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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Developers getting the hang of ps3: PS3 vs 360 multiplat comparison 08

Kantor on 30 November 2008
NJ5 said:
@Kantor: That's why I said that the importance of these observations is a matter of personal opinion. Personally I don't think it's a big deal either. My point with that post was simply to show that when you know what to look for, the differences aren't that complicated to see.

I suppose you're right.

The thing is, most people don't know what to look for. So, while you and I think the graphics are the same, Gamespot and EuroGamer start preaching about shadows, textures and pop-in, and somehow 9/10 times coming to the conclusion that the 360 version is noticeably superior in every way.

IGN needs to start doing graphics comparisons.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
FJ-Warez on 30 November 2008

As usually blurried textures and more jaggies in the ps3 versions, sometimes less objects, but yeah is very small difference for most of the people out threre...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
leo-j on 30 November 2008
FJ-Warez said:
As usually blurried textures and more jaggies in the ps3 versions, sometimes less objects, but yeah is very small difference for most of the people out threre...

 

 lmao you have to be kidding me,  I admit Star wars looks terrible on the ps3, and the textures on the rocks in WaW on the ps3 version have a blurr effect to them, but there are parts were the ps3 version of WaW surpasses the 360 one, the gun is much better detailed, and the hand, and the clothing. The lighting is also better.

Star wars is just terrible, other than that all those games look better on the ps3.



 

mM
CAL4M1TY on 30 November 2008

Haha, you linked to a page for a game they say the 360 version is superior. Nice.



Badassbab on 30 November 2008
Kantor said:
NJ5 said:
@Kantor: That's why I said that the importance of these observations is a matter of personal opinion. Personally I don't think it's a big deal either. My point with that post was simply to show that when you know what to look for, the differences aren't that complicated to see.

I suppose you're right.

The thing is, most people don't know what to look for. So, while you and I think the graphics are the same, Gamespot and EuroGamer start preaching about shadows, textures and pop-in, and somehow 9/10 times coming to the conclusion that the 360 version is noticeably superior in every way.

IGN needs to start doing graphics comparisons.

 

IGN have been doing head to head for years now. And there is always a graphics section which compares the graphics (the most popular section). It's not as detailed as say in Eurogamer but it's there and the reason all the games websites do head to head is because they are extremely popular so blame the scores of gamers who WANT to see which version is the best. I've read and watched every single one of IGN's head to heads and most of the time the 360 wins though where the PS3 is the lead development console, they go with the PS3 (Burnout Revenge, Mirrors Edge).

What is clear is that 360 ports of PS3 games come out a darn sight better than PS3 ports of 360 games. Seems the 360 hardware is better at handling PS3 games than the other way around OR it is easier to optimise ports of PS3 games for the 360 than the other way around.

However it really is down to personal preference too. Though IGN prefer the more vibrant colours and smother frame rate of the PS3 Burnout and Mirrors Edge, others prefer the 360 version cause the screen tearing and aliasing issues of the PS3 version puts them off.

Apart from a few games, the differences in most games are kinda miniscule so really it's down to which exclusives you'd rather play plus costs. PS3 is still too expensive for mass market considering the price of the competition. I really want to play R2, KZ2 and GOW3 but I will wait till the PS3 is at least £100 cheaper....and when all of the aforementioned games are out.






Around the Network
FJ-Warez on 30 November 2008
leo-j said:
FJ-Warez said:
As usually blurried textures and more jaggies in the ps3 versions, sometimes less objects, but yeah is very small difference for most of the people out threre...

 

 lmao you have to be kidding me,  I admit Star wars looks terrible on the ps3, and the textures on the rocks in WaW on the ps3 version have a blurr effect to them, but there are parts were the ps3 version of WaW surpasses the 360 one, the gun is much better detailed, and the hand, and the clothing. The lighting is also better.

Star wars is just terrible, other than that all those games look better on the ps3.

 

No, I´m ot kidding you, Fallout 3, SC, SW:TFU and MK vs DC show blurrier textures in the PS3 version, by an small amount...

Funny, you only choose to response to this post, when half of the post aroun here alredy debunked your "all those games look better on the ps3" statement...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
eliasg on 30 November 2008

no AA as always...



 XBOX360

Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Staude on 30 November 2008
Cypher1980 said:
selnor said:
haxxiy said:
selnor said:
haxxiy said:
I have no doubt PS3 has the strongest GPU this gen. However X360 is FAR easier to work due to its unified pipeline architecture. In other worlds, developers applying the same ammount of work they achieve better graphics in the X360 than in PS3. If at the beginning of next gen ATI got something NVIDIA not then most likely they'll have exclusivity in producing GPUs to consoles.

What I can understand if you said CPU, but it is common knowledge and amongst Devs to that 360 GPU is better than PS3's. There is no question here at all. There never has been. So why all of a sudden this comment. This is the first time Ive ever seen someone say this. ROFL.

 

Is that all because I fully debunked your thread about 'objective factual look in the cell"?

 

 LOL I'm never going there again. It was funny to see fanboys argueing with raw facts from the makers of the chips own figures. (I will never forget that).

But seriously GPU in 360 is a better GPU. It's common knowledge like bread goes with butter.

 

Hmm...........Bread does go well with butter. Guess it must be true !

Noot.

The RSX is Not a just a geforce7000 series card. It was re designed to work properly with the cell .. what does this mean ? it means that it's more optimised and that again means better graphics .. not gonna go into an argument. But that too is fact.

 



Check out my game about moles ^

SHMUPGurus on 30 November 2008

Wow, I was used to seeing pale PS3 comparison shots. It seems they've played with the contrast a bit more now. o_O

Ouch @ Force Unleashed and Fallout 3 though.



Random game thought :
Why is Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 getting so much hate? We finally get a real game and they're not even satisfied... I'm starting to hate the gaming community so f****** much...

Watch my insane gameplay videos on my YouTube page!

Deviation59 on 30 November 2008
leo-j said:
The DC game looks better on the ps3 as well, same goes with MADDEN the draw distance is better, Star wars looks noticebly worse.

As for the DEAD SPACE argument, yes the shadow "banding" kills the shot, but everything else on that screen looks singificantly better on the ps3.

 

Dead Space looks the same on both platforms. That "astonishing" difference that you're seeing comes entirely from differing contrast/brightness levels. GameSpot put in zero effort to match contrast levels for these comparisson shots, which makes them a whole lot more subjective than they should actually be.