PS3 Games Performance Vs Xbox 360?

[Things change I've changed]

I think I may have posted the final section in a possibly misleading manor. The 2 pictures I posted are of Midnight Club LA on both the PS3 and the 360. Sadly yes, the car is in motion giving motion blur. The car was won as a part of the career progress hence the exact same car in both screenshots. I've tried to take a screenie of another car that I have not in motion from the PS3 on the 360 but the game now crashes when going to the garage

I've had a look at Midnight Club LA and the main difference seems to be that the PS3 is a lot lighter and also it uses quincunx anti-aliasing which blurrs the textures, it's kind of a cheap and easy way to help smooth out the aliasing on the PS3 and is often used in ports, but that said it quincunx can somtimes be better than standard 2xaa depending on the geometry of the environment, I'm not usually a fan of it but in GTA4 for example I preferred it as it seemed to do a better job of smoothing over the jaggies in the background where as on the 360 the dev's choose to use a dithering filter instead.

With regards to Midnight Club LA though tweaking your TV can have a big impact, I have to have two separate profiles on my TV set-up for the 360 and PS3 and often the lighting and gamma is so different on each of the platforms that it can have an effect on the IQ, on the PS3's profile I have the brightness lower and contrast higher, and 5+ for sharpness, let me show you the difference it can make,

Below is a standard comparison of Midnight Club LA,

---------------------------------------------------------

And here is the same comparison but with the PS3 version having added contrast and slight sharpness filter that most modern TV's have.

---------------------------------------------------------

Although still not on par with the 360 version you can see it is drastically improved and the differences become a lot less significant.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

They don't look massively different to me and I think those small differences highlighted in the above two screens are applicable to most of the cross platform games. Slight differences that don't ruin either version of the game.

 

[Nauggie]

Those 4 pics look identical to me! Apart from as you say the PS3 being lighter so you can make out the back of the car where as its a black blur on the Xbox.

My experience of games on both consoles being of a par (for games generally I've got no direct comparisons) so no need to get an xbox unless you want to play the exclusives.

(I've ignored uncharted 2 which was amazing on PS3 and I've not seen anything to match that on xbox - but most PS3 games are not to this standard)

 

[Mp4]

Both consoles have there up's and down's all due to preference imo i have both so happy to use whatever!

off topic :

How can i find out how long I have played a particular game? (360)?

 

[Things change I've changed]

They don't look massively different to me and I think those small differences highlighted in the above two screens are applicable to most of the cross platform games. Slight differences that don't ruin either version of the game.

I agree, I was just demonstrating how adjusting your TV profile can further help improve the IQ, especially the use of the image sharpening filter on the TV profile setting for the PS3 as this can help a lot with games that use quincunx anti-aliasing.

But like I said earlier in this thread, a majority of people just won't see the differences anyway, or at the very least won't care, the above posts kind of prove that and this is techy forum, which goes to show why ports on the PS3 are generally slightly worse as at the end of the day it doesn't really have much of a negative impact on the reviews and sales of the game so why spend the extra on development.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

I agree, I was just demonstrating how adjusting your TV profile can further help improve the IQ, especially the use of the image sharpening filter on the TV profile setting for the PS3 as this can help a lot with games that use quincunx anti-aliasing.

But like I said earlier in this thread, a majority of people just won't see the differences anyway, or at the very least won't care, the above posts kind of prove that and this is techy forum, which goes to show why ports on the PS3 are generally slightly worse as at the end of the day it doesn't really have much of a negative impact on the reviews and sales of the game so why spend the extra on development.

Yep, I agree with you. Also a lot of comparison shots like you say have just made the PS3 look as though it's brighter. That could be remedied by altering the brightness on the TV.

 

[McBain]

LAdaDADADA

i have both consoles so there for im immune from questions like these

Same

If im buying a mutli platform it's the 360 everytime for me, purely because of the pad and I do enjoy achievements .. trophies are cool and everything, but it's the 'cheeve' whoring that floats my boat.

 

[Abooie]

Average Joe would pay the £40, 5 years * £40 = £200, adaptor is about £50 from memory.

Average Joe has a Wii.

 

[Chronictank]

With regards to Midnight Club LA though tweaking your TV can have a big impact, I have to have two separate profiles on my TV set-up for the 360 and PS3 and often the lighting and gamma is so different on each of the platforms that it can have an effect on the IQ, on the PS3's profile I have the brightness lower and contrast higher, and 5+ for sharpness, let me show you the difference it can make,

I found exactly the same , if you set-up your tv properly there is little to no difference in most games

The 360 however does look better straight out of the box with no configuring, but in reality if you have spent £200 on a console why wouldn't you setup your tv?

It's the same as people complaining about monitors they spend small fortunes on when they are playing games in desktop mode

 

[Demon]

I found exactly the same , if you set-up your tv properly there is little to no difference in most games

The 360 however does look better straight out of the box with no configuring, but in reality if you have spent £200 on a console why wouldn't you setup your tv?

It's the same as people complaining about monitors they spend small fortunes on when they are playing games in desktop mode

I used to do this with my PS3, but it just became a faff, and not many TV's allow multiple image presets per input, so I ended up adjusting the settings for each game, which became a chore!

I just learnt to live with it.. You can 'sharpen' the image, but you can't recover the lost detail on the Quincunx games, I just adjusted to it after a while and stopped worrying.. I did calibrate my TV for blu-ray films, and found it was OK for games..

 

[NeoReloaded]

I find that hardly any PS3 games have AA compared to the 360 or maybe because im using a VGA cable for my 360 and just a boggo HDMI cable at 1080i on the PS3?!

 

[wannabedamned]

I find that hardly any PS3 games have AA compared to the 360 or maybe because im using a VGA cable for my 360 and just a boggo HDMI cable at 1080i on the PS3?!

Nah, Generally PS3 games lack AA due to the GPU. Xbox 360 GPU can impliment it without much of a performance hit.

 

[bloodline76]

He also missed the fact games have to fit into limited random access memory, there's no way you can get around that even with unlimited disc sizes. 200GB blu-ray disc storage won't help much if the system's only got 256mb on the system and graphics memory each. A classic example of this would be the storage/access conundrum we see with Metal Gear Solid 4. Each chapter has to be installed and uninstalled. The bigger the size of the content we see on games, the more exacerbated this problem can potentially become. Why do you think developers are so afraid to go all-out and utilize the entire BD disc?

If larger disc storage sizes did make an impact, we would have seen a discernible difference between PS3 and 360 games by now. So after five years, except for Metal Gear Solid 4's installation issues which Konami imposed a publication embargo on until the game's release - why haven't we?

You are a very ignorant man, bloodline76.

And you sir are a rude man with no manners

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

And you sir are a rude man with no manners

I wouldn't waste your time replying to him, whether he ever has a point or not he still manages to find the time to be unnecessarily rude to people.

 

[Yungstar 2006]

Paying for XBLive is a total moot point, its £25 for a year.

£2 a month.

lets say at home there is you and 3 other people, all want to use there own usernames while playing on LIVE. is the £100 a year (£8 a month) that it would cost for all 4 to use LIVE still a moot point? it's free for all on PSN.

 

[yoyo50]

lets say at home there is you and 3 other people, all want to use there own usernames while playing on LIVE. is the £100 a year (£8 a month) that it would cost for all 4 to use LIVE still a moot point? it's free for all on PSN.

Still £2 a month each.

And who the hell would pay for PSN?

Because i wouldn't

 

[Yungstar 2006]

Most people have a wireless network and most people care enough to want to eliminate as many wires as possible. It's not a moot point at all because he's asking for the two systems and how they compare, Comparing features is not a moot point seeing as it's what he's (the OP) asking for.

i may just be unlucky, but of all the consoles (3) and laptops (3) i have at home, PS3 is the only one hard wired to my wireless router as the wireless is carp on PS3 when i want to download from PSN.

 

[Yungstar 2006]

And what the hell? L2 and R2 is aim and fire, NOT L1 and R1. Jeez! I hate it when you can't remap them.

it's extra expense, but the Cross Battle Adapter V2 lets you use a wired 360 controller on PS3 and has a switch so you can use the triggers instead of the L1/R1 (bumpers on 360 pad).

my self, i use the CBA V1+ that has rumble added over the V1 version while rumble and R1/R2 switch are added to the V2.

in use http://www.xcm.cc/XCBA_ok_Video.WMV

 

[wannabedamned]

Still £2 a month each.

And who the hell would pay for PSN?

Because i wouldn't

Why not, I mean you dont have to. But I dont understand why if theoretically you had to, You'd not...considering you're happy to pay JUST £2 a month for Live.

To be fair with Xbox 360 you're paying for a system of Peer2Peer gaming, with PS3 there would be sense in the charge due to the infrastructure, yet it's free. Seems a little bit backwards.

Also generally people who put down PSN are people that used it once at an early stage, or have not used it.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

Why not, I mean you dont have to. But I dont understand why if theoretically you had to, You'd not...considering you're happy to pay JUST £2 a month for Live.

To be fair with Xbox 360 you're paying for a system of Peer2Peer gaming, with PS3 there would be sense in the charge due to the infrastructure, yet it's free. Seems a little bit backwards

Plus, it doesn't matter if he says it's only £2 a month, it actually isn't. It's a one off payment that varies from wherever you buy it.

Also generally people who put down PSN are people that used it once at an early stage, or have not used it.

It's not as strong in it's user base as XBL and if I'm honest I do prefer XBL's Marketplace, but it's not as if the PSN is the retarded ginger cousin of XBL. It's got a fair few users, dedicated servers for a decent amount of games and a half decent store which is ready to be added to. All that XBL offers MORE in my opinion is the cross game chat and the annoying American tweens.