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

[QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. mythrol

then how do you explain FFXIII

this is true, i buy 90% of multiplats for the 360.

When lead platform is ps3

ps3>=xbox 360 not always (ghostbusters)

When lead paltform is xbox 360

xbox360>ps3

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="tman93"]It's not either system's fault. tontontam0

then how do you explain FFXIII

When lead platform is ps3

ps3>=xbox 360

When lead paltform is xbox 360

xbox360>ps3

tontontam0

The reason why 360 multi-plats usually look better is becuase how much easier it is to develop for it over the ps3.

The reason why 360 multi-plats usually look better is becuase how much easier it is to develop for it over the ps3.

James161324

[QUOTE="tontontam0"]

When lead platform is ps3

ps3>=xbox 360

When lead paltform is xbox 360

xbox360>ps3

mythrol

I edited my post earlier before you even replied

I just remembered the case of ghostbusters

I'm really getting tired of developers not caring enough for the PS3 version. I bought RDR for my PS3 and I am very dissapointed. I said earlier that if these graphical differences is going to ruin the game, it's not a good enough game. But I'm taking that back because when riding through the world, the graphics is everything.

If the graphics would have been as good as the X360 version I could have lived with the bad framerate, but everything is rubbish compared to the X360 version. I just get more and more tempted to buy an X360 for multiplats.

It's not that a game like RDR is something the PS3 could'nt have done as good as the X360 version, it's just that Rockstar did'nt improve the engine for the PS3's architecture. They could have used the Cell for MSAA for example. They probably did'nt even use the extra unlocked RAM available. I can't even see a reason why the game has install, there is so much pop-in.

I'm really getting tired of developers not caring enough for the PS3 version. I bought RDR for my PS3 and I am very dissapointed. I said earlier that if these graphical differences is going to ruin the game, it's not a good enough game. But I'm taking that back because when riding through the world, the graphics is everything.

If the graphics would have been as good as the X360 version I could have lived with the bad framerate, but everything is rubbish compared to the X360 version. I just get more and more tempted to buy an X360 for multiplats.

It's not that a game like RDR is something the PS3 could'nt have done as good as the X360 version, it's just that Rockstar did'nt improve the engine for the PS3's architecture. They could have used the Cell for MSAA for example. They probably did'nt even use the extra unlocked RAM available. I can't even see a reason why the game has install, there is so much pop-in.

Martin_G_N

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="tontontam0"]

When lead platform is ps3

ps3>=xbox 360

When lead paltform is xbox 360

xbox360>ps3

tontontam0

I edited my post earlier before you even replied

I just remembered the case of ghostbusters

[QUOTE="James161324"]

The reason why 360 multi-plats usually look better is becuase how much easier it is to develop for it over the ps3.

mythrol

yep becuase the ps3 went a bit nuts with the hd. Does give a few really nice looking games like UC2 and others. But generally speaking its not really worth it. As 3rd party devs aren't going to make 2 different games just becuase the ps3 has better hardware.

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]

I'm really getting tired of developers not caring enough for the PS3 version. I bought RDR for my PS3 and I am very dissapointed. I said earlier that if these graphical differences is going to ruin the game, it's not a good enough game. But I'm taking that back because when riding through the world, the graphics is everything.

If the graphics would have been as good as the X360 version I could have lived with the bad framerate, but everything is rubbish compared to the X360 version. I just get more and more tempted to buy an X360 for multiplats.

It's not that a game like RDR is something the PS3 could'nt have done as good as the X360 version, it's just that Rockstar did'nt improve the engine for the PS3's architecture. They could have used the Cell for MSAA for example. They probably did'nt even use the extra unlocked RAM available. I can't even see a reason why the game has install, there is so much pop-in.

mythrol

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="James161324"]

The reason why 360 multi-plats usually look better is becuase how much easier it is to develop for it over the ps3.

James161324

yep becuase the ps3 went a bit nuts with the hd. Does give a few really nice looking games like UC2 and others. But generally speaking its not really worth it. As 3rd party devs aren't going to make 2 different games just becuase the ps3 has better hardware.

Ideal is when a dev makes a game for the PC first, then for the PS3 then 360 and then wii. The superior platform should always go first. When talking abou console exclusive games it makes sense to do PS3 first then 360 like FF13 and Dragon Age. Imo ofc.

What's all this 100Million dollar budget stuff regarding RDR.

I very much doubt Rockstar put the same amount of money in RDR an unknown franchise, as they did GTA a hugely popular, world renown top selling franchise.

Especially since they arleady had the framework from GTA to work with.

On topic. It's SONY's fault, plain and simply. SONY decided to make their console annoying to develop for as they assumed it would be as big a hit as the PS2 was, and thus garner most dev attention, leaving the 360 and Wii with piss poor port jobs.

Ideal is when a dev makes a game for the PC first, then for the PS3 then 360 and then wii. The superior platform should always go first. When talking about console exclusive games it makes sense to do PS3 first then 360 like FF13 and Dragon Age. Imo ofc.

N00bTuber

Except that Dragon's Age ran better on 360 & that FFXIII for the 360 had gotten a very late port, so those don't count. And no, PS3 is not the superior platform. If it was, then it would show it in the majority of multiplats.

Pretty much right, no argument here.

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"]

Ideal is when a dev makes a game for the PC first, then for the PS3 then 360 and then wii. The superior platform should always go first. When talking about console exclusive games it makes sense to do PS3 first then 360 like FF13 and Dragon Age. Imo ofc.

garland51

Except that Dragon's Age ran better on 360 & that FFXIII for the 360 had gotten a very late port, so those don't count. And no, PS3 is not the superior platform. If it was, then it would show it in the majority of multiplats.

edit:okay .5 but still ps3 verioson is better...........and why do lemmings only talk about multiplats and halo for........i mean dont you guys have anything else to talk about.......oh right you don't, sucks about fable 3 for YOU but for me i get to play it hehe pss pc combo forever

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

[QUOTE="tman93"]^ 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.

Bayonetta, Red Dead and Final Fantasy are the only non-identical big name multiplats this year. Non-issue at this point, methinks.Floppy_Jim

Ia gree that with most your not going to find a difference unless you have them side by side, but I think its the little things taht still make the 360 versions better. For one thing, the 360 version is much more likely to be using AA or proper AA compared to the PS3 version, which either use that god awful Quncex blur AA or none at all. Also, ive noticed the 360 version of games tend to be more dark and vibrant, wether or not thats a good thing really depends on the game. I know that Dead to Right retribution was quite a bit darker on 360 compared to 360, to the point where details where lost in the shadowy areas.