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

Forums - Sony - Sony setting the graphics bar this generation

LordChris915 on 02 February 2010
Mendicate Bias said:
Well one marked difference between 360 games and PS3 games is that the 360 exclusives like GoW2 and Halo 3 have split screen (with Halo 3 allowing up to 4 players on one 360).

Comparing this to the PS3 exclusive games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 which both lack any split screen and for Killzone 2 even co-op makes you wonder how good 360 exclusive games would look if they gave up having local multiplayer features. Not that I would want them to since for me playing next to a friend is always greater than slightly better graphics.

With Halo Reach said to have at the very least the same multiplayer features as Halo 3, looking at its graphics becomes pretty impressive. Pulling off graphics better than GoW2 in huge maps fighting against a massive covenant army with your friend sitting right next to you is no small task.

Features has no impact on graphics, having local split screen isn't going to affect your frame rate or cutscenes....or maybe it does, if we take into account the Blu-ray disk, it becomes apparent that the average 360 game has to squeeze more onto a single disk than its PS3 counterpart, therefore more features = less space =  more compression =  worse graphics.

That being said, even games on multiple disks for the 360 do not compare to their PS3 counterparts, the difference between PS3 and 360 FFXIII is said to be quite noticable.



Around the Network
CommonMan on 02 February 2010
LordChris915 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Well one marked difference between 360 games and PS3 games is that the 360 exclusives like GoW2 and Halo 3 have split screen (with Halo 3 allowing up to 4 players on one 360).

Comparing this to the PS3 exclusive games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 which both lack any split screen and for Killzone 2 even co-op makes you wonder how good 360 exclusive games would look if they gave up having local multiplayer features. Not that I would want them to since for me playing next to a friend is always greater than slightly better graphics.

With Halo Reach said to have at the very least the same multiplayer features as Halo 3, looking at its graphics becomes pretty impressive. Pulling off graphics better than GoW2 in huge maps fighting against a massive covenant army with your friend sitting right next to you is no small task.

Features has no impact on graphics, having local split screen isn't going to affect your frame rate or cutscenes....or maybe it does, if we take into account the Blu-ray disk, it becomes apparent that the average 360 game has to squeeze more onto a single disk than its PS3 counterpart, therefore more features = less space =  more compression =  worse graphics.

That being said, even games on multiple disks for the 360 do not compare to their PS3 counterparts, the difference between PS3 and 360 FFXIII is said to be quite noticable.

Interesting take. I'm surprised seeing as how you don't have "Microsoft Hater" in your sig. . . oh wait. . .



No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful.

iLLmaticV3 on 02 February 2010
DarkisWR said:
iLLmaticV3 said:
eliasg said:
90% of multiplatform games look and play better on XBOX360, so i cant say that PS3 is a more powerfull console...

That is because most of them are made on the Xbox 360 first then ported to the PS3. It has been proven that Developing a game on the PS3 first, then porting it to the Xbox 360 is the better option.


Sources? And more than a sony only studio plz.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/116728/ps3-faster-than-xbox-360-harder-to-manage/

http://www.bingegamer.net/2008/lucasarts-to-develop-for-ps3-port-to-360/

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/10/18/first-party-studios-excel-on-ps3-because-of-synergy-with-other-developers/

There are more, but I'm too lazy to look.



Odd. Future. Wolf. Gang. Kill. Em. All. OFWGKTA Don't give a fuck!

Fuck Steve Harvey. FREE EARL!

Final Fantasy Versus XIII will be the GREATEST game EVER made!!!

I'd take a bullet for Square-Enix! 

 

Mendicate Bias on 02 February 2010
LordChris915 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Well one marked difference between 360 games and PS3 games is that the 360 exclusives like GoW2 and Halo 3 have split screen (with Halo 3 allowing up to 4 players on one 360).

Comparing this to the PS3 exclusive games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 which both lack any split screen and for Killzone 2 even co-op makes you wonder how good 360 exclusive games would look if they gave up having local multiplayer features. Not that I would want them to since for me playing next to a friend is always greater than slightly better graphics.

With Halo Reach said to have at the very least the same multiplayer features as Halo 3, looking at its graphics becomes pretty impressive. Pulling off graphics better than GoW2 in huge maps fighting against a massive covenant army with your friend sitting right next to you is no small task.

Features has no impact on graphics, having local split screen isn't going to affect your frame rate or cutscenes....or maybe it does, if we take into account the Blu-ray disk, it becomes apparent that the average 360 game has to squeeze more onto a single disk than its PS3 counterpart, therefore more features = less space =  more compression =  worse graphics.

That being said, even games on multiple disks for the 360 do not compare to their PS3 counterparts, the difference between PS3 and 360 FFXIII is said to be quite noticable.

Are you serious? You do realize that if you have 4 player split screen the console has to render the same game four times simultaneously. If you want to keep a stable framerate with 4 people playing at the same time you need to make some graphical sacrifices. This is common sense even a child can figure this out. 

Also why did you bring up disk space, this is a conversation about hardware capability. Have you forgotten that the most graphically advanced game this gen came on one disk in the form of Crysis? Besides if a developer really wanted they could release a game on multiple disks. For example release the single player on one disk and the multiplayer on the second disk. However like I said before the overwhelming majority of people prefer local multiplayer to slightly higher graphical fidelity.

Finally I hope MS fired you or hurt you in some way because the idea of hating a giant corporation because its the "cool" thing to do is pretty sad. Your PS3 wouldn't even have half its current features and software if they didn't have MS to compete with so how about you come out of your insecure fanboy shell and say hello to the real world.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Kzoellner on 02 February 2010

Fresh popcorn! get your popcorn here!



Around the Network
brainiacxiii on 02 February 2010

Why is anyone talking about crytek? Noone has ever seen crysis running properly on consoles. Even cryengine 3 videos have a max of 15 fps, which is unaceptable.

Sony has set the bar for console graphics but thats nothing new. Sony has an attention to detail and quality in its fp studios that microsoft lacks.



DarkisWR on 02 February 2010
iLLmaticV3 said:
DarkisWR said:
iLLmaticV3 said:
eliasg said:
90% of multiplatform games look and play better on XBOX360, so i cant say that PS3 is a more powerfull console...

That is because most of them are made on the Xbox 360 first then ported to the PS3. It has been proven that Developing a game on the PS3 first, then porting it to the Xbox 360 is the better option.


Sources? And more than a sony only studio plz.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/116728/ps3-faster-than-xbox-360-harder-to-manage/

http://www.bingegamer.net/2008/lucasarts-to-develop-for-ps3-port-to-360/

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/10/18/first-party-studios-excel-on-ps3-because-of-synergy-with-other-developers/

There are more, but I'm too lazy to look.


Ahh...good stuff...Gotta agree...thou...that doesnt mean that the ps3 is uber better or vice versa...hardware is still hardware.



Xoj on 03 February 2010
DarkisWR said:
iLLmaticV3 said:
eliasg said:
90% of multiplatform games look and play better on XBOX360, so i cant say that PS3 is a more powerfull console...

That is because most of them are made on the Xbox 360 first then ported to the PS3. It has been proven that Developing a game on the PS3 first, then porting it to the Xbox 360 is the better option.


Sources? And more than a sony only studio plz.

EA, said it alot especially with mirror edge and dead space.

even though their games are made for the 360 first then ported over.

and it's not like difference are that huge, when 360 version have problems, expect ps3 be even worse.



Scoobes on 03 February 2010
brainiacxiii said:

Why is anyone talking about crytek? Noone has ever seen crysis running properly on consoles. Even cryengine 3 videos have a max of 15 fps, which is unaceptable.

Sony has set the bar for console graphics but thats nothing new. Sony has an attention to detail and quality in its fp studios that microsoft lacks.

I'm pretty sure that if the max frame rate was only 15fps than it would be stuttering terribly. From the videos I've seen it plays relatively smooth with a few random dips in framerate which is fine for a work in progress.

And the reason people are talking about Crytek is because this is a graphics thread and Crytek have proven that they have the best looking game this gen (from a technical standpoint) with Crysis (released in 2007 on PC) which has yet to be surpassed by any PC or console game (highly unlikely).




Get your Portable ID!

LordChris915 on 03 February 2010
CommonMan said:
LordChris915 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Well one marked difference between 360 games and PS3 games is that the 360 exclusives like GoW2 and Halo 3 have split screen (with Halo 3 allowing up to 4 players on one 360).

Comparing this to the PS3 exclusive games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 which both lack any split screen and for Killzone 2 even co-op makes you wonder how good 360 exclusive games would look if they gave up having local multiplayer features. Not that I would want them to since for me playing next to a friend is always greater than slightly better graphics.

With Halo Reach said to have at the very least the same multiplayer features as Halo 3, looking at its graphics becomes pretty impressive. Pulling off graphics better than GoW2 in huge maps fighting against a massive covenant army with your friend sitting right next to you is no small task.

Features has no impact on graphics, having local split screen isn't going to affect your frame rate or cutscenes....or maybe it does, if we take into account the Blu-ray disk, it becomes apparent that the average 360 game has to squeeze more onto a single disk than its PS3 counterpart, therefore more features = less space =  more compression =  worse graphics.

That being said, even games on multiple disks for the 360 do not compare to their PS3 counterparts, the difference between PS3 and 360 FFXIII is said to be quite noticable.

Interesting take. I'm surprised seeing as how you don't have "Microsoft Hater" in your sig. . . oh wait. . .

Thats just how I roll, I make my bias clear, doesn't mean I'm incapable of coherent speak, also notice it does NOT say 360 hater!