If 360 is as powerful as PS3 then we would have seen it by now.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Hmm, Uncharted, GTp, MGS4, KZ2, Uncharted 2, God of War III, soon to have GT5. And lets not forget Heavy Rain, WipeOut HD, Heck even Lair looks great for its time and still holds up well.GreyFoXX4

Yes but games like MGS4,HR,Lair...all look worse than RAGE,Crysis 2,Gears 3 and even RDR.The thing that really tickles is the fact that sony said ps3 is 3x more powerful and that 360 is actually xbox 1.5.If it was not for that ok but here we have delicate situation where developers need huge budget,amazingly talented devs,new engines and time to surpass what MS had on 360 on old multiplat engine so much multiplats that look and perform better on 360.That kinda does not reflect 3 times more powerful console...

Ok fair enough i just thought because ID,Crytek and Epic are top tier in comparison with Bugnie and Remedy as far as tech goes.BUT,i just cant help it that RDR looks better than all of those games you mentioned except for "big 3" :)

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yes but games like MGS4,HR,Lair...all look worse than RAGE,Crysis 2,Gears 3 and even RDR.The thing that really tickles is the fact that sony said ps3 is 3x more powerful and that 360 is actually xbox 1.5.If it was not for that ok but here we have delicate situation where developers need huge budget,amazingly talented devs,new engines and time to surpass what MS had on 360 on old multiplat engine so much multiplats that look and perform better on 360.That kinda does not reflect 3 times more powerful console...

Ok fair enough i just thought because ID,Crytek and Epic are top tier in comparison with Bugnie and Remedy as far as tech goes.BUT,i just cant help it that RDR looks better than all of those games you mentioned except for "big 3" :)

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Wait til those games are released. Seems people tend to forget about omg geow2, omg Alan Wake, Omg odst lol. omg halo, omg forza 2, just to find out at release those game didn't meet their expectations to the rest of the big hitters in the graphics department. Just wait for their releases .GreyFoXX4

Ok fair enough i just thought because ID,Crytek and Epic are top tier in comparison with Bugnie and Remedy as far as tech goes.BUT,i just cant help it that RDR looks better than all of those games you mentioned except for "big 3" :)

Not sure, but im sure Mass effect 2 on 360 look better than any version of Dragons age (except PC maybe)

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Wait til those games are released. Seems people tend to forget about omg geow2, omg Alan Wake, Omg odst lol. omg halo, omg forza 2, just to find out at release those game didn't meet their expectations to the rest of the big hitters in the graphics department. Just wait for their releases .GreyFoXX4

Ok fair enough i just thought because ID,Crytek and Epic are top tier in comparison with Bugnie and Remedy as far as tech goes.BUT,i just cant help it that RDR looks better than all of those games you mentioned except for "big 3" :)

i dont know :cry:

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Wait til those games are released. Seems people tend to forget about omg geow2, omg Alan Wake, Omg odst lol. omg halo, omg forza 2, just to find out at release those game didn't meet their expectations to the rest of the big hitters in the graphics department. Just wait for their releases .GreyFoXX4

Ok fair enough i just thought because ID,Crytek and Epic are top tier in comparison with Bugnie and Remedy as far as tech goes.BUT,i just cant help it that RDR looks better than all of those games you mentioned except for "big 3" :)

Bioware didn't do the console versions.

And in all honesty the PS3 version wasn't really any better than the 360 version.

if this is what you guys calling real difference,I don't think that I'M gonna accept that.and please consider that gears was out in 2008.

If you're gonna do a comparison, you gotta make sure you do it right:

-In game shots

-Native Res shots

-Shots from the same mode(i.e. both SP, or both MP)

-Similar environmental setups(don't compare a city environment to a empty desert with a cactus and a bunch of sand)

and last, but not least...NO BULLSHOTS!

---

Thanks for tuning in.

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Both consoles have different strengths. The 360 has more ram. The Ps3 has more storage. Different developers will utilize these features in different ways. PAL360

It has? because i only see U2 and KZ2 looking a bit better than Gears2 and alan wake. also, why would we only look at exclusives when multiplats like RDR already proved you wrong? :P

It doesn't bother me that the PS3 is more powerful than my X360. Graphics don't make games fun to play.

I look at Uncharted/Killzone, and while they do look really good, I can play game like Gears and Alan Wake which also look really good. Then again, I'm not the type of person who sits two-feet away from the TV to compare graphics. In any case, there's a fair few multiplats that run better on the X360 than PS3 - so in the end it all seems to balance out.

People shouldn't really make an issue of this sort of thing.

[QUOTE="LP4EVA2005"][QUOTE="JordanizPro"] Much better looking?Dont make me laugh.Name 1 game that looks MUCH better than Gears 3

JordanizPro

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="JordanizPro"] Kilzone 3 looks just like Killzone 2 and its not far apart from Gears 3 in terms of graphics.Try again

JordanizPro

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] no it looks better than killzone 2 ermacness

idk. has MS made these claims?

MS has been skimping on development costs lately, which can ultimately translate into what the final product 'can' look like. whether that's the full excuse is beyond me.

but seeing how Gears 3 looks excellent. really, I have no way to determine if it's better than Uncharted or Killzone, but to say it's not within the same league is plain silly.

seems like that issue comes down to opinion, and whether that opinion is accepted depends on how much force is on each end of said opinion.... better, worse, same. whatever the fanboys want to think.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"] Yea right.....lawlessx

Alan Wake looks average? I'd put it up there with the likes of some of the best PS3 exclusives. Not better, but not too far behind either.

Either way, the other side of the argument could be, if the PS3 were truly more powerful, why do the majority of multiplats look worse than the 360 counterpart?

and then crytek 360 exclusives drops and Gears 3 drops, and so does the jaws drop.

ProjectNatalFan

It's always something that hasn't yet released that will be the showcase of 360 power, funny how that works.

[QUOTE="ProjectNatalFan"]

and then crytek 360 exclusives drops and Gears 3 drops, and so does the jaws drop.

It's always something that hasn't yet released that will be the showcase of 360 power, funny how that works.

You act like the PS3 exclusives look SOOO much better than the 360 games.Alan Wake is right up there with the PS3 exclusives in terms of graphics.And Gears 3 looks just as good as Uncharted2 in my opinon.And all the multiplats look better on 360.So open your eyes

JordanizPro

[QUOTE="ProjectNatalFan"]

and then crytek 360 exclusives drops and Gears 3 drops, and so does the jaws drop.

It's always something that hasn't yet released that will be the showcase of 360 power, funny how that works.

This is ridiculous, no way does Gears 3 look on par with U2, Alan Wake is not one of the best looking games and lems are relying on RAGE, a 3rd party game to counter my argument.

Someone please post pics that shows Alan Wake and Gears are equal to any of the top looking PS3 games.

Also does anyone think 360 could handle the Chronos part in GOW III, I think not. The Brumak is the best 360 has done. HAHA.

Also does anyone think 360 could handle the Chronos part in GOW III, I think not. The Brumak is the best 360 has done. HAHA.

Clank-PS-Snake

TC made me laugh

[QUOTE="Blacklight2"]Can't we all agree that PC is better than both?Silverbond

Maybe. Depends on if Crysis pics are posted or not.

Also does anyone think 360 could handle the Chronos part in GOW III, I think not. The Brumak is the best 360 has done. HAHA.

Clank-PS-Snake

right! 360 version of Chronos part looks really crappy and im impressed how PS3 handle Brumak level on split screen so better than 360 does!

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"][QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

It's always something that hasn't yet released that will be the showcase of 360 power, funny how that works.

Clank-PS-Snake

Well yall are in the same herd and the herd watches out for each other :P

[QUOTE="Clank-PS-Snake"][QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"] yeah very true, a good example of that would be Alan WakeTheMightyHoov

Well yall are in the same herd and the herd watches out for each other :P

Alan Wake looks average? I'd put it up there with the likes of some of the best PS3 exclusives. Not better, but not too far behind either.

Either way, the other side of the argument could be, if the PS3 were truly more powerful, why do the majority of multiplats look worse than the 360 counterpart?

lundy86_4

Because of the different archetectures. It has nothing to do with which console is more powerful, it has to do with the way they dev. Theoreticaly, 360 could push out better visuals with its better GPU I guess fro Exclusives, but its not happening for whatever reason. Some people will damage control and say "bu But theyre not using the right game engines" but really, thats a piss poor excuse. I do think your going to get better visuals out fo PS3, but its going to be for Exclusives more so then multipaltform because the way devs dev their games, where they dev first on 360 most of the time then port it to PS3, which is usually pretty terrible.

[QUOTE="Clank-PS-Snake"][QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"] yeah very true, a good example of that would be Alan WakeTheMightyHoov

Well yall are in the same herd and the herd watches out for each other :P

RDR best version on 360 and Rage at 60fps, plus Xenos that is the best console GPU by far, prove PS3 is nehind 360

Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 etc are also some of the best lookinggames this generation and have huge worlds, not paths and rails like Uncharted 2 for exmaple

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Alan Wake looks average? I'd put it up there with the likes of some of the best PS3 exclusives. Not better, but not too far behind either.

Either way, the other side of the argument could be, if the PS3 were truly more powerful, why do the majority of multiplats look worse than the 360 counterpart?

XboximusPrime

Because of the different archetectures. It has nothing to do with which console is more powerful, it has to do with the way they dev. Theoreticaly, 360 could push out better visuals with its better GPU I guess fro Exclusives, but its not happening for whatever reason. Some people will damage control and say "bu But theyre not using the right game engines" but really, thats a piss poor excuse. I do think your going to get better visuals out fo PS3, but its going to be for Exclusives more so then multipaltform because the way devs dev their games, where they dev first on 360 most of the time then port it to PS3, which is usually pretty terrible.

Whilst I do agree with what you say, in essence. It's still not all down to one individual thing (even though PS3 was notoriously bad to dev for). It's 2010 now and a lot of devs have experience with the PS3. It's even shown to have better multiplats in a few instances.

RDR best version on 360 and Rage at 60fps, plus Xenos that is the best console GPU by far, prove PS3 is nehind 360

Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 etc are also some of the best lookinggames this generation and have huge worlds, not paths and rails like Uncharted 2 for exmaple

a_simple_gamer

Mass Effect 2 is still pretty linear in its level design. You have a lot of choices on where to go, but in terms of even hub cities, the choice is fairly limited (i.e. The Citadel)

RDR best version on 360 and Rage at 60fps, plus Xenos that is the best console GPU by far, prove PS3 is nehind 360

Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 etc are also some of the best lookinggames this generation and have huge worlds, not paths and rails like Uncharted 2 for exmaple

a_simple_gamer

You realize Rage all version fo Rage are going to be 60 FPS dont you? (that includes the PS3 version)

KevinButlerVP I have to thank you for always backing me up in my threads.Clank-PS-Snake

Well yall are in the same herd and the herd watches out for each other :P

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Alan Wake looks average? I'd put it up there with the likes of some of the best PS3 exclusives. Not better, but not too far behind either.

Either way, the other side of the argument could be, if the PS3 were truly more powerful, why do the majority of multiplats look worse than the 360 counterpart?

lundy86_4

Because of the different archetectures. It has nothing to do with which console is more powerful, it has to do with the way they dev. Theoreticaly, 360 could push out better visuals with its better GPU I guess fro Exclusives, but its not happening for whatever reason. Some people will damage control and say "bu But theyre not using the right game engines" but really, thats a piss poor excuse. I do think your going to get better visuals out fo PS3, but its going to be for Exclusives more so then multipaltform because the way devs dev their games, where they dev first on 360 most of the time then port it to PS3, which is usually pretty terrible.

Whilst I do agree with what you say, in essence. It's still not all down to one individual thing (even though PS3 was notoriously bad to dev for). It's 2010 now and a lot of devs have experience with the PS3. It's even shown to have better multiplats in a few instances.

I can count on one hand the instances where the PS3 version was legitimately better. While on 360 I would probaly need both my hands and feet and probaly still not have enough ways to count. The thing is that, while some devs are starting to focus more on PS3 for Deving their multiplatform (like EA, Lucas Arts, etc.) theyre the minority. Most devs still use the 360 as the main SKU either because they cant afford using PS3 as the main or because they like deving on 360 first. This is why you still see games look worse on PS3 for the most part. While 9 out of ten games that are deved on PS3 first either look EXACTLY the same like BC 2, or they look better on PS3 like Burout Paradise. Or the 1 percent looks worse on PS3 like Ghostbusters, which was, according to the devs, had the PS3 as the Lead SKU, but they obviously screwed the pooch bad on that one. Anyway, I still think the majority of people are still going to dev on 360 first then port to PS3, and thats why I would still buy them on 360. And it pains me because I actually like my PS3 maybe a bit more all around then my 360.

im not seeing the logic here. Rage and crysis 2, two of the top 3 best looking console games are on the xbox 360. But because they are not exclusive, they dont count, and it dosent prove anything for the xbox's grahpics capability.

-__-

[QUOTE="a_simple_gamer"]

RDR best version on 360 and Rage at 60fps, plus Xenos that is the best console GPU by far, prove PS3 is nehind 360

Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 etc are also some of the best lookinggames this generation and have huge worlds, not paths and rails like Uncharted 2 for exmaple

XboximusPrime

You realize Rage all version fo Rage are going to be 60 FPS dont you? (that includes the PS3 version)

The problem is that we have never seen even a glimpse of Rage on PS3, so without any proof and the recent Bayonetta and RDR fiasco on PS3, i am a bit sceptical about that

Maybe it is like RDR case, everyone expected same, but PS3 version is subHD and blurry

I'm sure I'll get lots of flak for doing this, followed by a barrage of bullshots and inequitable comparisons, but I remain undaunted. These screens are all in-game grabs from HD videos, with the possible exception of KZ3 which could be direct source captures. They all showcase similar views and environmental setups. No bullshots. I went through a decent amount of trouble to get this right, so take it easy.

Irrefutable proof that 360 can keep pace with the PS3 concerning gfx(click for 720p):

---

Cell co-creator David Shippy talks PS3/360

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models," he concludes.

---

Crytek's Cevat Yerli talks Crysis 2

02:43-2:55..."Our game was to run on PS3/360 the same way, because they're about the same power."

---

id's John Carmack talks RAGE on consoles

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that. "

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said."

John Carmack could make either console look superior

"They are close enough that I could fairly easily design a workload that would make either system look superior."

More...

---

Looks pretty close to me.

I can count on one hand the instances where the PS3 version was legitimately better. While on 360 I would probaly need both my hands and feet and probaly still not have enough ways to count. The thing is that, while some devs are starting to focus more on PS3 for Deving their multiplatform (like EA, Lucas Arts, etc.) theyre the minority. Most devs still use the 360 as the main SKU either because they cant afford using PS3 as the main or because they like deving on 360 first. This is why you still see games look worse on PS3 for the most part. While 9 out of ten games that are deved on PS3 first either look EXACTLY the same like BC 2, or they look better on PS3 like Burout Paradise. Or the 1 percent looks worse on PS3 like Ghostbusters, which was, according to the devs, had the PS3 as the Lead SKU, but they obviously screwed the pooch bad on that one. Anyway, I still think the majority of peopel are still going to dev on 360, and tahts why I would still buy them on 360. And it apins me because I actually like my PS3 maybe a bit more all around then my 360.

XboximusPrime

Exactly. There are so many variables than just power. I completely agree with you.

Still, if the PS3 were truly so much more powerful then we'd see it beyond a few exclusive games. It no doubt has the edge currently though.

I'm still definately of the opinion that whilst fairly even in terms of power, they both do things over the other.

[QUOTE="TheMightyHoov"]

[QUOTE="Clank-PS-Snake"] KevinButlerVP I have to thank you for always backing me up in my threads.donalbane

Well yall are in the same herd and the herd watches out for each other :P

I try :P

I couldnt resist

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="a_simple_gamer"]

RDR best version on 360 and Rage at 60fps, plus Xenos that is the best console GPU by far, prove PS3 is nehind 360

Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 etc are also some of the best lookinggames this generation and have huge worlds, not paths and rails like Uncharted 2 for exmaple

a_simple_gamer

You realize Rage all version fo Rage are going to be 60 FPS dont you? (that includes the PS3 version)

The problem is that we have never seen even a glimpse of Rage on PS3, so without any proof and the recent Bayonetta and RDR fiasco on PS3, i am a bit sceptical about that

Maybe it is like RDR case, everyone expected same, but PS3 version is subHD and blurry

Yes, and Carmack already said that all versions will be 60 FPS. They probaly only showed it on 360 because they wanna show that it can be done on a 360 well, when I dont think anyone is doubting wether or not the PS3 can handle it well given its amazing visuals lately. Anyway, if it ends up siginficantly worse on PS3, i would blame Id more then i would blame anything because obviously it is possible to get equal or greater performance out of PS3 and obviously they would have screwed up.

gamecubepad really ended this thread. If you have the lead developers of high end graphcis games saying the consoles are the same, an unbiased opinion, along with the screenshots, we can close the book on this.

[QUOTE="a_simple_gamer"]

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

You realize Rage all version fo Rage are going to be 60 FPS dont you? (that includes the PS3 version)

XboximusPrime

The problem is that we have never seen even a glimpse of Rage on PS3, so without any proof and the recent Bayonetta and RDR fiasco on PS3, i am a bit sceptical about that

Maybe it is like RDR case, everyone expected same, but PS3 version is subHD and blurry

Yes, and Carmack already said that all versions will be 60 FPS. They probaly only showed it on 360 because they wanna show that it can be done on a 360 well, when I dont think anyone is doubting wether or not the PS3 can handle it well given its amazing visuals lately. Anyway, if it ends up siginficantly worse on PS3, i would blame Id more then i would blame anything because obviously it is possible to get equal or greater performance out of PS3 and obviously they would have screwed up.

PS3 does great graphics, but only in tiny worlds with paths, like Uncharted 2, so Rage quality on PS3,that has a RDR open world is debatable imo

We will see, the fact that they are not showing PS3 versino at all is rather strange

PS3 GPU is not as advanced as Xenos, so you could blame the dated hardware too, it is a possibility the GPU just cant cut it