PS3 & Xbox 360 - Side-by-Side Graphics Comparison

[bean19]

Gamespot's side-by-side-comparison (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html?tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&click=topslot) of screenshots between multi-platform games available on the PS3 and the Xbox 360 favors the Xbox 360 by a hair.

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.
Check out the screenshots yourself. While the 360 wins this comparison, it does so just barely and what this really shows is how close the two consoles are to one another in power.

Editor's Note - While this is not strictly news per se, it is something a lot of the EvAv community have been asking about - a side-by-side comparison between the PS3 and Xbox 360. - fitbabits

[Vandenh]

>this really shows is how close the two consoles are to one another in power

We already knew this one year ago. Next! The GPU of PS3 is gimped but Cell might give devs some new tricks. Multi-platform stuff will probably always be slightly better on the 360.

[kokyunage]

Considering that devteams have had the Xbox development tools for much longer (over a year longer) this isn't surprising. As time goes by I fully expect this to transition into Playstations favor. Once teams get experience with the PS3 their games will look a hair better on the PS3 than the Xbox360. But I don't expect the difference to be much.

[Gorvi]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again. These are more than likely games that were made for the 360 and ported to the PS3. I'd hold off any '360 roxxorz teh PS3 graffix!!1111!' claims until we see games built from the ground up for the PS3 and not rushed ports. Not that I'm saying the PS3 will trump the 360 in terms of graphics, I just don't think this is a good comparison.

[Kamalot]

Here's some things I've been wondering...

*...but these are first-gen PS3 titles!*
When the Xbox and GameCube were released a year after PS2, they were both CLEARLY better (http://www.lucasarts.com/products/rogueleader/screens.jsp?num=55) looking that PS2. Why should PS3 be any different? They released a year after the competition, why aren’t their games looking better?

*…but these games are ports! Of Course the 360 version will look better*
Even ports of PS2/Xbox games looked better on the Xbox. In fact, if there was a multi-platform game, the original Xbox was the version to get due to better visuals, faster frame rates and better online capabilities. Why is it that ports and multi-platform titles look and play worse on the (supposedly) more-powerful PS3 when compared to the 360?

[bean19]

Considering that devteams have had the Xbox development tools for much longer (over a year longer) this isn't surprising. As time goes by I fully expect this to transition into Playstations favor. Once teams get experience with the PS3 their games will look a hair better on the PS3 than the Xbox360. But I don't expect the difference to be much.

That doesn't hold water. In many of these cases, they've had several months of additional time to port the game to the PS3 hardware.

What I expect is that multi-platform titles will start looking slightly better on one or the other (instead of mostly looking better on just the 360) but they'll remain EXTREMELY close in visual quality on both systems.

[Gorvi]

*…but these games are ports! Of Course the 360 version will look better*
Even ports of PS2/Xbox games looked better on the Xbox. In fact, if there was a multi-platform game, the original Xbox was the version to get due to better visuals, faster frame rates and better online capabilities. Why is it that ports and multi-platform titles look and play worse on the (supposedly) more-powerful PS3 when compared to the 360?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the PS3 may be a slight bit more complex than the GC or original XBOX. Just maybe though..... :rolleyes:

[Vandenh]

Indeed. Halo looked better than any PS2 game during its entire lifecycle. If you buy a PS3, just don't buy it because it will have better looking games, buy it because it has game you want.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the PS3 may be a slight bit more complex than the GC or original XBOX. Just maybe though.....

And that is a failure from Sony. Companies want power *and* ease of development, certainly with more complex games. I used to code games in Z80 assembly, but the games were 20K big. Now you cannot afford "complex" dev tools in games anymore.

I hate it when people blame the devs. It is the job of the console makers to give the devs the tools. Console makers need to bend over to give devs what they want... NOT the other way around.

[Gorvi]

What I expect is that multi-platform titles will start looking slightly better on one or the other (instead of mostly looking better on just the 360) but they'll remain EXTREMELY close in visual quality on both systems.

You, sir, win the thread.

[bean19]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again. These are more than likely games that were made for the 360 and ported to the PS3. I'd hold off any '360 roxxorz teh PS3 graffix!!1111!' claims until we see games built from the ground up for the PS3 and not rushed ports. Not that I'm saying the PS3 will trump the 360 in terms of graphics, I just don't think this is a good comparison.

If you want that then you could compare Resistance to Gears of War. What we will see in exclusives is that it will be based on the title and the skill of the developers.

The point is that in the actual "hardware power" battle, the systems are in fact a draw. They are much closer in power than the PS2 and the Xbox were last generation.

[Ozena]

Gametrailers has done this sort of comparison long ago. They compared COD 3, TH Project 8, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and maybe a some more, but I can't recall them right away.

It's a lot better to compare in-motion differences than screens. Still, it does show the 360 has slightly prettier pictures :).

Edit: Forgot to comment on COD 3 . . . I really don't like how the colors aren't as vibrant in the PS3 shot. It's kind of gross.

[Adam Blue]

Here's some things I've been wondering...

*...but these are first-gen PS3 titles!*
When the Xbox and GameCube were released a year after PS2, they were both CLEARLY better (http://www.lucasarts.com/products/rogueleader/screens.jsp?num=55) looking that PS2. Why should PS3 be any different? They released a year after the competition, why aren’t their games looking better?

*…but these games are ports! Of Course the 360 version will look better*
Even ports of PS2/Xbox games looked better on the Xbox. In fact, if there was a multi-platform game, the original Xbox was the version to get due to better visuals, faster frame rates and better online capabilities. Why is it that ports and multi-platform titles look and play worse on the (supposedly) more-powerful PS3 when compared to the 360?

Good point. Considering PS2 vs. XBox, you would think the PS3 would be on top visualy, like the XBox...but it's not, so it fails.

[Kamalot]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the PS3 may be a slight bit more complex than the GC or original XBOX. Just maybe though..... :rolleyes:
What good is power if it can't be harnessed?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

What good is having a huge engine in a car if the transmission sucks and you can't get that power to the tires? What about if the tires themselves suck and can't get any traction?

Complexitity often isn't a good thing.

[Gorvi]

What good is power if it can't be harnessed?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

What good is having a huge engine in a car if the transmission sucks and you can't get that power to the tires?

Complexitity often isn't a good thing.

Ok, now you're just going the doom and gloom route. There's a huge difference between can't and not yet, especially when you're talking about a console that's been out for all of 3 weeks. Give it time, man.

[kokyunage]

That doesn't hold water. In many of these cases, they've had several months of additional time to port the game to the PS3 hardware.

How does that not hold water? The PS3 isn't easy to program for, that's been stated before. The Xbox is and programming wise it's easier to transition from PC to Xbox than PC to PS3. Once development skills catches up games will look better on the PS3. Unless, as someone stated above, dev's become lazy and just default to the easier platform (Xbox). So, in that case multiplatform games will look slightly better on the PS3 while original (programmed from the ground up for the PS3) will probably look better (albeit slightly) than anything on the Xbox.

Ok, now you're just going the doom and gloom route. There's a huge difference between can't and not yet, especially when you're talking about a console that's been out for all of 3 weeks. Give it time, man.

EXACTLY! People forget that many dev houses didn't get final development tools until late summer. That was what? 4 months ago? The xbox has been on sale for over a year. Xbox final development kits were out almost 5 months prior to sale. So, almost a year and a half of development experience. Give it time people.

[Mdot23]

just look at how well the PS2 did compared to the XBOX. apparently, power isn't as important to the average consumer. games for the xbox were clearly better looking and the ps2 trounced it. we, obviously, could tell the difference but the normal person probably doesn't even care.

[DangerousDaze]

I think I'll wait 12 months before making any judgement on how the 360 and PS3 stack up against each other. Remember Tony Hawk's American Wasteland on 360? It was just a hi-res version of the XBOX/PS2 title. Basically, it takes a bit of time for things to start rolling, and comparing a game on a 12 month old console to a the same title on a brand new one isn't enough for me to make a decision.

Anyway, I don't have an HDTV to play either of them on yet so I'm kinda forced to wait. :p

[webrunner]

The PS3 is more powerful, but from what I hear the 360's architecture, GPU, and such actually allow you to do things better using less of the system's power. Back buffer anti-aliasing, particularly, is almost free on the 360 but prohibitively expensive on the PS3.

Just to put a random example with exaggerated numbers: If the ps3 is twice as powerful as the 360, but it takes 3x as much power to do anything, then, the 360 is going to be better.

Another way to put it is that the PS3 is more powerful generally, but the 360 is more powerful in ways that actually make the game look better.

Or, to put it a third way: imagine a car with a race car engine but it's in a big boxy VW bus kind of chassis, now imagine a race car body with a high-end regular engine. Which is better for racing?

[Metalhaze]

What good is power if it can't be harnessed?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

What good is having a huge engine in a car if the transmission sucks and you can't get that power to the tires? What about if the tires themselves suck and can't get any traction?

Complexitity often isn't a good thing.

That huge engine is the PS3....The transmission that sucks are the Developers...Once they figure out how to "mod their car" and add a "super charger to it" you are going to start to see the PS3 really take off and shine. And you can't sit here and compare port games from a shitty company like EA....ugh....

The only thing about complexity is that there is more of a learning curve. It will take some time.....But the PS3 inherently has more room to grow and expand than the Xbox 360....where the Xbox runs out of room and fizzles out...the PS3 can keep going on "high octane fuel" (to keep with the car analogies)

[Mortis]

If you want that then you could compare Resistance to Gears of War. What we will see in exclusives is that it will be based on the title and the skill of the developers.

The point is that in the actual "hardware power" battle, the systems are in fact a draw. They are much closer in power than the PS2 and the Xbox were last generation.

I agree with this. It is also important to note that 360 developers have been working with the hardware for more than a year already. Console games always look better as the life cycle of a console goes on, devs figure out how to make better use of what is available and push it further.

Still there are many talented developers working with the PS3 and we will no doubt see lots of games that look just as good as anything on the 360 with some that look better, and vice versa. With systems that are so close to each other in capability it really comes down to the developers and what they are able to do with what is available.

[BabyJesus]

It seems odd that almost all of the shots on the PS3 had much muddier textures. Thought it would be the other way around..

Surprised by FNR3 and Madden 07 too.. The XBOX looked much better in those 2.

[Grimmjow]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again. These are more than likely games that were made for the 360 and ported to the PS3. I'd hold off any '360 roxxorz teh PS3 graffix!!1111!' claims until we see games built from the ground up for the PS3 and not rushed ports. Not that I'm saying the PS3 will trump the 360 in terms of graphics, I just don't think this is a good comparison.

I agree with you, one who actually works in the industry knows that Sony didn't release final hardware no less then 6 months ago. yeah they had dev kits and 6 months with final hardware but thats no where near enough time to perfect things when your already have a schedule to keep. So i will go long with the "give it more time and they will be a very slight difference between the 2"

[Ozena]

just look at how well the PS2 did compared to the XBOX. apparently, power isn't as important to the average consumer. games for the xbox were clearly better looking and the ps2 trounced it. we, obviously, could tell the difference but the normal person probably doesn't even care.

I'm not going to argue with everything you said, but there's more to consider than just "PS2 had better games".

Sony also had a proven brand in the Playstation, whereas Xbox and Microsoft were fledglings in the console market. If things had been different, it might not have switched anything around, but it is a factor.

[JazGalaxy]

I like how Sony does such a great job of hyping PS3 that even in the face of resoundingly negative facts about the PS3s performance, they still believe it's capable of some sort of mythical excalibur like power if "only a developer figures out how to use it".

That's the same crap they were spouting with the PS2, and it never reached that level of potential. I've even seen some people saying that developers never figured out how to "unlock the potential" of the PS2. If you can't do it in seven years, you can't do it.

As for programming games, by the way, it's not a giant rebus or something. If you buy a bigger harddrive, you can fit more stuff on it. You don't need to figure out how to "unlock it's potential". Some elements of game programming are just that. You can look at the stats of the two systems and come to some reasonable conclusions about the hardware. No unlocked potential to be done.

[JazGalaxy]

It seems odd that almost all of the shots on the PS3 had much muddier textures. Thought it would be the other way around..

Surprised by FNR3 and Madden 07 too.. The XBOX looked much better in those 2.

Why? The Xbox 360 has more RAM. That's why all those developers were fighting for more RAM in the unit, as well as why they threw a field day when they got it. The lack of a standard hard drive was in order to give gamers more ram so they could get those very textures.

[BabyJesus]

That huge engine is the PS3....The transmission that sucks are the Developers...Once they figure out how to "mod their car" and add a "super charger to it" you are going to start to see the PS3 really take off and shine. And you can't sit here and compare port games from a shitty company like EA....ugh....

The only thing about complexity is that there is more of a learning curve. It will take some time.....But the PS3 inherently has more room to grow and expand than the Xbox 360....where the Xbox runs out of room and fizzles out...the PS3 can keep going on "high octane fuel" (to keep with the car analogies)

But if you actually read the little blurbs up top in the article, the 360 has better frame rate and visuals in most of the games, there is only so much "high octane" is going to do for you.

They may be able to get the frame rates up or the visuals better but it is going to be difficult to get both.

[Kamalot]

Ok, now you're just going the doom and gloom route. There's a huge difference between can't and not yet, especially when you're talking about a console that's been out for all of 3 weeks. Give it time, man.
No. Doom and gloom would be where I say that the PS3 fails and will crash the industry.

I'm talking about the PS3 being a year later and not looking a year better.

N64 came out a year after the original Playstation and looked noticably better, with textuure filtering great frame rates compared to the chunky-looking PS1 graphics.

GameCube and Xbox came out a year after PS2 and both included launch titles that were never equaled in the PS2's entire 6 year life span.

Why should we expect anything different from the PS3?

[Grimmjow]

Why? The Xbox 360 has more RAM. That's why all those developers were fighting for more RAM in the unit, as well as why they threw a field day when they got it. The lack of a standard hard drive was in order to give gamers more ram so they could get those very textures.

didn't the PS3 and Xbox 360 have the same amount? 512? but the only different was the ps3 has to different types of RAM that equal 512?

[Metalhaze]

Well then I guess it all comes down to game folks! And the question is, which one is going to have better games that are going to be fun to play.

Xbox has it's Halo franchise, ummmmm Dead or Alive.....uh...something else maybe?....oh and let's not forget that game....hmmm...And uh...That one with that guy!............aaaaaaaaaand thats about it. Gears of War is popular but not a franchise yet.

Sony has FF, DMC, GT, Tekken, Amored Core, so on and so on and so on.....Sony and Nintendo have games people want to play and have built up a pretty strong fanbase which are going to drive the sale of their consoles to play these games....

The only game MS has EVER MADE that made me want to touch any Xbox system ever was Dead Rising....And even Gears of War....that's about it....

[Gorvi]

No. Doom and gloom would be where I say that the PS3 fails and will crash the industry.

I'm talking about the PS3 being a year later and not looking a year better.

N64 came out a year after the original Playstation and looked noticably better, with textuure filtering great frame rates compared to the chunky-looking PS1 graphics.

GameCube and Xbox came out a year after PS2 and both included launch titles that were never equaled in the PS2's entire 6 year life span.

Why should we expect anything different from the PS3?

And we're back to the complexity argument. You're going in circles. The jump from one gen to the next is not always equal. From everything we've heard, the PS3 is not as easy to program for as the 360, so the jump was easier to make. It's a pretty safe assumption that in the end multiplatform games will look nearly identical once devs get used to the PS3.

[Balthasar]

Here's some things I've been wondering...

*…but these games are ports! Of Course the 360 version will look better*
Even ports of PS2/Xbox games looked better on the Xbox. In fact, if there was a multi-platform game, the original Xbox was the version to get due to better visuals, faster frame rates and better online capabilities. Why is it that ports and multi-platform titles look and play worse on the (supposedly) more-powerful PS3 when compared to the 360?
Two things you are completely ignoring here:

1)The XBox was clearly and indisputably more powerful than the PS2, so the devs porting over didn't have to do much to make PS2 games look better on the XBox. Optimization was, of course, another issue.

2)The PS3's unique architecture, as has been noted by devs numerous times, gives the PS3 a steeper learning curve than the 360. Until the devs get a better grip on programming for it (which they will), it will always be harder for them to make a game on the PS3 look as good as it does on the 360. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but effort sometimes equals dollars, so we're unlikely to see such results right out of the gate. I'd give it at least a year.

[Kamalot]

So i will go long with the "give it more time and they will be a very slight difference between the 2"
Who in their right mind would wait years for a "very slight difference between the two"?

Will the majority of developers really spend the extra effort necessary to tap this mythic 'hidden power' within the PS3, just to make them look as good AND play with as nice a frame rate as the 360?

You are talking a lot of education, time and effort to make things equal, then surpass the 360. For what reason? Just to make PS3 games a little nicer than 360 titles?

Now, think about consumers.

What consumer in their right mind would pay more for a system for the privilige of having cross-platform games look and perform worse than the 360 version in the hopes that some day, developers find the mystic key that unlocks the hidden potential in the PS3?

Sounds crazy, no?

[Grimmjow]

Who in their right mind would wait years for a "very slight difference between the two"?

Will the majority of developers really spend the extra effort necessary to tap this mythic 'hidden power' within the PS3, just to make them look as good AND play with as nice a frame rate as the 360?

You are talking a lot of education, time and effort to make things equal, then surpass the 360. For what reason? Just to make PS3 games a little nicer than 360 titles?

Now, think about consumers.

What consumer in their right mind would pay more for a system for the privilige of having cross-platform games look and perform worse than the 360 version in the hopes that some day, developers find the mystic key that unlocks the hidden potential in the PS3?

Sounds crazy, no?

I'm not saying wait to make your purchase, all im saying is the obvious that alot of people can't seem to realize. People expect games to look the same when devs have had hardware of 1 system alot longer to work with and program for to a system where they had hardware for a very short period of time and have deadlines.

Plus, the average consume would want to play titles on the ps3 that they can play on Xbox 360.

[Citizen Philip]

You, sir, win the thread.

This is the ATI vs NVidia thing.. all over again, but this time add thousands of unwashed children screaming about graphics, instead of just unwashed basement dwelling forums trolls.

All we need now is a way to show frames per second and the e-peens can truly be unslung and swung about.

[Kamalot]

Here’s what it comes down to:

Consumers don’t CARE how complex a system is to develop for. Really! They don’t!

People care about the games. They care about the games they can get today. Today, cross-platform games look and play worse on the PS3 compared to the 360.

IF developers can eventually take advantage of some hidden powers within the PS3, great. But they aren’t doing it today.

What you get is Sony asking you to spend a significant amount more, for a system that plays cross-platform titles worse that the competition. Perhaps that will change, but that’s not a good way to start a generation of hardware.

If the Xbox or GameCube had come out a year after the competition and looked worse on cross-platform titles, they would have been crucified! Halo and Rouge Leader are still better looking and pushing more polygons, textures and particles than ANYTHING on the PS2. Both GameCube and Xbox used that year delay to provide a powerful gaming machine, and GameCube was less expensive!

Now consumers are being asked to pay more for a machine that is more powerful on paper, not in the hands of developers.

The whole situation is straight from Bizaro-world, and people are defending the PS3 for this, ‘feature’.

[Balthasar]

GameCube and Xbox came out a year after PS2 and both included launch titles that were never equaled in the PS2's entire 6 year life span.
I already know where you stand with these console companies, but could you make your bias a little less obvious?

[JazGalaxy]

Sony has FF, DMC, GT, Tekken, Amored Core, so on and so on and so on.....Sony and Nintendo have games people want to play and have built up a pretty strong fanbase which are going to drive the sale of their consoles to play these games....


That's just silly. Armored Core is coming out for 360 as well. Final Fantasy is coming out on PS3, sure, but there are other Final Fantasies coming out on other systems, and if you wanted something completely different and from the guy who actually CREATED Final Fanatasy, you'd have to go back to Xbox. Tekken hasn't committed anything to Sony, and while it's likely that it will come out on PS3, there's nothing to say it will not also come out on Xbox like Soul Calibur 2 did. Gran Turismo is easily countered with Fortza or any of the other bajillion racing games out on the market for any console that you please. As for Devil May Cry... I STILL don't understand how a game that got great scores for it's debut, terrible scores for it's sequel, and middling scores for it's third junior installment constiutes a console selling brand name.

[Gorvi]

Who in their right mind would wait years for a "very slight difference between the two"?

Will the majority of developers really spend the extra effort necessary to tap this mythic 'hidden power' within the PS3, just to make them look as good AND play with as nice a frame rate as the 360?

You are talking a lot of education, time and effort to make things equal, then surpass the 360. For what reason? Just to make PS3 games a little nicer than 360 titles?

Now, think about consumers.

What consumer in their right mind would pay more for a system for the privilige of having cross-platform games look and perform worse than the 360 version in the hopes that some day, developers find the mystic key that unlocks the hidden potential in the PS3?

Sounds crazy, no?

And you're acting like it'll take years for this to happen. We'll probably start seeing things look better on the PS3 come April/May, coincidently when the thing will actually be readily available.

You also seem to forget, some people actually want a PS3 because of the games on it. Imagine that, wanting a console for games. You're acting like there's no reason to even want one if the mutiplatform games don't look so much better than those on the 360. Please, take the blinders off and realize that both consoles will have very good reasons to own each for different reasons.

[Kamalot]

People expect games to look the same when devs have had hardware of 1 system alot longer to work with and program for to a system where they had hardware for a very short period of time and have deadlines.
Yes. People expect more powerful hardware to have better lookking / playing games. That's the way it has ALWAYS worked in the past with a few rare exceptions of failed systems.

I can understand launching late.
I can understand early titles not taking full advantage of a platform.
I can understand being expensive.

I simply CAN NOT understand ALL THREE.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

The GC/XBOX vs. PS2 argument isn't relevant here as the Xbox and GC were much more powerful than the PS2 when they released.

Sony had the PS3 ready, but was forced to put it out before they wanted to.

Also, I will hold my judgement for several months.

[absolut taco]

Yeah, these are ports from X360 versions, but the PS3 exclusives, even one developed by Sony (nba07) don't seem to be all that hot looking either...

[Grimmjow]

Yes. People expect more powerful hardware to have better lookking / playing games. That's the way it has ALWAYS worked in the past with a few rare exceptions of failed systems.

I can understand launching late.
I can understand early titles not taking full advantage of a platform.
I can understand being expensive.

I simply CAN NOT understand ALL THREE.

:D but when you understand all 3, the world becomes a much better place!

[JazGalaxy]

Two things you are completely ignoring here:

1)The XBox was clearly and indisputably more powerful than the PS2, so the devs porting over didn't have to do much to make PS2 games look better on the XBox. Optimization was, of course, another issue.

2)The PS3's unique architecture, as has been noted by devs numerous times, gives the PS3 a steeper learning curve than the 360. Until the devs get a better grip on programming for it (which they will), it will always be harder for them to make a game on the PS3 look as good as it does on the 360. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but effort sometimes equals dollars, so we're unlikely to see such results right out of the gate. I'd give it at least a year.

That's a terrible argument. If not completely incomprehensible. If this added PS3 quality that you're saying exist takes dollars to bring forth, why would any developer be willing to spend that extra money? They have absolutely no vested interest in making PS3 games look preferable to Xbox 360 games. In fact, the reason you see so many PS3 games that look inferior to 360 games on the sheleves right now is probably because they got to "engh... close enough. Ship it!" point and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. If they got the best visuals they could out of the 360, created a finished game, why would they spend more time and money trying to make the PS3 game look better?

[absolut taco]

Sony had the PS3 ready, but was forced to put it out before they wanted to.
You can't say that they were ready AND that they released prematurely.

I thought they were supposed to launch in the spring of this year...

[Reanimated]

Awesome article by Gamespot. We need more of this kind of journalism.

[Kamalot]

GameCube and Xbox came out a year after PS2 and both included launch titles that were never equaled in the PS2's entire 6 year life span.I already know where you stand with these console companies, but could you make your bias a little less obvious?If by ‘bias’ you mean, ‘a clear statement of fact that PS2 is technically inferior to GameCube and Xbox’, then I am guilty.

I'm happy to hold that discussion with you or anyone. :D

[MrWonderstuff]

I'm confused. The text says "Mouse over the default Xbox 360 image to see the PlayStation 3 comparison shot.". I mouseover and the shot displayed is better (PS3?).

[Soul182]

They are going to be very close. What it is going to come down to is the development tools the developers have for each respective machine. Microsoft being a software company is probably going to have a bit of an edge in this department. However both are going to look better and better as time progresses.

[snugglebearofdeath]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again. These are more than likely games that were made for the 360 and ported to the PS3. I'd hold off any '360 roxxorz teh PS3 graffix!!1111!' claims until we see games built from the ground up for the PS3 and not rushed ports. Not that I'm saying the PS3 will trump the 360 in terms of graphics, I just don't think this is a good comparison.

Not quite. You have to look at this from the standpoint of the developer(s). Most games we're going to see are going to be multiplatform.

Do you think any of those game were specifically built just with the 360 in mind? Not likely. Were they "ported" to the PS3 under a tight time limit? You betcha. Did these games get more developement time for the 360? Probably not.

If I'm a developer I have to worry about paying the bills AND getting my "aristic vision" to the masses equally. So, if I make something from the ground up geared specifically for a particular console (GoW), that's going to make it harder (i.e. more expensive) to get to the next console if I so choose.

So, what's my best choice? Build for the common ground between all the consoles I plan to publish for and go from there.

[wyeast]

The moment they make a PS3 version cross-platformer look equally good to the 360 version, the bean-counters at the publisher will say "ok, that's good, stop right there. We're done paying for development." They will not be paid to go the "extra mile" to make the PS3 version look dramatically better.

And that, my friends, is the cold hard truth.

[AntB]

Hey guys, all of you are talking about developers and their jedi skills not being strong enough for the PS3. Did you ever think of the publishers?

Most publishers will publish games to the higher common denominator and that currently is the 360, and if Sony refuses to get off their asses and make some friggin' consoles this is the way it's going to stay. Less consoles = less games = less pretty games as well because there's less money for developer effort.

[Gorvi]

Hey guys, all of you are talking about developers and their jedi skills not being strong enough for the PS3. Did you ever think of the publishers?

Most publishers will publish games to the higher common denominator and that currently is the 360, and if Sony refuses to get off their asses and make some friggin' consoles this is the way it's going to stay. Less consoles = less games = less pretty games as well because there's less money for developer effort.

And you act as if they're just sitting on a mountian of consoles, laughing and adjusting their monocles. This is a similiar situation to what we saw with the 360 last year : production problems.

[snugglebearofdeath]

The moment they make a PS3 version cross-platformer look equally good to the 360 version, the bean-counters at the publisher will say "ok, that's good, stop right there. We're done paying for development." They will not be paid to go the "extra mile" to make the PS3 version look dramatically better.

And that, my friends, is the cold hard truth.

*Bingo!

*Except you didn't account for what the PS3 can do over the 360 vs what the 360 can do over the PS3. Of course, this is splitting hairs but each console has strengths over the other is certain areas so in some cases, depending on the gameply/visual/A.I./etc goals of the developer the "extra mile" may or may not be possible even with extra dev time.

[Paranoia]

The proof is in the pudding.

[silv]

XBox 360's nearly free anti-aliasing and more RAM is clearly reaping spades in these screenshots. The PS3 is far more pixelated on the few textures that are detailed, and significantly less detailed on textures farther away.

Looks like MSFT made the right call (thanks epic!) by going with more RAM.

[snugglebearofdeath]

The proof is in the pudding.

<HomerSimpson>
mmmmmmmmmm....pudding
</HomerSimpson>

[JazGalaxy]

Not quite. You have to look at this from the standpoint of the developer(s). Most games we're going to see are going to be multiplatform.

Do you think any of those game were specifically built just with the 360 in mind? Not likely. Were they "ported" to the PS3 under a tight time limit? You betcha. Did these games get more developement time for the 360? Probably not.

If I'm a developer I have to worry about paying the bills AND getting my "aristic vision" to the masses equally. So, if I make something from the ground up geared specifically for a particular console (GoW), that's going to make it harder (i.e. more expensive) to get to the next console if I so choose.

So, what's my best choice? Build for the common ground between all the consoles I plan to publish for and go from there.


Exactly. I mean... we do remember when Kudo Tsunoda was supposedly PLAYING Fightnight R.3 two years ago at E3 on a PS3, right? It's not like they suddenly whipped up a whole PS3 Fight Night twenty minutes before the console shipped to the Metreon.

In other news... People do have to also realize that 70% of Xbox games were nerfed visualy and from a features standpoint due to their multiplatform origins. It's a fact of life for Xbox owners. The only advantages Xbox owners tended to get were serendipitous ones, or ones that were easy to implement like custom soundtracks or volumetric textures or something. Because the Xbox was, as was previously mentioned, indisputably better ona hardware level, some of these featuers were easy to implement. Developers didn't have to DO anything to get cleaner textures and sharper visuals.

What this means for the PS3, is that no devleoper is going ot go out of their way to try and "harness" the extra power for the PS3. PS3 owners are likely going to have to get used to developers developing for the lowest common denominator which is arguably 360 and in some scenarios even Wii.

[Kamalot]

I can understand launching late.
Watch where competition makes mistakes so you can avoid those mistakes and make a better launch.
Constantly falling price of technology means you can launch with more powerful hardware at the same cost as the competition OR you can launch with hardware that is the same power but is cheaper to produce.

I can understand early titles not taking full advantage of a platform.
Every generation of hardware previous to this one, any console releasing later has been powerful enough to showcase the power in first generation titles, while later generation titles always manage to eke MORE power out of a system. Waiting a year for more powerful hardware should mean better-looking games, or the same-looking games that perform better.

I can understand being expensive.
This one is easy. If you are asking more for your product, you can afford to put more powerful components in there.

With PS3, we get the same mistakes as the competition, and a product that is more powerful on paper, not in the hands of developers. Oh, and it costs more, and it is late to the party.

Sony mocked the 360 for not being powerful.
Sony mocked Microsoft for bungling a worldwide launch.
Sony mocked Microsoft for launching with 2 SKUs and ‘confusing the consumer’.
Sony mocked Microsoft for launch supply problems.

There is NO EXCUSE for a product that is late AND expensive to have titles that look and perform worse than titles that are already on the market. There is NO EXCUSE for falling into the same pitfalls that Microsoft fell into.

As human beings, we have this awesome gift. We can learn from other peoples trial-and error. It is one of the things that makes us special, to not have to continually repeat the same mistakes over and over.

And to everyone who say, “Well GameCube and Xbox were more powerful than PS2” I say, That’s the advantage of being late to the party. Nintendo and Microsoft launched later so they could include more powerful hardware.

What did the year between 360 and PS3 get us?

Movies?

[Balthasar]

Here’s what it comes down to:

Consumers don’t CARE how complex a system is to develop for. Really! They don’t!
Honestly, most consumers don't care about these side-by-side comparisons either, believe it or not. You're trying to use your own personal experiences, opinions, and knowledge to extrapolate how the average gamer thinks, and it doesn't work. The average gamer doesn't get so wrapped up in all of this minutiae.

IF developers can eventually take advantage of some hidden powers within the PS3, great. But they aren’t doing it today.
So you're going to continue to ignore the fact that when the 360 was released, developers weren't even using more than one processor for their games?

Halo and Rouge Leader are still better looking and pushing more polygons, textures and particles than ANYTHING on the PS2.
Again, the XBox is significantly more powerful than the PS2, in large part because of the strides made in graphics cards between 1999 and 2002 (and let's not pretend bump-mapping wasn't a significant advancement). Microsoft paid a hefty price to release a console with those capabilities at that time. As far as Rogue Leader goes, if you're going to say that it looks better than anything released on the PS2, I'm going to say that the Gamecube hasn't produced anything as good looking on that system since Rogue Leader.

The whole situation is straight from Bizaro-world, and people are defending the PS3 for this, ‘feature’.
Who is defending the PS3 for not looking as good? I think what people are trying to do is be rational about it. When the 360 came out, some of it's games hardly looked better than the Xbox. We all knew why, we heard developers say that they're just getting used to the multicore setup and that they barely tapped into it's "hidden" potential. Why should it be any different than here, when the system architecture is so radically different? And we're only talking about small differences, graphically. Gamespot needed a mouseover to highlight the differences, some of them are so hard to detect.

[Johan]

The moment they make a PS3 version cross-platformer look equally good to the 360 version, the bean-counters at the publisher will say "ok, that's good, stop right there. We're done paying for development." They will not be paid to go the "extra mile" to make the PS3 version look dramatically better.

And that, my friends, is the cold hard truth.

Exactly correct (as in "bingo," stated previously!).

My opinion is that the defining difference between the two consoles will not be graphics or game play. It will be the subjective interest of the consumer in the few rare exclusives available on either platform, and the importance the consumer places on a centralized/decentralized online space.

I place the greatest importance on the online space, and Live is unmatched...and it appears at this point it will continue to be unmatched for the forseeable future.

As for exclusives...really good ones are going to be quite rare, and there are so many damn fine games out there, I don't have the time for them all. I can miss out on FF, if I can get Blue Dragon. I can skip MGS, if I can play Splinter Cell.

Others will feel differently.

[Kamalot]

And you act as if they're just sitting on a mountian of consoles, laughing and adjusting their monocles. This is a similiar situation to what we saw with the 360 last year : production problems.
Then Sony should have learned from Microsoft's mistakes. I remember Sony executives openly mocking Microsoft this time last year as MS was having production problems.

Now look who's in the same boat (http://nexgenwars.com/).

[drakkarim]

very very nice. these are the types of articles that i love.

it seems to me that the point of graphics is a moot one when deciding on which console to get, it will boil down to price and exclusives. the 360 will easily win in the price department, and exclusives we have yet to see.

i personally think that the 360 does look a tiny hair better right now, but not by any significant margin, at least not one that i would use to make a decision.

i'm pretty sure my next console will be a 360, after the first price drop that is.

i'm also not ruling out the Wii, but it will take quite a price cut for me to consider it seriously.

great article.

[Grimmjow]

Honestly, most consumers don't care about these side-by-side comparisons either, believe it or not. You're trying to use your own personal experiences, opinions, and knowledge to extrapolate how the average gamer thinks, and it doesn't work. The average gamer doesn't get so wrapped up in all of this minutiae.


So you're going to continue to ignore the fact that when the 360 was released, developers weren't even using more than one processor for their games?


Again, the XBox is significantly more powerful than the PS2, in large part because of the strides made in graphics cards between 1999 and 2002 (and let's not pretend bump-mapping wasn't a significant advancement). Microsoft paid a hefty price to release a console with those capabilities at that time. As far as Rogue Leader goes, if you're going to say that it looks better than anything released on the PS2, I'm going to say that the Gamecube hasn't produced anything as good looking on that system since Rogue Leader.


Who is defending the PS3 for not looking as good? I think what people are trying to do is be rational about it. When the 360 came out, some of it's games hardly looked better than the Xbox. We all knew why, we heard developers say that they're just getting used to the multicore setup and that they barely tapped into it's "hidden" potential. Why should it be any different than here, when the system architecture is so radically different? And we're only talking about small differences, graphically. Gamespot needed a mouseover to highlight the differences, some of them are so hard to detect.

you sir, took everything i as talking about and made it so much simpler. Im just trying to be rational about it.

*HIGH FIVE*

[JazGalaxy]

Who is defending the PS3 for not looking as good? I think what people are trying to do is be rational about it. When the 360 came out, some of it's games hardly looked better than the Xbox. We all knew why, we heard developers say that they're just getting used to the multicore setup and that they barely tapped into it's "hidden" potential. Why should it be any different than here, when the system architecture is so radically different? And we're only talking about small differences, graphically. Gamespot needed a mouseover to highlight the differences, some of them are so hard to detect.

That's not at all why the 360 games didn't look any better than Xbox games. The reason tehy didn't look any better is because they were the same games. They weren't devleoped for 360. They just, as we were discussing before, ported the game to the new hardware and bumped up the numbers that required little to no effort to increase.

This is an issue that is isolated ONLY to the first console of a new generation. (Sony experienced it with the likes of Tekken Tag Tournament which is simply Tekken 3 running on PS2 hardware, and games like Evergrace that were switched in mid development to the PS2. Those games looked like nothing but cleaner PS1 games.) Sony is not experiencing any of this issue because games like Tony Hawk's Project 8 were developed from the ground up to be next gen games. Gun, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Tomb Raider etc. were not.

[TrackZero]

Considering that devteams have had the Xbox development tools for much longer (over a year longer) this isn't surprising. As time goes by I fully expect this to transition into Playstations favor. Once teams get experience with the PS3 their games will look a hair better on the PS3 than the Xbox360. But I don't expect the difference to be much.

Agreed. Though I'm not willing to play the waiting game for the potential that down the road the PS3 may look slightly better. Because for me, fundamentally it comes down to:

Slightly better graphics, and I lose rumble? No thanks Sony.

[Kamalot]

So you're going to continue to ignore the fact that when the 360 was released, developers weren't even using more than one processor for their games?

...

When the 360 came out, some of it's games hardly looked better than the Xbox. We all knew why, we heard developers say that they're just getting used to the multicore setup and that they barely tapped into it's "hidden" potential. Why should it be any different than here, when the system architecture is so radically different?
So, when do we compare the systems? If you can't compare generation 2 360 games to generation 1 PS3 games, can we wait till generation 2 PS3 games?

Oh, but wait, then the 360 will be on generation 3! That's not fair to compare generation 2 PS3 games against generation 3 360 games, is it?

Well, lets just wait till generation 3 PS3 games. Damn, now 360 has gone ahead and started releasing generation 4 titles.

When will the madness end?

On another note, when the 360 launched, there was NO other next-gen development being done. In the intervening time, developers have been making 360 titles that can utilize the same assets as PS3 titles. In a sense, Ps3 can leverage the whole year of 360 development since all those 3d models and textures are cross-platform. (edit: JazGalaxy beat me to this point)

That's a huge advantage that PS3 has had for its launch.

[Reanimated]

I can understand launching late.
Watch where competition makes mistakes so you can avoid those mistakes and make a better launch.
Constantly falling price of technology means you can launch with more powerful hardware at the same cost as the competition OR you can launch with hardware that is the same power but is cheaper to produce.

I can understand early titles not taking full advantage of a platform.
Every generation of hardware previous to this one, any console releasing later has been powerful enough to showcase the power in first generation titles, while later generation titles always manage to eke MORE power out of a system. Waiting a year for more powerful hardware should mean better-looking games, or the same-looking games that perform better.

I can understand being expensive.
This one is easy. If you are asking more for your product, you can afford to put more powerful components in there.

With PS3, we get the same mistakes as the competition, and a product that is more powerful on paper, not in the hands of developers. Oh, and it costs more, and it is late to the party.

Sony mocked the 360 for not being powerful.
Sony mocked Microsoft for bungling a worldwide launch.
Sony mocked Microsoft for launching with 2 SKUs and ‘confusing the consumer’.
Sony mocked Microsoft for launch supply problems.

There is NO EXCUSE for a product that is late AND expensive to have titles that look and perform worse than titles that are already on the market. There is NO EXCUSE for falling into the same pitfalls that Microsoft fell into.

As human beings, we have this awesome gift. We can learn from other peoples trial-and error. It is one of the things that makes us special, to not have to continually repeat the same mistakes over and over.

And to everyone who say, “Well GameCube and Xbox were more powerful than PS2” I say, That’s the advantage of being late to the party. Nintendo and Microsoft launched later so they could include more powerful hardware.

What did the year between 360 and PS3 get us?

Movies?




How is it that you're always SO right?

[Evil_SPanKY]

In my opinion, some of the 360 shots looked better, while others of the PS3 looked better. It seemed the backgrounds looked a tad bit sharper on the PS3, but I preferred the 360's lighting schemes over the PS3 lighting overall. Also seems some of the PS3 shots were over-bright, or was that just me?

And as far as the 360 being out for longer, they both have been in development for roughly the same time, so most developers had roughly the same time to code/optimize for (+ or - some). I dont buy this argument, cause the PS3 was supposed to be released last year, not now. If this had happened, what would the current block of games looked like then, with even less time to develope for?

Maybe Xmas 2007 will be different, once they both have been out for at least a year at retail, but I doubt it. They both are very close in terms of overall performance, and I doubt either will have a huge leg up over the other in graphics terms.

Which one will I get (nope, dont have either yet), which ever one I can get a complete system for about $300 (higher model). I know which I think that will be, but I wont be buying one for a while either, so who knows. Also, dont have a TV that can do 1080P yet, so I will probably wait until I get that first, so who really knows in the end. Probably towards Xmas 2007 I will get one is my thinking, or the first truely killer app (GoW did nothing for me in this area, not klnocking it, just didn't get into it).

[Gorvi]

Agreed. Though I'm not willing to play the waiting game for the potential that down the road the PS3 may look slightly better. Because for me, fundamentally it comes down to:

Slightly better graphics, and I lose rumble? No thanks Sony.

As a PS2 owner, you're not waiting. The PS2 has more than enough to keep you busy until the PS3 is 1) More readily available and 2) Actually has worthwhile games other than Resistance. There are many gamers that haven't bought into a 360 and are still happy with their PS2's. They're not waiting, they're happy with their current console. When those games dry up and they go looking for their next system to buy, the potential should be there.

[Grimmjow]

As a PS2 owner, you're not waiting. The PS2 has more than enough to keep you busy until the PS3 is 1) More readily available and 2) Actually has worthwhile games other than Resistance. There are many gamers that haven't bought into a 360 and are still happy with their PS2's. They're not waiting, they're happy with their current console. When those games dry up and they go looking for their next system to buy, the potential should be there.

I agree, I will be playing my FF12 and other misc. psone/ps2 titles on my ps3 to hold me over from the ports.

[Kamalot]

As a PS2 owner, you're not waiting. The PS2 has more than enough to keep you busy until the PS3 is 1) More readily available and 2) Actually has worthwhile games other than Resistance. There are many gamers that haven't bought into a 360 and are still happy with their PS2's. They're not waiting, they're happy with their current console. When those games dry up and they go looking for their next system to buy, the potential should be there.
TrackZero said that he would not give up rumble for 'slightly better looking games'. That has nothing to do with playing the PS2 until developers learn how to code for the PS3.

[snugglebearofdeath]

Agreed. Though I'm not willing to play the waiting game for the potential that down the road the PS3 may look slightly better. Because for me, fundamentally it comes down to:

Slightly better graphics, and I lose rumble? No thanks Sony.

Ya know, not to get off track here, but you bring up an interesting point.

When the rumble feature first came out I was thought it was a nice little gimmick that really wouldn't affect gameplay - at least to me.

Nowadays if I'm playing a game and don't get a rumble when I (subconciously) think I should, it pulls me out of the game a bit. An example is Gear of War. I forget where but I was playing right along and my controller battery was running low I guess and I stopped getting the rumble feedback. It was a surprise, to me, that I felt I was missing out on that visceral feel of the gun recoil or chainsaw without the rumble. I never thought the rumble feature would be as big a part of gameplay that I now do.

Sony seriously flubbed that one IMO.

[Gorvi]

TrackZero said that he would not give up rumble for 'slightly better looking games'. That has nothing to do with playing the PS2 until developers learn how to code for the PS3.

His first comment in that post was about waiting for potential, that's what I was addressing.

[Roc Ingersol]

so.... 99% identical.

Alright. we can put all that bullshit 'more powerful' posturing aside and start talking about games again, right?

[Johan]

Factual information is only flamebait if you're an idiot. No offense.

That's a great sig.

[Citizen Philip]

so.... 99% identical.

Alright. we can put all that bullshit 'more powerful' posturing aside and start talking about games again, right?

In the whose e-penis is longer contest a 1% difference is everything.

[Kamalot]

His first comment in that post was about waiting for potential, that's what I was addressing.
Gotcha. I see now...waiting for potential.

Yet he closed his argument with the statement that, waiting or not, a slight improvement in graphics isn't worth giving up rumble.

That totally nullifies the waiting argument since Track Zero believes that the improvement isn't worth giving up rumble for; waiting or not.

[Kamalot]

That's a great sig.
Thanks! I just got it today! :D

[Gorvi]

Gotcha. I see now...waiting for potential.

Yet he closed his argument with the statement that, waiting or not, a slight improvement in graphics isn't worth giving up rumble.

That totally nullifies the waiting argument since Track Zero believes that the improvement isn't worth giving up rumble for; waiting or not.

Eh, if the rumble means that much to him over the games that will be available, it's his decision. I've been doing a lot of handheld gaming lately due to my schedule and I'm not missing the rumble at all. Hell, I don't miss it on my GC as I use a Wavebird for all my GC gaming. Maybe it's a big deal to others, but to me, I'll live just fine.

[Rook34]

Ah, but which console has Blast Processing? :>

[snugglebearofdeath]

Ah, but which console has Blast Processing? :>

I just go for the one with more bits. More bits = better games.


;)

[TrackZero]

Eh, if the rumble means that much to him over the games that will be available, it's his decision. I've been doing a lot of handheld gaming lately due to my schedule and I'm not missing the rumble at all. Hell, I don't miss it on my GC as I use a Wavebird for all my GC gaming. Maybe it's a big deal to others, but to me, I'll live just fine.

What games will be available on the PS3 that will make me want the system? Most stuff is multiplatform, and I haven't seen anything yet to sway me (because, quite blunty, Metal Gear will also end up on the 360, whether sooner or later is the only question). It'll take a real killer app to make me want a system that costs me another $700 Canadian and is missing rumble, sorry to say.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The GC/XBOX vs. PS2 argument isn't relevant here as the Xbox and GC were much more powerful than the PS2 when they released.

Sony had the PS3 ready, but was forced to put it out before they wanted to.

Also, I will hold my judgement for several months.

BUT SONY SAID THEY WEREN'T.

If you belive Sony's PS2 numbers, it was more graphically capable than the Gamecube. It wasn't. Why would things be different this time around?

[Balthasar]

If this added PS3 quality that you're saying exist takes dollars to bring forth, why would any developer be willing to spend that extra money? They have absolutely no vested interest in making PS3 games look preferable to Xbox 360 games. In fact, the reason you see so many PS3 games that look inferior to 360 games on the sheleves right now is probably because they got to "engh... close enough. Ship it!" point and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Eh? I think you need to read the entirety of the post you respond to instead of knee-jerking your way through an argument. I most definitely stated:
That doesn't mean it can't be done, but effort sometimes equals dollars, so we're unlikely to see such results right out of the gate.
Given that, I don't see how you're stating anything I didn't already insinuate. So much for my "terrible argument."

[Dean]

All is fair in love and war. You really can't blame MS for coming out a year earlier than Sony. Because after the PS3 been out for a year, MS will have 2 years under their belt. And then they would have to compete with Halo 3, Mass Effect, and side by side visuals on GTA4. I recalled Sony saying the Next Generation start when they say it do.

[Gorvi]

What games will be available on the PS3 that will make me want the system? Most stuff is multiplatform, and I haven't seen anything yet to sway me (because, quite blunty, Metal Gear will also end up on the 360, whether sooner or later is the only question). It'll take a real killer app to make me want a system that costs me another $700 Canadian and is missing rumble, sorry to say.

For me, Final Fantasy XIII is enough to sway me. Historically, where the FF franchise goes, the vast majority of the JRPG's go to that system as well. MGS is yet to be determined to go to the 360, although I won't deny the possibility. That being said, if the 360 gets the FF franchise, the PS3 may as well not exist to me.

[Kamalot]

If you belive Sony's PS2 numbers, it was more graphically capable than the Gamecube. It wasn't. Why would things be different this time around?So true. :eek:

[TrackZero]

For me, Final Fantasy XIII is enough to sway me. Historically, where the FF franchise goes, the vast majority of the JRPG's go to that system as well. MGS is yet to be determined to go to the 360, although I won't deny the possibility. That being said, if the 360 gets the FF franchise, the PS3 may as well not exist to me.

Ah, good stuff. I'm not down with most JRPGS (haven't been for about 10 years), so that's never been a factor for me. I prefer western RPGs.

[Gorvi]

Ah, good stuff. I'm not down with most JRPGS (haven't been for about 10 years), so that's never been a factor for me. I prefer western RPGs.

Yep, and that'll do it for ya. If you don't care about JRPG's and some of the quirkier Japanese titles, the 360 is a great console to own. I just can't see buying both, and as the PS3 should have those, that's where my money goes.

[DingBat]

I'm not sure you can write off the difficulty of developing for the PS3 as easily as some here have claimed.

If it is true that developers will take longer to learn how to develop for the PS3, I don't see how this could possibly be considered anything other than a bad thing for Sony.

What could be the possibly implications?

Best case:
- It takes longer to develop games for the PS3 resulting in fewer releases per year than for the same effort on a 360 game.
- Porting takes longer for multiplatform games, resulting in earlier releases on the 360.

Worst case:
- Not all developers are created equal. If it takes a great developer to learn to develop great games on the PS3, it stands to reason there may be fewer games that show the full potential of the machine. End result: fewer great games.
- Developers actually begin to avoid developing for the PS3

[TheFlyingOrc]

One of the things people are ignoring is that EVERYTHING Sony is saying about the PS3 was also said about the PS2. I recall, back in 01-02', the consensus was that the PS2 HAD the most potential of any of the systems, developers just had to "figure it out". While things have definately improved, Final Fantasy XII (Dare I say the best looking PS2 game?) does not look as good as the Gamecube RE4 - 18 months later.

Sony had a "difficult to master" system last generation, too.

What Sony has going for it this generation - Brand loyalty, Final Fantasy, and Metal Gear Solid. Idiots already lost GTA - how they screwed that up blows my mind - INCREDIBLY import game in the PS2's history.

[snugglebearofdeath]

For me, Final Fantasy XIII is enough to sway me. Historically, where the FF franchise goes, the vast majority of the JRPG's go to that system as well. MGS is yet to be determined to go to the 360, although I won't deny the possibility. That being said, if the 360 gets the FF franchise, the PS3 may as well not exist to me.

Sony's gonna have to offer much better than milking that puppy for me to go PS3. All Japanese rpg's seem to follow the same routine to me.

Now Elder Scrolls. That's something you could sell me on (if I didn't already have it on the 360).

[snugglebearofdeath]

One of the things people are ignoring is that EVERYTHING Sony is saying about the PS3 was also said about the PS2. I recall, back in 01-02', the consensus was that the PS2 HAD the most potential of any of the systems, developers just had to "figure it out". While things have definately improved, Final Fantasy XII (Dare I say the best looking PS2 game?) does not look as good as the Gamecube RE4 - 18 months later.

Sony had a "difficult to master" system last generation, too.

What Sony has going for it this generation - Brand loyalty, Final Fantasy, and Metal Gear Solid. Idiots already lost GTA - how they screwed that up blows my mind - INCREDIBLY import game in the PS2's history.

Yeah, I never did get to play that "rubber ducky floating in a sink of water" demo of what all games were going to look like.

[SPBTooL]

After all the early adopters and fans have bought enough PS3s to allow the general consumer to get one will they buy it?

Sony knows that the people with extra money that want to make money, want it because it says Playstation or will buy all the consoles, will buy enough PS3s keep them in the fight. Once all systems are available for the general consumer things will be different. Come next holiday will there be a noticeable $200-$300 difference in graphics?

We, online, know that graphics are not everything. The general consumer will go into their local store and watch/play the demo units. They will see the graphics, the game libraries and then the price. Sony has also lost the "What's an xbox" edge they had last time.

[Gorvi]

Sony's gonna have to offer much better than milking that puppy for me to go PS3. All Japanese rpg's seem to follow the same routine to me.

Now Elder Scrolls. That's something you could sell me on (if I didn't already have it on the 360).

Try Final Fantasy XII. If that's what milking is, I'll take that any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Balthasar]

If by ‘bias’ you mean, ‘a clear statement of fact that PS2 is technically inferior to GameCube and Xbox’, then I am guilty.
You stated that the PS2 has never had a game that equaled two launch games on the XBox and Gamecube. I don't see what technical superiority has to do with making a "superior" game. You might enjoy Halo, but saying that game is better than anything ever made on the PS2 is quite debatable.

[Balthasar]

So, when do we compare the systems?
I think I clearly stated that you should give it about a year or so. Why are you guys so opposed to reading before responding?

On another note, when the 360 launched, there was NO other next-gen development being done. In the intervening time, developers have been making 360 titles that can utilize the same assets as PS3 titles. In a sense, Ps3 can leverage the whole year of 360 development since all those 3d models and textures are cross-platform.
This would all be true if the PS3 had the same or at least similar architecture as the 360. Of course, this couldn't be father from the truth. It's not like they have to redesign all of these games from the ground up, but simple ports one way or the other are always going to underutilize the hardware that gets the game second.

[snugglebearofdeath]

So, when do we compare the systems?

[Kamalot]

You stated that the PS2 has never had a game that equaled two launch games on the XBox and Gamecube. I don't see what technical superiority has to do with making a "superior" game. You might enjoy Halo, but saying that game is better than anything ever made on the PS2 is quite debatable.
I apologize about the confusion. I figured since we were talking about the graphics and framerate in the discussion, that the context would be enough. Obviously I was mistaken.

I'm not saying anything about the playability of the games or even how good they are. I, in fact, DON'T LIKE HALO! I won't deny that Halo is more technically impressive than any other game on the PS2.

Games don't have to be technically impressive to be emotional or fun. PS2's success is a testament to that. Perhaps Sony should have realized this small fact before attempting to build a supercomputer.

[Kamalot]

I think I clearly stated that you should give it about a year or so. Why are you guys so opposed to reading before responding?
I'll be happy to compare generation 2 - PS3 games with generation 3 - 360 titles. That's an advantage that Microsoft got by launching first.

[digitalErich]

I think it's excellent that they are so close graphically. This means Sony and MS will have to push the non-graphical feaures of their consoles in order to differentiate themselves. Maybe this will mean free/cheaper Gold membership on Live or an earlier than expected price drop on the PS3. Who knows, but things like this will happen.

As a consumer, you have a vested interest in having a neck and neck race. If one horse is way out in front, that's when you start to see value decline.

If you want one console to blow the other out of the water, you are an idiot fanboy or are too stupid to see the larger, industry-wide picture. (Or you've already bought a PS3 or 360 and can't afford the other, so you are trying to justify your purchase. It's my belief that this is the most common reason for fanboy-ism.)

[Balthasar]

Games don't have to be technically impressive to be emotional or fun. PS2's success is a testament to that. Perhaps Sony should have realized this small fact before attempting to build a supercomputer.
That's probably the most trenchant, level-headed statement you've made in this entire thread. I completely agree. No generation of gaming was ever "won" by making the most technically adept console.

[absolut taco]

I just go for the one with more bits. More bits = better games.


;)
I miss the days when you could tell how "cool" a console was by the number of bits. I also miss 2d platformers.

[Balthasar]

That's not at all why the 360 games didn't look any better than Xbox games. The reason tehy didn't look any better is because they were the same games.
And why, praytell, were they the "same" games? Please ponder that for a moment before you respond.

Sony is not experiencing any of this issue because games like Tony Hawk's Project 8 were developed from the ground up to be next gen games. Gun, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Tomb Raider etc. were not.
You mean, from the ground up to be 360 games. There is a significant difference here. Those games weren't made console "neutral." But I thought we knew all of this last year, so I don't know why it has to be mulled over yet again.

[Loganrapp]

Screenshots don't do anything justice, anymore. How can we tell through those whether or not the framerate drops?

Without side-by-side video comparisions, this exercise is pointless. Well, it's pointless anyway, but you know.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So, when do we compare the systems?

Honestly? I'd put my money on Gears of War VS UT2K7 on PS3. Both made by the same graphics-obsessed developer who is going to squeeze everything they can out of the box they are given, and will have had about the same amount of time to work on it. If Epic can't make the PS3 look better than the 360, nobody can.

[J-Dizzle]

OK I don't usually get involved in these 'my dad is bigger than your dad' things, (even though they are always entertaining to read), but there's something I feel I must say...

Why is it that people seem to think that the PS3 has some kind of vast, hitherto unseen, revolutionary potential, just waiting there to be unlocked by some clever developer ?

This just isn't true.

Yes, when people get better at the PS3's architecture then visual quality will improve (although I have my suspicions that the PS3 will always have some issue with framerate). As people get the hang of the PSU cores and GPU, it will get prettier, and more epic. Yes of course it will. It will improve in the same way that the 360 improved after release.

However, the PS3 does not have a huge reserve of power, just waiting for the correct programming command, to unlock it and project the visual quality of it's games into space.

Yes, the PS3 does indeed have a slightly higher peak performance output than the 360. The 360 has a more flexible memory architecure, so that kinda balances out.

What the PS3 does NOT have is a huge untapped performance reserve for developers to discover.

When people talk about 'give it a year' to see the potential of the PS3 realised, all you will see is it coming up in line with the 360.

Where people get this idea that the PS3 is vastly more powerful than anything else I do not know. Unless they're all just believing what Big Ken says, in which case. Boh !!!

[DeathtollWRX]

Everyone calm down. Let's just play Gears of War and let our emotions out through blood splattered chainsaw battles. Xbox360 guys be happy, You clearly have the best system right now and you are already playing great games. Sony guys, your system isn't so hot right now but it will improve over time. For those of you with both (including me) enjoy what you have because you have enough disposable income to afford 1200 dollars in video game systems. As for me, I am selling off my PS3 to someone this saturday so I can pickup a HD-DVD player and a few 360 games. Down the road.. maybe a year from now I will repurchase a Playstation 3 and enjoy whatever titles are out. I do not want the PSP effect. I camped out for a PSP and I feel it's the biggest waste of money I have ever spent on gaming. Somewhere between PS2 and PSP Sony lost some of their magic.

[Johan]

I also miss 2d platformers.

Same here. Give me a rockin' side-scroller any day. I totally enjoyed those suckers.

Games are getting too damn complicated, in many cases, for me. I want to pick up and play.

[snugglebearofdeath]

OK I don't usually get involved in these 'my dad is bigger than your dad' things, (even though they are always entertaining to read), but there's something I feel I must say...

Why is it that people seem to think that the PS3 has some kind of vast, hitherto unseen, revolutionary potential, just waiting there to be unlocked by some clever developer ?

This just isn't true.

Yes, when people get better at the PS3's architecture then visual quality will improve (although I have my suspicions that the PS3 will always have some issue with framerate). As people get the hang of the PSU cores and GPU, it will get prettier, and more epic. Yes of course it will. It will improve in the same way that the 360 improved after release.

However, the PS3 does not have a huge reserve of power, just waiting for the correct programming command, to unlock it and project the visual quality of it's games into space.

Yes, the PS3 does indeed have a slightly higher peak performance output than the 360. The 360 has a more flexible memory architecure, so that kinda balances out.

What the PS3 does NOT have is a huge untapped performance reserve for developers to discover.

When people talk about 'give it a year' to see the potential of the PS3 realised, all you will see is it coming up in line with the 360.

Where people get this idea that the PS3 is vastly more powerful than anything else I do not know. Unless they're all just believing what Big Ken says, in which case. Boh !!!


Quick! Someone get this man the coolaid! He's thinking much too logically!!!

[digitalErich]

It was the same back in the 2D days. It was Sega's "Blast Processing" vs. Nintendo's superior color palette. Same shit, different time and place.

[snugglebearofdeath]

Everyone calm down. Let's just play Gears of War and let our emotions out through blood splattered chainsaw battles. Xbox360 guys be happy, You clearly have the best system right now and you are already playing great games. Sony guys, your system isn't so hot right now but it will improve over time. For those of you with both (including me) enjoy what you have because you have enough disposable income to afford 1200 dollars in video game systems. As for me, I am selling off my PS3 to someone this saturday so I can pickup a HD-DVD player and a few 360 games. Down the road.. maybe a year from now I will repurchase a Playstation 3 and enjoy whatever titles are out. I do not want the PSP effect. I camped out for a PSP and I feel it's the biggest waste of money I have ever spent on gaming. Somewhere between PS2 and PSP Sony lost some of their magic.

No! I can only prove the enormous length of my penis, how all chicks dig me and how much I can bench press by sticking my tongue up a particular corporation's ass.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Somewhere between PS2 and PSP Sony lost some of their magic.

Meh, I don't think they every had any magic. They were just in the right place 2 generations in a row for most of the magic developers to gravitate toward their system. A lot of that has to do with releasing early.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It was the same back in the 2D days. It was Sega's "Blast Processing" vs. Nintendo's superior color palette. Same shit, different time and place.

Actually, that's funny - the Genesis's advantage directly effected gameplay, since things could go faster, while the SNES just looked better.

[J-Dizzle]

Quick! Someone get this man the coolaid! He's thinking much too logically!!!

Please accept my humble apologies. I have now had a quiet cuppa, and 10 minutes in a rocking chair with my pipe and slippers.

This has now given the vitriolic and irrational part of my brain the opportunity to re-assert it's personality.

With that in mind.... GAMEBOY HAS THE BEST GRAFIX AND ANYONE WHO DOESNT THINK SO IS A NOOB !!!!!

:D

[TrackZero]

Actually, that's funny - the Genesis's advantage directly effected gameplay, since things could go faster, while the SNES just looked better.

Yeah, too bad the Genesis's controller had a ~250ms lag from a button press to it actually happening on the screen, a problem the SNES thankfully didn't share.

[51|RandoM]

The one thing I took away from this is the one thing I've always said: buy a console for the exclusives. The multiplatform stuff this generation is going to look almost exactly the same on either the 360 or the ps3.

[digitalErich]

ahh, hell...did i just rekindle a decades old fanboy argument?

[Balthasar]

ahh, hell...did i just rekindle a decades old fanboy argument?
SNES was always better. Genesis fanboys just hated to admit it because their parents wouldn't buy them another console.

[Ultima Thulian]

Here's the truth, dumbed down for our more "special" readers. ;)

The PS3 is in it's first year and is more difficult to develop for than the 360 (which is easy to develop for if you're a PC kinda guy).

Ports are ports. Let's not compare systems with ports. That's silly. Instead, compare exclusives, all the while using a fair time frame (compare first gen games with first gen games, etc.).

Speaking of first gen, the first gen 360 games don't look as good, for the most part, as PS3 first gen games. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be a huge graphical difference between the two. And for the exception of key select titles, you won't see a big difference due to time, money, etc. At least, the gap won't be big enough to wow anyone.

For all the tards saying shit like, "FIRST GEN GCN AND XBXORZ GAMEZ LOOKE BET3R THAN ANYTHING ON DUH PS2 LOLZ!", are stupid. Do me a favor and stab your eyes with a fork, because you ain't using them anyway. Honestly, you mean to tell me fucking Halo 1 looks better than FFXII, Okami, or Resident Evil 4? Dumbasses.

Gameplay is what truly matters. But that's just what ugly games say. That last line is a joke, in case you're retarded.

And yes Kam, your sig if fucking awesome. Whoever said it must be a fucking genius.

[Vandenh]

>Honestly, you mean to tell me fucking Halo 1 looks better than FFXII, Okami, or Resident Evil 4? Dumbasses.

Study a few more years and then come back please. Thanx.... continue with the show.

[Stupid Fat Hobbit]

I miss the days when you could tell how "cool" a console was by the number of bits. I also miss 2d platformers.

Me too. Now we have to think about polycounts and gigaflops and mippety-maps and hippety-hops... it's all just too much.

But yeah, there is a serious lack of 2d platformers, except possibly on the DS. Come on developers, you don't have to make 3d games just because you can.

[Ultima Thulian]

Agreed with Hobbit. Could you imagine 2-D Castlevania that uses every bit of 360/PS3 power? That would be fucking awesome.

[Johan]

Here's the truth, dumbed down for our more "special" readers. ;)

Thank you! I've been trying to keep up...;)

And yes Kam, your sig if fucking awesome. Whoever said it must be a fucking genius.

But...but...I'm "special"!!! ;)

[Ultima Thulian]

Study a few more years and then come back please. Thanx.... continue with the show.

No problem. Perhaps when I'm done studying you'll stop using saying "thanx" as opposed to "thanks" and learn how to wrap text in quotations.

Uh-oh, I'm out of material! Johnny, play some ragtime and get me out. *cue ragtime piano music

[torrefaction]

Here's the truth, dumbed down for our more "special" readers. ;)

The PS3 is in it's first year and is more difficult to develop for than the 360 (which is easy to develop for if you're a PC kinda guy).

Ports are ports. Let's not compare systems with ports. That's silly. Instead, compare exclusives, all the while using a fair time frame (compare first gen games with first gen games, etc.).

Speaking of first gen, the first gen 360 games don't look as good, for the most part, as PS3 first gen games. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be a huge graphical difference between the two. And for the exception of key select titles, you won't see a big difference due to time, money, etc. At least, the gap won't be big enough to wow anyone.

For all the tards saying shit like, "FIRST GEN GCN AND XBXORZ GAMEZ LOOKE BET3R THAN ANYTHING ON DUH PS2 LOLZ!", are stupid. Do me a favor and stab your eyes with a fork, because you ain't using them anyway. Honestly, you mean to tell me fucking Halo 1 looks better than FFXII, Okami, or Resident Evil 4? Dumbasses.

Gameplay is what truly matters. But that's just what ugly games say. That last line is a joke, in case you're retarded.

And yes Kam, your sig if fucking awesome. Whoever said it must be a fucking genius.

Eh, I think I'm going to have to disagree with the comparing ports statements. The fact of the matter is, the developers ONLY had to focus on getting the game to run and look good on the PS3. All the other concerns where taken care of before. I honestly feel ports are a good graphical benchmark, because you're comparing apples to apples. You don't have to start thinking about things like art direction and color schemes.

For all of Sony's bluster, people deserve to expect more. The ports are highlighting to weaknesses of the PS3 versus the 360, which all come down to unified memory access. The PS3 does have a chance to outshine the 360 in areas like AI, but we'll see what happens.

[snugglebearofdeath]

>Honestly, you mean to tell me fucking Halo 1 looks better than FFXII, Okami, or Resident Evil 4? Dumbasses.

Study a few more years and then come back please. Thanx.... continue with the show.

FFXII - yes (Halo looks better). Okami - Beautiful, but completely different art style. Like asking if Renoir looks better than Monet. Resident Evil 4 - About the same.

Btw, I still love you and your hostility is strangely arousing.

[Ultima Thulian]

I understand where you're coming from, Torrefaction. But I still think comparing ports is silly because usually (not all the time, but most of it) publishers/developers don't optimize a system's (in this case, a PS3) full power, but rather just, well...port it. See what I mean? Exclusives (especially first party ones) are optimized for the system, and it seems more fair to me to compare them as opposed to ports. *shrugs*

[Gorvi]

Eh, I think I'm going to have to disagree with the comparing ports statements. The fact of the matter is, the developers ONLY had to focus on getting the game to run and look good on the PS3. All the other concerns where taken care of before. I honestly feel ports are a good graphical benchmark, because you're comparing apples to apples. You don't have to start thinking about things like art direction and color schemes.

For all of Sony's bluster, people deserve to expect more. The ports are highlighting to weaknesses of the PS3 versus the 360, which all come down to unified memory access. The PS3 does have a chance to outshine the 360 in areas like AI, but we'll see what happens.

You forget, these ports that are being compared are done by EA. Can you honestly say they're a company that'd do a shoddy port to make a few bucks or a company that'd take the time necassary to make a game run well. Hell, even the Ridge Racer 6/7 comparison isn't really all that good, Namco doesn't exactly put a lot of effort into the Ridge Racer games at times (see the Ridge Racer 1 and 2 content differences for the PSP, it's minimal at best).

[Kamalot]

There is a difference between 'cross-platform' and 'port'.

[Vandenh]

>No problem. Perhaps when I'm done studying you'll stop using saying "thanx" as opposed to "thanks" and learn how to wrap text in quotations.


Ohhh cool... you studied English while I studied Computer Science. Gratz!

Now what were we talking about? Haaaaa yes.... computers...

[Gorvi]

There is a difference between 'cross-platform' and 'port'.

You're absolutely right about that. I'd put money on the fact that the EA games in question are ports as much as I would that RR7 is a port of RR6 with a few added features.

[snugglebearofdeath]

There is a difference between 'cross-platform' and 'port'.

If I'm correct a port is best served with dessert whereas a cross-platform game has more of a robust, oaky flavor with a hint of berry.

[Gorvi]

If I'm correct a port is best served with dessert whereas a cross-platform game has more of a robust, oaky flavor with a hint of berry.

Damn you, now there's water all over my keyboard. :p

[Ultima Thulian]

Ohhh cool... you studied English while I studied Computer Science. Gratz!

And you still can't wrap text in quotations? Those computer science classes are cheating you! I'd demand a refund!

[torrefaction]

You forget, these ports that are being compared are done by EA. Can you honestly say they're a company that'd do a shoddy port to make a few bucks or a company that'd take the time necassary to make a game run well. Hell, even the Ridge Racer 6/7 comparison isn't really all that good, Namco doesn't exactly put a lot of effort into the Ridge Racer games at times (see the Ridge Racer 1 and 2 content differences for the PSP, it's minimal at best).

Historically, EA cross platform titles have been pretty equal regardless of which platform they're on. It's not like FN3 wasn't on the XBox and the PS2 as well. Especially where FN3 is concerned, this is just a weak argument.

[Ultima Thulian]

If I'm correct a port is best served with dessert whereas a cross-platform game has more of a robust, oaky flavor with a hint of berry.

That is good. "...oaky flavor with a hint of berry." Nice. :)

[snugglebearofdeath]

>No problem. Perhaps when I'm done studying you'll stop using saying "thanx" as opposed to "thanks" and learn how to wrap text in quotations.


Ohhh cool... you studied English while I studied Computer Science. Gratz!

Now what were we talking about? Haaaaa yes.... computers...

I studied art while you studied computer science. Does this mean I'm more qualified than you to determine what looks better in a videogame?

[silv]

Here's the truth, dumbed down for our more "special" readers. ;)

The PS3 is in it's first year and is more difficult to develop for than the 360 (which is easy to develop for if you're a PC kinda guy).

Ports are ports. Let's not compare systems with ports. That's silly. Instead, compare exclusives, all the while using a fair time frame (compare first gen games with first gen games, etc.).

Speaking of first gen, the first gen 360 games don't look as good, for the most part, as PS3 first gen games. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be a huge graphical difference between the two. And for the exception of key select titles, you won't see a big difference due to time, money, etc. At least, the gap won't be big enough to wow anyone.

For all the tards saying shit like, "FIRST GEN GCN AND XBXORZ GAMEZ LOOKE BET3R THAN ANYTHING ON DUH PS2 LOLZ!", are stupid. Do me a favor and stab your eyes with a fork, because you ain't using them anyway. Honestly, you mean to tell me fucking Halo 1 looks better than FFXII, Okami, or Resident Evil 4? Dumbasses.

Gameplay is what truly matters. But that's just what ugly games say. That last line is a joke, in case you're retarded.

And yes Kam, your sig if fucking awesome. Whoever said it must be a fucking genius.

Unfortunately this isn't true for a number of reasons. Why not compare ports? They were built from the ground up to be multiplatform, and are probably the best option to compare the prowess of the two systems apples to apples.

This screenshot comparison further proves that. The 360 displays what you would expect. Free AA and more high resolution textures due to the better memory architecture. The PS3 looked sharper in cases where the developer allocated the resources to it, but overall it is a duller picture.

In comparing the hardware this is the results you would expect. And you know what? That is what happened.

Funny, the results matching up with expectations.

[Vandenh]

I studied art while you studied computer science. Does this mean I'm more qualified than you to determine what looks better in a videogame?


Yes actually... art people are probably more qualified on the style and "look" of a game. Sadly for you... I also studied art :) Art 2 years and Computer Science 5 years :) Bad luck :)

>And you still can't wrap text in quotations? Those computer science classes are cheating you! I'd demand a refund!

My point indeed. I can't and you can't see the difference in computer graphics.

[torrefaction]

>No problem. Perhaps when I'm done studying you'll stop using saying "thanx" as opposed to "thanks" and learn how to wrap text in quotations.


Ohhh cool... you studied English while I studied Computer Science. Gratz!

Now what were we talking about? Haaaaa yes.... computers...

I took a class in Psychology. This is obviously enough for me to determine you're arrogant, and also not smart.

1.)RE4 looks better than Halo 1. Quit the crack.
2.)Poor grammar sucks.
3.)Studying Computer Science (Engineering is actually what I do) has no relevance to the ability to compare the graphics quality of a game.

[Karmakin]

120+ posts and one post that got the point.

Graphics don't matter.

Gameplay barely matters.

Add-on features don't matter.

What matters, is installed base and development costs. Pure bottom line, black and red economics. If Sony can't produce enough systems with a high enough attach rate to make it worthwhile to either bring those exclusives to the PS3, or for the multi-platform games, really put in an effort to program to the PS3's strengths while minimizing its weaknesses, then you're going to see a lack of exclusives and piss-poor ports.

Let's be blunt. It's looking rather unlikely that Sony is going to ship enough units to avoid this. With a year turnaround time for games, 3rd party publishers are looking at the numbers, and deciding where to put what resources, for their games for the next holiday season. With the possible exception of some 1st/2nd party releases, the 2nd generation of PS3 games probably are not going to show much improvement.

For the next holiday season, Microsoft has Halo 3. That's all that really needs to be said (please note. I am not a fan of the Halo games. They have too many problems, at least to me. But I can recognize quality, even when I personally don't enjoy it. the MGS games are another example of great games that I don't find fun) but combine that with a probable price drop+pack in games and that'll be a nice package.

Then you have the wildcard in the whole race, Nintendo. How many systems will they produce/sell over the next year? What big games will be released? How will they be received? Will the potential of the Wii-mote be advanced towards fulfillment? What will, and how much (how much developer resources will be redirected away from the PS3/360) the 3rd party lineup be? How will Dragon Quest Swords (Punch-Out-ity RPG goodness), Disaster (Pretty good), Project HAMMER (meh) be? In the parentheses are my opinions/predictions. And above all, how aggressive in pricing the more casual games, WiiMusic, WiiSports 2, and Big Brain Academy?

It's a lot of ifs. But what it all adds up to is that Sony is more than a bit of trouble here. They need to pay cold-hard cash to hold on to the exclusives they have. Because if they lose them, the system may be remembered in the long-dignified tradition of the Jaguar, the 3DO, the Saturn and the Dreamcast.

[Ultima Thulian]

Unfortunately this isn't true for a number of reasons. Why not compare ports? They were built from the ground up to be multiplatform, and are probably the best option to compare the prowess of the two systems apples to apples.

This screenshot comparison further proves that. The 360 displays what you would expect. Free AA and more high resolution textures due to the better memory architecture. The PS3 looked sharper in cases where the developer allocated the resources to it, but overall it is a duller picture.

In comparing the hardware this is the results you would expect. And you know what? That is what happened.

Funny, the results matching up with expectations.

Look at post 128...I further explain myself on that issue. I see where you're coming from and you make valid points (like Torrefaction), but I just can't agree. Maybe we can agree to disagree? :)

[snugglebearofdeath]

[QUOTE=Vandenh]Yes actually... art people are probably more qualified on the style and "look" of a game. Sadly for you... I also studied art :) Art 2 years and Computer Science 5 years :) Bad luck :)


LOL - you are cracking me up (not your fault, it's just the strange things that humor me)!! Why do I get the feeling if this conversation turned to medicine we would learn that you have also attended medical school?

[Ultima Thulian]

I took a class in Psychology. This is obviously enough for me to determine you're arrogant, and also not smart.

1.)RE4 looks better than Halo 1. Quit the crack.
2.)Poor grammar sucks.
3.)Studying Computer Science (Engineering is actually what I do) has no relevance to the ability to compare the graphics quality of a game.

You're definitely not as sublte as I am, but I like your blunt style anyway! Well spoken!

[01010]

I was under the impression that the GPU in the 360 was a version of ATI's DX10 cards whereas the PS3 GPU (that's a lot of acronyms) was a revised version of nVidia's current DX9 lineup.

If that were the case I honestly can't see the PS3 pulling out in front of the 360 graphically. I do think it can number crunch better which might make a difference with the amount of objects on screen though. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

[bean19]

The proof is in the pudding.

Evidently, there are people who don't trust the pudding.

After E3, I made a post giving my impressions of everything, including the PS3. I told everyone how the games looked really good, but just really good like the 360. You really have to study them to see a difference.

There are at least 5 Sony supporters in this thread who told me to wait to do comparisons when these games were finished.

Funny stuff.

[snugglebearofdeath]

I took a class in Psychology. This is obviously enough for me to determine you're arrogant, and also not smart.

1.)RE4 looks better than Halo 1. Quit the crack.
2.)Poor grammar sucks.
3.)Studying Computer Science (Engineering is actually what I do) has no relevance to the ability to compare the graphics quality of a game.

Watch out! I'm sure he has taken many classes on comparing console graphics and let's not forget his Master's degree in people skills.

[Gorvi]

Watch out! I'm sure he has taken many classes on comparing console graphics and let's not forget his Master's degree in people skills.

Actually, I have a degree in Console Graphicology, and I can tell you all right now, the DS will trounce both the 360 and PS3.

Mark my words!






Mark them!

[Ultima Thulian]

Consider them marked! :D

[the soUL TRAder]

Evidently, there are people who don't trust the pudding.

After E3, I made a post giving my impressions of everything, including the PS3. I told everyone how the games looked really good, but just really good like the 360. You really have to study them to see a difference.

There are at least 5 Sony supporters in this thread who told me to wait to do comparisons when these games were finished.

Funny stuff.

I really have to have this concept's back.

I remember back in E3 '05 what they were saying, and all I wanted to know was how?
It seems that answer hasn't been found to this day.

But, IMO, it just seems the "console" war is over, there is no longer a Sony vs Nintendo vs Ms, since they ALL will probably be successful.
It's now Sony + Nintendo + Ms versus The consumer.

[Vandenh]

Why do I get the feeling if this conversation turned to medicine we would learn that you have also attended medical school?
Sadly not... that would have taken too many years :) I did date a dentist for quite some years. Sadly it is true that I studied 2 years of art... at High School I did shitloads of math (I have no idea how your school system works in the US) so after that I was tired of doing math and I decided to study art. After two years of art and lots of weed I went back to what I did best. Math and computers. Still those 2 years of applied graphics art was pretty fun and I still keep in touch with my arty classmates :)

Most of you seem to forget that thius is a discussion about performace of a piece of hardware so the comparison of graphics are cold hard facts (and yes... hard to always judge by eye without actually doing tests on the hardware). So if you say Okami has better art style and better soul as Halo I might agry but in that case we are not measuring the hardware but the art-team behind the game. That is obviously a totally different discussion :)

3.)Studying Computer Science (Engineering is actually what I do) has no relevance to the ability to compare the graphics quality of a game.

..and that is of course totally bullshit. So as an engineer you think I - as a software guy - can compare the "performance" of engines compared to you?

You know. one of my friends is a professor in computer graphics and he has this lecture where he shows people two pictures. One is CGI and one is just a picture (of the same scene). In most cases non-computer people think the CGI is the real thing. When he gives the lecture at GDC or SigGraph, almost nobody is fooled. I guess these computer guys know what to look at?

[Kamalot]

Evidently, there are people who don't trust the pudding.

After E3, I made a post giving my impressions of everything, including the PS3. I told everyone how the games looked really good, but just really good like the 360. You really have to study them to see a difference.

There are at least 5 Sony supporters in this thread who told me to wait to do comparisons when these games were finished.

Funny stuff.
This is really funny. Like String Theory people who update their theory with extra dimensions just to keep their theory sound. :D

Or people who believed that the sun revolved around the Earth in a series of mechanical crystal structures. Every time science came along with better measurements to prove them wrong, they invented more complicated, impossible, imaginary structures on which to hang the tapestry of the universe.

Sure man, evolution and global warming are just theories. Just wait for the REAL evidence. :rolleyes:

[Ultima Thulian]

I see you finally managed to figure out quote wrapping. Gratz!

[Ultima Thulian]

Or people who believed that the sun revolved around the Earth in a series of mechanical crystal structures.

They're actually correct. If you had a degree in computer science you'd know this! :D

[Kamalot]

They're actually correct. If you had a degree in computer science you'd know this! :D
Frankly, it does not matter to me how the universe works, as long as it works and does not force me to buy into Bluray at an extra cost. ;)

[DingBat]

You know. one of my friends is a professor in computer graphics and he has this lecture where he shows people two pictures. One is CGI and one is just a picture (of the same scene). In most cases non-computer people think the CGI is the real thing. When he gives the lecture at GDC or SigGraph, almost nobody is fooled. I guess these computer guys know what to look at?

That's only relevant if fidelity to real life objects is the goal. How does it work if the game you're comparing is FFIX?

Since games aren't specifically aimed at developers, there isn't any inherent advantage in understanding software. We may appreciate the effort in the game more, but that's it.

[Gorvi]

Frankly, it does not matter to me how the universe works, as long as it works and does not force me to buy into Bluray at an extra cost. ;)

That makes absolutely no sense..... but it's still funny. :p

[bean19]

Sure man, evolution and global warming are just theories. Just wait for the REAL evidence. :rolleyes:

I expect that they'll want us to wait for the "second gen" PS3 titles and then they'll resist making direct comparisons to "second gen" Xbox 360 games like Gears of War.

If that comparison is okay with you guys, please speak up now. I relish the chance to say "I told you so" again. :)

[Ultima Thulian]

That makes absolutely no sense..... but it's still funny. :p

It'd make sense if you had a degree in computer science! :D I swear, I'm gonna ram this joke into the fucking ground!

[Kamalot]

I expect that they'll want us to wait for the "second gen" PS3 titles and then they'll resist making direct comparisons to "second gen" Xbox 360 games like Gears of War.

If that comparison is okay with you guys, please speak up now. I relish the chance to say "I told you so" again. :)
That's exactly what I see happening.

By the time PS3 is on 2nd gen games, 360 will be on 3rd gen games. Every step of the way, developers become more familiar with the platform.

Just like your little brother though, he'll never be able to catch up to your age.

[Gorvi]

I expect that they'll want us to wait for the "second gen" PS3 titles and then they'll resist making direct comparisons to "second gen" Xbox 360 games like Gears of War.

If that comparison is okay with you guys, please speak up now. I relish the chance to say "I told you so" again. :)

Gears was done by a developer that has knack for great graphics. I'll gladly compare Gears of War to Final Fantasy XIII when that finally comes out.

[DeathtollWRX]

Speaking of 2d platformers I think the DS should come out with Bonk's Adventure and a little game called Alex Kidd in Miracle world. Anyone ever play Black Belt?


oh holdon my post doesn't have anything mean it in.

Xbox360 will die as soon as people realize that Playing B3yond is l33t.

PS3 is obviously inferior because EA games don't look as good on it.

NES sucks because it doesn't have good graphics compared to SMS

Sega Master System is dumb because the pause button was on the console

Super Nes sucks because blood in mortal kombat was green

Sega Genesis sucks because it doesn't have as many colors as snes but it had red blood and sports games.

Turbo Grafx-16 didn't have Mario or Sonic so it sucked

Gameboy had no color

Atari Lynx had no games and was way to large to stuff in my pants

Playstation 2 didn't have Xbox quality graphics

Xbox didn't have Playstation Exclusives

DS doesn't have the graphics PSP can provide

PSP doesn't have the games DS can provide

3d0 had Street Fighter Hyper Fighting but nothing else

Neo Geo games cost too much

N64 couldn't play cds

PSONE couldn't play Mario 64

Pc needs to be upgraded every six months with a video card that costs more then a console

Dreamcast had no software support

32x was a joke

Sega CD had a game called Night Trap which was crap.. but Sewer Shark was l33t

Atari 2600 Seriously, who puts wood grain on an electronic toy?


NONE OF YOU CAN BEAT ME ON INVISIBLE BOUNCING SHOT TANKS IN COMBAT

Sorry I just wasted about 1 minute of your life which you will never get back. But then Iagain wasted many minutes of my life reading these posts. I'm right and you're wrong so eat it =D

[snugglebearofdeath]

You know. one of my friends is a professor in computer graphics and he has this lecture where he shows people two pictures. One is CGI and one is just a picture (of the same scene). In most cases non-computer people think the CGI is the real thing. When he gives the lecture at GDC or SigGraph, almost nobody is fooled. I guess these computer guys know what to look at?

Interesting. One of my friends is an avid surf fisherman. He can show two completely different species of fish to a couple of sunbathing women and they can't tell one from the other. However, if he takes his catch to other avid fishermen, they have no trouble whatsoever distinguishing between the different species.

Now I know what your saying to yourself right now: "How dare he become more convoluted and obtuse than me?!?"

It's OK, I'm here for you.

Either way I'm still blown away by the fact that a room full of CGI experts can differentiate real from CGI better than school students.......truly stunning.

*Edit - btw I'm bored and will go away now.

[Loganrapp]

I studied art while you studied computer science. Does this mean I'm more qualified than you to determine what looks better in a videogame?

No, it means you're more qualified to serve coffee at Starbucks.

[snugglebearofdeath]

No, it means you're more qualified to serve coffee at Starbucks.

LOLOL - so true! But lucky for me I allowed my artistic background lead me into the realm of software design.

[absolut taco]

I studied art while you studied computer science. Does this mean I'm more qualified than you to determine what looks better in a videogame?
No, it just makes you that much closer to emo.

[Vandenh]

That's only relevant if fidelity to real life objects is the goal. How does it work if the game you're comparing is FFIX?

Since games aren't specifically aimed at developers, there isn't any inherent advantage in understanding software. We may appreciate the effort in the game more, but that's it.

True true.... my example was indeed not 100% relevant (also because the type of computer graphics he talks about are years into the future for consoles). And I agree that the engine of the game certainly doesn't make a game good (but it is a measure of how capable the hardware is) and games development is also all about cheating (rendering) reality and finding shortcuts to speed up things while maintaining a balance between performance and form.

I see you finally managed to figure out quote wrapping. Gratz!
I did? Probably due to the fact that I have been posting news articles here for the last 5 years? Maybe I am just lazy?

It'd make sense if you had a degree in computer science!
Great! How would you feel if I walked into your job and told you how to make hamburgers?

Either way I'm still blown away by the fact that a room full of CGI experts can differentiate real from CGI better than school students.......truly stunning.
If you would actually think about this before your posted. The human brain is very efficient at finding out what is real and what is fake (that talk is actually about the brain, CGI and the eye) so in a lot of cases it is very easy for people to see CGI. Even amazing stuff like Gollem doesn't feel quite natural to your brain. Why? Lots of reasons... so making a CGI render of something that is "more" real (to the brain) than reality is not that easy. The aim of CGI now is to introduce elements that make it less perfect... but that is a different discussion once again.

[Kelegacy]

Oh God. I'm not going to bother to read all of this shit, but let me guess and people can tell me if I'm right or not.

-Kamalot says something negative about the PS3, maybe 4 or 5 times.
-Kamalot argues that the PS3 is doomed because it's first gen games don't look as good, or not much better, than the 2nd gen 360 titles.
-Kamalot makes fun of Blu-Ray
-Kamalot says something about his stupid exclusives thread.
-Kamalot gets quoted too many times by Xbox fanboys not because Kamalot said something intelligent, but because they are fanboys that will agree with anything negative on Sony.

[Hagetaka]

Ive been reading EvilAvatar for a long while now, though I have rarely posted. But for one reason or another I felt compelled to speak my mind.

I havent played the PS3; my closest experience being standing next to a demo unit, watching someone play some off-road racing game. It looked fantastic. Like I said, I cant say much about the gameplay, but the graphics were really sharp. But don't you guys think that games come to a point which graphics don't really matter? I mean, I wouldnt find any more joy playing Super Mario Brothers 3 revamped for 3-d than I would as the NES original. In fact, I would prefer it to remain as is (bad example perhaps, as it is a tad nostalgic, but nonetheless my point is expressed). When im gauging a game for it's graphics, I dont usually tell myself, "how close to real-life is this". I am looking for well-suited graphics; how well do the graphics streamline the game?

As a matter of opinion, this "console war" (excuse the citation, but i loathe the term), will be judged not on graphics - as obviously, both have proven themselves fully capable. Rather, the victor shall rest on the shoulders of the game developers attention to gameplay; in many aspects, Nintendo has caught on to this, and is certainly reaping the benefits.

But to all of those arguing about the future of what the PS3 might produce, relax. None of us here are clairvoyant in any essence of the term. And it would be foolish to claim that the PS3 will indefinately produce crisper graphics; the same goes for the 360-favoring rebuttal. However, while it is still midly a matter of opinion, the 360 is currently sitting on top of the hill when it comes to graphics (cheers to sony if they can dethrone them). And while you force your opinion that hey, give the PS3 a chance to catch up, remember - the xbox came out a year ahead on purpose.

[Fartacus]

Considering that devteams have had the Xbox development tools for much longer (over a year longer) this isn't surprising. As time goes by I fully expect this to transition into Playstations favor. Once teams get experience with the PS3 their games will look a hair better on the PS3 than the Xbox360. But I don't expect the difference to be much.

You'll need to adjust your expectations. The Xenos GPU outclasses RSX in features and in performance.

[Gorvi]

Ive been reading EvilAvatar for a long while now, though I have rarely posted. But for one reason or another I felt compelled to speak my mind.

I havent played the PS3; my closest experience being standing next to a demo unit, watching someone play some off-road racing game. It looked fantastic. Like I said, I cant say much about the gameplay, but the graphics were really sharp. But don't you guys think that games come to a point which graphics don't really matter? I mean, I wouldnt find any more joy playing Super Mario Brothers 3 revamped for 3-d than I would as the NES original. In fact, I would prefer it to remain as is (bad example perhaps, as it is a tad nostalgic, but nonetheless my point is expressed). When im gauging a game for it's graphics, I dont usually tell myself, "how close to real-life is this". I am looking for well-suited graphics; how well do the graphics streamline the game?

As a matter of opinion, this "console war" (excuse the citation, but i loathe the term), will be judged not on graphics - as obviously, both have proven themselves fully capable. Rather, the victor shall rest on the shoulders of the game developers attention to gameplay; in many aspects, Nintendo has caught on to this, and is certainly reaping the benefits.

But to all of those arguing about the future of what the PS3 might produce, relax. None of us here are clairvoyant in any essence of the term. And it would be foolish to claim that the PS3 will indefinately produce crisper graphics; the same goes for the 360-favoring rebuttal. However, while it is still midly a matter of opinion, the 360 is currently sitting on top of the hill when it comes to graphics (cheers to sony if they can dethrone them). And while you force your opinion that hey, give the PS3 a chance to catch up, remember - the xbox came out a year ahead on purpose.

Very well worded. You sum up the logical points made in this thread very well. Post more!

[Com_Gaunt]

I thought we had established that console specs/performance/image quality are not what ends up winning the "war", but rather the exclusive games and the selection of games win it. Otherwise, the dreamcast would have kicked the PS2's ass..... yeah for me for finding a way to drag the dreamcast in all this :)

[Ultima Thulian]

Oh God. I'm not going to bother to read all of this shit, but let me guess and people can tell me if I'm right or not.

-Kamalot says something negative about the PS3, maybe 4 or 5 times.
-Kamalot argues that the PS3 is doomed because it's first gen games don't look as good, or not much better, than the 2nd gen 360 titles.
-Kamalot makes fun of Blu-Ray
-Kamalot says something about his stupid exclusives thread.
-Kamalot gets quoted too many times by Xbox fanboys not because Kamalot said something intelligent, but because they are fanboys that will agree with anything negative on Sony.

If you're gonna put someone on the ignore list, then ignore them. Your constant Kam bitching is just as bad as Kam's constant Blu-Ray bitching. If he's on your ignore list, then ignore him and stop pissing in the fire.

[Ultima Thulian]

Great! How would you feel if I walked into your job and told you how to make hamburgers?

I dunno. Being that you have a computer science degree, I'd probably feel really damned lucky to have such an astute person explain things for me.

[DeathtollWRX]

If you're gonna put someone on the ignore list, then ignore them. Your constant Kam bitching is just as bad as Kam's constant Blu-Ray bitching. If he's on your ignore list, then ignore him and stop pissing in the fire.

If you pissed on a fire. Wouldn't that put it out?

[Kelegacy]

If you're gonna put someone on the ignore list, then ignore them. Your constant Kam bitching is just as bad as Kam's constant Blu-Ray bitching. If he's on your ignore list, then ignore him and stop pissing in the fire.
He's not on my ignore list for the time being. But he's so predictable it reeks like a skunk in the woods: you smell him before he's even in sight. In this case you can hear him before you even open the thread.

I was just experimenting, trying to guess the thread without reading it. Obviously my hypothesis proved correct.

[Hagetaka]

No need to add wood to the fire Kelegacy; the flames are already burning pretty high. Besides, I think you made your point already; didnt you?

[Ultima Thulian]

If you pissed on a fire. Wouldn't that put it out?

No...unless you had a lot of piss. The idea is you'll get burned...on the dick...which sucks.

Kel, I thought you had Kam on the ignore list. I was wrong, so my apologies. Though he just doesn't make me all that mad. *shrugs* Oh well.

[Gorvi]

Kel, I thought you had Kam on the ignore list. I was wrong, so my apologies. Though he just doesn't make me all that mad. *shrugs* Oh well.

Kam only makes you mad if you believe that his posts came from someone who's trying to view a subject objectively. They come from a pit of Sony-hate deeper than that really big hole in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey. ;)

[kokyunage]

You'll need to adjust your expectations. The Xenos GPU outclasses RSX in features and in performance.

Why would I need to do that? nVidia GPU's have outclassed ATI GPU's the last 2 generations. Why would I assume otherwise when dealing with consoles.

[Ultima Thulian]

I know he hates sony...a lot. But it's no biggie. He does troll here and there, but he backs his sony hate with facts...for the most part. Hard to argue with facts. Megalith is an example of a troll. Kam is like a diet coke of troll...hell not even that. He is like a generic dollar store diet coke of troll. Only someone really sensitive would let Kam get the best of them, no offense.

And bonus points for the Bill and Ted reference.

[Kem0sabe]

Graphics are pointless... Consider the PS2 and the Xbox, the DS and the PSP, the PSX and the DC, the machine with the best graphics didnt have a fraction of the others sales.

[Kelegacy]

No...unless you had a lot of piss. The idea is you'll get burned...on the dick...which sucks.

Kel, I thought you had Kam on the ignore list. I was wrong, so my apologies. Though he just doesn't make me all that mad. *shrugs* Oh well.

I own a 360 and am not the slightest interested in the monstrosity that is the PS3, but it still doesn't stop me from being bothered every time we see people flame or hate on Sony or the Playstation 3. If the machine doesn't interest you, or does wind up being incredibly bad, why do you care? It's like we are twelve all over again, taking solace or pain in how the machines we don't own or want to own fare.

It's still, to me, an incarnation of fear, even if people don't want to admit it. 360 lovers are afraid that the PS3 will dominate again and Sony will once again rule supreme. Sony fanatics are afraid that their beloved brand will no longer be around and be killed by the competition (though Sony themselves will be the real reason they fail, not the competition). As long as the hobby stays fun and doesn't lose that focus, I'll continue to play regardless of who is manufacturing games or systems.

But if you say you don't care about Sony, that you hate their products and continuously try to fuel the ongoing console wars with your bias banter, what you are really saying is that you DO care. The irony! Constantly attacking one company only proves this all the more. It shows you care that they do not do well, that you are afraid their existence might have a negative impact on your own console purchase. Again, fear. Otherwise, you'd ignore them completely.

[JazGalaxy]

Actually, that's funny - the Genesis's advantage directly effected gameplay, since things could go faster, while the SNES just looked better.

You're... joking right?

[Ultima Thulian]

But if you say you don't care about Sony, that you hate their products and continuously try to fuel the ongoing console wars with your bias banter, what you are really saying is that you DO care. The irony! Constantly attacking one company only proves this all the more. It shows you care that they do not do well, that you are afraid their existence might have a negative impact on your own console purchase. Again, fear. Otherwise, you'd ignore them completely.

But wouldn't that mean you can't hate a company/product and discuss it without sounding ironic/hypocritical...I don't even know if that's a word, but you get my drift.

I hate Sony as a company, they're pure bullshit. But I will one day have PS3. Why? Because I like the games. I don't let brand hate/loyalty decide my purchase. From my understanding, Kam has a PS2 with a fairly healthy library. So if he wants to see Sony go down out of fear he is doing a piss poor job at it.

I'm trying not to sound like an asswipe, but I really don't get what you're saying. Could you try to dumb it down for me? :o

[JazGalaxy]

And why, praytell, were they the "same" games? Please ponder that for a moment before you respond.


You mean, from the ground up to be 360 games. There is a significant difference here. Those games weren't made console "neutral." But I thought we knew all of this last year, so I don't know why it has to be mulled over yet again.

What?

They were the same games because when the Xbox 360 debuted, there were 3 less powerful consoles on the market that the majority of users owned. With very few of those users migrating to the new generation of consoles at that date in time, it made little sense for developers to create new models, effects, and so forth for Xbox360 specific games. Instead they merely took the games they were planning for multi system releases like Gun and Tony Hawk, and made minor enhacenments to the overall look of the game to make it look like "the best of the group" and charged 10 dollars more for it.

The PS3 does not have this problem. The games that have come out for PS3, such as Tony Hawks American Wasteland, have always been in devleopment for the Xbox 360 AND PS3.

[Johan]

Very well worded. You [Hagetaka] sum up the logical points made in this thread very well. Post more!

I second that. Hagetaka...get in the mix more! Good post.

And I will add that for me, the most important feature is online play. I'm in this "gaming" hobby in large part to be able to spend time online with my brother hanging out, playing games, chatting, etc.

I do also enjoy gaming single-player, as I have much more free time than my brother does, but online is where it's at for me. Graphical comparisons are not so important in my little corner of the world.

*as long as games don't look like a hairy-ass butt crack that needs wiping*

[Fartacus]

Why would I need to do that? nVidia GPU's have outclassed ATI GPU's the last 2 generations. Why would I assume otherwise when dealing with consoles.

Well there's your problem, you're assuming. Xenos is nothing like ATI's current desktop GPU's and it's a fact, not speculation, that Xenos has superior performance and a superior feature set to RSX.

RSX is basically a 7800 class GPU wedged into a console. 24 pixel shader pipes. 8 vertex shader pipes. Shader model 3 feature set. Plain vanilla.

RSX has 48 unified shader pipes. It has 10 MB embedded DRAM with tremendous bandwidth, allowing antialiasing and blending for essentially free. It has DX10 class shader features. No, it's not based on a DX10 API, but it has geometry shading capabilities that outclass DX10 geometry shaders in many ways.

And I've heard many nightmare stories from fellow developers working on 360 and PS3 titles (I'm avoiding PS3, just developing for 360) who are pulling their hair out trying to get performance out of RSX.

But, go ahead and assume what you want. Choose ignorance if you like. Time will prove you wrong.

[Gorvi]

I second that. Hagetaka...get in the mix more! Good post.

And I will add that for me, the most important feature is online play. I'm in this "gaming" hobby in large part to be able to spend time online with my brother hanging out, playing games, chatting, etc.

I do also enjoy gaming single-player, as I have much more free time than my brother does, but online is where it's at for me. Graphical comparisons are not so important in my little corner of the world.

*as long as games don't look like a hairy-ass but crack that needs wiping*

See, you're exactly the kind of person the 360 was designed for and now I totally understand why you're a fan of the console. Wow, ya learn something new every day!

[Achilles]

..and that is of course totally bullshit. So as an engineer you think I - as a software guy - can compare the "performance" of engines compared to you?

You know. one of my friends is a professor in computer graphics and he has this lecture where he shows people two pictures. One is CGI and one is just a picture (of the same scene). In most cases non-computer people think the CGI is the real thing. When he gives the lecture at GDC or SigGraph, almost nobody is fooled. I guess these computer guys know what to look at?Well when you do it for a living you can spot what things look like. I don't know how anyone can say that someone who works on CGI or video games wouldn't have a more informed opinion on those topics. There’s an idea out there that art and graphics is purely subjective and nobody has any more of an informed opinion on what looks good/right and what doesn’t. If that was true I could replace our art director, our programmers could replace our art leads. It’s not true; there are people who are informed, who study the stuff, know what looks good and why. They can tell the difference between levels of compression, frames of animation, bones in a model, how engines work etc.

They know what’s real-time and what isn’t. And likewise people in the game industry are better able to tell what graphics can do/can’t do, what the differences are, etc. And those differences matter even if they’re not immediately apparent to consumers.

[Johan]

See, you're exactly the kind of person the 360 was designed for and now I totally understand why you're a fan of the console. Wow, ya learn something new every day!

Yeah...and there have been times where I've been guilty of "fan-boor-ish" behavior, but the 360 offers what I want...and I do try to be fair (with uneven success! :)).

What I love about the 360:
1. A unified online experience (I don't mind paying).
2. Arcade titles (I'm big on the simple "pick-up-and-play" type games, since I'm getting older and grow bored quickly with lifetime experiences like Morrowind...which I did finish, too!).

I would like to be able to play some of the exclusives that will come out for the PS3, but I just don't see it happening. I could afford it if I really wanted to, but I have perhaps fifty titles right now that I haven't even finished (I'm pathetic and apparently ADHD). I'd rather save the $500 or so and invest in some more games, too.

I think part of the problem, as I believe Kelegacy mentioned, is that one-console owners have a bit of fear that their console could wither on the vine. I don't have that fear, because I see MS looking to the gaming industry as a way to grow their cash cow (PC OS...Vista) through interconnectivity and the like. MS also has a ton of cash.

I don't know what will happen to Sony, but they are still making money off the PS2, so who knows...

[Zeal]

I can gurantee the games will still look better on 360 even twleve months from now. The 360 has a superior graphics processor and more memory readily avaliable.

The textures, color and shaprness of the images has nothing to do with the "games being made on 360 and ported to PS3", which they weren't anyway. The fact that the games look better AND have better framerates pretty much says it all.

[Achilles]

I can gurantee the games will still look better on 360 even twleve months from now. The 360 has a superior graphics processor and more memory readily avaliable.

The textures, color and shaprness of the images has nothing to do with the "games being made on 360 and ported to PS3", which they weren't anyway. The fact that the games look better AND have better framerates pretty much says it all.I think we’ll get some games that have an art style that caters to the PS3s strengths and downplays its weaknesses. Like how Silent Hill 2 used the old film filter to hide the PS2’s aliasing and low texture resolution. But in general the 360 will give artists more freedom to make the game look the way they want without having to worry about as many restrictions, and the majority of games will look better because of it.

I doubt you'll see anything on the PS3 that looks distinguishably better than a game of the same type and quality on the 360 unless the 360 game is using a free cam and the PS3 game is using a fixed-camera (like in Genji).

[Balthasar]

What?

They were the same games because when the Xbox 360 debuted, there were 3 less powerful consoles on the market that the majority of users owned. With very few of those users migrating to the new generation of consoles at that date in time, it made little sense for developers to create new models, effects, and so forth for Xbox360 specific games. Instead they merely took the games they were planning for multi system releases like Gun and Tony Hawk, and made minor enhacenments to the overall look of the game to make it look like "the best of the group" and charged 10 dollars more for it.
You're kidding, right? You're going to tell me Microsoft was okay with, on their big debut of their new system--attempting to swipe a 10 million unit lead on Sony before they could debut their console--that they were okay with companies simply rehashing their products without doing much work on the port? You're telling me the fact that programmers got their dev kits late and were working with unfamiliar architecture didn't play a role in this? You're telling me that the limitations the team behind Oblivion faced that forced them to delay the game several months were for no other reason than because they felt like it? Come on.

The PS3 does not have this problem. The games that have come out for PS3, such as Tony Hawks American Wasteland, have always been in devleopment for the Xbox 360 AND PS3.
Of course, because the PS3 dev kits went out to developers on time. And EA is well known for optimizing their cross-platform content for all systems. Right?

[bean19]

Oh God. I'm not going to bother to read all of this shit, but let me guess and people can tell me if I'm right or not.

Go look at the screenshots and form your own opinions based on fact instead of putting your head in the sand and then maligning Kamalot. Your "anti-console war" is just as bad or worse than what the fanboys have to say because you are more interested in flaming posts than you are in discussing the topic of this thread.

[Kelegacy]

Go look at the screenshots and form your own opinions based on fact instead of putting your head in the sand and then maligning Kamalot. Your "anti-console war" is just as bad or worse than what the fanboys have to say because you are more interested in flaming posts than you are in discussing the topic of this thread.
Head in the sand? What the hell do I care if the screenshots are not equal? I own a 360. So, apparently I own the better system. Now what? Should I slam Sony to join the rest of the herd?

Sony sucks.
Blu-Ray's a joke.
360 games look better than the PS3 ones LOL!
PS3? More like P$3! LMFAO!

There! I now feel like I belong. *warm fuzzy feeling*

That's what many of them sound like. Sometimes I wonder if they are web-bots in disguise, programmed to post the same stuff repeatedly. You can be critical, but please do so in a manner that doesn't sound like we're fighting over the SNES vs. Genesis all over again. I think most of us are older than that now (at least in age, if not raw maturity).

[Achilles]

You can be critical, but please do so in a manner that doesn't sound like we're fighting over the SNES vs. Genesis all over again. I think most of us are older than that now (at least in age, if not raw maturity).Dude, Blast processing, more like trash processing, 16 colors, lolz! SNES 4 eva.

(actually I’m a genesis fan, but it did have worse graphics)

[Gorvi]

Dude, Blast processing, more like trash processing, 16 colors, lolz! SNES 4 eva.

(actually I’m a genesis fan, but it did have worse graphics)

Mode 7 roxxorz teh Blast Processing ftw! Mario could beat up Sonic!

[Zeal]

I find it funny that PS3 was supposed to be more powerful than SkyNet, find the cure for cancer, and transport people to Videogame Land to play with Captain N...yet multiplatform games look better on a year old system.

Anyone defending Sony right now needs only to look back at the hype surrounding PS3's conception. There is no criticism that isn't justifiable at this point.

And if Halo 3 happens to collapse under its own mammoth hype, you can gurantee I'll be slamming it even harder than the PS3.

EDIT: If anyone disagrees with what I have to say, go to www.playb3yond.com and let it tell you that PS3 is smarter than you are.

Yeah, it actually says that.

[bean19]

Head in the sand? What the hell do I care if the screenshots are not equal? I own a 360. So, apparently I own the better system. Now what? Should I slam Sony to join the rest of the herd?

Well, I am sort of on the sidelines of the battle-zone. The discussion we are having over here is not that the PS3 sucks, but that all the razzle-dazzle hype about the PS3 is bull. It's about having a dialogue about the console's relative strengths and weaknesses of the consoles and not about bashing any of them.

The main point on the whole first page of this discussion is that the 360 and the PS3 are EXTREMELY close to each other in power. Not that the 360 rox0rs the PS3 or that the PS3 sucks. You're shooting at phantom Charlie.

[Citizen Philip]

I still find it sad that if this is the introduction of my graphics vs your graphics: ati vs nvidia style, it's only going to get more pathetic and bitter with each title if it is on both platforms.

20 pages and nothing but utter shit.

[Johan]

20 pages and nothing but utter shit.

Funny...I only have six pages of shit! (forty posts per page!!!) :)

Makes it seem much less shitty that way!

[UglyPimp]

Speaking of first gen, the first gen 360 games don't look as good, for the most part, as PS3 first gen games. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be a huge graphical difference between the two. And for the exception of key select titles, you won't see a big difference due to time, money, etc. At least, the gap won't be big enough to wow anyone.

Uh, except the ports for the 360 were ports from the PS2 and Xbox.

But that's not much of a difference. Oh wait a minute, yes it is.

Regardless, they are evenly matched on the whole so who cares?

[bean19]

I still find it sad that if this is the introduction of my graphics vs your graphics: ati vs nvidia style, it's only going to get more pathetic and bitter with each title if it is on both platforms.

20 pages and nothing but utter shit.

Am I being naive? I really though that the factual comparisons would lead people to the conclusion that both of their girlfriends are pretty. While the 360 graphics are slightly better in some cases, they are both very similar.

[Johan]

Regardless, they are evenly matched on the whole so who cares?

Graphically, yes.

Online capabilities...a big no.

[Citizen Philip]

Am I being naive? I really though that the factual comparisons would lead people to the conclusion that both of their girlfriends are pretty. While the 360 graphics are slightly better in some cases, they are both very similar.

If you want to pretend, for whatever reasons that this single review qualifies both systems: that the fact the different architecture result in similarly powerful graphic processing results; and that one system will prove better in some tasks while the other will excel at others.

Most importantly that this whole stinking pile does not resemble in anyways to the ati/nvidia wars - that have long been settled: and with much more precise tools, then the answer is yes.

You are naive, on all accounts.

[RMan]

The main point on the whole first page of this discussion is that the 360 and the PS3 are EXTREMELY close to each other in power.
Yea, the amount of conversation about the systems seems inversely proportionate to the difference in their abilities. I’m looking forward to a time when the difference is entirely irrelevant to see if the message board crashes :).

[Zeal]

The very fact that the PS3 can only produce comparable visuals to that of 360 is actually bad for Sony.

It was intended to be a quantum leap.

Hell, I'm always straight up. I hope Sony doesn't even make it back next-generation.

[Balthasar]

The main point on the whole first page of this discussion is that the 360 and the PS3 are EXTREMELY close to each other in power. Not that the 360 rox0rs the PS3 or that the PS3 sucks. You're shooting at phantom Charlie.
You might want to scroll past the first page to read the next 10 or so. Whether you like Kel bitching about the content of these threads or not, he certainly nailed it.

[Phanto]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again. These are more than likely games that were made for the 360 and ported to the PS3. I'd hold off any '360 roxxorz teh PS3 graffix!!1111!' claims until we see games built from the ground up for the PS3 and not rushed ports. Not that I'm saying the PS3 will trump the 360 in terms of graphics, I just don't think this is a good comparison.

I think its too early to start doing comparison but at the same time I think is good because in a year or 2 most likely they are going to make another comparison and we will see the real deal between this two consoles.

[DangerousDaze]

It's subjective. The linked Gamespot article says that the 360 version of FNR3 looked appreciably better than the PS3, but Gamespot's own official review ranked them largely the same with pros and cons on either side.

Games Radar said that the PS3 version was appreciably better than the 360 version, while 1UP and IGN both say they're about the same with the PS3 version just edging it.

[Disgustipated]

It's subjective. The linked Gamespot article says that the 360 version of FNR3 looked appreciably better than the PS3, but Gamespot's own official review ranked them largely the same with pros and cons on either side.

Games Radar said that the PS3 version was appreciably better than the 360 version, while 1UP and IGN both say they're about the same with the PS3 version just edging it.

Could it be the HDTV's they're using?

[Ozymandias]

Why? The Xbox 360 has more RAM. That's why all those developers were fighting for more RAM in the unit, as well as why they threw a field day when they got it. The lack of a standard hard drive was in order to give gamers more ram so they could get those very textures.

To be clear, the Xbox 360 has more *available* RAM - technically, both systems have 512 MB. However, the PS3 has 256 MB of video RAM and 256 MB of system RAM - and 96 MB of that RAM is unavailable to games (64 MB system/32 video RAM) due to being reserved for their Guide. Did I mention that three of the 8 Cell SPEs are also effectively unavailable to games? (1 for manufacturing yields, one for the guide/OS, and one that's premtable by the system for additional guide/OS work, effectively making it off-limits to games as it's difficult to code for. Not impossible, just a pain in the ass.)

<sigh>

[51|RandoM]

There are at least 5 Sony supporters in this thread who told me to wait to do comparisons when these games were finished.

Funny stuff.

Well, at least in the case of Madden, the game clearly isn't finished. They never even got around to adding the shadows, wtf? lol.

I'm waiting for the MGS 4 comparison video, let me know when that comes out. :p

[NeoSuplex]

To be clear, the Xbox 360 has more *available* RAM - technically, both systems have 512 MB. However, the PS3 has 256 MB of video RAM and 256 MB of system RAM - and 96 MB of that RAM is unavailable to games (64 MB system/32 video RAM) due to being reserved for their Guide. Did I mention that three of the 8 Cell SPEs are also effectively unavailable to games? (1 for manufacturing yields, one for the guide/OS, and one that's premtable by the system for additional guide/OS work, effectively making it off-limits to games as it's difficult to code for. Not impossible, just a pain in the ass.)

<sigh>

Doesn't the 360 have system RAM as well?

Anyway, all this stuff (Gorvi's posts especially) reeks of 'Emotion Engine'. I still remember reading about how powerful this thing was and why it meant Playstation 2 was the shit. The thing is... EE and it's younger brother, Cell are processors. Some time back in the stone age, people invented graphic cards. If were looking at graphics, PS3's graphics card is not nearly as advanced as the 360's so... I doubt it will out perform graphically at any point in this Gen. Cell could possibly allow for better physics or sound in games, but it won't do anything to the graphics.

And Gorvi: It usually take a generation to get over being EE'd by Sony. You'll be OK, man. Stay strong.

[Morratut]

So lets do a summary...

Online Gaming = Xbox 360 Wins.
Graphics = Xbox 360 Wins.

Come on Sony you are gonna have to try harder for my money.

I don't believe in the Sony hype of untapped power for the PS3. The PS2 according to them had more power than the Xbox. The graphics solution for the PS3 was in hardware development terms, last minute. I've read that a few times. Have a search on the net.

It's showing in the games.

[Jack B]

Funny...I only have six pages of shit! (forty posts per page!!!) :)

Makes it seem much less shitty that way!

Me too. 40 posts per page is the way to go!

Some interesting posts, but I'm really surprised at the quantity. People really got into this thread today.

[Ultima Thulian]

Uh, except the ports for the 360 were ports from the PS2 and Xbox.

But that's not much of a difference. Oh wait a minute, yes it is.

If you read the rest of my post you would know that I personally find it a bit unfair to judge consoles side by side with ports. I won't explain why again, but let's compare each consoles LAUNCH exclusives. Launch vs. Launch. Exclusive vs. Exclusive. Sounds fair to me.

Perfect Dark Zero vs. Resistance: Fall of Man --- Which looks better?

Ridge Racer 6 vs. Ridge Racer 7 --- Which looks better?

Those are just two examples (and there are plenty that make the 360 look better too...then again the PS3 doesn't have many launch exclusives! :D)

Again, I'm not gonna reiterate all of my points and repetedly defend myself (no jab at you, I'm just speaking a general sense). But I think way too many people on this thread are either forgetting or avoiding basic, common sense points.

[KingGorilla]

Sniff Sniff...I smell trolls and fanboys, I may want to leave lest I become engulfed in flames.

[Zeal]

Games will always look better on 360 and here's why:

1. Unified shader architecture
2. More available memory
3. Smoother frametes in HD

comment removed

[TrackZero]

To be clear, the Xbox 360 has more *available* RAM - technically, both systems have 512 MB. However, the PS3 has 256 MB of video RAM and 256 MB of system RAM - and 96 MB of that RAM is unavailable to games (64 MB system/32 video RAM) due to being reserved for their Guide. Did I mention that three of the 8 Cell SPEs are also effectively unavailable to games? (1 for manufacturing yields, one for the guide/OS, and one that's premtable by the system for additional guide/OS work, effectively making it off-limits to games as it's difficult to code for. Not impossible, just a pain in the ass.)

<sigh>

Don't forget the 360 also has an extra 10 MB eDRAM daughter-die to use as well. So technically, it does have more memory, all things aside. ;)

[Citizen Philip]

I'm sure the difference between two systems using 512 is so gargantuan and vast that it will be immediately obvious that the extra 12 or 56 MB that is squeezed out during one particular operation over another will be biblical in scope and apocalyptic in consequence. The difference will be of such breathtaking and obvious visual delight that warnings of it's great beauty and it's ability to strike you blind will be mandatory and likewise, the other system will be so wicked and horrible that you may be struck blind - being as it is such a blight upon the delicate human optic nerve.

Or at least, that's how this thread is reading so far.

[Citizen Philip]

comment removed

Probably better you did that, as you could have obviously said something that without bias, may have tipped your hand rather obviously.

[wyeast]

Ridge Racer 6 vs. Ridge Racer 7 --- Which looks better?


Didn't we just have this comparison? Wasn't it also so close that it was subjectively going either way depending on what you had for breakfast?

[wyeast]

I'm sure the difference between two systems using 512 is so gargantuan and vast that it will be immediately obvious that the extra 12 or 56 MB that is squeezed out during one particular operation over another will be biblical in scope and apocalyptic in consequence. The difference will be of such breathtaking and obvious visual delight that warnings of it's great beauty and it's ability to strike you blind will be mandatory and likewise, the other system will be so wicked and horrible that you may be struck blind - being as it is such a blight upon the delicate human optic nerve.

Or at least, that's how this thread is reading so far.
Nah, I thought that even if there *were* a massive difference, the bean counters will insist on the minimum (i.e. cheapest) effort to develop to the lowest common denomonator (whether that be PS3 or 360) on crossplatformers, so the comparison will be futile.

[NeoSuplex]

Nah, I thought that even if there *were* a massive difference, the bean counters will insist on the minimum (i.e. cheapest) effort to develop to the lowest common denomonator (whether that be PS3 or 360) on crossplatformers, so the comparison will be futile.

Funny how that didn't really happen too often last gen. Hell, I can't think of a single game that got 'LCD' to PS2 Graphics on Gamecube or Xbox.

[Kamalot]

Funny how that didn't really happen too often last gen. Hell, I can't think of a single game that got 'LCD' to PS2 Graphics on Gamecube or Xbox.
?

Are you saying you can't think of games that were built for PS2/Xbox/Cube that weren't built with the lowest-common denominator (PS2) in mind?

[cookyshark]

But if you say you don't care about Sony, that you hate their products and continuously try to fuel the ongoing console wars with your bias banter, what you are really saying is that you DO care. The irony! Constantly attacking one company only proves this all the more. It shows you care that they do not do well, that you are afraid their existence might have a negative impact on your own console purchase. Again, fear. Otherwise, you'd ignore them completely.

thats sounds an awful lot like what you do to Kamalot. so you do care about Kam?

how sweet.

in any case, the comparisons of the untapped multi cell potention of the ps3 sounds alot like how apple would say that you couldn't compare Macs to PCs because they were on different Hardware Architecture. Then one fateful day, the Mac gets ported to an x86 architecture and is about 3x - 4x times faster than it's previous architecture.

oh well.

[Johan]

thats sounds an awful lot like what you do to Kamalot. so you do care about Kam?

how sweet.

Sweet irony! Nice observation!

[cookyshark]

thanks, I like to watch.

{= )

[Balthasar]

thats sounds an awful lot like what you do to Kamalot. so you do care about Kam?
Scorned lovers. They fought over who was bottom and who was top. We try not to bring it up anymore.

[Kamalot]

thats sounds an awful lot like what you do to Kamalot. so you do care about Kam?
Of course we care about each other. I recently offered to indefinately loan my GameCube VGA cable (http://www.goldenshop.com.hk/AI-trad/gc/vgacable.htm) ($54) to Kelegacy. He was kind of on the fence about Wii so I offered the cable to him so he can play Twilight Princess on the Cube. The VGA cable provides the best picture quality from the Cube.

We look out for each other. Soon, he'll go into threads and make all my points for me, so I can retire on a tropical island and sip frozen drinks that have little umbrallas in them.

[Kelegacy]

Of course we care about each other. I recently offered to indefinately loan my GameCube VGA cable (http://www.goldenshop.com.hk/AI-trad/gc/vgacable.htm) to Kelegacy. He was kind of on the fence about Wii so I offered the cable to him so he can play Twilight Princess on the Cube. The VGA cable provides the best picture quality from the Cube.

We look out for each other. Soon, he'll go into threads and make all my points for me, so I can retire on a tropical island and sip frozen drinks that have little umbrallas in them.
I think you're a nice guy, and could be one of our best posters...if it wasn't for the unfettered hatred of anything Sony you display too often. Being critical isn't the best phrase to describe how you deal with Sony topics. You are always looking to burn them at the stake and take glee in it, in any Sony thread that appears.

Other than that, I don't mind you. Honestly.

[Kamalot]

I think you're a nice guy, and could be one of our best posters...if it wasn't for the unfettered hatred of anything Sony you display too often. Being critical isn't the best phrase to describe how you deal with Sony topics. You are always looking to burn them at the stake and take glee in it, in any Sony thread that appears.

Other than that, I don't mind you. Honestly.
Thanks.

What can I say? I have a deep-seeded hatred of lying assholes. Sony takes the cake. I'd really like them to be honest and develop a machine that is good for gamers.

With each generation of devices, they seem more and more distant with gamers, treating us with downright contempt these days.

I've given Sony props for things like including a standard / upgradable hard drive in the PS3. They CAN make good decisions. But for every good decision they DO make, they spit in the face of gamers several times.

I don't take that in any kind of relationship; not personal, professional or consumer relationships.

I'll change my tune when Sony convinces me they WANT my business. In order to do that, they need to stop acting like it is my privilege to buy their products.

[Kamalot]

P.S. It's nice to know you care.

[Balthasar]

P.S. It's nice to know you care.
Awww, this is so SWEET!

Should I leave you two alone here?

[cookyshark]

I think you're a nice guy, and could be one of our best posters...if it wasn't for the unfettered hatred of anything Sony you display too often. Being critical isn't the best phrase to describe how you deal with Sony topics. You are always looking to burn them at the stake and take glee in it, in any Sony thread that appears.

Other than that, I don't mind you. Honestly.
I own a 360 and am not the slightest interested in the monstrosity that is the PS3, but it still doesn't stop me from being bothered every time we see people flame or hate on Sony or the Playstation 3. If the machine doesn't interest you, or does wind up being incredibly bad, why do you care? It's like we are twelve all over again, taking solace or pain in how the machines we don't own or want to own fare.
So if you own a Xbox 360, you are officially supportive of the xbox 360 camp? wouldn't that apply to Kamalot if he owned a Sony product?

enlighten us with your spin.

[Kelegacy]

Thanks.

What can I say? I have a deep-seeded hatred of lying assholes. Sony takes the cake. I'd really like them to be honest and develop a machine that is good for gamers.

With each generation of devices, they seem more and more distant with gamers, treating us with downright contempt these days.

I've given Sony props for things like including a standard / upgradable hard drive in the PS3. They CAN make good decisions. But for every good decision they DO make, they spit in the face of gamers several times.

I don't take that in any kind of relationship; not personal, professional or consumer relationships.

I'll change my tune when Sony convinces me they WANT my business. In order to do that, they need to stop acting like it is my privilege to buy their products.
It wasn't until recently that I started to be discouraged with Sony. I think they did great with the PS1 (one of my fav. consoles ever, second only to maybe the SNES--or tied with it) and the PS2, despite being more of the same, was/is a great gaming machine despite ancient hardware. That's because of all the neat games it offers.

But the PS3, well, the price is ridiculous. The terrible launch availability. Losing exclusives. Even little things like no standard rumble in the controller. The PS1 and PS2 were machines that impressed me from the onset, but the PS3 doesn't look to be a machine that deserves to be in my home. I have a 360 where many of the PS3 games will probably wind up, and the price sets it out of my videogame budget currently--and for a long time to come unless the library comes to fruition, something I was critical of with the 360.

Basically, it comes down to this: Why should I buy a PS3 if I already own a 360? Exclusives, exclusives, exclusives. I want unique game experiences I can't get on the Wii or 360, and that's why I don't play 360 multiplatform games that are 20 bucks cheaper on the PS2 or Xbox. So until that day comes, or if most everything becomes multiplatform, I'll just stay with the 360.

But I still don't hate Sony, or look at them like a bunch of filthy liars. I just think they did a subpar job with the PS3, or at least it looks that way currently. It's sorta like the Homermobile of the consoles right now--offering tons of options and goodies, but priced ridiculously high.

The PS1 and PS2 still rock, so I'll reserve COMPLETE judgement until the PS3 can grow into its own...give them at least a year before I write them off completely. I condemned the 360 for the first year but I've let off quite a bit now. I'm content, if not completely satisfied. But in all honesty, it's quite hard to satisfy this crazy wildebeast.

[Kamalot]

I would be just as harsh on Nintendo, Microsoft or Sega if they pulled the same shit Sony is pulling. It isn't as if we have a few isolated instances of missed expectations. Sony has a corporate policy of treating customers like shit.

Perfect example.

PSP launches with a defective button. Sony says, 'Adapt. We designed a thing of beauty. PSP is perfect. Learn to deal with it.'

Nintendo launches Wii with straps that break if you throw the remote too hard. Nintendo says, 'we'll investigate what the problem is.' and starts shipping thicker Wii wrist straps.

PSP launches with dead pixels and a return policy that states you have to have at least 16 dead pixels before they will replace a unit. Nintendo launches with a zero-tolerance for dead-pixels.

Sony launched the PS3 with a bevy of missing features when compared to what was originally promised. Nintendo pulled DVD support but added news, weather, photo and Internet channels that were completely unexpected.

These examples aren't the only ones, nor are they placed out there to say Nintendo does everything right. They are examples showing the attitude toward customers. We can see it time and time again. I've blasted Microsoft for only offering a 90-day warranty on the 360, which is INEXCUSABLE. I've blasted Nintendo on Virtual console pricing structures. Sony simply provides a lot more ammunition for gamer advocates to throw back in their face.

Sony wasn't always like this. At one point I had a lot of respect for Sony. Nintendo wasn't always like this either. I used to hold a lot of contempt for Nintendo's practices. Sega used to make great games too, but now they make trash.

Companies change. I'm not letting something as petty as a brand name blind me from what's actually happening.

[Ultima Thulian]

Good points Kam. And your sig still rings true! :D

[Zeal]

I respected Sony in the days when they took the crown from Nintendo. I supported their stance on giving developers freedom and supporting creativity in game development. I always go with the best, and that's why I now support Microsoft.

They are Sony's successor, as was Sony to Nintendo.

[DangerousDaze]

I would be just as harsh on Nintendo, Microsoft or Sega if they pulled the same shit Sony is pulling.
Yeah, because Nintendo would never deny that there's something wrong with their gear like, for example, hinges cracking (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/17/nintendo-ds-lite-cracks-on-hinge/), and they definitely wouldn't later admit that they do crack but it's just cosmetic so suck it or pay for it to be repaired (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/25/nintendo_admits_ds_lite_cracking_issue/).

But hey, I hear that they reduced the repair fee from $75 to $50. That was nice of them.

[wyeast]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7027/spamporktasticyb6.jpg

GET THE FUCK OUT! :mad:

[fitbabits]

GET THE FUCK OUT! :mad:
He's off to that hot place! With my sincerest wishes. :D

[BlackRiders]

As someone said, at the end of the day I believe there will be little in the graphics. I can't argue which will be the best at the end of the day, but I must admit I was expecting more from PS3 launch titles.

I am an Xbox fanboy but I will get a PS3 when they become commonly available with a better games selection. Do *I* think it will be better than XBox 360? No, because of Xbox live. Sony I dont think have hit the nail on the head when it comes to online. Microsoft have their PC and network background to fallback on to create a great community.

Do *I* think PS3 will be more popular than 360? Yes, there are a heck of a lot more Sony fanboys out there that get sucked into Sony hype and still believe that MS is some sort of great anti-christ company, a load of crap.

Do *I* think one console is overall better than the other? *NO* Thats why I will end up with both. Microsoft is starting to get some good franchises of its own up and running with only on Xbox and they are starting to get a lot of the stuff you used to only see on PS onto Xbox as well, GTA with Xbox live content, Marvel online. Of course there is all the good stuff on the PS2 that will go onto the PS3 over time and there is no way and would want to miss that as a gamer. Its just a pity I have to buy two consoles and I am fortunate I can buy both. What about Wii you say? There are rumours that there is a complete motion stick based on sonics for Xbox I was reading. I will see what that is like. I must admit, *I* was not overly impressed by Wii, once you get over the controller it reminded me of my old Atari System :)

[Kamalot]

As someone said, at the end of the day I believe there will be little in the graphics. I can't argue which will be the best at the end of the day, but I must admit I was expecting more from PS3 launch titles.

I am an Xbox fanboy but I will get a PS3 when they become commonly available with a better games selection. Do *I* think it will be better than XBox 360? No, because of Xbox live. Sony I dont think have hit the nail on the head when it comes to online. Microsoft have their PC and network background to fallback on to create a great community.

Do *I* think PS3 will be more popular than 360? Yes, there are a heck of a lot more Sony fanboys out there that get sucked into Sony hype and still believe that MS is some sort of great anti-christ company, a load of crap.

Do *I* think one console is overall better than the other? *NO* Thats why I will end up with both. Microsoft is starting to get some good franchises of its own up and running with only on Xbox and they are starting to get a lot of the stuff you used to only see on PS onto Xbox as well, GTA with Xbox live content, Marvel online. Of course there is all the good stuff on the PS2 that will go onto the PS3 over time and there is no way and would want to miss that as a gamer. Its just a pity I have to buy two consoles and I am fortunate I can buy both. What about Wii you say? There are rumours that there is a complete motion stick based on sonics for Xbox I was reading. I will see what that is like. I must admit, *I* was not overly impressed by Wii, once you get over the controller it reminded me of my old Atari System :)Welcome to Evil Avatar. Your first post was excellent.

Hope to see you around more often.