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

Forums - Sony - Comparing PS3 graphics to X-Box 360 graphics without "Eurogamer"

antfromtashkent on 12 March 2009
NNN2004 said:

the problem is even if the difference looks like this:

 

sony fans will say its look better on the ps3 ?!

 

 OH YES! Im sure that a lot of PS3 vs 360 comparisons look like SNES vs 360... Brilliant! Speaking of which we should have a comparison of SF4 because i just must know weather Ken's red suit is redder on my console!



Around the Network
selnor on 12 March 2009
selnor said:
haxxiy said:
selnor said:
 I would like to see if the PS3 could handle KZ2 split screen coop campaign. Considering that KZ2 singleplayer drops to 24 FPS at times, I doubt it.

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=301

 

About Gears 2 (singleplayer I assume):

 

"...frame rate and v-lock issues. Lots of screen tear, and frame rate drops to 24fps as fire engulfs the screen"

 
This has to be the cherry pick of the year!What your forgetting is Gears 2 looks the same and plays the same in 2 player split screen. Thats the way the engine is designed. My point was, if KZ2 was made to be able to do coop, it wouldnt look the way it does. The fact that Gears 2 is so bloody close to looking as good as KZ2 (and in some areas beats it) is gobsmacking to me. But then fanboys will forget little info like this and experience one of the games we mentioned. While I'll finish both. :)

 

 

 Edit: I could be really nasty and use exactl the same site and show you videos of both Gears 2 and KZ2.

But wait, that would then show you an average framerate of 29.6 secs for Gears 2 and 26.8 for KZ2. Oh and that KZ2 has horrendous tear also. Why did you leave that out? And I was wrong, watching the KZ2 video on the site you quote, KZ2 drops as low as 12 FPS.



MikeB on 12 March 2009

@ selnor

Gears of War 2 is a good game, which is better than Gears 1 technically and pushes the 360 to as good as its max potential (IMO this is true, when this was first claimed with regard to Gears 1 I was sceptical).

However MGS4 and Killzone 2 are both significantly more impressive with regard to their audio and graphics and I don't think you need to be technically knowledgeable to judge this at all. In any case those engines are already good enough to render very high quality realtime cutscenes, while Gears of War 2's game engine isn't.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune I consider to be a too different gerne to directly compare with Gears of War 2, but it's still striking that apart from all the detail polish that game has a better combination of Anti-Aliasing and HDR than any of the 360 games we have seen so far.

One thing to remember though is that both Guerilla and Naughty Dog admitted there's still a lot of untapped potential in the PS3 which will be tapped in due time as game engine development take more advantage of the Cell's SPEs.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

MikeB on 12 March 2009

@ mesoteto

Thats funny b/c all I can remember is people making fun of the crappy texture work they got and how big daddies looked like crap on the ps3 compared to the 360 counter part….FAIL +1


I played the early Bioshock demo back then and "crap" seems to me like an overly extreme statement. Of course some people are able to make a huge deal about little trivial stuff, especially it seems to be the case when hardcore 360 fans talk about anything PS3 related...

But wasn't this small glitch fixed? I remember reading somewhere the devs made a tiny mistake with regard to a texture and they would address it.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Reasonable on 12 March 2009
MikeB said:

@ mesoteto

Thats funny b/c all I can remember is people making fun of the crappy texture work they got and how big daddies looked like crap on the ps3 compared to the 360 counter part….FAIL +1


I played the early Bioshock demo back then and "crap" seems to me like an overly extreme statement. Of course some people are able to make a huge deal about little trivial stuff, especially it seems to be the case when hardcore 360 fans talk about anything PS3 related...

But wasn't this small glitch fixed? I remember reading somewhere the devs made a tiny mistake with regard to a texture and they would address it.

 

I believe they said a low res texture from early builds slipped through (it was a texture on big daddies).  A small patch was released which I believe swapped the offending texture for a properly high res version.

 



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

Around the Network
selnor on 12 March 2009
MikeB said:

@ selnor

Gears of War 2 is a good game, which is better than Gears 1 technically and pushes the 360 to as good as its max potential (IMO this is true, when this was first claimed with regard to Gears 1 I was sceptical).

However MGS4 and Killzone 2 are both significantly more impressive with regard to their audio and graphics and I don't think you need to be technically knowledgeable to judge this at all. In any case those engines are already good enough to render very high quality realtime cutscenes, while Gears of War 2's game engine isn't.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune I consider to be a too different gerne to directly compare with Gears of War 2, but it's still striking that apart from all the detail polish that game has a better combination of Anti-Aliasing and HDR than any of the 360 games we have seen so far.

One thing to remember though is that both Guerilla and Naughty Dog admitted there's still a lot of untapped potential in the PS3 which will be tapped in due time as game engine development take more advantage of the Cell's SPEs.

I disagree massively from first ahnd experience. Gears 2's cutscene are the best I have seen. Now opinion may say that MGS4 has better choreography etc etc. I'm talking from graphics standpoint. The texture work in Gears 2 cutscenes are untouvhed by either KZ2's or MGS4 cutscenes. Detail is higher in Gears 2. (I'm not including the CGI cutscene at the beginning of KZ2 because Gears 2 has no CGI).

 



MikeB on 12 March 2009

@ Selnor

Those Gears of War 2 cutscenes aren't realtime, they are just plain movie files.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

selnor on 12 March 2009
MikeB said:
@ Selnor

Those Gears of War 2 cutscenes aren't realtime, they are just plain movie files.

 

 Hmm I cant tell whether your being serious there. You did wink so I guess your joking right? :)



MikeB on 12 March 2009

@ selnor

Just compare the in-game graphics and cutscenes, they are well different. I believe it's no secret they were are just plain movies pre-generated on a PC.

Realtime rendering of cutscenes can make good sense if for instance you allow interactivity and if the quality is good enough as this allows for more seamless transitions and the re-usage of in-game assets (so the general style is also equal between cutscenes and in-game action).



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

selnor on 12 March 2009

MikeB if I was to compare the to flagship titles of both HD consoles for graphics, I'd rate like this. Bearing in mind this is based of visual representation and not how technical it was to achieve the result.

Animation = KZ2

Textures = Gears 2

Lighting = Gears 2 (sorry)

Visual effects = KZ2

Then I would break it down further.

Breakable sceneary = Gears 2

Amount on screen = Gears 2

water = Gears 2

The funny thing is KZ2 I think looks slightly better overall. Why. Purely because the effects and animation are so good, it lends the game to looking great in motion. But then theres also the point of how can we compare the 2? Epic have said time and time again in development they are not striving for photorealism becasue that is not the art style of the game. Evident in overly bulky characters to boot. But on the other hand it's obvious that KZ2 is aiming for photorealism easily visible through the near perfect animation.

You may say about HDR on PS3. Personally HDR and LDR is evidently the best in Halo 3. That game is abundant with it to the point of having 2 seperate frame buffers 1 for each. (the only console to use 2 buffers as well). Again people complain about Halo 3 graphics. God thank that Bungie didnt listen to these people. The art direction called for the graphics to be that way. And as Ive said 4 player split screen Halo 3 Campaign was what the fans wanted. The engine had to do that smoothly.

Like I said visually on screen what we see is important. Not how the dev got there.