No. This is completely wrong. Exclusives show how well a console can perform graphically and such when a game is designed to take advantages of its strengths and is built for its architecture. The difference in graphics between 360 and PS3 can be explained very simply. Which console is more successful in terms of sales? The 360 of course. So devs think, why not make the best experience possible on the platform that will make more money. Why invest the better version in a smaller market when you can do a good job on the more successful side and rake in cash? So multiplat devs build the game for the 360, take advantage of its strengths and all, THEN port it over to the PS3. They don't build it from the ground up for the other, or at least very few do, it's wasted money when the differences are honestly not that big of a deal.
Multiplats have always been the ONLY credible way to compare console power
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Wait, was Arkham Asylum better looking on the PS3? :? Gamespot told me otherwise. I played the 360 demo only so I can't judge that fairly, and I've played the full game on PS3, and it looks great, but GS's comparisons said the 360 version looked better.Not gonna read the text, but does that include FF XIII, DA: O, Batman: AA, Darksiders?
Pug-Nasty
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
[QUOTE="RoOodriGowW"]
'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
What is the best looking game is extremely subjective. There is no test to measure graphics to find out what game has the best graphics. It's all just a matter of opinion.
PS3 owners will always swear that UC2 looks better than everything on the 360. Just like they swore FF13 was the best looking game ever and impossible for the 360 to run. Until it was announced multiplat then we got suicide accounts and all of that hysteria. In the end the 360 was a quick port and it ran it damn well. It was pretty much a perfect port minus the CG cutscene quality.
The real test would be if you take those game that you swear are the best graphically such as UC2 or GOW3 and you port them over to the 360 and then we find out if the 360 can handle them.
Would you agree that that would end the graphics debates if UC2 and GOW3 were ported to the 360?
If the 360 port looks much worse than the PS3 then the PS3 has to be more powerful. If the 360 version looks about the same then we can conclude it's more powerful because it handled a port of a game written from the ground up for the PS3.
However we will never have this test. That is why fanboys cling so hard to these games. Because it's a safe place for them knowing they can never be proven wrong. However if you look at all of the other hundreds of games that have been ported across both platforms then the 360 is obviously more powerful.
Why? Because over 90% of the time the 360 runs the same game better. This was true 4 years ago and it is still true today 4 years and hundreds of multiplats later.The point is I don't think ports say anything about the power of the consoles because , well ...they're ports.I don't know the specifics but everybody know that the ps3 works very differently from the 360 , oftenly producing similar results(like multiplats , mind you I said 'similar) , but seldomly , quite different ones,and these will stand out and make pople judge the better console , unfortunatelly , only exclusives generate these, that's why you can't go making ports which are 95% of the time made from the 360 to the ps3 , obvious outcome of this is the minor differences we often see.But taking your example I would agree this debate would end if the devs of u2 and gow 3 got really focused on the 360 and made the said games for the console , the outcome of the comparison would pretty much define the more capable one.Now I don't go with the flow , I still think killzone 2 is way ahead of gow 3 and u2 in terms of realism , I don't care about the lack of primary colors lol last time I checked I wasnt watching discovery channel or natgeo.So how come Xbox ports last gen usually turned out noticeably better than the original PS2 versions? What about those ports that really did turn out better than their original versions, like VF5? And don't say shoddy coding because this occurred even late into the last gen, when knowledge of the consoles was already pretty comprehensive.
The way I read it, some initially develop on the PS3 then port to the 360 because it's a much simpler migration path. Making it for the 360 then porting to the PS3 is considered considerably more complicated because its hardware (compared to that of the 360) is far from straightforward.No. This is completely wrong. Exclusives show how well a console can perform graphically and such when a game is designed to take advantages of its strengths and is built for its architecture. The difference in graphics between 360 and PS3 can be explained very simply. Which console is more successful in terms of sales? The 360 of course. So devs think, why not make the best experience possible on the platform that will make more money. Why invest the better version in a smaller market when you can do a good job on the more successful side and rake in cash? So multiplat devs build the game for the 360, take advantage of its strengths and all, THEN port it over to the PS3. They don't build it from the ground up for the other, or at least very few do, it's wasted money when the differences are honestly not that big of a deal.
oldkingallant
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
normal_gamer
TF,Joker,Lee Yosh(Cgi),psorcerer.Anyway,there is nothing in KZ2 that is impossible on 360,not a single thing...
Seriously.....
Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
finalfantasy94
And what if one company does not put remotely close the work that other does?
[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]The way I read it, some initially develop on the PS3 then port to the 360 because it's a much simpler migration path. Making it for the 360 then porting to the PS3 is considered considerably more complicated because its hardware (compared to that of the 360) is far from straightforward. The developers that have experience with the PS3 started building games for the PS3 first and then porting it over to the 360. Examples are Deadspace, and Devil May Cry 4 which look great on both systems. I hope more developers follow this trend cause then everyone is happy.No. This is completely wrong. Exclusives show how well a console can perform graphically and such when a game is designed to take advantages of its strengths and is built for its architecture. The difference in graphics between 360 and PS3 can be explained very simply. Which console is more successful in terms of sales? The 360 of course. So devs think, why not make the best experience possible on the platform that will make more money. Why invest the better version in a smaller market when you can do a good job on the more successful side and rake in cash? So multiplat devs build the game for the 360, take advantage of its strengths and all, THEN port it over to the PS3. They don't build it from the ground up for the other, or at least very few do, it's wasted money when the differences are honestly not that big of a deal.
HuusAsking
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
Bus-A-Bus
And what if one company does not put remotely close the work that other does?
Then you wont get a better product. The point is if you have jsut one version of a game for one system if the company is good your getting the most out of it. Your being split with your work and have to focuse on more then 1 version which could effect one of the version.
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
finalfantasy94
And what if one company does not put remotely close the work that other does?
Then you wont get a better product. The point is if you have jsut one version of a game for one system if the company is good your getting the most out of it. Your being split with your work and have to focuse on more then 1 version which could effect one of the version.
I agree with you,multiplats are not the way to judge console power,especially this gen where sony has b*** to program system so its just not right to do that,but neither is right judge console power of consoles based on exclusives since Sony is pushing their great 1st party with every game and MS almost has no 1st party and no engines tailored for 360.
People need to keep in mind that you're really not judging the power of a system when you play a game, you are judging the talent of the developer. Even if the PS3 is more powerful a more talented programer could make a better looking game on the 360. Multiplatform games aren't built form the ground up on each seperate system so there will never be a truly fair comparisson.
[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]Wait, was Arkham Asylum better looking on the PS3? :? Gamespot told me otherwise. I played the 360 demo only so I can't judge that fairly, and I've played the full game on PS3, and it looks great, but GS's comparisons said the 360 version looked better.Not gonna read the text, but does that include FF XIII, DA: O, Batman: AA, Darksiders?
oldkingallant
I only played the ps3 version, so I don't know, but that's what I heard. That's the problem with head 2 heads, they get different results from different people. I think the reason the source I'm talking about gave it to ps3 was the camera distance to the character was "better" or something.
To be honest, I wasn't impressed by B: AA graphics one bit, typical UE crap if you ask me. All those games have the same look, and it's not a good one. But, some seem to like it. Given the engine, I would think it'd run better on 360 though, based on the engines history.
I was, more or less, stating that if both systems have Multiplats that run better than the other, does that mean that they're both more powerful than the other?
Exclusives are the only thing you have to show that someone is really working hard with the one console, multi plats have devs not working that hard on either, getting mixed results. Well, I'm sure they're working hard, but you know what I mean.
Depends on the multi-platform game e,g, Crysis 2(CE3) vs UE3. On technical areas, I don't think UC2 is getting the max performance from PS3. Triangle count contest and rendering features envy from Crytek i.e. refer to http://www.crytek.com/fileadmin/user_upload/inside/presentations/2009/Light_Propagation_Volumes.pdf Page 28, Island scene (yet another island scene from Crytek) has 2100 draw calls and 2.32 million triangles. Page 29 shows the scene for the benchmarkframe. Page 29, it shows the scene's benchmark in rendering the frame i.e. Xbox 360 vs PS3. The Xbox 360 is slightly faster. For light propagation volumes benchmark, the scene has 2.32 million triangles. Target frame rate is 30 fps and 1280x720p. Even with CryEngine 3's rendering features, CE3 PS3 almost doubled it's triangles count over UC2. Uncharted 2's 1.2 million triangle count. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entryUhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
finalfantasy94
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]Depends on the multi-platform game e,g, Crysis 2(CE3) vs UE3. On technical areas, I don't think UC2 is getting the max performance from PS3. Triangle count contest and rendering features envy from Crytek i.e. refer to http://www.crytek.com/fileadmin/user_upload/inside/presentations/2009/Light_Propagation_Volumes.pdf Page 28, Island scene (yet another island scene from Crytek) has 2100 draw calls and 2.32 million triangles. Page 29 shows the scene for the benchmarkframe. Page 29, it shows the scene's benchmark in rendering the frame i.e. Xbox 360 vs PS3. The Xbox 360 is slightly faster. For light propagation volumes benchmark, the scene has 2.32 million triangles. Target frame rate is 30 fps and 1280x720p. Even with CryEngine 3's rendering features, CE3 PS3 almost doubled it's triangles count over UC2. Uncharted 2's 1.2 million triangle count. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entryBut the amount of polygons is'nt everything, is it?. Maybe UC2 pushes less polygons, but uses more power for other things, like lighting, AA, and other processing demanding effects. It will be interesting to see how Crysis 2 turns out:)Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
ronvalencia
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
Uhh no. Exclusives are more credible since your putting all the work into this one version for one system thus getting the most out of it. It would be pure madness to use multiplats as a comparason of power.
Bus-A-Bus
And what if one company does not put remotely close the work that other does?
And how will you compare when exclusives, by definition, have so little in common with games on other platforms?Um, what about GTA4? Didn't R* North say they were doing just that?People need to keep in mind that you're really not judging the power of a system when you play a game, you are judging the talent of the developer. Even if the PS3 is more powerful a more talented programer could make a better looking game on the 360. Multiplatform games aren't built form the ground up on each seperate system so there will never be a truly fair comparisson.
Tyrant156
So how come Xbox ports last gen usually turned out noticeably better than the original PS2 versions? What about those ports that really did turn out better than their original versions, like VF5? And don't say shoddy coding because this occurred even late into the last gen, when knowledge of the consoles was already pretty comprehensive.As far as I know , and again no specifics for me , xbox had a much better hardware than ps2 , I never played it but just by seeing ninja gaiden black pics and vids I could see it was much better than the ps2 in this department.That said I don't think the gap between 360 and ps3 is as wide as the previously said.As for ports, again , I don't find them trustable (being better or worse) it's not like you are playing the same game in two different rigs to point out the better one, their structure is completely different ,therefore a game would have to be built for each console individually to show the better one.And about this last argument ,unfortunatelly , only a sony first party studio would take most of it and most likley from the 360 too since it's easier , and the reciprocity is not true.[QUOTE="RoOodriGowW"]The point is I don't think ports say anything about the power of the consoles because , well ...they're ports.I don't know the specifics but everybody know that the ps3 works very differently from the 360 , oftenly producing similar results(like multiplats , mind you I said 'similar) , but seldomly , quite different ones,and these will stand out and make pople judge the better console , unfortunatelly , only exclusives generate these, that's why you can't go making ports which are 95% of the time made from the 360 to the ps3 , obvious outcome of this is the minor differences we often see.But taking your example I would agree this debate would end if the devs of u2 and gow 3 got really focused on the 360 and made the said games for the console , the outcome of the comparison would pretty much define the more capable one.Now I don't go with the flow , I still think killzone 2 is way ahead of gow 3 and u2 in terms of realism , I don't care about the lack of primary colors lol last time I checked I wasnt watching discovery channel or natgeo.HuusAsking
Please take your own advice and don't make fanboy rant posts like this, a good 80% of your examples of why the 360 is more powerful (and honestly who cares if it is? To me a ps3 game will always be better than a 360 game cause I don't own a bloody 360) were saying that ps3 exclusives could be ported onto the 360. And yes they probably could but Alan Wake, Mass Effect and Condemned 1 would work perfectly on a ps3. Also it's worth pointing out I think the xbox was released quite a long time after the ps2 so it's understandable it has better hardware.The only reason to believe it can't is fanboy bias. Save these silly, subjective fanboy rants.
alexfla
I want to read intelligent arguments if you want to argue that the PS3 is more powerful. No excuses about lazy devs, give me examples of performance. It's been 5 years, bs is unacceptable at this point. If excuses mattered then the Saturn was more powerful than the PS1 but back then the gaming industry suffered from the laziest developers of all time.
[QUOTE="alexfla"]Please take your own advice and don't make fanboy rant posts like this, a good 80% of your examples of why the 360 is more powerful (and honestly who cares if it is? To me a ps3 game will always be better than a 360 game cause I don't own a bloody 360) were saying that ps3 exclusives could be ported onto the 360. And yes they probably could but Alan Wake, Mass Effect and Condemned 1 would work perfectly on a ps3. Also it's worth pointing out I think the xbox was released quite a long time after the ps2 so it's understandable it has better hardware.The gap was only about a year, actually.The only reason to believe it can't is fanboy bias. Save these silly, subjective fanboy rants.
I want to read intelligent arguments if you want to argue that the PS3 is more powerful. No excuses about lazy devs, give me examples of performance. It's been 5 years, bs is unacceptable at this point. If excuses mattered then the Saturn was more powerful than the PS1 but back then the gaming industry suffered from the laziest developers of all time.Pearwood
[QUOTE="alexfla"]UC2 and GOW3 both look good but truthfully, every objective gamer knows both games can be ported perfect to the 360.R3FURBISHED
I doubt that, both God of War and Uncharted were built from the ground up to use the PlayStation architecture.
Yes, so if developers were to rebuild the games ground up for the 360 architecture, you don't think they would work on the 360? I think they would improve many aspects of the games graphics too, while stillb eing constrained by the limited space of a DVD9 disc. The GPU in the 360 is just more powerful and can compensate for the PS3's cells added boost.
So, in your opinion, the PS3 could release an exclusive game that looks better than any other game on the market...either 360 exclusive or multiplat...and that isn't proog of power? Only a lesser looking multiplat counts because the 360 version, which was the lead version, looks better than the PS3 version?
That makes zero sense. None. The console with the best looking game has the most power. You can't ignore entire games because they are exclusive.
the TC's Post makes WAY TOO MUCH SENSE for System Wars.
he drew a well planned and thought out thesis on why the PS3 multiplats are inferior to the 360's thus the PS3 is inferior to the 360.
he pointed out well articulated points that cant even be disputed by even the biggest Cow lapse in Logic.
yet instead he will get flamed by the Cows, Uncharted 2 will be brought up ( at least 28 times before thread is locked ) and TC will possibly be Modded.
thanks for playing.
the TC's Post makes WAY TOO MUCH SENSE for System Wars.
he drew a well planned and thought out thesis on why the PS3 multiplats are inferior to the 360's thus the PS3 is inferior to the 360.
he pointed out well articulated points that cant even be disputed by even the biggest Cow lapse in Logic.
yet instead he will get flamed by the Cows, Uncharted 2 will be brought up ( at least 28 times before thread is locked ) and TC will possibly be Modded.
thanks for playing.
bryn8150
:lol:
the TC's Post makes WAY TOO MUCH SENSE for System Wars.
he drew a well planned and thought out thesis on why the PS3 multiplats are inferior to the 360's thus the PS3 is inferior to the 360.
he pointed out well articulated points that cant even be disputed by even the biggest Cow lapse in Logic.
yet instead he will get flamed by the Cows, Uncharted 2 will be brought up ( at least 28 times before thread is locked ) and TC will possibly be Modded.
thanks for playing.
bryn8150
I really dont see how that proves PS3 is inferior to 360. in fact, im sure many many could argue 360 is inferior to PS3 in some areas.
[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
Of course you have to adapt a game to run on a specific console. The PS3 is a lot more powerful than the last gen Xbox. Does that mean that Ninja Gaiden code could be transfered with no optimization? No, every game has to be adapted to the console it will run on. And because the PS3 is a lot more powerful than the Xbox, Ninja Gaiden Sigma looks much better than the old Ninja Gaiden.
It doesn't matter if the CPUs and GPUs are different. The 360 could have a little hamster running in it for all I care. What matters is the real world results. 5 years into this gen we know that 90% of multiplats run better on the 360.
Let me put this another way. Every game that has ever run on the PS3 will run better on the 360 9 out of 10 times. No matter if it's a shooting game, a fish game or a tree climbing game, the game runs better on the 360.
Your argument is that the few games that you know will never be ported to the 360(to make it untestable) are just loads better than everything on 360 and can't run on the 360?
The Saturn is considered much less powerful than the PS1 even though on paper it was more powerful. The reason it is considered less powerful is due to the fact that most of the multiplats looked worse than the PS1 counterparts. The Saturn exclusives were hot but that didn't matter.
A. Thats not my arguement, theyre not loads better. in fact, some are probably worse that some xbox games. but theres really no denying the fact that GOWIII and MGS4, as examples, look better than pretty much all XBOX exclusives out there atm.
B. you missed my point completely about the developing for multiplats. One console will always look better. theyre not the same system, therefore the ports won't look as good. XBOX games make more money than PS3 games, so the companies will dev for XBOX first to make more money. thats common sense, dude.
C. if the saturn was more powerful than the PS1 on paper, than it is the more powerful system. it just didnt have the best results because, guess what, PS1 games made more money at the time. guess who the developers consider the priority? money or graphics?
little hampster inside? are we arguing the consoles power or the consoles abilities to make things look pretty? hampsters dont make as much power as computers, last time i checked.
I didn't even read the post because your WHOLE theory is very flawed. No matter what generation, what system, whatever. The lead platform will, 99% of the time, look and performe better then the console that recieves the port.
Exclusives are the only true comparison because exclusives are built to take advantage of each systems unique capabilities.
I didn't even read the post because your WHOLE theory is very flawed. No matter what generation, what system, whatever. The lead platform will, 99% of the time, look and performe better then the console that recieves the port.
Exclusives are the only true comparison because exclusives are built to take advantage of each systems unique capabilities.
xX-Incubus-Xx
Except comparing exclusives might as well be a shouting match, No KZ2 looks better...No Crysis does....No it's definitly uncharted 2. People never bring facts to the table, most people say crysis is the best looking because it has very high system requirments, IMO i've played many games that I think look better than crysis and most of them are never even brough up in graphic debates.
Atleast with multiplats we can clearly see which one looks better.
With all that said, I really couldn't care less about these graphic debates.
1.To sum things up cows like to bash the power of the 360 based off of the PS3's exclusives that use built from the ground up graphics engines specific to only the PS3.
2.On the other hand they like to bash the graphics of the 360's exclusives which so far have not used built from the ground up 360 specific engines.Or basically existing ones. Just like multiplat ones.
3.Lastly the PS3 gets owned on the multiplat front way more often than not but they call the devs lazy or say the graphics engine is not suited to the PS3.(for those types guys read point one and two over and over agian ok?):)
No sorry.So, in your opinion, the PS3 could release an exclusive game that looks better than any other game on the market...either 360 exclusive or multiplat...and that isn't proog of power? Only a lesser looking multiplat counts because the 360 version, which was the lead version, looks better than the PS3 version?
That makes zero sense. None. The console with the best looking game has the most power. You can't ignore entire games because they are exclusive.
ZIMdoom
No sorry.[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
So, in your opinion, the PS3 could release an exclusive game that looks better than any other game on the market...either 360 exclusive or multiplat...and that isn't proog of power? Only a lesser looking multiplat counts because the 360 version, which was the lead version, looks better than the PS3 version?
That makes zero sense. None. The console with the best looking game has the most power. You can't ignore entire games because they are exclusive.
vaderhater
I mean for the purposes of system wars debating. While one console may have more power on paper, unless people are able to see the benefits of that hardware in the form of actual games that outshine the competitors console, then specs are meaningless for determining the perceived power of a console.
Thats very false. The PS2 was the lead platform all most all the time, yet xbox games always looked better, ALWAYS.I didn't even read the post because your WHOLE theory is very flawed. No matter what generation, what system, whatever. The lead platform will, 99% of the time, look and performe better then the console that recieves the port.
Exclusives are the only true comparison because exclusives are built to take advantage of each systems unique capabilities.
xX-Incubus-Xx
The simple reason is that multiplat game are made for Xbox 360 first because of its inferior qualities THEN ported to PS3.yazter
Actually, it's cheaper to develop for the Xbox, it's easy to port to the PC, plus last i checked the 360 had more marketshare then the PS3, meaning games had higher sales potential.
Im no genius, but cheaper development + easy porting + higher potential sales = Winner.
Sony did this crap last gen too, and it paid off to an extent. multiplaform devs developed on the weaker, strange PS2 hardware first, then ported to the more powerful Gamecube and Xbox, thus holding back the GC and Xbox making the PS2 seem almost as powerful
[QUOTE="yazter"]The simple reason is that multiplat game are made for Xbox 360 first because of its inferior qualities THEN ported to PS3.-Snooze-
Actually, it's cheaper to develop for the Xbox, it's easy to port to the PC, plus last i checked the 360 had more marketshare then the PS3, meaning games had higher sales potential.
Im no genius, but cheaper development + easy porting + higher potential sales = Winner.
Sony did this crap last gen too, and it paid off to an extent. multiplaform devs developed on the weaker, strange PS2 hardware first, then ported to the more powerful Gamecube and Xbox, thus holding back the GC and Xbox making the PS2 seem almost as powerful
The same logic applies to Xbox 360. Almost all multiplat games are made for it then ported to PS3. The only time it was the other way around was for Final Fantasy XIII, that was made for PS3 then ported to 360, which resulted in: 1) Massive content cut 2) Still ending up on 3 DVD discs 3) Compressed content 4) Sub-HD visuals 5) Sold more on PS3 And even with three discs it was still bad quality, whereas the PS3 was 1) One disc 2) Uncompressed visuals and audio 3) Seamless play with no installation. Does this mean that one console is superior? No, it means that the game will be better on whatever console it was made for. The porting tends to be inferior. And since 360's specifications are easier and inferior to PS3's, they are made first for Xbox then ported to PS3. If anything, it only shows that PS3 is superior because if it were the other way around, it'd be completely awful. Apart from Bayonetta, most PS3 ports look almost identical in terms of quality.ok. So a compressed game going to ps3 is a good way to compare games?
Are we forgetting this is next gen? Why are we bringing xbox and ps2 in this.
They can be compressing the ps3 to a point where the lighting is changed which it really is most of the time when it comes to shadowing.
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"][QUOTE="yazter"]The simple reason is that multiplat game are made for Xbox 360 first because of its inferior qualities THEN ported to PS3.yazter
Actually, it's cheaper to develop for the Xbox, it's easy to port to the PC, plus last i checked the 360 had more marketshare then the PS3, meaning games had higher sales potential.
Im no genius, but cheaper development + easy porting + higher potential sales = Winner.
Sony did this crap last gen too, and it paid off to an extent. multiplaform devs developed on the weaker, strange PS2 hardware first, then ported to the more powerful Gamecube and Xbox, thus holding back the GC and Xbox making the PS2 seem almost as powerful
The same logic applies to Xbox 360. Almost all multiplat games are made for it then ported to PS3. The only time it was the other way around was for Final Fantasy XIII, that was made for PS3 then ported to 360, which resulted in: 1) Massive content cut 2) Still ending up on 3 DVD discs 3) Compressed content 4) Sub-HD visuals 5) Sold more on PS3 And even with three discs it was still bad quality, whereas the PS3 was 1) One disc 2) Uncompressed visuals and audio 3) Seamless play with no installation. Does this mean that one console is superior? No, it means that the game will be better on whatever console it was made for. The porting tends to be inferior. And since 360's specifications are easier and inferior to PS3's, they are made first for Xbox then ported to PS3. If anything, it only shows that PS3 is superior because if it were the other way around, it'd be completely awful. Apart from Bayonetta, most PS3 ports look almost identical in terms of quality.The difference is that even when ported, the games were, most of the time, superior to the PS2 versions.
This gen multiplats are weaker on the supposedly more powerful PS3 regardless. Even some games ported to the 360 work better on the 360.
FFXIII was a 6 month port, along the lines of Bayonetta, difference the xbox takes PS3 ports, and works with them. The only reason the 360 version was worse, was because of the media format, not cause the PS3 is more powerful, it simply uses a better media storage alternative, which im sure we can all agree is superior to DVD.
The Xbox can handle PS3 ports much better then the PS3 handles Xbox ports, so that debunks your last sentance.
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"][QUOTE="yazter"]The simple reason is that multiplat game are made for Xbox 360 first because of its inferior qualities THEN ported to PS3.yazter
Actually, it's cheaper to develop for the Xbox, it's easy to port to the PC, plus last i checked the 360 had more marketshare then the PS3, meaning games had higher sales potential.
Im no genius, but cheaper development + easy porting + higher potential sales = Winner.
Sony did this crap last gen too, and it paid off to an extent. multiplaform devs developed on the weaker, strange PS2 hardware first, then ported to the more powerful Gamecube and Xbox, thus holding back the GC and Xbox making the PS2 seem almost as powerful
The same logic applies to Xbox 360. Almost all multiplat games are made for it then ported to PS3. The only time it was the other way around was for Final Fantasy XIII, that was made for PS3 then ported to 360, which resulted in: 1) Massive content cut 2) Still ending up on 3 DVD discs 3) Compressed content 4) Sub-HD visuals 5) Sold more on PS3 And even with three discs it was still bad quality, whereas the PS3 was 1) One disc 2) Uncompressed visuals and audio 3) Seamless play with no installation. Does this mean that one console is superior? No, it means that the game will be better on whatever console it was made for. The porting tends to be inferior. And since 360's specifications are easier and inferior to PS3's, they are made first for Xbox then ported to PS3. If anything, it only shows that PS3 is superior because if it were the other way around, it'd be completely awful. Apart from Bayonetta, most PS3 ports look almost identical in terms of quality.Prove it was the only time......I know betterPlease Log In to post.
Log in to comment