360 games should >>>>>>>>; ps3 graphics

but do they no. Despite having a full year ahead with developers who claim its easier to design for 360 games are equal and soon to be inferior graphically to ps3 games. Currently Geow2 is ahead and it should be because of the reasons i said above. But soon kz2 will be out and be the best looking game on consoles. So why don't 360 graphics blow ps3 graphics out of the water when the console had an extra year with developers and is easier to design for.

EDIT: I don't know why I have to say it for a third time but Ive been asked what the point is. So the point is why don't 360 games blow ps3 games out of the water in terms of graphics when the 360 has been with developers a year longer and has been stated by developer to be easier to develop for.

Right.C-Lee

tell me what isnt true. The part about the 360 having an extra year with developers, the 360 being easier to ake games for or kz2 looking better then geow2

The GPUs are variations of fairly well-understood tech at this point. So, the learning curve of old GPUs just isn't going to be there as much this generation. The learning curve this time out will center around threading.lowe0

Gears 2 is only as good as the game engine (Unreal Engine 3.5) and in the Gears demo video Epic stated that they will continue to take advantage of the 360s hardware capabilities in the coming years as they learn how to use its power and improve the Unreal Engine working there way up to Unreal Engine 4.

Gears of war 2 /Threadskullgangs

Its funny actually, i recall many lemmings claiming how the GPU was so advanced when it came out, saying some features were above PC GPU's with its unified shaders, and that fact that its easier to develop for (which it is) should put the games way above the PS3...but NO. Goes to show you how the hardware is about equal, with the PS3 leading thanks to its way MORE superior CPU. (cell does graphics too). Just look at Resistance 2, without cell you couldn't pull off that many things on screen at once. But games like Killzone 2, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Rachet and clank, GT, etc all look above and beyond what the 360 is pulling off. and like the TC said, with more time its had in the market, you would think the 360 should be dominating in that department. Eyezonmii

Actually Alan Wake on the 360 has graphics on par with all those games you just mentioned so no the PS3 is not all that great and the reason it has better looking games is because blu-ray allows for uncompressing textures and sound while on 360 compression needs to be done to make it fit on the dvd. 360 also has ED-RAM which helps the gpu.

Geow2 graphics looked very outdated over my friends house on a 40inch hdtv, i didnt find anything special about them. Uncharted, MGS4, LBP all looked and felt better in motion, not even comparable.

Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkkyacat

[QUOTE="kyacat"]Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkPrinceofSarcasm

With a more powerfull hardware you can do more and therefore it takes longer to make and programming is harder.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Its funny actually, i recall many lemmings claiming how the GPU was so advanced when it came out, saying some features were above PC GPU's with its unified shaders, and that fact that its easier to develop for (which it is) should put the games way above the PS3...but NO. Goes to show you how the hardware is about equal, with the PS3 leading thanks to its way MORE superior CPU. (cell does graphics too). Just look at Resistance 2, without cell you couldn't pull off that many things on screen at once. But games like Killzone 2, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Rachet and clank, GT, etc all look above and beyond what the 360 is pulling off. and like the TC said, with more time its had in the market, you would think the 360 should be dominating in that department. nVidiaGaMer

Actually Alan Wake on the 360 has graphics on par with all those games you just mentioned so no the PS3 is not all that great and the reason it has better looking games is because blu-ray allows for uncompressing textures and sound while on 360 compression needs to be done to make it fit on the dvd. 360 also has ED-RAM which helps the gpu.

actually as years go on technology gets better. therefore, its comon sense that PS3 has better graphics. infamous_27

LOL actually i think the origonal xbox is the best graphical system out right now

LOL no kidding as years go on graphical progessions will be made, but that doesn't mean that the system will be considered "the best."
So long story short, this thread has no point.

[QUOTE="kyacat"]Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkPrinceofSarcasm

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"][QUOTE="kyacat"]Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkOhSnapitz

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

BassAckwards logic.

BassAckwards logic.

IIJuggaNottII

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] uncharterd 1, mgs4, r2, and soon kz2, uncharterd 2. But still the fact that the 360 is easier to develop for and has been out a year longer says ps3 games should look far worsePrinceofSarcasm

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"] Actually your logic is backwards.. Given the fact that the 360 came out first, the PS3 should have been wiping the floor with the 360 on day one, but it didn't. That's like saying an older PC should be out performing a newer model... :| Anyway, as far as the games themselves... that's subjective. And while I think we'll ALL agree that KZ2 will set the standard for console FPS's graphically it's not light years ahead of more recent shooters.. OhSnapitz

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Its funny actually, i recall many lemmings claiming how the GPU was so advanced when it came out, saying some features were above PC GPU's with its unified shaders, and that fact that its easier to develop for (which it is) should put the games way above the PS3...but NO. Goes to show you how the hardware is about equal, with the PS3 leading thanks to its way MORE superior CPU. (cell does graphics too). Just look at Resistance 2, without cell you couldn't pull off that many things on screen at once. But games like Killzone 2, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Rachet and clank, GT, etc all look above and beyond what the 360 is pulling off. and like the TC said, with more time its had in the market, you would think the 360 should be dominating in that department. nVidiaGaMer

Actually Alan Wake on the 360 has graphics on par with all those games you just mentioned so no the PS3 is not all that great and the reason it has better looking games is because blu-ray allows for uncompressing textures and sound while on 360 compression needs to be done to make it fit on the dvd. 360 also has ED-RAM which helps the gpu.

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

infamous_27

Couldn't you just flip that argument around and say that the PS3 should have a lot better graphics since it could use technology not yet available when the 360 launched?II-FBIsniper-II

Couldn't you just flip that argument around and say that the PS3 should have a lot better graphics since it could use technology not yet available when the 360 launched?II-FBIsniper-II

but the 360 has had more time to develop with and is easier too. Are you also saying 360 hardware< ps3 hardware

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] uncharterd 1, mgs4, r2, and soon kz2, uncharterd 2. But still the fact that the 360 is easier to develop for and has been out a year longer says ps3 games should look far worsePrinceofSarcasm

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

Well considering the fact that the PS3 is the more powerful system graphically, it shouldn't be suprising that it has better graphics...king23_

We can't really say the PS3 is definitively more powerful than the 360. No one here is qualified to make that determination. IMO the 360 and PS3 are basically the same with a small nod going to the PS3 in the CPU department. Both are 2005 tech. I don't know why people believe otherwise.

[QUOTE="IIJuggaNottII"]

BassAckwards logic.

PrinceofSarcasm

The PS3 SHOULD have much better graphics than the 360 since the extra year allowed them to have supposedly more powerful hardware. However, the PS3 in general isn't producing a graphical difference like we saw last year when the tables were turned.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Its funny actually, i recall many lemmings claiming how the GPU was so advanced when it came out, saying some features were above PC GPU's with its unified shaders, and that fact that its easier to develop for (which it is) should put the games way above the PS3...but NO. Goes to show you how the hardware is about equal, with the PS3 leading thanks to its way MORE superior CPU. (cell does graphics too). Just look at Resistance 2, without cell you couldn't pull off that many things on screen at once. But games like Killzone 2, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Rachet and clank, GT, etc all look above and beyond what the 360 is pulling off. and like the TC said, with more time its had in the market, you would think the 360 should be dominating in that department. nVidiaGaMer

Actually Alan Wake on the 360 has graphics on par with all those games you just mentioned so no the PS3 is not all that great and the reason it has better looking games is because blu-ray allows for uncompressing textures and sound while on 360 compression needs to be done to make it fit on the dvd. 360 also has ED-RAM which helps the gpu.

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"][QUOTE="kyacat"]Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkOhSnapitz

After playing Geow2 (which i love) i also got the feeling PS3 is more powerfull.... if Geow2 is the current graphics king on 360, it really isnt that visually impressive compared to games such as MGSIV & Uncharted which were released earlier... also judging by what Heavy Rain, killzone2 & Uncharted2 are shaping up in the visual dept it further convinced me that PS3 is capable of producing better visuals....

We still have to see what 360 has to offer in 2009, and am sure we'll see games looking better than Geow2 but i still believe PS3 is superior in terms of graphics capabilities...

but do they no. Despite having a full year ahead with developers who claim its easier to design for 360 games are equal and soon to be inferior graphically to ps3 games. Currently Geow2 is ahead and it should be because of the reasons i said above. But soon kz2 will be out and be the best looking game on consoles. So why don't 360 graphics blow ps3 graphics out of the water when the console had an extra year will developers and is easier to design for.

EDIT: I don't know why I have to say it for a third time but Ive been asked what the point is. So the point is why don't 360 games blow ps3 games out of the water in terms of graphics when the 360 has been with developers a year longer and has been stated by developer to be easier to develop for.

PrinceofSarcasm

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]Couldn't you just flip that argument around and say that the PS3 should have a lot better graphics since it could use technology not yet available when the 360 launched?PrinceofSarcasm

but the 360 has had more time to develop with and is easier too. Are you also saying 360 hardware< ps3 hardware

Yeah.....

So your admiting that the ps3 has superior hardware.

PrinceofSarcasm

This is such an obvious trap thread its not even funny. The PS3 is no questions more powerful then the 360. But as for superior well that's not the same as power.

The 360 should have never e-e-e-ever had better looking games then the PS3. Coming out the gate at $200 more expensive while also coming out a year later it was pretty sad to see 1 year older tech which cost $200 cheaper out perform it. Hence why people grew frustrated getting the short end of multiplats on a more expensive system.Blackbond

The 360 does not have 1 year older tech in it. Most people think because the PS3 came out a year later it automatically has a year newer tech in it, it doesn't. the PS3 was delayed a year because of blue Ray. The GPU's are the same gen of tech. You are not going to see a huge difference in graphics between the two consoles. Physics wise though, you might, but not graphics. The CPU is debatable as I do not have the expertise to say the Cell is much better than 360's CPU. IMO because the Cell can perform GPU duties in conjunction with the RSX, it is a better CPU. But I believe the real problem lies in the dev tools and difficulty level to make games on the platforms.The 360 is easier and has better tools according to Devs. Couple that with the GPU's on both being almost the same, and you can see why it makes sense the games look almost the same, or better in some cases on 360.

The PS3 being $200 more expensive is entirely because of Blue Ray. While I quite enjoy Blue Ray movies, With the state of the economy, a DVD Drive would have Put sony in a much better position to take on the other two companies, being that the console would have sold for cheaper from the get go. Since Sony didn't have a crystal ball to see the world economy going south, they made the decision they thought would net them the most profit. Its quite obvious they wanted to be the Definitive HD disk media, so they figure kill two birds with one stone. in Hind sight, it was not the greatest thing to do.

but do they no. Despite having a full year ahead with developers who claim its easier to design for 360 games are equal and soon to be inferior graphically to ps3 games. Currently Geow2 is ahead and it should be because of the reasons i said above. But soon kz2 will be out and be the best looking game on consoles. So why don't 360 graphics blow ps3 graphics out of the water when the console had an extra year will developers and is easier to design for.

EDIT: I don't know why I have to say it for a third time but Ive been asked what the point is. So the point is why don't 360 games blow ps3 games out of the water in terms of graphics when the 360 has been with developers a year longer and has been stated by developer to be easier to develop for.

After playing Geow2 (which i love) i also got the feeling PS3 is more powerfull.... if Geow2 is the current graphics king on 360, it really isnt that visually impressive compared to games such as MGSIV & Uncharted which were released earlier... also judging by what Heavy Rain, killzone2 & Uncharted2 are shaping up in the visual dept it further convinced me that PS3 is capable of producing better visuals....

We still have to see what 360 has to offer in 2009, and am sure we'll see games looking better than Geow2 but i still believe PS3 is superior in terms of graphics capabilities...

I think the difference between Sony exclusives and MS exclusives games difference in graphics comes down to the almighty dollar lol. I really believe since the 360 is SO easy to program for that devs really don't take to the time to push it that hard. But with the ps3 devs do got to take the time to really get it going and since they are working longer on the project why not really try to push the system during the process, and by doing so they see things that are amiss and tend to them, hence the feeling of big games on the ps3 feeling more polished. You know not having enemies getting stuck on corners, menu screens feeling smoother and just smoother gameplay action on screen ie: Rfom, R2, mgs4, Uncharted, R&C:tod, gt5p, wipeouthd, and so on. Those games really play buttery smooth for what you are seeing and experiencing on the screen. Heck Gears I felt like the cutscenes couldn't even play with out looking choppy or I couldn't take a couple of steps to feel like a skipped one here and there.

I think its the combination of money that is saved on just putting games out quickly for the 360, the use of the cell in combination of the rsx gpu in the ps3 (animations and amount on screen) that seperates the ps3 graphics from the 360 and will keep getting seperated more as long as MS keeps making devs to hold to certain time tables with its releases just to make quick money on its releases. The only dev I know of that has had that freedom with MS is the one's making Alan Wake. Heck I think most people even realise that Bunjie left because of some of those issues with MS and their time constraints on projects.

P.S. Just like to state that KZ2 was built from the ground up with its own graphics engine within 4 years which is a normal time period when doing so for a game. Unreal engine was first shown off in late 04 and early 05 to not produce a game til Gears in 06 I think so they had a good 3 to 4 years to do the engine and game.

but do they no. Despite having a full year ahead with developers who claim its easier to design for 360 games are equal and soon to be inferior graphically to ps3 games. Currently Geow2 is ahead and it should be because of the reasons i said above. But soon kz2 will be out and be the best looking game on consoles. So why don't 360 graphics blow ps3 graphics out of the water when the console had an extra year will developers and is easier to design for.

EDIT: I don't know why I have to say it for a third time but Ive been asked what the point is. So the point is why don't 360 games blow ps3 games out of the water in terms of graphics when the 360 has been with developers a year longer and has been stated by developer to be easier to develop for.