PS3 and 360 'look even' - Dyack

By Tom Bramwell Published 2 November, 2006

Silicon Knights boss weighs in.

Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack subscribes to the view that PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 are roughly equal.

Speaking to Mercury News' Dean Takahashi, Dyack said, "Maybe the PS3 has more processing power. The 360 has more available memory. It's pretty much a net, net. The public perception of the PS3 was that it was much more powerful. To developers, they look even."

And even though the PS3 potentially has that greater processing power, "you have to get the timing right". Not the easiest thing in the world.

Dyack's also less than sold on the platform holders' favourite resolution, 1080p, arguing that the difference between it and 720p is "questionable". "All of our games are likely to be 720p because of the faster refresh rates," he told Takahashi. "There are all kinds of trade-offs. It takes a lot more RAM to do 1080p. You'll reserve RAM for the textures. 720p is just less pixels. [But] There is definitely a huge difference from 720p and analog."

Dyack's Silicon Knights is currently at work on the first game in the Too Human trilogy for Xbox 360, based on the Unreal Engine 3. In the past it's worked on games like Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, both for GameCube.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (82) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tejstar #1 5 years ago

    Another one...

  • Xerx3s #2 5 years ago

    But what about the games?!

  • thinktank #3 5 years ago

    Any who posts spec comparisons is the biggest gay in the land.

    They i've said it, now you don't want to be the biggest gay in the land, do you?
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 08:12

  • Scimarad #4 5 years ago

    I really do think there is a considerable difference between 1920 × 1080 and 1280 x 720, though to be honest I'm happy with 720p.

    It's just daft to say that the difference is questionable - Harder to do, but definitely there.

  • style #5 5 years ago

    I think we need a fox(close) in this box!

    :-D

  • MadMirko #6 5 years ago

    1080p, arguing that the difference between it and 720p is "questionable". [But] There is definitely a huge difference from 720p and analog."

    Finally some sense in all this 1080p talk.

  • Steroyd #7 5 years ago

    Why are devs working exclusively for a console putting their foot in particularly ones working exclusively for MS?

    What happened to the line "It's specifically made to X consoles specs" which is the line both Insomiac and Factor 5 use.

  • style #8 5 years ago

    The problem isn't whether there is a difference or not. We all KNOW there's a 'difference'. The problem is, that difference is not that significant. It's like comparing mp3 and wma. Only the true audio geek will notice any difference. The rest of us will just conclude that they sound more or less the same.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 08:28

  • BartonFink #9 5 years ago

    Oh here we go again.
    Hmm thought I read somewhere that the 360 can handle textures better because of the memory architecture?

    Should be interesting to see how this one develops, no sign of Kazclose yet.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 08:29

  • jiveguy #10 5 years ago

    I'm all for conservation of bandwidth, so to save us 250 posts I think we should just give in and agree that foxclose and yellowtruck are right.

  • BartonFink #11 5 years ago

    Might be best.

    /end of thread

  • MadMirko #12 5 years ago

    They'll be glad to read that, when they are home from school.

  • Xerx3s #13 5 years ago

    It's just daft to say that the difference is questionable - Harder to do, but definitely there.

    I think that what he meant is: There is a difference but the trade-off of resolution vs fidelity is not good enough to warrant it, which is basically what everybody else has been saying. He's just late. Kinda like his game. ;)

  • Blerk #14 5 years ago

    While I don't necessarily disagree, has Mr "Currently Working For Microsoft" even seen a PS3? :-)

  • spongebob #15 5 years ago

    Right and Dyack is not biased at all when he's saying that... Yeah.

    About that mp3 and wma comparison. You might not hear the difference, but you do get the difference because no one uses wma.

  • brooza #16 5 years ago

    Screw 1080p

    I'm holding out for 2160p

  • Talha #17 5 years ago

    Being a PC gamer myself, I have never found myself going back to 1024x768 after experiencing 1920x1080, thinking, 'Oh what the hell - 1024x768 is good enough as long as I am getting an additional 5 frames per second!" Gamers tend to stretch whatever platform they have to as far as it will go, unless the game becomes unplayable. I know I do.

    Again, I am not saying that 1024x768 is necessarily bad (since how a game looks at various resolutions is down to the ability of the dev), but come on man, talk some sense.

  • Nige #18 5 years ago

    Seems to me that the only advantage of a digital interface is copy protection, and then that doesn't really advantage the consumer (directly anyway).

    And while I agree with the 'look even' comment - you can't help but feel it would carry more standing if the guy wasn't working on a 360 title.

  • ram #19 5 years ago

    Talha what has 1024x768 got to do with anything? 720p is 1280x720

  • SteveB #20 5 years ago

    I'd rather have a smoother frame rate than a higher resolution. Plus 720p tv's are a lot cheaper.

  • Monkey #21 5 years ago

    dabo got it in one...
    :)

  • DrDamn #22 5 years ago

    Sure if you compare a game in 720p to 1080p where FPS is similar and graphical effects etc are similar then 1080p is best, that's not what he is saying though. Specifically he mentioned refresh rates and increased memory use. Increased memory use means less memory for textures, models and other stuff.

    So what it comes down to is whether the trade off is good or not. A simple numbers comparison of 1080p vs. 720p obviously says 1080p is better - but when you have to devote resources to the issue it is not so clear cut. The fact that Resistance has slipped back from 1080p to 720p is very telling.

    @Talha
    The PC resolution argument is also a personal preference. Many, many gamers will sacrifice resolution for a consistent frame rate. So it all comes down to what the systems can handle. Personally I don't think either console has the memory to properly support 1080p without sacrifices.

  • Muddtallica #23 5 years ago

    Whatever. Never played Eternal Darkness, but SK really dropped the ball on the MGS remake, which should have been a sure thing, so I take his expert views with a pinch of salt.

  • Arwin #24 5 years ago

    Yeah, like someone who makes games using the Unreal Engine 3.0 on the 360 should know ... lol.

    And dabo's right.

  • Psychotext #25 5 years ago

    Just so you know, Silicon Knights is working on a PS3 title... it just doesn't have a name yet and it's being done in collaboration with Sega. So quiet down fanboys.

  • spongebob #26 5 years ago

    Who cares anyway. The PS2 was less powerful than the 360 but it was games that counted and when it came to games Sony won hands down.

    And PS2 is still winning. Just think of Bully, Okami and Final Fantasy XII.

  • Dizzy #27 5 years ago

    "While I don't necessarily disagree, has Mr "Currently Working For Microsoft" even seen a PS3? :-) "

    Has anybody??? ;)

  • Shadar #28 5 years ago

    The whole 1080p vs 720p "debate" boils down to one simple thing: Technical feasibility. A game in 1080p on PS3 will look sharper than an x360 game running at 720p, right?

    Not necessarily. 1080p demands huge amounts of memory, and huge amounts of processing power. Running games at 720p with 6x FSAA might actually be preferable to 1080p with 2x FSAA. Also, games running at 1080p will probably not be as dense graphically as a game running at 720p, simply because 1080p makes such demands on the hardware. Basically, you'll have to slide the detail level of the game down to up the resolution.

    So, what would you rather have? Visually extravagant games, or high resolution games? You can't have both this generation. 1080p is way too early and the PS3 does not really seem to be built for it. It's not even a proper dilemma, as in "oooh, should I go for an x360 or a PS3? The PS3 will have 1080p, so that's an advantage" because only a small minority of all games will ever support the resolution in the first place, and at the cost of graphical fidelity. At the end of the day, 1080p is just marketing speak from Sony. BUY OUR NEW 1080P TELEVISIONS TO REVEL IN THE FULL MIGHT OF THE PS3!

  • Talha #29 5 years ago

    Well no matter how high the processing power, upping the resolution would always mean turning down the detail level a notch if you want to run it on the same hardware. I think I covered all the bases in my comment - specifically about 720p not bad by any means, and playability of a game at the expense of resolution. What I meant was that any gamer will turn up the resolution as far as it will go as far as it is playable.

  • Shadar #30 5 years ago

    If you haven't bought an HDTV already why wouldn't you buy a 1080p one?
    Because I don't usually have an additional 2000 pounds lying around to spend on a television. A nice 40" LCD 720p screen isn't prohibitively expensive, but the price nearly doubles if you want those extra pixels, baby.

    That's liable to change, sure. But not quite yet. Does not change the fact that 1080p is "convergent marketing"-speak. Drive sales of televisions via the potential of BluRay and the strangely magnetic pull of high-resolution games.

  • spongebob #31 5 years ago

    Sony is right about one thing with 1080p, though, and that is the fact that IT IS the real HDTV standard in the near future (basically now). Every HD DVD and BD movie is in 1080p. It's not even a question of what Sony thinks, since even HD DVD uses it as a standard.

    If you're going HDTV, wait until you have the money to buy a decent 1080p TV or upgrade as soon as possible. It's only stupid not to make the most out of the new format.

  • gogobaka #32 5 years ago

    You can't compare PC monitors to TVs, there's a big difference between a PC monitor where you're a foot from the screen, and a TV where you're sat on the other side of the room.

    I've got a 26" 720p TV, I've hooked my PC up to it and played Half Life 2 in 1360*768, it looks great, you can't see the pixels.

    When I was shopping round for a HD TV the only 1080p TVs were over 40". Do many people buy TVs that big? What's the point of developing games in a resolution that the vast majority of people don't have and probably won't ever get.

  • Shadar #33 5 years ago

    Because a £4000 investment is necessarily unacceptable for most people?

    It's a fucking television! If I had £4000 lying around, I'd go out and see the world, go places. I think a lot of people have that idea. Spending £2000 extra for higher resolution in select games or to support an already dying multimedia format sounds like a very, very bad waste of money to me. Sorry.

  • spongebob #34 5 years ago

    4000 UKP? Where are you shopping?

    There are 1080p monitors that are relatively cheap (about 1000 Euros) and don't take that much space (they're 20+ inches).
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 10:02

  • Arwin #35 5 years ago

    @Psycho: working with Sega, eh? Then he's even more silly as I previously thought - he'd only have to look at the other games Sega is doing to learn that 1080p isn't necessarily useless for all games. ;)

  • Talha #36 5 years ago

    I agree. 1080p TVs are prohibitiively expensive right now, and there are probably a thousand better things you could do with that kind of cash.

    By the way, is there any way to hook up X360/PS3 to an LCD monitor and get HD gameplay? I just bought one and I surely don;t have the cash to shell out on an HDTV separately, at least not right now.

  • Shadar #37 5 years ago

    Singapore. One of the best markets in the world for electronics.

    Either way, this discussion was not really about price: It was about technical feasibility. Do you think that PS3 is completely able to match the x360 in terms of visual quality, running at each platform's "native" resolutions (presuming that the PS3 is 1080p native)?

  • gogobaka #38 5 years ago

    Just because BD and HD DVDs will all be in 1080p doesn't mean you should buy a 1080p TV, because you simply will not notice the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you buy an enormous TV.

  • spongebob #39 5 years ago

    Talha:
    On X360 you only need to buy a VGA cable. Check out for the cheap 3rd party ones, they're fine. Dunno yet how PS3 will handle this but I am quite sure there will be similar options for it.

  • Psychotext #40 5 years ago

    Arwin: I don't know why I'm defending him, but I think he makes his points clear and I agree. If you have to trade off detail and frame rate for resolution then the advantage of 1080p really is "questionable". Personally I'd go for lower resolution and higher detail / smoother gaming settings if I had to make the choice... and please don't tell me that there is no trade off with the PS3 otherwise we'd have seen Resistance in 1080p as I guarantee Sony would have been putting a lot of pressure on for it to tick that box.

    I'm pretty platform independent but I am a developer and I do know that neither of these machines has the horsepower to do 1080p with AA, 60 fps and the level of detail of something like Crysis.

    [Edit - I'd love to be proved wrong. I'm a gamer first. Maybe further on in the lifecycle of the PS3 / 360 we'll see clever developers pushing them to the absolute performance limits and getting there.]
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/06 @ 10:12

  • spongebob #41 5 years ago

    Just because BD and HD DVDs will all be in 1080p doesn't mean you should buy a 1080p TV, because you simply will not notice the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you buy an enormous TV.

    Here's a test. Compare 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions on your PC without changing the monitor. Do you spot the difference?

  • useyourloaf #42 5 years ago

    Do people on kitchen appliance sites debate the 'specs' of toasters? It's all about the toast!

  • spongebob #43 5 years ago

    Do people on kitchen appliance sites debate the 'specs' of toasters? It's all about the toast!

    Of course they do. It's not about the toast or the toasters, it's about opinions and everyone's got one (or two)!

  • Steroyd #44 5 years ago

    They both have their strengths and if you exploit those strengths properly you will be able to make games that will look and play beautifully.

    It's a real shame all these devs are going multi-platform then eh? :-(

  • Talha #45 5 years ago

    @sponge: Thanks man, that is a relief.

    I also agree with your comment - something I have been saying all along. But yes, the difference is MUCH more noticeable on larger TVs. You know one of the best ways to make PS2 games super-smooth and jaggy free is to run it on a 14 inch TV!

  • DrDamn #46 5 years ago

    @Talha
    "What I meant was that any gamer will turn up the resolution as far as it will go as far as it is playable."

    They won't though, for twitch gaming, first person shooters for example, frames per second is king. 30fps may be playable at 1600x1200 but many would take the resolution down to get much better fps.

    You also need to balance the resolution with the detail you can manage at that resolution. For example you could turn up the resolution to 1600x1200 but to get playable frames per second you would have to turn a lot of detail down - would "any gamer" go for the higher resolution?

    The main point is a balance needs to be found, and for many developers with this generation I think you will find the balance is at 720p. (See Resistance).

    On the point of linking up to monitors - graphics cards on PC's are starting to include HDMI as an output and we will see HDMI input on LCd monitors too. Not much help as you just bought one though - does it have DVI connections? There may be a possibility of HMDI to DVI conversion.

  • spongebob #47 5 years ago

    Talha:
    You know I don't even like the fact that we're going HD in games. What happens is that all games will now look like they look on PCs. That means that because the screens are so sharp and the resolution is high it's all jaggies, edges and pixels. Gaming on crappy TVs was always better.

    I remember when I saw X360 the first time on LCD monitor I thought the graphics looked pretty crappy just because it was so stupidly sharp and jaggy.

    The best thing developers could do is NOT support HD at all and just make their games in SD with some crazy ass 12xFSAA filters on. It would look really, really good and they'd have time to make whatever post processing filtering they wanted. Now all the processing power is spent on pushing polygons on a big screen.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 10:20

  • Talha #48 5 years ago

    @DrDamn: It has one VGA and on DVI input. Is there hope now?

    @Sponge: You are right there too - sometimes all high resolution does is bring out the imperfections in a game's visuals with startling clarity. Good looking, properly optimized games look good on any resolution - witness Doom 3 on 800x600 and see what I mean.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 10:25

  • OhWiseOne #49 5 years ago

    The difference between a 1080p and a 720p screen is only noticeable on screens bigger than 42 inches. It makes me laugh when I read all of these schoolboys bangin' on when they don't even know what they are talking about.

    Sony is marketing lies as ever with the PS3, they have been marketing 720p/1080i as HD for 3 years with all of thier Camcorders and the accepted HD Ready standard according to the European Broadcasters http://www.hdready.org.uk/ (1080p required so much bandwidth we would be down to 5 channels again).

    They have created a Profit sapping beast with PS3 and they need it to win, they will lie, steal and cheat gamers to do it (and close down Lik-sang), otherwise it's over, the whole thing goes down the toilet.

    The sad thing is that they have bet the bank on Blu-ray and in 2 years time, nobody will care. Sky-HD boxes will span the world (all in 720p) and everybody will be renting movies, or downloading them, not buying discs. They are a backward thinking company, that's why they lost the Portable Music market to Apple, now they will games to MS.

    Goodbye Sony, nice knowing you...

  • Talha #50 5 years ago

    @OhWiseOne: Wow. You take the cake. I am speechless.

  • Garulon #51 5 years ago

    "While I don't necessarily disagree, has Mr "Currently Working For Microsoft" even seen a PS3? :-) "

    May be's seen Mr "Currently Working For Sony" Rob Fahey's?

  • spongebob #52 5 years ago

    OhWiseOne is having a really bad day.

  • SeesThroughAll #53 5 years ago

    Well, at least he didn't go and spew the usual BS most devs under MS payroll do. Sounds like a pretty honest statement to me.

  • polar #54 5 years ago

    @spongebob

    "Here's a test. Compare 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions on your PC without changing the monitor. Do you spot the difference?"

    From right beside the monitor yes, but from six feet away?


    Personally, I'd choose FPS over increased resolution any day - I play counter strike source on low res and detail settings to get a better frame rate, as do many gamers.

    As mentioned, it's interesting that Sony themselves have opted for a resolution of 1080i on their own proprietary broadcast formats - HDV and HDCAM. This is significant, as Sony have dominated broadcast formats for the past 20 years with their Beta SP and DigiBeta formats. Surely 1080P won't make a lick of difference if the source is recorded at 1080i (as many television dramas and movie are already)?

    I think 1080P is being pushed purely for marketing puposes, with Sony initially claiming the real next gen to gain an avantage over MS (along with their 2 teraflops) and MS including 1080P now, in an attempt to prove 360 is equal to PS3.

  • DrDamn #55 5 years ago

    @Dabo
    "DrDamn the noticeable difference is completely dependant on dot pitch. On a high DPI native 1080p display you'd easily notice the loss of image quality when downscaling to 720p. The main thing is would you care?"

    It also depends on what else you lose to get the 1080p resolution though too. Texture detail may need to be reduced due to reduction in available memory for example.

    @Talha
    Bizarrely it depends on which sort of DVI - one type can be easily converted to HDMI another can't, but there is hope there. If it is fairly new I would expect so. You would also need some way of getting the sound out of the console as DVI doesn't do sound - is there an audio out on the PS3 itself?

  • tiddles #56 5 years ago

    Do people on kitchen appliance sites debate the 'specs' of toasters? It's all about the toast!

    Argue about toasters here

  • Les #57 5 years ago

    "Well, at least he didn't go and spew the usual BS most devs under MS payroll do. Sounds like a pretty honest statement to me."

    But you can hardly call him impartial. I'll let the games decide.

  • Garulon #58 5 years ago

    "But you can hardly call him impartial. I'll let the games decide."

    I thought they already had? Unless you've seen a PS3 game that looked impossible to acheive with the same graphical fidelity on a 360?

  • Talha #59 5 years ago

    @Garulon: So you have already decided nothing on PS3 will exceed the visuals possible on X360? For you it is already settled? Without a single PS3 game release? Wow, your powers of precognition are enviable.

  • chronom4n #60 5 years ago

    from what i have gathered from the comments, it now seems that on a technical level, which one do you want that will have the most power on that level. It is funny how after all that is said and done, the PS3 and 360 and more or less on a level playing field albeit with a few things that are slightly better than the other.

    plus for me it is good that someone has made the differences a bit more clear.

  • BLACKSHEEP #61 5 years ago

    Don't they both have 512MB??? I know PS3 is split half with XDR and GDDR but both can use all the ram for GPU use. Maybe on-chip memory favours the 360 or pipelines?????

    Oh well as long as the games are a BIG step above what came before, who cares \0/

  • manic_mouse #62 5 years ago

    "Don't they both have 512MB??? I know PS3 is split half with XDR and GDDR but both can use all the ram for GPU use. Maybe on-chip memory favours the 360 or pipelines????"

    Not available to games. The PS3 uses 96Mb for frame buffering and OS, whereas the 360 only uses 32Mb and has the added advantages of 10Mb RAM on it's GPU and a unified memory architecture. The 360 has more RAM available to game developers than the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/06 @ 12:33

  • PearOfAnguish #63 5 years ago

    By the way, is there any way to hook up X360/PS3 to an LCD monitor and get HD gameplay? I just bought one and I surely don;t have the cash to shell out on an HDTV separately, at least not right now.

    The Dell 2407 24" LCD has a max res of 1920x1600, HDCP support through DVI-D and has component, S-video and composite inputs built in. It's a good option if you want something that works as a very good PC monitor and HDTV. Can be found for about £500 on Ebay.

  • neil_likes_bums #64 5 years ago

    Welcome to Dodge The Fanboys, a great new game. It's new, really. It's never happened with - every other console generation ever - !!

    TEAM GPU: - Console A is better! Console B is sux0r!
    TEAM HD: - Console B is better! Console A is sux0r!

    To continue: Insert ego very tightly into ego-receiving port of Console A or B, then bicker pointlessly until infinity.

    "Live attack!" -10hp for PS3
    "Shiny attack!" -10hp for 360
    "Sony screwing us again attack!!" -100hp for 360
    "Rumble attack!" -100hp for PS3

    PS3 summons spell of "massive size despite all the jokes we made about the xbox..", MISSES.

    360 reveals the "infection of terrible D pad" spell. MISSES.

    Both consoles MERGE and cast devistating "GET A F'KING LIFE" attack on fanboys.. PHHHZZZAHAHHHHHHRRRRR.

  • BartonFink #65 5 years ago

    LOL - excellent

  • peterfll #66 5 years ago

    V V good.

    Who is Neil by the way?

  • Rambaldi #67 5 years ago

    They look even you say?

    OK, so when DOES the next generation start? Is it already happening? I'm confused!

    /hides under a brick

  • Penguinzoot #68 5 years ago

    Does make me laugh how some of you guys spout accusations of "bias" etc as soon as a developer has something to say about your favourite or non-favourite platform.

    Like devs automatically get a lobotomy as soon as their studio is contracted to produce a game for this publisher (Microsoft) or that publisher (Sony).

    No these guys wouldn't have a fucking clue what its all about would they? After all, you armchair games devs obviously know better, 'cos you read dah interwebs, right?

  • Shadar #69 5 years ago

    The next generation starts when I say it does.

  • Inflatable #70 5 years ago

    There have been so many signs the PS3 and Xbox 360 are equal in power, and their games will look simular.. What's the problem with that?

    Do people expect the PS3 to look better because it's more expensive and released much later (especially in Europe)? Well, you can blame Blu-ray for that, it's the only reason why the release has been delayed and why the PS3 is more expensive then a Xbox 360.. Not because it's much more powerfull..

    Still a lot of people are convinced the PS3 has to be more powerfull, I just say whatever, keep ignoring the real facts, your loss.. You could be enjoying next-gen gaming already by getting a Xbox 360 now, and it's cheaper (because it doesn't force you to buy a HD-drive with it).. Only reason to keep on waiting for the PS3 is if you really only want those few PS3 exclusive games, otherwise there is no real valid reason imho.. Both consoles are simular, and most games will come out on both..

  • AthenianLight #71 5 years ago

    Well... F.U. Dyack M's Bitch. I'll get a Ps3 anyway

  • PearOfAnguish #72 5 years ago


    OK, so when DOES the next generation start?

    It doesn't, the next generation is always coming next and as soon as it starts it becomes current generation.

  • Eighthours #73 5 years ago

    Sony is right about one thing with 1080p, though, and that is the fact that IT IS the real HDTV standard in the near future (basically now).

    With every single TV broadcaster so far to declare themselves choosing 720p/1080i to broadcast HD telly though.... No it isn't.

  • Garulon #74 5 years ago

    "@Garulon: So you have already decided nothing on PS3 will exceed the visuals possible on X360? For you it is already settled?"

    Yep. Sure, they'll both get better looking as devs get used to the machines, but there's nothing on the launch titles that distinguishes the PS3 as any more powerful than the 360 AT ALL. If the PS3 was really "all that", then where is it?

  • Garulon #75 5 years ago

    "360 reveals the "infection of terrible D pad" spell. MISSES. "

    I agree, the D pad is terrible, but then the D pad on the PS3 SIXAXIS controller is terrible. As are the buttons, the triggers, and the analogue sticks. So it's kind of a Miss to a Big Miss, innit?

  • dredd97 #76 5 years ago

    @disc

    give him a few minutes he'll find fault with it...

  • McGeeza #77 5 years ago

    Can't we all just have a big virtual cuddle and admit that the PS3 and 360 are both really, really lovely?



    Although the Wii is better then either of them...


  • JackB #78 5 years ago

    Any PC gamer will have experienced the decision that needs to be made between resoution and graphics quality. We do it in every game. Almost no one gets to choose the highest resolution with the highest graphics quality.

    It's always a trade off. It won't be any different on a console except the developers are making the choice for you. You can't have both, the highest resolution and the highest grapics quality.

    Why is that so hard for people to understand? 1080p games will sacrifice graphics, textures, game world detail etc, to be able to use 1080p.

    Sure if it's a static picture or a video they won't, but anything that is moving in a 3d space will have to make that trade off.

  • Calgon #79 5 years ago

    Meh may aswell repeat it:

    360 advantage: GPU + Memory architecture + some areas of the CPU.

    PS3 advantage: CPU(for now untill we hear what it can really do, dont you remember the Emotion Engine figures? Im not a believer in Cell but I will wait and see) + Disk Capacity(even though its not really going to be missed in my book).

  • Talha #80 5 years ago

    @Garulon: Well you yourself said it - at launch devs are hardly able to extract the best out of a console. I am talking about 4 years down the line, by which time differences between consoles stand out much more clearly. So it is absurd of you to imply that since PS3's launch titles look nothing special compared to X360 (although it is worth noting that PS3's LAUNCH titles are looking as good as X360's SECOND WAVE titles) that will stay the case forever.

    Of course it can turn out the other way, too, in X360's favor - my point is just that it is not prudent to form conclusions by comparing launch line up of 1 console to 2nd wave titles of another. It is too early in the game.

  • Dizzy #81 5 years ago

    "(although it is worth noting that PS3's LAUNCH titles are looking as good as X360's SECOND WAVE titles)"

    Maybe because the PS3 was delayed by 1.5 years?

    Anyway... in the "looking good departement" nothing seems to be able to touch GoW...

    I think most people know the consoles are about equal and it will be the games that make the console unique. The PS3 has Bluray... who knows... maybe some special games will come out of that (and no... CGI cutscenes DON'T count).

  • Takeuchi_Riki #82 5 years ago

    Ya maybe PS3 and Xbox360 are even but I prefer PS3 because of the titles & that what matters for a gamer.


    Don'd forget
    http://ww w.petitiononline.com/doa4ps3/pe...