Sony to developers in early 2006:

"As for rendering resolution we recommend 1080p and 720p. Though we have no strict guidelines we recommend 1080p, anyway."

Take a look at the graphics in Heavenly Sword or Ratchet and Clank TOD and compare them to the known 600p-640p games out there, you'll almost certainly notice the difference on a normal size HDTV.

Too bad that XBox 360 related sacrifices are being ported over to the PS3.

MikeB said: @ starcraft Time to grow please. Be ok with lying to circumnavigate the fact the in some technical aspects the Xbox 360 is a superior gaming platform than the PS3. The PS3 is far more powerful technically, but if you write your game specifically for the XBox 360 you may run into some problems porting the game in full quality to the PS3, as you may have to do a significant amount of redesign of the game engine. Also XBox 360 / PS3 mutliplatform games are unlikely to ever push the PS3 to the max, as they will most often likely to stick to 5.1 audio, not use the harddrive, keep the amount of data to fit on a DVD as well, not use to much of the SPE processing potential to keep the game portable tot the XBox 360, not make too much use of the Sixaxis, etc. So many potential sacrifices are likely to be made, IMO it's companies like Insomniac, Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games which will break new ground without having to worry about common cross platform strenghts and weaknesses. Just look at R&C: TOD and Uncharted already!

 

Neither of those games you mentioned Mike b look as good as Mass Effect

 

MikeB said: MikeB wrote: Yes according to their PR statement, but Killzone 2 will go far beyond Halo 3 with regard to lighting and effects. Maybe UT3, a modified multi-platform orientated game engine will already do the same on the PS3, at least according to Epic the game goes technically beyond Gears of War and already runs better on the PS3 than Gears did on the XBox 360. One of the developers you must be talking about below must have been Epic. With regard to the lighting comment I meant to refer games of a similar gerne, so neglecting other impressive games like Uncharted. @ Darc Requiem I didn't care about this when there was a big stink about Halo 3 being 640p and I don't care about it now. As long as the game looks good and plays well, it's resolution should be just a footnote. I agree gameplay and enjoyment are most important, but like watching a HD DVD or Blu-Ray movie I expect to see significantly better results than from an ordinary DVD movie, sure I may love the actual movie and all that, but I didn't get that kickass HDTV and audio equipment for nothing.

Seriously noone listen to this guy he talks crap! I'm selnors friend who works in building gaming pc's. Alienware to be exact and I'm laughing my head off. Halo 3 is the only game on both ps3 and 360 to have 2 buffers. That takes alot of ram and extra processing power to do. The results are a much more vibrant game world. And just to add It doesnt matter how much you stream stuff, to display the image you have to go through the ram. EVERYTHING A CPU READS  COMES FROM THE RAM. EVERYTHING!

I'll post this video I found. Click gtHD it gives much better picture comparison.

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-call-of-duty-4-xbox-360-vs-ps3-graphics-comparison

The 360 footage looks crisper and I believe this is why.

http://www.gametap.com/home/read/article/8a250901160f94bf011611682de606e0

Both Xbox 360 and PS3 use a Native Resolution of 720p.

The Xbox 360 version also has a Native 1920x1080i mode that apparently does not come from an upconverted image from the hardware upconversion chip. This means the Xbox 360 version looks identical to 1080p, because the game runs at 60 frames per second.

The Xbox 360 uses the Hardware Upconversion chip to change the 1920x1080i mode to output in 1080p

There are rumors that say the PS3 version has a Native Resolution of 1080p, because "1080p" appears on the back of the PS3 box, just like the Xbox 360 box, but several website Forums and Gamespot have now confirmed that this is NOT true. The reason the PS3 version can be output in 1080p is because of a software "scalar" program similar to the one used in GT5 that is implemented into the PS3 version in order to make it more compatible with 1080i and 1080p HDTV sets.

Gamespot goes so far as to say that the Playstation 3 version is NEVER seen higher than 720p, even on a 1080p HDTV. This means that the "software scalar" program in this PS3 game isn't nearly as good as the "hardware scalar" chip in the Xbox 360, which truly does let you see the game in a resolution of 1080p that is output from the Xbox 360.

Nevertheless, the "software scalar" on COD4 for the PS3 can be seen in "720p" high-definition on 1080i and 1080p HDTV sets, unlike Resistance for the PS3...so, it is good news that they used the "software scalar" program--otherwise, you would be seeing the PS3 version of COD4 in only 480p resolution. In fact, as of November 7, 2007 it has been confirmed that if you have a 1080i HDTV set, then you will only see the PS3 version of Call of Duty 4 at 480p low-resolution, if you have a 1080i HDTV set.

MikeB said: @ Lord The Night Knight Vector graphics have been with us at least since the early 80s. Where in my post did I claim it was new? Using a scaler does not necessarily mean that the picture becomes clearer or more detailed, scalers in their simplest form only increase the sample points for the original signal resulting in more data points for the original given information. You can however add video processing or algorithms creating a Video processor to filter and/or add detail enhancement. I didn't claim an upscaler added more detail, at least in the way you are replying. I pointed out that upscaling works better in games than DVD since they don't make graphics the same way. Although such modern chips can enhance image quality significantly (not only by scaling) the results will be of no match compared to natively rendered graphics. Why else would you buy a PC with more processing power if adding a cheap scaler chip would be sufficient? I haven't, but maybe you should compare Gears of War on a 1080p display and look if the PC version while natively rendering in a similar resolution provides significantly better results, I guess it will, how much would be depending on graphics assets. Again, you are discussing things that involve the texture memory as well. My point is about the frame buffer part of the VRAM. God of War 2 looks great in 576p and will look good upscaled on a 1080p HDTV (HDTV's have their own scalers), but God of War 3 would certainly offer much better image quality (probably in a native 1080p resolution) on this HDTV. You still don't get it. God of War 3 will ALSO have much larger texture resolution, draw distance, shading, lighting, effects and polygon count. NONE of those are dependent on screen resolution. Those will still show up on a 480p set.

LordTheNightKnight said: MikeB said: @ TheBigFatJ For one company seperating itself from the Wii because it is HD and another company seperating itself from its competition by saying that the 360 isn't even full HD, it looks a little hypocritical to see them running their games with 66% as much resolution as the lowest HD spec. I think you got it wrong with regard to FullHD, Sony stated the PS3 will do games up to 1080p (meaning 1080 horizontal progressively scanned lines) and a Microsoft Exec reponded they thought it would be impossible. Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII will all be impressively performing high profile 1080p games. Sony beginning of 2006: "The PlayStation 3 will include BluRay , the high definition DVD technology, and support games in resolutions of up to 1080p, (the highest supported standard on the market.)" Microsoft in repsonse (March 2006): "I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. I think if you talk to any developer they will tell you that they will not have a performing game at 1080p." In hindsight it's easy to see who's right and who's wrong. Your comments with regard to Microsoft are correct, but I think those with regard to Sony is a myth reading judging by reading the text above. But that just proves one man's belief of the capabilities is wrong. It does not prove the 360 cannot handle the same resolution as the PS3, assuming that was one of your inferences here.

It wasn't some Microsoft noob making these comments, it was Scott Henson, Director Game Technology Group Microsoft! IMO at the time just FUD geared towards Sony and the PS3, knowing it would take some time to adjust legacy game engines to suit the SPEs.

ckmlb said: Honestly, why do people care about this number? It looks better than almost anything out there and that's a fact 600p or not.

QFT! Stop this non-sense and enjoy this GORGEOUS game... i know i am!

@ gamingdevil

I half agree, I do support the research done by the people over at Beyond3D. But those people playing on SDTVs won't notice a difference anyway (although they may want to upgrade someday!), this is mostly of interest to people owning HDTVs and especially those who are interested in console potential (/limitations).

In any case with 720p PS3 games like,

Motorstorm



or Heavenly Sword



the PS3 was already considered to be producing graphical environments fully on par with the best the XBox 360 has to offer. With Ratchet & Clank PS3 games have advanced to the 2nd generation of PS3 games, it really takes the platform to a new level. The latest multi-platform games run well on the PS3, sometimes at a slightly faster framerate like COD4, DiRT and Assassins Creed.

IMO R&C TOD is the most impressive retail game available for either platform today and IMO Warhawk and Super Stardust HD are the most impressive games available online for either platform. So I hope those who attacked PS3 fans and the console hardware specs will from now on give it a rest. The PS3 is an excellent game console offering interesting exclusive games and some of the best games the XBox 360 had to offer like an improved version of the much praised Oblivion.

With regard to sacrifices I think this is an interesting comment from Naughty Dog:





So please no more attacks on people from XBox fans towards those supportive of the PS3, else those may well use the argument of quality above quantity back at you (in terms of having the technically most impressive games, with regard to hardware features (includig DVD and Blu-Ray playback), as well as with regard to reliabiliity / sturdiness).

 The PS3 offers amazing potential:

 Insomniac:

 Infamous dev team:

 

After playing HS, UDF, CoD 4 and MS on a 50" HDTV, Uncharted wins, followed but CoD, it looks that good (although my TV plays it at 750p for some reason)

MikeB wrote:

And although the PS3 may have suffered from some subpar XBox 360 ports. The XBox 360 is hitting technical walls with regard to its exclusives. high profile exclusive games like Halo 3 (640p, no AA), Forza 2 (no AA, dev admitting to have made sacrifices to not outstrip the limits of DVD) and Mass Effect (framerate issues). These teams have enormous development budgets, have been working on these games for years and don't have to worry about supporting different platforms.

And for those who at the Gran Tursimo 5 prologue demo, an ongoing project until the full Gran Turismo 5 release, a note with regard to the demo, If you compare Prologue in numbers with a XBox 360 game like PGR4, the demo provides a native 1080p vs 640p (?), 60 FPS vs 30 FPS, 200,000 polygon cars vs 100,000 polygons, 16 cars vs 8 cars...

Killzone 2 is an FPS offering more polygons and effects than any XBox 360 FPS released and probably ever will. Later games like GT5, Metal Gear Solid 4 and FF XIII will be aiming at higher resolutions, things are looking great for the PS3 from a technical perspective, not so much for the XBox 360 which seems to be close to its peak.