Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,269
I will check back on this thread a bit later when the flames start to fly
The PS3 is better than the 360 without question. Discuss
Xbox 360 true power?
- Thread starter Richard Beer
- Start date
The PS3 is better than the 360 without question. Discuss
The PS3 is better than the 360 without question. Discuss
I think the Wii is the most powerful, it's just no-one's actually found that power yet.
Not a chance.
Could you elaborate on that? I demonstrated my reasoning quite clearly and stand by it.
There are better looking games than those that run perfectly well at 720P you know
Halo 3 looked ok and Mass effects environments where good, but i think weve seen better graphics in other titles, like Assassins creed, Ace combat and Gears of War.
Last edited:
I agree, once developers get used to the way the Wii is programmed, it will start to pull ahead of the others.
Also it's a great Bluray player, better than any standalone Pioneer. It will also become more powerful at this when you flash the bios and the more times you flash it, the more powerful it gets. It physically grows a little bit each time -- unless you swap out it's memory stick for a seagate hd with higher capacity and add on a hddvd drive
Last edited:
That's a matter of taste, but I remember Bungie specifically stating that they had to drop the resolution on Halo 3 because the 360 simply couldn't handle all the lighting effects they put in at 720p and they didn't want to compromise on those effects and eye candy.There are better looking games than those that run at 720P you know
To me this says that at least one technical hurdle of the Xenos GPU has already been met.
Bungie was silly by having two rendered buffers for the lighting effects. It's nowhere near good enough to justify a lowered resolution and complete lack of anti-aliasing. I would have much preferred an inferior quality HDR or maybe even just bloom, for proper 720p and 2 or maybe even 4 samples of anti-aliasing. They dropped the ball on that one.
On SDTV sets and small HDTVs though, the game looks the bomb.
As for the SPEs on the PS3, the majority of Killzone 2's graphical effects are being done via them, even the postprocessing and 4xMSAA. Not bad for a bunch of number-crunchers. I think a few people are slightly understating their capabilities in this thread.
On SDTV sets and small HDTVs though, the game looks the bomb.
As for the SPEs on the PS3, the majority of Killzone 2's graphical effects are being done via them, even the postprocessing and 4xMSAA. Not bad for a bunch of number-crunchers. I think a few people are slightly understating their capabilities in this thread.
Last edited:
I can guarantee with 100% confidence that mass effect does not represent the pinnacle of the 360's performance. To saying anything to the contrary is just foolish.
Where did I say that it does? I just said that its framerate is poor. My main example was Halo 3.
Also, I'm still asking for some reasoning here. You keep stating things with no reasoning, nothing is right just because you say so or because you're 100% confident.
But, I just wish game companies would concentrate more on the actual gameplay instead of trying to make things look the best. So much linear rubbish these days I struggle to find any games that I enjoy playing. Graphics for me don't make a game - gameplay does and that is so overlooked these days
Its a damnsight easier hiring a good artist than a good gameplay designer, although good artists are hard enough to find. Also, many publishers are suits who dont play games, they just want something that looks nice and can stick in a box to sell, thats certainly true of Movie tie-ins anyway .
Mass Effect doesn't look amazing admittedly and still has a poor framerate, do you mean they coded it badly or what?
Anyway I don't see the 360 or PS3 getting any better than what they already are now.
Halo screams for higher resolution textures and some Anti Aliasing. The lighting effects aren't anything spectacular imo and the game would have benefited a lot more with the performance being spent in other areas. I am impressed that the game runs very well even with 16 players on screen all chucking grenades and whatnot around.
Sounds like Bungie or whoever making excuses to me, Halo 3 isnt doing anything that dozens of other games arent doing already and better.
Why would they lie? Do you have any evidence to support that?
Ignore, I didn't know they split last year.
Last edited:
What you are saying goes against the proven track record of every other console to ever be produced. No console shows it's best graphical performance until near the end of its life.
Whos going to admit to having an inferior engine or whatever? All you have to do is look at what other games have pulled off to see that the 360 and PS3 is capable of more.
Fact of the matter is, when your working to deadlines, Code, art and sound often suffer. Poor level design can also lead to poor performance too.
Last edited:
Well fine then I change what I said to "much better".
Not many other games keep a nice smooth frame rate with the amount of action Halo 3 has going on at times, Dead Rising being the main exception.
In a way they have. They've admitted that the way they did the lighting requires a shortcut to look the way they intended, when people here have said they would've prefered good old HDR or bloom instead if it meant they could've played Halo 3 at proper 720p and maybe with some antialiasing.
As for other games that pull it off, could you cite some examples? There's a severe lack of reasoning in this thread and I'm just going to give up if this debate can't be handled in a mature fashion.
Last edited: