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

Forums - Gaming - Debunking the myth that the PS3 > Xbox360, The real work proves Xbox > PS3

Squilliam on 23 July 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
Squilliam said:
ChronotriggerJM said:
 

 

 

 

Oh I'm not saying all of that stuff is in one game mind you :p I'm just saying, even with the 360's "superior" GPU, PS3 exlusives HAVE had higher poly counts, they DO have better character models, they DO hit a locked 60 fps (not saying the 360 doens't, just saying the PS3 does too), they DO process more effects on screen, and they DO have further draw distances. If the 360's GPU is accepted as better, what the hell is taking them so long to get a better looking game than a PS3 exclusive?

 I think the difference - Xbox360 games are 3rd party exclusives developed in much shorter timeframes. BTW - Halo 3 does render at 60fps but to make it short they use two frames for every one delivered because of their fancy HDR lighting technology.

I'm actually not following your 3rd response very well. If GORILLA GAMES of all companies, can put out something that performs better than EPIC studio's, there's an obvious problem, and not to sound like a huge fanboy, but I can't avoid it here, the problem is probably the 360 :/ Epic could run circles around what they're capable of on the 360 if they were an exclusive studio. It's universally accepted that theres more "room to play" so to speak with the PS3. Because the 360's so easy to develop for, there will obviously be less hidden space to explore.

 Gears of War is built off a multiplatform engine.

But "more cpu room to play" - does not give you more ram, more time, more budget and more ability to use that potential. Furthermore theres the question of whether that "potential" could ever be translated into actual performance in a game - Check out the bunch of quotes a page back - A good PS3 developer was talking about this topic a little. The Cell can be used to great effect in some applications, but I haven't heard anyone say that it was a design which did games really well in comparison to its potential in other fields.

Killzone 1s problems were design and time, they released Killzone 1 unfinished - which is partly why it didnt go down well, but the technology was excellent - the implemenation not so.

 

 



Tease.

Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008
Squilliam said:
ChronotriggerJM said:
Squilliam said:
ChronotriggerJM said:

 

 

 

Oh I'm not saying all of that stuff is in one game mind you :p I'm just saying, even with the 360's "superior" GPU, PS3 exlusives HAVE had higher poly counts, they DO have better character models, they DO hit a locked 60 fps (not saying the 360 doens't, just saying the PS3 does too), they DO process more effects on screen, and they DO have further draw distances. If the 360's GPU is accepted as better, what the hell is taking them so long to get a better looking game than a PS3 exclusive?

 I think the difference - Xbox360 games are 3rd party exclusives developed in much shorter timeframes. BTW - Halo 3 does render at 60fps but to make it short they use two frames for every one delivered because of their fancy HDR lighting technology.

I'm actually not following your 3rd response very well. If GORILLA GAMES of all companies, can put out something that performs better than EPIC studio's, there's an obvious problem, and not to sound like a huge fanboy, but I can't avoid it here, the problem is probably the 360 :/ Epic could run circles around what they're capable of on the 360 if they were an exclusive studio. It's universally accepted that theres more "room to play" so to speak with the PS3. Because the 360's so easy to develop for, there will obviously be less hidden space to explore.

 Gears of War is built off a multiplatform engine.

But "more cpu room to play" - does not give you more ram, more time, more budget and more ability to use that potential. Furthermore theres the question of whether that "potential" could ever be translated into actual performance in a game - Check out the bunch of quotes a page back - A good PS3 developer was talking about this topic a little. The Cell can be used to great effect in some applications, but I haven't heard anyone say that it was a design which did games really well in comparison to its potential in other fields.

Killzone 1s problems were design and time, they released Killzone 1 unfinished - which is partly why it didnt go down well, but the technology was excellent - the implemenation not so.

 

 

It was built off a multi-platform engine which was used primarily on PC's >_>;; Which the 360's supposed to be very familiar with. The PS3 architecture was a slam to the face of literally every developer on the market. Sony's workers had to go over there to help them get the engine compatible with the PS3 :P And Epic's FIRST ATTEMPT, at a game on the PS3 out-performed what they were capable of previously on the 360 :x

I'm no advocate of what the Cell is or isn't capable of, I'm just letting the fact's of the game's speak for themselves. I'm not making up any of that stuff as far as technical achievements in console gaming :/ The games speak for themselves, and if a multitude of developers can pull off so many amazing feats, I can only begin to imagine what Epic could do with some Sony published titles.

 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Mendicate Bias on 23 July 2008

@ Chronotrigger

You keep saying that Epic's first attempt at a game on the PS3 out performs their 360 game so I'm assuming your talking about UT3. As far as I know UT3 performs the same on both consoles, however the 360 has the added fact that it supports split screen for UT3 without any frame rate drops. Maybe using UT3 as an example of the PS3's power wasn't such a good idea...



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008
Mendicate Bias said:
@ Chronotrigger

You keep saying that Epic's first attempt at a game on the PS3 out performs their 360 game so I'm assuming your talking about UT3. As far as I know UT3 performs the same on both consoles, however the 360 has the added fact that it supports split screen for UT3 without any frame rate drops. Maybe using UT3 as an example of the PS3's power wasn't such a good idea...

Maybe taking what I said out of context wasn't the best idea for you :x I said UT3 was better than gears of war, I never said UT3 8 months down the line, or Gears of war 2 wouldn't be better than what they first put on the 360. I'm comparing first's for both. One of which being on unheard of technology :P

 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Fanatical111 on 23 July 2008

This has been known for a long time



Around the Network
dib8rman on 23 July 2008

Nice thread, he's talking about one issue here by the way, I see people tossing everything and the kitchen sink and I'm guessing they are doing that to support their system of choice.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Jordahn on 23 July 2008
madskillz said:
Jordahn said:
madskillz said:
Squilliam,

LOL at the folks trying to debate what you posted. The dev's facts speak for themselves. Thanks for taking the time and effort to post data and contest folks who are stating their opinion and hearsay as fact. ROTFLMBO.

 

 Nice sarcasm.  What do you do for an encore?

 

 

 Classic!!!  :)



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Mendicate Bias on 23 July 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
Mendicate Bias said:
@ Chronotrigger

You keep saying that Epic's first attempt at a game on the PS3 out performs their 360 game so I'm assuming your talking about UT3. As far as I know UT3 performs the same on both consoles, however the 360 has the added fact that it supports split screen for UT3 without any frame rate drops. Maybe using UT3 as an example of the PS3's power wasn't such a good idea...

Maybe taking what I said out of context wasn't the best idea for you :x I said UT3 was better than gears of war, I never said UT3 8 months down the line, or Gears of war 2 wouldn't be better than what they first put on the 360. I'm comparing first's for both. One of which being on unheard of technology :P

 

So comparing a game that came out almost two years after another one is fair because it's on a different console but comparing that same game to its counterpart on the 360 isn't? I think that is called flawed logic.

 



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Shadowblind on 23 July 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
Mendicate Bias said:
@ Chronotrigger

You keep saying that Epic's first attempt at a game on the PS3 out performs their 360 game so I'm assuming your talking about UT3. As far as I know UT3 performs the same on both consoles, however the 360 has the added fact that it supports split screen for UT3 without any frame rate drops. Maybe using UT3 as an example of the PS3's power wasn't such a good idea...

Maybe taking what I said out of context wasn't the best idea for you :x I said UT3 was better than gears of war, I never said UT3 8 months down the line, or Gears of war 2 wouldn't be better than what they first put on the 360. I'm comparing first's for both. One of which being on unheard of technology :P

 

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

quimicomortal on 23 July 2008

If that is what you want to believe, then go ahead. But the best looking game to date is MGS4 on PS3.



End of Year prediction:

wii: 37 m

360: 24 m

PS3: 20 m