This topic is locked from further discussion.
You should keep that stuff(rubbish) to yourself.Nice post. Cows fail to realize the real facts because they think PS3 is #1(it isn't) and PSHome will be awesome(not).
A cow is a big liar who thinks he is awesome but is a very, very, very stupid person and should be put in an insane asylum.
Â
Cows, that's reality. It's life. So all you cows need to stop being whiney losers and get a real life.
GEMINI_CYBORG
Â
Â
[QUOTE="Maelkav"][QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
Â
Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.
Yo everyone knows who Mario is everyone. Parents, Uncles, aunts, grandparents, kids, everyone. You could ask a random person on the street who Mario is and they will know you thinkt they will know who Vaan or Cloud is? No. Â
And the added cost to your system is xbox live. Face the truth , they are on equal ground both in price and general graphics abilities.
Â
yes but XLB is superior to PSN in every way and i believe you can look at every gaming site that states the same thing. 360 wins
It's obvious, you may be able to make games a graphical powerhouse very early on in the 360's life. But really, there's not going to be much of an improvement in games later on (In terms of graphics). Perception1
I'd LOVE to know what you base that statement off of because it sure isn't console history.
I eagerly await your explanation.
Â
Jeez I can't believe people still think the Xbox only came one year after the PS2. The PS2 launched March 4, 2000 and the Xbox launched November 15, 2001. Now lets do some math and not just subtract 2000-2001. Count the months and you get 21 MONTHS guess how many months are in ONE year, its 12. So the Xbox launched closer to TWO YEARS from the PS2. So you cant compare the PS2 and Xbox graphically differences at launch.
As for which system has better graphics, how long did it take the 360 to get a beautiful game like Gears. It took a year and how long as the PS3 been out, maybe half a year. Right out the bat the PS3s 1st generation games look just as good as many of the 360s second generation games and that just using its ports and rushed launch games. Now lets see what happens when devs have more time with the PS3 before you try to claim who is better or that they are all equal.Javy03
:lol: :lol:
There it is AGAIN. The 'ol "bu.....but....bu....but.....teh xflop1.5 had an extra year of dev time. No comparison is equal." excuse :lol:
Cows just need to accept that the PS3 delay should've given devs the time they needed to polish their games. There is no excuse but the BS Sony wants cows to believe.
[QUOTE="Perception1"]
It's obvious, you may be able to make games a graphical powerhouse very early on in the 360's life. But really, there's not going to be much of an improvement in games later on (In terms of graphics). LosDaddie
I'd LOVE to know what you base that statement off of because it sure isn't console history.
I eagerly await your explanation.
Lol I'm not basing it off anything, it's just what I think.[QUOTE="Javy03"]Â
Jeez I can't believe people still think the Xbox only came one year after the PS2. The PS2 launched March 4, 2000 and the Xbox launched November 15, 2001. Now lets do some math and not just subtract 2000-2001. Count the months and you get 21 MONTHS guess how many months are in ONE year, its 12. So the Xbox launched closer to TWO YEARS from the PS2. So you cant compare the PS2 and Xbox graphically differences at launch.
As for which system has better graphics, how long did it take the 360 to get a beautiful game like Gears. It took a year and how long as the PS3 been out, maybe half a year. Right out the bat the PS3s 1st generation games look just as good as many of the 360s second generation games and that just using its ports and rushed launch games. Now lets see what happens when devs have more time with the PS3 before you try to claim who is better or that they are all equal.LosDaddie
:lol: :lol:
There it is AGAIN. The 'ol "bu.....but....bu....but.....teh xflop1.5 had an extra year of dev time. No comparison is equal." excuse :lol:
Cows just need to accept that the PS3 delay should've given devs the time they needed to polish their games. There is no excuse but the BS Sony wants cows to believe.
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
chadwardennn
Proof? Don't have any? U fail.
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???Javy03
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Perception1"]
It's obvious, you may be able to make games a graphical powerhouse very early on in the 360's life. But really, there's not going to be much of an improvement in games later on (In terms of graphics). Perception1
I'd LOVE to know what you base that statement off of because it sure isn't console history.
I eagerly await your explanation.
Well, at least you admit to ignoring all previous console history.
[QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???LosDaddie
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
MGS2 on the PS2 looks and plays better then the Xbox version.[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???kage_53
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
MGS2 on the PS2 looks and plays better then the Xbox version.Yeah....maybe I shouldn't have used the term "always", but 99% of Xbox games were superior to the PS2 version.
Do you disagree?
agreed but I am not looking at the graphics. I am looking at the all the stuff happening behind the screens. I looked at the warhawk vids, resistance vid, lair vid, heavonly sword. What do you notice is ... there is a lot of thing happening in the background. That is impressive. The level of scale is incredible.Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
Ninja-Vox
[QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???LosDaddie
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
There you go speaking for a group of people. Number one, I am not a "cow" so if you reply to my post dont lump me in with a group of people believing that the PS3 is as superior as the Xbox was to the PS2 because I dont believe that. My point is right now you seem to want to compare a console that launched 2 years after another console and say the PS3 should shine like the Xbox. They are not the same situation and currently we only have a handful of games to judge the PS3 capability and they are rushed launch game and ports. My point is you are speaking way to certain about the 360s position graphically and the fact that the PS3s 1st look as good as many of the Xbox 360s second gen completly leaves your mind. We need to wait and see but I am sure 3rd parties will look very similiar on the PS3 and 360 and exclusives on the PS3 will look much better. Even many of the ports on the Xbox didnt look significantly better then the PS2 due to the reason they werent built to optomize its specs. You have never made a game so you cant say how much or how little an extra year would affect games and hardware. I know hardware prices lower alot every year and every year specs double.[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???Javy03
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
I agree with what you're saying. When the PS3 games came out and looked no better than 360 games, the Sony crowd said it was because they were launch titles, but as you mentioned, even the Xbox's launch titles looked better than the PS2 games on day one. So I think the two systems are really similar in terms of graphical power. I think what the PS3 really needs to focus on is making 1080p games. I've heard this is hard because it eats up so many resources, but didn't they promise to usher in the new era of higher definition games? Flow looks sweet, but it's a glorified screensaver. I want a REAL game that plays well and looks even better in glorious 1080p. Until that happens, I'll continue to feel let down by Sony's empty promises.Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
 We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
 Agreed?
 Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
 So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
Ninja-Vox
[QUOTE="Maelkav"][QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.
lol at logic. Who cares about a theme song, just look at GTA and grand turismo. Give me a break. And surely more ppl knows the FF theme song used in every game than the Mario Theme song. What mario theme song?... u mean the one time theme song used in the nes version? C'mon.... get real. FF Theme song....ahahahaha You Fail... Chad Wardennn, stop, this is coming from a guy who said "Black Collosus man 2" was the sequel to one of the most best games last gen.[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???LosDaddie
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
LOL...sad just sad. I speak favorably for the PS3 but I do not bash the 360. You may just be a little sensitive because you are such a fanboy for the 360 but I am not a "cow". Cows are blind fanboys and I chose my console and believe in it for very logical reason and I dont blindly bash other consoles. That might be how YOU roll but not me. As for your "E3 05 proves games had same dev time....." please give it a rest. Those games are made off of computers trying to simuliate the specs of what the PS3 might be and are not based off of the PS3s true hardware because devs didnt get their Final Dev Kits until Aug 2006. So how can you expect a game to push the PS3s hardware when devs dont have the PS3s hardware. Nice try but your logic is pretty weak. And again you cant compare the PS3 to the Xbox, two different generations with two different amount of dev time. You are so sure you know what PS3 games will look like based off of what, your 6 months of experience with it and its handful of ports..please. If people judged a console off of ports everyone would have just stuck with the PS2 instead of getting a 360 because the 360s versions of the ports are worse at its launch....how quickly we forget.In the end the PS3 will have more games with better graphics, physics and what not. But believe what you want to believe just don't go :cry: when it does. -supercharged-We have been hearing "better physics" since PS2...What is wrong with you? The physics engines are going to be based on the engines that run the game. True on paper, the Cell is supposed to be very good at this. HOWEVER, you would be lying to yourself, if you dont think physics, relies on the RAM to get those calculations OUT from the CPU. This is where the PS3 fails, It is limited to 256 at any given time (CPU or GPU). Now, if the PS3 had a unified system like the 360...it would be a different story If the PS3 had lets say 1 or 2 GB for the price instead of that damn Blu-ray which does absolutely nothing for games, that cannot be done on DVD9 It would destroy the 360 hands down. But it doesnt, SO it doesnt.
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???Javy03
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
I thought the PS3's first launch date was march 06 but delayed till november because of blueray issues is that not how it was? if not why did sony first anounce the march 06 launch date?
[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???boyinfridge
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again:Â "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
I thought the PS3's first launch date was march 06 but delayed till november because of blueray issues is that not how it was? if not why did sony first anounce the march 06 launch date?
They announced the launch date because they thought that they could make the consoles for that time but they couldnt. Which is why they quickly changed their launch. They didnt send devs a final dev kit till august of that year.[QUOTE="boyinfridge"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???Javy03
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again: "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
I thought the PS3's first launch date was march 06 but delayed till november because of blueray issues is that not how it was? if not why did sony first anounce the march 06 launch date?
They announced the launch date because they thought that they could make the consoles for that time but they couldnt. Which is why they quickly changed their launch. They didnt send devs a final dev kit till august of that year. Because Sony changed the specs last minute (lowered the GPU speed), the delay gimped their own system and games. When I heard they did that, I was freaking amazed. They needed to downgrade the GPU, so that the wouldn't eat too much of the cost with Blu-Ray. That is why I hate Blu-Ray so much as a gaming medium, it took the power away from the GPU, and without it, Sony could have put more RAM inside the system. Then we wouldn't hear so much PS3 bashing, because it would have been awesome. They screwed gamers, so that they could push Blu-Ray in our homes.Yeah I agree the leap is not even big between the 360 and PS3 and by the way it looks THERE IS NO LEAP! haha! The graphics are very similar because the video hardware (ATI and NIVDIA) from both systems are from the same generation Durr..
The only reason why the PS3 is more expensvie is because the damn Blue-Ray which is still pretty new technology and with newer technology comes a bigger price.. I still think Sony release the Blue-Ray a generation too early IMO..
[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="boyinfridge"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Javy03"]
Devs never take time to polish ports, thats why the 360 had ports from the PS2 that had worse framerates and scored overall lower then the PS2's version, is that a reflection of the 360s hardware or the dev???rappid_rabbit
You should quit while you're behind if the only thing you have to grasp onto is a last-gen to next gen ports. ;)
Xbox ports were always superior to the PS2 version because the Xbox was clearly superior. Cows seems to believe the PS3 has the same superiority over the x360, but games don't look better on the PS3 if they're released at the same time.
Yup....let's hear it again: "bu...bu....but teh xflop1.5 has that extra year"
Just admit to being a cow. You always speak favorably for the PS3 and negatively for the x360.
The fact you don't want to admit is that PS3 games have been in development the same time as x360 games. E3 05 was when PS3 games were first shown. Same for x360 games. Your "one year headstart" & "PS3 is still in 1st gen and x360 in 2nd gen" arguments are not valid.
Go ahead and deny that though. Cows are good at that.
You're right about Xbox games not looking "significantly" better than their PS2 counterparts. However, they definitely looked better, which is not the case for PS3 gaems.
I thought the PS3's first launch date was march 06 but delayed till november because of blueray issues is that not how it was? if not why did sony first anounce the march 06 launch date?
They announced the launch date because they thought that they could make the consoles for that time but they couldnt. Which is why they quickly changed their launch. They didnt send devs a final dev kit till august of that year. Because Sony changed the specs last minute (lowered the GPU speed), the delay gimped their own system and games. When I heard they did that, I was freaking amazed. They needed to downgrade the GPU, so that the wouldn't eat too much of the cost with Blu-Ray. That is why I hate Blu-Ray so much as a gaming medium, it took the power away from the GPU, and without it, Sony could have put more RAM inside the system. Then we wouldn't hear so much PS3 bashing, because it would have been awesome. They screwed gamers, so that they could push Blu-Ray in our homes. They had to push Bluray, their annual profits and stocks has been plummeting since the PS2 came out. They need the money, last fiscal year, Sony reported a higher loss than what Microsoft and Nintendo had. Sony had to push their Bluray format to earn more money. However, I fully agree with TC. gnutux[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
And YOU forgot one thing: During the entire eras of the NES, SNES, and much of the N64's life the very name of Nintendo was synonymous with console gaming for alot of people. They referred to any console as a "Nintendo". Yes, they were wrong, but the name is very, very strong. To this day, people remember "Nintendo" as a video game company. While "Sony" is remembered as a multimedia company, which it is. The "Playstation" name only has so much strength, and people arn't afraid to change brands. Sony sacrificed the console war in order to win the more profitable format war.
[QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
OceanLeet
And YOU forgot one thing: During the entire eras of the NES, SNES, and much of the N64's life the very name of Nintendo was synonymous with console gaming for alot of people. They referred to any console as a "Nintendo". Yes, they were wrong, but the name is very, very strong. To this day, people remember "Nintendo" as a video game company. While "Sony" is remembered as a multimedia company, which it is. The "Playstation" name only has so much strength, and people arn't afraid to change brands. Sony sacrificed the console war in order to win the more profitable format war.
In many places, Sony is mainly remembered for their TVs, their TVs are even more successful than their consoles. When you think of Sony, rarely do you think Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. You usually just remember Sony Pictures or just Sony for their other electronics. gnutuxWe'll see, dude. Uncharted, MGS, Motorstorm....they all rip Gears to shreds. The question is whether Gears 2, Halo 3, Forza, Too Human, and Mass Effect will truly win out over what PS3 has to offer. If it's such a dimension, something you cannot forsee, then why talk about it like you're so sure? The difference is not so minute when you're talking 1080p with high-res textures, self-shadowing, possibly ray-tracing, physics and AI or animations along with some astounding particle effects... It's gotten to the point where the difference can become a chasm that really makes people interested. Or, not. I know developers are doing a superb job on games like Mass Effect, and they could sustain a limited difference for a long time. But games like Ratchet and Clank and Lair hammer it right home for me...I'm on the bloody edge. I'll definitely get my fill of b****in' looking games, no question. Anyway, good luck, but it's seriously difficult to doubt that the PS3 is a capable machine.Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
Ninja-Vox
I have a better comparison, PS1 and N64, N64 released before , it started selling pretty well , it used the old game cases, then the PS1 came out , IT used something new CD's just like how the PS3 is now using Blueray disks, and in the end nintendo started out with more sales but ended up losing, thats my point of view, although it aint important , and can possibly be wrong.
Â
[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]lol u forgot one thing. Its Sony,the brand is just toooo strong. Unlike nintendo.Nintendo used to have over 90% of the console market share...Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
well motorstorm in hdmi at 720p looks a cut above anything ive ever seen on a 360 before and ive seen gears,pdz,,kameo etc in hd before...........and the new lair pics massacre almost everything besides crisis....zeonneIndeed, but Motorstorm has about two hours of gameplay. Sure, that's an exaggeration, but as the review says - it's a game which makes you smile at how nice it looks, but quickly wears thin when you realise you've already played everything there is to be played in two days. I dont think it's a decent example as, sure it looks nice, but it's borderline tech demo.
I have a better comparison, PS1 and N64, N64 released before , it started selling pretty well , it used the old game cases, then the PS1 came out , IT used something new CD's just like how the PS3 is now using Blueray disks, and in the end nintendo started out with more sales but ended up losing, thats my point of view, although it aint important , and can possibly be wrong.
Â
Roushrsh
[QUOTE="Roushrsh"]I have a better comparison, PS1 and N64, N64 released before , it started selling pretty well , it used the old game cases, then the PS1 came out , IT used something new CD's just like how the PS3 is now using Blueray disks, and in the end nintendo started out with more sales but ended up losing, thats my point of view, although it aint important , and can possibly be wrong.
Â
Ninja-Vox
he is saying graphics do matter, but he is using a 12 year old example as opposed to your more recent example. I dont think N64 released first, but i could be wrong.
again samw nthread as the other 10Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
 We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
 Agreed?
 Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
 So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
Ninja-Vox
[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="Roushrsh"]I have a better comparison, PS1 and N64, N64 released before , it started selling pretty well , it used the old game cases, then the PS1 came out , IT used something new CD's just like how the PS3 is now using Blueray disks, and in the end nintendo started out with more sales but ended up losing, thats my point of view, although it aint important , and can possibly be wrong.
downPlayDemon
he is saying graphics do matter, but he is using a 12 year old example as opposed to your more recent example. I dont think N64 released first, but i could be wrong.
He makes no mention of graphics. He seems to think this thread is about one system winning over the other. Playstation had CDs and Nintendo didn't so they lost - PS3 has blu-ray and xbox 360 doesn't, so it'll lose. What relevance at all does that have to a topic addressing the alleged graphical differences between the two systems?[QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="Maelkav"][QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
Blackbond
Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.
Yo everyone knows who Mario is everyone. Parents, Uncles, aunts, grandparents, kids, everyone. You could ask a random person on the street who Mario is and they will know you thinkt they will know who Vaan or Cloud is? No.
DUH. We are talking about themesongs here. U fail at reading.[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
chadwardennn
ahh... /sigh...... back in the day, there was no bigger name in the gaming industry than NINTENDO! and they still fell from their lofty throne.... dont be so naive. Sony is a bigger company of course, but does sony mean as much to gaming as Nintendo.... NOPE! and probably never will.
What do you think people get more excited about, the next big Nintendo Game or the next big Sony Game??? Correct Answer: NINTENDO GAME!
[QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.
Zandeus
ahh... /sigh...... back in the day, there was no bigger name in the gaming industry than NINTENDO! and they still fell from their lofty throne.... dont be so naive. Sony is a bigger company of course, but does sony mean as much to gaming as Nintendo.... NOPE! and probably never will.
What do you think people get more excited about, the next big Nintendo Game or the next big Sony Game??? Correct Answer: NINTENDO GAME!
depends. I also used to play nintendo. But now i am older. Nintendo is good, but not very mature. Just look at the games sofar for the Wii and PS3. I dont need to explain why the PS3 fits me, its way more mature. Nintendo is still good, but only for younger ppl. Its like disney, everyone knows it, but it gets kiddy when u turn 16.[QUOTE="downPlayDemon"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="Roushrsh"]I have a better comparison, PS1 and N64, N64 released before , it started selling pretty well , it used the old game cases, then the PS1 came out , IT used something new CD's just like how the PS3 is now using Blueray disks, and in the end nintendo started out with more sales but ended up losing, thats my point of view, although it aint important , and can possibly be wrong.
Ninja-Vox
he is saying graphics do matter, but he is using a 12 year old example as opposed to your more recent example. I dont think N64 released first, but i could be wrong.
He makes no mention of graphics. He seems to think this thread is about one system winning over the other. Playstation had CDs and Nintendo didn't so they lost - PS3 has blu-ray and xbox 360 doesn't, so it'll lose. What relevance at all does that have to a topic addressing the alleged graphical differences between the two systems? People, especially don't seem to notice that if it wasn't for Nintendo's ignorance for the N64, Playstation wouldn't exist. Nintendo revoked Sony's partnership in bringing the use of optical media to the consoles, making Sony to make their own console. This can also be said with the XBOX. If it wasn't for the Playstation 2, the XBOX might not even come around. Microsoft created the XBOX to ward off Sony for stealing PC game shares right off Windows. gnutux[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
elementz28
Â
I do feel you but PS3 do have the slight edge in terms of power.Many Devlopers did mention it too...I think more games will look better on the PS3 in 1 or 2 years from now..For instance the upcoming PS3 games Heaveny Sword, Ratchet and Clank Tool of Destruction, Uncharted, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Lair, WarHawk and MotorStorm(even though it was released already but the graphics is freaken sweet and the AI is amazing)Is all great looking games and it have a chance to come out this year. And by Next year Final Fantasy 13 and Versus, and LittleBigPlanet, White Knight Story and perhaps New team ico game will come out and i bet you its goin to be astounding too.. ...The only game right now that the 360 that looks really good is Gears of war and Mass Effect..
and bioshock and alan wake anf forza 2 and lost planet and blue dragon....[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
elementz28
Â
I do feel you but PS3 do have the slight edge in terms of power.Many Devlopers did mention it too...I think more games will look better on the PS3 in 1 or 2 years from now..For instance the upcoming PS3 games Heaveny Sword, Ratchet and Clank Tool of Destruction, Uncharted, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Lair, WarHawk and MotorStorm(even though it was released already but the graphics is freaken sweet and the AI is amazing)Is all great looking games and it have a chance to come out this year. And by Next year Final Fantasy 13 and Versus, and LittleBigPlanet, White Knight Story and perhaps New team ico game will come out and i bet you its goin to be astounding too.. ...The only game right now that the 360 that looks really good is Gears of war and Mass Effect..
and bioshock and alan wake anf forza 2 and lost planet and blue dragon....Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment