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

I traded my 360 over a year ago, and only have a gaming pc and a ps3 now, but I still think the ps3 and 360 are equal. I agree that with every first party game one of sonys main concerns was graphics, multiplaits to me are the way to truley compare, last gen I bought all my multiplaits for my xbox because they looked better then the ps2 version, seesm the same this gen, to me if the ps3 so so powerful lost textures and washed out areas like in RDR would not happen. I will never buy in to the ps3 is powerful BS, having a gaming pc both consoles graphics are a joke to me.

[QUOTE="abuabed"][QUOTE="bphan"]

I go by multiplatform games. Only scientific way to compare. 99% look better on 360, so I go by that.

savagetwinkie

It took us three years to see how powerful the PS3 was.

Just wait, dood.

Silverbond

This so perfectly illustrates the irony. It took 3 years for us to see games of the calibur PS3 now has, and as soon as they have that, they immediately try to turn it on 360, "demanding" proof that 360 can do better, and if it's not seen right now, then it can't be done. And only recently have we seen footage of Rage and Crysis 2, both looking better than anything we've seen on 360 to date, so we KNOW its potential hasn't been fully reached yet.

The life cycle of both consoles ain't over yet, so we're going to see more of the technical horizons expanded for both PS3 and 360 down the road. Mark my words on that.

RAGE running on xbox 360, you know, the game that BLEW EVERYONE away at E3 2010 and was unanomously claimed the best looking video game EVER, disagrees with you TC.

bryn8150

I second that

[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. XboximusPrime

Half true. 360 has better RAM usage, not more RAM. Both console have the same extact amount of RAM, 512mbs.

The life cycle of both consoles ain't over yet, so we're going to see more of the technical horizons expanded for both PS3 and 360 down the road. Mark my words on that.

AdobeArtist

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[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. donalbane

Half true. 360 has better RAM usage, not more RAM. Both console have the same extact amount of RAM, 512mbs.

There's still a missing detail here.

PS3's RAM is two seperate units: 256MB for video, 256MB for general system
360's RAM is 512MB unified.

360 can allocate that 512MB between graphics functions and system functions as needed per case. PS3 can't exceed 256MB of video memory usage, as it's on a seperate slot from the system memory. They operate completely independantly and apart.

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

Half true. 360 has better RAM usage, not more RAM. Both console have the same extact amount of RAM, 512mbs.

AdobeArtist

There's still a missing detail here.

PS3's RAM is two seperate units: 256MB for video, 256MB for general system
360's RAM is 512MB unified.

360 can allocate that 512MB between graphics functions and system functions as needed per case. PS3 can't exceed 256MB of video memory usage, as it's on a seperate slot from the system memory. They operate completely independantly and apart.

But PS3 still ahs the same amount of RAM altogether. Its jsut split. He said 360 had more RAM, which it dosent, it has the same if you add up all of PS3s seperate ram.

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

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]The life cycle of both consoles ain't over yet, so we're going to see more of the technical horizons expanded for both PS3 and 360 down the road. Mark my words on that.

Stevo_the_gamer

the only thing i care about is how quick they can make a good game. if it takes more than 2.5 years from start to finish then u have allready lost me. (* homie dont play the waiting game)

ms said that exclusives would beat ps3 exclusives, why has that never happened?TintedEyes

It is a fact, PS3 has nothing like Fable, Mass Effect, Banjo, Alan Wakeetc

So, since there is nothing like those on PS3, those exclsuives actually beat the ones on PS3 of that kind, that dont exist at all of course

ms said that exclusives would beat ps3 exclusives, why has that never happened?TintedEyes

when? you and the TC imply this without a link. It's nice to see a glimpse of the past, with actual proof, not a blanket statement of sorts.

and 'beat' is a broad term regardless. that could mean sales, graphics, scores, content etc...

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]ms said that exclusives would beat ps3 exclusives, why has that never happened?a_simple_gamer

It is a fact, PS3 has nothing like Fable, Mass Effect, Banjo, Alan Wakeetc

So, since there is nothing like those on PS3, those exclsuives actually beat the ones on PS3 of that kind, that dont exist at all of course

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]ms said that exclusives would beat ps3 exclusives, why has that never happened?faithnomor3

when? you and the TC imply this without a link. It's nice to see a glimpse of the past, with actual proof, not a blanket statement of sorts.

and 'beat' is a broad term regardless. that could mean sales, graphics, scores, content etc...

That's all cows have. Graphics. You know I actually care about how the game plays rather than how pretty and gray it looks ;)93soccer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]None of the Xbox 360 games take full advantage of the Xbox 360's hardware, because there's no need for it. Most companies use third party engines which work very well on the Xbox 360. Hell, the only game that might be a looker so to speak on the Xbox 360 is Gears of War 3. And once again, that's a multiplatform engine that Gears 3 is using.GreyFoXX4

Wow this is such a stupid post.It just proves you guys have no idea what you talk about.PS3 is ARGUABLY closer to PC than 360.In 360 you have UNIFIED memory architecture,never seen in PC.In ps3 you have Vram and memory RAM,same like in PC.IN PS3 you have STRAIGHT OUT PC gpu,nothing modified,old architecture PC gpu.In 360 you have gpu with unified shaders,eDRAM,memexport,tessellation hardware unit,veretx fetch unit,and so many other little modified things to make work easier and more efficient on console.Both Cpus are with lots of threads but to get more performance on PS3 you have to work in parallel and help ALOT to RSX,thats why it is harder to develop for.Not to mention FAAR worse tools that Sony gives...

More...

---

Looks pretty close to me.

gamecubepad

Wow they look like the same game man...only thing is that i like UC2 art ****very much so i dont know how will Gears 3 be in that department.One thing is for sure,Gears 3 has better and SMOOTHER foliage :P Just look at grass at bottom ps3 shot and than at gears 3.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

More...

---

Looks pretty close to me.

Bus-A-Bus

Wow they look like the same game man...only thing is that i like UC2 art ****very much so i dont know how will Gears 3 be in that department.One thing is for sure,Gears 3 has better and SMOOTHER foliage :P Just look at grass at bottom ps3 shot and than at gears 3.

BUBUBU DA SNOW!!!! LOOK AT DA SNOW!!!

Sony's first party is very talented, MS's don't compare.

That being said third party's cranking out games like Gears 3 and Crysis 2 show that the 360 is pretty close to the ps3. Cows need to just admit it.

3rd party engines should be evident that they are both virtually equal and most 3rd party engines run better on 360... Rage did win the most notable graphics award from E3; then there is Crysis 2 and Gears 3. Sony has built up a developer network of graphics programmers that share insight with each other. The guys that worked on Uncharted 2 also helped develop Edge tools for all of the other 1st and 2nd party developers to use. Sony has more 1st and 2nd party studios, which means you have more developers creating exclusive engines for that platform's strengths. Contrast that to the 360, which best looking games this generation are using multi-platform engines. I don't believe Sony fan boys can keep a straight face and claim that the 360 is so much weaker when we have games like Rage, Crysis 2, Gears 3, or RE5. There's hardly any discrepancy between the best looking games this gen. Only the most adamant fans will say otherwise.

Um PS3 exculsives have da post effects. And not graphics.

Its sad when 360 peeps wont even admit or say yeah ps3 has pumped out better looking games by far. Thats not saying the xbox 360 is horrible or even bad for that matter, its just saying that ps3 has pumped out graphically better lookin games. Thats not saying xbox 360 games suck, far from it actually. The fact that people can't say yeah.. lets move on thats the sad part.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]ms said that exclusives would beat ps3 exclusives, why has that never happened?a_simple_gamer

It is a fact, PS3 has nothing like Fable, Mass Effect, Banjo, Alan Wakeetc

So, since there is nothing like those on PS3, those exclsuives actually beat the ones on PS3 of that kind, that dont exist at all of course

I really don't get why AW gets brought up in graphics debates, when for consoles it's second tier at best. Really, RDR looks MUCH better and it's actually open world.Deathtransit

I really don't get why AW gets brought up in graphics debates, when for consoles it's second tier at best. Really, RDR looks MUCH better and it's actually open world.Deathtransit

THIS.RDR is so much bigger,with sooo much better physics,weather effects,animations,facial animations and lip sync,its actually HD...and on top of that.Open world.Seriously,thats one of the most impressive games i ever played,it is highly underrated.Sunset in this game is Crysis like...and even more beautiful.

[QUOTE="Deathtransit"]I really don't get why AW gets brought up in graphics debates, when for consoles it's second tier at best. Really, RDR looks MUCH better and it's actually open world.-RocBoys9489-

Thats not really all that true...The amount of vegetation(that actually looks great and interacts with player passing) and amazing draw distance,coupled with great lighting and superb textures(and not only for open world game) is overwhelming...Its just that RDR stands for highly polished game,whether we talk about its looks or voice acting,animation or sound,everything gives you live like feeling rarely seen in game.On another side,AW is just a bit to unpolished on that side...

Come on guys, 360 was released a whole year before PS3 and yet MS expect us to believe that their devs are eventually going to surpass KZ2, why is it that Sony's 1st party were are able to constantly release games better looking than any multi-plats and yet MS release games like Crackdown 2, Fable III and Alan Wake which look extremely average but solid none the less. Surely if Killzone 2 was released in Feb 2009 then by now MS should have at least announced a game on par, especially considering that everyone's been working on the 360 for a year longer. Let's just admit PS3 is more powerful than 360.

Clank-PS-Snake

old prophet once say * shut up and play for the gameplay not graphics *

Threads like this make me happy I am a PC gamer. So I don't need to get involved in the silly nitpicking over graphics. I couldn't care which system is more powerful because neither are as powerful as PC. When I picked the PS3 over the 360, trust me, it wasn't because of the graphical difference between it and the 360. I picked it because the PS3 is reliable, plays Blu-Ray movies, has free online, and last but not least, it has way more games that interest me that AREN'T on the PC as well compared to the 360 which has most of it's good games also on PC. To me the graphical difference between the PS3 and 360 are so small that I can't help but laugh at you console gamers for trying to make such a big deal over it.

I don't see how it's debatable when RDR has better animations, detail, textures, and is actually open world and actually HD. RDR is easily comparable to many of the best looking linear games. AW has some cool lighting and wind effects, that's about it. Lems should be far more braggy about RDR being better on 360 than AW which like I said has second tier graphics at best.Deathtransit

AW is a fantastic looking game and incredibly atmospheric, regardless of its technical merits.

[QUOTE="Deathtransit"]I don't see how it's debatable when RDR has better animations, detail, textures, and is actually open world and actually HD. RDR is easily comparable to many of the best looking linear games. AW has some cool lighting and wind effects, that's about it. Lems should be far more braggy about RDR being better on 360 than AW which like I said has second tier graphics at best.Snugenz

AW is a fantastic looking game and incredibly atmospheric, regardless of its technical merits.

I go by multiplatform games. Only scientific way to compare. 99% look better on 360, so I go by that.

bphan

Why? There are exclusive games on PS3 that look better than any multiplat console game out there :|

Are those really Uncharted 2 screens up above? Why haven't we seen those in SW before?Vadamee

Are those really Uncharted 2 screens up above? Why haven't we seen those in SW before?Vadamee

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]The life cycle of both consoles ain't over yet, so we're going to see more of the technical horizons expanded for both PS3 and 360 down the road. Mark my words on that.

abuabed

Sorry to burst your bubble guys,

But the point is PS3 was able to achieve MORE, and noticeably more in the graphics department at a shorter amount of time. Really now people, for any of you to even THINK there has not been one developer on the 360 that has attempted to optimize their games on the system is completely ridiculous.

Microsoft never wanted to showcase the capabilities of their console? Please :roll:

[QUOTE="abuabed"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]I agree with this! :)

leadernator

Sorry to burst your bubble guys,

But the point is PS3 was able to achieve MORE, and noticeably more in the graphics department at a shorter amount of time. Really now people, for any of you to even THINK there has not been one developer on the 360 that has attempted to optimize their games on the system is completely ridiculous.

Microsoft never wanted to showcase the capabilities of their console? Please :roll:

Gears of War 3, along with multiplats showcase that the Xbox360 is able to match the PS3 in terms of graphics.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="abuabed"] This is a common fact yet very few SWers seem to understand it. +11kryptic

Sorry to burst your bubble guys,

But the point is PS3 was able to achieve MORE, and noticeably more in the graphics department at a shorter amount of time. Really now people, for any of you to even THINK there has not been one developer on the 360 that has attempted to optimize their games on the system is completely ridiculous.

Microsoft never wanted to showcase the capabilities of their console? Please :roll:

Gears of War 3, along with multiplats showcase that the Xbox360 is able to match the PS3 in terms of graphics.