I own both PS3 and 360, and i have this to say *GTA4*

While i very much doubt that they deliberatly held back the PS3 version a bit, i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't fully/efficiently use the PS3 architecture as much as it did the 360. The 360 is easier and cheaper to programme for, end of, the PS3 may well be capable of more but i think we'll need more time for developers to become comfortable with it and they'll need more money too.

I very much doubt we'll see what the full capability of the PS3 is for a couple of years yet, Sony have shot themselves in the foot a bit by forcing such an unfamiliar device onto programmers without supplying them with devkits early enough for them to familiarize themselves. I also believe the 360 hasn't seen the end of its capabilities yet, but due to the familiar architecture and coding language i would be willing to bet it is closer to its maximum capabilities than the PS3. I don't think the difference will be very big by any means, but the amount games like Uncharted and Resistance visibly improve as you progress indicates that it is a slow learning curve when programming for it whereas games on the 360 were visibly stunning from the very beginning. While uncharted started behind Gears graphically, i feel by the end it had surpassed it for example.

This isn't a bad thing for microsoft however, i'm sure they have the xbox720 just waiting to be rolled out.
 
Marcos said:
But i have little doubt in my mind that Rockstar had to make the decision of bringing down the quality of the PS3's version of GTA4 in order for it to be equal/comparable to the 360 version.
Click to expand...
When you say quality do you mean graphics quality - ie textures, meshes and effects? In other words you're saying we could have had even worse framerates on PS3 if the game was an exclusive? Yipee :rolleyes:

I would also ask you to explain why the PS3 version runs in a lower resolution than the 360 if the 360 GPU power is holding the game back (btw everything I've read suggests the 360 has the more powerful GPU, but slower CPU).

However the game could have been bigger on blu-ray, but it's not exactly small now is it.
 
Marcos said:
how much? P&P included?



seriously, this isnt my life's work, its a small statement because i've got the balls to say it, im trying to invoke discussion on a pretty simple subject.

When you've got 2 main leaders of the console market, and 1 has a lesser specced machine with bigger market saturation, and you are about to do a simultaneous release of your biggest game. Do you think for 1 second that the marketing bosses didnt debate the impact of making 1 version better than the other?
Click to expand...

Nintendo is the market leader by a LONG way.

Big games don't sell consoles so the point is mute. In april, aka GTA4 launch, in the US Sony/MS sold 187k/188k respectively compared to 257k/262k the month before. Thats the biggest title in gaming having little to no impact on sales.
 
Beepcake said:
Oh give over, unless you believe the crap that comes out of the Sony hype machine neither machine is categorically "lesser specced" than the other, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Even if that argument did hold any water then the reverse would be true of last gen. The XBox might have got some shoddy ports from the PS2, but I don't think any were nerfed so as not to upset the Sony faithful.
Click to expand...

it wasnt the same situation last gen, there was a bigger gap between the 2 consoles and everyone knew it. With this gen, the games so far have been kneck and kneck, so its more of a risk
 
Joebob said:
What in particular do you think was held back by the 360? It wouldn't be graphics and the physics seem to work the same on both, so are you talking about the size of the map being held back by not having enough storage space on a DVD9 and no HDD as standard?
Click to expand...

like i said i havent thought it through to that depth, this is more a statement for discussion. But both DVD and HDD would be good examples of limitations.

I just want other people to throw more views into the discussion pot and fill in the gaps or prove the statement wrong. Im not trying to be right, i just want the topic to be fully explored, whatever the outcome
 
Streeteh said:
While i very much doubt that they deliberatly held back the PS3 version a bit, i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't fully/efficiently use the PS3 architecture as much as it did the 360. The 360 is easier and cheaper to programme for, end of, the PS3 may well be capable of more but i think we'll need more time for developers to become comfortable with it and they'll need more money too.

I very much doubt we'll see what the full capability of the PS3 is for a couple of years yet, Sony have shot themselves in the foot a bit by forcing such an unfamiliar device onto programmers without supplying them with devkits early enough for them to familiarize themselves. I also believe the 360 hasn't seen the end of its capabilities yet, but due to the familiar architecture and coding language i would be willing to bet it is closer to its maximum capabilities than the PS3. I don't think the difference will be very big by any means, but the amount games like Uncharted and Resistance visibly improve as you progress indicates that it is a slow learning curve when programming for it whereas games on the 360 were visibly stunning from the very beginning. While uncharted started behind Gears graphically, i feel by the end it had surpassed it for example.

This isn't a bad thing for microsoft however, i'm sure they have the xbox720 just waiting to be rolled out.
Click to expand...

good response! wheres the rep button?

this is more like the kind of intelligent response i was after, you've mentioned things i didnt think/know about
 
@ the OP..

You've completely come to the wrong conclusion over which console was 'gimped' IF it's a conspiracy..

Just from a console resources being used perspective, the PS3 version is the one definitely struggling, marginally lower framerate with lower resolution..
But it's odd how the 360 version has this odd detrimental 'noise' effect that developers on Beyond 3D can't figure out, as it looks like it's there by 'design', yet does not seem to be any known artefact of any known graphics algorithm, almost as if the developers have added something deliberately to soften the image, i.e. make it look closer to the PS3's version..

Of course, I think that R* did the best they did on both consoles....
 
Streeteh said:
While i very much doubt that they deliberatly held back the PS3 version a bit, i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't fully/efficiently use the PS3 architecture as much as it did the 360. The 360 is easier and cheaper to programme for, end of, the PS3 may well be capable of more but i think we'll need more time for developers to become comfortable with it and they'll need more money too.

I very much doubt we'll see what the full capability of the PS3 is for a couple of years yet, Sony have shot themselves in the foot a bit by forcing such an unfamiliar device onto programmers without supplying them with devkits early enough for them to familiarize themselves. I also believe the 360 hasn't seen the end of its capabilities yet, but due to the familiar architecture and coding language i would be willing to bet it is closer to its maximum capabilities than the PS3. I don't think the difference will be very big by any means, but the amount games like Uncharted and Resistance visibly improve as you progress indicates that it is a slow learning curve when programming for it whereas games on the 360 were visibly stunning from the very beginning. While uncharted started behind Gears graphically, i feel by the end it had surpassed it for example.

This isn't a bad thing for microsoft however, i'm sure they have the xbox720 just waiting to be rolled out.
Click to expand...

This is becoming a popular belief, and I do agree with the 360 being easier to program for from the outset, but I don't think advances in games on either console is going to leave the other behind..

The reason I think this, is that we know that although 'different' a lot of the system's resources balance out reasonably well, which all devs agree with, and that most advances come with the new/improved graphics techniques (deferred shading/UE, etc)

The only reason the 360 is producing the goods quicker is IMO, the fact that it can handle 'traditional' designs very well having the most symmetrical architecture, but with 6 hardware threads accross 3 processors, it can also benefit a lot from all the new parallel processing techniques that the PS3 is requiring developers to 'develop'..

I don't doubt that it seems logical the PS3 may end up slightly on top in a few years, I just can't help thinking that all the parallel techniques it will require to get to that point will also be benefitting the 360 massively..
 
Joebob said:
What in particular do you think was held back by the 360? It wouldn't be graphics and the physics seem to work the same on both, so are you talking about the size of the map being held back by not having enough storage space on a DVD9 and no HDD as standard?
Click to expand...

graphics are not the same you can say it over and over and convince yourself if you want but they are not the same
which graphics you prefer is up to you but they are not the same every single comparison video and pictures will show this
but when will all this gta 360vps3 end its very boring
 
TheStig1 said:
graphics are not the same you can say it over and over and convince yourself if you want but they are not the same
which graphics you prefer is up to you but they are not the same every single comparison video and pictures will show this
but when will all this gta 360vps3 end its very boring
Click to expand...

Graphics and Physics aren't overly different. Look at all the comparison videos you like, I've played both on correctly configured TVs, And none of them look terribley worse than the other
 
Demon said:
@ the OP..

You've completely come to the wrong conclusion over which console was 'gimped' IF it's a conspiracy..

Just from a console resources being used perspective, the PS3 version is the one definitely struggling, marginally lower framerate with lower resolution..
But it's odd how the 360 version has this odd detrimental 'noise' effect that developers on Beyond 3D can't figure out, as it looks like it's there by 'design', yet does not seem to be any known artefact of any known graphics algorithm, almost as if the developers have added something deliberately to soften the image, i.e. make it look closer to the PS3's version..

Of course, I think that R* did the best they did on both consoles....
Click to expand...

Dithering is a simple graphical process that saturates textures and colors in the distance to give it a somewhat grainy smudged look, it's supposed to help with the blur to get a somewhat oil-painting like effect. It's deliberate, but nobody know why it's omitted on the PS3 version, maybe it's because the PS3 version is lower resolution and thus has no need for dithering anyway?
 
Marcos said:
But both DVD and HDD would be good examples of limitations.
Click to expand...

The only reason Blu-Ray is an advantage (currently) is developers can be lazy and use less compression, thus freeing the CPU up slightly.
And the only reason HDD had to be compulsary on the PS3 is because of slow BD read speeds, hence the mandatory installs.

I'd expect things to be a bit different at the end of next year, when developers are more comfortable developing for the PS3, and we MAY see a game looking better on the PS3 - but thats when Microsoft will announce the next Xbox, thus stealing Sony's thunder again.
 
RichieM said:
The only reason Blu-Ray is an advantage (currently) is developers can be lazy and use less compression, thus freeing the CPU up slightly.
And the only reason HDD had to be compulsary on the PS3 is because of slow BD read speeds, hence the mandatory installs.

I'd expect things to be a bit different at the end of next year, when developers are more comfortable developing for the PS3, and we MAY see a game looking better on the PS3 - but thats when Microsoft will announce the next Xbox, thus stealing Sony's thunder again.
Click to expand...

The reasoning behind having a mandatory HDD and Blu-ray are irrelevant, in the long term they are better choices for the machine, as a whole.

I guarantee no new xbox will be announced this year, that would be suicide for the 360 tbh. if you are talking about looks, there are already games on the ps3 that look better than their 360 counterparts (although I have no 2st hand experience of this not owning a multi platform game on both platforms). It's just at the moment the games that look better on 360 far outnumber those that look better on the Playstation 3.


rp2000
 
RichieM said:
And the only reason HDD had to be compulsary on the PS3 is because of slow BD read speeds, hence the mandatory installs.
Click to expand...

Not really, hard drives should be mandatory for reasons such as game saves, media, settings etc. not just caching. Not implementing a hard drive as standard on the 360 was a big mistake, reducing load times should always be mandatory, whether read speeds are 'slow' or not.
 
Last edited:
RichieM said:
The only reason Blu-Ray is an advantage (currently) is developers can be lazy and use less compression, thus freeing the CPU up slightly.
And the only reason HDD had to be compulsary on the PS3 is because of slow BD read speeds, hence the mandatory installs.
Click to expand...

Again, However the hardware works, if the end result is a great game. Does it matter?

Blu-ray is slow, Hard drive improves this due to HD caching and installs.

It works. So who cares if the console has to do it.

I'm pretty sure if 360 had bluray, and a compulsary HD aswell as it's superior GPU. We'd see even more beautiful games than we currently do, and chances are we'd see the PS3 lagging even further behind. or alternatively, If the PS3 had the Better GPU, Same would apply, 360 would likely lag behind

The consoles even out with +/- points
 
Nanoman said:
Not really, hard drives should be mandatory for reasons such as game saves, media, settings etc. not just caching. Not implementing a hard drive as standard on the 360 was a big mistake, reducing load times should always be mandatory, whether read speeds are 'slow' or not.
Click to expand...

never did the ps2 any harm did it when the xbox had a hdd and the ps2 never and we had to pay £30 to save games
all 360's come with game saving ability now and the 360 hdd does cache
 
Nanoman said:
Not really, hard drives should be mandatory for reasons such as game saves, media, settings etc. not just caching. Not implementing a hard drive on the 360 was a big mistake, reducing load times should always be mandatory, whether read speeds are 'slow' or not.
Click to expand...

I never said not implementing a mandatory hard drive on the 360 wasn't a mistake, it was, hence why I brought a premium ;)
I'd love a return to the cartridge era, never heard of load times back then lol.
(but then again, I also remember waiting half an hour to play a game on my Spectrum or C64!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom