PS3 Games Performance Vs Xbox 360?

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

Oh, that looks pretty interesting. I might look at getting that, thanks for the heads up!
 
If there is a performance difference then its lazy developers, not the machines imo.

GTA4 looks better on the PS3... same for quite a few other games.

I hate when people accuse developers of being 'lazy'. They have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both consoles and adjust the games accordingly to make the most from each system.
If you think a game doesn't perform to your satisfaction, then maybe you should ask the developers to release a patch which decreases resolution or turns off AA :rolleyes:

Which brings me to your next point... GTA4 runs at a lower resolution and 5-10fps slower on PS3 compared to Xbox 360, and also lacks AA on PS3. Im sure there are a few games which look better on PS3, but you picked a bad example there.
 
I hope the GTA4 Episodes perform better on PS3, I'd love to play them!

I completed The Lost And Damned on 360 when it came out, I've only had a quick go on The Ballad of Gay Tony and I loved that! So yeah, hopefully they'll have sorted out the issues in regards to slowdown and I'd definitely buy them. :)
 
I hope the GTA4 Episodes perform better on PS3, I'd love to play them!

I'd like to think they improved it somewhat. Although the res will stay the same as they would probably need to re-write some of the engine to make it 720p for the PS3 (there must have been some reason why 640p was chosen.)

Thing with The Ballad of Gay Tony is though, they improved the visuals further with increased draw distance and better shadows. Again not really helping the case for the PS3 version.
 
It really is, fps doesn't usually bother me much but the slow framerate on the PS3 version was just really annoying. Even the Xbox 360 version had slowdowns, but I found it much better to play.

Well I've never had a problem with it myself. Certainly overall performance isn't amazing, but aside from the odd bits of random slowdown it's never bothered me at all, it's not like the framerate is consistently terrible or anything.
 
Yes you have ;)

With increased size you can play a game in high definition with improved digital sound. This also lets the games designers make bigger worlds and as blu ray has the option of dual layers this could take you as high as 200gig. So much potential for future games.

Ridiculous statement of the year, all the x box would do is bring the same game out on more then one disk. One of the most loved games ever made is the Final Fantasy series. I dont know anyone who complained having to change disks after about 3 to 7 hours gaming time.

Really there are two main differences with the two.

1. The exclusive games to that console, if there are no x box only titles that entice you in dont bother wasting your money.

2. To me the live online experience is 10 times better then the PSN.

Other then that nothingn seperates them. :)
 
I am really missing something, i didn't find anything in live better than PSN other than cross game messaging :confused:

But then i am biased as i personally think paying for p2p gaming is nothing but a bad joke
 
I am really missing something, i didn't find anything in live better than PSN other than cross game messaging :confused:

But then i am biased as i personally think paying for p2p gaming is nothing but a bad joke


Me too? I have never had a problem with PSN? Not interested in cross game chat, if I want a chat I'll go and see some friends or invite them round.

If I want to game, nothing annoys me more than the tweens! :rolleyes:

I've got both and I personally prefer the PS3. Blu-Ray does make a difference for in-game audio so I can't see what the argument there is. Yes, multiple discs will get around the "more levels, textures, worlds etc" but it comes down to convenience of not having to swap discs I suppose?

360 has been on the shelf since xmas 2008 and I can honestly say it's been turned on about 20 times since purchase?

In comparison, the PS3 is on most days for either a game or a blu-ray.
 
I own both consoles and generally find the Xbox runs games better and have a better online service but as other people have said, the PS3 has not yet reached its full potential.
It will be interesting to say the least when Sony/MS release their motion controllers.
 
Xbox 360 is the weaker console but PS3 just has **** architecture WHEN it comes to porting and costs. PS3 could handle all the games but it's about whether the devs are expereinced enough to make the game good. Orange box, Bayonetta and Resident evil 5 are some examples but other than Bayonetta and Orange box there's very minor differences.

Some things I saw in this topic was someone saying 360 reached it's limit. Does he not know how games are made at all??? It's not near the limit as even when you reach it you can always change things (more focus on graphics and less on huge enemy count etc.) to tweak more performance. There's nothing on PS3 that can't be done on 360.

Also I don't think PSN is bad but the layout is bad. Those tiny thumbnail like boxes for pictures when in the store are pathetic. I have a 37" HDTV and can barely see them so I dread to imagine people with small SDTV's.

Anyway they are both great consoles but no point in getting it for multi plat titles, go for the exclusives.
 
Xbox 360 is the weaker console but PS3 just has **** architecture WHEN it comes to porting and costs. PS3 could handle all the games but it's about whether the devs are expereinced enough to make the game good. Orange box, Bayonetta and Resident evil 5 are some examples but other than Bayonetta and Orange box there's very minor differences.

Some things I saw in this topic was someone saying 360 reached it's limit. Does he not know how games are made at all??? It's not near the limit as even when you reach it you can always change things (more focus on graphics and less on huge enemy count etc.) to tweak more performance. There's nothing on PS3 that can't be done on 360.

Also I don't think PSN is bad but the layout is bad. Those tiny thumbnail like boxes for pictures when in the store are pathetic. I have a 37" HDTV and can barely see them so I dread to imagine people with small SDTV's.

Anyway they are both great consoles but no point in getting it for multi plat titles, go for the exclusives.


Naughty dog disagree with the Uncharted games?

Anyways, a tip, have you tried pressing the square button when browsing the PSN? Changes the icon table to a much easier to look at list. :cool:
 
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)
You're not looking carefully enough then. Look at the entire roof edge to edge on the top of each car and you'll notice more jaggies on the PS3 version. Lighting from car lights much less prominent (lights ground but shows none of the light going from the lights to the ground). Looking at building on the right of the top left one there's evidently more jaggied graphics too.

I'm not saying it's a big difference but it's clear to see. PS3 often has problems with jaggied graphics in multiplatform games I've seen in comparisons. And I was looking at the bottom 2 pics which have the apparent gamma change to suit the PS3.
 
Back
Top Bottom