ps3 does not have superior hardware. i will use logic.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

Using logic, it would seem that you weigh every's developer's talent as the same. Reality is not so nice. Your logic has been refuked...

Yea because developers make games the same for all systems and the ps3 makes the game worse once you put it in. :roll:

eh, basically the same power, ps3's exclusive devs just know more tricks.

Using logic, it would seem that you weigh every's developer's talent as the same. Reality is not so nice. Your logic has been refuked...

OneLazyAsian

you have mispelled the word refuted. therefore your logic is questionable.

Most multiplats are made for the 360 and ported to the PS3 that's why most multiplats look worse on PS3.

You have define what you mean when you say thing like "superior" or "powerful", because on their own they're pretty vague.

The 360 was the lead platform for development for nearly 90% of those multi-platform games.

GOW 3 looks pretty good :)

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

Sense... this post makes none.

Unless you are a dev I don't really put much weight in your expert opinion. Also, superior is a horrid word to use. Its not really indicative of anything. Superior what exactly?

[QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]

Using logic, it would seem that you weigh every's developer's talent as the same. Reality is not so nice. Your logic has been refuked...

civic_misfit

you have mispelled the word refuted. therefore your logic is questionable.

You forgot to capitalize the first word at the beginning of both your sentences. Therefore your questioning of my logic is baseless.

Oh my :|

developer talent is not as important as you all think. last gen ubisoft montreal made better looking games on xbox than naughty dog did on ps2. does that mean that ubisoft montreal used to be more talented that naughty dog? but now naughty dog is more talented?

i am not saying that 360 is more powerful. i am saying that the more powerful console should have better looking multiplats and exclusives than the lesser console. since this is not the case this gen, and both cosoles have games that look good on either one, then no conclusion can be made. if you disagree with this then you are illogical.

Most multiplats are made for the 360 and ported to the PS3 that's why most multiplats look worse on PS3.

ChaltierX

developer talent is not as important as you all think. last gen ubisoft montreal made better looking games on xbox than naughty dog did on ps2. does that mean that ubisoft montreal used to be more talented that naughty dog? but now naughty dog is more talented?

i am not saying that 360 is more powerful. i am saying that the more powerful console should have better looking multiplats and exclusives than the lesser console. since this is not the case this gen, and both cosoles have games that look good on either one, then no conclusion can be made. if you disagree with this then you are illogical.

civic_misfit

You do realize the reason multiplats don't look better on one console is because of a dev. lead platformDiviniuz

You have all been trolled by the OP.KHAndAnime

You do realize the reason multiplats don't look better on one console is because of a dev. lead platformDiviniuz

Your logic doesn't sound too good.

My logic tells me only exclusives that are built from the ground up are the true representation of a particular system, add to that a good developer.

Look at the differences between multiplats that comes for PS3, 360 and PC, they don't look that much more good graphically and feature wise on the PC, does it mean PCs are having trouble to compete with consoles ( inferior hardware )? nope.

It just mean the games are not built for the PC, on the other hand, look at a game like Crysis and how untouchable it is.Look at PS3 exclusives compared to 360 exclusives.

Multi-console developers need to make almost the same experience for all systems to warrant the most sales on each system , you say Im wrong, I say look at the inferior multi-plats that came for PS3 and look at their sales data and compare them with polished PS3 multiplat game sales.

So in conclusion, I believe that PS3 is superior to the 360 hardware until they come up with something that will blow one of the graphical beasts on the PS3.

developer talent is not as important as you all think. last gen ubisoft montreal made better looking games on xbox than naughty dog did on ps2. does that mean that ubisoft montreal used to be more talented that naughty dog? but now naughty dog is more talented?

i am not saying that 360 is more powerful. i am saying that the more powerful console should have better looking multiplats and exclusives than the lesser console. since this is not the case this gen, and both cosoles have games that look good on either one, then no conclusion can be made. if you disagree with this then you are illogical.

civic_misfit

Look at the differences between multiplats that comes for PS3, 360 and PC, they don't look that much more good graphically and feature wise on the PC, does it mean PCs are having trouble to compete with consoles ( inferior hardware )? nope.

HAZE-Unit

this right here is where you're wrong. every multiplat looks better on pc than consoles. i'm not just talking about textures but resolution and anti-aliasing. PC can run twice the resolution as consoles. therefore even though a game like assassin's creed 2 is designed mainly for consoles, it will look better on pc due to higher resolution because the pc has more powerful hardware.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Look at the differences between multiplats that comes for PS3, 360 and PC, they don't look that much more good graphically and feature wise on the PC, does it mean PCs are having trouble to compete with consoles ( inferior hardware )? nope.

civic_misfit

this right here is where you're wrong. every multiplat looks better on pc than consoles. i'm not just talking about textures but resolution and anti-aliasing. PC can run twice the resolution as consoles. therefore even though a game like assassin's creed 2 is designed mainly for consoles, it will look better on pc due to higher resolution because the pc has more powerful hardware.

That is what I said, they don't look THAT much better like PC exclusives does.

If, for example, Assassins Creed 2 was built from the ground up for PCs, I can assure you that the whole game would be different and maybe even more better since PC technology can provide more processing and graphical power, maybe AC2 would be CG graphics wise.

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"]

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Look at the differences between multiplats that comes for PS3, 360 and PC, they don't look that much more good graphically and feature wise on the PC, does it mean PCs are having trouble to compete with consoles ( inferior hardware )? nope.

HAZE-Unit

this right here is where you're wrong. every multiplat looks better on pc than consoles. i'm not just talking about textures but resolution and anti-aliasing. PC can run twice the resolution as consoles. therefore even though a game like assassin's creed 2 is designed mainly for consoles, it will look better on pc due to higher resolution because the pc has more powerful hardware.

That is what I said, they don't look THAT much better like PC exclusives does.

If, for example, Assassins Creed 2 was built from the ground up for PCs, I can assure you that the whole game would be different and maybe even more better since PC technology can provide more processing and graphical power, maybe AC2 would be CG graphics wise.

the point is, multiplats will always look better on the more powerful console, even if they are not designed specifically for that console. that is whay i'm trying to prove.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"] [QUOTE="FIipMode"]That's cuz 90% of multiplats are ports.opex07

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]You do realize the reason multiplats don't look better on one console is because of a dev. lead platformopex07

so what? vice city was design for ps2 and ported to xbox. yet the xbox version looks better. as i said, "developer talent" and "lead platform" are not that important. civic_misfit

You have got to be kidding me. You could say the same thing about Perfect Dark. :lol:

By your logic. This:

Makes the PC the system with the least powerful hardware :P

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"]so what? vice city was design for ps2 and ported to xbox. yet the xbox version looks better. as i said, "developer talent" and "lead platform" are not that important. Rikusaki

You have got to be kidding me. You could say the same thing about Perfect Dark. :lol:

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"]

this right here is where you're wrong. every multiplat looks better on pc than consoles. i'm not just talking about textures but resolution and anti-aliasing. PC can run twice the resolution as consoles. therefore even though a game like assassin's creed 2 is designed mainly for consoles, it will look better on pc due to higher resolution because the pc has more powerful hardware.

civic_misfit

That is what I said, they don't look THAT much better like PC exclusives does.

If, for example, Assassins Creed 2 was built from the ground up for PCs, I can assure you that the whole game would be different and maybe even more better since PC technology can provide more processing and graphical power, maybe AC2 would be CG graphics wise.

the point is, multiplats will always look better on the more powerful console, even if they are not designed specifically for that console. that is whay i'm trying to prove.

do you really believe multi-console developers are willing to go the extra mile for the PS3 if they are having healthy sales between the two consoles?

if they show more graphical fidelity on the PS3, there are two possiblities.

• 360 version would take a hit on sales after showing a clear difference.
• people wouldn't care for that difference and still would get the 360 version of the game just like console gamers don't care about the PC difference and still buy their games on consoles.

So in the end, developers don't want to waste their resources, money and time for a gamble.Add to that the PS3 is lagging 6M units behind the 360 on the US so it's a lose lose situation for developers, sales of the PS3 games will mostly be behind the 360's.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"]so what? vice city was design for ps2 and ported to xbox. yet the xbox version looks better. as i said, "developer talent" and "lead platform" are not that important. civic_misfit

You have got to be kidding me. You could say the same thing about Perfect Dark. :lol:

That port of GTA was released a whole year after the PS2 version.

Obviously developers took more time to optimize it for the Xbox's hardware.

This is not the case with most multi-platform games.

If all multi-platform games were optimized for the hardware of both consoles, they would all be released years apart form one another.

The problem here is your logic is flawed. Most multiplats look better on the 360 becuase the games are specifically designed for said console and then ported over to the PS3. That's the case with any multiplat game, which ever console it's initially designed for, it'll look better on.

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

You have got to be kidding me. You could say the same thing about Perfect Dark. :lol:

Rikusaki

That port of GTA was released a whole year after the PS2 version.

Obviously developers took more time to optimize it for the Xbox's hardware.

This is not the case with most multi-platform games.

If all multi-platform games were optimized for the hardware of both consoles, they would all be released years apart form one another.

what on earth are you trying to say? rare could take the rest of eternity to release perfect dark on n64 with the same graphical quality as the 360 port and it will never look equal. i hope you this clears things up.

The problem here is your logic is flawed. Most multiplats look better on the 360 becuase the games are specifically designed for said console and then ported over to the PS3. That's the case with any multiplat game, which ever console it's initially designed for, it'll look better on.

Lionheart08

Logic?? In ma system warz???

_______________________________________________________________

On topic: I think it is clear that the hardware wise, the HD twins are...well..twins with extremely different architecture each with their own advantages and disavantages. What makes graphics shine on either platform have more to do with dev. talent (custom engines) and choice of lead platform (Bayonetta, FFXIII).

Seriously, hardware debates are so 2005-2006 :P (most)Cows have accepted that the PS3 is not worth it until 2008. Even Aku's sig would be worthless if the PS3 isn't 299.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"] huh? which part of that sentence is confusing you? tell me and i will try to explain.civic_misfit

That port of GTA was released a whole year after the PS2 version.

Obviously developers took more time to optimize it for the Xbox's hardware.

This is not the case with most multi-platform games.

If all multi-platform games were optimized for the hardware of both consoles, they would all be released years apart form one another.

what on earth are you trying to say? rare could take the rest of eternity to release perfect dark on n64 with the same graphical quality as the 360 port and it will never look equal. i hope you this clears things up.

• It was fully optimized for the Xbox 360's hardware.
• Then, it was ported to the PS3.
• Graphics are slightly downgraded on the PS3 version to maintain a decent framerate (some developers choose not to do this as much as others and the PS3 version will end up having crappy framerate).
• 360 version wins (duh).