 said:
Squilliam said:
@ everyone. Its ironic that the PS3 fanboys have to prove graphical superiority in their own eyes to win the argument whereas the Xbox360 guys only have to prove graphical parity.

@ making music, thats quite an apples/oranges comparison. Uncharted is rendered at 30fps whilst Ninja gaiden runs at 60fps. The comparison is like taking crysis and benchmarking it one an Nvidia 8800gt and then comparing it to an AMD 4850 running COD 4 at a lower resolution running COD IV at 60fps. Its apples to oranges, at least use the same genre to make a comparison with games running at a similar FPS and with similar art styles. So a Halo 3 vs Killzone 2 comparison is out because of the different lighting system used in Halo 3 and the different rendering resolutions whereas Killzone 2 vs Gears 2 is more apropriate since they both render a similar style at the same resolution and frames per second and they both use a depth of field effect to increase the detail of close in objects.

Since both games look amazing and they both haven't been released yet I think that comparison can wait, no?

 

NGII is 585p.  Uncharted is 720p.  That also has its effect on things.  And he brought up the Uncharted vs NGII bit first.

@NJ5: Uncharted has the best textures of any ps3 game I have yet played, by a wide margin.  I'm not sure what it is, maybe it's the texture streaming system they used, but they are damn detailed.  Yes, the ps3 only has 256mb of ram for the GPU, but not all games use it equally.  All games probably use all of it, but that doesn't keep some games from looking better (in this case much better) than others.  For example, Resistance versus Resistance 2.  The first was definitely maxing the ps3's ram, but the second looks much better.

The textures in Uncharted really are amazing.  You really have to play the game and and aim at stuff to see how damn good they are:

And the screen I posted above also highlighted the awesome textures.  Uncharted's beauty comes from more than just art style.

I think you're both on the wrong track trying to compare the games. Gears of war 1 and RFOM 1 are also good comparisons as they have similar art styles, game styles and they both don't use a depth of field effect. The problem is that they are no longer representative of the quality of each console.

It is true that the PS3s architecture only shines when special care and attention is paid to it. For example, Uncharted uses something like 8 render passes and simply could not be ported as is to the 360. It is so optimized for the PS3. Its not saying that it couldn't be done, its just to draw your attention to the level of optimization going into the game. Furthermore whilst the textures in Uncharted ARE similar, they have also been compared favourably to Crysis but that doesn't moot my previous point that it had a lot of the same textures repeated and thus it isn't as impressive technically as GTAIV which uses a varied texture base.

I have played Uncharted BTW its one of the nicest looking games I have ever played. Its definately one to remember. I have a PS3 btw if you didn't know.

Far Cry 2 is the next best chance to compare the abilities of both systems as its a heavy game and it appears on both systems and it seems to have had a lot of money spent on it with a decent cadre of specialist PS3 coders. 

 

I figured as much.  The Uncharted bit was aimed at NJ5, really. :P



Profcrab on 02 July 2008
FJ-Warez said:

Funny how a 4 years old game looks good compared with one of this gen games..

 

If you excuse me I´m going to reinstall farcry...

 

Damn it, now I want to play FarCry again too and I've already played through the game 2 or 3 times.

I give that post a 9.8.



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

selnor on 02 July 2008
Kyros said:
the ground is more detailed in perfect dark


Yes it is. And the rest looks like a XBOX game. The enemies, the lighting effects, the objects the level details in the back. Having the most detailed ground isn't exactly what makes good graphics. In Uncharted: Everything looks great. There are some scenes that are more detailed than others but everything looks awesome.
Having more detailed textures on some walls and on the floor is nothing PDZ should be proud of.

Now no way in hell does PDZ look as good as Uncharted. But you did post a multiplayer level. They will always look worse than campaign.

 



Around the Network
Griffin on 02 July 2008

You PC guys really need to look at those Far Cry and Quake images, they can't even compare to what this gen has. They have really bad textures and a bland lighting system, they also lack many of the special effects that modern games have.



FJ-Warez on 02 July 2008
Griffin said:
You PC guys really need to look at those Far Cry and Quake images, they can't even compare to what this gen has. They have really bad textures and a bland lighting system, they also lack many of the special effects that modern games have.

 

Still FarCry feature similar visual quality to Uncharted, nobody is saying FarCry looks better, but the quality is there...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
HappySqurriel on 02 July 2008
Griffin said:
You PC guys really need to look at those Far Cry and Quake images, they can't even compare to what this gen has. They have really bad textures and a bland lighting system, they also lack many of the special effects that modern games have.

Well, I think they were pointing out that PC games from 3 to 4 years ago actually line-up fairly well against the latest and greatest PS3/XBox 360 games. They obviously do not have all of the greatest effects from the PS3/XBox 360 games but are close enough to demonstrate their point. If they wanted to be dinks, they could have shown games that were released when (or soon after) the PS3 or XBox 360 were released.

 



Griffin on 02 July 2008
FJ-Warez said:
Griffin said:
You PC guys really need to look at those Far Cry and Quake images, they can't even compare to what this gen has. They have really bad textures and a bland lighting system, they also lack many of the special effects that modern games have.

 

Still FarCry feature similar visual quality to Uncharted, nobody is saying FarCry looks better, but the quality is there...

 

In a quick glance the games look very similar in quality and could be thought to look the same.  But once you start to play the game and explore the levels the details and lighting and whatever else that is there in modern games just does not exist in these older PC games.  But you could go find some mods for the game that enhance the draw distance/textures/bump mapping/lighting, and the games would look pretty much the same, except for the water.  And i agree that PC's in general blow past console games, i just wanted to make that clear.



FJ-Warez on 02 July 2008

 

Griffin said:
FJ-Warez said:
Griffin said:
You PC guys really need to look at those Far Cry and Quake images, they can't even compare to what this gen has. They have really bad textures and a bland lighting system, they also lack many of the special effects that modern games have.

 

Still FarCry feature similar visual quality to Uncharted, nobody is saying FarCry looks better, but the quality is there...

 

In a quick glance the games look very similar in quality and could be thought to look the same. But once you start to play the game and explore the levels the details and lighting and whatever else that is there in modern games just does not exist in these older PC games. But you could go find some mods for the game that enhance the draw distance/textures/bump mapping/lighting, and the games would look pretty much the same, except for the water. And i agree that PC's in general blow past console games, i just wanted to make that clear.

 

Funny thing, Far Cry was one of the first games to use HDR, a not so common feature on the current gen, and the level of detail stand as one of the best, and the pic I showed to you don´t have any mod of extensions... the game looks like that in almost every level...

 

FarCry

HL: Ep1

Elders Scrolls 4...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."