If PS3 was ,ore powerfull it would have shown it from day one.

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

It suffers from the same condition as the ps2....

the hidden power

It suffers from the same condition as the ps2....

the hidden power

2FacedJanus

lol

You're stupd if you don't think the games aren't going to look any better. Developers are still finding new ways to get more power out of the PS3, obviously they haven't used all of it yet. /facepalm bleehum

lol i said that if the PS3 was more powerfull it would have been clear since launch just like the case with the Xbox1 it

looked better than the PS2 form day one.............oh and try to avoid the selfownage in the future

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

real_madrid_99

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

real_madrid_99

Not true. Xbox 360, at day one, garnered criticism for looking like Xbox 1.5 according to a few people. Took almost a year for the graphical beauty that is Gears to drop. Next.

I've been saying this from day 1!!! I'm so tired of Cows waiting for this hidden power! The truth is, and has always been in every gen, that if you rank the consoles in terms of graphics at any point int time, those rankings will be true at any other point in time. PS3 should have looked much better from day 1 but it didn't and it never will. Guess what people, there's 'hidden' power in the 360 and Wii too. All of the consoles are going to keep getting better and better.das_beck

I never understood this about lems. You care so much about Cows and what we do. What do you care if we're waiting for PS3 to show its power? Your 360 already did and you have a plethora of games :D. Stop spending so much time focusing on us.

[QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

CyanX73

Not true. Xbox 360, at day one, garnered criticism for looking like Xbox 1.5 according to a few people. Took almost a year for the graphical beauty that is Gears to drop. Next.

yeabutxbox1lookedbetterthanPS2fromdayone,nowifPS3wasmorepowerfullthanxbox360itwouldhavelooked

betterthan360formdayone.

[QUOTE="CyanX73"][QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

real_madrid_99

Not true. Xbox 360, at day one, garnered criticism for looking like Xbox 1.5 according to a few people. Took almost a year for the graphical beauty that is Gears to drop. Next.

yeabutxbox1lookedbetterthanPS2fromdayone,nowifPS3wasmorepowerfullthanxbox360itwouldhavelooked

betterthan360formdayone.

that stupid glitch happened again but i hope ypu can understand it

that stupid glitch happened again but i hope ypu can understand it

real_madrid_99

Would this stupid glitch involve you forgetting where the spacebar is? :P

If the 360 was so powerful, it would have shown it from day one, insteaad of having last-gen games look so close to it's games....tocool340

Exactly. Halo 3 for instance. Not all games are going to be graphical works of art but I guess TC doesn't know that :roll:

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull...

real_madrid_99

IMO, the PS3 launch games look better than the 360 launch games. You wanna compare launch games to Gears then of course you'll say the PS3 has not proven itself to be the most powerful. How about you wait to the next crop of games to make this comparison? Let's see what teh PS3 can do after devs have had a good amount of time to work with it. If these next games fail to impress then I'll be the first to say PS3 was an overhyped blu-ray player and not a true gaming console. But fair is fair. Give em the same amount of time that MS got to release Gears. Now had Gears been a launch game this would be a non issue and I'd be a 360 owner right now. Probably with a broken 360 too ;).

[QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

that stupid glitch happened again but i hope ypu can understand it

2FacedJanus

Would this stupid glitch involve you forgetting where the spacebar is? :P

I'd have to save that is the case, seeing as no one else, as for as I know, hasn't experienced this so called "glitch."

I agree with the TC.

I own the PS360 and the PS3 hasn't shown anything superior to what I've seen on the x360. RFoM looks no better than CoD2 or GRAW.

without gears of war the xbox would be in the same position as the ps3..............................WAITING. gears of war is the only thing the 360 has goin for itd_ano

Very true...lemmings fail to see that gears is the biggest exclusive and one of the only games making 360 a must have at this point. Sure there are alot of good games on the 360. Ghost recon, r6, oblivion but most of these games are going to ps3. I think if you compare exclusives ps3 has a wider variety.

[QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

CyanX73

IMO, the PS3 launch games look better than the 360 launch games. You wanna compare launch games to Gears then of course you'll say the PS3 has not proven itself to be the most powerful. How about you wait to the next crop of games to make this comparison? Let's see what teh PS3 can do after devs have had a good amount of time to work with it. If these next games fail to impress then I'll be the first to say PS3 was an overhyped blu-ray player and not a true gaming console. But fair is fair. Give em the same amount of time that MS got to release Gears. Now had Gears been a launch game this would be a non issue and I'd be a 360 owner right now. Probably with a broken 360 too ;).

And thats the problem!!!! Take off the Sony standard issued "moo moo" goggles and take a look at what the gaming community as a whole sees in the PS3....bland, washed out, low detail yet high resolution games. You are so stuck on Gears comparisons that you dont see that the PS3 has yet to offer anything that looks on par with the 360 launch titles. All ports launched simultaneously on 360 and PS3, the PS3 version looks like trash compared to its conterpart...But dont take my word, look at the reviews of the games across all gaming sites!!!

The PS3 was touted as God's gift to Sony to hand down to us mere gamers for the "reasonable" fee of $600. Instead its a lackluster machine that the industry as a whole has completely ignored. Where are the "only on blu-ray" exclusives that shows the world Sony holds the key to gaming salvation? The games that make devs envious for not creating the content on the Sony machine and gives PS3 owners eternal bliss with thier gaming console?

Game On...

very true..it would have.......

sony will as always depend on its games library..

without gears of war the xbox would be in the same position as the ps3..............................WAITING. gears of war is the only thing the 360 has goin for itd_ano

Actually, the x360 already had 1mil+ sellers at this point in its life: CoD2, GRAW and Oblivion

what launch 360 game looked as good as resistance? the amount of stuff going on onscreen at some points is insane.kamuix

CoD2 is easily on par with RFoM.

these threads are stupid....im happy to shoot down any arguments you throw up

1. multiplats look better on 360...

answ= and there all mostly made by ubisoft who seem to have not even tried to do well on the ps3.....and look at oblivion on ps3= better:P

2. 360 games look better.....

answ= 360 been out longer, u fail

3. 360 was released first so its games will always look better....

answ= wrong simply because it is.....

4. 360 has better hardware.....

answ= wrong!...and it seems less reliable.

5. ps3 games look bad now so they always will...

answ= not only is that wrong but it dosnt make sense, tell me launch ps2 games were the same as the ones realsed years later

6. ps3 would have shown its self better

answ= theres no doubt that 360 and ps3 are close on graphics..the ps3 seems better on power. but we will never know at this moment because the ps3 has only been out world wide for 3-4 months :| so how are we deciding anything now?

il try to keep with this thread and reply to any not so clever people.....

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

real_madrid_99

Ok, I bash PS3 a lot. However, what you said is just wrong. No console in history has shown its true power ON DAY ONE!

Launch games vs. Some of the finalgames on consoles

1. Atari 2600 -- Combat, Enduro

2. NES -- Kung Fu., Kirby's Adventure

3. SNES -- Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country 3

4. N64 -- Super Mario 64, Donkey Kong 64

5. PS2 -- Fantavision, God of War 2

6. Xbox -- Halo, Ninja Gaiden Black

No console in history has ever shown its true power on day one.

Lets give the Sony fanboys a lil break, they arent use to seeing bump mapped graphics, more than a handful of characters of the screen, while having detailed models (i.e. fingers instead of a slab for a hand!!!) all on the screen at once. They now have a machine that can produce these graphics and since its a Sony it must be the best right?!?!?

Game On....

[QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

CyanX73

Not true. Xbox 360, at day one, garnered criticism for looking like Xbox 1.5 according to a few people. Took almost a year for the graphical beauty that is Gears to drop. Next.

When it's closest competition was it's predecessor and the Gamecube, it wasn't that hard for it to top them.

the xbox wont get better. xbox owners are wetting their pants to see how great gears of war 2 looks but it isnt gonna be much better. it may have used 20% of the xboxes power but the game had like 15mins of story mode. dvds have limits now its gonna be good graphics and short story or long story bad graphics. the ps3 can have the best of both and will have it. all ye xbox kids will be dumping it for a ps3d_ano

Theoretical vs Actual...if a developer is talented enough to ever reach or use the cell and RSX together in a way that reaches the Theoretical power of the combination then perhaps the PS3 could pull off some fancy pretty spectacular graphics but for now ports and the complexity of ever reaching a theoretical peak performance is probably time consuming and not worth the time in the end so the games don't come out in the end as anything that hasn't already been done.

In the end we may find out that the cell is better suited for servers and Toshiba HDTV's, for history has shown that CISC architecture, i.e. Intel and AMD x86 processors, are usually favored over RISC architecture, i.e. CELL.

I don't know that is just CE perspective not a Sony fanboy perspective for Im not even really a sony fan.

Theoretical vs Actual...if a developer is talented enough to ever reach or use the cell and RSX together in a way that reaches the Theoretical power of the combination then perhaps the PS3 could pull off some fancy pretty spectacular graphics but for now ports and the complexity of ever reaching a theoretical peak performance is probably time consuming and not worth the time in the end so the games don't come out in the end as anything that hasn't already been done.

In the end we may find out that the cell is better suited for servers and Toshiba HDTV's, for history has shown that CISC architecture, i.e. Intel and AMD x86 processors, are usually favored over RISC architecture, i.e. CELL.

I don't know that is just CE perspective not a Sony fanboy perspective for Im not even really a sony fan.

PDark_Prodigy

I think what you mean to say is that sometimes simpler is better (like a basic multicore).

[QUOTE="tocool340"]If the 360 was so powerful, it would have shown it from day one, insteaad of having last-gen games look so close to it's games....CyanX73

Exactly. Halo 3 for instance. Not all games are going to be graphical works of art but I guess TC doesn't know that :roll:

Take a look at Heavenly Sword and shove it, TC. False premise. The upcoming games (nearly all of them) stomp the 360 lineup.Redfingers

[QUOTE="PDark_Prodigy"]

Theoretical vs Actual...if a developer is talented enough to ever reach or use the cell and RSX together in a way that reaches the Theoretical power of the combination then perhaps the PS3 could pull off some fancy pretty spectacular graphics but for now ports and the complexity of ever reaching a theoretical peak performance is probably time consuming and not worth the time in the end so the games don't come out in the end as anything that hasn't already been done.

In the end we may find out that the cell is better suited for servers and Toshiba HDTV's, for history has shown that CISC architecture, i.e. Intel and AMD x86 processors, are usually favored over RISC architecture, i.e. CELL.

I don't know that is just CE perspective not a Sony fanboy perspective for Im not even really a sony fan.

HuusAsking

I think what you mean to say is that sometimes simpler is better (like a basic multicore).

http://www.amigau.com/aig/riscisc.html

When I say CISC im talking Complex Instruction Set Computer and RISC Reduced Instruction Set Computer, if you look at the link or google CISC or RISC you will find that the Intel processors are CISC based. Please prove me wrong but I was certain that the 360 uses intel based processors or is it using PowerPC. if thats the case then I am wrong and then in that case yes I will use your term...basic multicore;).

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="PDark_Prodigy"]

Theoretical vs Actual...if a developer is talented enough to ever reach or use the cell and RSX together in a way that reaches the Theoretical power of the combination then perhaps the PS3 could pull off some fancy pretty spectacular graphics but for now ports and the complexity of ever reaching a theoretical peak performance is probably time consuming and not worth the time in the end so the games don't come out in the end as anything that hasn't already been done.

In the end we may find out that the cell is better suited for servers and Toshiba HDTV's, for history has shown that CISC architecture, i.e. Intel and AMD x86 processors, are usually favored over RISC architecture, i.e. CELL.

I don't know that is just CE perspective not a Sony fanboy perspective for Im not even really a sony fan.

PDark_Prodigy

I think what you mean to say is that sometimes simpler is better (like a basic multicore).

http://www.amigau.com/aig/riscisc.html

When I say CISC im talking Complex Instruction Set Computer and RISC Reduced Instruction Set Computer, if you look at the link or google CISC or RISC you will find that the Intel processors are CISC based. Please prove me wrong but I was certain that the 360 uses intel based processors or is it using PowerPC. if thats the case then I am wrong and then in that case yes I will use your term...basic multicore;).

Yeah you are right IBM did use the powerPC architecture for the TRIO cpu design in the 360, either way the PS3s combo RSX and CELL is a lot more complex when coding then just coding for standard hardware.

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

real_madrid_99

You make zero sense. First off, the Xbox came out almost 2 years later than the PS2 and was in development at a later time and therefore had access to newer hardware. The PS3 and 360 were in development at the same time and the PS3 was only delayed due to Sony's massive failure of a manufacturing process.These delays also screwed over devs and many got their alpha dev kits late...most didn't get final dev kits until right before the console came out or even later. Two totally different scenarios.

Second, the difficulties with the new PS3 hardware create another barrier for developers to over come.The original xbox was built almost identically to a PC and therefore devs had access to full power practically from day one. Advancements in graphics were made by making the coding more efficient. The most reasonable comparison I think is that the launch titles for PS3 look noticeably better than the launch titles for the 360. Only a fanboy would deny it. But to expect a difficult console with production problems to be hugely better in graphics in not just unfair but completely unreasonable.

IN short...you are wrong.

[QUOTE="CyanX73"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"]If the 360 was so powerful, it would have shown it from day one, insteaad of having last-gen games look so close to it's games....AfterShafter

Exactly. Halo 3 for instance. Not all games are going to be graphical works of art but I guess TC doesn't know that :roll:

None of the games coming out impress you?

[QUOTE="real_madrid_99"]

Just like the xbox did, it lookedmuch better from day one to the end of this gen, if all the sony hype would have been real we would already have games that looked much better than the games available in the xbox 360, so i'm gonna have to think that the 360 is more powerfull.

.....Butseriouslydoyouthinkthatsonycouldbeatmicrosoftinatechnologystandpoint?itwasquiteobviousthatMShadmore

resourcestoworkwith.....

ZIMdoom

You make zero sense. First off, the Xbox came out almost 2 years later than the PS2 and was in development at a later time and therefore had access to newer hardware. The PS3 and 360 were in development at the same time and the PS3 was only delayed due to Sony's massive failure of a manufacturing process.These delays also screwed over devs and many got their alpha dev kits late...most didn't get final dev kits until right before the console came out or even later. Two totally different scenarios.

Second, the difficulties with the new PS3 hardware create another barrier for developers to over come.The original xbox was built almost identically to a PC and therefore devs had access to full power practically from day one. Advancements in graphics were made by making the coding more efficient. The most reasonable comparison I think is that the launch titles for PS3 look noticeably better than the launch titles for the 360. Only a fanboy would deny it. But to expect a difficult console with production problems to be hugely better in graphics in not just unfair but completely unreasonable.

IN short...you are wrong.