The subject: The 360 vs. the PS3 in terms of graphical power.

The stand/opinion: There is hardly any difference between the two, and whatever the difference is does not mean better looking games.

The reason: Games look better on these consoles because of the following things, not because one is more powerful:


1.) Budget.

1.1.) Exclusive. A lot of people tout Gran Turismo 5 as having far superior graphics than any other racing game on the planet, and in fact better than any other game of any genre. I agree with this assessment personally. But the reason is NOT the PS3's power. The primary reason for GT's unparralled graphical advantage is the money that Yamauchi is allowed to use for his development.

When comparing to something like Need for Speed or Forza, whose budgets do not go anywhere near GT's, there should be no surprise as to which one will come out better looking. In fact, my surprise would come if GT wasn't far superior. NFS, for example, is produced nearly every year, so you can't expect EA to throw away all it's money on the franchise when it has so many other things going. Forza, on the other hand, while exclusive, isn't really touted by Microsoft as it's super-AAA title. That's Halo. Gran Turismo, however, is Sony's highest trump card.

1.2.) Multiplatform. Another issue concerning budget is the cost of producing games for the PS3, and the profit you make out of selling it on that console. We all know that the PS3 has a high game production cost and has the lower user base, and so imagine a third party developer's logic when making a game: "Why would I spend more on a console that'll cost me more and give me less sales?

Most developers would end up spending either a smaller amount or equal, and obviously the end result is a poor port to the PS3. It's just logical business, not lazy development.

2.) Development time. When a team takes a long time to assemble a game, you can expect good results. Look at Killzone 2's development time, over 4 years of work, so they deserve what they got. Call of Duty is made almost every year nowadays, so you can expect graphics that are, of course, below KZ's. As mentioned, Gran Turismo 5's development time has already reached ridiculous levels, so you can expect a whole lot more polish than Forza, since Microsoft's racer is produced in significantly less time.

3.) Apples vs. Oranges. There is a common comparison on the boards between Uncharted and Gears, most people saying Uncharted has superior visuals. The problem is, however, people just aren't doing a correct comparison.

Uncharted is an Adventure game, and it HAS better environments, character models, water, and textures, BUT

Gears is an Action/Shooter game, and it HAS better particle effects, explosions, blood, and action movements.

The problem in this comparison is that Uncharted and Gears are in entirely two genres. No gamer in his right mind can say that Uncharted has better action than Gears, and the same can be said about Gears having better platforming than Uncharted. It's just a wrong comparison. What happens here is just that one game focuses it's graphical power on different particular areas, while the other focuses on the other areas.

4.) Art Direction and Style. Another common comparison is between exclusive games of the same genre with the same amount of development time and pretty much the same budget. These game comparisons are the trump cards of most console fans to tout the power of their own system.

Case in point: Halo 3 vs. Killzone 2. As both are shooters, both are AAA budget games, and both have had a long development time, a lot of PS3 fans tout that Killzone is better than Halo visually due to various things. This is, however, another apples vs. oranges comparison, in the fact that while both games are FPS, their art style is completely different.

Killzone is a traditional war shooter with traditional weapons (except the electric gun), traditional enemies (humanoids with red eyes), traditional vehicles, and traditional tactics, using a dark black and grey color palette.

Halo is a sci-fi futuristic shooter with alien weapons (except the machine gun), alien enemies (covenant, flood), alien vehicles (Phantom, Scorpion, etc.), and alien tactics (obviously, with alien weapons comes very different strategies), using a very lush and colorful color palette.

Now because Killzone used a more traditional and down to earth approach, thus making it look more realistic, it is automatically hailed as the better looking game. This is simply not the case, as both games are just designed differently. Just because a game is designed based on the idea of another type of world doesn't make it look worse; in fact, in a lot of cases, futuristic/mystical design is far better than realistic design. Think LittleBigPlanet or Okami.


Conclusion. There is virtually no difference between the graphics produced on the 360 and the PS3. Both consoles are equal in terms of power. The differences in game graphics are because of the above stated reasons.

Logic ftw!

very true

I think that objectively Killzone 2 has better graphics than Halo 3.

I also think this is due to the far higher production budget and far longer production cycle the former had.

I disagree. Again, as I mentioned, this is apples vs. oranges. The art style between the two games is like Earth vs Mars. Not a correct comparison.

At least, however, you're not saying "because the PS3 is more powerful", meaning you just simply prefer realistic graphics over artistic.

Don't get me wrong, I think the artstyle argument has merit.  But the argument you are making precludes ANY game from having a graphical advantage as anyone can say the like the art-style of the lessor game better.

There are some metrics by which we can say one game has better graphics than others.  I will say I saw more glitches in KZ2's campaign than Halo 3's.

Agreed. But those metrics only apply when both games have similar themes and similar genres. There's no point comparing Mario's graphics to NBA Live's graphics. In the case of Halo and KZ, they're both in the same genre but their theme is totally different. The color scheme, design, and lighting system is also totally different.

The art style argument does have limits. For instance, I can say for sure that GT5's graphics are far better than Forza's, because their theme and genre is the same, and when you look at them, it's obvious. But I can't say GT5 looks better than Mario Kart Wii, because MK's theme and goal is simply different. That's another failure of comparison.

I can also say KZ2 looks better than COD4 because their theme and genre is the same. They're both traditional realistic war shooters, and the graphics of KZ2 is obviously better. But I can't compare it with, say, XIII (the cel shaded shooter) or Halo (the futuristic shooter) because their themes are different.

So in short, my entire argument is that it's pointless to compare games that aren't comparable. It's an endless tirade trying to compare two things that aren't even in the same classification. Sure, you can compare Halo and Killzone in terms of gameplay, but you can't compare them in terms of graphics.

Of course you can objectively compare the graphics between GT5 and Mario Kart Wii, and objectively GT5 is graphically superior. It's just that such a comparison is irrelevant in any qualitative comparison of the 2 games. MK Wii's entertainment aim does not include wowing people with amazing graphics, and pushing the graphics envelope. So, in correclty stating that GT5 has superior graphics to MK Wii the only thing you would be proving is that you don't get it about Mk Wii.

OTOH if you have 2 games being matched up that apparently are trying to push the graphics envelope, then comparing them graphically is legitimate regardless of genre, art style, budget, development time etc. There are objective ways to assess graphics and they can be applied to any 2 games. But before you make any comparisons you first have to decide how much of a game's quality and reputation rests on it's graphics performance. If there is too much divergence then the comparison has little value.

One myth finally down ...until some (newbie)fanboys comes again about it...

well.. so far there aren't any newbie fanboys in the thread yet. so far, great intellectual, logical statements!

@binary
i personally doubt that there are any real objective ways you can assess any two games. but whether or not you believe there is such a thing, there is one conclusion we seem to agree towards (which is the subject of this thread)

the power of the PS3 creating better graphics is a myth.