forevercloud3000 said: sigh.........like I said earlier, this thread is about TOP TIER GRAPHIX! not which games are better. Haze fails in both respects, so it has no purpose in this thread. Its strange how when someone is trapped in a corner while arguing, they detour the coversation to better suit them instead of facing it head on.

So Haze isn't even par with X360 games? After all its quite new game and its on Oh-So-Powerful PS3, which makes all games look so good.

How about too human?

Mass effect?

And why theres assassins creed? Its multiplatform game.

@ Deneidez

Too Human got mediocre scores, Mass Effect is riddled with framerate issues, texture pop-ins, annoying loading sequences, repetitive gameplay, etc on the 360. I expected more form this game. Bioshock also has some issues but is much better and based on the same underlying technology (Unreal engine).

BTW, there must be better screenshots available than the ones you posted. IMO they don't look impressive at all.

MikeB said: @ Deneidez Too Human got mediocre scores, Mass Effect is riddled with framerate issues, texture pop-ins, annoying loading sequences, repetitive gameplay, etc on the 360. I expected more form this game. Bioshock also has some issues but is much better and based on the same underlying technology (Unreal engine). BTW, there must be better screenshots available than the ones you posted. IMO they don't look impressive at all.

I quote forevercloud3000 in this case

As I said before, you can make game that looks great, but is piece of crap when it games to playability/stuff in game.

@ Deneidez

WP review:

"Even ignoring the glitches, Too Human isn't overly graphically impressive. All of the character models are exceptionally plastic and inhuman-looking, and what is clearly supposed to be disturbing combinations of man and machine look more like glorified armor. The mechanical enemies are indistinguishable from the Geth from Mass Effect"

"OK, but never really visually impressive. The best stage of the four is Helheim, but even that quickly becomes repetitive and dull."

Maybe you should pick another game, how about Kameo? Now that game is pretty impressive in general, also visually despite it could have used some AA and its easier to realize cartoon like approach. Still my overall 360 favorite.

TheRealMafoo said: Squilliam said: Are these games even of equal budget? Does the Forza budget equal half of the GT5 budget? Are the Killzone 2/MGS4 budgets less than twice the budget for Gears of War 2? Ditto for development times. Do these screenshots prove a more powerful machine or just one thats had a lot more money thrown at it?   Most of the money spent on high end PS3 games was writing a framework like Direct X on the 360. Sony did not give very good tools. The PS3 requires a new way to develop, and thus the people who forge that trail are going to spend a lot more. MGS5 will most likely take far less to make then MGS4 did. As people learn how to create very distributable code, costs will go down. Uncharted, MGS4, and GT5:p have no equal on the 360 (although uncharted might someday be surpasses). If at least one game was on par with those, then I would say it was cost. Also, it's worth noting that games like Mass Effect and BioShock had technical problems on the 360 (popin, frame rate issues). The three I mentioned for the PS3 have none.

If you're referring to the graphics side - the OpenGL framework is already there. But I don't think you are.

Whilst it is harder to develop for the PS3 its not rediculously harder, nor are the tools so inferior in comparison to the Xbox 360 that it would add 50% to the coding budget. In fact its actually easier to code for the PS3 than for the PS2, its funny I saw a developer comment that it was hard to get a programmer to use a PS3 development kit when they had an Xbox360 kit on their desk as well.

GTAIV is one of the most technically impressive games this generation so far and it comes with a higher framerate and resolution on the Xbox360 version. It is even more technically impressive than games like Uncharted, because of the use of varied textures for one thing.

Is this a question of which exclusives have been given the most time/money/talent? Because at the moment it seems to be anyway. I can't believe that any of the mentioned Xbox 360 exclusives were given nearly the same time and devotion that the PS3 exclusives were. This comparison seems to me more about the goals of the developers and the companies commissioning the exclusives rather than answering any lingering questions about the capabilities of either system.

 

@ Squilliam

GTA IV looks better on the PS3 due to less texture/graphics pop-ins, worse distance texture detail on the 360 and better lighting on the PS3 version (the guys at Beyond3D all agreed on this, the source of resolution differences, it may well be the 360 version also scales to 720p but doesn't show the usual patterns associated with this). With regard to framerate I only saw a biased Eurogamer comparison comparing the framerate of the cutscenes. The PS3 version ran at roughly 24 FPS for these cutscenes, so on par with Hollywood movies.

Rockstar already clarified this is just their first attempt on the PS3 and their game engine hasn't been well adapted for the PS3 yet. They had a year extra to work on the 360 (and thus designed with its capabilities in mind). They also hinted that for their future games DVD will not be sufficient, they already had to make sacrifices.

Deneidez said: forevercloud3000 said: sigh.........like I said earlier, this thread is about TOP TIER GRAPHIX! not which games are better. Haze fails in both respects, so it has no purpose in this thread. Its strange how when someone is trapped in a corner while arguing, they detour the coversation to better suit them instead of facing it head on. So Haze isn't even par with X360 games? After all its quite new game and its on Oh-So-Powerful PS3, which makes all games look so good. How about too human? Mass effect? And why theres assassins creed? Its multiplatform game.

You are doing it again,whatever, I'll answer your post tho....

there are no games with a similar graphical nature as Mass Effect right now, most WRPGs end up 360 exclusive so it would be wierd to judge them against themselves. The only way Mass Effect or too Human will get into this battle is when Fallout 3 or Alpha Protocol comes out. This will go in the MultiPlatform vs. Exclusives section(FFXIIIvs. Versus, Assassin's Creed vs. MGS4, etc). There needs to be a devisable equal to compare it to on the PS3, otherwise one might have an unfair advantage.

No one said every exclusive game on the PS3 has best graphics, just that being exclusive to the PS3 gives you the option of making the best graphics possible at this time.

I have to disagree with you MikeB GTA looks a little better on the 360. Heres some links
http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/29-04-2008-389.html
http://theexplodingbarrel.com/?p=183
I am seeing a trend here though and that is there are people who think one system has better graphics than the other no matter what screen vids or anything els is presented.
P.S. Mass effects graphics are one of the best out there lol when all the textures pop up. Im sorry you didnt like mass effect Mike but in my opinion its one of the best games this gen so far with a metric score of 90plus.

@ celticlonewolf

It doesn't matter so much, the differences are minor and Rockstar performed a nice 360 port. IGN and Rockstar's founder preferred the looks of the PS3 version, with such facts there's always going to differences of opinion.

GTA IV does look a bit better over here than in that video.

You know, I find those comparison videos fairly funny, as they always tip in the 360's favor in multiplats. Sometimes warrented, others questionable.

GTA4 and Assassin's Creed in particular. I work at gamestop. We get into heated debates all the time. When AC was first out and people said it looked better on 360 we tested the theory. The 360 version was indeed brighter. Then I thought..........one sec. I walked over to the game, went in the menus, and adjusted the lighting. Then they looked identical. GTA4 looks a tad blurry and darker then the 360 version. Mainly becuz of the PS3's auto blending techniques. The light can be adjusted in the PS3 version to give it the identical super intensive light as the 360 version. The blur , to me, looked to be on purpose by the developers, it gives a nice foggy look in good lighting(ala Heavenly Sword Style).

MultiPlat is not the best way to determine console graphical superiority.