if the PS3 has the weaker GPU and less RAM, how can it produce such graphics??

The motion blur in Killzone 2is ridiculous, i'm just stating the PS3 covers up it's weakness to appear more powerfull than 360. In reality the 360 could perform these graphics without having to cover up as much. The only reason a game like KZ2 hasn't come up on 360 is because, none of their games are built on an engine from the ground up on the 360.

By covering up it's weaknesses the PS3 produces better graphics. Too the untrained eye Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 look really good, but only because of flat textures, motion blur to cover up bland textures, repeating textures, small enviroments, poor AA, lower than 30fps framerate, bland colours. Though 360 does use these techniques PS3 uses makes it a standard for all their best graphics games, to appear more powerfull than the 360 to the untrained eye.

caribo2222

The motion blur in Killzone 2is ridiculous, i'm just stating the PS3 covers up it's weakness to appear more powerfull than 360. In reality the 360 could perform these graphics without having to cover up as much. The only reason a game like KZ2 hasn't come up on 360 is because, none of their games are built on an engine from the ground up on the 360.

caribo2222

Lots of those blur shader effects require plenty of processing power actually, it's just the look that the artists where going for.

[QUOTE="caribo2222"]The motion blur in Killzone 2is ridiculous, i'm just stating the PS3 covers up it's weakness to appear more powerfull than 360. In reality the 360 could perform these graphics without having to cover up as much. The only reason a game like KZ2 hasn't come up on 360 is because, none of their games are built on an engine from the ground up on the 360.

swazidoughman

Lots of those blur shader effects require plenty of processing power actually, it's just the look that the artists where going for.

How about when you use lean and peak the gun models goes from 3d to flat, the motion blur was to cover up rubish textures, the PS3 isn't some almighty machine like you think it is.

[QUOTE="caribo2222"]The motion blur in Killzone 2is ridiculous, i'm just stating the PS3 covers up it's weakness to appear more powerfull than 360. In reality the 360 could perform these graphics without having to cover up as much. The only reason a game like KZ2 hasn't come up on 360 is because, none of their games are built on an engine from the ground up on the 360.

swazidoughman

Lots of those blur shader effects require plenty of processing power actually, it's just the look that the artists where going for.

Not as much as doing it the "real" way, but it doesn't matter because what looks good looks good. Why waste energy? Though even in the breakdown on digital foundry, they said it has a good amount of low-rez textures.

I keep reading that most or all multiplats look better on 360 but I think that's bull. Several multiplats look better on 360 but not most or all. Most look basically the same and some look better on PS3. Stop generalizing.RedruM_I

It is most... I have like 5 or 6 multiplats in my head that is better on PS3 and I think that is all of them... like: wanted, the lara croft game, Terminater salvation, and Bionic commando.

The motion blur in Killzone 2is ridiculous, i'm just stating the PS3 covers up it's weakness to appear more powerfull than 360. In reality the 360 could perform these graphics without having to cover up as much. The only reason a game like KZ2 hasn't come up on 360 is because, none of their games are built on an engine from the ground up on the 360.

caribo2222

...

You have seen still screen shots of killzone 2, right?

The motion blur would only mean something if still shots didn't look this good

Motion blur just adds to the wow factor.

...

You have seen still screen shots of killzone 2, right?

The motion blur would only mean something if still shots didn't look this good

Motion blur just adds to the wow factor.

I'm not denying that Killzone 2 looks good, i own a PS3 and i love it just as much as my 360, just trying to point out that too produce such graphics there needs to be sacrifices. If 360 devs would stop being so lazy and build an engine from the ground up on 360, they could surpass Killzone 2 not by alot but would make a beautiful game due to a better GPU.

What about this, this doesn't look so hot...IMO

MS doesn't have teams like Naughty Dog, Insomniac and Guerilla developing crazy-awesome engines that are specifically designed for their console. MS still has first-parties, but they're more dedicated to producing gameplay features or making their games cross-platform with the PC than they are with pushing graphics to the limit on the 360. It's too bad...I'd like to see what a team like ND could do with the 360.

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"]I keep reading that most or all multiplats look better on 360 but I think that's bull. Several multiplats look better on 360 but not most or all. Most look basically the same and some look better on PS3. Stop generalizing.Camer999

It is most... I have like 5 or 6 multiplats in my head that is better on PS3 and I think that is all of them... like: wanted, the lara croft game, Terminater salvation, and Bionic commando.

By covering up it's weaknesses the PS3 produces better graphics. Too the untrained eye Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 look really good, but only because of flat textures, motion blur to cover up bland textures, repeating textures, small enviroments, poor AA, lower than 30fps framerate, bland colours. Though 360 does use these techniques PS3 uses makes it a standard for all their best graphics games, to appear more powerfull than the 360 to the untrained eye.

caribo2222

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"]I keep reading that most or all multiplats look better on 360 but I think that's bull. Several multiplats look better on 360 but not most or all. Most look basically the same and some look better on PS3. Stop generalizing.RedruM_I

It is most... I have like 5 or 6 multiplats in my head that is better on PS3 and I think that is all of them... like: wanted, the lara croft game, Terminater salvation, and Bionic commando.

CHeck the compairsons at eurogamer for 360 vs. PS3. Rounds Been around since.....launch?

[QUOTE="caribo2222"]

By covering up it's weaknesses the PS3 produces better graphics. Too the untrained eye Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 look really good, but only because of flat textures, motion blur to cover up bland textures, repeating textures, small enviroments, poor AA, lower than 30fps framerate, bland colours. Though 360 does use these techniques PS3 uses makes it a standard for all their best graphics games, to appear more powerfull than the 360 to the untrained eye.

idontbeliveit

Look at the tiles on the ground of the first video, it looks low rez. Rest of it is fine though.

[QUOTE="idontbeliveit"][QUOTE="caribo2222"]

By covering up it's weaknesses the PS3 produces better graphics. Too the untrained eye Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 look really good, but only because of flat textures, motion blur to cover up bland textures, repeating textures, small enviroments, poor AA, lower than 30fps framerate, bland colours. Though 360 does use these techniques PS3 uses makes it a standard for all their best graphics games, to appear more powerfull than the 360 to the untrained eye.

Look at the tiles on the ground of the first video, it looks low rez. Rest of it is fine though.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="idontbeliveit"] thats a very big load of BS, especially since you listed Uncharted 2 as using motion blur of all things to cover up bad tectures. infact everything you said about Uncharted 2 is wrong. it doesnt really use motion blur, it doesnt have bland or repeating textures, it definately doesnt have small environments or poor AA, and from what i've seen and read, the framerate doesnt drop below 30fps. seriously dude, try harder.idontbeliveit

Look at the tiles on the ground of the first video, it looks low rez. Rest of it is fine though.

True, I remember a part where the textures looked so pixelated.

[QUOTE="JohnM1983"]

[QUOTE="Shattered007"] I'm sure your video game portfilo is much better then them. So, I guess that makes you able to benchmark and judge other creators games and judge that they are lazy. :|Metalscarz

The way I see it...
Most multi platform games that do not have the PS3 as a lead platform are just rushed to all consoles and PC.
Developers try to minimize costs and to do so keep the code as generic as possible across all platforms.

Basically coding to fully utilize the PS3 is allot harder and therefore more costing.
Most developers will try to keep costs down and profits up, probably because of publishers pressure.

Even multi platform games listed as having PS3 as a lead platform don't really deviate from this. Ghost Busters is a prime example.

I think many people can agree that the 360s multi platform games look slightly better, mainly because of this reason.
Exclusives are a different story.

Most games last gen were developed for the PS2, then ported to the Xbox. 99% of the time they still looked better on Xbox then PS2. Think about that.

The power advantage the PS3 has, if any at all is almost negligible.

If any developers were to take the time (key!) to develop an exclusive for the 360 it would look amazing as well. Think how good Gears looked at the time. Now imagine talented developers working on a 360 exclusive for 3 or 4 or even 5 years with a huge budget.

Exactly. People use the excuse that developers use the 360 as the main platform when PS2 games ported to the Xbox always looked better. The PS3 architecture is designed to be a Blu-ray player first, gaming machine second.

PS3 has the same RAM, a weaker GPU and a better CPU. At the end they are about the same tecnically.

Exactly. People use the excuse that developers use the 360 as the main platform when PS2 games ported to the Xbox always looked better. The PS3 architecture is designed to be a Blu-ray player first, gaming machine second.

rp108

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"][QUOTE="Camer999"]

It is most... I have like 5 or 6 multiplats in my head that is better on PS3 and I think that is all of them... like: wanted, the lara croft game, Terminater salvation, and Bionic commando.

Camer999

CHeck the compairsons at eurogamer for 360 vs. PS3. Rounds Been around since.....launch?

[QUOTE="rp108"]

Exactly. People use the excuse that developers use the 360 as the main platform when PS2 games ported to the Xbox always looked better. The PS3 architecture is designed to be a Blu-ray player first, gaming machine second.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="JohnM1983"]

[QUOTE="Shattered007"] I'm sure your video game portfilo is much better then them. So, I guess that makes you able to benchmark and judge other creators games and judge that they are lazy. :|Shattered007

The way I see it...
Most multi platform games that do not have the PS3 as a lead platform are just rushed to all consoles and PC.
Developers try to minimize costs and to do so keep the code as generic as possible across all platforms.

Basically coding to fully utilize the PS3 is allot harder and therefore more costing.
Most developers will try to keep costs down and profits up, probably because of publishers pressure.

Even multi platform games listed as having PS3 as a lead platform don't really deviate from this. Ghost Busters is a prime example.

I think many people can agree that the 360s multi platform games look slightly better, mainly because of this reason.
Exclusives are a different story.

Wrong, i didn't mean that Uncharted 2 uses all them techniques but some, Killzone 2 uses motion blur to cover bad textures on close ups, flat textures on gun models when uses lean and peak, uses bland textures, with little colour variation and repeating, small enviorments, framerate drops below 30fps on heavy action parts, AA not as good as what 360 can pull of due too the 10mb extra ram.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"] Where is the prove of that? do you know how many multiplatform games there are? Even if you can find 20 multiplatform titles that look better on 360 against 10 on the PS3 who is comparing the rest and where are these comparisons? I'll like to see them (Lens of truth have compared several multiplat games but not all, not even close).RedruM_I

CHeck the compairsons at eurogamer for 360 vs. PS3. Rounds Been around since.....launch?

Obv, if they go to PC that is not fair, we are talking between consoles...

caribo2222

Wrong, i didn't mean that Uncharted 2 uses all them techniques but some, Killzone 2 uses motion blur to cover bad textures on close ups, flat textures on gun models when uses lean and peak, uses bland textures, with little colour variation and repeating, small enviorments, framerate drops below 30fps on heavy action parts, AA not as good as what 360 can pull of due too the 10mb extra ram.

Everyone dips at heavy parts. For some reason though when you use the turret with NOTHING else going on, it dips to 24 fps.

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"][QUOTE="Camer999"]

CHeck the compairsons at eurogamer for 360 vs. PS3. Rounds Been around since.....launch?

Camer999

Obv, if they go to PC that is not fair, we are talking between consoles...

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"] Ok, of the 93 comparisons they have 37 go for 360 while 25 go for PS3 hardly a considerable advantage. There are games with no veredict or that go to PC so I didn't count those. For "most multiplatform games look better on 360" to apply the 360 should have more than 50% of titles in its favor and that's clearly not the case.RedruM_I

Obv, if they go to PC that is not fair, we are talking between consoles...

How does, 37+ 25+ 5=93?

caribo2222

Wrong, i didn't mean that Uncharted 2 uses all them techniques but some, Killzone 2 uses motion blur to cover bad textures on close ups, flat textures on gun models when uses lean and peak, uses bland textures, with little colour variation and repeating, small enviorments, framerate drops below 30fps on heavy action parts, AA not as good as what 360 can pull of due too the 10mb extra ram.

what does Uncharted 2 use then? it doesnt use motion blur, it doesnt have small environments, it doesnt have poor AA, it doesnt have bland textures and it has a consistent framerate.

as for Killzone 2, if you stand still, motion blur wont come into effect, and0 you'll see that the textures arent half as bad as you're making them out to be. im not saying Killzone 2 doesnt use motion blur or that it doesnt have SOME flat textures, but its still better than most games. and anyway, almost all games have a slight dip in framerate in heavy action parts, and the difference between the RAM is negligable (not saying that the 360's RAM is better).

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

Camer999

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

Irick_cb

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

Why?

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

That is cool and all with the exclusives debate when there are MUltiplats coming up that look better.

Camer999

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

Why?

They don't even bother to try and make it look good.

It is painfully obvious it is comprised of animated sprites.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

lol... that smoke fails so hard.

Irick_cb

Why?

They don't even bother to try and make it look good.

It is painfully obvious it is comprised of animated sprites.

The game is a little more than a year from release, the smoke still looks good to me lol. The game overall look really good to me to, what do you think?

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Why?

Camer999

They don't even bother to try and make it look good.

It is painfully obvious it is comprised of animated sprites.

The game is a little more than a year from release, the smoke still looks good to me lol. The game overall look really good to me to, what do you think?

The foliage looks great.

Everything else isn't that stunning.

Skybox in the first shot stuck out like a sore thumb

Lighting system looks good but just that.

That smoke makes me lol.

PS3's CPU is very powerful, and makes up for any lack of the GPU.

They have the same RAM, just set up differently.

KILLZONE 2 is still the current Console Graphics King, so obviousy a lot can be done with it, the problem is the Devs have to work extra hard..."Is it worth it?"

SolidTy

what does Uncharted 2 use then? it doesnt use motion blur, it doesnt have small environments, it doesnt have poor AA, it doesnt have bland textures and it has a consistent framerate.

as for Killzone 2, if you stand still, motion blur wont come into effect, and0 you'll see that the textures arent half as bad as you're making them out to be. im not saying Killzone 2 doesnt use motion blur or that it doesnt have SOME flat textures, but its still better than most games. and anyway, almost all games have a slight dip in framerate in heavy action parts, and the difference between the RAM is negligable (not saying that the 360's RAM is better).

I'm just stating that this can also be done on 360, and quite possibly better due to a better GPU, if an engine was built up from the ground up on 360. All i'm pointing out that it produces such graphics because of sacrifices, just like the topic creator asked. Also no engine has been built from the ground up on 360 and it is possible for the 360 to surpass Killzone 2 due to better use of ram, better GPU.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

They don't even bother to try and make it look good.

It is painfully obvious it is comprised of animated sprites.

Irick_cb

The game is a little more than a year from release, the smoke still looks good to me lol. The game overall look really good to me to, what do you think?

The foliage looks great.

Everything else isn't that stunning.

Skybox in the first shot stuck out like a sore thumb

Lighting system looks good but just that.

That smoke makes me lol.

The draw distance as well.

This look just as good graphically as UC2 and more technically impressive as well, it is 400sq miles.

Actually, the PS3 and 360 CPUs are on par according to an IBM engineer who worked on both. Also, yes they have the same amount of RAM but the PS3's OS uses more memory than the 360's OS meaning the 360 has more available RAM for games.

Zero5000X

I think you are missidentifying a quote, as the 360 uses an early version of the PPE found in the cell without any SPEs.

IBM made it for microsoft behind Sony/toshiba's back.

They are not on par as far as performance goes.

This again. Ram being allocated you guys are funny, 256 MB Ram does not equal 512. Goto wikipedia to find out how I got 256MB RAM.

This is how it works.

The wider the freeway = more cars that can travel at any given time. (Xbox 360 512MB RAM)

The narrower the freeway = less cars that can move at any given time. (ps3 256 MB RAM)

The ps3 has 256 MB ram on the video card and another 256 MB RAM on the CPU. (FACT). you can't add these 2 up, and if you could wouldn't you think sony would of posted this on the ps3 specs ???????

All in all the ps3 RAM is like 2 freeways only connected at the ends, since the CPU's 256 MB sends information to the video card 256MB RAM, not being able to moveit faster than the 512MB RAM.

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

Actually, the PS3 and 360 CPUs are on par according to an IBM engineer who worked on both. Also, yes they have the same amount of RAM but the PS3's OS uses more memory than the 360's OS meaning the 360 has more available RAM for games.

Irick_cb

I think you are missidentifying a quote, as the 360 uses an early version of the PPE found in the cell without any SPEs.

IBM made it for microsoft behind Sony/toshiba's back.

They are not on par as far as performance goes.

The draw distance as well.

This look just as good graphically as UC2 and more technically impressive as well, it is 400sq miles.

Camer999

That screen shot fails to impress me.

Why does nearly everything except the water look flat?

And it's not as "good graphically" as UC2.

I haven't seen any evidence the lighting system even supports volumetrics, much less to the extent UC2 uses them.

I think you are missidentifying a quote, as the 360 uses an early version of the PPE found in the cell without any SPEs.

IBM made it for microsoft behind Sony/toshiba's back.

They are not on par as far as performance goes.

Which makes the 360's more better for games.

[QUOTE="hy4k"]

50 million dollar budgets, first party developer support and no other platforms to support

as wella useless company run by inocmpetent people with no brains

Malta_1980

luckily you'll save them and create a seminar and teach themso that all these useless companies run by incompetent people with no brains learn how to do their jobs right :)

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

Actually, the PS3 and 360 CPUs are on par according to an IBM engineer who worked on both. Also, yes they have the same amount of RAM but the PS3's OS uses more memory than the 360's OS meaning the 360 has more available RAM for games.

Zero5000X

I think you are missidentifying a quote, as the 360 uses an early version of the PPE found in the cell without any SPEs.

IBM made it for microsoft behind Sony/toshiba's back.

They are not on par as far as performance goes.

that "General processing" claim is pure marketing.

The SPEs are not watered down CPU cores, they are full cores.

The only thing that sets them apart is they are vector rather then scaler processors.

Microsoft's claim of "3 times the general processing" is based on the fact that it basicly uses the PS3's PPE unit in a 3 core formation.

It is not based in any way on actual performance.

[QUOTE="RedruM_I"][QUOTE="Camer999"]

Obv, if they go to PC that is not fair, we are talking between consoles...

Camer999

How does, 37+ 25+ 5=93?

MS doesn't have teams like Naughty Dog, Insomniac and Guerilla developing crazy-awesome engines that are specifically designed for their console. MS still has first-parties, but they're more dedicated to producing gameplay features or making their games cross-platform with the PC than they are with pushing graphics to the limit on the 360. It's too bad...I'd like to see what a team like ND could do with the 360.

Teufelhuhn