Itachi11432 wrote: "i wonder how killzone 2 would look on 360, ****" It would look just as good if Guerilla were developing it with the same team and resources, just as Gears of War 2 would look just as good on the PS3. :|
jmace86 wrote: "ishan316 are you an idiot? The 360 quite clearly is not as capable as the PS3 on a graphical level. Multiplatform games are hardly the best evidence for deciding which system has better graphical performance as the majority of developers lead on the 360 meaning that the developers have more time to spend coding for that particular platform and also meaning that the game's code is optimised for the 360 to a greater extent than for the PS3." And what about the games that didn't lead on the 360, such as COD4 (both seperately) and Burnout Paradise (led on PS3)? Are we to ignore those games when comparing? Whilst I don't agree with ishan316 (saying the 360 will always be better than the PS3 graphically), saying the 360 cleary is not as capable as the PS3 graphically is also wrong. Both consoles are VERY similar in terms of power, and therefore there's not much between them graphically. That's what we see in these multi-format tests. Regarding multiformat games, I'll cut and paste a reply I gave to someone earlier, which was ...Why are PC versions of the same games always better? Why was this also true last gen, and why was the XBox version of multi-format games usually better than the PS2? The fact is, multi-format games look similar between the 360 and PS3 because the two consoles are similar in terms of the power and memory available. They looked better on the XBox last gen because it had more memory and more power compared to the PS2, and they look better on the PC because a good machine have more memory and more power compared to the consoles. In otherwords, where there's more power and more memory, developers will try to use it to improve a version of a multi-format game.... That said, you need a large number of multi-format games to compare before a pattern emerges, and last gen, it was clear from all the multi-format games that the XBox was more powerful than the PS2. This gen, we've had enough multi-format games released to see that both consoles are similar in terms of power and therefore are similar graphically. Yes exclusives have the *potential* to get more out of a console, but the results depends not only on the power of the console, but also on the skill, talent and resources of the developer, therefore the results are not a pure measure of power. Hence which ever games you consider to be the best graphically on the PS3 and 360, those same developers would probably achieve equally great results if *they* created the same game for the "other" console instead, but most other devs would find it difficult to match their results.
djpetitte wrote: "I hate on the 360 because Im a true gamer not a noobchild playing with 12 year olds oline.... I guess iv just seen graphics that make the 360 look terrible, so I love making fun of all the 360 fan boys that think their gamers" My problem with that attitude is that I think it's bad to be a fanboy of ANY system, whether it's the Wii, 360, PS3 or the PC. Hence you are no better than the fanboys you speak of, since you are clearly a PC fanboy. :| I've been a PC gamer since it began (yes I'm a mature gamer) and yet I also enjoy consoles. Sadly, you're the type of gamer I've seen many times over the years (often argueing with other PC gamers), which is the PC gaming technology snob! ;) And there's no such thing as a 'true gamer', that's just a label people use because they actually think they're better than others. But if I was forced to say what I consider to be a 'true gamer', then it's someone who not only enjoys gaming, but is open to all forms of gaming and therefore is able to RESPECT others for their gaming choices, even if those choices don't appeal to him.
WarAnakin wrote: "Nvidia screwed sSONY up on this one, by providing a very LAME graphic card." To be fair, it's NVidia who saved Sony in a way, since they didn't come in until very late during the PS3's developement, since it is believed that Sony were hoping to use Cell for graphics too (i.e two Cell processors instead on one Cell and one GPU), but the final processor didn't turn out to be up to the task (it's great, but it cannot beat a dedicated graphics processor for games). And in no way is RSX a lame GPU, it's based upon G71 (known as the GeForce 7900 on the PC), and on par with the GPU in the 360, or at worse, slightly less poweful. :|
Sh0p0w wrote: "to me ps3 having the best graphics is a theory of mine to which i conducted my own test with the same television. it is still merely a theory and coming here or any forum is where im trying to find an absolute answer. people can settle with whatever they have and be happy but not me i guess. im a movies and games buff and every detail counts." That's fine by me, and if this discussion was only about GT5 vs Forza 2, then there will be areas which we will be in agreement, but I had to disagree when these games were used to represent each console without taking other factors into account. Anyway, it's great you have all consoles, I'll be able to say the same later this year when I have the time (minus the Wii that is). But as a racing fan, I have to go now (F1 motor race in Monaco is about to start :))
Sh0p0w wrote: "yassam, what would you compare to determine which was graphically superior?" Certainly not one game on one console compared to one game on another ;). No really, I've been gaming long enough to see that games improve ALL the time on a console throughout it's lifespan, and therefore any game you choose is only a snapshot of the what a developer could achieve on a console at THAT time, it is not representative of the console as a whole. If I do compare, I would look at the best in each genre (best sim racer, best arcade racer, best RPG, best FPS, best platform game, best fighter etc) and compare them as games only, rather than as statements of which console/system is more powerful. However, if using games to compare consoles, then I take all those best games as a whole and take into account when the games were released and the talent and resources of the developers, since these are factors which effect the results. "i dont believe in multiplatform game because a)they dont have th best graphics and b)they're not a representation of what each consoles highest capabilities are." Well, you can get great results in multi-format games. COD4 was a multi-format game, and exclusive games based on Epic's UE3 could run on another systems (eg. Gears of War would run equally well on the PS3 if it was a multi-format game). I prefer multi-format games for the comparison, not just a few, but as many as possible, because overall a pattern emerges. Hence for the XBox and PS2 last gen, the majority (but not all) multi-format games looked better on the XBox, a few looked just as good on each (such as Burnout 3 which led on the PS2 during developement), but overall, it was clear that the XBox was more powerful. This gen, the results of numerous multi-format games shows that there isn't much between the 360 and PS3 in terms of power. Yes devs can get better results if they focus on just one console, but that applies equally to both the 360 and PS3.
Comander243 wrote: "Uber Xbox360 boy wrote..." Firstly, I don't own a 360, neither do I own a PS3, but only because I don't have the time to play games as I used to. Later this year, that should all change, and so I'll be purchasing BOTH the 360 and PS3, because I view them both as superb consoles (sorry Wii fans, but your console just doesn't appeal to me :|). "But look at Heavenly Sword I can guarentee you taht wouldn't be able to cope with the Xbox360" You guarentee? I can guarantee that the 360 would cope, but yes there would be some compromises. Heavenly Sword had 10GB for HD audio alone, so make that SD, perhaps shorten some of the cutscenes, put the game onto multiple disks, and HS would easily run on the 360. :)
Sh0p0w wrote: "lets look at devs talents since thats what you like. polyphony is the most talented and most experienced. they produced an outstanding game graphically. forza2 developers didnt match their ability. theyre game is weaker graphically. since polyphony produced gt on ps3 then ps3 has the graphically superior game." AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! (written in capitals for the effect ;)) So come now Sh0p0w, surely you see the point now. By your own admission Polyphony are the more talented developer and as a result have produce a more graphically impressive game. This is what I've been saying ALL ALONG. You now also say that the Forza devs are not as talented and therefore producing a weaker game graphically. Again, what I've been saying all along. Hence these games are not representative of the relative power between the PS3 and 360, which is what you've been saying for quite some time now. "until forza3 comes out or any developer whose talents manage to produce image quality on any object of importance greater than the cars in gt, then im staying with my ps3 instead of my elite." And I have no problem with that. I'm not trying to say one console is better than the other or that you should choose the 360 over your PS3, I'm just saying that GT5 and Forza 2 is not proof that the PS3 is superior to the 360. The fact that you prefer the PS3 is YOUR choice, and I respect that. :)
Comander243 wrote: "On the GTA note is Rockstar kept GTA as an exclusive which it should've been the graphics would ahve been so much better. Mainly because the Xbox couldn't handle the graphics they intended for GTA" And yet the 360 version runs at a higher resolution and with a slightly better framerate than the PS3 version (although both versions have graphical issues), http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829&page=4 So how would they be so much better if it was a PS3 exclusive? Wasn't Haze a PS3 exclusive? And yet there are many games on the PS3 (including multi-format) with FAR better graphics than Haze.
Dr_Yassam's comments