Which one of these consoles are your favorite?

[I)eadnerzhul]

For the record, most games aren't made natively for macs because Windows machines are more popular. It's as simple as that.

Know what you're talking about before you say it. Developers don't go making Mac versions of every game simply because one: it would cost much money, and two: almost NO gamers play on a Mac.

Edit: BOOOM! HEADSHOT!

 

[Gilles]

...Except when it comes to games.

That has nothing to do with the quality of Macs. I think Mac OSX is more stable, and faster than XP and Vista. It's just a shame that you can't build them yourself, and game companies don't dual platform.

For the record, most games aren't made natively for macs because PC's Windows machines are more popular. It's as simple as that.

Know what you're talking about before you say it. Developers don't go making Mac versions of every game simply because one: it would cost much money, and two: almost NO gamers play on a Mac.

Edit: BOOOM! HEADSHOT!

lol?!
You just repeated what he said.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Gamespot ran a full comparison on images for all next gen systems (PC, 360 and PS3).

In all of them the PC won purly because it can render them at full 1080p with AA instead of the reduced resolution the 360/PS3 have to render at (cause they are not too strong).

The 360 came second, as unlike the shit PS3 (graphically), it has AA which the PS3 can not afford the time for support of it. It is well known that the 360 is designed so it gets near free AA without any noticable slowdowns (the PS3 does not). The only game which did not have AA was GTA4 but it was not plagued with the graphic bugs that the PS3 had when played on the 360.

The 360 also appears to have more graphic RAM as seen by the better quality textures and so the environments tend to look better. The PS3 does seem to like AF though so textures at oblique angles look better.

Thus graphically, the PS3 is thrashed by the 360. However the PS3 might have a better processor set up, thus it can preform some impresive processor demanding effects while not impacting the requirements of the game engine. This will be seen by the probably highly realistic movement of hair expected in FF13 and shown in the FF7 test demonstration. Also the PS3 has large discs (blu-ray), so games can be more complicated or support more content than the 360.

Sadly the 360 has a useful feature called "install" which enables one to reduce disk drive use and run the game mostly from hard disk. I do not believe the PS3 has this feature and it enables the 360 to reach top range PC like load times (while the PS3 still chuggs on a disc).
However I think simlar support is planned for the PS3 eventually.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Just ignore DSG and keep to the discussion, and this thread will stay sane.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Dr. Super Good just epicily owned your ass.

 

[rover2341]

"Sadly the 360 has a useful feature called "install" which enables one to reduce disk drive use and run the game mostly from hard disk."

This does reduce noice but on some games such as last halo game, it suggest not to do it because its slows it down, i don't fully understand why, but i guess it was made to run of the disk and when it doesn't it is slower for some reason.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Dr. Super Good just epicily owned your ass.

The chance that DSG was right in any part of that long post is less than the chance of a meteor landing on your head.

Anyone who's been here longer than a year knows this.

EDIT: Really, search around abit, look at Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2, then look at the specs and you'll see he's talking out of his ass.

 

[Squiggy]

Uhmm.. PS3 owns you since it's from sony.
Xbox360 fails since it's M$ and the controllers suck ass.. same for their network which actually costs money.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Uhmm.. PS3 owns you since it's from sony.
Xbox360 fails since it's M$ and the controllers suck ass.. same for their network which actually costs money.

PS3 controllers don't have depressions on the thumbsticks like the Xbox 360 has, so yeah... And like I said, Xbox live is FREE, but to host games you need to pay for it.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Which makes it not entirely free, unlike PSN or Wii online (or whatever it's called).

 

[The Final Sin]

ummmmm, welll first of all, for DSG WHO ASKED ABOUT THE FUCKIN PC and also graphics is second to a good storyline to me, but anyways, 360 THRASHES PS3 AND WII CAUSE OF ELDER SCROLLS IV: OBLIVION

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

That game sucked. It's only any good with mods that fix all of Bethesda's shitty mistakes, and the 360 doesn't support that.

EDIT: Fallout 3 kicks ass though. Even without any mods.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Fallout 3 was proven to run better / look better on 360 and PS3.
You lot are just ignorant if you think I am lieing. My source of information is Xbox 360 Vs. PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison: Now With PC! - Features at GameSpot.

On top of that the 360 is well known to have low level AA due to a cleaver hardware configuration. The PS3 has no such hardware configuration so has to render AA like PCs do so mostly does not.

In the fallout 3 images, you will clearly notice how the PS3 lacks certain reflection effects and has a worse shading on the terrain.
You will also notice how the PS3 suffers from graphic bugs in some games, but that is probably programming's problem and for specifically designed games that shading method would have been avoided so such bugs would not occur.

In all the images, the 360 looks clearer, as unlike the PS3 it has AA (with exception of GTA4).

There is no dought about it, the PS3 still can produce beautiful graphics. But sadly it can not match those of what the 360 is capable of. The PS3 however can use its processor to give a better engine which can result in better effects but generally such programming is avoided in multi platform games. Equally well the 360 could use its extra graphic power to give a more detailed effect.

However, from the programers side, almost all game developers say the PS3 is hard to use properly compaired to the 360.

Thus although 360 games might get more and more tightly optimized graphically (like with the PS2), you may find that the PS3 games are not going to look much better from the end of 2009/2010 until the end of its life.

People also overestimate the PS3's CPU. Just because it is a "cell" does not mean it is better than the 360. It firstly has atleast 1 of its CPU disabled for yield. One of the CPUs is locked for the PS3's OS so is not available to games. The rest then have to shair common recource factors like cache and RAM axcess meaning that they lose great ammounts of speed. The 360 is also multicore I believe, but with fewer bigger cores, this generally means that as only a few threads can run at once, programming is not only easier but also tends to be more efficent as less time is wasted waiting for data or syncronizing. In the end, key factors of both the PS3 and 360's design probably put a very simlar cap on their speeds, meaning they probably preform about equally for average computation.
The PS3 may only out preform with well threaded small tasks as then it could take advantage of cache and the numerous processors to allow for insanly quick processing. The 360 however probably can out preform with large volume data comutation as I would believe that the transfer rates between the RAM and processor are pretty close.

The Halo load time problem is probably due to the maps also being stored on HDD, thus it is having to multitask reading from a HDD which is horriably slow due to mechanical parts and fragmentation. EG, if it reads part of the map, needs a file, it then reads that file then continues with the map and sees it needs another file etc would result in a lot of movement and wasted time so slower transfer rates as it can only read one thing at one time. This could easilly be fixed by restructuring the halo load process to accomidate for the fact that it is getting the data from one source at the same time and not 2.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Yet again, owned.

 

[Gilles]

tl;dr for sure. Keep things short.

 

[Vicboy]

Yet again, owned.

Oh my god, you sound like my annoying classmate.

PS3 controllers don't have depressions on the thumbsticks like the Xbox 360 has, so yeah... And like I said, Xbox live is FREE, but to host games you need to pay for it.

XBOX360 controllers needs AA batteries just for it to play with.

PS3 can recharge whenever you want to, and I don't think it's as annoying as buying AAs or having to take them out to recharge them.

 

[Handycombinder]

Oh my god, you sound like my annoying classmate.

But he is right.

 

[Light_Kira]

Fallout 3 was proven to run better / look better on 360 and PS3.
You lot are just ignorant if you think I am lieing. My source of information is Xbox 360 Vs. PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison: Now With PC! - Features at GameSpot.

On top of that the 360 is well known to have low level AA due to a cleaver hardware configuration. The PS3 has no such hardware configuration so has to render AA like PCs do so mostly does not.

In the fallout 3 images, you will clearly notice how the PS3 lacks certain reflection effects and has a worse shading on the terrain.
You will also notice how the PS3 suffers from graphic bugs in some games, but that is probably programming's problem and for specifically designed games that shading method would have been avoided so such bugs would not occur.

In all the images, the 360 looks clearer, as unlike the PS3 it has AA (with exception of GTA4).

There is no dought about it, the PS3 still can produce beautiful graphics. But sadly it can not match those of what the 360 is capable of. The PS3 however can use its processor to give a better engine which can result in better effects but generally such programming is avoided in multi platform games. Equally well the 360 could use its extra graphic power to give a more detailed effect.

However, from the programers side, almost all game developers say the PS3 is hard to use properly compaired to the 360.

Thus although 360 games might get more and more tightly optimized graphically (like with the PS2), you may find that the PS3 games are not going to look much better from the end of 2009/2010 until the end of its life.

People also overestimate the PS3's CPU. Just because it is a "cell" does not mean it is better than the 360. It firstly has atleast 1 of its CPU disabled for yield. One of the CPUs is locked for the PS3's OS so is not available to games. The rest then have to shair common recource factors like cache and RAM axcess meaning that they lose great ammounts of speed. The 360 is also multicore I believe, but with fewer bigger cores, this generally means that as only a few threads can run at once, programming is not only easier but also tends to be more efficent as less time is wasted waiting for data or syncronizing. In the end, key factors of both the PS3 and 360's design probably put a very simlar cap on their speeds, meaning they probably preform about equally for average computation.
The PS3 may only out preform with well threaded small tasks as then it could take advantage of cache and the numerous processors to allow for insanly quick processing. The 360 however probably can out preform with large volume data comutation as I would believe that the transfer rates between the RAM and processor are pretty close.

The Halo load time problem is probably due to the maps also being stored on HDD, thus it is having to multitask reading from a HDD which is horriably slow due to mechanical parts and fragmentation. EG, if it reads part of the map, needs a file, it then reads that file then continues with the map and sees it needs another file etc would result in a lot of movement and wasted time so slower transfer rates as it can only read one thing at one time. This could easilly be fixed by restructuring the halo load process to accomidate for the fact that it is getting the data from one source at the same time and not 2.

Yeah, maybe all that stuff might be true, but those are just tech specs that the end user doesn't care about. Even someone like me, who is a photoshop & modeling guy who knows about this kind of stuff, doesn't care. In that gamespot comparison, the only game that looks better on the 360 then the PS3 is fallout 3, and for all you know that could be Bethesda's poor porting. Besides, if you care that much about graphics, get a gaming computer. They are at least 1.5x better then consoles graphically, with the latest hardware. Even my fairly old computer can equal that of the consoles.

Also, your wrong about the multiplayer thing. According to Wikipedia and Microsoft's Xbox page, you can't play multiplayer games at all, making a silver membership well about useless. Let's do some math for a second:

80 GB PS3 -- 400 USD ($)
300 USD (Xbox 360) + 100 USD (2 year XBOX LIVE membership) = 400 USD

Lol, so much for the 360 being cheaper. Everyone says one of the xbox 360's claims to fame is the fact that the 360's online is far superior. So, if you actually want to play online, you are going to have to get the normal 360 (not the arcade) and a gold membership.

On a similar subject, what exactly makes the 360's online better, anyway? Is its marginal benefits really worth the 100$ extra?

Also, you can install a game onto your ps3's hard-drive, just like the 360. The game will run faster, just like the 360.

Also, I find it hard to take you seriously with all those spelling errors

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Most people get PS3s for watching Blu-Ray.

 

[Gilles]

I hate Live. I don't mind paying a yearly fee to play online, but why the hell do I then have to pay for extra content? That's bullshit. 10$ for a few extra maps? Yeah right. If it was PC, it would all be free.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I hate Live. I don't mind paying a yearly fee to play online, but why the hell do I then have to pay for extra content? That's bullshit. 10$ for a few extra maps? Yeah right. If it was PC, it would all be free.

Games for Windows Live actually does require you to pay for extra content. An example would be Fallout 3's Operation Anchorage DLC. It's a shame my pirated version doesn't work...

But then again, if you own at the games you have, you can just pay for the DLC with those achievement points... or you can just wait for the DLC to become free (or nearly free). Just like the way they did it with Halo 2/3.

 

[leet.firefox]

Killzone 2 =D PS3:
4 usb ports (more than 2)
memory card reader (useful for some)
HDD swappable with any laptop (useful for some)
built in wireless(again, useful for some)
support for more cd's
can use xbox 360 controllers(lulz)
bluetooth(hit and miss)
better cooling system
shiny (more fingerprints)
smaller catalog of games(steadily growing)
just as many annoying people online as 360(lulz)
constant updates instead of one big awesome one every now and then(grr)
Home(not a good thing),
free internet(good thing)
trophies not supported by most games that came out before they were implemented

 

[Dr Super Good]

Um, the comparision did 4 games. COD4, fallout 3, dead space and GTA4, you must have forgotten to turn the page to the others I guess.

Also, my 360 wired controles totally rule, they are both 360 and PC compatiable and even auto install on the PC (no driver searching). They are also very comfortable and highly responcive. The PS3 ones do not nativly work on the PC I do belive.

The 360 does have cooling problems, but do not think the PS3 are free of them. Both use high ammounts of energy and both have had some technical faults. Both however seem a lot less prone to them in recent days (especially 360).

 

[Vicboy]

Um, the comparision did 4 games. COD4, fallout 3, dead space and GTA4, you must have forgotten to turn the page to the others I guess.

Also, my 360 wired controles totally rule, they are both 360 and PC compatiable and even auto install on the PC (no driver searching).

Like I said, GTA was faked, there isn't much difference in both systems.

And 360 Wired?

Wireless FTW.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I like wired, no batteries, less weight and no reception problems. Also the cable is so long, do you need to be further away?

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Wireless <3

 

[Light_Kira]

I prefer the ps3's wireless, mainly because you don't need to keep shoving batteries in it like the wii. However, you have to buy a longer charge cable unless you like sitting a foot in front of your T.V screen.

@ Dr. Super Good: I did see all of the pages of that. I was saying that fallout 3 is the only one that looks even remotely different between the 2 (360 looking better, of course)

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Kira pretty much nailed it. The PS3 looks better than any other console, but only on its exclusives (like Killzone 2, and shut up if you think it looks worse than Gears 2 or something), and the only reason some multiplatform games look worse on the PS3 is because they rush and don't adapt it well enough to the strange but equally good hardware of the PS3. It takes time, but its worth it.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

No it's not. Most people play on Xbox 360 rather than PS3, since PS3 has less triple-A titles. The only notable games on the PS3 that I wish would come out on Xbox or PC would probably be Metal Gear Solid 4, just because Snake is just so badass for an old guy.

Edit: With that said, most companies don't care too much about the PS3. It's kinda like Mac. Almost no one has them/uses them for games, so they just ignore it or make poor ports for it.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Doh, I forgot that FF13 is also being made for the 360 as well, stupid me. Thus proving that they are probably about equal in power. However the fact remains that the 360 does have better graphic capabilities, if purly due to the fact most of its games use Antialasing while PS3 games can not afford to. The only fair comparisions of power are games which are cross platform, as otherwise the game might use system specific shortcuts to give an illusion of non existant complexity. For example, super mario galexy for the wii looks amazing and seems next generation (not looking at resolution) as it has all the detail and effects of a next gen game, however it is running on little more than a spiced up gamecube and many of the effects you can analise are done by appling filters over the image which probably are quite fast to do and are not always precice. Most games for the Wii do not look that good or fail even to reach near next gen quality.
Simlar things are doable on the PS3 to make a game appear very good, but unless they are done on both systems and the output qualities and rates compaired, it purly shows the game developers are good at making graphic engines.

Currently, its still too early to tell which is better, but as more multi platform games are released, then a winner will be easier to see. FF13 should be a great example to compair, as unlike most games which are made for 360 then ported, it was actually orignally designed for the PS3 and only later was a 360 version decided appon. Thus if clear graphical shortcuts have to be taken in the 360 version, then obviously it is less strong than the PS3, but if it ends up looking as good or better than the PS3 version, then it proves the 360 is graphically better.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

You're so insanely wrong, its hilarious.

 

[Gilles]

Games for Windows Live actually does require you to pay for extra content. An example would be Fallout 3's Operation Anchorage DLC. It's a shame my pirated version doesn't work...

But then again, if you own at the games you have, you can just pay for the DLC with those achievement points... or you can just wait for the DLC to become free (or nearly free). Just like the way they did it with Halo 2/3.

Well then.... I hate Microsoft even more. Fucking Gates.

You're so insanely wrong, its hilarious.

You actually read all that?

 

[Light_Kira]

No it's not. Most people play on Xbox 360 rather than PS3, since PS3 has less triple-A titles. The only notable games on the PS3 that I wish would come out on Xbox or PC would probably be Metal Gear Solid 4, just because Snake is just so badass for an old guy.

Edit: With that said, most companies don't care too much about the PS3. It's kinda like Mac. Almost no one has them/uses them for games, so they just ignore it or make poor ports for it.

Almost no one? 22% of the console market has a ps3 (50% for the wii and about 27% for the 360). That is 20,880,000 people. It's a game developers dream to even get 5% of that market (about 1 million people), as a 60$ game would give them 60,000,000$. You don't think game developers want that 60 million, at all? The only reason why there are console exclusives is because Sony/Microsoft pays game developers a ****load of money to keep it exclusive. Either that, or the development company is bound to Sony/Microsoft (the case with Ensemble studios, before they got put out of business.)

Also, like I said earlier, almost all games a multiplat. I can only think of 3 good exclusives for each.

 

[Gilles]

I can think of a lot more than three, and there are been more than three mentioned in this thread.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Atleast I have evidence, unlike all the words you are saying against what I say. Until you prove me wrong that the 360 is graphically weaker, then the answer will remain that it is graphically stronger.
And no, game quality is not related to graphic power, and yes the PS3 might have some good games the 360 does not but that means nothing about its actual power.

 

[leet.firefox]

DSG, you keep spewing out all the random facts about how the 360 is graphically superior. But superior is not the word I would use, how bout "slightly better". There is only a 256 mb difference in ram. A typical high end computer will have around 8 gigs.

Let's move on from this graphics debate and focus on what this should be about: The games.

PS3: Killzone 2, MGS4, Uncharted, R&C:ToD, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 1 and 2, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, Gran Turismo, Socom, Warhawk, Motorstorm 1 and 2, Valkyria Chronicles,

Xbox 360: Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Forza Motorsports 2, Chrome Hounds, Fable 2, Halo Wars, Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned, Project Gotham Racing 4, Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation, Crackdown, Ninja Gaiden II, Tales of Vesperia,

Wii: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, SSB:B, Madworld, Wii Sports, World of Goo, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Boom Blox, The House of the Dead: Overkill,

Coming Soon:
PS3: God of War 3, inFamous, White Knight Chronicles, Uncharted 2, Socom 4, Gran Turismo 5, Kingdom Hearts 3,

Xbox 360: Ninja Blade, Gears of War 3, Halo 4

Wii:My Horse & Me 2: Riding for Gold, Let's Tap, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time, Pop 'Em Drop 'Em Samegame, A Boy and His Blob, Zoo Vet: Endangered Animals, Dragon Quest X

*I'm sure I missed plenty and I'm also sure that people will fill them in. Keep in mind, these are exclusives, I believe.

 

[Vicboy]

PS3: Killzone 2, MGS4, Uncharted, R&C:ToD, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 1 and 2, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, Gran Turismo, Socom, Warhawk, Motorstorm 1 and 2, Valkyria Chronicles,

Xbox 360: Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Forza Motorsports 2, Chrome Hounds, Fable 2, Halo Wars, Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned, Project Gotham Racing 4, Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation, Crackdown, Ninja Gaiden II, Tales of Vesperia,

Coming Soon:
PS3: God of War 3, inFamous, White Knight Chronicles, Uncharted 2, Socom 4, Gran Turismo 5, Kingdom Hearts 3,

Xbox 360: Ninja Blade,

*I'm sure I missed plenty and I'm also sure that people will fill them in. Keep in mind, these are exclusives, I believe.

Socom 4? Where?

Kingdom Hearts 3?

 

[so2easy]

PS3 have had a rough start followed by a heap of bad decisions from Sonys side, however I still prefer that over Wii or X360. It'll come around sooner or later.

 

[leet.firefox]

Socom 4? Where?

Kingdom Hearts 3?

New Socom Announced

Kingdom Hearts 3 Overview

KH3 Trailer

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Have you guys figured out yet that DSG doesn't actually have evidence? He's not linking anything, or using statistics. DSG, all you're doing is saying stuff like its fact. You don't even know what RAM does, do you?

Do not listen to anyone on the internet about which console is better. Do your own research. But more importantly, don't listen to DSG.

 

[Vicboy]

Have you guys figured out yet that DSG doesn't actually have evidence? He's not linking anything, or using statistics. DSG, all you're doing is saying stuff like its fact. You don't even know what RAM does, do you?

Do not listen to anyone on the internet about which console is better. Do your own research. But more importantly, don't listen to DSG.

Ya I know, he's blurting stuff without links out.

The new rule in this thread is...

No Link
No Trust

 

[Dr Super Good]

Ok, fist part of my evidence is the gamespot comparison, which as I linked before is not needed to be linked again.
Secondly the 360
Thirdly the PS3

PlayStation 3's Cell CPU achieves 204 GFLOPS single precision float and 15 GFLOPS double precision.
Xbox 360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115.2 gigaflops (take it as single precision)
Thus yes the PS3 is stronger CPU wise as I stated, but this is the max preformance, and so it can never fully use all that power. The PS3 may be faster processor wise, but it also wastes more power due to the increased threading it needs so PS3 games might be more CPU demanding in the end, but the difference is minimal.

Graphically, the PS3 uses a uptoned geforce 7 type GPU with 256 MB dedicated RAM.
The 360's Xenos however is made by ATI especially for the 360, and functions totally differently. It can do 4x FSAA, z-buffering, and alpha blending with no appreciable performance penalty on the GPU.
The PS3's however is superrior, from the specs but in practice, the 360's GPU is better as it has 2 layers, one of which is specifically for handling AA and other affects. While the PS3 needs to use GPU time to preform those, the 360 gets them with hardly any time penatly. Thus the PS3 will be able to do much more grunt graphics, while the 360 can perform a lot higher quality graphics as AA is hignly demanding in complex scenes.

Both the 360 and PS3 are equal RAM wise unlike the bog mentioned eariler. The 360 has 512 MB of shaired RAM for both graphics and CPU. The PS3 also has 512 MB of ram but half of it is dedicated GRAM while most of the rest can be used as slower additional GRAM but is actually normal RAM. As a result, the 360 is capable of processing more than 256 MB of RAM for graphics faster than the PS3 and with less effort, so generally games will use this advantage. Although the PS3 can also do it, the slowdown it would cause due to transmission rate caps would reduce playability and so not be worth it.

To sum this, the PS3 is more powerful on paper, but the 360 is more powerful in practice as it is more tightly optimized and so uses its power more efficently and allows good customization. While the PS3 is restricted to pretty much 256 MB GRAM (it can exceed that but at a preformance penalty) and also has to use GPU time for AA and related effects thus it can not preform as well graphically. CPU wise, the PS3 wins if the game makers use multi threading to its full potential, otherwise they will be pretty equally matched if not the 360 would win (multithreading is not easy, professionals who can program multi threaded tasks cost a lot and are rare).

You can expect PS3 to look better (maybe) with more complex games, such games would probably cost more to make and not be worth it, atleast for now. I base this on feedback from game developers saying its hard to program on the PS3 but this is to be taken with a pinch of salt as I can not find the article where it was stated.

 

[leet.firefox]

Both the 360 and PS3 are equal RAM wise unlike the bog mentioned eariler.

lol, I must have read the page wrong.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Yet again, Dr Super Good owns you PS3 enthusiasts.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

... oh god, so many things wrong with that post. The PS3 DOES have only 256 Mb Ram, but its only running games, nothing else in the background and in any case its main attributes is its cores.

DSG, look at Killzone 2. In HD. Then come back. If you're not convinced, then there is no hope left for you.

I'm not even a PS3 owner. I think it sucks because of the lack of exclusives I care about. But christ, it's the most graphically powerful console on the market, and ignoring that is incredibly retarded. I suggest not agreeing with DSG, it will only bring you shame.

 

[leet.firefox]

Why, by proving to one person (WILLTHEALMIGHTY) that the 360 has a marginal lead in the graphics department? Everyone says that games mentioned in this thread look better on the PS3, everyone I know anyways. Technically speaking, the 360 does look better, but the differences are not system-selling.

And besides, PS3 enthusiasts aren't worse than the xbots running around this thread as well. They are both ridiculous.

And didn't the 360 get a hardware upgrade? How are we to know that the PS3 won't recieve similar treatment? 2012 is still 3 years away, if the next set of consoles even come out around then.

Also, he linked to Wikipedia. Which is notorious for false information, at least where I'm from. I know it is an insignificant fact, but still worth pointing out.

 

[Vicboy]

Yet again, Dr Super Good owns you PS3 enthusiasts.

Will you stop doing that?

DSG can make good story telling.

 

[Light_Kira]

I prefer the PS3 yet I have to admit the graphics for the 360 are slightly better. I wouldn't entirely distrust DSG, as his information seems accurate enough. The 360 being slightly graphically superior should not automatically sway one to saying it is an overall better console. The ps3's Blu Ray disk format can store a lot more then the 360 (I forgot the exact amount but it was at least 2x the GB). As I said before, when considering between platforms, if one really wants graphical impressivness, then there is no other then the PC. If you look at the Gamespot comparison, you can bearly even tell the difference between the graphics, besides Fallout 3. You really have to be looking at the normal maps of the rocks in the forground and say "yeah, the xbox 360 has slightly more fine grain in the normal map, so its better". Although the 360 might be technically graphically superior, what does this mean to the end user? Not much at all.

Some 360 fans might argue that Gears 2 is the best looking console game out there, and they might be right. However, who is not to say that on the PS3, it would look almost the same? After all, Unreal Tourniment on the PS3 looked equal to the 360, and that was the same company. This is kind of a personal thing, but I am not a huge fan of Epic's graphic design anyway, mainly because everything and its dog has a huge, intricate normal map. If you look at pretty much anything in real life, you will hardly notice any bumps on anything. I'm just rambling, though, so I'll shut up about that.

In the future, I can imagine a PS1/N64 thing going on, where the PS3 will have bigger and more intricate areas that looks worse then the 360, while the 360 will have smaller areas with more umph in the graphics. That is assuming we are going to see more exclusives, which I doubt. Exclusives are a gigantic joke in comparison to the good old days, where, if you bought a console, you got "batch 1" of games, and when you got the other, you got "batch 2". Notice for the SNES/Genisis there are hardly any multiplatform games. Now, you buy a console for "Batch 1" of games with a little bit of exclusives as an added bonus, at least when it comes to the 360/PS3.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Killzone 2 does exactly what I predicted. It uses a hell of a lot of geometry (which is what the PS3 is good at) and textures but all the textures are lowish res (some textures are not very sharp compaired to other games on the market) and the effects employed are rather simple but look good (simplish lightning models and limited shadows). Sadly I could not confirm the lack of AA as the images I was vewing were downsized probably but most likly it does not use AA.

You must remember that the PS3 hitech GPU is simply a top range nvidia geforce 7 card with a bit of a tune up as far as graphics goes. Do not expect graphics to be much more complex than those that cards like the 7900 could produce. Both consols will diverge into different play styles, and eventually, like mentioned you will probably get a lot more content for PS3 and simpler better graphics for the 360. The major dis advantage graphically over the 360 is that AA is more demanding and that the available RAM is more preset, which unfortunatly have a larger impact on the eye than more geometry.

Ram wise, 512 is not that much. Concidering top range graphic cards have over 1 GB RAM per processor, it probably one of the largest bottleneck of the consols. 256 MB is not at all much for graphics, concidering the lattest PC games when rendering at 1080p use well over a GB, thus why some textures in complex scenes can be expected to be lowish quality. Also both consoles can not really dotop range graphics at full 1080p, I heard on gamespot that some games have to render at a slightly smaller resolution which is then upsized at some stage. However this is done in such a way it is hardly noticable on HDTVs and only affects them.

The hardware of the consoles (both 360 and PS3) will not get faster, they purly will get more energy efficent and cheaper as any changes to the actual power would result in hideous wastes of money, compatibility problems and lag.

In the end, the next gen consols really are not truely next gen anymore, as, like I said, the PS3 is stuck with technology from the time of the Geforce 7 and the 360 with even older technology. Concidering new gaming PCs brought now have atleast a 9800, 260+ or ati equivelent card, the consoles will start looking dated fast as soon as up to date PC games come out so I would sadly expect the even newer generation in atmost 3 years. What really amazes me though is how the Wii still remains a competitor concidering its graphic capabilities are like that of a geforce 6 card atmost and its processor/RAM probably fail to match those of the requirements for WC3. Honestly, they should start shifting good games to PC, as then they have pretty much unlimited potential.

 

[shadow3]

I voted the Wii as it has a more original concept with the nunchuks, unlike PS3 and Xbox 360 which are just upgraded versions of PS2 and Xbox.

To me, great graphics is just bonus, I'd rather play a good game with decent graphics, then a game with awesome graphics, but boring gameplay.
Just like Wc3 doesn't have the awesomest graphics, but has good gameplay.