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?

Sweep on 07 September 2009
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Sweep said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Sweep said:
Aion said:
Yeah the 360 has graphics on par with ps3.

IMHO : "360 had graphics on par with PS3"

I think the tables are starting to turn, now that 3 rd party developpers are beginning to use the CELL to help the RSX

And while the Xenos is a bit superior to the RSX, I don't think it can't beat a CELL+RSX combo.

The only problem is that 3rd party games versions are build to match each other and can't use all the respective power of each console

What multiplatform developers have succeeded on the PS3 in terms of graphical superiority? Any? I think of Rocksteady with Batman AA, Infinity Ward with COD4 (PS3 as good as X360) D3 Publisher (Dark Sector) etc... But once again : Multiplatform development goal is to have both versions on par. Can you imagine a 3rd party dev taking the risk to have a blatant superior version ?

 

You mean like they do, nearly everytime they release a multiplat that is superior on the Xbox 360? Oh, I can imagine 3rd parties taking the risk to have a blatantly superior version. Look at the DLC for AA, or look at every other multiplat on the PS3. -> Can we have a list of recent multiplats that have been screwed on the PS3 ? Good luck at finding those... DLC are not relevant here we're talking about graphics

I asked if any multiplatform games had seen significant graphical superiority because of the PS3. -> As already said Multiplats are normally build to be on par. Being easier to program and using a familiar architecture is a big advantage for the X360 when development comes into mind. But in multiplatform development, the devs can't use X360 max power and can't use PS3 max power. What I think (My opinion) is that PS3 has more power resources available than 360 but until recently, using them has often been too hard/expensive/time consumming (choose the one you want) for 3rd party devs.

Certainly they have because of the PC and 360. That is clear.

Your original post implied that the 360 "had" graphics on par with the PS3, but now 3rd parties are starting to use teh cell, and 3rd party games will start to look better on the PS3. -> This is exactly what I'm thinking, if and only if the devs want to do it...

Frankly, I haven't seen that happening. Have you? Or are you predicting the future? I think your original implication was off base, and if you want to defend something, then tell me how, exactly, you believe that multiplats, which almost always look better on the 360, are also being gimped by the 360? -> 360 has been used as lead platform in...Let's guess 90% of 3rd party multiplatform games. You said "beginning to use." ....in what game? -> FFXIII for example with an engine specially programmed to use at least 4 SPU for the graphics (but read the new controversy about the 360 version gimping the PS3 one...)

I mean, it's a little silly to assume that with every multiplat that is superior on the 360, any of the very few multiplats that are equal to the 360 version were gimped because of the 360. What a coincidence.

In reality, there have probably been many, many more games gimped ON THE 360, due to the difficulty of development on the PS3, than vice versa. That's using your very own logic, isn't it? Scrutinize me with your red writing of death. -> correct use of the past in the sentence...

Finally, Forza 3 look amazing. The PS3 probably has more graphical potential than the 360, but the difference is much slighter than originally assumed. BR is a far larger boon to PS3 superiority than is graphical capabilities. >FZ3 looks great yes but I hope that it's not the best the 360 can deliver, otherwise...

 

Also sorry for my english, it's not my native language

You prefer Green...? 



Around the Network
Sweep on 07 September 2009
mrstickball said:
I think what it comes down to is that the Playstation 3 has a higher max theoretical threshold for performance. That doesn't mean that utilization of the PS3 will outstrip the Xbox 360, merely that it has a higher threshold.

What it really comes down to is economics: Is it worth the extra cash for a more graphical game on a PS3? How much more would it cost? If a developer can't quantify if the extra graphics are worth it, then why would the threshold be usable?

But on the other end, if it's worth it, then the PS3 will inevitably have better graphics in the end.

This !



786_ali on 07 September 2009

"If it can't do this and that how come it does this"

Quote of the century.



Initiating social expirement #928719281

Black RL on 07 September 2009

I hope I'm not blaspheming or something......

I have KZ2 (you can see my PSN) and for me RE5 looks better (I know it's a multi). And right know it seems that UC2 will take the throne (but I will have to see for myself).

Not every people look at games the same way I guess.

Anyways, GOW2, RE5, COD4, Assassins Creed, UC, FORZA3, MGS4, Dead Space, PES2010 and many others, they all look amazing in my opinion. The problem is some games can't be compared, for example, MGS4 has an UNIQUE style and art, you can't just say that the graphics are good or bad. In the other end you have games like FORZA3, GT5 and PES2010, they are trying to mimic reality, that ones you can compare with others.




inverted3reality on 07 September 2009

Turn 10 actually do more bullshot than anyone else. First pic cannot be done. FM3 looks significantly behind GT5.



Around the Network
Username2324 on 07 September 2009

Those are touched up screenshots anyways, I can gaurantee the actual game does not look that good.



ZenfoldorVGI on 07 September 2009
Sweep said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
 

 Can we have a list of recent multiplats that have been screwed on the PS3 ? Good luck at finding those... DLC are not relevant here we're talking about graphics

Tales of Vesperia - lower native rez

Ghostbusters

Battlefield 1943

Juarez: Bound in Blood

GI Joe - The Rise of Cobra

Last couple of months.

 As already said Multiplats are normally build to be on par. Being easier to program and using a familiar architecture is a big advantage for the X360 when development comes into mind. But in multiplatform development, the devs can't use X360 max power and can't use PS3 max power. What I think (My opinion) is that PS3 has more power resources available than 360 but until recently, using them has often been too hard/expensive/time consumming (choose the one you want) for 3rd party devs.

Multiplats are not normally built to be on par. They might attempt that, but usually, the PS3 version is inferior graphically.

To answer my own question, no, no multiplats have been graphically superior on the PS3 that I know of. Many have been significantly graphically superior on the 360. Depending on your definition of "significantly," that's a fact.

Kind of screws your argument, doesn't it?

 This is exactly what I'm thinking, if and only if the devs want to do it...

3rd parties aren't making games graphically superior on the PS3. Maybe the could, maybe they couldn't. They aren't, and they probably never will, as you've stated.

They do, however, make games graphically superior on the 360, by accident.

360 has been used as lead platform in...Let's guess 90% of 3rd party multiplatform games.

So, 10 percent(ass pulled stat) of all 3rd party games use the PS3 as a lead platform, and they still haven't made a PS3 multiplat that looks significantly better than a 360 multiplat. Your excuse is that they are trying to be fair.

FFXIII for example with an engine specially programmed to use at least 4 SPU for the graphics (but read the new controversy about the 360 version gimping the PS3 one...)

The FFXIII debacle is over the assumption that Square can't let all the towns/dungeons be available on the PS3, because of the DVD limitation, as well as the loss of 7.1 and a japanese language option. Graphical complaints have been shot down repetedly. There is no evidence that the game ever looked better than it does now. Yes, the game will suffer because of the port, but not graphically as far as we know. It makes you wonder how many 360 games have suffered because of the PS3 port, though doesn't it, and doesn't it piss you off that these PS3 fans are complaining over it, despite the 360 fans being quiet for all these years?

 correct use of the past in the sentence...

Lost in translation

FZ3 looks great yes but I hope that it's not the best the 360 can deliver, otherwise...

Otherwise what? The PS3 will have a slightly better looking game, and time will end? Slight graphical differences don't sell consoles, brotha.

Green and red...christmas is coming early this year.

PS, did the font get all big?



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

NightAntilli on 08 September 2009

I'm going to post only one thing, pink is advantage on PS3, rest is advantage on X360. Remember, this is only one screen, and not universal, and you guys make of it what you will.

 

 



Truth does not fear investigation

Ssliasil on 08 September 2009

all the above picture shows is that one screen has a darker setting and its a different time of day :P

that and 1.) Shadows NEVER process the same way, even if you load the same spot twice on the same console DYNAMIC shadows will differ



...uhh...ill just put my favorite quote of all time here.

"Welcome to Pain, the second of three...You have dealt the first...now deal with me!!"

Fuzzy_Slipperz on 08 September 2009

Remember Crysis was made on PC. The  Xbox is closer to a PC than PS3. PS3 is harder to develop for. Sure Crysis looks better on Xbox but when it comes to exclusives PS3 always wins. Why? Because the developers know how to work with it well. But soon enough the only way the Xbox can handle graphics to compete with PS3 is if they make games dual disc. That won't happen. It costs too much money. Gears 2 took up 95% of the DVD9.