The true diffrence between the Power of the Consoles regarding graphics...

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

mayceV

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

playharderfool

My thought is that the narrow focus on graphics is such an old way of thinking in terms of videogames. So how's the graphical fidelity of Killzone treating it? Still selling like hotcakes? Don't think so.

And how's Halo 3 holding up? Still one of THE top 360 games. I don't thik graphics is as big a factor as many would think.

And Reach (probably) > anything else What's your point?

And honestly, we all know PGR4 looks better than Forza 3 and GT5. Seriously now.

AssassinFonce

Wow this is amazing. I cant believe you've seen Halo reach already. Or is it that your saying its MAYBE* going to be better than anything else. What your point?

the thread creators point is simple, hes saying that if you compare two exlusives from the ps3 and 360, the ps3 is more powerful in the sense that it can generate higher quality graphics, as well as handle more action on screen (more stuff, ex cars, players).
TO THE TC: add mag up there, i doubt theres any thing close coming to the 360 soon.

I agree that its true the ps3 is more powerful.

@gamecubepad

oh I see, but I'd prefer to hear other than Forza's devs speaking about the number of polygons because every dev would like to boast so much about their game, that's why I don't believe anything devs say unless I see and confirm it. Other than that, thanks for the info.

Let me throw this into the mix:

A study shows that graphics, even story telling are secondary to pricing and social features.

What puts the 360 ahead is that it builds social connectivity into its games since its in the DNA of the whole platform. In this respect MS has really broken with conventional console thinking by building "power", not so much in its hardware, but in the software infrastructure that affects ALL its games.

VoodooHak

Ok great, i think you're missing the point. THIS thread isnt about whats "ahead" and for what reasons it is. IT IS JUST A comparison between the two consoles where were discussing ONLY about the physics (and amount of stuff that can be handled on screen.) . Please everyone think about what you post, were only arguing about what the TC topic is.

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="playharderfool"]

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

playharderfool

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

[QUOTE="AssassinFonce"]

And Reach (probably) > anything else What's your point?

And honestly, we all know PGR4 looks better than Forza 3 and GT5. Seriously now.

Ribnarak

Wow this is amazing. I cant believe you've seen Halo reach already. Or is it that your saying its MAYBE* going to be better than anything else. What your point?

the thread creators point is simple, hes saying that if you compare two exlusives from the ps3 and 360, the ps3 is more powerful in the sense that it can generate higher quality graphics, as well as handle more action on screen (more stuff, ex cars, players).
TO THE TC: add mag up there, i doubt theres any thing close coming to the 360 soon.

I agree that its true the ps3 is more powerful.

There isn't anything comparitable that's why I didn't add it, I'm not trying to be a fanboy about it just giving my perspective on the matter. I tried to use games that were simular on each console...if Crackdown 2 was out I would have used that against infamous to see how it compaired.

xbox360 just isn't pushing the boundries when it comes to it's graphcally impressive games made for the system compaired to PS3, that's just how it is.

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"] Halo Reach is the first 360 game with a 360 specfic engine and loads of work put into it, when that comes out it will either justify your claim or render it useless. and if the engine of Reach is supporting DX11 I'm positive its going to look much better than Kz2. vaderhater

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

Hes arguing with proof that we have witnessed untill now. Hes backing up what he says by using the games released. Its true if you think about what he says. However, he isnt saying that he KNOWs for sure that its gonna be like that, jsut from the games out right now, its clear that the ps3 can do alot more interms of handling physics, graphics, motion pictures, and the number of objects.

RIGHT now its obvious the ps3 wins in this. Especially with MAG coming out, i dont think that the 360 side has much evidence to prove it wrong.

^^ oh I see, but I'd prefer to hear other than Forza's devs speaking about the number of polygons because every dev would like to boast so much about their game, that's why I don't believe anything devs say unless I see and confirm it. Other than that, thanks for the info.abuabed

I agree that it's hard to take a dev's word when they talk about esoteric things like maxing graphical capability and such, but Turn10 would be the only ones who could accurately tell you how many polys are in the models since they made the game.

The PS3 and 360 use different means to the same end. The 360 uses the GPU approach, while the PS3 uses the CPU approach.

I give the PS3 a slight edge, but it's a nominal difference at best. Anyways, thanks right back. It's nice to have a decent exchange of information without raging fanboyism.

*civil/unbiased SW conversation high-five*

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"] Halo Reach is the first 360 game with a 360 specfic engine and loads of work put into it, when that comes out it will either justify your claim or render it useless. and if the engine of Reach is supporting DX11 I'm positive its going to look much better than Kz2. vaderhater

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

"4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here"

Here you go this was posted for someone else It seems you missed it. Do YOU have anything to challenge my orginal arguemt?

:wink: but like most on here you can't. So why should anyone listen to you when you can't provide anything to prove me wrong?

Does anyone remember Dead Rising which had more going on at the same time than any other game I have ever seen (including KZ2). With great graphics

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

[QUOTE="AssassinFonce"]

And Reach (probably) > anything else What's your point?

And honestly, we all know PGR4 looks better than Forza 3 and GT5. Seriously now.

playharderfool

Wow this is amazing. I cant believe you've seen Halo reach already. Or is it that your saying its MAYBE* going to be better than anything else. What your point?

the thread creators point is simple, hes saying that if you compare two exlusives from the ps3 and 360, the ps3 is more powerful in the sense that it can generate higher quality graphics, as well as handle more action on screen (more stuff, ex cars, players).
TO THE TC: add mag up there, i doubt theres any thing close coming to the 360 soon.

I agree that its true the ps3 is more powerful.

There isn't anything comparitable that's why I didn't add it, I'm not trying to be a fanboy about it just giving my perspective on the matter. I tried to use games that were simular on each console...if Crackdown 2 was out I would have used that against infamous to see how it compaired.

xbox360 just isn't pushing the boundries when it comes to it's graphcally impressive games made for the system compaired to PS3, that's just how it is.

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

Ribnarak

Hes arguing with proof that we have witnessed untill now. Hes backing up what he says by using the games released. Its true if you think about what he says. However, he isnt saying that he KNOWs for sure that its gonna be like that, jsut from the games out right now, its clear that the ps3 can do alot more interms of handling physics, graphics, motion pictures, and the number of objects.

RIGHT now its obvious the ps3 wins in this. Especially with MAG coming out, i dont think that the 360 side has much evidence to prove it wrong.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Let me throw this into the mix:

A study shows that graphics, even story telling are secondary to pricing and social features.

What puts the 360 ahead is that it builds social connectivity into its games since its in the DNA of the whole platform. In this respect MS has really broken with conventional console thinking by building "power", not so much in its hardware, but in the software infrastructure that affects ALL its games.

Ribnarak

Ok great, i think you're missing the point. THIS thread isnt about whats "ahead" and for what reasons it is. IT IS JUST A comparison between the two consoles where were discussing ONLY about the physics (and amount of stuff that can be handled on screen.) . Please everyone think about what you post, were only arguing about what the TC topic is.

You're wrong. I totally get the point. And I have my counterpoint, which is that this geeky egg-head conversation is irrelevant without a sense of real-world context.

Otherwsie, it's nothing but academic. When the rubber meets the road, it doesn't amount to much without considering all the other aspects that make a game a compelling piece of entertainment.

The simple FACT that Killzone 2, for all its graphical fidelity and outstanding animation and physics, just doesn't resonate as well with the game-buying public as much as Halo 3 does... a graphically inferior game. Kinda renders this abstract conversation pointless.

Hum....GTA4 is probably the game this gen with better physics. Im sure its not a PS3 ecclusive!! :shock:

And isnt Forza series known for its suprior physics aswell?? Im confused...

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

:|It seems alot of you are missing the point of my thread...

I'm not arguing that 360 couldn't produce simular level graphics compaired to PS3...I'm arguing that it couldn't have as much going on, I.E.amount of players/effects/physics/animations/and dynamicon screen WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE SAME LEVEL OF GRAPHICS.

READ MY SECOND POST!!!! you can't miss it it's on the first page.

Ribnarak

Hes arguing with proof that we have witnessed untill now. Hes backing up what he says by using the games released. Its true if you think about what he says. However, he isnt saying that he KNOWs for sure that its gonna be like that, jsut from the games out right now, its clear that the ps3 can do alot more interms of handling physics, graphics, motion pictures, and the number of objects.

RIGHT now its obvious the ps3 wins in this. Especially with MAG coming out, i dont think that the 360 side has much evidence to prove it wrong.

Im not saying MAG will be a bad game. But for sure its the prove that PS3 CANT handle a GREAT looking game if it have lots of things going on on screen.

Sweet a retro thread circa 2006. :roll:

But why would the average gamer want to do that? When an average gamer not bothered about textures and shadoes and that kind of crap plays KZ2 do you think they'd stop and analyse every bit of lighting or stare at every bit of texture? Kz2 is the best console game graphically for me because it looks good when you play it, simple as.

hoosier7

graphics are not opinion, it cant have the best or be the best graphically in your opinion or to you. it either is or isnt. visuals are all up to opinion which is all that matters to the average user which was my whole point.

visuals or what looks good to you has no bearing at all on system power.

graphics are the tech and are related to system power.

ie you cant use visuals or how much you like the way a game looks to determine system power

If Gears of War 2 had 32 players it would completely ruin the game. I dont think they made it 10 because of hardware limitations.

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

gamecubepad

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

gamecubepad

How about some bullshot game play instead :roll:

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

Nero_Paladin

How about some bullshot game play instead :roll:

Don't need the link. Seen plenty of gameplay and it looks great, but let's stick to games that are currently released, lest people start pulling out Crysis 2, AC2, RAGE, and SC Conviction screens and vids.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

Nero_Paladin

How about some bullshot game play instead :roll:

[QUOTE="joshallrad33"]

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

playharderfool

Wasn't killzone 2's budget estimated at over 60 million? And Gears 2 clocked in at around 12 million, and was made on a pre-existing multiplatform engine. I'm not sure how relevant your comparison is.

Would you rather me use Halo 3? it has a comparitable budget...

You see I was trying to be fair and what other graphcially impressive/praised exclisvie games dose xbox360 have? If you have any other suggestions please, bya ll means, let me know!

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Let me throw this into the mix:

A study shows that graphics, even story telling are secondary to pricing and social features.

What puts the 360 ahead is that it builds social connectivity into its games since its in the DNA of the whole platform. In this respect MS has really broken with conventional console thinking by building "power", not so much in its hardware, but in the software infrastructure that affects ALL its games.

VoodooHak

Ok great, i think you're missing the point. THIS thread isnt about whats "ahead" and for what reasons it is. IT IS JUST A comparison between the two consoles where were discussing ONLY about the physics (and amount of stuff that can be handled on screen.) . Please everyone think about what you post, were only arguing about what the TC topic is.

You're wrong. I totally get the point. And I have my counterpoint, which is that this geeky egg-head conversation is irrelevant without a sense of real-world context.

Otherwsie, it's nothing but academic. When the rubber meets the road, it doesn't amount to much without considering all the other aspects that make a game a compelling piece of entertainment.

The simple FACT that Killzone 2, for all its graphical fidelity and outstanding animation and physics, just doesn't resonate as well with the game-buying public as much as Halo 3 does... a graphically inferior game. Kinda renders this abstract conversation pointless.

and i will say that this topic has no relevance to the popularity of a game. halo 3 is going to be popular because its one of those exclusives to the 360 such as gran turismo is to ps3. What we are talking about is that up until NOW, the ps3, when comparing exclusives, have out performed the exclusives of the 360. it can be proved by kz2. However, i and the TC are not saying that it is impossible for 360 games to reach that level. It just hasnt reached it yet and i doubt it will.

[QUOTE="Magik85"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqSHFegHI8U&feature=related

playharderfool

Nice CGI+concept video.

Now how about you post some actual in-gamegameplay video and or replay videos? The very fact that you post that cgi+concept video to back up your arguemt instead of in-game video graphics shows howweak your counter argument is.

You know...the funny part is that it actually is gameplay/replay vid ;)

The biggest reason the PS3 has better looking exclusives is, development talent.djsifer01

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

playharderfool

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="playharderfool"]

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

BUt doesn't the 360 hardware only support DX 9.5? How can the engine feature DX 11 if the harware can't support it? O.o?

yea i dont see any 360 games keeping up with ps3 exclusives.TheCoreGamer_

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

ronvalencia

I would just like to make a referece to the specs of the ps2 from wikipedia for a moment.

"3D CG Geometric transformation(VU0+VU1 parallel): 66 million polygons per second

• 3D CG Geometric transformations under curved surfaces: 16 million polygons per second
• 3D CG Geometric transformations at peak bones/movements/effects(textures)/lights(VU0+VU1): 15-20 million polygons per second (dependent on if series or parallel T&L)
• Actual real-world polygons (per frame):500-650k at 30fps, 250-325k at 60fps"

Note the bolded parts. The first one is what sony hyped. The second one is reality. Lets not believe everything sony or microsoft says about the performance of their hardware.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

I might agree but in all fairness, we have'nt seen any game for the 360 with the same amount of work put into to coding specifically for the console.

So I'll agree from what we have available as evidence but I'll also claim that the 360 probably has the same potential (considering how multiplats turn out).

playharderfool

That's fair, and I'm only going on what has been released so nothing is certian. But I also think it important to note the Sony made it a prime point of boastiong over MS's xbox360 when came to the "proformance" of it's system at a high graphic level because of the Cell technology. In the end that might be therealdiffrence.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The Powa of teh Cell is at hand...

Quick, somebody grab some bullshots...

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]The biggest reason the PS3 has better looking exclusives is, development talent.abuabed