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.

I think you should add it.  Your other points are based on the same logic in many ways.  The point isn't to try and judge specific developers, but to aknowledge their skills as demonstrated by the final product.

Clearly some developers may have better graphic artists, others engine coders, etc.  That will have a massive impact on the final product.

When you see a title which has serious frame rate issues compared to similar titles, it's not down to the consoles.  It's down to the developer's own ability.

Also, I'd disagree this is hard to quantify.  This is actually easier to quantify than anything else you noted.  Art direction, etc. is subjective, code is objective.  Whether you like a game or not, like its genre or not, the code, the engine, etc. is objective and be analysed as such.

While different art direction, etc can be contributing factors, if you have two FPS and one has a much higher resolution and better frame rate, and if they are not wildly different in targeted detail level, number of character models, particle effects, etc. then I can pretty much guarantee you that the developers technically ability for the higher resolution title was superior.

I will concede budget can influence this as well.  But really, if you look at the engines/titles delivered by Valve, Epic, Naughty Dog, etc. it's pretty clear you're looking at developers with more talented coders, etc. than the bulk of your average releases.

Note I'm not saying this makes for better games.  Personally, on a purely technical level, I think the Killzone 2 engine is a better piece of technical coding than Bungie's engine for Halo 3 in terms of the resolution it can support in conjunction with the lighting effects, particle effects, etc. on display - however at the same time I would critize the Killzone 2 developer's ability to craft narrative, character and mission structures.  something Bungie are I would argue (although this is perhaps more subjective) better at.

But I digress.