Serious question about PS3 exclusives and the potential power of the Xbox 360

So with the recent release of Red Dead Redemption gamers once again see why it is better to buy the 360 version of a multiplatform title. Sure you can still enjoy the PS3 version but when you put it next to the 360 version one cannot help but get annoyed with Sony and the so-called power of the cell in the PS3. Yes I guess you can put part of the blame on the developer but IMO most of the blame has to go to Sony. Sony created an asymmetrical machine that seemingly tends to "choke" the power of the PS3. Having a lot of power means nothing if the anatomy of the machine is created in such a way that the power is seldomly brought out in the games being released.

Yes Naughty Dog has shown that given time and support that they can fight off the relentless "choke hold" in the system and harness a decent amoumt of power from the system and show off some of its graphical capabilities (Even though I was not as floored as other people with UC2's graphics).

So people see a game like UC2 and then the blurry mess that is RDR on PS3 and then scratch their head. Of course the easy thing to do is blame Rockstar but they like other developers are here to make money and time is money. So then you hear comments like, "Well if PS3 was the lead platform it would look better." Or "Look at the PS3 exclusives the 360 couldn't handle those games." Which brings me to my question is that statement really true?

People keep talking about the power of the PS3. Well heck...what about the power of the 360? The 360 is also powerful AND it's easier to develop for.

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

....and don't tell me Crytek sucks because they are a respected developer in the PC community supposedly working hard to harness the power of both systems yet the 360 is getting the attention even if the difference is a hair. I've always wondered what Naughty Dog or Guerilla games could do on the 360....and even though their games look good on the PS3 I still notice a couple of graphical flaws that I wonder if they would exist if the game was developed on the 360.

....and please don't tell me well they already said their games were only possible on the PS3. Lol of course they're gonna say that for obvious reasons. Anyway I know it would never happen but I would really like to see what those devs could do with the 360.

Crysis 2 isn't out yet, so no comment on any games not out yet from me.

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

Its all about the developer

I am getting RDR on PS3, I choose the PS3 version over the Xbox 360 version so i can play it with my PS3 only owning friends. And i knew about all the differences between the 2 versions. You know why i dont care about the differences? because they are so small they are totally unimportant.

P.S. Too lazy to read wall of text, its late. answered your first sentance because i can.

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

siddhu33

[QUOTE="siddhu33"]

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

dah_master

There is a compromise, with utilizing full power, and budget issues. A business is a business, and if utilising full power means a 5-year development time and $60 million budgets, then it is not worth it at all.

Have you noticed that all the best Graphical games on the PS3 are all either Sony First, or second party? None of the third-party devs want to bother with that, and as 360 does not have as much First-Party Support (because MS feels that they don't need it), there is no proof that they can't.

Also, how is the 360 a waste? I have used it from 2006, and it is a great gaming machine, with the games that I want to play.

hmm... how aboutgames like DA:O where the ps3 is superior... I agree that the xbox is easier to develop games for but the TC said that dexs are not responsible for the crappy porting so DA:O cannot be handled fully in the xbox?

[QUOTE="siddhu33"]

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

dah_master

I am getting RDR on PS3, I choose the PS3 version over the Xbox 360 version so i can play it with my PS3 only owning friends. And i knew about all the differences between the 2 versions. You know why i dont care about the differences? because they are so small they are totally unimportant.

P.S. Too lazy to read wall of text, its late. answered your first sentance because i can.

zarshack

A huge blur andhuge loss of detailis unimportant ? Maybe to you, not to me, the difference is night and day from pics i have seen

hmm... how aboutgames like DA:O where the ps3 is superior... I agree that the xbox is easier to develop games for but the TC said that dexs are not responsible for the crappy porting so DA:O cannot be handled fully in the xbox?

dah_master

Not really.

In DA:O's case, the PS3 game looks better, while the 360 game runs better. As DA:O is a game where visuals are more important than framerate, then the PS3 was deemed superior. Doesn't mean that is actually is. A reviewer that thought DA:O's framerate was more important than graphics would have given the 360 a higher score.

Yep, 360 and PS3 are equally powerfull but 360 has the advantage of being easier to develop for. That said, 360 could obviously run KZ2 or U2 with the same quality if they were made from the ground for it.

[QUOTE="zarshack"]

I am getting RDR on PS3, I choose the PS3 version over the Xbox 360 version so i can play it with my PS3 only owning friends. And i knew about all the differences between the 2 versions. You know why i dont care about the differences? because they are so small they are totally unimportant.

P.S. Too lazy to read wall of text, its late. answered your first sentance because i can.

theseekar

A huge blur andhuge loss of detailis unimportant ? Maybe to you, not to me, the difference is night and day from pics i have seen

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

siddhu33

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

T-razor1

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="zarshack"]

I am getting RDR on PS3, I choose the PS3 version over the Xbox 360 version so i can play it with my PS3 only owning friends. And i knew about all the differences between the 2 versions. You know why i dont care about the differences? because they are so small they are totally unimportant.

P.S. Too lazy to read wall of text, its late. answered your first sentance because i can.

zarshack

A huge blur andhuge loss of detailis unimportant ? Maybe to you, not to me, the difference is night and day from pics i have seen

Well, given i hate RDR art and like Fable one, i will of course not agree

[QUOTE="siddhu33"]

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

Mestitia

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

[QUOTE="zarshack"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

A huge blur andhuge loss of detailis unimportant ? Maybe to you, not to me, the difference is night and day from pics i have seen

theseekar

Well, given i hate RDR art and like Fable one, i will of course not agree

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

Mestitia

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

Mestitia

i remember that, i wonder what is the game they're talking about. IS it AW or Reach? cant say about reach but KZ2 still tops any 360 game to date graphically imo. and arguably any PS3 game too.

Eh, once Cliffy completes the Face Melting Gears 3 and it hits the street, all this other stuff becomes moot. :P

This is funny . Especially people who are not impressed with Uncharted 2's graphics . The 360 is easier to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful . The 360 has a better GPU, but the cell can do GPU-related tasks . Yes, it's difficult to understand and to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful, period . And I believe the 360 has a game build from the ground up, being 6 years in developpement, Alan Wake . It couldn't do what everyone said, namely prove that the 360 has the same power then the PS3 . But I'll make my final judgement when Crysis 2 is released .

This is funny . Especially people who are not impressed with Uncharted 2's graphics . The 360 is easier to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful . The 360 has a better GPU, but the cell can do GPU-related tasks . Yes, it's difficult to understand and to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful, period . And I believe the 360 has a game build from the ground up, being 6 years in developpement, Alan Wake . It couldn't do what everyone said, namely prove that the 360 has the same power then the PS3 . But I'll make my final judgement when Crysis 2 is released .

zekere

Well, Uncharted 2 does not have the dynamic world, volumetric dynamic lighting, physics, weather effects, foliage and forests and vast open scale levels of Alan Wake

So, why on earth would i ever be impressed by it ? I dont even like the art to give it a pass from that, while Alan Wake art/atmosphere is one of the best in the gaming industry

Uncharted 2 levels are so empty, small, linear and static that i can barely put it in my top20 visually, from a technical standpoint, if that

See, there is absolutly nothing impressive in Uncharted 2 visuals and tiny empty of any foliage world

360 is obviously far more powerfull, period, imo

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

ryetech

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

PAL360

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

PAL360

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

Link? Proof? I have yet to see a game on consoles that is technically better than KZ2. Unless you're referring to it being open-world, which...isn't really impressive.

[QUOTE="zekere"]

This is funny . Especially people who are not impressed with Uncharted 2's graphics . The 360 is easier to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful . The 360 has a better GPU, but the cell can do GPU-related tasks . Yes, it's difficult to understand and to program for, but the PS3 is more powerful, period . And I believe the 360 has a game build from the ground up, being 6 years in developpement, Alan Wake . It couldn't do what everyone said, namely prove that the 360 has the same power then the PS3 . But I'll make my final judgement when Crysis 2 is released .

theseekar

Well, Uncharted 2 does not have the dynamic world, volumetric dynamic lighting, physics, weather effects, foliage and forests and vast open scale levels of Alan Wake

So, why on earth would i ever be impressed by it ? I dont even like the art to give it a pass from that, while Alan Wake art/atmosphere is one of the best in the gaming industry

Uncharted 2 levels are so empty, small, linear and static that i can barely put it in my top20 visually, from a technical standpoint, if that

See, there is absolutly nothing impressive in Uncharted 2 visuals and tiny empty of any foliage world

360 is obviously far more powerfull, period, imo

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

Mestitia

Err.....i didnt say that. You will never see a graphics king with the scale of RDR.

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

ryetech

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs...

What are you talking about? No one is taking a dump on anyone. I simply asked a question and posed a theory regarding the PS3 devs because PS3 zealots have hyped their games as the second coming. So naturally I was curious as to what PS3 devs could do on the 360. How does my curiosity about what PS3 devs could do on the 360 equal me taking a dump on 360 devs?

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

T-razor1

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs...

What are you talking about? No one is taking a dump on anyone. I simply asked a question and posed a theory regarding the PS3 devs because PS3 zealots have hyped their games as the second coming. So naturally I was curious as to what PS3 devs could do on the 360. How does my curiosity about what PS3 devs could do on the 360 equal me taking a dump on 360 devs?

And when should any sane person listen to those people?

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

BigBoss154

Link? Proof? I have yet to see a game on consoles that is technically better than KZ2. Unless you're referring to it being open-world, which...isn't really impressive.

Dude, i played those PS3 games many times and they look amazing and probably better than RDR. Still visuals are only one part of graphics. What i find impressive is how Red Dead mixes great visuals and an imense scale.

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

ryetech

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

T-razor1

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs...

What are you talking about? No one is taking a dump on anyone. I simply asked a question and posed a theory regarding the PS3 devs because PS3 zealots have hyped their games as the second coming. So naturally I was curious as to what PS3 devs could do on the 360. How does my curiosity about what PS3 devs could do on the 360 equal me taking a dump on 360 devs?

PS3 zealots are hyping the games? Not just them...everyone is. As of right now there is no game that looks better than uncharted 2 and gow3 technically. Alan wake comes close, but that game has been in development longer than uncharted 2 and still doesn't beat it...

You specifically point out developers that have created games on the ps3 that have been priased for their graphics being better than anything on the 360 by fans and the press.

So maybe I jumped the gun a little. You didn't downplay 360 devs and I see more clearly the point you were trying to make....but there are devs that are developing games that are just as good as the devs developing ps3 games, but yet the ps3 games look better. They might not impress you personally, but they impress everyone else.

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

Mestitia

you take system wars WAY too seriously

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

So my question is this...

Given the same development time don't you think that Naughty Dog, Kojima/Konami, Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, Zipper etc.. could release a similar graphical quality that would at least be on par or dare I say slightly better because of the ease of development in the 360. Again think about it. The 360 is easier to develop for AND it's still freakin' powerful. My answer is yes that those games on the 360 would at least be on par. I mean look at Crysis 2. That game is already dropping jaws for the 360 version of the game. Yes the PS3 version is said to look nice too but all the talk has been about the 360 version.

PAL360

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuating framerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

*edit* I take back the part with the story. The pacing sucks once you get to mexico. So far though Uncharted 2 beats it in graphics.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

Wow, what a way to take a dump on all the devs that are currently working on 360 games. You prett much just said that ps3 devs are better than 360 devs....

The simple answer is no. There are developers that develop games for the 360 right now that are as talented and have had the same dev time as their ps3 counterparts. Look at it like this. The 360 would be the Dreamcast of this gen and the PS3 would be the PS2. The 360 is "easier" to dev for as you put it, so you will hit the ceiling of graphical fidelity quicker than you would with the PS3. On a multi-plat game, more often than not the 360 version will look better than the ps3 version beacause of it's ease to dev for. With time though, PS3 games will look more and more better than 360 exclusive games. The game itself might suck, or be buggy, or have a bad story, but the technical graphics (not art direction) will be more impressive than what is released on the 360.

So again...no. If those devs developed games for the 360, it will not look better than it's PS3 Counterpart.

ryetech

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuatingframerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

Maybe he means the 360 version

[QUOTE="Mestitia"]

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

ohthemanatee

you take system wars WAY too seriously

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]You do realise that Red Dead Redemption is technically more impressive than any PS3 exclusive, right?

theseekar

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuatingframerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

Maybe he means the 360 version

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]You do realise that Red Dead Redemption is technically more impressive than any PS3 exclusive, right?

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuatingframerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

Maybe he means the 360 version

[QUOTE="siddhu33"]

If 360 devs make a game that was built up from the ground up for 360, utilising all its extra tricks and features. utilisation of all three cores, VMX128, EDRAM, Tesselation API, for example, then of course. Only thing is, is that MS do not need to do that, as they are above sony, and did not make any promises. Sony did, so if they didn't have those three PS3 exclusives, then they would probably lose credibility, even more than they have already done.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Mestitia"]

"We congratulate Sony and Guerrilla 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 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far.

Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

LOL Was Gears 2 supposed to be that graphical beast? Were still waiting Microsoft, you better live up to your promises :lol:

Mestitia

you take system wars WAY too seriously

if not bothering to search for a link of something some PR guy claimed 2 years ago so I can laugh at what said PR guy said is taking SW too seriously then you are right, I do take it too seriously

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuatingframerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

savagetwinkie

Maybe he means the 360 version

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="ryetech"]

Really? In what way? In it's sub HD resolution? Init's flucuatingframerate? Screen tearing?

Seriously. It does have great scale, the story is really well done and the wilderness Ai and animations are really cool....but you can't call it technically impressive when it has flaws that ps3 exclusives do not.

savagetwinkie

Maybe he means the 360 version

Those flaws are not based on polish like the bugs that RDR suffers from. Those flaws are based on how good the engine is. Uncharted 2 for example suffers from none of this. No matter what's happing on screen it never drops below 30 FPS. Even in multiplayer the frame rate is LOCKED no matter what's going on. From a graphical stanpoint, uncharted 2 doesn't have any flaws....Lighting, physics, resolution, framerate, and animation. They all compliment each other. There is no "weakness" when it comes to that game from a technical standpoint. Yes, there are games that may have something better in a specific category, like RDR with it's amazing animations, or Alan wake with it's great lighting, but there isn't a game out right now that beats it in all categories.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="theseekar"]

Maybe he means the 360 version

ryetech

Those flaws are not based on polish like the bugs that RDR suffers from. Those flaws are based on how good the engine is. Uncharted 2 for example suffers from none of this. No matter what's happing on screen it never drops below 30 FPS. Even in multiplayer the frame rate is LOCKED no matter what's going on. From a graphical stanpoint, uncharted 2 doesn't have any flaws....Lighting, physics, resolution, framerate, and animation. They all compliment each other. There is no "weakness" when it comes to that game from a technical standpoint. Yes, there are games that may have something better in a specific category, like RDR with it's amazing animations, or Alan wake with it's great lighting, but there isn't a game out right now that beats it in all categories.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="theseekar"]

Maybe he means the 360 version

delta3074

Of course, I agree. I love sandbox games....but I'm talking about technical graphics. It doesn't look better.... and there's no way that we can compare if the engine in x game is doing more than y game.

The question about this consoles is not which is more powerful,but which is less weak.Its all about developers,budget,talent and engine.All which ps3 side is in HUGE plus.

They have equal memory and bandwith(apart from HUGE Edram bw on 360).360 gpu is far more sophisticated and ps3 cell is there to push where RSX fails.The things like post processing,particle effects and triangle culling are done on spus so they can make it easier on RSX,but on 360 you can do it on gpu in postprocessing phase very fast and efficient.Its all about using the "right" strengths of each consoles.

Epic Games are only devs equally good as those 3 from Sony but they develop on UE3 engine fast as possible with not much of a budget.That seems to change with Gears 3.I think that no one has ever really pushed 360 cus but im thinking that will happen with RAGE,Crysis 2 and Gears 3.Results will be very similar like ps3 tops.