Wow, the PS3 stinks

I was just looking at Gamespot's 4th graphics comparison between the 360 and PS3...

And I have to say, if it was all about multiplats, the 360 is definately the better system.

Here's the link for those who can't find it:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2

Not that I care about that game, but the Mortal Combat versus DC is pathetic on the PS3...

I was just looking at Gamespot's 4th graphics comparison between the 360 and PS3...

 

And I have to say, if it was all about multiplats, the 360 is definately the better system.

mstc_Q

GS isn't the ONLY place to look at those type of comparison's, there's a lot they missed for both system's. While they aren't being biased imo, they are only human. Still, it's a shame that not ALL DEVs can use the PS3 right, I blame Sony, but I also blame Lazy Devs.IN the end, the Consumer still loses I suppose.

Searching GS for comparisons, I only see 3. The last one being from May.Mlauthemighty

It looks like MK vs DC, Star Wars FU and Fallout 3 are the only ones that are really inferior on the PS3. Soul Calibur 4 and Call of Duty actually look a tiny bit better on the PS3 if you ask me.Floppy_Jim

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]It looks like MK vs DC, Star Wars FU and Fallout 3 are the only ones that are really inferior on the PS3. Soul Calibur 4 and Call of Duty actually look a tiny bit better on the PS3 if you ask me.mstc_Q

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]It looks like MK vs DC, Star Wars FU and Fallout 3 are the only ones that are really inferior on the PS3. Soul Calibur 4 and Call of Duty actually look a tiny bit better on the PS3 if you ask me.mstc_Q

The only worthy comparisons imo are the Eurogamer ones (supported by Beyond3D)

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=318609

If you can't be bothered to read them all (scroll down for all the face-off links) The PS3 gets stomped pretty much consistently.

I can't beleive people still claim inferior PS3 multiplats are a thing of the past.

I was just looking at Gamespot's 4th graphics comparison between the 360 and PS3...

 

And I have to say, if it was all about multiplats, the 360 is definately the better system.

Here's the link for those who can't find it:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2

 

Not that I care about that game, but the Mortal Combat versus DC is pathetic on the PS3...

mstc_Q

Right, checked out the gs comparison now. Looks like it always does to me. Negligable differences partly offset by the images of being of too low quality.

My ps3 version of Dead Space looks better than both versions they displayed hmm?

And as far as I'm concerned, the quality is very much up to personal opinion. 360 Seems to consistenly have higher res textures but in return they always strike me as more flat/2d'ish than the ps3's.

I own a PS3, actually.mstc_Q

[QUOTE="mstc_Q"]I own a PS3, actually.Master_SONY

Fallout looks better on 360

But the rest looks the same especially when you play

I have both system PS3 and Xbox360 i can say hands down that the PS3 will not even in future beat the Xbox360.
The problem PS3 have is not lazy devlopers its simple the "GPU" that makes the PS3 weaker in many aspect.
And i would like to go so long to say that all exclusive titles like MGS4 on the PS3 would been better if they were made on Xbox360.

Even COD5 that we seen some picture here on "Gamespot" dont show all off the missing parts when you compare see link below
http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/lazygamer-investigates-the-ps3-comes-up-short-with-cod5

You can see for your self that the PS3 is far worse with even missing models etc.
Ok, so check out the highlighted areas above. When you take a closer look you can clearly see that the texturing on the man's clothing and even the little badge on the bottom right is significantly lower and more "jaggy" or pixelated than the one on the Xbox 360. Not only that but you will also notice that the guy all the way in the background has some missing models on him.

Here is a good link that really puts the nail on the problem with the PS3.
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=22985

The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360.
...
"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"
In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized.
...
Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive.
...
Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community.

phahahahaha :lol: TC you take serioulsly GS comparisons ? :lol: :lol: :lol: Al3x_n90

[QUOTE="Al3x_n90"]phahahahaha :lol: TC you take serioulsly GS comparisons ? :lol: :lol: :lol: mstc_Q

Well we all know how fair GS is :) *sarcasm* 

Both consles versions of games are looking very similar now, its good to see that most devs are really teying now to get ps3 games up to standard.

I dont think we can argue that the 360 is more powerful anymore, whilst its graphics card is slightly better, the ps3 has just got so much more grunt which is apparent in killzone 2, draw distances, animations, and a ton of effects that really makes use of the ps3.

As long as multiplats look pretty much the same as the 360's version Im happy, some unnoticable texture differences wont matter much, anyways after killzone 2, heavy rain and God of war 3 most multiplats will look old to me :P

i have both and i compared soul caliber 4 last week and it looks way better on ps3 almost all games look dull on 360 while ps3 has more colors but on some games 360 has better textures. oh and mk vs. dc SUCKS so it dont matter what it looks better on!!! they are equal systems but my ps3 has a bluray, 500gb hdd and bc so its better than 360 imo.

[QUOTE="mstc_Q"][QUOTE="Al3x_n90"]phahahahaha :lol: TC you take serioulsly GS comparisons ? :lol: :lol: :lol: Al3x_n90

Well we all know how fair GS is :) *sarcasm* 

For most of them you really need to nitpick with a pair of tweasers to notice any significant difference, the difference in most shots seems to just be the 360 has a grey filter slapped over the game. Really though it doesn't matter, I couldn't care less if the 360 is only very slightly better than the PS3 graphically on the multi-plat game I'm playing.

I know for sure that when I pick up and play Fallout 3 for the 360 I won't be thinking "Yeah! This version is barely better graphically than on the PS3!".

I was just looking at Gamespot's 4th graphics comparison between the 360 and PS3...

 

And I have to say, if it was all about multiplats, the 360 is definately the better system.

Here's the link for those who can't find it:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2

 

Not that I care about that game, but the Mortal Combat versus DC is pathetic on the PS3...

mstc_Q

[QUOTE="Al3x_n90"]

[QUOTE="mstc_Q"] Why not? Should I just pretend that there's no difference regardless of what other people discover?mstc_Q

Well we all know how fair GS is :) *sarcasm* 

Right...people=lems, cows? seriously dude...you can't really compare their power with multiplats...exclusives have that job :P 

for people that have both uncharted =gears in graphics. and gow 3 is suppose to have better graphics than gears. also killzone is suppose to be the graphics king. but im pretty sure microsoft has something up there sleeve too. forget multiplats!!!

for people that have both uncharted =gears in graphics. and gow 3 is suppose to have better graphics than gears. also killzone is suppose to be the graphics king. but im pretty sure microsoft has something up there sleeve too. forget mutliplats!!!

rogelio22

Another comparrison with no superwhite, or RGB full enabled on the PS3. I wonder if this is GS staff trying to be fanboys, or if they are just ignorant to the settings on the PS3.

Regardless of that, most of those games do indeed look better on the 360, but not to the extremes that these comparisons show.

Seeing as how the differences are barely noticeable, especially in actual, moving gameplay, I don't see what the big deal is. I'm willing to bet that without those screenshots and zoomed in pics, many people couldn't tell the difference. kingdre

Its nothing to do with power. So lems dont use your superior multiplats as a way to argue the 360 is the more powerful system, because thats BS. Its because the architecture on the PS3 is considerably more complicated and requires a lot more effort to achieve something equal to that of the PC or 360. And cows also need to learn to accept that many devs won't be prepared to put in the time and effort to get both versions identical, especially considering the PS3 version will sell anyway regardless of a few graphical or framerate hitches. -DrRobotnik-

[QUOTE="-DrRobotnik-"]Its nothing to do with power. So lems dont use your superior multiplats as a way to argue the 360 is the more powerful system, because thats BS. Its because the architecture on the PS3 is considerably more complicated and requires a lot more effort to achieve something equal to that of the PC or 360. And cows also need to learn to accept that many devs won't be prepared to put in the time and effort to get both versions identical, especially considering the PS3 version will sell anyway regardless of a few graphical or framerate hitches. mr-swede

[QUOTE="-DrRobotnik-"]Its nothing to do with power. So lems dont use your superior multiplats as a way to argue the 360 is the more powerful system, because thats BS. Its because the architecture on the PS3 is considerably more complicated and requires a lot more effort to achieve something equal to that of the PC or 360. And cows also need to learn to accept that many devs won't be prepared to put in the time and effort to get both versions identical, especially considering the PS3 version will sell anyway regardless of a few graphical or framerate hitches. mr-swede

Gears of War isnt possible on ps3mr-swede

:/

Uh... I disaree, I see some pictures that look better on 360, and some that look better on the PS3.

And, btw, Gamespot needs to fix the settings on their PS3, it's too dark, you know Gamespot, you can make it brighter?

I have both system PS3 and Xbox360 i can say hands down that the PS3 will not even in future beat the Xbox360.

The problem PS3 have is not lazy devlopers its simple the "GPU" that makes the PS3 weaker in many aspect.

And i would like to go so long to say that all exclusive titles like MSG4 on the PS3 would been better if they were made on Xbox360.

Even COD5 that we seen some picture here on dont show all off the missing parts when u compare see link below

http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/lazygamer-investigates-the-ps3-comes-up-short-with-cod5

You can see for your self that the PS3 is far worse

Ok, so check out the highlighted areas above. When you take a closer look you can clearly see that the texturing on the man's clothing and even the little badge on the bottom right is significantly lower and more "jaggy" or pixelated than the one on the Xbox 360. Not only that but you will also notice that the guy all the way in the background has some missing models on him.

Here is a good link that really puts the nail on the problem with the PS3.

http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=22985

The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360.
...
"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"

In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized.
...
Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive.
...
Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community.

mr-swede

you just made a complete ass out of yourself. period. the ps3 exclusive are still FAR better looking then anything thats on the xbox.

the real problem is the devs you tool. they choose the 360 as the lead platform then port over to the ps3 and thats why the ps3 version is SLIGHTLY inferior. and even then for the ps3 tp take a crappy port and still make it look and run as good as the 360 is pretty damn good imo.

also in the most recent graphics comparison i found that i prefered a few of the ps3 games over the 360 games just due to differences in lighting. although 360 fallout spanks ps3's. i thaught that dead space looked leaps and bounds better on the ps3. with the excepting of that weird banding. and in SCIV that difference in flowers just seemd to be lighting on the ps3. these guys aren't perfect and cant take pictures at the exact same moment on both consoles. thats why i think for the most part the only things these comparsions can fairly point out is thigns missing out of the background and maybe some texture pop-in.