PS3 vs 360 graphics

Simmz · 7 Dec 2006 at 12:49

McManicMan said:
true but a lot won't be will they, most just presume becasue its called Playstation then its automatically better, but if they wanna waste £200 or more extra than a 360 then thats down to them, but its a shame

If Final Fantasy was on Xbox I would buy one, but it's just purely that the titles I like happen to be on the Playstation.

oweneades · 7 Dec 2006 at 12:56

The game where the differences are most apparent from the screenshots provided is TH: Project 8. The HDR is stupidly overdone on the ps3 and the textures on the ground look well naff compared to the 360 version (the ps3 appears to showing a complete lack of AF in that shot at least).

Other than that its quite close.

Personally the way I see it is regardless of how long the consoles have been out these games should be identical. The PS3's increased price tag gives you nothing more than the 360 can offer.

Also on the lines of the dev kits I am sure I have read somewhere (possibly linked form ocuk) that the developers have had ps3 kits virtually as long as they have had 360 kits. This would make sense as the main problem with getting the console to the market would not have affacted getting small quantities to developers (issues with cell yields and the blu ray format).

gamespot article said:
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Hmmm it appears that the 360 wins on framerate as well.

Interesting in the scenario that a lot of 360 games have suffered frame rate issues, how bad must the ps3 be?!
(this is a genuine question btw).

My overall opinion(please note I don't care about HD DVD or blu ray) is if the consoles were the same price then I would probably sway towards the 360 simply for its live community. However as the ps3 with a game is what £200 more than a 360(premium) when you add the HD lead that sony didn't bother putting in it begs the question: what exactly am I getting for my money.

oweneades · 7 Dec 2006 at 12:57

Simmz said:
If Final Fantasy was on Xbox I would buy one, but it's just purely that the titles I like happen to be on the Playstation.

There is a final fantasy on the 360 although it is one of those monthly subscription jobbies.

akirru · 7 Dec 2006 at 15:41

Well when the xbox came out it had Halo as a launch title and that was way after the PS2 and it looked better than anything on the PS2 at that time.

So you can't use the whole excuse that the 360 has been out longer, you have to remember that the devs have had the ps3 for near enough a year.

gord · 7 Dec 2006 at 15:52

Steedie said:
But in the PS3's defence, developers have had a massive lead in terms of getting to grips with the 360 architecture

Thats not the PS3's defense.. thats the 360's offense. Microsoft caught Sony with their pants around their ankles and Sony are paying the price. If Sony had not been caught up with Blu-Ray and their cell/GPU problems then they would have had their console out at a similar time to Microsoft.

Arsey · 7 Dec 2006 at 16:00

Just found this in the 360 version

P.S. I would consider myself a 360 fanboy and will not be getting a PS3 anytime soon.

Kamakazie! · 7 Dec 2006 at 16:01

Andy298 said:
Hmm I dunno? I do agree with Dirtydog on this. I mean it's going to take time for developers to get use to the PS3. I don't believe for one minute that developers have had PS3 dev kits for just as long as 360 kits. Ok in the comparison article they are the same games, but if devs are still not use to PS3 kits then of course the games are going to look worse.
All I'm saying is that it's too early to compare these machines. I'd wait till next Xmas at least before we see the true power of the PS3, 360 also! I mean the developers at Epic said they only scratched the surface with Gears, and that's an amazing looking game!

Well from what i understand, the major studios have had PS3 dev kits LONGER than they have had 360 kits.
This could just be internet rumours but it pops up in quite a few places.

Anyway as for the topic:
Some games the PS3 wins, most games the 360 wins imo. However, the difference is pretty minimal. What is worrying is the poorly coded games that run really slowly on the PS3. is that because it is that much more difficult to code for or is it because they are porting the 360 version and not dumbing down the shader requirements enough... or is it a combination of the 2 (+ the porting aspect). I think both systems have their strenghts. If Cell can be used to it's full potential then we should see some better AI on PS3 over 360, however i think the lighting is pretty much always gonna be better on the 360. Texture wise will the unified memory (360) be better or dedicated/split memory (PS3)? That will be interesting.

Pug · 7 Dec 2006 at 16:40

Kamakazie! said:
What is worrying is the poorly coded games that run really slowly on the PS3. is that because ..... they are porting the 360 version

i think its just that. Nothing to do with shaders or anything else. The games are being written for the 360 - as its the biggest money market at the mo, and then being lazily/sloppily/cheaply being ported to the PS3, which is so drastically different as to require something more akin to enmulation to run them.

(I use emulation as a loose term - i'm sure if both games were built from the ground up for each machine we'd be better able to judge which is the better system, but developers cant afford to do this.)

Demon · 7 Dec 2006 at 17:17

I don't think multi platform developers like EA actually develop for a single console, it's all generic code engines that are just tweaked for each console.. that's why the games all have the same features/AI etc.. there is a little bit of tweaking to the graphics, and some performance tweaking, but largely I bet the game/graphics code is very very similar.. lets face it no EA title looks 'good'..

I'd imagine that this is a fair test of the PS3's graphics card ability, as assuming neither the 360 or PS3 have any trouble with their 'core' cpu performance, they will be pushing the same level of triangles/textures/whatever to the graphics card..

McManicMan · 7 Dec 2006 at 18:48

i like this post i found, sums it all up on how i feel with the ps3 TBH

Originally Posted by gamespot post
The problem with comparing launches instead of comparing what is going on right now is that Microsoft's launch was a year ago...and it's graphics still hold up, and even exceed those of the PS3. Had Sony launched a year ago like they were supposed to, than that would be a valid arguement. Unfortunately for Sony, that was not the case. From the look of things, it appears as though Sony is launching last years console this year - which is why the graphics are roughly the same, or worse than the 360s. And as many people have said, most of these games were developed side by side with the 360 in anticipation of Sony keeping its word and launching when it said it would. They look the way they look because Sony's graphics card is hampered by terrible design decisions. Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the 360 people are trying to say, for you Sony fanboys: Sony promised that their console would blow everything else under the sun out of the water. They promised that the PS3 would make the 360 look like "Xbox 1.5". They promised that "the next generation doesn't start until we say it does." They promised superior graphics, physics, games, etc. Instead, they have released a console that costs $200 more but is roughly equal to Microsoft's offering, despite waiting an extra year to release it. They have included a lot of non-game features, but have clearly neglected the gaming side of their GAMING CONSOLE. IGN and Gamespot, and anybody with 20/20 vision can clearly see that Microsoft's textures are sharper, the lighting is better and more balanced, and the framerate on the 360 is also better. Talking about Sony's 7 SPE's is pointless, because they are simply fancy floating point calculators. I heave seen interviews with dozens of game developers, analysts, and engineers who say that these extra cores are nearly useless for gaming purposes. So saying that Sony will somehow catch up and bypass Microsoft in the graphics department only shows ignorance about the technical facts of the two consoles.

From what I have read, Sony's console would do great at multi-tasking spreadsheets, or quickly calculating complex math problems, but is not very good at displaying graphics or aiding in smoothing out framerates and game play. Eventually, a programmer will be born who can somehow make the PS3 games look as good as Microsoft's titles, but it won't be soon.

Those who say "Just wait until Sony releases their 2nd gen" must keep in mind that Sony's 2nd gen will be competing with Microsoft's THIRD (3rd) generation of games. Do you think Microsoft is simply going to stand by and stop improving the graphics of their games? Not bloody likely.

Lastly, games will probably continue to be more or less the same on both systems (advantage, Microsoft) because most titles in the future will be cross platform titles. If you read gaming news, you know that developers are jumping ship to Microsoft like rats on a sinking log. Why would they be doing this if they (the people who actually design and create games) thought that Sony had a bright and shining future?

geordie10 · 7 Dec 2006 at 19:03

another review.

H3 Enterprises, Inc. reported this morning that in a totally unbiased side-by-side face-off on H3TV, witnessed by cameras from CNBC and BET as well as a slew of magazine and newspaper reporters, Xbox 360 administered a convincing beat-down to it's highly sought after rival, PS3.

As a result of H3TV's split screen cyber technology, the overflow crowd was able to witness the two rival gaming consoles being played on the same 1080p monitor at the same time. Utilizing EA Sports' "Fight Night" on both consoles, H3TV was able to give the enthusiastic audience was given a clear view of the head-to-head imagery and graphics of the competing systems.
Many of Harlem's top rappers and "Fight Night" aficionados were given the opportunity to participate and experience the varied features that both consoles offer. The final results were unanimous and resounding.
"Xbox is flat-out better both visually and mechanically," said H3's chief communications officer and world class gamer, Adrian "Hollywood" Walton. "When 'Fight Night' is played at its highest level with the highest possible resolution, everyone was able to see Xbox 360's superiority to PS3 as clear as can be on H3TV."
Dipset and H3 superstar Juelz Santana was just as emphatic in his breakdown of the "Fight Night" face-off: "H3TV completely exposed that PS3's High Definition picture doesn't come close to Xbox, at least for "Fight Night." Everyone that had the opportunity to compete on both consoles scored Xbox higher right across the board."
HTRE will feature a second round of H3TV's "Video Console Challenge" at Friday's Spike TV "Video Game Awards," December 8th. Present plans call for EA Sports top selling "Madden NFL 07" to be played simultaneously on H3TV by the brightest stars and best gamers in the world. There will also be a basketball shootout utilizing EA Sports "NBA Live 2007" and 2KSports "NBA 2K7." H3's "Backstage Booth" will be hosted by Walton and other Dipset stars.

FishThrower · 7 Dec 2006 at 19:12

another advantage for the 360 is that most game devs know how to code in DirectX. the PS3 is uses Linux and OpenGL, I imagine that a lot of new devs that are coming onto the scene dont know a great deal about OpenGL to start with

Robert · 7 Dec 2006 at 19:19

dirtydog said:
Hang on

When 360 games came out with rubbish graphics, glitches, framerate problems, whatever - everyone here said "oh no no it isn't the 360's fault! Blame the developers, not the mighty 360!"

Now PS3 games come out and those same people are saying "ha, look how crap the PS3 is!"

The stench of double standards in this forum is overpowering...

He was posting in response to the other guy.

Sheesh, anything to moan ain't it?

gord · 7 Dec 2006 at 20:10

FishThrower said:
another advantage for the 360 is that most game devs know how to code in DirectX. the PS3 is uses Linux and OpenGL, I imagine that a lot of new devs that are coming onto the scene dont know a great deal about OpenGL to start with

Thats not the main issue for developers during the coding stage.. OpenGL has been around long enough and there are experts.. what there isnt experienced experts on is how to write a decent program for a CPU that has 7 specialised processing units.. unlike xbox which has three generic cores that are easier to understand..

n3crius · 7 Dec 2006 at 21:01

what a load of bull.

this is why gamespot is so dreadful. pathetic.

wannabedamned · 8 Dec 2006 at 00:14

n3crius said:
what a load of bull.

this is why gamespot is so dreadful. pathetic.

I've always trusted gamespot, Their reviews and previews have always been something to trust. Why do you say they are pathetic?

Chads · 8 Dec 2006 at 02:03

McManicMan said:
Snip

This is an excellent post. The people who are fervently arguing the toss without really knowing what they are talking about should give more articles like this a good read.

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2006 at 11:01

Yeah - I hate to say it, but SONY may very well have missed the boat on this one - they have sat on their PS2 laurels and unfortunately are probably going to sell stacks of PS3s based on their own user base. From a graphics perspective there are some pretty large differences in the games and what you have to look at is if developers are having to reduce or remove textures from the backgrounds and disguise the images using (IMO) really naff bloom lighting techniques, there is potentially something amiss with the graphics processing power.

Of course we are going to have to sit back and see what actually develops in the PS3 gaming arena, you never know it may just be that the devs don't really know the full potential of the console or currently how to fully tap into that. I for one am going to quite happily sit back and watch the competition unfold and not bother with getting my blood pressure up over it.

My current personal preference is for the 360 images - but if I want to play Metal Gear Solid or Gran Turismo or Ace Combat # then I may very well have to get a PS3 - but they aren't here yet and I can't justify the money so that I can have the console sitting in my living room being an e-penis.

wannabedamned · 8 Dec 2006 at 12:07

MGS 4 looks amazing, Althought the currently released videos dont show ingame, The prerenders are very nice. I have faith in Kojima to put the PS3 to good use

Joebob · 8 Dec 2006 at 12:53

McManicMan said:
TBH both consoles look identical in comparision judging by them screenshots, I like some of the 360 ones and i also like some of the PS3 ones.

In the end does £200 or more justify the difference in the PS3 shots that i liked if your not interested in Blu-Ray, for me NO, for me this is where the 360 wins.

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.

I have my PS3 import arriving from Japan next week and even with postage it came to just over £280 and I will import games from the USA as they work out £10 cheaper than they would be over here.