Well I take it back, Crysis it seems can be done on current gen consoles, mind you, its taken them aaaaaaages lol couldn't have been easy

yes yes yes, so looking forward to this game :D

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I want to know which system actually boasts better hardware. I don't want to hear about games or the software/features available on both. I just want to know which system technically boasts better hardware such as GPU and CPU

gamerfan85

It's not even a contest. PS3 is technically the best hardware as it DOESN'T fail on you nearly as often. Also, the processor and cell are more powerful. It suffers from being more complicated to develop for, but those people that DO develop for it produce better and graphically superior games. Even their new Move/Kinect hardware goes to the PS3 because the Kinect is a POS to play. 3 second lag time by butt.

PS3 is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY better.

nope PS3 is slightly better....PC is WAAAAAAAAAYYYY better. Would be a more accurate statement, you need to get things in perspective.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Jeeez, you cows really really need to read up on how games are made lol. Just because there is alot of you on this board, all agreeing with one another doesnt make at all right.

I'll make this really simple to understand, games on the 360 and games on the PS3 are mainly rendered in 720p, the in-game assets are roughly of comparable polycount, texture sizes are the same, both systems are very very similar in terms of number of polys they can push and texture sizes they can handle. Lighting is arguably a PS3 strength but on both platforms you only ever see a limited number of real time lights. 360 supports up to 2x AA while the PS3 is capable of a few post processing effects thanks to the cell....you guys starting to get the picture?

When you keep going on about how the PS3 exclusives blow the 360 out of the water, you just sound really uneducated on the subject.

The single biggest reason the PS3 has such great looking games is because they have some really talented developers behind them, who in turn employ very talented artist. Everything you see in killzone 3 or GoW can be done on the 360, take any of the ingame assets, none of them would be more than say 12k polys, none with more than 2k texture maps, normal and opacity maps. The environment size is something the 360 is easily capable of, again textures sizes are nothing out of the normal, there is limited real time lighting with the majoirty of shadows being baked into the diffuse textures.

See the assets, the environment, the lighting ALL CAPABLE ON THE 360. Finally that leaves post processing effects, well like I said before, the 360 has that extra 10mb edram for 2x AA, the Cell in KZ2 and 3 does that blur effect, comparable really even if you do prefer the PS3s method. Particle effects, the same, really depends on the engine, there is nothing there the 360 isnt capable of.

Finally, I suggest you go look more closely at games like Gears of War 2, look at the assets, look at the textures sizes, the difference between a game like Gears and a game like Killzone is the art style, thats it!

So can we please stop with the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water!

LeonSykes10

i kinda get what you're tryin to say technically, though I'm a bit confused.. are you saying third party devs like Rockstar, Square enix, Bioware, Crytek(crysis 2 console) are'nt talented/artistic enough to surpass ps3's first party devs ever since 2009 (uncharted 2 release)???:?

Yeah, kinda. Although I would argue that the character modelling in Mass Effect 2 rivals that of Uncharted 2, I personally think what sets UC2 apart from the rest is actually the animation, it is nothing short of stunning. Crysis 2 is in the same ballpark as uncharted, gain similar texture sizes, polycount but they just havent achieved that same finish as what UC2 has.

Other games, like those of Rockstar, they're just not about pushing the visuals as much as UC2, other developers such as Bungie focus much more on getting more stuff on screen and so have had to reduce display resolution to maintain a good framerate.

Add to that, (in my previous post, I probably under-valued the Cells, strength in post processing) the Cells superior post processing.

Nope because at the very time they finalise the specs, I doubt they will the top specs at that time....why? Cost!!! Then you will have another year or so before release by which time the very top end GPUs and CPUs would have moved on.

Jeeez, you cows really really need to read up on how games are made lol. Just because there is alot of you on this board, all agreeing with one another doesnt make at all right.

I'll make this really simple to understand, games on the 360 and games on the PS3 are mainly rendered in 720p, the in-game assets are roughly of comparable polycount, texture sizes are the same, both systems are very very similar in terms of number of polys they can push and texture sizes they can handle. Lighting is arguably a PS3 strength but on both platforms you only ever see a limited number of real time lights. 360 supports up to 2x AA while the PS3 is capable of a few post processing effects thanks to the cell....you guys starting to get the picture?

When you keep going on about how the PS3 exclusives blow the 360 out of the water, you just sound really uneducated on the subject.

The single biggest reason the PS3 has such great looking games is because they have some really talented developers behind them, who in turn employ very talented artist. Everything you see in killzone 3 or GoW can be done on the 360, take any of the ingame assets, none of them would be more than say 12k polys, none with more than 2k texture maps, normal and opacity maps. The environment size is something the 360 is easily capable of, again textures sizes are nothing out of the normal, there is limited real time lighting with the majoirty of shadows being baked into the diffuse textures.

See the assets, the environment, the lighting ALL CAPABLE ON THE 360. Finally that leaves post processing effects, well like I said before, the 360 has that extra 10mb edram for 2x AA, the Cell in KZ2 and 3 does that blur effect, comparable really even if you do prefer the PS3s method. Particle effects, the same, really depends on the engine, there is nothing there the 360 isnt capable of.

Finally, I suggest you go look more closely at games like Gears of War 2, look at the assets, look at the textures sizes, the difference between a game like Gears and a game like Killzone is the art style, thats it!

So can we please stop with the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water!

[QUOTE="rybe1025"]If your special PS3 was OH so mighty then why does it ship full of fail everytime it is a multiplat? The one thing we can compare is multiplats which the PS3 is pretty much every single time behind the 360.

BedBugMan

OMG this has been discussed a gazillion times, the PS3 and the 360 are so close, far closer than in previous gens. Sure the PS3 has the Cell processor but the 360 has a better GPU with considerably more stream processors. Both consoles cant push resolutions higher than 720p and both drop it lower with certain games, both use equivalent texture sizes. What gives the PS3 its edge in some exclusives is that it tends to be better at some post processing effects and its FMV playback due to the amount of space on bluray.

You guys look at a game like Killzone and make out there is a massive technical difference. You want to know what the difference is, its artstyle, Guerilla Games have some fantastic artists who know how to make a stunning looking game, the same can be said for Gears 1 and 2.

I can't believe there are console fans actually arguing that Crysis 2 looks better! It has lower resolution textures, the leaves have lighting baked into them instead of using opacity maps and real-time lighting. I mean LOOK AT THE HARDWARE! There is not enough video ram on the consoles to hold all the pixel and vertex data that was rendered in Crysis 1. Less polys + lower resolution textures + more baked in lighting = does not look as good as crysis 1. Oh and artstyle is the same, they both go for a very realistic look.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

It definitely takes more space. The 3d demo was quite a bit larger than the 2d one.

Pug-Nasty

No it doesnt, its extra code, a few kbytes at best, doesnt require anything additional beyond that. No extra textures, assets, sound.

I don't know what you are arguing. Yes, it's extra code. No, it's not a few KBs. There's nothing to argue here. The 3d demo size vs the 2d demo size conclusively shows that whatever you think about the situation is wrong.

I'm telling you, adding an extra camera to a scene is a few extra kbytes, its a fact not what I 'think'. Beats me what else they put in there.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

3D doesnt require more disk space, some extra code that sets up 2 scene cameras instead of one. Because disk space is so abundant, they take advantage of it by repeating code, speeds things up a touch.

OP: Really, you were really dissappointed with Killzone 3?? Seriously?

Pug-Nasty

It definitely takes more space. The 3d demo was quite a bit larger than the 2d one.

No it doesnt, its extra code, a few kbytes at best, doesnt require anything additional beyond that. No extra textures, assets, sound.