@SAZZAN I spend about the price of 1 PS3, if not less, on my PC each time a next gen of console is released. One upgrade per lifespan of a generation of console. Thanks.
I have a quick question for you all saying PS3 looks better than 360. I'm primarily a PC gamer, and won't even bring PC into this. Ok.. so lets assume that ideally, what all gamers want, are for graphics to look more realistic than others. Let's look at the 4th Fallout 3 picture first. What I want you to focus on is the tree DIRECTLY below the Capitol building (the largest building directly to the left of the huge monument) Let's look at Xbox 360 first. On the 360 the tree is thin... Doesn't look great, but its there. Now flip to the PS3 version. That tree gets 3-4 times wider, and so do most of the trees around that distance in the screenshots. Weird, no? At this distance, that tree would have to be like 30 feet wide. That's odd. I didn't know Redwoods were in Washington DC.... I also thought they were a lot taller. Also, on the first Fallout 3 pic, to the VERY left, you see how in the water reflection the 360 reflects the pillar holding the busted bridge up? Where is that reflection in the PS3 version? The next thing we will focus on is the water tower on the 4th picture. Xbox 360 first. Doesn't look absolutely GORGEOUS, but not bad. Flip to PS3. What is going on with the support beams holding it up? Horrible antialiasing is what. I didn't know smooth surfaces were supposed to be really jagged and rough. Looks like PS3 thinks they should be in this Fallout 3 comparison. I won't say who I think the winner is on Fallout 3. ----NEXT GAME---- Dead Space. Xbox and PS3 both look about the same aside from that wierd, glaring lighting issue on the 4th picture on PS3. Both look only mediocre though, IMO. Neither bothered to use shadow antialiasing (jagged edges on the shadows) on shadows cast by the players character or other characters. Also, what is going on with the face of that man to the left of the main character? Am I supposed to be wearing 3-d glasses? ----NEXT GAME---- Call of Duty 5. We are looking at the 2nd and 4th pics. 2nd Pic first, Xbox first. Doesn't look too bad. Some slight antialiasing issues, but thats about it. Lets flip to PS3, again, 2nd pic first. Poor antialiasing all over the place. The blown up tank, the trees just up and to the left of where the crosshairs are... I could go on. Let's go to the 4th CoD5 pic. Xbox 360 first. Again, some slight antialiasing issues on the characters ducking behind the rocks and slightly on the edges of the rocks. Flip to PS3. The antialiasing issues get even worse on the characters ducking behind the rocks and on the edges of the rocks. One nice touch was that in the PS3 version the characters behind the rocks have moss and foliage on their helmets for better camo. Woohoo! Still doesn't make up for the horrible antialiasing. -----NEXT GAME---- Gta4. Xbox and PS3 both look good, aside from the HORRIBLE looking trees in pic 4. Absolutely horrible on both. Aside from that, both are good enough. All that being said, please -LOOK- at what I am talking about before you post. Also, if your personal system looks better than what is shown here, good for you. If you cannot see what I am talking about by looking at THESE pictures, then you need glasses. If you already have glasses, you need better ones. If your PREFERENCE is to look at poor antialiasing quality and other graphic issues, then good for you. More power to you. Good day sirs.
@kiddo1212 The difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 on CoD5 is that the PS3 looks like it has no, or VERY poor antialiasing. It's very noticable. Jagged edges all over the place. The 360 suffers from this a bit, but not as bad as the PS3. Also, look at the blown up tank in the middle of the screen between 360 and PS3. Looks terrible. Technologically speaking, the 360 clearly wins. What YOU think looks better is up to you.
@Tom_delonge555 I see what you mean. Though a 360 vs PS3 comparison was contained within the "PC vs 360 vs PS3" comparison for USERS to give their verdict on, Gamespot didn't really have anything to say about "But, PC aside, the Xbox looks better in this situation than the PS3 because..." or "The PS3 looks better than the 360 in this screenshot because..." etc etc. I would have liked to have seen their verdict on that too. There have been 4 rounds of Xbox 360 vs PS3 comparisons though. It's about time the PC had it's chance to compete against them. That's all i'm saying. I still remain firm on the fact that PC's do NOT have to be upgraded all the time though. When someone says "all the time" to me, that means every 6 months. Which is completely false. If a PC is built with a motherboard that supports good expandability, the PC won't have to be upgraded for a year and a half, 2 years maybe even more. And if it does, it may not be a bank breaking upgrade. Game's are progressing, technologically, much slower than the hardware is. If you buy a PC that can play all these games now, chances are you will be good for most of the life of the current next gen consoles. The only issues a PC may have are with PC only titles, as they can be made to utilize the current top of the line hardware, which, I think everyone CAN agree with, is expensive.
@S1lenz thats what i'be been saying all along. The price, how comfortable one is, how many exclusive titles, how fun one is, etc. are totally irrelevant. Its graphics comparison.
@Tom_delonge555 They threw PC in because people wanted it to be there. Most likely because it deserves to be compared, as it is a gaming platform, just like 360 and PS3 are gaming platforms. You say that what USED to matter was 360 vs PS3. Well, when developers decided to make the games tri-platform, it immediately became a comparison between all 3. You cannot say you came here and didn't get a 360 vs PS3 comparison. You did. It's up to you whether or not you pay attention to the PC screenshots. They toss the "PC beats both consoles" in... well.. because it does. They would be lying if they said otherwise. Their job isn't to lie. As for changing the name to "Consoles vs PC" like you suggested. How is that going to change the results? Changing the name to "Consoles vs PC" is just polishing turds. It's pointless. Gamespot is being UNBIASED by including PC. It's not their fault gamers all over the world have PC's and wanted a comparison. It's also not their fault that PC's are better all around. Think about it... for Gamespot to go "Let's NOT include PC because console fanboys don't like em" is totally biased to consoles. This is Gamespot, not "Consolespot", and last I checked, PC's play games VERY well.
@zxcorr I agree that the brightness settings on the 360 and ps3 screenshots are off. The brightness settings should have been adjusted differently. However, I only really notice it on Fallout .
@Misfit1119 It's not hard. It only takes a little bit of effort and research. Your consoles will become obsolete around the same times a PC will be come obsolete if built right.
TimmyDigital's comments