Texture hungry games always better looking on 360. period.

360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.kazamadevil

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

CelineDion

I was thinking the reason Mass Effect is considered X360's graphical ceiling is because the X360 clearly isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

Using that Logic PC gaming is never going to get a game that has better graphics as Crysis since the highest PC isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

[QUOTE="CelineDion"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

PS3_3DO

I was thinking the reason Mass Effect is considered X360's graphical ceiling is because the X360 clearly isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

Using that Logic PC gaming is never going to get a game that has better graphics as Crysis since the highest PC isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.acekall

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

[QUOTE="PS3_3DO"][QUOTE="CelineDion"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

-HalleR-

I was thinking the reason Mass Effect is considered X360's graphical ceiling is because the X360 clearly isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

Using that Logic PC gaming is never going to get a game that has better graphics as Crysis since the highest PC isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

Hahahahaha, that's absolutely hysterical.

First of all, PS3-3DO, there are PCs on the market that can pimp Crysis at very high settings. They are just....you know, $3-5000 and have SLI or tri-SLI 8800s with a core 2 or quad extreme with 2 gigs of RAM.

Yes, they're extreme, but it's unbelievable ignorance to even suggest that AMD/Intel aren't going to push performance WELL beyond the current maximum in 1-3 years.

In fact, what's that law that states that processing power doubles every year or something to that effect? It's never been broken, to my knowledge. Consoles basically take a snapshot of acceptable performance at a given time and thereafter stagnate.

I'm not sure if you realize, but Crysis was designed with future PC hardware WELL in mind. I'm sure Crytek realized that their game pimps the living crap out of 8 series cards. Unless you're willing to play at high versus very high.....FYI, high settings Crysis bends consoles over.

your opinion =/= fact

period.

[QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.BobHipJames

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

[QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.BobHipJames

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.akuma303x

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

On PC, yes. On PS3....I played UT3 PS3 today, then I played Uncharted. As in I played them in the same day, one after the other.

UT3 has inferior textures to Uncharted Drake's Fortune. Deal with it. It's the objective truth.

That's true the development is part of it. But if you say that there are games like that than ps3's 50 gig limit is going will still have better graphics. If I am not wrong 50 is more than 8.5. Like seriously I heard that Halo 3 is only 3 hours of campaign which is total crap.The development sucks too I agree.kazamadevil

what? u make no sense, halo 3 is about 12 hours long on normal, and normal is like easy on other games. and yes 50 is a greater number then 8.5, but that doesn't mean graphics will be better. And no i if say that that doesn't mean 50 gigs means better graphics/textures, i said the complete opposite of that!

Okay with the ps3, 50 gig, or dual layer blu-ray disc would be horrible to use mainly because of loading from the 2nd layer, the dvd9 2nd layer is even pretty bad, thats one reason why ME's has such bad texturs loading. But say if a dev uses the full 25gig of a single layer for textures: bitmaping, normal mapping and etc, they still have to pull it off of the disc and store it somewhere, the ram isn't large enough on the 360 or ps3 to store a large number of textures, in the future we will see more textures being compressed into the ram for instant uses and dis-use. That 25 gigs tho, if it eld mainly graphics would have long loading times for the textures in the game worse then mass effects. It can take time to load things straight off the disc. Yes they can cache things on the hdd, but not 25 gigs, mabe 1 gig on the hdd, leaving 24 gigs to grab of the hdd hurting loading, game play, and everything else. You talking texture variation right? Cause you can't get better res textures beacuse of the storage medium. Remember the ram has to store the high res textures when they are in use ;) so you can't nesscarily depend on the storage format to do the work the ram does.

In the future, like i said before, we will see better performance from the systems, better optimizaion and amazing graphics, even better graphics then we have now. But no way does the storage effect that.

That's true the development is part of it. But if you say that there are games like that than ps3's 50 gig limit is going will still have better graphics. If I am not wrong 50 is more than 8.5. Like seriously I heard that Halo 3 is only 3 hours of campaign which is total crap.The development sucks too I agree.kazamadevil

u bought a ps3 because of the blu-ray huh? oh well its a good system be happy :P but if u want to lay points u have no idea about down...just don't post plz. I hope u didn't believe just becasue the ps3 had blu-ray it had better graphics...argh, it has good blu-ray movies tho :)

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.LibertySaint

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

They did that SPECIFICALLY to utilize the PS3's RAM for better performance? I want the links or the interviews. I want nothing other than verbatim confirmation of this.

Because to my understanding rendering polygons in processor intensive, not RAM intensive.....I would expect that the textures would be far more RAM intensive than anything else in the game. Frankly, the textures were lower resolution in the PS3 version of UT3, but both looked excellent and remarkably similar in most instances.

I'm not attempting to neglect or sidestep the truth, I just want to know, honestly, if that's the case. Most PS3 first party games are INCREDIBLY high-poly. GT5, Ratchet, Resistance, Warhawk....they're ridiculous actually. Moreso than I've seen in any game prior. That and MGS4.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.BobHipJames

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

In the case of Uncharted specifically, the developers said that they used the Blu Ray and HDD to simultaneously stream textures, level data....pretty much every damn thing. They attributed it as a reason that their game looks like it does and runs so damn well, no loading times, etc.

They said the streaming helped them apply "maximum efficient use" of RAM. I'm not sure why. They seemed to think it helped, but point made on storage capacity. I'm referring to streaming specifically.

They did that SPECIFICALLY to utilize the PS3's RAM for better performance? I want the links or the interviews. I want nothing other than verbatim confirmation of this.

Because to my understanding rendering polygons in processor intensive, not RAM intensive.....I would expect that the textures would be far more RAM intensive than anything else in the game. Frankly, the textures were lower resolution in the PS3 version of UT3, but both looked excellent and remarkably similar in most instances.

I'm not attempting to neglect or sidestep the truth, I just want to know, honestly, if that's the case. Most PS3 first party games are INCREDIBLY high-poly. GT5, Ratchet, Resistance, Warhawk....they're ridiculous actually. Moreso than I've seen in any game prior. That and MGS4.

yes, yes, i

ll find it, but don't hold your breathe, i'll prolly pm u it? k, anyways, i'm not talking cutting visible polys, i'm talking ones you don't see.

Edit: wait i found it quick like, i just googled ut 3 ram optimization lol!

here it is:

here, its a cool read, enjoy :D

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]UT3 PS3>Gears confirmed by Epic Uncharted>Gears affirmed by systemwars majority /endthreadBobHipJames

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

They did that SPECIFICALLY to utilize the PS3's RAM for better performance? I want the links or the interviews. I want nothing other than verbatim confirmation of this.

Because to my understanding rendering polygons in processor intensive, not RAM intensive.....I would expect that the textures would be far more RAM intensive than anything else in the game. Frankly, the textures were lower resolution in the PS3 version of UT3, but both looked excellent and remarkably similar in most instances.

I'm not attempting to neglect or sidestep the truth, I just want to know, honestly, if that's the case. Most PS3 first party games are INCREDIBLY high-poly. GT5, Ratchet, Resistance, Warhawk....they're ridiculous actually. Moreso than I've seen in any game prior. That and MGS4.

LibertySaint

yes, yes, i

ll find it, but don't hold your breathe, i'll prolly pm u it? k, anyways, i'm not talking cutting visible polys, i'm talking ones you don't see.

Edit: wait i found it quick like, i just googled ut 3 ram optimization lol!

here it is:

here, its a cool read, enjoy :D

Conceding that point, and thank you.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]UT3 PS3>Gears confirmed by Epic Uncharted>Gears affirmed by systemwars majority /endthreadHardpunkfan

lol i like your sig, your honest at least ;)

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

They did that SPECIFICALLY to utilize the PS3's RAM for better performance? I want the links or the interviews. I want nothing other than verbatim confirmation of this.

Because to my understanding rendering polygons in processor intensive, not RAM intensive.....I would expect that the textures would be far more RAM intensive than anything else in the game. Frankly, the textures were lower resolution in the PS3 version of UT3, but both looked excellent and remarkably similar in most instances.

I'm not attempting to neglect or sidestep the truth, I just want to know, honestly, if that's the case. Most PS3 first party games are INCREDIBLY high-poly. GT5, Ratchet, Resistance, Warhawk....they're ridiculous actually. Moreso than I've seen in any game prior. That and MGS4.

BobHipJames

yes, yes, i

ll find it, but don't hold your breathe, i'll prolly pm u it? k, anyways, i'm not talking cutting visible polys, i'm talking ones you don't see.

Edit: wait i found it quick like, i just googled ut 3 ram optimization lol!

here it is:

here, its a cool read, enjoy :D

Conceding that point, and thank you.

Np bro :)

This whole super power of the Ps3 myth was just smoke and mirrors by Sony so they could justified there inflated price. That allowed them to use their fan-base to finance their format war with HD-DVD period. I think we all no by now that the Ps3 is hardly more powerful then 360. Don't believe the hype.Nugtoka

The hype nowadays says that the PS3 is less capable than the Xbox 360 at rendering "texture hungry" games and that the PS3 always has inferior multiplats. It's also that the Xbox 360 has generally BETTER graphics than the PS3.

Personally, I'm willing to believe that the PS3 is greatly superior to the 360 after playing RTOD. That game had moments that shocked me into the belief.

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

Shad0ki11

[QUOTE="stika"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

Rikusaki

why do you say mass effect is the 360´s limit?

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

DrinkDuff

[QUOTE="stika"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

Rikusaki

why do you say mass effect is the 360´s limit?

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

Mass Effect is the best looking game that has came out on the 360 since Gears of War.

Gears of War came out in 2006 and was considered the Xbox360's graphical benchmark.

Mass Effect came out late last year and blew Gears out of the water.

Mass Effect is the Xbox360's current limit.

-_-+

Alan Wake is going to destroy Uncharted in textures. All you 360 haters get ready to be Pwnt. :D

by limit u mean like bar, like u know game either raises it (mass effect) or lowers it (halo), ppl just have diffrent meanings for the word limit. Just tho by the way u said you it u made limit seem like the end of something, the max. When u said " We still have to see the Ps3s' graphics Pushed to the limit" So if u mean by limit is the bar, u mean then the ps3 doesn't have a good looking game...cause that makes like...confusing sense.LibertySaint

By limit, I mean benchmark.

We haven't seen a game on the Playstation 3 that stands out like Mass Effect does on the 360.

The game Uncharted has incredible graphics and it's undoubtedly one of the best-looking games out right now, but it almost seems like a checkpoint for the PS3 rather than a benchmark.

We've already seen this with the Xbox360 with Gears and Mass Effect, so we shouldn't really expect a graphical benchmark to be reached any time soon.

Think of Uncharted as the PS3's Gears of War in terms of graphics. We're bound to see something even more phenomenal than Uncharted on the PS3 probably later this year.

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.acekall

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.acekall

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

The reason PC games can fit on one dvd is because data can be compressed alot more than a console game, you don't run a pc game off the disk so the cpu doesn't need to un-compress the data as needed, but on a console the game does run of the disk so if the data is going to be highly compressed the processor is going to need to do alot of work, having a huge impact on performance.

Alan Wake is going to destroy Uncharted in textures. All you 360 haters get ready to be Pwnt. :D

PS3_3DO

By that time PS3 would have had something else

GT5, FFXIII.

Look at the time. Uncharted is a 1 gen game, Looks better than 2 Gen Xbox games. Keep in mind most devs just came to grips with the PS3 can start to Do. Just read those announcements for RFOM 2.

Alan Wake is going to destroy Uncharted in textures. All you 360 haters get ready to be Pwnt. :D

PS3_3DO

UT3 begs to differ.

there are other great looking titles for the PS3 (i prefer Uncharted's gfx over UT3 for example), but texture-wise, UT3 is just superior to any console game out there.

You'll be right if that game ends up looking better on 360.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

Shad0ki11

[QUOTE="stika"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Sure, but we already know what the 360's graphical limit is as of now, which is Mass effect. We still have to see the Playstation 3's graphics pushed to the limit.

-_-;;

Rikusaki

why do you say mass effect is the 360´s limit?

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

Mass Effect is the best looking game that has came out on the 360 since Gears of War.

Gears of War came out in 2006 and was considered the Xbox360's graphical benchmark.

Mass Effect came out late last year and blew Gears out of the water.

Mass Effect is the Xbox360's current limit.

-_-+

[QUOTE="acekall"]

[QUOTE="kazamadevil"]360 has a limit of dual layer dvd 8.5 gig.ps3 can have games up to 50 gig. That is why textures look better on the ps3 than the 360.Uncharted had better texture than any game I've seen on the 360. 360 has still impressive graphics through.michael098

young padawan, you must learn that disc space and textures do not directly co-relate to each other. To some extent yes, more space=more place for high-res textures. But PC games look best and rarely go over 1 dual layer dvd in size(including installation).

Whats important for high resolution textures is videomemory and RAM, thats more important than physical capacity aka blu-ray, dvd or HDD.

The reason PC games can fit on one dvd is because data can be compressed alot more than a console game, you don't run a pc game off the disk so the cpu doesn't need to un-compress the data as needed, but on a console the game does run of the disk so if the data is going to be highly compressed the processor is going to need to do alot of work, having a huge impact on performance.

Yes, its the known limit so far, but it isn't the limit of the 360's graphical power. We don't know what it is, until the graphics stop improving.
DrinkDuff

Graphics will never stop improving.

I'm just going to substitute "limit" with "benchmark" instead. How's this? :

"As of now, Mass Effect is the Xbox360's benchmark."

Better?

Huh? I'm playing crysis right now, and the textures are the same as every other game in the last 10 years. There is a tree texture, and a box texture, etc. The shaders/Parralax Mapping/bump mapping/physics/particle effects/lighting are much better then some games (I don't think shaders are the best part of the engine, because compared to Uncharted the rocks look worse, and yes hermits, on my 3 GB memory, and 512 GT I could play this game on high). I also think that one game has not even came close on the consoles to Uncharted/R&C TOD graphically. Those two games, in terms of techicality it is unmatched by any other game (except possibly bioshock, or gears of war).

I wish gamers would know what textures are. MOst overused, and used wrong, word of all time.

As a general rule of thumb, if you need to put a "Period." at the end of your statement, it's a pretty flimsy argument.

The graphics of one machine aren't any better than the other. Some games look better than others, it's on the developer to deliver. COD4 looks much better on my setup on PS3 than it does on my buddies 360 setup, but maybe that's because of his TV... viewing distance... etc. If you're looking for minute, insignificant details upon which to base your decisions, you need to chill out.

They're just games dude.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Yes, its the known limit so far, but it isn't the limit of the 360's graphical power. We don't know what it is, until the graphics stop improving.
Shad0ki11

Graphics will never stop improving.

I'm just going to substitute "limit" with "benchmark" instead. How's this? :

"As of now, Mass Effect is the Xbox360's benchmark."

Better?

:) hehe yes'ms

As a general rule of thumb, if you need to put a "Period." at the end of your statement, it's a pretty flimsy argument.

The graphics of one machine aren't any better than the other. Some games look better than others, it's on the developer to deliver. COD4 looks much better on my setup on PS3 than it does on my buddies 360 setup, but maybe that's because of his TV... viewing distance... etc. If you're looking for minute, insignificant details upon which to base your decisions, you need to chill out.

They're just games dude.

excelR83

yep, that sooo right, but they are fun argue about on SW, just because of the techincals :) which i want to learn about, thats why i come here, i have learned alot from forums :D but yeah when it comes to the actual games, i don't care i just buy one.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

CelineDion

I was thinking the reason Mass Effect is considered X360's graphical ceiling is because the X360 clearly isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Yes, its the known limit so far, but it isn't the limit of the 360's graphical power. We don't know what it is, until the graphics stop improving.
LibertySaint

Graphics will never stop improving.

I'm just going to substitute "limit" with "benchmark" instead. How's this? :

"As of now, Mass Effect is the Xbox360's benchmark."

Better?

:) hehe yes'ms

:x

Wtf? Was that a "yes'm"?! I'm a guy fyi

Everyone knows that there are no girls internet anyway. That's Rule of the Internet #16

:P

Don't do it again.

[QUOTE="CelineDion"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Maybe because we haven't seen anything look better then Mass Effect on the 360. The PS3 continues to improve its graphics with newer games while the 360 stays pretty much the same. Thats why some multiplats are starting to look better on the PS3. And it will only get better.

-wii60-

I was thinking the reason Mass Effect is considered X360's graphical ceiling is because the X360 clearly isn't powerful enough to run the engine successfully.

:|

If u want good looking games that run on the ue3 engine not from epic look at Rainbow six vegas 1 and soon to be 2 and brothers in arms hells high way. mass effect only had that loading texture problem which was really due to the dual layers, they put lots of the textures on the 2nd layer making it slower to load....but yes also the engine optimzation... :/

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Yes, its the known limit so far, but it isn't the limit of the 360's graphical power. We don't know what it is, until the graphics stop improving.
Shad0ki11

Graphics will never stop improving.

I'm just going to substitute "limit" with "benchmark" instead. How's this? :

"As of now, Mass Effect is the Xbox360's benchmark."

Better?

:) hehe yes'ms

:x

Wtf? Was that a "yes'm"?! You're talking to a guy.

Everyone knows that there are no girls internet anyway. That's Rule of the Internet #16

:P

Don't do it again.

lol, oh well, saying yes'm just means i understand and you made ur self clear :P lol yeah that number 16 rule was true in the 90s' but now they are every where on the net and sometimes they get on the games and gamesites, i know there are few here at gamespot :P

btw i'll do it again!!! lol just cause i could barely read that...blended itz with the backgroundz....

personally i cant tell the diference between the 360 and the PS3, so my question is not which is better than wich, its simply why should we care? i mean can any of you tell the diference of a multiplatform game when your playing it both consoles? i sure cantstika

I think that's the whole point about this generation of gaming. People stare more at the textures and not really pay attention to the story and content.

all i know is that the 360 is way easier to make games to. but nonetheless, some first-gen PS3 games are equal to, if not superior (arguably), graphically to the best, most beautiful 360 games.

and it seems devs are getting used to the PS3, so i don't think there'll be any doubts after 2008.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Yes, its the known limit so far, but it isn't the limit of the 360's graphical power. We don't know what it is, until the graphics stop improving.
Shad0ki11

Graphics will never stop improving.

I'm just going to substitute "limit" with "benchmark" instead. How's this? :

"As of now, Mass Effect is the Xbox360's benchmark."

Better?