so can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?

[QUOTE="mD-"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]but the 360 beats the PS3 in graphics...lighting...physics...my point is....its not just one thing.....i would say thats more than a little better. See, anybody can make claims without supporting evidence...no evidence means nothing more than opinion.

Supa__Mario

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="vaderhater"]Give a FN list to back up your BS of games that were made on the 360 as lead and then ported to the PS3 without using any SPU's. Explain why the SPU's were not used because I very much doubt that they are not used at all.

vaderhater

Lighting is part of graphics. Physics is conclusively more powerful on PS3. How does that have any bearing on my post?

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="mD-"] The only evidence I can think of is Uncharted 2 as an example. When I see an Xbox 360 title and pulls off some of the technical aspects that was in that demo, then I'll say OK. The xbox 360 can offer the same cinematic gameplay.mD-

After seeing that gameplay in HD, then you don't even need it to be released. You can see it all going on right infront of you. If I find a video of Gears of War 2 online and then go play it on my TV, it ends up looking similar enough (obviously better on my TV), but my point is that you know Uncharted 2 has going on

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]They all are lead on the 360 because its what dervs have been developing for years.djsifer01

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]They all are lead on the 360 because its what dervs have been developing for years.djsifer01

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="mD-"] The only evidence I can think of is Uncharted 2 as an example. When I see an Xbox 360 title and pulls off some of the technical aspects that was in that demo, then I'll say OK. The xbox 360 can offer the same cinematic gameplay.Steppy_76

I know I keep mentioning this game, but there's the Cell is the reason why all of the things in Uncharted 2 is even possible.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="vaderhater"]Well Burnout Paradice,FF13,DeadSpace,Mirrors edge,Skate2,Force Unleashed,Dark sector,DMC4..............PS3 as lead.

Steppy_76

After seeing the Uncharted 2 gameplay while watching the Sony conference...I can safely say, the PS3 is the most powerful console ever built, hands down.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="vaderhater"]Well Burnout Paradice,FF13,DeadSpace,Mirrors edge,Skate2,Force Unleashed,Dark sector,DMC4..............PS3 as lead.

vaderhater

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="mD-"] The only evidence I can think of is Uncharted 2 as an example. When I see an Xbox 360 title and pulls off some of the technical aspects that was in that demo, then I'll say OK. The xbox 360 can offer the same cinematic gameplay.mD-

After seeing that gameplay in HD, then you don't even need it to be released. You can see it all going on right infront of you. If I find a video of Gears of War 2 online and then go play it on my TV, it ends up looking similar enough (obviously better on my TV), but my point is that you know Uncharted 2 has going on

You seem to forget Alan wake, I can't wait for gameplays during the day, eurogamer depicted what goes into UC2, but they said there was this bad texture that was convered up with good artwork(I thought the texture was good). So, that again could be the great artist at nD. Alan wake is huge and really, I don't why people say,"ZOMG, everything that is going on in this game is amazing", but uncharted is very slow paced compared to GEOW 2/KZ2, anyway have you seen the 360 footage of LP2? Looks like KZ2 with out blur(not saying it's a bad thing) and better textures. Alan look just as good if not better than UC2, with its HUGE scale so it has already been done, give it a rest.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]First you have to quantify what effect the SPU's would have if they indeed are not taken advantage of. In every other gen, the more powerful system had the best versions of multiplatsalmost allof the time...yet in this gen supposedly the most powerful machine only gets the best version when the game is tailored for it.

Steppy_76

The reason the xbox ports aren't hampered as bad is because it's better at dealing with high level code. The ps3 you really have to write low level code to really leverage the hardware and take advantage of it. But it's more difficult to do that. The 360 is a more traditonal multi core design. You have 3 cores each running 2 threads and a beefed up graphics processor. The ps3 is actually running 9 threads, but it's graphics processor is not as powerful. So figure it out. SAying the 360 is no closer to pc architecture than the ps3 is not correct imo. Most of these high level developers that have been developing multicore code are more familiar with the 360 architecture. If you really leverage the hardware and get into the guts of it and write low level code you are going to be able to get more out of the ps3. Even though i agree there isn't a huge difference. I never said there was. But the ps3 is ultimately capable of doing more.

Everyone should just stop talking about upcoming games when they're comparing graphics on a system. A lot of the videos and pics we see, first of all, are running from PC's on max settings to trick us. Secondly, the graphics often have to be downscaled prior to release because of frame rate issues that occur during regular play through, even if a relatively constrained tech demo could handle them. Third, marketers are likely to display the most impressive portions of the game even where it's running in real time gameplay mode in the same form as it'll be released.

Also...Alan Wake doesn't even look like one of the most graphically impressive games on the 360...

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]Yeah well back in the day the system design was the same, not one with cell tech. and another a dumbed down PC. Its alot different this Gen with opposite architecture..Walker34

The reason the xbox ports aren't hampered as bad is because it's better at dealing with high level code. The ps3 you really have to write low level code to really leverage the hardware and take advantage of it. But it's more difficult to do that. The 360 is a more traditonal multi core design. You have 3 cores each running 2 threads and a beefed up graphics processor. The ps3 is actually running 9 threads, but it's graphics processor is not as powerful. So figure it out. SAying the 360 is no closer to pc architecture than the ps3 is not correct imo. Most of these high level developers that have been developing multicore code are more familiar with the 360 architecture. If you really leverage the hardware and get into the guts of it and write low level code you are going to be able to get more out of the ps3. Even though i agree there isn't a huge difference. I never said there was. But the ps3 is ultimately capable of doing more.

We won't have a fair comparison until Alan wake comes out.

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="sam890"]

I'm Just gonna say that PS3 is stronger then the Xbox 360 CPU-wise and the 360 is stronger on the GPU side

vaderhater

Sorry, but you guys would still be in a lose-lose situation if you choose that argument instead of the other one: you're just admiting that yours looks worse; and even that devs don't work hard enough on your platform's games to achieve the level of quality the competition is offering.

Actually while we're on the subject can someone explain to me why GPU's are better than CPU's at processing graphics? I mean, clearly GPU's can't be doing all the work except physics/gameplay. Why does a powerful processor bolster graphics?

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"] ...then why do ps3 exclusives look better......SambaLele

Sorry, but you guys would still be in a lose-lose situation if you choose that argument instead of the other one: you're just admiting that yours looks worse; and even that devs don't work hard enough on your platform's games to achieve the level of quality the competition is offering.

Well, the UE3 engine exist so????

Everyone should just stop talking about upcoming games when they're comparing graphics on a system. A lot of the videos and pics we see, first of all, are running from PC's on max settings to trick us. Secondly, the graphics often have to be downscaled prior to release because of frame rate issues that occur during regular play through, even if a relatively constrained tech demo could handle them. Third, marketers are likely to display the most impressive portions of the game even where it's running in real time gameplay mode in the same form as it'll be released.

Also...Alan Wake doesn't even look like one of the most graphically impressive games on the 360...

[QUOTE="mD-"]

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"] uncharted 2 isnt released yet.....thats why i didnt use it.....Camer999

After seeing that gameplay in HD, then you don't even need it to be released. You can see it all going on right infront of you. If I find a video of Gears of War 2 online and then go play it on my TV, it ends up looking similar enough (obviously better on my TV), but my point is that you know Uncharted 2 has going on

You seem to forget Alan wake, I can't wait for gameplays during the day, eurogamer depicted what goes into UC2, but they said there was this bad texture that was convered up with good artwork(I thought the texture was good). So, that again could be the great artist at nD. Alan wake is huge and really, I don't why people say,"ZOMG, everything that is going on in this game is amazing", but uncharted is very slow paced compared to GEOW 2/KZ2, anyway have you seen the 360 footage of LP2? Looks like KZ2 with out blur(not saying it's a bad thing) and better textures. Alan look just as good if not better than UC2, with its HUGE scale so it has already been done, give it a rest.

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]I know for sure DMC was and it shows because it looks better on the PS3.djsifer01

[QUOTE="OrwellJames"]

Everyone should just stop talking about upcoming games when they're comparing graphics on a system. A lot of the videos and pics we see, first of all, are running from PC's on max settings to trick us. Secondly, the graphics often have to be downscaled prior to release because of frame rate issues that occur during regular play through, even if a relatively constrained tech demo could handle them. Third, marketers are likely to display the most impressive portions of the game even where it's running in real time gameplay mode in the same form as it'll be released.

Also...Alan Wake doesn't even look like one of the most graphically impressive games on the 360...

Supa__Mario

You saw the darkest of the dark parts of the game that look excellent, but daytime will blow me away, also factor in scale it is much bigger than FC2.

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="OrwellJames"]

Everyone should just stop talking about upcoming games when they're comparing graphics on a system. A lot of the videos and pics we see, first of all, are running from PC's on max settings to trick us. Secondly, the graphics often have to be downscaled prior to release because of frame rate issues that occur during regular play through, even if a relatively constrained tech demo could handle them. Third, marketers are likely to display the most impressive portions of the game even where it's running in real time gameplay mode in the same form as it'll be released.

Also...Alan Wake doesn't even look like one of the most graphically impressive games on the 360...

Camer999

You saw the darkest of the dark parts of the game that look excellent, but daytime will blow me away, also factor in scale it is much bigger than FC2.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="mD-"]

After seeing that gameplay in HD, then you don't even need it to be released. You can see it all going on right infront of you. If I find a video of Gears of War 2 online and then go play it on my TV, it ends up looking similar enough (obviously better on my TV), but my point is that you know Uncharted 2 has going on

mD-

You seem to forget Alan wake, I can't wait for gameplays during the day, eurogamer depicted what goes into UC2, but they said there was this bad texture that was convered up with good artwork(I thought the texture was good). So, that again could be the great artist at nD. Alan wake is huge and really, I don't why people say,"ZOMG, everything that is going on in this game is amazing", but uncharted is very slow paced compared to GEOW 2/KZ2, anyway have you seen the 360 footage of LP2? Looks like KZ2 with out blur(not saying it's a bad thing) and better textures. Alan look just as good if not better than UC2, with its HUGE scale so it has already been done, give it a rest.

KZ2 physics and GEOW 2 are pretty on par, the A.I again not so different, so far I have to admit PS3>360 particle effects, and the seamless part DBZ:burst limit is the best at that, lol. Environment is included in graphics/textures and Farcry 2 outdoes all game on consoles in that respect.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Ok then suppose the same game same devs spent the same amount of time and money on a 360 version? How would it look?

Camer999

Sorry, but you guys would still be in a lose-lose situation if you choose that argument instead of the other one: you're just admiting that yours looks worse; and even that devs don't work hard enough on your platform's games to achieve the level of quality the competition is offering.

Well, the UE3 engine exist so????

So, which of the arguments are you're going to go by?

Your exclusives look worse because of a weaker hardware or lack of devs' effort and dedication?

I'm just pointing out that arguing that a certain game "only" looks better to any other one because of the time expended developing it is an argument full of flaws. There are many games launched with the same expend of time, with totally different results. Basically, 360 fanboys are now in the same situation that PS3 fanboys were in 2006-2007. They need a game to prove anything.

And why is that?

Simple: because no one here, in this forum, knows a thing about what they're talking about here.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"] i thought i was the only one who noticed that about alan wake.....thought i was missing something.....OrwellJames

You saw the darkest of the dark parts of the game that look excellent, but daytime will blow me away, also factor in scale it is much bigger than FC2.

[QUOTE="OrwellJames"][QUOTE="Camer999"]

You saw the darkest of the dark parts of the game that look excellent, but daytime will blow me away, also factor in scale it is much bigger than FC2.

Camer999

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

Sorry, but you guys would still be in a lose-lose situation if you choose that argument instead of the other one: you're just admiting that yours looks worse; and even that devs don't work hard enough on your platform's games to achieve the level of quality the competition is offering.

SambaLele

Well, the UE3 engine exist so????

So, which of the arguments are you're going to go by?

Your exclusives look worse because of a weaker hardware or lack of devs' effort and dedication?

I'm just pointing out that arguing that a certain game "only" looks better to any other one because of the time expended developing it is an argument full of flaws. There are many games launched with the same expend of time, with totally different results. Basically, 360 fanboys are now in the same situation that PS3 fanboys were in 2006-2007. They need a game to prove anything.

And why is that?

Simple: because no one here, in this forum, knows a thing about what they're talking about here.

Well, the one about lack of dedication, the devs really only need a decent looking game for the public and to me the best looking game out now, is multiplat (not RE5), the even if cows decide KZ2 looks better, let them, but it doesn't blow anything away if anything is is a VERY small step up.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="OrwellJames"] You sure you're looking at the 360 version? The trees do look nice though.OrwellJames

Well we only saw 5 minutes and it was a faster paces five minutes.

I'm saying that Uncharted 2 combines all of that and no other game does it that well, especially the cinematic to gameplay transition (including burst limit, mass effect, assassin creed 2, all games that have). Watch the demo video again and look how seamless the cinematics to gameplay are (it's done on the fly) and how they somtimes can even looks like are overlaping (the part at the end where the building collapses, he's still controlling the character and shooting people).

I'm saying that Uncharted 2 combines all of that and no other game does it that well, especially the cinematic to gameplay transition (including burst limit, mass effect, assassin creed 2, all games that have). Watch the demo video again and look how seamless the cinematics to gameplay are (it's done on the fly) and how they somtimes can even looks like are overlaping (the part at the end where the building collapses, he's still controlling the character and shooting people).

mD-

Can you give me a link please?

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/uncharted-2/videos/uncharted2_gmp_demo_60209.html

I would agree with you after playing Killzone 2, but then Microsoft had to show off Forza 3 and Alan Wake and now I can't agree with you.

ps3 games that are highly physics based cannot be done on the 360, unless the level of physics get toned down.

developers have stated this a few times.

dethroned3

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/uncharted-2/videos/uncharted2_trl_warzone_51509.html

here's another that shows what I'm talking about. When there action sequences, pay attention to everything that's happening as the person is controlling.

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/uncharted-2/videos/uncharted2_trl_warzone_51509.html

here's another that shows what I'm talking about. When there action sequences, pay attention to everything that's happening as the person is controlling.

Both systems are like low end PC's, I keep hearing about all this untapped potential, but guys give it a rest, we are talking 2005-2006 technology here, ever since the first Gears of War, xbox hasnt had anything that blows it out of the water, graphics will get a little better with little tricks, but the brute power of the console is probably used, now its alot about little tricks and hdr and better lighting, I am very dissapointed especially at Sony, releasing a year later after the 360, knowing that graphics move consoles these days, ram and gpu took a shortend of the stick, if your thinking 10 year lifespan a 1gb of memory is dirt cheap, gpu at the time should have been based on nvidia 8 series, which today is dirt cheap, and this is 2.5 years after the system. The benefits of putting a top notch GPU is system will stay modern for a lot longer, games will release quicker as devs dont need to mess around and squeeze every last drop out of the gpu, with a 1gb of memory you would have a crapload of games running at 1080p, it would be known that ps3 is a lot stronger than 360 and it would be a deciding factor for a lot of people, hopefully they learn their lesson with PS4 if there is one, if you gonna have a 10 yr lifespan atleast include the state of the art GPU for the year you will release the system.

Nothing on ps3 looks better than Alan Wake E3 demo (yes not even uncharted2 or KZ2) but of course if it was played on PC with 360 controller then its another story

Nothing on ps3 looks better than Alan Wake E3 demo (yes not even uncharted2 or KZ2) but of course if it was played on PC with 360 controller then its another story

Syferonik

it was definately the 360. look at the button popups. IT was the 360 version. Y

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/uncharted-2/videos/uncharted2_trl_warzone_51509.html

here's another that shows what I'm talking about. When there action sequences, pay attention to everything that's happening as the person is controlling.

mD-

I gotta admit, the cut-scenes are arguably the best but not really far better, like a said *possibly* a small step in front of the competition. I also really don't know what is so spectacular graphically either (this vid) looks like cod that's overcolorful, the E3 one looks good but not really mind blowing either, but everyone hypes their games too death on here.

[QUOTE="mD-"]

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/uncharted-2/videos/uncharted2_trl_warzone_51509.html

here's another that shows what I'm talking about. When there action sequences, pay attention to everything that's happening as the person is controlling.

Camer999

I gotta admit, the cut-scenes are arguably the best but not really far better, like a said *possibly* a small step in front of the competition. I also really don't know what is so spectacular graphically either (this vid) looks like cod that's overcolorful, the E3 one looks good but not really mind blowing either, but everyone hypes their games too death on here.

you still don't get it, lol. I'm not talking about the graphics! W/e it's ok. Just try to find someone like a friend who has a PS3 so you can play this game and experience the things I was trying to explain to you, lol.

Also, since you keep talking about graphics so much, IMHO I don't see games that have as good of textures/character models/animations as Uncharted 2. There is so much detail put into everything, it's just really great. IMO, Alan Wake needs to have daylight gameplay to actually see the environment texture better. From what I saw, Alan Wake is close when it comes character model, but Uncharted 2 wins there. With animations, it's also close, but Uncharted 2 wins there. With textures, it's probably pretty much the same (until I see daylight gameplay). I think that you don't like the artstyl of Uncharted 2 as much as Alan Wake.

Show me a PS3 games, upcoming or released, that looks better than Forza 3shadow8585

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[QUOTE="mD-"]

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"] uncharted 2 isnt released yet.....thats why i didnt use it.....Steppy_76

After seeing that gameplay in HD, then you don't even need it to be released. You can see it all going on right infront of you. If I find a video of Gears of War 2 online and then go play it on my TV, it ends up looking similar enough (obviously better on my TV), but my point is that you know Uncharted 2 has going on

First of all, the PS3 and XBox360's GPU's are virtually identical from an instrumental standpoint. The biggest difference is that the PS3 is it divides its RAM into GPU and CPU whereas the 360 shares one type of RAM between the two. I honestly have no idea what that means; I doubt it matters in the end.

What does matter is a 100% installment base for hard drives. Because some 360's don't have hard drives, games can't require installs. This is why you have more pop up in GTAIV and maybe the reason why MGS4 never came to the 360. I would've expected the PC fanboys in this thread to explain the virtues of having hard drive access (and it's more than just loading times).

But in the end, there's plenty of engines that look great on both. The graphics could NEVER provide a basis of decision between the two unless you're an idiot. If you're a graphics snob, get a good PC. If you could care less, get a Wii. If you want adequate graphics that are beautiful and immersive but relatively affordable, grab a 360 or a PS3. And base your decision on Blu Ray, or first party exclusives, or the upcoming motion controls (I'd hold your breath on those), or even the media-related options.

The biggest sell in terms of graphics is probably the first party exclusives, and since Microsoft is content to release expansion packs on engines that debuted a year after the 360 went on the market (ODST) or using Proprietary Engines they didn't even make themselves (Unreal Engine), you're probably going to see better graphics from Sony, and Sony's devs are probably the only reason why people think the PS3's graphics are so much better (even though they are, in fact, marginally better).

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

I can see what you mean but what boggles the mind (I am not being a fanboy in this instance I am just pointing something out). Why does the 360 run Red faction better (a little), I mean that is the most physics intense game out there, so this leads me to believe with the level of physics calculating does not seperate the 360 and PS3 performance wise, what will?

Think about this mathematically. A multi core processor when it comes to games is going to be strong when dealing with 2 larger entities. Take a tornado for example sucking up a couple cars. A quad core or tri core processor with a lot of bandwith and a beefed up graphics card is going to excel at that because of the way it's rendering. A processor with one central processor and 7 synergistic processing units which are basically dumbed down risc processors that cant hold a lot of information but can calculate certain things on the fly before they even pass it to the gpu are going to excel when you are dealing with smaller details like being able to incorporate sound processing, more dynamic lighting, physics on a smaller scale which add up. Ultimately i think we are going to see things go the way of cell and multicore processors because as we know the whole is ultimately greater than the sum of its parts. The better smaller things the better bigger things ultimately. Right now the cell and multicore processors are on the other side of the spectrum from one another.

Its easy, a game is developed for a specific system, the derv then has a port kit for the other systems. The game will look the best on the lead platform is was developed on which in most cases is the 360. That is why most multiplats look the best on the 360. djsifer01

First of all, the PS3 and XBox360's GPU's are virtually identical from an instrumental standpoint. The biggest difference is that the PS3 is it divides its RAM into GPU and CPU whereas the 360 shares one type of RAM between the two. I honestly have no idea what that means; I doubt it matters in the end.

What does matter is a 100% installment base for hard drives. Because some 360's don't have hard drives, games can't require installs. This is why you have more pop up in GTAIV and maybe the reason why MGS4 never came to the 360. I would've expected the PC fanboys in this thread to explain the virtues of having hard drive access (and it's more than just loading times).

But in the end, there's plenty of engines that look great on both. The graphics could NEVER provide a basis of decision between the two unless you're an idiot. If you're a graphics snob, get a good PC. If you could care less, get a Wii. If you want adequate graphics that are beautiful and immersive but relatively affordable, grab a 360 or a PS3. And base your decision on Blu Ray, or first party exclusives, or the upcoming motion controls (I'd hold your breath on those), or even the media-related options.

The biggest sell in terms of graphics is probably the first party exclusives, and since Microsoft is content to release expansion packs on engines that debuted a year after the 360 went on the market (ODST) or using Proprietary Engines they didn't even make themselves (Unreal Engine), you're probably going to see better graphics from Sony, and Sony's devs are probably the only reason why people think the PS3's graphics are so much better (even though they are, in fact, marginally better).