FACT: Most XBOX 360 games look better than their PS3 counterparts.

R

Ruined

CAGiversary!
Nice little tidbit here the night before PS3 launch.

Ridge Racer 6 (XBOX360) vs. Ridge Racer 7 (PS3)
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=512188&st=90&p=588053427&#entry588053427
WINNER: XBOX 360
PS3 version missing HDR Lighting, much less complex geometry, inferior filtering, lesser textures. PS3 gets owned by a year-old XBOX 360 launch title.
***********
***********
Call of Duty 3: XBOX360 vs. PS3
[quote name='Gamespot']Call of Duty 3's visuals are great, though a problematic frame rate leaves the game looking decidedly less impressive than it does on the Xbox 360.[/quote]
WINNER: XBOX 360
***********
***********
Need for Speed Carbon: XBOX360 vs. PS3
[quote name='IGN']Visually, the PlayStation 3 version of Need for Speed Carbon falls short of its Xbox 360 counterpart. The two games run at roughly the same framerate, but the PS3's filtering effects, specifically the blurring, can be ugly. Road textures look nice and detailed at low speeds, but when you're flying down the road and the game blurs everything, they simply look poor. A few other odd things don't match up either, like the Drafter's wake, which is a transparent cylinder on the 360 and some rather ugly blue streamers on the PS3.[/quote]
WINNER: XBOX 360
************
************
Marvel Ultimate Alliance: XBOX360 vs. PS3
[quote name='IGN']
Oh, and just for argument's sake, we popped in the 360 version of Ultimate Alliance to compare and we have to say... the PS3 edition just isn't as polished. Comparatively, there's a lot more framerate stutter with our game compared to theirs (expect hiccups when turning the camera in highly-populated areas) and the colors are deeper and seem to be in better contrast with the 360.[/quote]
WINNER: XBOX 360
*************
*************
Tony Hawk's Project 8: XBOX 360 vs. PS3
[quote name='IGN']It's certainly disappointing that the PlayStation 3 is so far behind the Xbox 360 game. Framerate issues are apparent at every other turn, and the lack of online play really hurts. Project 8 is a worthy game to pick up, just preferably not on this system.[/quote]
WINNER: XBOX 360
*************
*************
IGN OVERALL SCORES
Tiger Woods 07 - PS3 = 8.3 // X360 = 8.5
Need for Speed Carbon - PS3 = 7.9 // X360 = 8.2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance - PS3 = 7.9 // X360 = 8.2
NHL 2k7 - PS3 = 8.6 // X360 = 8.9
Tony Hawk Project 8 - PS3 = 7.0 // X360 = 7.8

Final Tally
XBOX 360 = 5 ; PS3 = 0
Both in graphics AND in overall game score!

Good time to be a 360 owner! :)
 
Isn't that because the Xbox has more memory for it's graphics processor...

..or am I making that up? =/

At anyrate, I've noticed a difference with the demo units, but I always thought that was just the setup/tv.
 
Reality's Fringe;2376517]Isn't that because the Xbox has more memory for it's graphics processor... ..or am I making that up? =/ At anyrate said:
Both 360 and PS3 have 512mb of total RAM, the difference is that the 360's 512mb is unified and can be divided as the developer wishes while the PS3's is segmented into 256 system/256 graphics.

The more likely reason the 360 has better graphics is that its GPU is more efficient and its CPU is more practical and easy to program for.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Ruined']The more likely reason the 360 has better graphics is that its GPU is more efficient and its CPU is more practical and easy to program for.[/quote]Which basically means the Xbox 360 will require less effort and look just as good as any PS3 title.

I don't like having to hate Sony, but I'm positive we'll start seeing some key employees getting cut soon. I'm looking at you, Ken Kutaragi.
 
man, im sick of all this sony hating. I mean, im no fan of sony but if people want a ps3, let them get it and enjoy it, and you can enjoy your 360
 
In all fairness the only one that counts is Ridge Racer since it was a launch title on both. Compairing PS3 launch titles to 360 titles released a year after the system is unfair.

I'm totally an Xbox fanboy, but if you're going to take a shot at the PS3 at least be fair.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']OMG! THOSE PS3 SCORES ARE LIKE POINT THREE WORSE!!!! XBOX 360 WINS!!!!! Sony should just pack it now.[/QUOTE]

It's not really the scores that I'm looking at, but rather the comments... it's kind of distressing that all of these PS3 games can't hold a steady frame rate and look worse than their 360 counterparts, espically since Sony hyped up the PS3 as being such an impressive machine.

The fact that these are some prominent developers too makes me a little worried too that they apparently had problems getting these games to work perfectly.
 
[quote name='Weedy649']If anyone finds FEAR impressions id be interested to see how the PS3 version stacks up to the 360 version.[/QUOTE]

FEAR got pushed back to January (can't spell that word)... I'd wager to guess it was because of frame rate problems.
 
"Most games" equals 4 out of 11? What math are you using?

And one of your sources is an internet message board, where they compare screenshots from two different games, probably developed by a couple different programmers. Besides, most games run more efficently on the system's they were originally developed for, on systems where the develops have worked on before, this has been the case for sometime now with the last generation. I wonder if we'll see this same thread from you when a PS3 developed game runs choppy on the 360 a year from now. See ultimately this is the kind of crap that makes you a total fanboy Ruined. I'd like to see you starting to admit some of the 360's faults, then I may put some credit to your words (but probably not much).

Also, I just got Project 8 from Gameznflix this morning, it runs at an inconsistant framerate on the 360 too (though it doesn't ruin gameplay really but it's def. noticeable, PS3 version could be worse too I dunno), but Neversoft just dropped the ball in that department IMO. I think the game would be pretty slick if not for that.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']FACT, they have been making games for the 360 for a year now they should look better[/QUOTE]
Ridge Racer 6 was a 360 launch title...
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
Also, I just got Project 8 from Gameznflix this morning, it runs at an inconsistant framerate on the 360 too (though it doesn't ruin gameplay really but it's def. noticeable, PS3 version could be worse too I dunno), but Neversoft just dropped the ball in that department IMO. I think the game would be pretty slick if not for that.[/QUOTE]

Weird, I don't even notice it on the 360, and I've put maybe 10 - 12 hours into it.
 
[quote name='elsnow77']man, im sick of all this sony hating. I mean, im no fan of sony but if people want a ps3, let them get it and enjoy it, and you can enjoy your 360[/QUOTE]

What no love for the Wii?

I don't think you can compare games that are for a console thats been out for a year, and one thats just coming out. Developers need to get used to the consoles, work out the kinks. Most of what we will see for the PS3 launch will be nothing more then pretty ports.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']It's not really the scores that I'm looking at, but rather the comments... it's kind of distressing that all of these PS3 games can't hold a steady frame rate and look worse than their 360 counterparts, espically since Sony hyped up the PS3 as being such an impressive machine.

The fact that these are some prominent developers too makes me a little worried too that they apparently had problems getting these games to work perfectly.[/QUOTE]

Most are from the same publisher (Activision) which means there was probably a big push to get them out the door for launch to make more money for the quarter earnings or some corprate BS like that. Plus looks aren't everything, in the case of Ridge Racer 7 I've seen a couple reviews that imply the gameplay is an improvement over 6. But if graphics is all that matters to you and the concept of gameplay doesn't matter as much, you can just skip that title.
 
There are a number of reasons I'm happy to own a 360, but having better graphics than a PS3 isn't one of them. In fact, I enjoy the 360 based on it's own merits and bought one without comparison.

If I was shopping for one of the two right now, I might be more concerned, but I agree with others that I don't expect much from launch software. Not sure what the point of this thread is as I don't need a pat on the back for getting a 360 or a reminder of how good it is...
 
[quote name='Roufuss']Weird, I don't even notice it on the 360, and I've put maybe 10 - 12 hours into it.[/QUOTE]

Really? Maybe it's the way my machine is running it somehow, but it's there (or else I'm going crazy from the "focus mode"). I put in about 3 hours or so this afternoon, about 2 of them playing split-screen with my friend at his place (I like to put his big ass Tv to good use), seemed more noticable during that too, but could still be that I'm crazy.
 
[quote name='gunm']There are a number of reasons I'm happy to own a 360, but having better graphics than a PS3 isn't one of them. In fact, I enjoy the 360 based on it's own merits and bought one without comparison.

If I was shopping for one of the two right now, I might be more concerned, but I agree with others that I don't expect much from launch software. Not sure what the point of this thread is as I don't need a pat on the back for getting a 360 or a reminder of how good it is...[/QUOTE]

I dont think its a pat on the back at all. The thread earlier about basking in glory for not waiting in line this year...that was a pat on the back.

This is actual information that i think some might present the wrong way and some might take the wrong way.

Yes it is a launch lineup, but with a $200 difference between the systems, shouldnt you as a CUSTOMER expect better results compared to the graphically "inferior" console out there? I mean the whole point of coming out a year after the 360 was to make it a stronger system right? Just how the xbox was stronger than the ps2 but came out a year later.

It also helps not only those who are looking to buy one of these systems but to those who plan to own both consoles. The games cost the same so why pay for the inferior version? Its something i dont just take into account for ps2/xbox/cube + ps3/360/wii but for psp/ds as well.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Really? Maybe it's the way my machine is running it somehow, but it's there (or else I'm going crazy from the "focus mode"). I put in about 3 hours or so this afternoon, about 2 of them playing split-screen with my friend at his place (I like to put his big ass Tv to good use), seemed more noticable during that too, but could still be that I'm crazy.[/QUOTE]

It might be one of those things some people notice and some people just don't... like how some people noticed the frame tearing in Saints Row (like me) but other people never even saw it.
 
[quote name='peteloaf']In all fairness the only one that counts is Ridge Racer since it was a launch title on both. Compairing PS3 launch titles to 360 titles released a year after the system is unfair.

I'm totally an Xbox fanboy, but if you're going to take a shot at the PS3 at least be fair.[/QUOTE]
While the ps3 did have a lot of production problems, weren't they originally scheduled for a spring release? I am happy to have a 360 at the moment, at some point I am sure some exclusive ps3 games will look better then some 360 games, but in the end, imo most games will be on par for what the xbox 360 looks like. Going with the sony hype, if you assume it can make better looking games 3rd party developers will most likely base it off the 360 and port to the ps3. It happened this generation, as most of the ports from the ps2 didn't look much, if at all, better then the ps2 version.
 
I don't see why people say it's not fair to compare PS3 launch titles with current 360 games. I see it as completely fair. Both are available to me right now, and the 360 costs less. If I want to go buy the best version of CoD3 I'll buy the 360 version.
 
A lot of early PS2 games dont look as good as their Dreamcast counterpart. Give the developer some time to get to use to new hardware.
 
Fact...is nothing more than your opinion. So you really have no argument because you really don't know. A fact to you may not be a fact to someone else. Think about it...

FACT - the op is a homosexual

...see how you like it
 
[quote name='peteloaf']In all fairness the only one that counts is Ridge Racer since it was a launch title on both. Compairing PS3 launch titles to 360 titles released a year after the system is unfair.

I'm totally an Xbox fanboy, but if you're going to take a shot at the PS3 at least be fair.[/QUOTE]

I think its perfectly fair to compare because your decision on which games to buy is happening NOW. Gears of War and Resistance are competing for gamer dollars right here and now, not in some dimensional plain where Resistance and Perfect Dark Zero are released on the same day. Will ps3 developers always get a pass if their games don't look as good as xbox360 games because ps3 launched a year after? If say a year from now, ps3 games still don't look as good will it be because 360 developers have had 2 years to learn the box while ps3 developers have had only one?
 
[quote name='Weedy649']This is actual information that i think some might present the wrong way and some might take the wrong way.

Yes it is a launch lineup, but with a $200 difference between the systems, shouldnt you as a CUSTOMER expect better results compared to the graphically "inferior" console out there? I mean the whole point of coming out a year after the 360 was to make it a stronger system right? Just how the xbox was stronger than the ps2 but came out a year later.[/quote]

Honestly, I don't know what to expect out of a PS3 because I have no desire to spend that much for one.

I kind of disagree that comparing launch software with mature software is a fair or meaningful way of choosing a console, because you are also paying for the potential of the system as much as what is currently available. I could justify a system based on how long it's technology will last against current and future video standards, for example. And I also disagree with the notion that just because a system has better graphics means it's a better console.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Someone's insecure about his console purchase.[/quote]Someone is basking in the glory of their witty comment.
 
If you couldn't already figure out that Ruined is a biased hack from his HD-DVD FAQ, then that's your own fault.

Zomg, developers are having trouble porting games designed for another system to a more complicated architecture with very little time to work with the final devkits?!!?

BTW, RR PS3=1080p RR Xbox 360=720p.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']
I don't think you can compare games that are for a console thats been out for a year, and one thats just coming out. Developers need to get used to the consoles, work out the kinks. Most of what we will see for the PS3 launch will be nothing more then pretty ports.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']FACT, they have been making games for the 360 for a year now they should look better[/QUOTE]

[quote name='peteloaf']In all fairness the only one that counts is Ridge Racer since it was a launch title on both. Compairing PS3 launch titles to 360 titles released a year after the system is unfair.

I'm totally an Xbox fanboy, but if you're going to take a shot at the PS3 at least be fair.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. I'm tired of that flimsy stance and here's why:

When the ORIGINAL XBOX launched, the lineup(Halo 1, Gotham 1, DOA, & Munch's Odyssey) was compared to the then current PS2 lineup, not the PS2 launch titles from a year prior. Out of the gates, with a year behind, MS somehow still put out titles that were as strong as if not stronger than the current PS2 releases of 2001. No one compared launch titles to launch titles LAST GEN, so why now? Sony's launch lineup was all but forgotten by the time the ORIGINAL XBOX was released.

Is it wrong to expect Sony with the more powerful PS3 and an extra year of dev time to put out something more impressive than current 360 titles? Especially considering the fact the PS3 was SUPPOSED to launch last fall, and then this spring. Everyone conveniently forgets that part. So developers have in fact had MORE time to develop for the system than the 360.

Also remember the PS3 is "suppsed" to be 10x more powerful than the 360 stance? Another conveniently forgotten promise. So even if they were a year behind, shouldn't these titles still look, say at least, 5-6x better than the 360 even without devs having a complete grasp of the system?

So there seems to be a double standard for Sony, when in fact we SHOULD be comparing Resistance to Gears, and the rest of the lineup to titles like Saints Row, Dead Rising, Rainbow 6, etc. Developers have had the PS3 specs for a couple years. It isn't like Sony just gave out the system specs back in September and ported some games. I'm just calling BS on comparing launch titles to launch titles when that wasn't the case when the PS2 had the year head start over the ORIGINAL XBOX. So technically to "be fair" you would compare current 360 titles to PS3 launch titles.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']If you couldn't already figure out that Ruined is a biased hack from his HD-DVD FAQ, then that's your own fault.

Zomg, developers are having trouble porting games designed for another system to a more complicated architecture with very little time to work with the final devkits?!!?

BTW, RR PS3=1080p RR Xbox 360=720p.[/QUOTE]
well from the screen shots I have seen, I would rather have a 720p game then a 1080p game. This is based off of looking at ridge racer 6 and 7. I have a 1080p tv, so I would love for the 360 to have full 1080p support, as long as the game still plays good.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']
BTW, RR PS3=1080p RR Xbox 360=720p.[/QUOTE]

apparently 1080p isn't as important as Sony would have you believe.

Comparing 1080p to 720p:
, it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above.(720p)
Click to expand...

and

So when buying a TV, the last thing you probably want to do is agonize over its native resolution. If you don't mind spending the extra dough for 1080p, go for it. But if it's stretching your budget, then take a pass, knowing it's not all that it's cracked up to be.
Click to expand...
 
My thought, that comparison is a little jaded because of the devs. The only fair comparison to me would be RR7 since it's a Japanese dev. but the CoD team, PC devs., are devving on a machine based off one. Only fair Western devs. who seem able to program worth a shit are Ubi Soft and I'd accept that comparison also.
 
[quote name='62t']A lot of early PS2 games dont look as good as their Dreamcast counterpart. Give the developer some time to get to use to new hardware.[/QUOTE]


This makes me wonder. With nextgen games being so expensive to develop as it is.... What motivation does an average or small sized developer have investing their programmers time into learning the admittedly far more complicated PS3? Is it really cost effective?

How much more money will it cost to have your programmers just LEARN the hardware on a PS3 if they can already crank out great looking games on a 360? And is it worth that cost?
 
[quote name='Corvin']apparently 1080p isn't as important as Sony would have you believe.

Comparing 1080p to 720p:


and[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if you can tell the difference between 1080p or not. The fact is, it takes more power for the system to achieve it.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']It doesn't matter if you can tell the difference between 1080p or not. The fact is, it takes more power for the system to achieve it.[/QUOTE]

So? If you can't perceive the difference what's the point of having it?
 
[quote name='gofishn']So? If you can't perceive the difference what's the point of having it?[/QUOTE]
That's an argument for another day, the point I'm making still stands. Also the Cnet article wasn't very good. 1080p looks considerably better on a decent sized television.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X'] Also the Cnet article wasn't very good. 1080p looks considerably better on a decent sized television.[/QUOTE]

That is really the point the article was trying to make (although didn't make it clear enough).

1080p is the resolution used by the digital projectors showing up in movie theaters. It looks very good, on a screen that size.

The point that many people, including myself, have been trying to make - 1080p is meaningless under at least 75". Even then, it's still meaningless if you are sitting a decent distance back.

It's analogous to, say the PSP's screen or an ipod screen; do you really think you'd notice much difference if those screens were 4x the resolution? Not really. It's all about diminishing returns.

My own personal belief is that 1080p should be reserved for projectors, period. If you aren't interested in investing in a Front projector that's 1080p at some point in the future, then just don't worry about 1080p.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']FACT, they have been making games for the 360 for a year now they should look better[/QUOTE]
Okay, but when the PS3 has been out for 1 year, the 360 will have been out for 2 years.

Which probably means the 360 will have better playing/looking games since the devolpers would have so much more time with the system.
 
[quote name='gofishn']So? If you can't perceive the difference what's the point of having it?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. This is where the Sony brilliance comes in. They have marketed and pushed this as the feature to have so much that it doesn't even matter if a difference can be seen. They had it, MS didn't and that was the point.

So this is one area where Sony has excelled in pushing the hardware. It is a useless feature, yet it is always cited as a major selling point for those buying one.
 
Here is a quote from a comment on Kotaku, that I thought summed things up rather nicely:

[quote name='"ronhoward"']Enough with the excuse about developers having final PS3 hardware for too short a time to get used to programming SPE's.

Developers have had Cell based kits for almost 2 years now. Even though those processors ran at a slower 2.7 ghz, an SPE is an SPE. These kits also have 2 6800 video cards in SLI, and represented 70% of PS3's final specs. The kits were just a less powerful version of final hardware, and don't have any huge programming differences. Anything that ran on an early PS3 dev kit would simply run and look better on final hardware.

Xbox 360 developers worked with 2 single thread G5's and and a non-unified ATI graphics card until late August, 2005. These kits represented 30% of the finale hardwares power, and had some big programming differences.

Going from 2 cores and 2 threads to 3 cores and 6 threads is a much bigger task than going from 7 SPE's at 2.7ghz to 7 SPE's at 3.2ghz. One the GPU side, going from 2 cards in SLI to one chip probably took no work at all. Going from non-unified shaders and no eDRAM to a system that supports those features probably takes a bit more of a learning curve.[/quote]
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

It's analogous to, say the PSP's screen or an ipod screen; do you really think you'd notice much difference if those screens were 4x the resolution? Not really. It's all about diminishing returns.

My own personal belief is that 1080p should be reserved for projectors, period. If you aren't interested in investing in a Front projector that's 1080p at some point in the future, then just don't worry about 1080p.[/QUOTE]

Actually the original video ipod screens had fairly rough color, brightness, and contrast IMO, plus the resolution was really not of note either. Compared to other PVPs that soon came along and evne to the PSP the original video ipod's screen was a little disappointing.

I think 1080p has only one real noticable advantage (currently at least), but those will cater to a very select crowd, basically those using HTPCs or a PC in any matter on the living room TV. A 40+ inch screen running a PC in 1366 x 768 looks none too hot and you'll surely have difficultly making out detailed objects like text. This to me at least is currently the only really noticable advantage 1080p TVs have over other sets whose native resolution is closer to 720p. And that advantage is so small it's still not worth the 20% price increase you are sure to pay.
 
Do all PS3's games have framerate issues? I know lots of PS2 games also have framerate issues when I compare them to the GC games I've played. I mean sony has some fun games, but their system or construction of it always seem to suck. Well at least the PS2 had some fun games, we'll see if PS3 gets any.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Actually the original video ipod screens had fairly rough color, brightness, and contrast IMO, plus the resolution was really not of note either. Compared to other PVPs that soon came along and evne to the PSP the original video ipod's screen was a little disappointing.
[/QUOTE]

My point was, on a screen that size, you reach a point where increasing the resolution (actual pixels) has little to no difference in how the image looks, simply because the screen is so small.

Do you really think you'd notice the difference between even 480p and 720p on a 3 1/2 " screen? I really doubt anyone would. And the same logic applies to HDTV's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top