I m starting to believe that "yes, they are" Beyond the raw paper-and-pen power of the new PlayStation, little has been shown as to the actual potential of the console. Most ports have migrated from the 360 or the PC rather than the other way around, so there hasn't been an easy way to compare things. From the porting department for example, F.E.A.R has been a shameful example of a PS3 game compared to its 360 version. I was skeptical, until today. from http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/798/798595p1.html I m actually surprised that despite PS3 being the original home of VF5, considering its close relation to the NVIDIA produced graphics board of the arcade counterpart, the 360 manages to pull a better graphic punch, per IGN. This is by no means a flame/fan-boyistic thread, and any such comments should be kept away from here. This is a simple technical exercise of whats better, based on evidence, not theoretical potential or what can be done on paper. Naturally, evidence is provided solely through games (and not demos). I would love to see some more comparisons between games on the two next gen platforms, fire away ;-)
By the numbers, the 360's GPU can push 500 million polygons, compared to the PS3's 333, but the PS3 has a more powerful CPU (coding issues aside). Apart from that, I have no clue on the differences.
:dance: I'll buy you a PS3 so you'll shut up. But you'll still love your 360 more because you paid (a small percentage) for it. :lol:
please remember that the developer known the 360 1 year longer than the ps3. and remember the first ps2 games... they looked like crap but the latest ps2 games like God of War 2 looks very good (for a ps2 Hardware with "only" 294Mhz CPU) Just give the PS3 one more year. But for today, youre right. I just played NFS Carbon on PS3 and it looked just like the PC Version with a GeForce 6800... For upcoming PS3 Graphics just check out Haze http://www.hazegame.com/
opethfan, i had read this, but i avoid relying on it. It's written from the MS-side, so I think it could be ignoring some things and be biased or optimistic about some other numbers.
On Stage6 there are some nice video comparisons: Fear: http://stage6.divx.com/Game-Comparisons/video/1193922/F-E-A-R-:-Xbox-360-vs-PS3-Comparison-HD Oblivion: http://stage6.divx.com/Game-Comparisons/video/1164391/OblivionS3-vs--Xbox-360-Comparison-HD Call of Duty 3: http://stage6.divx.com/Game-Comparisons/video/1089867/Call-of-Duty-3:-Xbox-360-vs--PS3-vs--Wii-Comparison Enjoy
I dont think either machine is near its peak yet. It will take a few more years before they understand the systems. They will learn tricks and optimzations to make small improvments until someone comes along and bundles them all togather into a hell of a game (see Rares Donkey Kong Country on SNES)
When it comes to a comparison such as Oblivion's, then there's no argument regarding "they had ore time on 360". Oblivion was an early 360 game and it had plenty of more time to become a better title on the PS3.
I think the problem of the PS3 is even bigger than worse graphics, there are no games for it. I spend last weekend playing with it (before buying one) and my impressions are: Motorstorm = Utterly boring, slow, uninspiring for a supposed killer app Resistance = The worst of all where is the AI in this game, Aliens look stupid the game plays stupid, put it out of its misery please. RR7 = Well RR6 look so much better and plays better, the wind effect when you boost in unbelievably lame and yet you need to fork £500 to play with that piece of crap (talk about value for money) Virtua Tennis 3= Well that one is great, yeah it can't be all wrong VF5 = Not a big fan of VF5 so I won't comment. GT HD = Gran Turismo High Disapointment what's with that game? Really? PGR3 and Forza 2 are way better sorry Polyphony your time is up... Genji = Seriously what were they thinking Overal most of the games feels like they can use some more work sure they are launch title but I've seen betas that are better polished!!! Well let's now talk about the interface, XMB is impractical you want something you have to look everywhere, feels like a maze, completely disjointed. Worst of all???????????????? Blu-Ray OMG BluRay is so crap, I watched Casino Royale the image is full of noise being the movie or trailers, I can't believe they don't make of MPEG4 and BluRay is stucked with MPEG2. I was using an 42" HD Ready Plasma and even from far you can see that the images is full of noise. I have an HD DVD for my Xbox360 and I was blown away by the image, but Blu Ray is unimpressive. Overall I spent two days with the PS3 and it sure looks good on paper and it's tempting. But once you start playing with you realise the joke. Why buy a PS3 that has no good games on it, I mean serious hits not Virtua Tennis. The interface is poor, playing online is a nightmare and inconsistent from one game to another, just like the PS2 BTW but a bit better. Xbox360 is the way to go if you want to invest your money well in videogames. One might feel that fanboy vibe in my writing. I seriously wanted to buy a PS3 to supplement my rig last week. But after spending 18 months with an Xbox360, playing on PS3 feels like driving a Porsche with no steering wheel, it sure looks good but you don't know what to do with it. As far as I am concerned PS3 is a stillborn that Sony will have much trouble to resuscitate. I may be harsh but MS is more committed to please its gaming audience than Sony. Sabre
i think your post, although true, is off tangent, no offence =) But since u mentioned it, although i own a 360, I d say that the cost of a 360 is much higher than a PS3 in the long-term, considering how easy they are to break down
You 're right, no offence taken, personnaly I never had any problems with my 360, I bought it March 06 and since then not even a single glitch!!! (touching wood) Surprisingly enough PS3 doesn't seem to fail compared to 360 but then nobody is buying PS3 so I guess we less hear about it :dance:But Sony got some experience with PS2 which was very fragile so that's something they may have for them, reliability. So yeah I'm definitely off tangent the main subject of this post but why compare graphics on PS3 and Xbox360 when really we should compare their value proposition which is clearly not in favour of the PS3. But I guess 360 doesn't need my help...it sells by itself, most worrying is why people keep trusting Sony when it becomes clear Sony is having a laugh at them. Sabre
I'll try to keep this on-topic Barc0de, but can I just comment on the the previous thread? Regarding Blu-ray, I couldn't disagree more. I've owned and road tested hundreds of DVD players in my professional capacity and I wasn't expecting much from a cheap Blu-ray player. I've set-up and compared DVD players from £50 to £2000+ hooked up to CRT, LCD, Plasma & Projector using all sorts of cables. High end equipment always gives a high end output and if I am not mistaken Sony's PS3 is currently the cheapest on the market? I had the PS3 in the house over night and wrote a bit about it in another thread, however at that time I had not seen it play a film. Well, the next day I bought a cheap copy of "Rocky Balboa" just to try it out and as I say I didn't expect much. The contrast between standard DVD and Blu-ray was immediately evident. If you are used to a standard stand alone DVD player then you'll never look back! One thing I have always disliked about DVD is the in-fill such as areas of black which become less detailed, blocky and quite noisy. Cheaper players just produce a lowsy reproduction and it can get silly! You have a lovely image in the centre of the screen to focus on and the data around it just seems to disappear into crap! Detail is certainly something Blu-ray does NOT lack! It provided a sharp focus, an amazing amount of detail and very accurate colouration I had previously only seen on £500+ DVD players. It was a warm, fuzz free, interference free image. It's the truest representation of any film I have yet encountered on any DVD player below silly money. Pound for pound (or $ for $ it is a bargain!) Aspects of the film that would be lost in the DVD version, such as Stallones skin texture and stubble were highlighted. Just simple little details like the fabric characters were wearing were suddenly evident. Instead of it being a "blue top" you knew exactly what is was made of. If I was hyper critical I would say it gave you so much information that it was little overwhelming on the eyes. One scene in particular in the abatoir, where Rocky is standing in a long, tube lit corridor with meat hooks disappearing into the background you saw everything! You could have probably seen a mouse fart at the far end of the room had there been one. In reality my eyesight isn't that good, but you'd have to have been a robot to have actually percieved that amount of information and it was a little unrealistic, however that was the only scene where I encountered that issue and perhaps I am nit picking and trying to find fault. Where it came into it's own was the fight scene where the level of detail was stunning! You got every blood spatter, every dribble of sweat, every ripple of the body blows. I just don't think standard DVD could have provided that particular level of accuracy and it was during the 10 round bout that I really felt that Blu-ray was not just hype. It does bring something else to the table and considering you'd be hard pushed to find any affordable DVD player capable of anything close to that level of accuracy, it did make me think the PS3 is a damned cheap DVD player! I've used HD DVD on a friends 360 and although I found it impressive, there is no way on gods earth I would be able to find significant differences between them. I certainly couldn't come down on one side or the other and say "one was most definately better than the other", especially not the point of saying "Blu-ray was unimpressive". I'm surprised by that comment. I for one rarely actually analyse the image in-front of me, I prefer to lose myself in the film and if I find myself being aware of differences it's normally because something isn't right. Nothing on the Blu-ray wasn't right. It was excellent for the money. Given the choice between plasma or LCD, I'd be going LCD. I think our tastes are different. What I want to see is something akin to what the producer saw through his view finder, nothing more, nothing less. I can't imagine looking at a high definition image and finding any perceivable fault other than the odd artifact, some minor noise and uber information! As I sat watching the film I really felt goose bumps! The output from Blu-ray is impressive, it's a great step up from standard DVD and makes good image quality affordable. It is equally comparible to HD DVD. Finding fault on these technologies comes down to set-up, personal preferences and little more. I hate to say it, but £130 for a HD DVD is also pretty cheap considering the cheapest good quality standard DVD player with HDMI port I have seen was roughly £99. How amazing can £130 worth of technology really be? Some people are so into their films they are willing to pay several times that for a cable! It's all in personal perception! I once had a customer who swore blind he could see major differences between a £50 scart cable and a £400 one. I then had to admit I hadn't actually plugged the £400 in and he was mortified. Suffice to say we didn't sell the £400 cable and I was making a point he appreciated in the wallet, although it lost me a few bucks! I'd rather tell the truth than lie about it, he'd have only wanted a refund the first time he tested it himself! I'm not having a go at the previous poster, but I am surprised. Having seen the 360 in HD DVD mode and the PS3 in Blu-ray I can honestly say that both are vast improvement on standard DVD for their price bracket, both are cheaper than top of the range stand alone versions and neither one machine or the other really conveyed such an impressive image (in comparisson to one another) that I was able to say I prefer Blu-ray to HD DVD. You'd need an oscilliscope to see anything significantly different. The other comments I tend to agree with other than I actually found the GUI incredibly straight forward and any "looking for" stuff is only to be expected in an environment where the clutter is meant to be behind menus and submenus. In a word, I found it a piece of piss to set up! Now, Barc0de I hope it goes back on target, otherwise we need a HD DVD v Blu-ray thread.
As a GAMES console, I was pretty unimpressed, but I take the comments that others have made about the PS3 developers having not had sufficient time as a bit of a joke now actually. How many times did Sony push back the release date? They surely had just as much time to produce launch edition titles as anyone working on the 360? If it was less than I do apologise to them, however the truth is that the games available at present for the PS3 are so lacklustre and uninspiring (or so close to the 360 editions) that there really isn't anything graphics wise to make me jump at it. Barc0de, we spoke briefly about all the faults I found in the Spiderman 3 game. I'd be interested to see whether anyone who has the 360 version had spotted anything similar.
Sabre, unless something was seriously wrong with your setup, you couldn't be seeing Noise. Most likely you were seeing Film Grain which is part of the image on the film print. Removing Film Grain causes temporal smearing artefacts so it's best left in. PS: most BD releases are now in MPEG-4 AVC. Although I do agree with you that HD DVD should be the winning format, the truth is that both BD and HD DVD have produced a few great looking transfers but also a lot of mediocre ones - that goes for both formats.
No problem, I agree Bluray is a major improvement over DVD but I wasn't expecting to see differences between Blu Ray and HD DVD, but there are, true is the fact that Blu-Ray is predominently using MPEG2 over the more advanced VC-1 codec at the moment. But from what I have been able to test HD DVD is my preference, in the end they are the same Blu-Ray has more storage and DRM. It just tells me that Blu-Ray is not as mature as HD DVD at the moment, that should improve hopefully. BluRay titles have seen are more grainy and fuzzy than HD DVD but again it's MPEG2's fault. I like XMB in PSP but the PS3 is far more complex and "looking for" becomes irritating when you are used to 360. OK back on topic here is an interesting articles on SEGA Racing Studios http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25997 in a nutshell the new SEGA Rally look the same on 360 and PS3, you would need to be ultra picky to spot any differences. PS3 could get better in the long term if developer can grasp the hardware fully. That's a song I heard before???!!! Sabre
I agree, HD DVD is the better format with mandatory interactive features etc. Nope, film grain is in the film itself - not the codec. Some films are grainier than others - it's part of the texture of the film, not a flaw in the encoding. I'm curious to compare some 360 vs PS3 games, but I actually don't have any games for (my brother's) PS3 - it's a BD player only. I also don't really want to play any games on it because of it's horrible cheap-feeling pad!
Well the PS3 was plugged into an HD Ready Plasma via HDMI, so I don't think anything went wrong from that perspective. I've seen that grainy aspect in more than one movie and I had a discussion with a guy at a TV store a few weeks ago that had a FullHD plasma running a bluray player and he told me that most movies looked like that, grainy, the fault being that Bluray is still using MPEG2 instead of MPEG4 but yeah new titles should be using MPEG4. Sabre
