PS3 vs 360 graphics

[thedoc46]

XBOX360 vs the PS3

I have both, so I can say what I think and not be biased.

Graphically they are pretty much both on par. If we want to get nitpicky, then the PS3 is slightly sharper and perhaps better, but since most titles will be cross platform, this is not the real advantage of owning a PS3.

The real advantages the PS3 has over the XBOX360 is it's a much nicer looking machine (obviously subject to opinion) But one thing that cannot be denied is its a much better designed machine in terms of quality feel, sound noise levels, and lastly not having an ext power supply. If you are fussy to these kind of things, then get a PS3, cos the XBOX360 is going to drive you MAD !!!

The XBOX360 does have better online gaming for sure and obviously for the time being a better catalog of quality games.

For me I have to give the PS3 the no1 as I despise the noise levels of the 360 and I know the game selection will soon catch up. It just has more awe about it. I really do enjoy playing my PS3 more so than the 360.

As for controllers, I really don't know, I love both of them equally. At first I thought the sixaxis was too light, and now I feel the 360 pad is too heavy.. It's half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. Both as good as each other and both feel real good in the hand.

As for blu-ray, if you are a film lover with a quality hd set, then once again the PS3 outshine the 360 there, ok so you can go out and buy a HDdrive, but you know what, I don't really want extra add ons sitting around. So the PS3 once again comes out top there.

Those who hate the PS3 are those who don't own one, get one then eat your own words.

Thanks

 

[Things change I've changed]

XBOX360 vs the PS3

I have both, so I can say what I think and not be biased.

Graphically they are pretty much both on par. If we want to get nitpicky, then the PS3 is slightly sharper and perhaps better, but since most titles will be cross platform, this is not the real advantage of owning a PS3.

Well from ALL of the screens shots I've seen so far the textures look better on the 360 so, this link from the OP kind of proves that, http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

The real advantages the PS3 has over the XBOX360 is it's a much nicer looking machine (obviously subject to opinion) But one thing that cannot be denied is its a much better designed machine in terms of quality feel, sound noise levels, and lastly not having an ext power supply. If you are fussy to these kind of things, then get a PS3, cos the XBOX360 is going to drive you MAD !!!

The PS3 is a much nicer looking machine , I know is it's all down to personal choice but are you sure that you got that the right way around, the PS3 is famously ugly, also I'm not going to get a PS3 just because it has an internal PSU and is less noisy, I'm going to get the console with the best games, simple as

The XBOX360 does have better online gaming for sure and obviously for the time being a better catalog of quality games.

Right, so your saying the 360 has a "better catalog of quality games" and better "online gaming for sure", yes ? and then below you say,

For me I have to give the PS3 the no1 as I despise the noise levels of the 360 and I know the game selection will soon catch up. It just has more awe about it. I really do enjoy playing my PS3 more so than the 360.

and now despite your previous statement you say the PS3 is No1 and enjoy playing it more, I don't get that, even tho you admit the the 360 has better games and online support

As for controllers, I really don't know, I love both of them equally. At first I thought the sixaxis was too light, and now I feel the 360 pad is too heavy.. It's half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. Both as good as each other and both feel real good in the hand.

I know it's an old arguement but vibration support still wins it for me, and I must admit I do like a weighty pad.

As for blu-ray, if you are a film lover with a quality hd set, then once again the PS3 outshine the 360 there, ok so you can go out and buy a HDdrive, but you know what, I don't really want extra add ons sitting around. So the PS3 once again comes out top there.

Go and read some revews of the 360 HD-DVD drive then come back and repeat that statement, theres hardly a bad word said about it, I'll say one thing, it's quite funny that you say you don't really want an extra add-on sitting around, well you better hope that Blu-Ray win the HD battlle then otherwise you'll be getting that add on weather you like it or not.

Those who hate the PS3 are those who don't own one, get one then eat your own words.

you've already told us that the 360 is (curruntly) better online and has better quality games, coming from somebody that owns boths consoles I think that's a very important point, isnt it the games that defines in the end what console is best (curruntly).

Thanks

Thankyou

 

[dirtydog]

Is everyone who expresses any praise for the PS3 going to get flamed in this forum?

 

[Abooie]

One thing is certain. The PS3 will never have better textures than the 360.

The MS OS uses as little as 3.5MB and uses about 3% of system resources.
So it has up to 508MB of RAM to store some pretty hefty textures.

XMB on the PS3 uses 100MB and an additional 16MB if you plug the keyboard in. It reserves 1 of the cell processors and has a 2nd on standby. The memory is also split. So it has 256MB of graphics RAM and could with some programming tomfoolery use an additional 156MB of system RAM. In reality I doubt we'll see textures larger than 256MB for most non-1st party games.

MS have introduced a common API for multiplayer support relieving developers the resource time of having to do it, and are in the process of rolling out the DX10 extension API for developers (not sure what stage this is at but I'm guessing it's quite far along). With these tile based techinques employed from the beginning of projects we'll be seeing games look 2 or 3 times better by the end of next year.

Sony expect all developers to work all this out for themselves.

 

[Joebob]

Is everyone who expresses any praise for the PS3 going to get flamed in this forum?

pretty much, yes.

this whole forum does seem to mainly consist of people who dont really like Sony consoles. You will find endless threads about how the DS is better than the PSP and how the 360 or Wii are better than the PS3.

Talking about PSP's, one thing no one has mentioned is about how this will be the ultimate accessory for the PS3. There is rumour that a well known racing game will use the psp as a rear view mirror, not sure exactly how that will work, but it still sounds cool and shows you the potential of how the two consoles could link up. That to me is Sony, once again, showing ingenuity. Something that Microsoft are yet to do in the console market.

 

[Abooie]

Is everyone who expresses any praise for the PS3 going to get flamed in this forum?

Not at all. But it should be about the 'games'.
If someone came out and said I prefer the PS3 because I prefer the games that are out. Hats off, that's cool.

I'm just sick of people saying the PS3 is better because Sony say it's more powerful (8 times?!?), because it's quieter, because there will be these uber games (because Sony says so) out next year, because there is a larger PS2 install base etc etc.

If next Summer, Winter etc. KillZone, Motorstorm, FFXIII all come out and they look and play stunning, I'll be happy to hold my hands up. Right now though we've got 360, it's a great system with some fantastic games. I just don't think anyone can justify spending £425 on a PS3 over it at this point in time.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Is everyone who expresses any praise for the PS3 going to get flamed in this forum?

yes

 

[dirtydog]

I think it's too early to judge the PS3 yet. Yes the early games are mediocre and some of them apparently have poor performance, presumably down to lazy or inept programming which is apparently the reason why many 360 games are like that. I think we are all hoping that things will improve in this regard on both consoles.

It does sound better to me that it is quieter though. I don't think this should be brushed off or glossed over. It is a big plus! Also the blu-ray player might be a huge plus as well. Or it might be a white elephant á la Betamax. It's just too soon to tell.

 

[rayb74]

Jeez , there aint much in it between them.

The only MUGS are the tards who pay £200 extra for one of them.

 

[Abooie]

pretty much, yes.

this whole forum does seem to mainly consist of people who dont really like Sony consoles. You will find endless threads about how the DS is better than the PSP and how the 360 or Wii are better than the PS3.

Talking about PSP's, one thing no one has mentioned is about how this will be the ultimate accessory for the PS3. There is rumour that a well known racing game will use the psp as a rear view mirror, not sure exactly how that will work, but it still sounds cool and shows you the potential of how the two consoles could link up. That to me is Sony, once again, showing ingenuity. Something that Microsoft are yet to do in the console market.

Lol, you can't post a thread complaining about people Sony bashing then end with an MS bash.

And you're talking about GT:HD which was canned. They might use it for GT5 which I think has a christmas 2007 release

I think it's a nice little extra but hardly showing ingenuity. More a way to try and get people to feel the need to buy a PSP to get a 100% game experience. Much like they've done with all the recent PS1 arcade releases on the PS3 network. You have to have both a PS3 and PSP to play them. You download them on the PS3, but can't play them. You then transfer them to the PSP. (Latest 1up show), you can't do anything else when they're downloading or transferring and it takes half an hour a step.
MS let you download stuff and play games at the same time, I'd argue that showed more ingenuity.

 

[dirtydog]

People who buy a PS3 are mugs and tards

Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Things change I've changed]

I think it's too early to judge the PS3 yet..

Exactly, it is too early to tell yet, but you got to agree at this moment in time the 360 has to be the better buy atm, purely from a games players point of view that is, I admit I don't like Sony one bit, I've just never liked them from as far back as I can remember, *but* if over the course of the next year some really great games come out that are PS3 exclusives then I may just buy one.

 

[Joebob]

The PS3 is a much nicer looking machine , I now is it's all down to personal choice but are you sure that you got that the right way around, the PS3 is famously ugly,

Everyone I know who has seen one says it's a nicer looking machine - I think it's much nicer looking too. Plus everyone I know who has handled one says the build quialty feels solid. If I am spending that kind of money on anything then I want quality. As for the games, do you really think that the library of PS3 titles wont catch up with the 360???

One thing is certain. The PS3 will never have better textures than the 360.

The MS OS uses as little as 3.5MB and uses about 3% of system resources.
So it has up to 508MB of RAM to store some pretty hefty textures.

XMB on the PS3 uses 100MB and an additional 16MB if you plug the keyboard in. It reserves 1 of the cell processors and has a 2nd on standby. The memory is also split. So it has 256MB of graphics RAM and could with some programming tomfoolery use an additional 156MB of system RAM. In reality I doubt we'll see textures larger than 256MB for most non-1st party games.

MS have introduced a common API for multiplayer support relieving developers the resource time of having to do it, and are in the process of rolling out the DX10 extension API for developers (not sure what stage this is at but I'm guessing it's quite far along). With these tile based techinques employed from the beginning of projects we'll be seeing games look 2 or 3 times better by the end of next year.

Sony expect all developers to work all this out for themselves.

But for the 360 to use all 508MB of memory for textures it wouldn't leave anything for the actual game would it.!!!

It's amazing how many people in this thread have stated that it's all down to Graphics. I completely dissagree - whilst graphics, for me, are a huge part of gaming the most important aspect is gameplay. I really think that with the extra storage space of the Blu-ray you will get bigger and more complex games, with the extra processing power of the Cell you will get better AI and physics etc.
I honestly beleive that there is hardly any difference in gfx between the two consoles at present, when you look at the PS the gfx of the N64 were better, when you look at the PS2 the gfx on the Xbox were better but overall the sony consoles won due to popularity and the amount of games.
This time around the market is much more even graphically, but there are a huge amount of people out there who have back catalogues of PS1 & 2 games who will be buyhing PS3's to play them on. So the market share will 'at least' even up meaning that the PS3 will have at least as many titles as the 360.

 

[dirtydog]

Exactly, it is too early to tell yet, but you got to agree at this moment in time the 360 has to be the better buy atm, purely from a games players point of view that is

Absolutely Cheaper price, more games, and lots of cheaper games as many older games' prices have been reduced now.

 

[Abooie]

Everyone I know who has seen one says it's a nicer looking machine - I think it's much nicer looking too. Plus everyone I know who has handled one says the build quialty feels solid. If I am spending that kind of money on anything then I want quality.

To be fair though, anyone that has one, especially in the UK at this point in time really really wanted one and spend a great deal of money to get one. Once people who don't pray at the Sony alter start saying nice things about it I'll listen

Honestly, I don't think it looks that bad and the build quality looks superb. I'd love my 360 to be quiet but it doesn't bother me too much. I'm sat 7 foot from it and in the dashboard / playing DVDs it pretty much is silent. It's only when I'm running round with a chainsaw it gets noisy, and I can't really hear it over the screams.

 

[Mr Latte]

1. The mentioning of Blu Ray for larger games is just NOT an advantage with regards graphics.

Explanation:
Hasnt the PC had games on multiple CD's for years and even look at the fuss that was caused with Doom III, simply it was cheaper for games to be manufactured at that time than a single DVD was and why a lot of publishers had games with 2,3 or even 4 discs. Dont worry if a X360 or Wii game requires you at some point to insert disc 2, or 3 its not a big problem, Well it certainly wasnt with past consoles.

Upcoming:
I would also expect Microsoft to announce either further features utilising PC harddrives for storage or a new external Drive probably in the 250GB region which really should be affordable, they certainly wont limit users much longer to the current drive.

Blu Movies
The only benifit with Blu Ray is that Games for the Japanese market that love lots of Rendered Scenes can easily be stored on a single disc. This was once concern for the Dead Or Alive series and perhaps RPGs. However I thought we all skipped past these after the first viewing as they became a hinderence eh? Well maybe Japenese gamers are more patient?

Blu Dollars
The reason the PS3 has Blu Ray is simply to make Sony more money on Royalities and to be the main pushing force to try and insure Blu Ray succeeds.

Marketing Ploys
One other thing to remember is that Sony have decided to also utilise the PS3 to help push 1080p displays. The industry knows that the sweetspot is definately 720p for max frames and high res textures or additional graphical effects. Ultimately resolution isnt the deciding factor to how good a game looks, it certainly can make it look sharper and cleaner but who wants that at the expense of lost graphical effects or lower res textures.

Unbalanced Decision
You also have to question why 1080p is so important as and for the next few years only a small percentage of gamers will utilise it. 720p screens (1366x768) will be the ones that have and will be purchased more.

Like No Other
Sony have a mountain to climb, good games and a great online service will need to come quick.

 

[Joebob]

1. The mentioning of Blu Ray for larger games is just NOT an advantage with regards graphics.

Explanation:
Hasnt the PC had games on multiple CD's for years and even look at the fuss that was caused with Doom III, simply it was cheaper for games to be manufactured at that time than a single DVD was and why a lot of publishers had games with 2,3 or even 4 discs. Dont worry if a X360 or Wii game requires you at some point to insert disc 2, or 3 its not a big problem, Well it certainly wasnt with past consoles.

Yes, but PC games are generally installed to the HDD to run from, so you dont need to swap discs at inopertune moments. If we take one of the biggest selling console games of the last gen 'GTA:San Andreas' then would you be happy to swap discs every time you crossed from Los Santos to Las venturas? after a while it would peice me off to the extreme! Rockstar crammed as much data as they possibly could do onto a dual layer DVD. With a next gen game like GTA IV there is no way that they could improve on the previous title by using DVD, unless you install from multiple discs to the HDD - but considering that the HDD's are fairly small in comparison to PC's and the fact that they will be used for other media such as music and films etc, then that too doesn't seem plausible.

Upcoming:
I would also expect Microsoft to announce either further features utilising PC harddrives for storage or a new external Drive probably in the 250GB region which really should be affordable, they certainly wont limit users much longer to the current drive.

Ok, so if they release a new storage or optical drive then how much is that going to cost? I personally woudl prefer it to be built in from the start.

Blu Dollars
The reason the PS3 has Blu Ray is simply to make Sony more money on Royalities and to be the main pushing force to try and insure Blu Ray succeeds.

Erm... Sony are a company - of course they want to make money, thats what they do!!! Oh I see, of course Microsoft have never been into that have they :| do you not think the extra drive will be a money spinner for Microsoft, just like having to buy a seperate remote for the DVd player was with the Xbox?

Marketing Ploys
One other thing to remember is that Sony have decided to also utilise the PS3 to help push 1080p displays. The industry knows that the sweetspot is definately 720p for max frames and high res textures or additional graphical effects. Ultimately resolution isnt the deciding factor to how good a game looks, it certainly can make it look sharper and cleaner but who wants that at the expense of lost graphical effects or lower res textures.

Unbalanced Decision
You also have to question why 1080p is so important as and for the next few years only a small percentage of gamers will utilise it. 720p screens (1366x768) will be the ones that have and will be purchased more.

I really don't see the point of this statement - I can't even tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p, and i doubt that many can to be honest. Wether my lines are interlaced or not isnt visible noticable to anyone but the most visually aware gamers. If 720p is the sweet spot then surely thats what developers will make games set at.

Like No Other
Sony have a mountain to climb, good games and a great online service will need to come quick.

Funny, I remember similar statements about the dreamcast! That had a head start too.

 

[Sacred]

At the end of the day do all these comparisons really matter?

We ALL know which machine is more powerful. Also, if graphical superiority was all anyone wanted the Wii wouldnt exist.

 

[dirtydog]

Unbalanced Decision
You also have to question why 1080p is so important as and for the next few years only a small percentage of gamers will utilise it. 720p screens (1366x768) will be the ones that have and will be purchased more.

You know 1366x768 isn't 720p right? You do? Okay just making sure

 

[dirtydog]

At the end of the day do all these comparisons really matter?

No but...

We ALL know which machine is more powerful.

I wouldn't say that at all. I would say both machines are to all intents and purposes the same in performance terms. Now it's just up to developers to give us a reason to choose between the two as far as games goes.