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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Yawn... Another multiplat with lower resolution on PS3 -> Bioshock.

Burgles on 28 October 2008
Squilliam said:

According to a few pixel counters *Not official Quaz51 material*

Bioshock PS3 runs at ~1200 by 675 vs 1280 by 720 for the Xbox 360.

~810,000 pixels vs 921,600 or a 14% difference.

Yay, an unequal port produce by the makers of another unequal port (Dark Sector).

Kinda lets you know how 2k? Take 2? LOL whichever thought about the port.

In other news, LBP is gonna be huge.

Those turd boxes at IGN have said that the graphics thing between the PS3 is swings and roundabouts in their multiplat comparison...

Its obvious, graphically speaking the 360 version (against the PS3 at least) is better by a small amount in lots of different ways.

 

1. No blur

2. Slightly better frame rate

3. Higher rendering resolution

4. Higher texture resolution...

 

Better controls for FPS on the 360....IGN seemed to think that the controllers on the PS3\360 are equal....I call bullshit, everone knows that the analogue sticks on the 360 are much better for FPS games and the PS3 is better for fighting games.

 



Around the Network
Darc Requiem on 28 October 2008
dbot said:
NNN2004 said:

dbot said:

You forgot to post that Far Cry 2 runs in a higher native resolution on the PS3 than on the 360. This was reported by Quaz51.

http://talkplaystation.com/far-cry-2-runs-at-a-higher-native-resolution-on-ps3/

You guys should stop your "technical discussions" regarding the specs and advantages of one console over the other. There is plenty of information published by sites on the web that have people that actually can understand these specs. We no longer need to discuss the power of each system in theoretical terms, just look at the quality of exclusives on each system and you will see the differences.

 

 and whats about this

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/10/24/far-cry-2-on-sony-ps3-apparently-its-lacking/

 

i found this link inside ur link.

That proves the point right?  These minor resolution differences do not mean anything.  GTA ran at a lower resolution on the PS3, but most reviewers and even the developer preferred the PS3 version of the game.  I will take a stable framerate over a few extra native pixels everytime.

The native resolution is not an indication of anything.  A lower native resolution can allow a developer to add effects, improve the framerate, etc.  Developers may be more comfortable with the PS3's scaling than the 360's.  These threads are pointless fanboy traps.

 

Erm, you said that the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 had a higher native resolution than the 360 version. In actuality the 360 version at 960x1080 has a higher native resolution than the PS3 version at 1280x720. How does your initial point being false prove your point?

 



Asmo on 28 October 2008
Garnett said:

Also the tech was made when the PS3 was announced and the hardware is know,if you dont believe me look it up and post a better source,ill be waiting,and not wikipedia.

 

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2417&p=4

Just to show the wrong clock info.



HappySqurriel on 28 October 2008

Honestly, as I was implying in my last post, the argument surrounding which HD system is more powerful is (really) academic at this point in time. Developers have been working on "Next-Generation" games and engines for over 4 years now (in many cases over 5) and if either system was noticeably more powerful we would have seen it in games that were released by now ...

Certainly, there have been games for both systems which look really nice and may be "impossible" on the other system; but we're not talking about the difference between the N64 and the Playstation, or the XBox/Gamecube and the PS2, the difference between the games is (very) minor and not really worth caring about.



Garnett on 28 October 2008
Asmo said:
Garnett said:

Also the tech was made when the PS3 was announced and the hardware is know,if you dont believe me look it up and post a better source,ill be waiting,and not wikipedia.

 

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2417&p=4

Just to show the wrong clock info.

 

WOW 50MHZ DIFFERENCE,THE 360 STILL WINS IN MOST CASES,FACE IT THE 360 GPU IS STRONGER,now *erm*

 

The 360 is better for shooting games,the PS3 is better for Fighting and puzzles games,FACT!



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
Asmo on 28 October 2008
Garnett said:
Asmo said:
Garnett said:

Also the tech was made when the PS3 was announced and the hardware is know,if you dont believe me look it up and post a better source,ill be waiting,and not wikipedia.

 

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2417&p=4

Just to show the wrong clock info.

 

WOW 50MHZ DIFFERENCE,THE 360 STILL WINS IN MOST CASES,FACE IT THE 360 GPU IS STRONGER,now *erm*

And you apparently don't know how to read so I'll put my message again.

 

"Well 50 MHz is sure not much difference. The GPU clock is basically the only thing I know about the RSX, what annoys me is that if there's a mistake on something so basic, how can we be sure there is no mistake on something else?

 

That's why I was wondering where you took this from."

 

I provided a proof that your specs infos are partially wrong, now you have to proove me that the rest is right...

 



colonelstubbs on 28 October 2008
RolStoppable said:
The 360 is simply more powerful than the PS3 because of its huge powerbrick. Everyone already knew that, so this Bioshock issue isn't a big deal. "Yawn" indeed.

 

 It might have a huge power brick, but the PS3 console itself is 37% larger than the 360, so beat that!



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

dbot on 28 October 2008
Darc Requiem said:
dbot said:
NNN2004 said:

dbot said:

You forgot to post that Far Cry 2 runs in a higher native resolution on the PS3 than on the 360. This was reported by Quaz51.

http://talkplaystation.com/far-cry-2-runs-at-a-higher-native-resolution-on-ps3/

You guys should stop your "technical discussions" regarding the specs and advantages of one console over the other. There is plenty of information published by sites on the web that have people that actually can understand these specs. We no longer need to discuss the power of each system in theoretical terms, just look at the quality of exclusives on each system and you will see the differences.

 

 and whats about this

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/10/24/far-cry-2-on-sony-ps3-apparently-its-lacking/

 

i found this link inside ur link.

That proves the point right?  These minor resolution differences do not mean anything.  GTA ran at a lower resolution on the PS3, but most reviewers and even the developer preferred the PS3 version of the game.  I will take a stable framerate over a few extra native pixels everytime.

The native resolution is not an indication of anything.  A lower native resolution can allow a developer to add effects, improve the framerate, etc.  Developers may be more comfortable with the PS3's scaling than the 360's.  These threads are pointless fanboy traps.

 

Erm, you said that the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 had a higher native resolution than the 360 version. In actuality the 360 version at 960x1080 has a higher native resolution than the PS3 version at 1280x720. How does your initial point being false prove your point?

 

PS3 version of Far Cry 2 is running at 960*1080p(1,036,800 native pixels) as opposed to 1280*720p (921,600 native pixels).

 



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Mendicate Bias on 28 October 2008
Reasonable said:

Yawn... another Squilliam 'have a go' thread... why not explain why Halo 3, a huge big budget exclusive built from the ground up for 360 couldn't manage 720p instead?

 

The budget was around $30 million although it's substantialy higher if you include advertising, but that money doesn't go into game development.

If you ever played the first Halo you would know the horrible framerate issues the game could have and since then Bungie has made it one of their priorities to keep the framerate locked and steady. Having played 4 player co-op and large 16 player matches I have never experienced any framerate issues whatsoever. I'm sure bungie deemed it appropriate to lower the resolution slightly in order to keep the framerate steady.

The real question is why the PS3 the widley touted stronger console cant match the specs of its weaker counter-part. Despite your name you sure do seem to show a PS3 bias...



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

blazinhead89 on 28 October 2008

Actually the d-pad is shoddy on 360 where it doesn't actually respond and PS3 d-pad is far superior, and the analogue sticks of PS3 work perfectly fine 360 ones are better but not by the same huge margin the PS3 d-pad is superior. Therefore Overall PS3 Controller >>>>> 360 controller.