ps3 graphics VS Xbox360 ( no flamewars )
sublime tool
ok, so i was browsing info about actual comparison screenshots between xBox 360 and sony , and came across this page , first screenshots are 360 , when you put your mouse ps3 ones appear...
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-6.html
my opinion is that its too early for developers to be familiar with ps3 developing and with time new technology will be unveiled in both ...anyway ..im kinda disapointed.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-6.html
my opinion is that its too early for developers to be familiar with ps3 developing and with time new technology will be unveiled in both ...anyway ..im kinda disapointed.
Replies
edit: and the bloom in tony hawk is freaking stupid, "my eyes!!!!!!!!"
edit-2: i think gamespot needs to grow a brain, the differences in the graphics are from different settings, not graphical capabilities. looking at the at the others though it seems there were some minor differences, probably due to differences in the game settings used before the game was put out for each system, but this doesn't really show anything for either system. its a horrible comparison. some screenshots just look washed out becuase they didn't adjust the brightness for each system to be equal, which will happen if you use two different sources and compare them.
given the rather lame game lineup on the 360 even with their headstart and easier dev-environment, it will be interesting to see if sony can pull it off again and end up with the largest marketshare, they certainly do not have the far more powerful hardware that was expected.
Still, fuck Sony. They can take their giant expensive ulgy system and shove it up their ass.
When I went back and looked at them a second time, I noticed something strange about the 360 version of Madden: the numbers on the players' jerseys don't have any shadows. What's going on there? I wonder if that was intentional, to make the numbers more visible, or did someone screw up the normals map?
what would be more interesting would be to compare exclusive titles to each system, where all the effort is put to get the best out of the system (which can't really be the case so early for the ps3, the launch and christmas certainely rushed a few games), so I'd say wait a little and see how it goes once big exclusive games are released.
I haven't been impressed at all either by the ps3 so far (only played resistance and saw dark kingdom), but I also remember perfect dark zero on 360, which was a big shame...
I think comparing the same title on different consoles is not really a good thing since developpers usually aim at one platform and then port to the other(s) (sometimes in the mean time, but there's still a main target)
[/ QUOTE ]
Vahl brings up THE most important point here and its exactly what hit me when I saw this on Gamespot last night. This kind of comparison is UTTERLY pointless, because the platforms are close enough that companies are *highly* unlikely to do anything too much thats specific to each platform. Sure, it looks like on Madden they ran out of vid ram for the PS3, and reduced some stuff compared to the 360, but other than that all the Art assets used in the likes of Tiger Woods I can pretty much guarantee are gonna be the exact same for both.
Ultimately then, there's really no discernable difference in the choice you make, until you get into games that are truly native to the platform. Then of course you need to realise how much harder the PS3 is to develop for than the 360. Add to that the library advantage that the 360 already has over the PS3, AND the fact that in the above games the framerate is faster and more stable on 360, and I think Microsoft have a damn good stab at dominance this time around. For value for money the far better choice is the 360. Unless you really want and value Blue Ray I suppose.
Either way, in light of their original ludicrous claims, personally I think Sony look pretty silly right now and their arrogance has bitten them in the behind. In the words of SCEA vice president Jack Tretten from E3 2005 "Next gen doesn't start until we say it does" rrrrriiiiiiggghhht.
i use optpix all the time now for personal stuff, and really i cant tell the difference between full 16-32 bit and 8 bit with it and thats zooming all the way in.. depending on the settings i have even squeezed out 4 bit textures that look pretty good. now why on earth is every person i talk to going full bit depth when it seems video ram is still an issue? you could be getting twice and sometimes even 4 times the resolution with good compression..
anyone out there working on next gen titles and using any form of compression?
Example:
Would you rather date a girl with 2 tits? Or one with THREE?
Think about it.
And really, on some of those, the ps3 one just looks a tad bit brighter, and nothing else really seems changed...
[/ QUOTE ]
exactly what i was trying to say. when you're changing video sources but comparing the same source image you will see a difference in brightness. however gamespot interprets this as the image looking worse and more washed out... i actually took two of the images and lowered the brightness... and they look almost identical. alwell though.
Also, has anyone played the Tony Hawk game for the PS3? Besides the Gundam game, it takes my #2 spot for WORST GAME EVER. Me and my friends played the game for hours just because the ragdoll is so horrible and we were trying to glitch it out. We found this area where you transfer from a ramp to this little bowl thing and if you crash you can fly hundreds of feet across the level. The crash sequence is actually a combination of animations and ragdoll, sort of like Halo 2, but of course they pulled it off horribly and it looks like a retard going into convulsions.
Xeno - See Tony Hawk's comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!
anyone out there working on next gen titles and using any form of compression?
[/ QUOTE ]
yep, we're using compression, use color channels to store different map types in a single image file, etc.
now look at how much larger textures these days have to be and how you need many more maps per asset than you used to on last-gen and your videomemory still fades away quickly.
never developed for xb360 but if i understood it right, not only does it have an UMA architecture that allows you to allocate RAM as you see fit, the OS that has to stay in the background all the time these days consumes way less memory than sony's (maybe they can improve on that front tho?).
Because more is better? Duh.
Example:
Would you rather date a girl with 2 tits? Or one with THREE?
Think about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, the gaming press is full of journalists who rate graphics only by the spec sheet.
I didn't read through the whole thread but I am sure someone pointed out the monetary issues concerning the development of one game over 2-3 consoles and the pc. Especially when each have their limitations.
flame war!!! flame war!!! go go go
ok, start flaming if you really want.
Needless to say i was unimpressed with what i saw on the PS3, but i want to see what will come out from japan in the next few years.
I don't see anything on the PS3 that makes me want to get one. They had me walking away at the $600 price point, i looked back but all i saw was an over confident and lack luster system.
i think the push towards 1080p is too soon for the hardware, and games often look worse off for it,
resistance of man is possibly the best thing ive seen but everyone at the office is distinctly unimpressed.
with the europe launch 6 mnths away i think they might be on a back foot.
plus the pad really is tooo light
Alex
it really seemed to me that he was really quick to defend that ps3 , even tho no where in my original statement before he interupted did i say anything about either systems graphics
i was in line with cholden at eb today picking up viva pinata and i mentioned this thread, and the point that it was silly to try and compare a systems graphics by looking at a dual release game (as has been pointed out in this thread) when some older grey haired guy in a buss driver suit in line in front of us busted in with the " well i own a ps3 and i can tell you it totaly kicks the 360's ass" i told him i disagree and that graphicaly nothing i've seen on ps3 can touch gears of war.. and he countered buy telling me how beautifull tiger woods was for ps3, which i told him i believed him to be incorrect."
it really seemed to me that he was really quick to defend that ps3 , even tho no where in my original statement before he interupted did i say anything about either systems graphics
[/ QUOTE ]
its called fanboyism...
Personally... I wouldn't buy either console at this point in time. I only recently picked up a PS2 (mainly for Street Fighter III), so it goes to show how up to date I am in the console department... I still play my NES
But I have noticed that towards the end of the life of the console, games graphics tend to improve dramatically. Developers push the console to the limits, so really I guess the quality of the game is up to the developer. I wouldn't say one console is worse than the other, because they are very different. Both with advantages and disadvantages, in the end it just comes down to the titles that are released for that specific console to say which is better.
But then again... I could be wrong
-caseyjones
Personally i don't feel the need to get an HDTV rite now its too early still. I'm waiting until the dust settles and HDTV means it can do everything from 480p to 1080p. That and when the battle between blue ray and HD DVD is over and one of them has won.
The price of the HD DVD player for the 360 makes me want to get it and a HDTV but until i see blue ray is dead and all movies move to HD DVD i'm not buying.
I think alot of people feel the same way they don't want to buy another beta max player or lazer disk. They want to know what is safe to buy then they will get the HDTV and player. So to make a console thats sole point is to push HD gaming is too early.
Frankly, I think they both are incapable of making a well optimized game and therefore what they say on this topic is pretty much worthless.
If you compare the first batch of PS3 and 360 games, they all look like crap. Aside from Gears, the best looking stuff is on the PS2 right now
EA as a company have NEVER been on the cutting edge of 3D engine technology, so wtf would they know on the subject? 90% of their games have framerate/performance issues and they have no proprietary in house engine of their own that counts. And no, Renderware sure as FUCK does not count. And no, making two hi poly boxers jump about in a cube doth not constitute a 3D engine either.
Not to mention the fact that If its so goddam time consuming to tap into the PS3's power, EA and their 18 month dev. cycles are at odds with that, and all the 'untapped mythical power' in the universe cant create video ram that isn't there.
I dont agree that all 360 games look crap though. As well as Gears of course, R6, Fear, Cod3 (much stronger framerate than its PS3 counterpart), Viva Pinata, Dead Rising and more were all impressive in their own way.
Methinks this is gonna be one of those posts that I'll look at tomorra and regret those couple of wee drams of whisky I had tonight.
Yeah Daz it's so weird that EA pays well enough to get movie talent level artists but don't seem to have any of the major programming talent out there. As far as EA internal studios the only stuff im really impressed with is Spore and Lord of the Rings rts. You would think with all the money they throw around they would want to be able to say " we have the best artists,programmers,musicians and the best technology" but it's far cry from the truth .
As far as 360 vs PS3 i'd buy both. I'd buy 360 right now but in a few years i'll buy a PS3 also . I love Devil May Cry and Final Fantasy and Lair will be awesome. Can't pass up Metal gear 4 or Tekken 6 either but it's going to have to wait until the system comes down a few hundred bucks .
Here is the Comparison link
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742...p;click=topslot