360 multi-plats not only look better but...

they also (in general) run better than the ps3 version of the same game.

First of all I want to say that im comparing the average 360/ps3 multiplatform game, not necessarily games like bayonatte/fallout 3/orange box (which were absolutely terrible ports). From what I realized, most multiplatform games look at least slightly worse on the ps3 (possible due to a lower resolution, bland textures, etc), in addition to running at a lower frame rate which, in some cases, greatly impacts the gaming experience.

The most recent multiplatform game released for the ps3/360 is red dead redemption and most would claim that it is at least a pretty average port to the ps3. Compared to the 360 version of this game, the ps3 version has a lower resolution, lower draw distance, a smaller amount of objects on the screen (trees, grass, etc), less particle effects (such as dust blowing in the wind), more texture pop-ins and more bugs, all while having a lower (average) frame rate. Is the ps3 version still a good game? of course, but the 360 version is clearly the Superior version. Other popular multiplatform game are effect by this such as the call of duty games, assasssin's creed I & II, and so on.

I hate that people only use graphics as the only means to compare a multiplatform game because it is not.

I am a pc/ps3 owner and regret selling my 360 because of these reasons.

It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. tman93

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.

[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. hysam20241

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360.

Most of the time the lead console that the game is developed for is for 360 and ported to PS3.

You are right. But in no way does it reflect either system's power.

I already have a PS3. I'm not going to buy another console just so I'll have slightly better textures on some games. That would be stupid. Like this argument.

^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. tman93

I don't really know whose at fault here. It could be a combination of several factors. I just want to point out that its not only the graphics that set appart ps3/360 multiplats and its really upsetting.

I already have a PS3. I'm not going to buy another console just so I'll have slightly better textures on some games. That would be stupid. Like this argument.

Ospov

The whole point of my argument is that textures arent the only difference between the 360 and ps3 version of the game. You clearly didn't read my argument and then you shoot it down.

[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. hysam20241

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.

TC, it must suck knowing you're playing the worse version. Then again, as a 360 owner it doesn't bother me that 360/PC games are better on the PC, but we all know PC is a lot more powerful than any console.

^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. tman93

[QUOTE="tman93"]^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. hysam20241

I don't really know whose at fault here. It could be a combination of several factors. I just want to point out that its not only the graphics that set appart ps3/360 multiplats and its really upsetting.

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. tman93

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360.

Yeah but it required 4X the manpower to make GTA4 look the same on PS3. Developers don't have that kind of time and resources to waste.

Red Dead (360) looks excellent on my 50 inch HDTV. Just thought i would say that

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. There are games that look better on the PS3 than the 360. It is 100% the developers fault when a game looks worse on either system. They simply don't but the effort into creating an equal experience for their customers. Sadly they get away with it because everyone just bickers amoungst themselves that their system of choice is better. The best example of this would be Call of Duty. Call of Duty 4 was the difinitive port, it looked almost exactly the same on both sytems, then the same developer creates MW2 with the same graphics engine and it looks better on the 360, it's even worse that they could have easily afforded to put more effort into the PS3 version and simply didn't. Totalgym9000

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360, but thats not going to change the result of another ps3 port.

The exclusive do run and look very good on the ps3 but the majority of games this gen are multiplatform. So it's a pretty big deal (to me at least) to consistently receive a product that not only look worse than the 360 counter part but run worse too.

TC, it must suck knowing you're playing the worse version, I can only imagine how it feels. [QUOTE="tman93"]^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. SaltyMeatballs

Rockstar pretty much said why waste that kind of money and manpower again on Red Dead Redemption when Xbox 360 sales will probably eclipse PS3 sales 4 to 1. That's why they made a change. I read this in an interview but I don't remember.

I say devs should stop making multiplats for the PS3 unless they make them look as good or better than what 360 offers, I don't see the point in being inferior besides teh moneyz! What a bunch of lazy, money hungry...

And besides, PS3 is best for exclusives anyways, LOL at using multiplats as an advantage when over 80% are better on 360.

[QUOTE="tman93"][QUOTE="hysam20241"]

But who cares whose fault this is. The fact of the matter is that the ps3 version is harder to code for and hence most multiplatform games run worse on it. People can make the argument (and a reasonable one) that it is sonys fault for creating a system that is much harder to code for than the 360.

Yeah but it required 4X the manpower to make GTA4 look the same on PS3. Developers don't have that kind of time and resources to waste.

I say devs should stop making multiplats for the PS3 unless they make them look as good or better than what 360 offers, I don't see the point in being inferior besides teh moneyz! What a bunch of lazy, money hungry...

And besides, PS3 is best for exclusives anyways, LOL at using multiplats as an advantage when over 80% are better on 360.

mitu123

Then the PS3 would have no multiplatform games at all. Again why would developers waste more resources and manpower to just make a game look as good as the 360 version. Doesn't make any sense business wise.

I am really starting to get fed up with these lazy devs. I understand what some of you PC gamers are saying recently about having to suffer because of console gaming. Why not just have 2 teams, one working on the Ps3 and one on the 360 so that both consoles get the best version possible. I also understand that they almost have to port from 360 to ps3 because if it was the other way around, then every game on the 360 would be on 10 disks....IDK just annoyed that they dont put the extra effort to have the best end product.

Its like transferring a ford mustang engine into a Ferrari....

Rockstar pretty much said why waste that kind of money and manpower again on Red Dead Redemption when Xbox 360 sales will probably eclipse PS3 sales 4 to 1. That's why they made a change. I read this in an interview but I don't remember.

crusadernm

I am really starting to get fed up with these lazy devs. I understand what some of you PC gamers are saying recently about having to suffer because of console gaming. Why not just have 2 teams, one working on the Ps3 and one on the 360 so that both consoles get the best version possible. I also understand that they almost have to port from 360 to ps3 because if it was the other way around, then every game on the 360 would be on 10 disks....IDK just annoyed that they dont put the extra effort to have the best end product.

Its like transferringa ford mustang engine into a Ferrari....

Lantern-Cusp

Again these developers are not lazy. This is pretty much standard knowledge across the industry. The PS3 is terrible to develop for. Again why would developers waste more resources and manpower to make PS3 games look just as good as the 360 especially when 360 sales would probably sell 2, 3 or 4 times as much. This wouldn't make sense.

I am really starting to get fed up with these lazy devs. I understand what some of you PC gamers are saying recently about having to suffer because of console gaming. Why not just have 2 teams, one working on the Ps3 and one on the 360 so that both consoles get the best version possible. I also understand that they almost have to port from 360 to ps3 because if it was the other way around, then every game on the 360 would be on 10 disks....IDK just annoyed that they dont put the extra effort to have the best end product.

Its like transferringa ford mustang engine into a Ferrari....

Lantern-Cusp

You can't call them lazy for this. They are being money efficient when it comes to the development of games and like every company in existance, that is always the goal.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]TC, it must suck knowing you're playing the worse version, I can only imagine how it feels. [QUOTE="tman93"]^ No he's right execpt for his implying that it's the system's fault for this. tman93

Its really not much of a issue any more. Multiplats these days are almost identical. If all developers took the time to make the PS3 versions make use of its harware, the PS3 versions of every multiplat would look alot better than the 360 versions. Most 3rd party games dont even use SPU's.djsifer01

But we are in system wars where things are black and white. If 360 version is just even .001% better, its the superior version. That's how it works here.

[QUOTE="Lantern-Cusp"]

I am really starting to get fed up with these lazy devs. I understand what some of you PC gamers are saying recently about having to suffer because of console gaming. Why not just have 2 teams, one working on the Ps3 and one on the 360 so that both consoles get the best version possible. I also understand that they almost have to port from 360 to ps3 because if it was the other way around, then every game on the 360 would be on 10 disks....IDK just annoyed that they dont put the extra effort to have the best end product.

Its like transferringa ford mustang engine into a Ferrari....

hysam20241

You can't call them lazy for this. They are being money efficient when it comes to the development of games and like every company in existance, that is always the goal.

[QUOTE="Lantern-Cusp"]

I am really starting to get fed up with these lazy devs. I understand what some of you PC gamers are saying recently about having to suffer because of console gaming. Why not just have 2 teams, one working on the Ps3 and one on the 360 so that both consoles get the best version possible. I also understand that they almost have to port from 360 to ps3 because if it was the other way around, then every game on the 360 would be on 10 disks....IDK just annoyed that they dont put the extra effort to have the best end product.

Its like transferringa ford mustang engine into a Ferrari....

hysam20241

You can't call them lazy for this. They are being money efficient when it comes to the development of games and like every company in existance, that is always the goal.

[QUOTE="tman93"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] So it's the developers fault? They are lazy, right... I forgot. If they put the same effort into PS3 and 360 game, which do you think would come out better?SaltyMeatballs

I don't wanna hurt any cows feelings, but 95% of multiplatform games look better on the 360 and will so in the future. This is just a fact. The reason for this is, as tools for the PS3 make game development easier, so will tools for the 360. Everything just shifts upward for both platforms.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I say devs should stop making multiplats for the PS3 unless they make them look as good or better than what 360 offers, I don't see the point in being inferior besides teh moneyz! What a bunch of lazy, money hungry...

And besides, PS3 is best for exclusives anyways, LOL at using multiplats as an advantage when over 80% are better on 360.

crusadernm

Then the PS3 would have no multiplatform games at all. Again why would developers waste more resources and manpower to just make a game look as good as the 360 version. Doesn't make any sense business wise.

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

[QUOTE="tman93"] When its proven that the developer can make a game very similar (GTA4 was a lot closer than RDR, COD4 was basicly a perfect port to MW2) and they have a lot of money to spend (100 million dollar budget for RDR, fastest selling game ever for MW2) then it is clearly the developers fault. tman93

Yeah but it required 4X the manpower to make GTA4 look the same on PS3. Developers don't have that kind of time and resources to waste.

This is just simple economics. Not that hard to understand. If you still don't understand it, I can't really help you with that. Sorry.

I don't wanna hurt any cows feelings, but 95% of multiplatform games look better on the 360 and will so in the future. This is just a fact. The reason for this is, as tools for the PS3 make game development easier, so will tools for the 360. Everything just shifts upward for both platforms.

crusadernm

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

Pug-Nasty

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

[QUOTE="tman93"][QUOTE="crusadernm"]

Yeah but it required 4X the manpower to make GTA4 look the same on PS3. Developers don't have that kind of time and resources to waste.

This is just simple economics. Not that hard to understand. If you still don't understand it, I can't really help you with that. Sorry.

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

I don't wanna hurt any cows feelings, but 95% of multiplatform games look better on the 360 and will so in the future. This is just a fact. The reason for this is, as tools for the PS3 make game development easier, so will tools for the 360. Everything just shifts upward for both platforms.

tman93

But why would they do that? I'm saying it is partially sony's fault not because the ps3 version is not powerful enough to run an equal version of a multiplatform game. It is because it is much harder to achieve this equality and doing so would not be worth it money wise. Also add to the fact that that games (in general) sell better on the 360. Because of this, most developers don't see the reason to make a ps3 port of a game equal to or better than the 360 counter-part and this is not unreasonable in a developers point of view.

Dunno if I'm over simplifying things here, but to me it just makes sense that most 360 games would look/run better on the 360 (no matter how small the difference) as most devs. still use 360 as their main development platform, and so the 360 version gets the most work done on it/ increased resources/ better optimised. And this rule generally seems to apply to lead PS3 developed games too.CakeBalls

[QUOTE="tman93"][QUOTE="crusadernm"]

I don't wanna hurt any cows feelings, but 95% of multiplatform games look better on the 360 and will so in the future. This is just a fact. The reason for this is, as tools for the PS3 make game development easier, so will tools for the 360. Everything just shifts upward for both platforms.

But why would they do that? I'm saying it is partially sony's fault not because the ps3 version is not powerful enough to run an equal version of a multiplatform game. It is because it is much harder to achieve this equality and doing so would not be worth it money wise. Because of this, most developers don't see the reason to make a ps3 port of a game equal to or better than the 360 counter-part and this is not unreasonable in a developers point of view.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

crusadernm

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.

Dunno if I'm over simplifying things here, but to me it just makes sense that most 360 games would look/run better on the 360 (no matter how small the difference) as most devs. still use 360 as their main development platform, and so the 360 version gets the most work done on it/ increased resources/ better optimised. And this rule generally seems to apply to lead PS3 developed games too.CakeBalls

Although this may be true, a good example to explain how difficult it is to develop for the PS3 was Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters lead platform was actually the PS3, then ported to Xbox 360, but which game actually looked better on its respective platform? The 360 believe it or not.

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

Pug-Nasty

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.

You and I know that rockstar is not a crappy developer, so this is not the case.

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Most games look and run the same or similar on both. A number of games look and/or run better on one vs the other. The number of games that look/run better on 360 is about twice the number of games that look/run better on ps3, but this is still a small number in comparison to games that look/run the same.

In the end, there is a general rule that seems to be the case for me. Games I'm not interested in, mostly due to them being from poor developers are games that follow this pattern, and it's because the dev's aren't as good as others.

The only game I like that even has performance issues on ps3 is Portal, and it's inferiority is grossly overstated by most parties, whom likely have never played that version.

Pug-Nasty

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.

Who can you say are poor developers? Some folks here on system wars believe Valve are actually poor and lazy developers. Valve! It boggles my mind. Valve is arguably one of the greatest development houses in the industry today.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="crusadernm"]

When people claim that developers are just lazy because they can't make a game look the same as it does for another platform. This is a sign of bias and to be honest: A copout really. Stop blaming the developers and blame the manufacturer.

Sorry, it's a bias against poor developers. When some devs make the best games this gen that I've played, and others can't keep the framerate up, then there is a difference in quality between devs that can't be ignored. Luckily, as I said, most games that are crappy ports are also crappy games to begin with, so it's not really a loss.

Who can you say are poor developers? Some folks here on system wars believe Valve are actually poor and lazy developers. Valve! It boggles my mind. Valve is arguably one of the greatest development houses in the industry today.