Fallout 3 head-to-head comparison from IGN.

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

JackDaniels121

the game looks better than this and and I can't notice the difference between the 360 and PS3 versions even the PC lol.

It appears as though the PS3 version uses aggressive texture streaming, as does the 360 but to a lesser extent. Both console versions appear, and I may be wrong about this, to be using a sub-HD resolution, and upscaling it.

Going by that comparison, it isn't exactly a looker on any system though.

the game looks better than this and and I can't notice the difference between the 360 and PS3 versions even the PC lol.

HAZE-Unit

If you guys can't spot the difference between the three versions then you have to be either a blind fanboy or blind IRL. The differences are quite noticable in textures, view distance and overall objects on screen.

Overall
1. PC
2. 360
3. PS3

Now see here is the thing, PS3 fanboys will want you to ignore the fact that the PS3 version of the game is the worst version meaning it will give you the worst experience of the rest. How can something that isn't a big deal be mentioned many times from basically every site, every magazine that matters? As you can see, the pc version wins obviously but it's quite to see a super computer such as the PS3 lose to a simplistic product such as the 360. Bad port? I don't care. Lazy dev? I don't care, that's not going to explain all the pissed off early ps3 adopters who went ahead and believed Sony's ridiculous hype for the system. If I own a PS3, I want to believe that I will get to play the better versions of any game...so why can't I? Why am I always playing the dumbed down version?

Why did Sony have to release the odd console? The console that no dev wants to make games for? Why would any dev want to put in twice the amount of time, effort and resources into something that could have easily been done on the 360 and many times with much more satisfying outcome? Lazy devs, that's just an excuse. Why the hell would Sony expect that every dev suddenly converts for their liking? Why does it make Valve lazy if they don't want to waste their time on something that could easily have been done? This is why the PS3 sucks and will always suck. While Sony caters to the first party devs so much, they give the rest a cold shoulder.

Ilived

does it all matter in the end? some multiplats will be better on the 360, some on the PS3, we all can play the game.

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

JackDaniels121

Funny, I see much difference. Bump mapping honestly looks best on the 360 version, distance and fog effects look best on PC, and the PS3 has blurry textures, and no grass!! WTF?

Ps3 version is terrible.

I love how fanboy haters said PS3 version sucks because of inferior hardware and not the developers.

I guess when Alone In the Dark Inferno comes out for PS3, I guess then PS3 magically becomes the superior hardware than others:roll:

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

the game looks better than this and and I can't notice the difference between the 360 and PS3 versions even the PC lol.

EXLINK

If you guys can't spot the difference between the three versions then you have to be either a blind fanboy or blind IRL. The differences are quite noticable in textures, view distance and overall objects on screen.

Really? I mean alot of threads when people compare console versions and PC, I see a big difference, in this case, I don't see the difference, maybe there are few things here and there that I can't notice, maybe you have sharper eyes, it is very simple like that, calling people blind fanboys for just not noticing any difference is very arcady nowadays.

I am not usually a stickler for graphics but i find the difference in the quality of visuals quite striking! The first thing that really jumped out at me was the amount of jagged edges on the PS3 version (a product of the lack of anti-aliasing?).

In any case, the argument that graphics do not matter is flawed in itself since the PS3/Xbox 360 was initially designed to be a graphic's powerhouse. For example, at the different press conferences leading up to the release of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, both developers were vehement about the graphics ability of their respective systems, a selling point if you will. So it was no surprise to see arguments ensue about whose graphics were better.

This is not to say that graphic comparisons have not been done so in the past; however in my opinion, the rise of so many cross-platform games (with identical gameplay!! not just derivatives) provide excellent grounds in which to do such a comparisons, and at the same time allowing owners a chance to show which system is truely superior (in terms of cross-platform games mind you).

As such, sony and microsoft being so adament about incorporating graphics as a selling point for their system and allowing so many cross-platform games, being consumers of their products, it is our duty to compare cross-platform games not on its gameplay nessisarily (since they should all play just the same) but on their graphical standard.

wow, i didn't know the ps3 version looked THAT bad, the cow damage control is hilerious :lol:

after all this time why are none of you cows blaming sony? its obviously not the devs its the ps3, i mean the only half decent ps3 games have been in development scince before i was born. it would seem to take an inordinate amount of time and money to program for the ps3.

It isn't Sony's fault. Its the developers fault. 3/4 of multis on PS3 look as good as the 360 counterparts. The bad port thing is dying just like RROD. If they can give a good port of Oblivion, why not Fallout 3? If nobody wanted to develop for PS3 then Disgaea 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Yakuza 3, Quantum Theory, Valkyria Chronicles, Final Fantasy VXIII, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Bioshock 1 and 2, Call of Duty 4 and WaW, FEAR 2, and Final Fantasy XIII would either be 360 exclusives are on 360. 3rd party exclusives are basically dead, most 3rd party games or on both PS3 and 360. If nobody wanted to develop for PS3 they'd all be only on 360. Also the PS3 doesn't suck, but this thread does.SnakePS360Gamer

It only took an extra year to make. And it does suck. Stop loving sony and start blaming them, because of them you have a very expensive third place console that produces average games that fail in comparison to the cheaper console on the market.

LOL i love how you try to justify this game looking bad on the ps3 being due to the hardware :roll:

nice try at trolling but you failed even at that.

oblivion was marginally better on the ps3 than the xbox360 version so that must mean the xbox360 hardware is even worse :roll: