PS3 vs 360 graphics

Neoni · 9 Dec 2006 at 09:54

them pictures definately arent correct in my eyes, just look like 360 shots photoshopped to me.

dirtydog · 9 Dec 2006 at 10:14

Do you think gamespot photoshopped them?

Kreeeee · 9 Dec 2006 at 10:26

Joebob · 9 Dec 2006 at 11:43

Neon said:
them pictures definately arent correct in my eyes, just look like 360 shots photoshopped to me.

Some of the screens probably look photoshopped because of the lighting.
I think that the PS3 wins on some games like Need for Speed carbon as the lighting looks softer and more natural, but the 360 wins on COD for the same reason reason.

Graphically there isn't much between them at all, with the exeption of Fight Night Round 3 and Madden 07 - although I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with hardware, it's purely gonna be down to coding.

Mr Latte · 9 Dec 2006 at 15:29

dirtydog said:
Hench?

Why during 2008, will there be no blu-ray movies or PS3 exclusives until then?

Probably not enough to warrent the Purchase during 2007 unless for someone that just must have the odd exclusive title.

Just my opnion but Blu Ray is already behind HD-DVD on the release front and thats also got no Regional Coding. PS3 will also be behind the X360 for choice and quality games not to mention the benifits of Live and new features/hardware Microsoft have coming.

I fail to see anything about PS3 that would make me REALLY want it at this moment in time or for the UK launch.

The thought of real time gaming simular to render quality was only just a dream folks...

wannabedamned · 9 Dec 2006 at 15:58

I'm going to be so skint

I really want a Wii, And i've just seen clips of Mass Effect that have added to my wanting of the 360 that GOW had already instilled within me.

I want a PS3 aswell

I am going to be spending over a grand on 3 consoles next year :eek:

gord · 9 Dec 2006 at 16:08

wannabedamned said:
I've not seen one developer complain of difficulties in programming for the Cell, I've heard mentions of there being more involved, But surely thats the same with anything new.

Compilers, libraries and middleware will most likely take care of the basics anyways.

it's not like they go back to scratch everytime they make something.

Carmack, one of the most talented coders/programmers and developers has stated that the cell is a pain to deal with in comparison to the 360's architecture.

He also stated how this latest architecture affects development. You say they dont go back to scratch, and ultimately they arnt going right back but we are now dealing with multiple core architectures. Fundamentally this is totally different to how computers began and how the human mind thinks. We are fairly linear thought processors (yes, even women, no matter what they say about 2 things at once).. therefore, we naturally like to complete one task at a time. Coding for 2 cores is naturally difficult for us. Furthermore, the existing middleware, libraries and compilers are of no use. New tools have had to be made to take advantage of having multiple cores, and in Cells case, they arnt even generic processing units, they are their specialised processing units.. of which there are SEVEN.. WHY!?!?

Joebob · 9 Dec 2006 at 19:05

gord said:
Carmack, one of the most talented coders/programmers and developers has stated that the cell is a pain to deal with in comparison to the 360's architecture.

Oh c'mon - Carmack is famous for doom, quake and wolfenstein 3D... not exactly games which are famous in the console arena!!!

Chrisss · 9 Dec 2006 at 19:13

Joebob said:
Oh c'mon - Carmack is famous for doom, quake and wolfenstein 3D... not exactly games which are famous in the console arena!!!

And?

Does that make his point about the two CPUs null then?

gord · 9 Dec 2006 at 19:40

Joebob said:
Oh c'mon - Carmack is famous for doom, quake and wolfenstein 3D... not exactly games which are famous in the console arena!!!

The PC plays an integral role in all console games production.. the technologies are practically the same now..

Naffa · 9 Dec 2006 at 20:43

All this talk of double standards is classic. :rolleyes:

What has been said?

- So called 360 fanboys saying the 360 shots look better (which they do) on the whole.

- These people get accused of having double standards as they adamantly defended the 360 at launch saying it was the developers fault that they games were like they were and not the hardware's fault.

Now.. How is this double standards?

This argument isn't to do with which is better, it's an argument about why. The PS3 has been developed for the same amount of time as the 360. Lets take an example. Fight Night. The development for the PS3 version has been going on for what? A year longer than the 360? And on the whole the 360 looks better.

Now this could be because of hardware (which I doubt) or because of the developers. Certain people made a huge fuss about issues - such as framerates - with the 360. But now the PS3 has framerate issues all we hear is a distinct silence from them? :confused:

Tbh, I'm just rambling on here. The main issue as far as I'm concerned is this. The 360 looks better in pretty much every 360/PS3 comparison I've seen. The reasons for this are irrelevant. The fact is, the 360 looks better. When the PS3 is released we're talking what? £425? I'd probably pay that for one at release but I'd know I'd be being ripped off a treat. £425 for something that isn't as good as a (potentially) £200 360? :rolleyes:

That well and truely is a no brainer. Sorry I've rambled on here and not really said much. Ah well.

dirtydog · 9 Dec 2006 at 20:53

naffa said:
Now.. How is this double standards?

It has been very adequately explained in the thread

Certain people made a huge fuss about issues - such as framerates - with the 360. But now the PS3 has framerate issues all we hear is a distinct silence from them?

If you infer a double standard from me then you are mistaken. I will criticise any game on any platform and apply the same criteria. All I ask is that others do the same. Some here are patently not doing that

HighlandeR · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:04

Considering how complicated the xbox360/Ps3 is, its proberly gonna take a few more years before we see graphical masterpieces coming from either of them especially the Ps3 :cool:

wannabedamned · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:04

dirtydog said:
If you infer a double standard from me then you are mistaken. I will criticise any game on any platform and apply the same criteria. All I ask is that others do the same. Some here are patently not doing that

Same goes for me.

Naffa · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:05

Kamakazie! · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:14

Joebob said:
I totally agree with your first statement, but I think the extra money is buying so much more than just Blu-ray.

As I have said before, a 360 (like the Xbox before it) is basically a PC in a non threatening box. The hardware is almost out of the box (no pun intended) so it's familier for developers to program for. Therefore the games and graphics which are coming out now are pretty much the standard of things to come.

I beleive that with the PS3 however has much more longevity, as it boasts custom hardware so it will take developers longer to learn to code for it effectively. Also when you look back at games like GTA San Andreas, which completely filled a double layer DVD, then you realise that you need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray for new games if you want more content. If you have to buy a HD-DVD player as an add-on for the 360 then the difference in cost is falls.

Whilst i agree you get more in the PS3 than the 360, you are also paying a LOT more.
Blu-Ray is only really any good if it wins the format war. Games that will require more than 1 DVD (Blue Dragon) are games that are fairly slow paced where it is not really important at all. To be honest, it is not that important regardless of the game.

The PS3 will take longer to get it's full potential out of it, however, will we EVER see its full potential? On the GPU side of course we will, most games today are pretty much pushing the thing hard as its the same on architecture for the GPU as the PC has.
The CPU on the other hand, which has little to do with graphics (hence why the 360 i believe, will always have the slight edge in eye candy), is what will take an age to learn how to use properly. Even then, it is only good for specific tasks. Where the PS3 should lead over the 360 is in game mechanics like physics and AI and the like. If this every gets utilised, is another matter. I simply don't think the Cell will ever be used to it's full potential and as such the 360 is going to be the benchmark for games due to the better graphics or frame rate.

Joebob · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:15

This is just the same old time honoured agrument allover again... C64 v Speccy, Amiga v ST, Mega Drive v Snes, Playsation v N64, PS2 v Xbox and now Playstation 3 v Xbox 360.

In retrospect I have had this debate sooo many times that I have seriousley lost count - there will always be two camps saying that there's is better than the other for stated reasons.

One thing is for sure though, there has only ever been room for 2.

wannabedamned · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:19

Joebob said:
One thing is for sure though, there has only ever been room for 2.

Hense Wii trying to aim for a different market

wedgie · 9 Dec 2006 at 21:21

Joebob said:
I have seriousley lost count

me 2, and interest.

A console is nothing without decent games so the one console vs another debate is and always has been utterly pointless.

rug · 9 Dec 2006 at 22:37

HighlandeR said:
Considering how complicated the xbox360/Ps3 is, its proberly gonna take a few more years before we see graphical masterpieces coming from either of them especially the Ps3

Gears of war? :cool: