Multiplats have always been the ONLY credible way to compare console power

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

I wont read that wall of text but yeah, it´s pretty obvious multiplats are the only way to compare consoles.

Uncharted2 does look a bit better than Gears2 but there are too many variables to compare them (diferent teams, MS vs Sony support/money, multiplat vs exclusive engine, etc).

There are also many examples of multiplats developed first on PS3 and then ported to 360 and the results are usually the same. 360 is indeed as powerfull as PS3 and it´s sad ppl prefer to close their eyes to the facts at keep supporting that "power of the PS3" myth :?

TintedEyes

true, there are also many variables when it comes to multiplats so having maybe a console (360) which can be in more ways less problematic to work on would definately end up giving better results (smoother frame rates, less screen tearing, better resolutions, sharper visuals etc)

last gen Xbox was technically superior to PS2 and multiplats + exclusives clearly showed the gap between the two..

this gen multiplats are nearly identical and in most cases the differences are quie 'irrelevant'.. occasionally some multiplats were even slightly better on PS3 compared to 360.. On the other side when it comes to exclusives its clear that PS3 in the past 2 yrs has been always competing with 'itself' when it comes to consoles graphics king...

Even MS disagrees

"We congratulate Sony and Guerilla Games for their efforts with Killzone 2, however this is only the beginning of a new wave. The current technology employed for certain unannounced Xbox 360 exclusivesfar surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far. Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experienceand provide stiff competition for the opposition."

http://www.gameguru.in/microsoft-xbox-360/2009/02/future-xbox-360-exclusives-will-surpass-killzone-2-microsoft/

this text should end all speculation. Exclusives are and have always been what people used to compaire console graphics and power, mutiplats are only show how the asseable the technology is for making transitional games oneach system.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

I wont read that wall of text but yeah, it´s pretty obvious multiplats are the only way to compare consoles.

Uncharted2 does look a bit better than Gears2 but there are too many variables to compare them (diferent teams, MS vs Sony support/money, multiplat vs exclusive engine, etc).

There are also many examples of multiplats developed first on PS3 and then ported to 360 and the results are usually the same. 360 is indeed as powerfull as PS3 and it´s sad ppl prefer to close their eyes to the facts at keep supporting that "power of the PS3" myth :?

TintedEyes

The best looking games are the exclusives for comsole I 2nd that.

Isn't Dragon Age: Origins a multiplat which "apparently" looks better on the PS3? I say apparently because I can't really say because I haven't played the 360 version but I remember hearing it somewhere.

Anyway I'm pretty sure there are other games where the PS3 versions look marginally better but how is that possible when they are the "same game"? Unless Bioware are the only lazy devs or something............

Even if you go back to the Atari 2600. When a new system such as the Colecovision is released, gamers compared the multiplats between it, Atari and the intellivision to judge which system was the most powerful.

This happened with the NES vs Master System, the TG-16 vs Genesis vs SNES vs Neo Geo, the Saturn vs PS1 vs N64, the PS2 vs DreamCast vs GC vs Xbox and now with the PS3 vs 360, we are supposed to believe that this method is not valid anymore because Sony marketing says so.

...

alexfla

Really? People compared multiplats between NES and Sega MS? There weren't really many multiplats to compare, other than crappy movie spin-off games. And nobody really compared which was more powerful anyway. 8bit pretty much meant 8bit.

In the 16 bit era, it was all about Mascot vs. mascot. Either you liked Sonic, or you liked Mario.

It wasn't really till the PS1/N64 era when I first started hearing people make direct comparisons over which was more powerful within the same generation. And even then, it wasn't about comparing multiplats, it was all about the technical specs of the systems more than anything else.

In the PS2/xbox era, I started hearing people point out 'this game looks better on xbox', but the counterargument was that ps2 had a billion more great games, because there were so many exclusives for it vesus xbox having... Halo.

Finally, we have this generation, when more games are multiplat than not. Some multis are better on one system, some are better on the other, but in reality, the differences between those are minimal. Personally, I find the which controller you prefer to make a bigger difference between versions than any graphical differences. The only way to REALLY compare the systems performance is by comparing games that are built from the ground up to get the most from each machine. Of course, even then, art stile (miss-spelled intentionally because GS forums limitations) sometimes makes a bigger difference than technical graphics as far as how good a game looks anyway.

The point is, having been gaming since the 80's, I've never really experienced this comparing systems based on multiplats that you say has been the measuring stick since the dawn of video games.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

I wont read that wall of text but yeah, it´s pretty obvious multiplats are the only way to compare consoles.

Uncharted2 does look a bit better than Gears2 but there are too many variables to compare them (diferent teams, MS vs Sony support/money, multiplat vs exclusive engine, etc).

There are also many examples of multiplats developed first on PS3 and then ported to 360 and the results are usually the same. 360 is indeed as powerfull as PS3 and it´s sad ppl prefer to close their eyes to the facts at keep supporting that "power of the PS3" myth :?

TintedEyes

Its not like multiplates have the exact same coding

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

Even if you go back to the Atari 2600. When a new system such as the Colecovision is released, gamers compared the multiplats between it, Atari and the intellivision to judge which system was the most powerful.

This happened with the NES vs Master System, the TG-16 vs Genesis vs SNES vs Neo Geo, the Saturn vs PS1 vs N64, the PS2 vs DreamCast vs GC vs Xbox and now with the PS3 vs 360, we are supposed to believe that this method is not valid anymore because Sony marketing says so.

...

ianuilliam

Really? People compared multiplats between NES and Sega MS? There weren't really many multiplats to compare, other than crappy movie spin-off games. And nobody really compared which was more powerful anyway. 8bit pretty much meant 8bit.

In the 16 bit era, it was all about Mascot vs. mascot. Either you liked Sonic, or you liked Mario.

It wasn't really till the PS1/N64 era when I first started hearing people make direct comparisons over which was more powerful within the same generation. And even then, it wasn't about comparing multiplats, it was all about the technical specs of the systems more than anything else.

In the PS2/xbox era, I started hearing people point out 'this game looks better on xbox', but the counterargument was that ps2 had a billion more great games, because there were so many exclusives for it vesus xbox having... Halo.

Finally, we have this generation, when more games are multiplat than not. Some multis are better on one system, some are better on the other, but in reality, the differences between those are minimal. Personally, I find the which controller you prefer to make a bigger difference between versions than any graphical differences. The only way to REALLY compare the systems performance is by comparing games that are built from the ground up to get the most from each machine. Of course, even then, art stile (miss-spelled intentionally because GS forums limitations) sometimes makes a bigger difference than technical graphics as far as how good a game looks anyway.

The point is, having been gaming since the 80's, I've never really experienced this comparing systems based on multiplats that you say has been the measuring stick since the dawn of video games.

How so?

I have two shuttles one called X and one called P

When the creators of P use the shuttle it goes all the way to the sun

When others try to use it they don't reach as far and sometimes fall short of what shuttle X can do with less effort

When the creators of shuttle X use it they reach close to the sun but don't quite make it there

When others try to use it they see similar results as the creators because unlike P shuttle X is easier to use and sometimes they do better with shuttle X than P while trying to perform the same task because X is so much easier to use.

Does that make P somehow less powerful than X? No it doesn't, infact P is still more powerful than X even though it's not as easy to use.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

How so?

I have two shuttles one called X and one called P

When the creators of P use the shuttle it goes all the way to the sun

When others try to use it they don't reach as far and sometimes fall short of what shuttle X can do with less effort

When the creators of shuttle X use it they reach close to the sun but don't quite make it there

When others try to use it they see similar results as the creators because unlike P shuttle X is easier to use and sometimes they do better with shuttle X than P while trying to perform the same task because X is so much easier to use.

Does that make P somehow less powerful than X? No it doesn't, infact P is still more powerful than X even though it's not as easy to use.

alexfla

Probably older than you, but instead of addressing my point you question my age, that makes you sound like the young one here.

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

How so?

I have two shuttles one called X and one called P

When the creators of P use the shuttle it goes all the way to the sun

When others try to use it they don't reach as far and sometimes fall short of what shuttle X can do with less effort

When the creators of shuttle X use it they reach close to the sun but don't quite make it there

When others try to use it they see similar results as the creators because unlike P shuttle X is easier to use and sometimes they do better with shuttle X than P while trying to perform the same task because X is so much easier to use.

Does that make P somehow less powerful than X? No it doesn't, infact P is still more powerful than X even though it's not as easy to use.

Espada12

Probably older than you, but instead of addressing my point you question my age, that makes you sound like the young one here.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

How old are you? I'm sorry but you're using 15 year old logic.

alexfla

Probably older than you, but instead of addressing my point you question my age, that makes you sound like the young one here.

Explain how?

In some extent I can agree that multiplats are a way to judge the power difference, I'm really getting tired of these big games that look and run better on the X360. But on the other hand, since the exclusives look and runs so good on the PS3, I just can't. When I look at games like Assassins Creed 2, GTA4, RDR, and most of the multiplat games in general, I just know that those games could and would have looked better had they been Sony exclusives.

If you look at the previous generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox exclusives were graphic kings, and nobody argued that those consoles had the most power. But the Gamecube had the worst muliplat version in most cases, why was that?? It was because of the different and difficult architecture.

you seem to forget that the X360 and PS3 have vastly different GPU's and CPU's. The coding for the two consoles is very different. Therefore, you can't make 1 set if code and expect it to work on both consoles. this requires building the game for one console and then adapting it to work with the other console. Obviously, this is a long, drawn-out process. during this process, some mistakes will be made, and the games will not be perfectly identical. Since the X360 has a larger fan base, and because MS spends some of the money they make with gold memberships, games are made for the X360 first and then ported to the PS3. this causes the 360 games to look better than PS3 games. If you look at exclusives, PS3 exclusives look better. and a port will never happen because A. the head companies (MS and Sony) paid big bucks for their exclusives and B. the ports wont look as good for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, if you look at the mathematical capabilities of the PS3 and the X360, the PS3 has more power. once again, this is not debatable, it is fact. The X360 may look more powerful in a fair comparison, but the PS3 is the more powerful system.

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Probably older than you, but instead of addressing my point you question my age, that makes you sound like the young one here.

Espada12

Explain how?

Seems like you explained it quite well for a person of his logic since he doesn't understand it the way everyone else is describing it.

you seem to forget that the X360 and PS3 have vastly different GPU's and CPU's. The coding for the two consoles is very different. Therefore, you can't make 1 set if code and expect it to work on both consoles. this requires building the game for one console and then adapting it to work with the other console. Obviously, this is a long, drawn-out process. during this process, some mistakes will be made, and the games will not be perfectly identical. Since the X360 has a larger fan base, and because MS spends some of the money they make with gold memberships, games are made for the X360 first and then ported to the PS3. this causes the 360 games to look better than PS3 games. If you look at exclusives, PS3 exclusives look better. and a port will never happen because A. the head companies (MS and Sony) paid big bucks for their exclusives and B. the ports wont look as good for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, if you look at the mathematical capabilities of the PS3 and the X360, the PS3 has more power. once again, this is not debatable, it is fact. The X360 may look more powerful in a fair comparison, but the PS3 is the more powerful system.

marchofthenoobs

[QUOTE="marchofthenoobs"]

you seem to forget that the X360 and PS3 have vastly different GPU's and CPU's. The coding for the two consoles is very different. Therefore, you can't make 1 set if code and expect it to work on both consoles. this requires building the game for one console and then adapting it to work with the other console. Obviously, this is a long, drawn-out process. during this process, some mistakes will be made, and the games will not be perfectly identical. Since the X360 has a larger fan base, and because MS spends some of the money they make with gold memberships, games are made for the X360 first and then ported to the PS3. this causes the 360 games to look better than PS3 games. If you look at exclusives, PS3 exclusives look better. and a port will never happen because A. the head companies (MS and Sony) paid big bucks for their exclusives and B. the ports wont look as good for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, if you look at the mathematical capabilities of the PS3 and the X360, the PS3 has more power. once again, this is not debatable, it is fact. The X360 may look more powerful in a fair comparison, but the PS3 is the more powerful system.

alexfla

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Probably older than you, but instead of addressing my point you question my age, that makes you sound like the young one here.

Espada12

Explain how?

Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.

If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.

We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.

This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.

In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="marchofthenoobs"]

you seem to forget that the X360 and PS3 have vastly different GPU's and CPU's. The coding for the two consoles is very different. Therefore, you can't make 1 set if code and expect it to work on both consoles. this requires building the game for one console and then adapting it to work with the other console. Obviously, this is a long, drawn-out process. during this process, some mistakes will be made, and the games will not be perfectly identical. Since the X360 has a larger fan base, and because MS spends some of the money they make with gold memberships, games are made for the X360 first and then ported to the PS3. this causes the 360 games to look better than PS3 games. If you look at exclusives, PS3 exclusives look better. and a port will never happen because A. the head companies (MS and Sony) paid big bucks for their exclusives and B. the ports wont look as good for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, if you look at the mathematical capabilities of the PS3 and the X360, the PS3 has more power. once again, this is not debatable, it is fact. The X360 may look more powerful in a fair comparison, but the PS3 is the more powerful system.

Martin_G_N

It always boggles my mind how some people call ps3 much more powerful system duo to couple of exclusives with pumped money,talent and time in it.This gen is pretty weird,its not right to compare them with multiplats on mind because some people say that after 4 yrs top industry developers dont know Cell yet,its also wrong to compare in exclusive department because there is just TO many variables...MS does not have a enough of 1st party devs,they dont have NEARLY enough talent,they dont give nearly as big budgets and time,it just cant be compared but yea,its VERY weird that so called superior platform still gets inferior games.

The FACT that remains is this:PS3 NEVER,in 4 years,had a game that RUNS better then its 360 counterpart.Thats worrying some for so called 3 time more powerful console and even when games are made on ps3 and ported on 360 games tend to run and look at least the same,in most cases again,better on 360.

Console gamers waste TO MUCH on trying to prove that cpu will outrun gpu,cpu is all that matters thats what you guys say.I would not say a word if ps3 had better gpu,more memory or bandwidth but it losses in all those except cpu,in best case they are equal,you do the math.

*Now im looking at MW2 comparison on DF,ps3 version does not include bloom effect(on KZ2 it takes 14% of spu,on 360 is free duo to eDRAM bandwidth),it has worse texture filtrating and in all that it has worse frame rate by average 12fps...

A wall of text!!:o.. ok i could care less about console comparison, i buy stuff on ma PS3!!.. yup ok thoguht i'd say that even tho i havent read a thing of that wall :P.. sorry kthnxbye

finalstar2007

In some extent I can agree that multiplats are a way to judge the power difference, I'm really getting tired of these big games that look and run better on the X360. But on the other hand, since the exclusives look and runs so good on the PS3, I just can't. When I look at games like Assassins Creed 2, GTA4, RDR, and most of the multiplat games in general, I just know that those games could and would have looked better had they been Sony exclusives.

If you look at the previous generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox exclusives were graphic kings, and nobody argued that those consoles had the most power. But the Gamecube had the worst muliplat version in most cases, why was that?? It was because of the different and difficult architecture.

Martin_G_N

Nobody argued because games like Ninja Gaiden, HaloCE, Halo2, Chaos Theory, etc looked miles ahead anything on PS2. It´s not the case now since the best looking PS3 exclusives look just a bit better than the best looking 360 ones. Also every single multiplat looked better on Xbox when compared to PS2.

Multiplatforms were NEVER a good metric. They are at best a clumsy tool to take an educated guess. Up till this gen, though, the power differences tended to be large enough to even a clumsy tool could give you a good idea which is better, but make no mistake, that does not mean that multiplatforms were ever a good measure of power.DerekLoffin

The FACT that remains is this:PS3 NEVER,in 4 years,had a game that RUNS better then its 360 counterpart.Thats worrying some for so called 3 time more powerful console and even when games are made on ps3 and ported on 360 games tend to run and look at least the same,in most cases again,better on 360.

Console gamers waste TO MUCH on trying to prove that cpu will outrun gpu,cpu is all that matters thats what you guys say.I would not say a word if ps3 had better gpu,more memory or bandwidth but it losses in all those except cpu,in best case they are equal,you do the math.

*Now im looking at MW2 comparison on DF,ps3 version does not include bloom effect(on KZ2 it takes 14% of spu,on 360 is free duo to eDRAM bandwidth),it has worse texture filtrating and in all that it has worse frame rate by average 12fps...

Bus-A-Bus

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]

In some extent I can agree that multiplats are a way to judge the power difference, I'm really getting tired of these big games that look and run better on the X360. But on the other hand, since the exclusives look and runs so good on the PS3, I just can't. When I look at games like Assassins Creed 2, GTA4, RDR, and most of the multiplat games in general, I just know that those games could and would have looked better had they been Sony exclusives.

If you look at the previous generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox exclusives were graphic kings, and nobody argued that those consoles had the most power. But the Gamecube had the worst muliplat version in most cases, why was that?? It was because of the different and difficult architecture.

PAL360

Nobody argued because games like Ninja Gaiden, HaloCE, Halo2, Chaos Theory, etc looked miles ahead anything on PS2. It´s not the case now since the best looking PS3 exclusives look just a bit better than the best looking 360 ones. Also every single multiplat looked better on Xbox when compared to PS2.

PS3 certainly has the best looking exclusives at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the power of the consoles, as much as the skill and funds of the dev.

All that aside, it's not like exclusives like Uncharted 2 blow multiplat games like RE5 out of the water or anything. I think people are mislead by bullshots and pre-rendered cutscenes, and a dash of fanboyism to boot.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Multiplatforms were NEVER a good metric. They are at best a clumsy tool to take an educated guess. Up till this gen, though, the power differences tended to be large enough to even a clumsy tool could give you a good idea which is better, but make no mistake, that does not mean that multiplatforms were ever a good measure of power.alexfla

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]

In some extent I can agree that multiplats are a way to judge the power difference, I'm really getting tired of these big games that look and run better on the X360. But on the other hand, since the exclusives look and runs so good on the PS3, I just can't. When I look at games like Assassins Creed 2, GTA4, RDR, and most of the multiplat games in general, I just know that those games could and would have looked better had they been Sony exclusives.

If you look at the previous generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox exclusives were graphic kings, and nobody argued that those consoles had the most power. But the Gamecube had the worst muliplat version in most cases, why was that?? It was because of the different and difficult architecture.

Martin_G_N

Nobody argued because games like Ninja Gaiden, HaloCE, Halo2, Chaos Theory, etc looked miles ahead anything on PS2. It´s not the case now since the best looking PS3 exclusives look just a bit better than the best looking 360 ones. Also every single multiplat looked better on Xbox when compared to PS2.

How do you know it will keep on throwing graphics kings? :| You talk like every PS3 exclusive look amazing. In fact only 2 or 3 beat Gears2 and by a small margin. Also with so many good looking games on both consoles the current graphics king is a matter of opinion. Imo nothing on consoles comes close to RDR

'Multiplats have always been the ONLY credible way to compare devs skills'

If developers who develop games only for the ps3 can make games which look better than any other multiplat and 360 exclusive it's obvious that the problem doesn't lie on the console , it lies on the devs.Unless you are implying that the fact of developers working only on the ps3 making the best looking games and devs who doesnt take as much time don't making them equally good to be one big coincidence.

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

Nobody argued because games like Ninja Gaiden, HaloCE, Halo2, Chaos Theory, etc looked miles ahead anything on PS2. It´s not the case now since the best looking PS3 exclusives look just a bit better than the best looking 360 ones. Also every single multiplat looked better on Xbox when compared to PS2.

PAL360

How do you know it will keep on throwing graphics kings? :| You talk like every PS3 exclusive look amazing. In fact only 2 or 3 beat Gears2 and by a small margin. Also with so many good looking games on both consoles the current graphics king is a matter of opinion. Imo nothing on consoles comes close to RDR

I wouldnt say small margin, its pretty noticeable.http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=4192

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

The FACT that remains is this:PS3 NEVER,in 4 years,had a game that RUNS better then its 360 counterpart.Thats worrying some for so called 3 time more powerful console and even when games are made on ps3 and ported on 360 games tend to run and look at least the same,in most cases again,better on 360.

Console gamers waste TO MUCH on trying to prove that cpu will outrun gpu,cpu is all that matters thats what you guys say.I would not say a word if ps3 had better gpu,more memory or bandwidth but it losses in all those except cpu,in best case they are equal,you do the math.

*Now im looking at MW2 comparison on DF,ps3 version does not include bloom effect(on KZ2 it takes 14% of spu,on 360 is free duo to eDRAM bandwidth),it has worse texture filtrating and in all that it has worse frame rate by average 12fps...

Hahadouken

I said RUN better...and if it does,then my apologies,but thats even more pathetic.Saying its outright lie so you can own me with one game running better on ps3 in sea of like 200+ multiplats is downright embarrassing for ps3 this gen.

Another fact is that ps2 was the hardest to develop for console,more so then ps3 but that did not stop it from producing better quality multiplats then dreamcast.

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

The FACT that remains is this:PS3 NEVER,in 4 years,had a game that RUNS better then its 360 counterpart.Thats worrying some for so called 3 time more powerful console and even when games are made on ps3 and ported on 360 games tend to run and look at least the same,in most cases again,better on 360.

Console gamers waste TO MUCH on trying to prove that cpu will outrun gpu,cpu is all that matters thats what you guys say.I would not say a word if ps3 had better gpu,more memory or bandwidth but it losses in all those except cpu,in best case they are equal,you do the math.

*Now im looking at MW2 comparison on DF,ps3 version does not include bloom effect(on KZ2 it takes 14% of spu,on 360 is free duo to eDRAM bandwidth),it has worse texture filtrating and in all that it has worse frame rate by average 12fps...

Bus-A-Bus

I said RUN better...and if it does,then my apologies,but thats even more pathetic.Saying its outright lie so you can own me with one game running better on ps3 in sea of like 200+ multiplats is downright embarrassing for ps3 this gen.

Another fact is that ps2 was the hardest to develop for console,more so then ps3 but that did not stop it from producing better quality multiplats then dreamcast.

I think it's embarassing for developers, not the platform. Right now we have: games that looks and run better on 360 (majority), games that looks and run the same on both consoles (good amount) and games that looks and run better on PS3 (FFXIII, Terminator S, Wanted, Oblivion... - and there are more games that just looks better on PS3). Quality of PS3 port/version shows the skill of the developer, nothing more, nothing less. Hardware is much harder to develop to than 360 but it's obvioslu not weaker.

Most multiplatform games runs better on 360 becouse developers don't have time and resources to suit their engines to PS3 architecture, and most of them are still very close in terms of GFX/FR.

MW2 framerate: Global:
PlayStation 3 Avg. FPS: 53.73 / Xbox 360 Avg. FPS: 57.31
PlayStation 3 Avg. Frame Tear: 0.0% / Xbox 360 Avg. Frame Tear: 0.0%

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Multiplatforms were NEVER a good metric. They are at best a clumsy tool to take an educated guess. Up till this gen, though, the power differences tended to be large enough to even a clumsy tool could give you a good idea which is better, but make no mistake, that does not mean that multiplatforms were ever a good measure of power.DerekLoffin

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

The BEST way to measure power is to have the SAME EXACT GAME running on both consoles. Which ever console produces the better graphics with the same game, is likely more powerful.

Of course this method of testing is somewhat flawed. That is certainly true if you only test one game. But what if you test 10 games? Wouldn't you agree that we get a more accurate measurement? What if we test 200 games in a 4 year period? I would say that is a damn good sample and will give an extremely accurate result even using this imperfect method.

Some think the best way to determine which is the more powerful system is by getting the 2 PS3 games that they believe have the best graphics and claiming that they can't be run on the 360 based on a subjective opinion.

I would rather take the actual 200+ real world tests that combine to give us a very good comparison of real world performance. As imperfect as it may be, it is without a doubt scientific and gives us the most credible data that can be collected.

alexfla

Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII

'Multiplats have always been the ONLY credible way to compare devs skills'

If developers who develop games only for the ps3 can make games which look better than any other multiplat and 360 exclusive it's obvious that the problem doesn't lie on the console , it lies on the devs.Unless you are implying that the fact of developers working only on the ps3 making the best looking games and devs who doesnt take as much time don't making them equally good to be one big coincidence.

RoOodriGowW

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"] Sorry, that's an outright lie. Burnout Paradise is an immediate example that takes your "NEVER" statement and flushes it.sayonara89

I said RUN better...and if it does,then my apologies,but thats even more pathetic.Saying its outright lie so you can own me with one game running better on ps3 in sea of like 200+ multiplats is downright embarrassing for ps3 this gen.

Another fact is that ps2 was the hardest to develop for console,more so then ps3 but that did not stop it from producing better quality multiplats then dreamcast.

I think it's embarassing for developers, not the platform. Right now we have: games that looks and run better on 360 (majority), games that looks and run the same on both consoles (good amount) and games that looks and run better on PS3 (FFXIII, Terminator S, Wanted, Oblivion... - and there are more games that just looks better on PS3). Quality of PS3 port/version shows the skill of the developer, nothing more, nothing less. Hardware is much harder to develop to than 360 but it's obvioslu not weaker.

Most multiplatform games runs better on 360 becouse developers don't have time and resources to suit their engines to PS3 architecture, and most of them are still very close in terms of GFX/FR.

MW2 framerate: Global:
PlayStation 3 Avg. FPS: 53.73 / Xbox 360 Avg. FPS: 57.31
PlayStation 3 Avg. Frame Tear: 0.0% / Xbox 360 Avg. Frame Tear: 0.0%

No,its embarrassment for platform and Sony(stupid Ken Kutaragi).They made bi*** system to program,with bad tools(from start) and it was comparable with 360 in power.It also cost more to produce and develop for,it just was not worth it(but i see why they went that way,blu ray and cell making big appearance in other electronics).They did the same with ps2(EE had twice as many flops as Xcpu and had something similar to spus,VUs)and that architecture was not worth it...

There are ALOT of developers and good amount of them are good developers...most 3rd party devs are better then MS first party in terms of tech and talent.I dont see a reason to say that reason for ps3 versions to be worse is their laziness and clueless about ps3 hardware,if some of the top devs had the money,time and tools Sonys 1st party had they would deliver something similar.The problem here lays in the fact that ps3 was tauted as 3x more powerful console and 360 was just xbox 1.5.Situation is not like that so lots of people are now end up butthurth,99% of devs said they are neck and neck but fanboys still sell the story about great power of ps3,its just not like that.

Anyway...multiplats are not the way to compare them,especially since ps3 is hard to crack,but its really weird that 4 yrs in gen and ps3 version of the games are luckiest to be the same...its just weird.Now exclusives are even worse measure...its more evident that MS does not have first party talent,size,dedication,engines,dont give that much time and budget then that ps3 is harder to develop for yet majority dismiss that fact.They simply dont even need that...they never tauted as next coming,they sell great and they probably dont see a reason to do so.

My guess is that Crysis 2 will prevail and bring peace,just 3 more day and it will be shown for first time on GTTV :D

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Oh, that might be the best way, but it is actually IMPOSSIBLE in this circumstance! Why, because they don't run the same code. So, even if the games look like they are the same, under the hood they aren't. Heck, even when you do run the same code, if being on PC has taught us anything, various elements of a setup can have a very varying affect on performance. Game X may look better on one setup compared to another, but Game Y might look awful (or not run properly at all). In the end it just doesn't tell you anything truly meaningful. So, again, Multiplatforms were NEVER a good measure of power. They are a clumsy at best.

sayonara89

Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII

And if FF13 was port from 360 to ps3 the same way it was ported from ps3 to 360(less then 6 months) it would be similar to bayonneta...360 hold it own well,lower res is duo to not using eDRAM,tiling that is.If it was used gameplay would been the same...

Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.

If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.

We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.

This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.

In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.

alexfla

Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.

The Creators of P can go to the sun with P

The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close

People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X

How does that make X more powerful than P?

big wall of useless text

any way

that is not the case in the snes and n64 era

we know n64 was 2x more powerful then ps1 fromday one

and the snes was definatelly more powerful then the aged genesis at the time

and last gen

ps2 came 2nd -after the to early dc ,

there for we know somthin more powerful wascoming such as xbox gc

but aside from the n64 gen ,

graphics doesnt matter ,

i stopped caring once the transition to 3d was made,

the console with the lesser graphics always hasthat market advantage for some odd reason

andthats the console of choice for many

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.

If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.

We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.

This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.

In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.

Espada12

Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.

The Creators of P can go to the sun with P

The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close

People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X

How does that make X more powerful than P?

Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...

Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Oh, that might be the best way, but it is actually IMPOSSIBLE in this circumstance! Why, because they don't run the same code. So, even if the games look like they are the same, under the hood they aren't. Heck, even when you do run the same code, if being on PC has taught us anything, various elements of a setup can have a very varying affect on performance. Game X may look better on one setup compared to another, but Game Y might look awful (or not run properly at all). In the end it just doesn't tell you anything truly meaningful. So, again, Multiplatforms were NEVER a good measure of power. They are a clumsy at best.

sayonara89

Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="alexfla"]

Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.

If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.

We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.

This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.

In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.

Bus-A-Bus

Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.

The Creators of P can go to the sun with P

The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close

People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X

How does that make X more powerful than P?

Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...

Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.

Alan wake had 6 years dev time and was funded by MS, plz don't make it sound like playstation devs have more time and money when 360 exclusives are given that luxury as well. The thing is as well you can't prove UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360. The proof is in the pudding, until it has been proven otherwise I don't wanna hear it. PS3 is stronger than the 360, no matter how marginal it maybe.

BTW your exact argument could be made why mulitplats are inferior on the PS3. Less talented devs, less dev time, less money...

UC2 and GOW3 both look good but truthfully, every objective gamer knows both games can be ported perfect to the 360.

alexfla

An objective gamer wouldn't make a claim without providing evidence to support it.