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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - If the 360 can't do graphics like the PS3, HOW can it do THIS?

Rawnchie14 on 16 September 2009
BladeOfGod said:
Cypher1980 said:
BladeOfGod said:
NightAntilli said:
BladeOfGod said:
I still haven't seen the game on 360 that is better looking than Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2

And since when does two games, which is 0.36% of the total amount of games on the PS3 and 0.51% of its exclusives, determine that that system is more powerful than the X360? You people should reallystop being so biased and stop acting like it's the rule. Those two games are the exception. And besides that, there are too many factors to take into account, like art style, team size, time, engine optimization, and the OPINION of the person. Arguably the latest games on the PS2 looked better than the old Xbox. Does that mean the PS2 is more powerful because it has a few games that do? NO. And even then, it's still in the eye of the beholder and.. I'm going to say this again..

 

SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER LOOKING TO THE EYE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT SYSTEM IS USING MORE POWER. THAT CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY FALSE AND  NOT LOGICAL

I didnt said PS3 is more powerfull than 360, this isnt a thread about which hardware is more powerfull, its about which system has best looking games and i said that i havent seen the game on 360 that looks better than U2 and KZ2.

And KZ2 and U2 are BETTER looking than any 360 game, thats not an opinnion its a FACT.

Nope, just checked with Head Office and your above statement is actually an OPINION.

So if i say Super Mario Galaxy looks better than Mario 64 i wold be saying my opinnion not a fact???

 

You have to be blind to think that U2 is better looking than any 360 game yet is an opinnion. ITS A FACT

And you have to be ignorant to believe that your opinion is the only opinion that could possibly exist, thus making your holy opinion fact.

While I will agree that Uncharted 2 is the best thing I've seen this gen, I don't think my opinion is fact like you...



Around the Network
NightAntilli on 16 September 2009
BladeOfGod said:
NightAntilli said:
BladeOfGod said:
I still haven't seen the game on 360 that is better looking than Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2

And since when does two games, which is 0.36% of the total amount of games on the PS3 and 0.51% of its exclusives, determine that that system is more powerful than the X360? You people should reallystop being so biased and stop acting like it's the rule. Those two games are the exception. And besides that, there are too many factors to take into account, like art style, team size, time, engine optimization, and the OPINION of the person. Arguably the latest games on the PS2 looked better than the old Xbox. Does that mean the PS2 is more powerful because it has a few games that do? NO. And even then, it's still in the eye of the beholder and.. I'm going to say this again..

 

SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER LOOKING TO THE EYE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT SYSTEM IS USING MORE POWER. THAT CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY FALSE AND  NOT LOGICAL

I didnt said PS3 is more powerfull than 360, this isnt a thread about which hardware is more powerfull, its about which system has best looking games and i said that i havent seen the game on 360 that looks better than U2 and KZ2.

And KZ2 and U2 are BETTER looking than any 360 game, thats not an opinnion its a FACT.

Yeah of course.. Now it's not about which one is more powerful.. But you are acting like the PS3 can do things that the X360 can't.. And THAT is the whole point.. Don't try to deny it now.. And you clearly still don't get it.. But never mind.. Not worth my time. Everything I needed to say, has been said in my previous post. 



Truth does not fear investigation

BladeOfGod on 16 September 2009
NightAntilli said:
BladeOfGod said:
NightAntilli said:
BladeOfGod said:
I still haven't seen the game on 360 that is better looking than Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2

And since when does two games, which is 0.36% of the total amount of games on the PS3 and 0.51% of its exclusives, determine that that system is more powerful than the X360? You people should reallystop being so biased and stop acting like it's the rule. Those two games are the exception. And besides that, there are too many factors to take into account, like art style, team size, time, engine optimization, and the OPINION of the person. Arguably the latest games on the PS2 looked better than the old Xbox. Does that mean the PS2 is more powerful because it has a few games that do? NO. And even then, it's still in the eye of the beholder and.. I'm going to say this again..

 

SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER LOOKING TO THE EYE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT SYSTEM IS USING MORE POWER. THAT CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY FALSE AND  NOT LOGICAL

 

 

 

I didnt said PS3 is more powerfull than 360, this isnt a thread about which hardware is more powerfull, its about which system has best looking games and i said that i havent seen the game on 360 that looks better than U2 and KZ2.

And KZ2 and U2 are BETTER looking than any 360 game, thats not an opinnion its a FACT.

Yeah of course.. Now it's not about which one is more powerful.. But you are acting like the PS3 can do things that the X360 can't.. And THAT is the whole point.. Don't try to deny it now.. And you clearly still don't get it.. But never mind.. Not worth my time. Everything I needed to say, has been said in my previous post. 

stop being so paranoid... i will believe that 360 can do things like PS3 when i see the game on 360 that looks better than U2 and KZ2



NightAntilli on 19 September 2009

It's still clear you understood NOTHING of what I said. Your games that "look" better does not mean the system is more powerful.. But never mind.. I don't even know why i expected you to understand.. You only keep repeating the same over and over again. Yet I've already said why that argument is not logical. Yet you keep going. It's like talking to a wall. Unless you have some REAL evidence that the PS3 system is more powerful for games, I ask you nicely to shut up. Your own point of view and lack of technical knowledge is not evidence...



Truth does not fear investigation

Barozi on 19 September 2009
selnor said:
The recent threads you refer to, have been proven yers old images or fanboy BS. The pure fact we have seen CryEngine 3 run side by side on PS3 and 360 and are basically identical shows the 360 is a very capable machine. I always said that there woud be nothing in it between them. And there isn't.

CryEngine 3 latest showing at Cologne showed just how far ahead of any Console engine out there. Also it was confirmed it's the only engine on console where everything runs in realtime. Even KZ2 was confirmed to have tricks involved and not all realtime. So look at the facts and make your own mind up. I'm getting the best of both worlds. :)

This was actually the best post in the whole thread.



Around the Network
hammerclawpc on 19 September 2009

Of course, the PS3 has that designated RAM thing to contend with.....The PS3 has the edge in raw processing power, the 360 the edge in graphics processing, and shared RAM. The PS3 can store way more data on a blue-ray disc, which might lead to multi-disc versions of some games on the 360.



thismeintiel on 19 September 2009

I hate when people use multi-plats as a basis for their argument that the 360 is better. Yet in the same breath talk of how it's harder and more time consuming to develop for the PS3. Now if you put those 2 together you should understand why earlier, and a slim few now, look a little better on the 360.

Now this only goes for multi-plats that come out at the same time. The development team has a certain amount of time to finish all versions of the game, so of course the console that takes a shorter amount of time to develop for is going to have extra time to polish it alittle more. But if a team actually has time to develop for the PS3 you get beautiful results, i.e. Uncharted 1 & 2 and Killzone 2.

Now concerning ports of once 360 exclusives. On just about every one the devoloper has used Blu-ray, as well as the time needed to get more out of the PS3 to improve the graphics. With Oblivion, Bethesda used sharper textures, as well as increased the draw distance. With Bioshock, Take 2 used higher resolution textures. Even Ghostbusters recently put out a patch to optimize the graphics slightly to put them on par with the 360 game. I believe Fallout 3 did the same thing. That just further illustrates that they just needed some more time. Not the limitations of the PS3 hardware. And yes, the truth is multi-platform developers want their games to be the same when they are releasing at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe so is just blind. Why wouldn't you do that? If you didn't, you'd be hurting the sales of the other systems version. And possibly any of your further releases on that same console, as you would anger the installed base. So you have to look at your exclusives, not multi-plats.

I do find it funny how some claim PS3 owners are so worried about proving we have the better looking games, when we are on a thread started by someone arguing that the 360 is at least on par with the PS3. Who's really worried? Hell, at least we have examples to show. And even MS agrees.



 

selnor on 19 September 2009
thismeintiel said:

I hate when people use multi-plats as a basis for their argument that the 360 is better. Yet in the same breath talk of how it's harder and more time consuming to develop for the PS3. Now if you put those 2 together you should understand why earlier, and a slim few now, look a little better on the 360.

Now this only goes for multi-plats that come out at the same time. The development team has a certain amount of time to finish all versions of the game, so of course the console that takes a shorter amount of time to develop for is going to have extra time to polish it alittle more. But if a team actually has time to develop for the PS3 you get beautiful results, i.e. Uncharted 1 & 2 and Killzone 2.

Now concerning ports of once 360 exclusives. On just about every one the devoloper has used Blu-ray, as well as the time needed to get more out of the PS3 to improve the graphics. With Oblivion, Bethesda used sharper textures, as well as increased the draw distance. With Bioshock, Take 2 used higher resolution textures. Even Ghostbusters recently put out a patch to optimize the graphics slightly to put them on par with the 360 game. I believe Fallout 3 did the same thing. That just further illustrates that they just needed some more time. Not the limitations of the PS3 hardware. And yes, the truth is multi-platform developers want their games to be the same when they are releasing at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe so is just blind. Why wouldn't you do that? If you didn't, you'd be hurting the sales of the other systems version. And possibly any of your further releases on that same console, as you would anger the installed base. So you have to look at your exclusives, not multi-plats.

I do find it funny how some claim PS3 owners are so worried about proving we have the better looking games, when we are on a thread started by someone arguing that the 360 is at least on par with the PS3. Who's really worried? Hell, at least we have examples to show. And even MS agrees.


Of course this video shows that the 360 is amazing technically. This is incredible. Incredible. This is a good example as you were talking about.



thismeintiel on 19 September 2009
selnor said:
thismeintiel said:

I hate when people use multi-plats as a basis for their argument that the 360 is better. Yet in the same breath talk of how it's harder and more time consuming to develop for the PS3. Now if you put those 2 together you should understand why earlier, and a slim few now, look a little better on the 360.

Now this only goes for multi-plats that come out at the same time. The development team has a certain amount of time to finish all versions of the game, so of course the console that takes a shorter amount of time to develop for is going to have extra time to polish it alittle more. But if a team actually has time to develop for the PS3 you get beautiful results, i.e. Uncharted 1 & 2 and Killzone 2.

Now concerning ports of once 360 exclusives. On just about every one the devoloper has used Blu-ray, as well as the time needed to get more out of the PS3 to improve the graphics. With Oblivion, Bethesda used sharper textures, as well as increased the draw distance. With Bioshock, Take 2 used higher resolution textures. Even Ghostbusters recently put out a patch to optimize the graphics slightly to put them on par with the 360 game. I believe Fallout 3 did the same thing. That just further illustrates that they just needed some more time. Not the limitations of the PS3 hardware. And yes, the truth is multi-platform developers want their games to be the same when they are releasing at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe so is just blind. Why wouldn't you do that? If you didn't, you'd be hurting the sales of the other systems version. And possibly any of your further releases on that same console, as you would anger the installed base. So you have to look at your exclusives, not multi-plats.

I do find it funny how some claim PS3 owners are so worried about proving we have the better looking games, when we are on a thread started by someone arguing that the 360 is at least on par with the PS3. Who's really worried? Hell, at least we have examples to show. And even MS agrees.


Of course this video shows that the 360 is amazing technically. This is incredible. Incredible. This is a good example as you were talking about.

Uhm, ok.  Got a little defensive much?  Never claimed the 360 graphics sucked, selnor.  Selnor?  Hey, are you the same guy that owes someone your house for your 360/MGS4 bet?



 

Aldro on 20 September 2009
thismeintiel said:
selnor said:
thismeintiel said:

I hate when people use multi-plats as a basis for their argument that the 360 is better. Yet in the same breath talk of how it's harder and more time consuming to develop for the PS3. Now if you put those 2 together you should understand why earlier, and a slim few now, look a little better on the 360.

Now this only goes for multi-plats that come out at the same time. The development team has a certain amount of time to finish all versions of the game, so of course the console that takes a shorter amount of time to develop for is going to have extra time to polish it alittle more. But if a team actually has time to develop for the PS3 you get beautiful results, i.e. Uncharted 1 & 2 and Killzone 2.

Now concerning ports of once 360 exclusives. On just about every one the devoloper has used Blu-ray, as well as the time needed to get more out of the PS3 to improve the graphics. With Oblivion, Bethesda used sharper textures, as well as increased the draw distance. With Bioshock, Take 2 used higher resolution textures. Even Ghostbusters recently put out a patch to optimize the graphics slightly to put them on par with the 360 game. I believe Fallout 3 did the same thing. That just further illustrates that they just needed some more time. Not the limitations of the PS3 hardware. And yes, the truth is multi-platform developers want their games to be the same when they are releasing at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe so is just blind. Why wouldn't you do that? If you didn't, you'd be hurting the sales of the other systems version. And possibly any of your further releases on that same console, as you would anger the installed base. So you have to look at your exclusives, not multi-plats.

I do find it funny how some claim PS3 owners are so worried about proving we have the better looking games, when we are on a thread started by someone arguing that the 360 is at least on par with the PS3. Who's really worried? Hell, at least we have examples to show. And even MS agrees.


Of course this video shows that the 360 is amazing technically. This is incredible. Incredible. This is a good example as you were talking about.

Uhm, ok.  Got a little defensive much?  Never claimed the 360 graphics sucked, selnor.  Selnor?  Hey, are you the same guy that owes someone your house for your 360/MGS4 bet?

Lol I remmeber that bet! :D

The X360 has awesome graphics but some of the PS3 exclusives (especially the first party) has had the edge so far. The most beautiful console game ever in my eyes is KZ2. Uncharted 2 coming behind & Uncharted 1(Even though it was released 2007!). MGS4 is 3rd party but the character models are sweet. The cutscenes also rock. LBP also has some nice art when you think about it ^.^. GT5 Prolouge I still love the graphics of that game and can't wait for GT5 + GoW 3 x). Then there are some games im less hyped about but that looks promising like Heavy Rain etc.

 

The X360 also has its share of exclusives as alan wake etc. But we've only seen videos so far and well even the vids dont entirely compare up to the ones I listed above. (Not in my eyes though but then again im a blind fanboy XD so stop reading what im saying!). When I got my x360 i got Gears 2 as I had heard it had MGS4 like graphics, Uncharted 1 etc. When I got it I was like: Dude you guys serious? Especially when some compared it to KZ2. Gears 2 doesnt even look better than Uncharted 1 imo. (Its a good game none the less the horde was fun :D, Im just a graphics whore and my comparisons are biased so dont reply to this, Just giving my opinion lol).