X360 v PS3 Multiformat Face-Off, Round Two

By Richard Leadbetter Published 30 April, 2007

Not the face!

Page 1 of 5

It's early days in the great next gen console war, and the commercial reality of development is very simple - the cost of making games on more advanced hardware has skyrocketed meaning that publishers get the best returns from their investment with multiformat development. Eurogamer typically reviews these games on the lead platform (more often than not, the Xbox 360) but we've got plenty of love for the PlayStation 3 - enough to bring you the all-important info on any differences between the versions, even when review code arrives somewhat belatedly.

In comparing the games we concentrate first and foremost on the gameplay experience, with objective commentary on new game modes and control methods that have been added or tweaked since the initial review. And as there is such a large cost difference between the two gaming platforms, we think it's fair game to point out any differences between versions on a technical level too. This makes these ongoing features as much a commentary on cross-platform development as they are aiding in a purchasing decision.

Complementing each piece is a series of screenshot galleries at full HD resolution 24-bit RGB using the PS3's HDMI digital output and the Xbox 360's precision VGA display mode, both professionally calibrated and captured losslessly using state-of-the-art grabbing equipment - indeed the only kit available that can handle full colour-depth and 1080p when required. Console analists can then debate the minutiae we expose and exercise the full unbridled talkback POWER of the Internet to give voice to their thunderous displeasure.

So, onto the games then:

Page 1 of 5

Comments (136) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Aretak #1 5 years ago

    Wow... the PS3 port of Enchanted Arms looks stunningly cack. The amount of stuff missing from the city shot is amazing.

  • #2 5 years ago

    Cue hand to hand fighting in the comments thread!

    I'm first!

    /smacks Aretak round the head with a chair

  • Freek #3 5 years ago

    Pre-empts entire thread: lazy ports != bad console

  • 99redbaboons #4 5 years ago

    "analists"

    um......intentional misspelling given the immense fanboy flame war potential of this?

  • SIDEARM #5 5 years ago

    I can't really understand this. I thought the PS3 was supposed to have the edge power wise?

  • Aretak #6 5 years ago

    RE: Lazy ports.

    Of course. As the only game I remotely care about in that list though, I'm surprised at just how amazingly awful they've made Enchanted Arms look. It's just... gah!
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 14:11

  • aldo_14 #7 5 years ago

    I can't really understand this. I thought the PS3 was supposed to have the edge power wise?

    It still is, I believe, but it's also apparently the god of all bastards to program on.... and when you're porting from another console, probably even worse. What could be interesting is seeing games ported from PS3 to 360; perhaps that'll indicate if there's a real difference.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #8 5 years ago

    Freek: True.

    The 360 screens do look (a lot) more polished though. Fear looks simply blurred on the PS3 and many of the other screenshots have worse textures. Enchanted Arms does look very poor in comparison - like Aretak already mentioned half of the city is missing.

  • #9 5 years ago

    Is that the first 2 rounds of this face off to the 360 then?

    Is this going to go the distance?

    Will Sony surprise us by coming back with a 3rd round knockout?

    For answers to this and other probing sexual dysfunction related questions tune in next month for ROUND 3.

    FIGHT!

  • dirigiblebill #10 5 years ago

    /rolls hedgehog grenade under door
    /takes cover behind one of disc's game lists

  • Virvel #11 5 years ago

    In theory, the graphics in games ported from 360 to PS3 (or the other way around) should be exactly the same. I mean, the developers use the same textures and resolution, the same game engine and the the same polygon meshes. So it is identical, or is it? I can see some differences in sharpness in some places, but it looks like the exact same textures are used on both versions. And why wouldnt they use the same textures, redesigning the game content for each platform would be too expensive.

    Another thing I wonder about: A game ported from 360 to PS3 might get hurt, frame-rate wise, due to the different GPU architectures. Or the other way around, a game tweaked for PS3's strange RSX would be expensive to port perfectly to 360, thus developers take some shortcuts, not optimizing perfectly for the target platform.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 14:21

  • MrBiggles #12 5 years ago

    360 is just more developer friendly so multi platform games will always be better.

  • kangarootoo #13 5 years ago

    Oh jesus, this thread is going to SUCK!

    /goes to read article.

  • octo #14 5 years ago

    Is that shit I can smell in here?

  • asdfffdsa #15 5 years ago

    Wow...you compared a bunch of ported games to their natural platform . . . there was really no point to this comparison other than to put more weight on the anti-PS3 bandwagon that has plagued the media for the past months.

    Everyone knows porting from Xbox360 to PS3 is a doomed pursuit from the start; developers do not want to dedicate the money to making a quality port, as you'd have to redesign the game from the ground up when making the transition from such radically different architectures. Porting from the PS3 to the 360 is much easier (quoting actual developers).

    Wait until games initially designed on the PS3, like Devil May Cry 4, come out.

  • the_dudefather #16 5 years ago

    can superman outrun the flash?

  • kangarootoo #17 5 years ago

    @Virvel

    "I mean, the developers use the same textures and resolution, the same game engine and the the same polygon meshes."

    Whooooaaa there. The word "engine" seems to have accidentally slipped into your otherwise perfectly reasonable sentence :)

    Although strictly speaking the bulk of the source will be similar, porting an engine to another platform is a faaaaaar cry from simply using the same textures and meshes. Its a job all in its own league, with its own mire of optimisation work to be done.

    Perhaps a wise coder will spring up with more info on what I am talking about...

  • nickthegun #18 5 years ago

    analists lol.

    Never a truer word, spoken in jest, or something.....

    And why would superman want to run faster than the flash? He can fly!

  • JackyB #19 5 years ago

    I must need glasses cos all those comparison shots seem identical to me.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #20 5 years ago

    I must need glasses cos all those comparison shots seem identical to me.

    Definetly. Look at the 720p comparison. The small shots do indeed look the same.

  • IAmBatman #21 5 years ago

    > I mean, the developers use the same textures and resolution

    Not always, they don't. Rainbow Six: Vegas has had a lot of textures shrunk, because they're having a real hard time fitting it into the PS3's memory apparently.


    Still, I can't believe this site is still lying about the 360 version of FEAR. It's terrible.

  • jonsaan #22 5 years ago

    They all look so similar it's hardly worth commenting on frankly.

  • joeking #23 5 years ago

    They look the same to me.

    /rubs eyes
    /looks again

    Nope. No major differences that I can see.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 14:38

  • Darren #24 5 years ago

    "Treyarch's 360 code does some very cunning things behind the scenes - rendering a 1040x620 framebuffer as opposed to the usual 1280x720, thus relying on the 360's ANA chip to make up the difference with a spot of bilinear scaling."

    I thought the game didn't run at 720p just like PGR 3 never. What is the point of making games, claiming they run at 720p when the truth is that they're barely better than upscaled Xbox games running on the 360? Widescreen standard definition is 848x480 and Call of Duty 3 ran at 1040x620!!

    Why couldn't Call of Duty 3 run at 720, I'm sure Call of Duty 2 did... or did it? How many 720p Xbox 360 are actually not hi-def at all I wonder? :?

  • skybluesam86 #25 5 years ago

    In the snooker comparison shots, why does there seem to be no cue ball in the PS3 shot?
    That has to be most glaring problem, surely? :p

  • Spydez #26 5 years ago

    There is little to no difference between the PS3 and the 360 graphically. That, for me, sucks balls. New consoles (Wii and DS excluded) have always delivered a step forward in graphical ability. This was one of my main reasons for purchasing a new console.

    If the PS3 vids for Killzone 2 and Motorstorm shown at E3 05 actually represented the PS3's graphics I'd have bought one.


  • Aretak #27 5 years ago

    Look at the 4th Enchanted Arms shot. If you think they look the same you are officially blind. :)

  • mankell #28 5 years ago

    "the ps3 is already 2 years old.its a machine that simply doesnt make sense."

    What!!!!
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 14:42

  • hamstand #29 5 years ago

    10/10 For American Psycho reference!

  • quantumsheep #30 5 years ago

    I liked the Khan 2D thinking reference ;)

  • Darren #31 5 years ago

    I own both a PS3 and 360 (plus a Wii!!!) and the one thing I've noticed after playing Virtua Tennis 3 and Oblivion on both machines is that the PS3 versions generally have rougher-looking anti-aliasing and more a subdued colour palette. In the case of the former game, it even has more framerate hitches and slowdown than the 360 version despite the fact that both games were developed by different teams (so poor porting isn't an excuse here).

    Overall though, there really doesn't seem to be much in it, or rather there shouldn't be, but because the PS3 is getting old lazily ported Xbox 360 games that have not been rewritten for its hardware, it generally comes across as inferior... F.E.A.R., Splinter Cell Double Agent, Tony Hawk's Project 8, Call of Duty 3... all examples of games with worst framerates and weaker looking graphics. Sony should be giving those developers a swift kick up the posterior for making their hardware look weaker when I believe they should be pretty similar, a case in point being Oblivion, which looks a little nicer than the 360 version (sharper but offset slightly by poorer AA) and runs with a better framerate and quicker loading times overall. In fact, why on earth wasn't Oblivion tested in this roundup? It would have been a great game to show that not all 360-to-PS3 ports are rubbish! :?
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 14:58

  • Gurgeh #32 5 years ago

    I would think most of the texture work is dealt with by the graphics chip rather than the individual Cell processors, as they only work on 256 Mb of memory at a time. The differences we're seeing is simply issues in porting game engines between radically different architectures, and guess what? The platform that's hardest to program for suffers, because the studios don't have the time or experience (yet) to polish it up.

  • speedtrax #33 5 years ago

    Roflmao! More proof Xbox 360 is superior to the Gheystation 3!!!

    almost forgot, TCHBO.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 15:00

  • zuljin #34 5 years ago

    @asdfffdsa
    "Porting from the PS3 to the 360 is much easier (quoting actual developers)."
    Relatively yes. Still much harder than PC to XBox. As long as that stays true, most multiplatform devs will keep XBox as their main console.

    @Darren
    "...despite the fact that both games were developed by different teams (so poor porting isn't an excuse here)."
    Oh... My bad. So are you saying since it is two teams, they both built the game from scratch? Hmmm. Allow me to ponder that preposterous thought, before I dismiss it casually.

    /Have to stop watching Scrubs

  • Dizzy #35 5 years ago

    "Wait until games initially designed on the PS3, like Devil May Cry 4, come out. "

    DMC runs on a custom Capcom cross platform engine... originally made on the 360.

    Most of te problems come from the greatly superior AA possibilities of the 360 and the different memory configuration (360 games will not always fit onto PS3 and parts will have to be reworked) PS3 games that do not take this into consideration will be inferior. The strength of PS3 comes from better physics and bigger storage with Bluray.
    Edited by 2 at 30/04/07 @ 15:17

  • m0thr4 #36 5 years ago

    Meh.

    The Xbox 360 had this kind problem when it first came out - most of the initial releases were lazy ports of Xbox games.

    I'm not expecting anything different from Rainbow Six: Vegas and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 either. I fully predict both will have choppy framerates and long level loading times, just like Splinter Cell: Double Agent. This is clearly because Ubisoft have their lazy developers working on the PS3 ports.

    Then we have Oblivion: a port which excels its Xbox 360 counterpart in every respect. Slightly better framerate, better graphics, better sound, 50% shorter loading times... it just shows what can be done by diligent developers, rather than lazy ones.

    Finally, the latest PS3 SDK is able to take full advantage of the PS3's built-in scaler. So, no more excuses please...

  • RexRunti #37 5 years ago

    Odd that a machine twice as powerful can't make games look as good, if not better than its rivals. Especially considering the extended development time (there's no reason the Oblivion tweaks can't be done on a 360). If Heavenly Sword and any other PS3 exclusive (struggling to think of one) is anything short of outstanding, I really struggle to see the point of this console.

  • JimJam #38 5 years ago

    Agree with Gurgeh - the machines' architectures are so different it's no wonder the ports aren't great. Conversions from the PS2 to Xbox (MGS2 for example) had loads of choppy framerates too. And RexRunti - you're right. The Oblivion tweaks for lighting and smoother framerate were implemented in a patch on the 360.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 15:30

  • kangarootoo #39 5 years ago

    And I thought it was just me. Most of those screenshots look the same to me too.

  • GrandpaUlrira #40 5 years ago

    Where is the Wii in this? EG are teh biased!

  • dr_faulk #41 5 years ago

    Yeah, I think we can all agree that a lot of this is down to shoddy ports. Only a company with as much money as EA can afford to make it right. And for whatever reason, it's nice to see Oblivion look slightly better on PS3.
    To further the arguement about the ports - just look at the Wii! It's been getting Camecube and PS2 games ported to it, and they're disasterous! It's developer laziness (or a harsh business model... I'm not sure).

    Wait 'till FFXIII, MGS4, Ico-team's next game come out. ONLY then will we see what the PS3 is really capable of.

  • Carrybagma #42 5 years ago

    What an interesting, objective, useful article. Honestly. The internet is crying out for PS3/360 comparisons, and now it has one. Fantastic.

    You should write for the forums.

  • spongebob #43 5 years ago

    Great series, and I am looking forward for Round Three.

    The text really went on to describe the differences between the versions, however, I have to say many of the screenshots looked nearly identical to me. For example, with F.E.A.R. I couldn't spot any of the described graphical shortcomings in the PS3 shots. But then again, static screenshots tell absolutely nothing about how a game plays or how it looks in motion.

  • Darren #44 5 years ago

    JimJam - "Agree with Gurgeh - the machines' architectures are so different it's no wonder the ports aren't great. Conversions from the PS2 to Xbox (MGS2 for example) had loads of choppy framerates too."

    True, well remembered. I recall the PS2 version of State of Emergency having to be completely rewritten for the Xbox too after the developers found the game running really slow when they ported the engine across.

    "And RexRunti - you're right. The Oblivion tweaks for lighting and smoother framerate were implemented in a patch on the 360."

    Again true, but trust me, the PS3 runs an awful lot smoother most of the time, particularly in the open countryside and the loading messages are fewer. Also the inventory/menu system opens straight away whereas it there are noticeable one to two seconds pauses on the 360 even after patching. I suspect this is purely because the PS3 version relies a lot more on HDD caching, particularly as it installs a 4GB file onto the drive (around the same size as the complete PC game install in fact) and regularly accesses it. The 360 version runs without a HDD present so I presume it doesn't use the HDD so effectively. Amazing this PS3 "cache" file installs to the HDD transparently, i.e. it doesn't prompt you to install it like it does with other games that have this install feature... very clever really...

  • fawe3 #45 5 years ago

    What little people don't understand is that picture quality is mainly depended on graphical card in this two consoles. So its mainly nvidia vs ati here, not m$ vs $ony. What gets consoles in part will be exclusives on each system.
    Edited by 2 at 30/04/07 @ 16:12

  • YourMessageHere #46 5 years ago

    With FEAR, I can't agree with the write-up, based on the evidence presented (I own neither console, just here to rubberneck really =P). I have to assume that the difference is in the motion; look for example at the third screenshot, the textures are much sharper on the armour of the guy nearest the camera on the PS3 version compared to the 360. The second also has better defined textures, though it's less apparent. The two shots (4th and 5th) of Paxton Fettel look fractionally better on PS3 due to lighting and shadow issues, and the other three look indistinguishable to me. If I were asked to decide which looked better based only on these screens, I can't see how I could not favour the PS3 version.

    EDIT: "Console analists" - I lol'd.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 16:08

  • DUFFKING #47 5 years ago

    Don't really notice much, but the textures look better in CoD 3 on 360, but the game hardly looked stunning anyway.

  • Carrybagma #48 5 years ago

    EDIT: "Console analists" - I lol'd.

    The irony is that these articles seem to be designed with analists/fanboys in mind. If they really want to do a multi-format comparison, why not include all the platforms and highlight strengths and weaknesses?

  • chrisjm #49 5 years ago

    "Odd that a machine twice as powerful can't make games look as good, if not better than its rivals"

    because its not twice as powerful

  • krudster #50 5 years ago

    Remember when you look at the screen shots to hit the "view original" button at the top of the shot. There's not much difference looking at the thumbnail shots for obvious reasons.

  • The-Bodybuilder #51 5 years ago

    >"FEAR is something of a gem on the Xbox 360"

    Stop with the damn lies EG, stop it.

    On a related note, the screen grab of the ps3's encharted arms is AWEFUL. It really does look like a ps2 game.

  • kangarootoo #52 5 years ago

    @Carrybagma

    "The irony is that these articles seem to be designed with analists/fanboys in mind."

    Is the not the majority readership here?

  • The-Bodybuilder #53 5 years ago

    >"For answers to this and other probing sexual dysfunction related questions tune in next month for the next episode of dragonball z".

    Fixed.

  • steoc4 #54 5 years ago

    It's not particularly surprising, what with the 'lazy port syndrome' for one thing and also the fact that the PS3 doesn't have a more advanced graphics card, the 360 is considered to have the slight edge in fact.

    The difference is in the processor, and it's why early exclusives have been able to throw so much action around the battlefield at once (Resistance) and produce convincing damage effects and deformable terrain (Motorstorm). Not saying neither of those could be done on 360, but for launch titles they're impressive. It's not surprising you've got people like Criterion coming out and saying the PS3 is their lead platform for Burnout because of the crash physics that can be achieved with the Cell.

    So in hardware terms, you've got a 360 with a slight visual edge, the sort of thing you can only really notice by sitting the two machines side by side and testing multiplatform games like Eurogamer did. Meanwhile you have the PS3 with a processing edge, which can potentially mean great things for gameplay, but only if developers really take advantage of it, which few will.

    Not that hardware matters. The Xbox was superior to the PS2 in every way but the PS2 won out because of better games. And practically every great PS2 franchise has a guaranteed PS3 game, from the first party titles like God of War, Gran Turismo, Ico, Singstar, Ratchet & Clank,

  • sharpfish #55 5 years ago

    Of course the PS3 suffers from performance in graphically intensive parts, and also generall looses out on eye candy... it's GPU is inferior (fck Cell, NOONE is using that for gfx anytime soon!).

    This is no different to taking two PCs one with a more advanced GPU (X360 in this case) and similarly matched for general purpose (non speciality coding) CPUs and seeing which one can pump out more polygones and sharper textures per second.

    X360 GPU is superior in all ways (except I prefer Nvidia for PC cards but that's a diff matter).

    The power of the ps3 is in the CELL and ONLY the CELL, and no one is going to be using that and making life difficult for themselves when they can use non optimized general purpose libraries that allow them finish (PORT) games in a decent time scale.

    Better get used to it PS3 owners cos you will NOT be seeing anything superior graphically to what the X360 can do, regardless of resolutions, in ported or multi platform games. Only games specifically developed for the PS3 (Gran Turismo 5/Wipeout etc) are in with a chance of looking stunning, and that's not forgetting that MS's own first party devs will also be upping the ante graphically over the next two years so Sony has a real battle here... they can't win on graphics technically, but through clever/brilliant developer they CAN win artistically (but so could the Xbox36). So it really just depends on who makes the best/best looking games because they hardware isn't going to do jack shit to give you an automatic leg up over the more sensible gpu/cpu/ram combo in the X360.

    The only way this war is going to be fought is on GAMES (the real ammo) not tech specs, and now we need to see the evidence from Sony first party/exclusives (what's left of them) that the cost and hype of the PS3 was worth it all along.

    meanwhile in civilised society many millions of happy Xbox360 gamers continue to play cutting edge console games with great online and solid controllers (with rumble) at a lower price, just they way they have been doing it for over a year now. :)

    I thank you
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 16:48

  • steoc4 #56 5 years ago

    Woops clicked submit too early. Point is, both machines are good. 360's already proving it. PS3 undoubtedly will simply because of all the great first party dev studios bringing their franchises and new IP to the platform, in addition to third parties who are continuing to support the PS3 even if multiplatform is more common these days.

  • The-Bodybuilder #57 5 years ago

    Although I'm not game devloper, I can see how it is insulting to claim they are "lazy" just because the ps3 port is pants.
    Could be that th ps3 is radically different, slightly more difficult machine? Plus the developers lack experience with it?

    But nooooooooooo. They're just lazy bastards aren't they? So say the keyboard warriors.

  • Gurgeh #58 5 years ago

    In case of any doubt F.E.A.R. *is* clearly better on the XBox 360 than the PS3, even if the screenshots here don't necessarily show it. That's not to say it's perfect on the XBox 360, but whatever happened to F.E.A.R. when crossing the street to the PS3 wasn't pleasant.

  • Overlush #59 5 years ago

    @sharpfish

    "The power of the ps3 is in the CELL and ONLY the CELL, and no one is going to be using that and making life difficult for themselves when they can use non optimized general purpose libraries that allow them finish (PORT) games in a decent time scale.

    Better get used to it PS3 owners cos you will NOT be seeing anything superior graphically to what the X360 can do"

    But what of the games developed exclusively for PS3?

    I'm no techie, but isn't a graphics processor, y'know, a processor? Can't the Cells cores, y'know, process separate tasks? Is it not possible to use parts of the Cell to process graphics if the PS3s graphics processor can't take all the heat?

    And anyways, IMHO it's about MORE than JUST the games these days and, for me, the PS3 is a better built, smoother and quiter running, more functional and intuitive masterclass of a piece of hardware. So what if I have to wait a while for the devs to hit their stride with it?

    I thank you.

  • RazorObsession #60 5 years ago

    The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
    Everyone has had a Sony fanboy scream about the power of the cell processor, into their ear, right into their brain. I know I have.

    This would be one link in the chain then. A big Adamantium link if you will, comic fans.

    Where the fanboys ignorance astounds however, is the other two big links in the chain, GPU and RAM.

    The Graphics Processing Unit is Nvidia, and sitting next to say, oh i dont know, the 360's GPU by ATI, it comes off the worse for wear. 2nd link in the chain is but a polo mint.

    Last, but judging from the performance issues, by no means least is RAM, which i'm told is around the 256 meg mark. Totally obsolete by PC standards, and the 360 has double that. 3rd link: a hula hoop. and not the big one, i'm talking about the wheat snack.

    Factor in that the CELL was designed as a multipurpose chip, not specifically for videogames and only videogames (seems like an afterthought judging from this article. Hell it might be able to shoot a SCUD out of the sky, or cure cancer or take over the world a la SKYnet, just dont ask it to play games.)
    Unlike M$'s offering which was designed to play games; and do it well, it would seem.

    On a final note, the difficulty of programing for the PS3, and the laborious task of actually creating enough content to fill the monster that is bluray, and all for a console that is so prohibitively expensive that it might never hold 1st or 2nd place in the console wars, means that only the biggest most monsterous of companies that can afford to hemorrhage cash in R&D, will ever utilise its potential.

    Alas these companies got to be the monsters that they are, by churning out generic crap, across multi platforms, without ever taking any chances and releasing yet another sports/FPS yearly update, with minimum costs, maximum profits and zero risk on innovating.

    I weep for the future of gaming... at least on PS3
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 17:00

  • Introspectre #61 5 years ago

    .

  • zuljin #62 5 years ago

    RazorObsession
    "The chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
    This is what you base your whole argument on?

    I weep for your argument.

  • RazorObsession #63 5 years ago

    tis called logic, friend, if ya got it, flaunt it.

  • Overlush #64 5 years ago

    "Alas these companies got to be the monsters that they are, by churning out generic crap, across multi platforms, without ever taking any chances and releasing yet another sports/FPS yearly update, with minimum costs, maximum profits and zero risk on innovating.

    I weep for the future of gaming... at least on PS3"

    I'd wager the PS3 exclusives demonstrate a greater breadth of variety than the 360s shooter/driver exclusive brigade. The 360 is still struggling to adopt a Jap-centric branch to it's portfolio wheras the PS3 seems to be doing a fine job of pushing in a more western direction whilst maintaining it's Japanese roots IMHO.

    Anyways, with upwards of 90% of games coming out on both, your (somewhat grounded) comments feel hollow whilst you point the finger at JUST the PS3.

    If anything (and I'll go with the 360 crew on this) if the PS3 is going to come last this gen and the 360 first, it'll be the 360 that's the spawn of a million 'safe' sequels and spin-offs as it has the biggest user base.

    I mean christ, look at some of the bile available on PS2!

  • steoc4 #65 5 years ago

    "The Graphics Processing Unit is Nvidia, and sitting next to say, oh i dont know, the 360's GPU by ATI, it comes off the worse for wear. 2nd link in the chain is but a polo mint. "

    This is true. It means things are ever so slightly less shiny, most of the time. The difference is too small to notice in any situation other than multiplatform games compared side by side.

    "Last, but judging from the performance issues, by no means least is RAM, which i'm told is around the 256 meg mark. Totally obsolete by PC standards, and the 360 has double that."

    The PS3 also has 512. It has 256 main memory and 256 graphics memory. The 360 has 512 main memory, but it needs to allocate that to the graphics card as needed. This makes the 360 more flexible, but it doesn't have more memory. There's workarounds on the PS3 to use either memory for either purpose AFAIK, it has very high bus bandwidth.

    "Factor in that the CELL was designed as a multipurpose chip, not specifically for videogames and only videogames (seems like an afterthought judging from this article. Hell it might be able to shoot a SCUD out of the sky, or cure cancer or take over the world a la SKYnet, just dont ask it to play games.)
    Unlike M$'s offering which was designed to play games; and do it well, it would seem. "

    Completely wrong. The cores in the 360 are multipurpose PowerPC CPUs, essentially the same as old Macs had. Very much general purpose. One of the harshest criticisms of the Cell is that it isn't multi-purpose, the main core is similar to the 360, but the SPEs are essentially very specialised vector units. Specialisation that is perfect for complex physics calculations and indeed graphics transformations (the original plan was believed to be to use the Cell for graphics and not have a seperate GPU), but not so good for general computing. They're very good for most Game needs however. The exception would be AI, but you do still have a more general purpose main core for that.

  • manic_mouse #66 5 years ago

    Neither machine is "more powerful", but they have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages: The 360 has a better GPU and better RAM config while the PS3 has a theoretically better CPU (but it's hard to get good results out of) and Blu-Ray.

    "The PS3 also has 512. It has 256 main memory and 256 graphics memory. The 360 has 512 main memory, but it needs to allocate that to the graphics card as needed. This makes the 360 more flexible, but it doesn't have more memory. There's workarounds on the PS3 to use either memory for either purpose AFAIK, it has very high bus bandwidth."

    Well actually the 360 does have more RAM, it has an extra 10Mb on it's GPU. And according to the rumours the 360's OS takes up much less RAM compared to the PS3's (32Mb compared to 96Mb). The 360 has more RAM available to games and a more flexible implementation.
    Edited by 2 at 30/04/07 @ 17:11

  • RazorObsession #67 5 years ago

    overlush
    i agree with you on that, M$ has taken the safe route this time, not entirely unlike PS2 last round, but using that standard, of the millions of shite safe games that will undoubtably flood the market, as was the case with the PS2, just going by odds and numbers, there are likely to be a few golden nuggets and gems amongst the flotsam, no?

  • Darren #68 5 years ago

    Isn't the PS3's Cell processor used to add anti-aliasing to games rather than the GPU? I know that the RSX is based on the GeForce 7900 GTX which I know cannot do HDR lighting and anti-aliasing (I own the card for the PC) yet all PS3 games use HDR lighting and appear to use anti-aliasing, albeit it doesn't look as good as it does on the 360.

    Overall though the machines seem pretty similar to me graphically, it's not difficult to imagine MotorStorm running on the 360 or Gears of War running on the PS3 with some minor differences really.

  • Overlush #69 5 years ago

    I think it's fair to say one thing: the PS3 has more POTENTIAL.

    Much of this 'weak link' argument revolves around accepted wisdom about what CPU/RAM/GPU combinations can do, but as steoc4 just said, the Core is a whole different beast that IMHO throws commonly accepted wisdom askew somewhat.

    I guess we'll see, but if these early, crappy ports are near as dammit as good as the 360 in it's prime, well...

  • Overlush #70 5 years ago

    "just going by odds and numbers, there are likely to be a few golden nuggets and gems amongst the flotsam, no?"

    For sure - there will be on all three platforms.

    Don't get me wrong, I've levelled as many criticisms against the PS3 as anyone, but now I have one I really DO think it's worth the asking price and can really see it's potential.

    A kid at school asked me today if it was worth the money and I said: If you want it to do EVERYTHING a next-gen console is supposed to do and are going to use all those features on a HDTV it's an absolute BARGAIN. I mean, a standalone BR player costs more than a PS3!
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 17:18

  • Sid-Nice #71 5 years ago

    All of the comparison pictures look crap on both consoles; graphic whores should buy a Wii.

  • RazorObsession #72 5 years ago

    true the potential is there, but the will?

    I'm sure if we were all raised in shaolin temples we'd all be able to give bruce lee, rest his bones, a run for his money. but most of us simply could not be arsed, even given the opportunity.

    trouble is its damn hard to reach your potential, and it is a lot of work.

    this is a business, for profit, and if big games companies see a shortcut to the benjamins, like programming for the easy 360, slut that it is, and lazily porting over to ps3 for quick cash, then thats what they will do.

    still early days yet, and time will tell and all that, but you know what they say about first impressions.

  • Overlush #73 5 years ago

    Agreed, but as middleware gets better so too will the ports (as in the case of Oblivion, I believe). As devs get more accustomed to coding from the ground up for PS3 they too will get better. Let's not forget this is a machine designed to last 8-10 years. The PS2 (and PS1?) was just as bad to begin with but IMHO this stands as a testament to Kutagari's skill and vision as an engineer, not as an indictment against either machine's design and early performance.

    "true the potential is there, but the will?"

    Never underestimate (rightly or wrongly) the brand power of Playstation! I'm sure the will is there, somewhere!
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 17:26

  • Stormflood #74 5 years ago

    Why don't any of the FEAR screens look better on the 360, as seems to be the opinion of the review? In fact, one even looks better on the PS3.

    I don't understand.

  • RazorObsession #75 5 years ago

    and what if hddvd becomes the format of choice for the near future? will the overpriced PS3 still be worth it then?

    what if like most gamers, you couldnt give a shit about movies, and dont own a HDTV?

    saying the PS3, price that it is, small selection of games, and unproven format is worth it, after reading this article, just does not make sense. I'll stick to my PC thanks.

    how about the PS3 will be worth it in a year or two when the portfolio is bigger better and on its way to realising the machines potential, when most people will have purchased their HDTV's, and bluray will have been proven the format of the future? is that a fair statement?

  • MrBiggles #76 5 years ago

    Haha I noticed that also, they are the same F.E.A.R pics. Must have been a mistake.

  • AHiFi #77 5 years ago

    asdfffdsa - To be fairly honest, ports make up the majority of the PS3 line-up currently. And with all that extra time, those ports could have had plenty of new features. But they didn't.

  • RazorObsession #78 5 years ago

    i was a late adopter of ps1 and loved every second i spent on it. thus i ate shit when i read all the hyperbole about emotion engines rendering FFVII in real time and assorted bits of bollocks, and foolishly picked up a ps2 the day it launched. that was my biggest mistake as it didnt offer me anything i wanted. sold it within 6 months, got an xbox, same story again. picked up another ps2 again after 2 years and loved it.

    all the hype of the ps3, it may never live up to, as was the case of the ps2, and the xbox and the 360 which is why im reluctant to fall for the same trick again. the 360 is ONLY just starting to look like it might be alright, and with the difficulty in programing for PS3 it might be another two years till i take a sniff at that.

    all the while, the Wii picks up speed, as the tenacious PC quietly reigns and pulls everyones strings from the shadows.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 17:38

  • MaxiSleep #79 5 years ago

    Recently caved and got a ps3 (retail therapy after some gobshite truck driver sideswiped my car on the red cow).

    On my TV (Panasonic Vierra Plasma) the hdmi output from the PS3 looks far better then vga or component from the 360 no matter how much I tweak settings.

    On special effects (say the blur in ridge racer) I think the 360 looks a bit better (possibly the ati chip giving the win here)

    At the moment I am mainly playing the ps3 because it is so wonderfully quiet compared to the 360. Also on the games I have so far there is none of the tearing crap we have to put up with so much on the 360.

    If the elite was released sooner in europe I probably would have gone for that if it was indeed quiter. Now I will probably stick with the Ps3 as my lead platform and just get exclusives on the 360. (Damm you fan noise!)

  • Garulon #80 5 years ago

    "I think it's fair to say one thing: the PS3 has more POTENTIAL. "

    Seriously, what are you basing that on? Not reality, that's for sure. I'm wondering what the PS3 fanbois argment will be when Burnout 5 and DMC4 look identical on the PS3 and 360.

    And if it's just crappy ports, why did the XBox ports of PS2 games have better framerates, widescreen etc. etc.

  • Jaded #81 5 years ago

    The only comparison that matters is IV.

  • RazorObsession #82 5 years ago

    fan noise? your argument for not playing your 360 is fan noise?

    if my PC sounded like a fucking metallica concert, i'd still bloody play it!

  • steoc4 #83 5 years ago

    "i was a late adopter of ps1 and loved every second i spent on it. thus i ate shit when i read all the hyperbole about emotion engines rendering FFVII in real time and assorted bits of bollocks, and foolishly picked up a ps2 the day it launched. that was my biggest mistake as it didnt offer me anything i wanted. sold it within 6 months, got an xbox, same story again. picked up another ps2 again after 2 years and loved it. "

    So buying a PS2 was a big mistake even though it was worth buying 2 years later?

    You know people who buy consoles at launch can still use them 2 years later right? There's no time limit on it... (cue predictable joke about overheating X360s)

    Plus everything they said about the PS2 came true. Newer PS2 games look far far better in real time than the pre rendered stuff in FFVII. The PS2 has been anything but a disappointment. I bought my PS2 many years ago, paid IR£400 for it, and it's still paying for itself to this day with God of War 2 released just this week. I bought a Gamecube about 3 years after my PS2 and it's already gone because there's no games for it anymore. I didn't buy an Xbox and I'm glad now, considering how support for that has vanished.

    I bought a 360 at launch, people complained at the time that it had no games. There was a comparison on this very site of Xbox 1 vs Xbox 360, just like this comparison, showing how lazy ports didn't look any better on the 360 than on last gen hardware. But I had done the research on upcoming games and knew what developers were working with the console and saw it was obviously going to fare a lot better than its predecessor, so I knew buying one would pay off and it certainly has.

    Now today, people are making the exact same short sighted claims about the PS3 and ignoring the huge array of exclusives lined up for the console in the future and the obvious potential of the platform. I'm confident it'll prove itself to be worth what I paid for it 6 years from now when I'm enjoying God of War 4 or Ico 3 or whatever new IP Sony's more creative teams have come up with (such as Lair, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword amongst others that are already lined up), and in the meantime I'm enjoying the current games line up and have absolutely no regrets.

  • Les #84 5 years ago

    "And if it's just crappy ports, why did the XBox ports of PS2 games have better framerates, widescreen etc. etc."

    They didn't at first. First batch of PS2 ports was better on PS2 than on xbox. This did change and it probably will for PS3. Especially with the world champion of multiplatform games EA making PS3 the main version for some of it's games.

    But this generation, multiplatform games will generally suck (even more so than last gen), at least compared to the platform exclusives.

    "I'm wondering what the PS3 fanbois argment will be when Burnout 5 and DMC4 look identical on the PS3 and 360."

    I'm wondering what your xbot argument will be if the PS3 versions do indeed look better...
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 18:02

  • RazorObsession #85 5 years ago

    yeah steoc4 you're boring mate. you are a bit like a stalker too, watching my posts from the bushes with a pair of binos.

    seeing as you cant be arsed to read the post the point was thus:

    console on launch = much hyperbole, much disappointment. that goes for M$ and PS, just so you dont think im a fanboy. hence me forgetting my senses, buying on day one, then selling and getting again when worth it. i made back the purchase price in case you are wondering and bought again for peanuts.

    2 years after = prices drop, potential reached, library of games huge and generally worth making the space under your TV for.

    now go and gimp someone else.

  • captainrentboy #86 5 years ago

    Did someone up there say the 360 is now in its prime?.... I'm prrrretty sure it isn't :/
    That's all.

  • RazorObsession #87 5 years ago

    in fact steoc4 i figured it out! you are a sony fanboy!

    some simple comments and observations, some analogies, metaphors and similies on the subject of the currently poorly performing PS3, has envoked your ire and sent you on a mission to get me hasnt it?

    i can see through the 'oh i own all the consoles so i cant be a fanboy' defence, in fact i used it myself. you cant bullshit a bullshitter boy.

    difference is of course, i havent sung the praises of any console, just my PC which will always remain No.1 in mine and any true gamers heart, until they die, or can no longer afford to upgrade to the latest gear every six months... um.. yeah.

    oh and as for all the hype regarding ps2 coming true: OMFGSTFU! n00b
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 18:23

  • MaxiSleep #88 5 years ago

    "fan noise? your argument for not playing your 360 is fan noise?"

    if my PC sounded like a fucking metallica concert, i'd still bloody play it!"

    Well if I have a choice I will get the Ps3 version not the 360. I am picky about noise though, buit I know some people are not

    Fact is my PC has a 8800 gts, Fx 60 etc and is a hell of a lot more bearable then the 360. I will still put up with it for the likes of forza/halo but the point I was making was that I will be buying for the ps3 when the multi stuff comes out. (fan noise is a lot more important to me then the occasional stutter, or a bit of blurriness)

  • RazorObsession #89 5 years ago

    well you made your point and i accept it, but what of regards to performance issues? how about release date?

    if the games are not made from the ground up for ps3 as we have seen then chances are they will not perform as expected. thus far most games have been multi platform but not simultaneous release. downloadable content matter much?

    renting - its just better.

  • crouchy #90 5 years ago

    Eurogamer blatently reeling in the fanboys again with a ridiculous article designed for kneejerk short term profit. It may well backfire in the medium term.

  • Abscido #91 5 years ago

    I'd like to point out that there is a HUGE difference between F.E.A.R on PS3 and 360. The latter is technically fine, but the PS3 version is an absolute disgrace - there is literally lag between pressing the fire button and a shot being released. It's nigh unplayable.

    I'm playing on a debug, but I doubt that has anything to do with it - the 1up review had the same issues.

  • Overlush #92 5 years ago

    @Garulon

    ""I think it's fair to say one thing: the PS3 has more POTENTIAL. "

    Seriously, what are you basing that on? Not reality, that's for sure"

    Well, it stands to reason that as the 360 has been on the market longer, devs have had more time to tap into it's potential. Therefore, the PS3 has (and will have for a long time until they're both know inside out) more potential than the 360.

    Potential is a measure of how far something can progress, after all, not of how well that something relates to another entity.

    Also, factor in the Cell being virgin ground for devs and I dare say you could increase further still the amount of untapped potential it has.

    So yeah, I'm basing it on reality, because in reality the 360 has had more time to mature ergo it has less potential.

    NOTE: this has NOTHING to do whith which console it 'better'!

  • Overlush #93 5 years ago

    @Abscido

    I'm a FPS veteran and have finished FEAR on both 360 and PS3 - there's not THAT much difference mate! Frame rate and AA aren't quite as good and there's the odd audio glitch but they're not a million miles apart.

  • cyber_nicco #94 5 years ago

    I have one problem with all the "oh, it's only because they are lazy ports from the 360" line of arguments that excuse the PS3's seemingly poor showing...

    In the last generation, virtually all multi-platform games were developed for the PS2 as the primary recipient, with the Xbox getting "ports", yet the Xbox version almost always looked better. Furthermore, you heard MS going on less then about the Xbox's hardware superiority than you now (or at least up until recently) hear Sony going on about the PS3's superiority to the 360.

    Seems odd to me...

  • RazorObsession #95 5 years ago

    i like to think of the two consoles as chicks. some gamers are in love with their machines as evidenced by their fanboyism. but indulge me for a moment and allow me to take this analogy a little further.

    the xbox 360 is a blonde big titted stunner - great looks, not much brains, pretty easy to get inside, always puts out. speaks a common tongue. mutliple gamers at once the skank, and she lets you talk dirty too. you've fooled around with her PC sister and she was a right goer too.

    the PS3 is the japanese hottie, dont speak your tongue, and is definately a long term project. plays hard to get but you just know its gonna be good when or if you do, but boy, having to learn a whole new language just to get a foot in the door, without the guaranteed result you want, and hell does she have expensive taste to boot. cept with the size of the machine, maybe shes a sumo. this analogy needs work.

    riddle me this: how many people are gonna do the sure thing? how many people will be banging one, but thinking of the other?

    oh the Wii is just masturbation. great for a few minutes, multiple times a day. builds up your right forearm.

    as has already been pointed out, the PS3 has the most potential, but whether or not it is realised remains to be seen.

  • GamesConnoisseur #96 5 years ago

    Some commentators' mind will not be changed no matter what arguments you pose, for example I would not want to try to change Overlush's mind, as clicking on his fav games on his page, you only see PS3 games and nothing else. That says it all.
    I however have always been multi platform owner as the games are what its all about not the platform or the brand.

    It is worrying that Sony have always banged on that true HD start when PS3 arrives, what are we seeing right now? Pretty similar except for some lags on some games for PS3?

    I have said previously that I will own PS3 mainly for its exclusive AAA games but for multi platform releases I still think I would be better off with X360 version UNLESS there is a hot non-X360 available feature to justify having it over my older but very worthy console.

    Both are worth having, but what would most people buy over the long run? That is the question we will eventally find out. No point worrying but enjoy your console and the games that you play on it!! Heck I still occasionly play Dreamcast games!

  • Dizzy #97 5 years ago

    Stop talking about this "potential"... it is fucking bullshit.

  • Overlush #98 5 years ago

    "I would not want to try to change Overlush's mind, as clicking on his fav games on his page, you only see PS3 games and nothing else. That says it all. "

    ?

    If you look at my 'played' list (which I intepret as 'favourite') I list several platforms, including PC. Look at my 'want' list and, yes, all you see is PS3...because at the moment that's the only gaming platform I own. I don't have the time or the money to invest in more than one and it just so happens that at the moment that's a PS3. It would, after all, be rather silly to say I want games on platforms I don't own!

    In the past I've had a GameGear, SNES, PS1, Archimedes, Atari ST, N64, Megadrive, Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, Amiga, Gameboy, DS, PS2, Cube, Xbox, PC, 360...

    In what way are you trying to change my mind, other than prevent it from being open?

    So, sir, my 'want' list does not 'say it all', it merely gives you a narrow snapshot into the virtual life of a complete stranger.

    Don't be so quick to jump to rash conclusions!
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 21:42

  • Overlush #99 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    "Stop talking about this "potential"... it is fucking bullshit"

    As I bothered to put my point of view across in some detail, would you care to reciprocate as I'm interested to hear yours, or is 'fucking bullshit' all you're capable of?

  • GamesConnoisseur #100 5 years ago

    Overlush

    Yes you are correct I meant to say 'Want' and not fav which is a mistake of mine, but it is interesting that you present a lot of arguments for PS3 when the article is about how each compare to other. I would say that the owners of both console would be in better position to judge.

    I am not anti Sony, but my points have always been that Sony is the one responsible for the hype and thus also responsible for any disappointment generated, the real litmus test so far is that there are not that a large differences, at least as quite so apparent to us at this time.

    Sure PS3 is a great console, and so is X360! Personally hoping it would be a close race this generation as competition is great driver for innovations.

    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 22:09

  • Les #101 5 years ago

    "Furthermore, you heard MS going on less then about the Xbox's hardware superiority than you now (or at least up until recently) hear Sony going on about the PS3's superiority to the 360."

    I'm afraid you suffer from selective listening...

    Anyway, if only the games themselves would make the move to 'next gen'... But I don't think that'll happen on this lost generation of pixel pushers. If only the power of PS3 and 360 would be used to better effect than just an increase in resolution, gamers might have been truly amazed. As it is, this gen is just for graphics whores.

    Now, if only some decent games would arrive on Wii.

  • Les #102 5 years ago

    "Stop talking about this "potential"... it is fucking bullshit"

    So you buy a console only to play what is available at that point in time, not thinking about any future games?! If so, you're an idiot...

  • Der_tolle_Emil #103 5 years ago

    So you buy a console only to play what is available at that point in time, not thinking about any future games?! If so, you're an idiot...

    Well what else should I think of when I think PS3? About the games I played on the 360 nearly a year ago?

    No doubt there will be great games for the PS3 but this 'potential' marketing aims ironically at itself. Because right now the PS3 is exactly that - a console launched late but still too early so all there is left is looking forward to its potential hoping that one day it will be used.

    Which without a doubt will come but right now all the marketing praying the PS3 to the heavens sounds more and more like an excuse.

  • Abscido #104 5 years ago

    @Abscido

    I'm a FPS veteran and have finished FEAR on both 360 and PS3 - there's not THAT much difference mate! Frame rate and AA aren't quite as good and there's the odd audio glitch but they're not a million miles apart.

    Well, there's a serious difference in my PS3 version at least. My German housemate - who isn't any kind of gaming veteran, though he likes FPS, had just finished Resistance - commented on it immediately, and he had played the 360 version for a while last year.

    I was looking forward to playing through the game again on the PS3 (mainly for the sixaxis) but it's shocking. That's three separate sources (if you include the 1up review) that found the lag unacceptable. It's a pity, cause it's such a great game.
    Edited by 2 at 30/04/07 @ 22:44

  • Pastici #105 5 years ago

    Shazam!

  • Vin #106 5 years ago

    This thread is fucking shocking.

  • ChromeMud #107 5 years ago

    In 10 years time developers will push the CELL to do 1080P at 120fps.
    Great,but by that time the competition will be laughing at it's ability by then.
    What's available on the PS3 that warrant's it's price tag,erm nothing that
    matches the competition.
    Ah but it plays movies in High Def...yup but I don't see the movies sellling
    in droves either.
    What is a PS3 anyway?It's an advert for Blu-Ray and CELL and that is all.
    A corporate message to sell it's technology to other manufacturers.
    It seems that games are an after thought.
    Tell me what developers are having fun juggling with 7 code specific
    processors and doubling their costs of developing for the platform.
    A handful,I'm sure!

  • cyber_nicco #108 5 years ago

    "I'm afraid you suffer from selective listening... "

    Maybe, but my point wasn't that MS didn't trumpet the Xbox as being great blah, blah, blah... Just that Sony had REALLY gone overboard suggesting that the 360 wasn't even in the same league as the PS3. That the PS3 defined a whole generation of console gaming unto itself... That now the REAL next gen can happen, etc, blah, blah, blah...

  • Vandrius #109 5 years ago

    Sigh, comparing ports is never going to be a true comparison.

    The majority of these were developed for the 360 first, then had their code hacked so they would work on the PS3.

    Anytime you mess with code that was optimised for one system, it'd be a huge job to change it all to work top-notch with the other (unless it was designed that way from the start).

    From a system point of view, this has no relevance at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    From a games point of view, it tells you which version to buy.

  • Les #110 5 years ago

    Nice quote from an article on Gamepro...

    "The last thing the world needs is another article on fanboys. To highlight them is to encourage them; something most try to avoid. However, we think it's important to admonish their culture in the hopes of changing it. Once that happens, video game culture can only improve. So the next time you're staring at your face in the mirror, ask yourself this question: does this list apply to you?
    1. You become upset when something you like is questioned.
    2. You are intellectually dishonest.
    3. You resort to personal attacks during debate.
    4. The defeat of your enemy is more rewarding than your victory.
    5. You bring nothing new to a conversation.
    6. You are anti-fanboy.
    No one is completely devoid of bias, and everyone has a little fanboy in 'em. But extremes should be avoided. Ultimately, fanboyism is just blind consumerism most commonly found during one's formative years; the driving force largely being irrationality. So take heed, gamers. And embrace the idea of a world with a lot less aggravation."

  • Dizzy #111 5 years ago

    "So you buy a console only to play what is available at that point in time, not thinking about any future games?! If so, you're an idiot... "

    You are even more stupid than I thought. Yes I buy my products for what they do right now.. not for what they might be doing in a few years. If you believe the PS3 has "potential" then buy it when that "potential" has been realised because right now you cannot see it. You have the added benefit that it will probably be cheaper as well. Your money will have more "potential" that way.

  • Les #112 5 years ago

    Would you care to explain why? Except maybe for point 6, I'd have to agree with you on that one...

    edit:

    Oh, and point 3 of course. But there's so many stupid people, sometimes I can't help myself...
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/07 @ 08:13

  • MyPointIs #113 5 years ago

    Can this thread fall any lower?

    Wii. Poo. Burp.

    Come on. I´m curious.

  • el_pollo_diablo #114 5 years ago

    --------------------------------

    So what's the solution then? Any devs still reading this thread?

    Games ported over from 360 to ps3 are not working out to well, and so far I can't think of any games that are being developed in the other direction. It's yet to be seen what difference that will make when it does happen - will it be the same thing in reverse?

    So are any of you devs looking at doing things the other way around?

    --------------------------------

  • Overlush #115 5 years ago

    I believe EA are. Perhaps Rockstar and Capcom too. I'm sure someone is! It will be interesting to see how they turn out.

    "I would say that the owners of both console would be in better position to judge."

    Well, I had 33500 Gamerscore just before I sold my 360 - surely that entitles me to an opinion on it!

  • zuljin #116 5 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur
    "I would not want to try to change Overlush's mind, as clicking on his fav games on his page, you only see PS3 games and nothing else. That says it all."
    And clicking on your profile I see all your wants are... All XBox360 games. Does that say it all too?

  • MoGamer2006 #117 5 years ago

    HI TECHNIIIIIICAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!

  • konniehuqfan #118 5 years ago

    ps3 will win in the end, the games will get better and better. :D

  • spongebob #119 5 years ago

    Wow. Some of you make it sound like none of the games out on PS3 right now are worth playing. They very well might be inferior to the X360 games (conversions or exclusives) but it doesn't mean that you can't enjoy playing on the machine.

  • stormuk #120 5 years ago

    The question about how can the PS3 shine on 360 ports raises another question.

    In the future as the 360 is a easier port to make would it not mean all games will be ported from the 360?

  • bonker #121 5 years ago

    "Isn't the PS3's Cell processor used to add anti-aliasing to games rather than the GPU? I know that the RSX is based on the GeForce 7900 GTX which I know cannot do HDR lighting and anti-aliasing (I own the card for the PC) yet all PS3 games use HDR lighting and appear to use anti-aliasing, albeit it doesn't look as good as it does on the 360. "

    My understanding is that the PS3 GPU can do HDR *or* AA but not both at the same time ...

  • Darren #122 5 years ago

    @Bonker - Well clearly something is adding AA to PS3 games, e.g. Virtua Tennis 3 appears to use HDR lighting (it's more obvious than on the 360 in my opinion, particularly on the Dubai court) but the game appears to still use AA although it doesn't look as good as the 360. That's why I asked whether the Cell processor did the anti-aliasing as the PS3 doesn't use the same tiled rendering system that the 360 does but if the RSX isn't doing the AAing then something else must be as I've not seen any PS3 games that look noticeably jaggy Even Ridge Racer 7 looks less jaggy then the 360 version and that didn't use AA at all as far as I can tell (it's the 360's most jaggy-looking game by far in my opinion).

  • el_pollo_diablo #123 5 years ago

    My strategy: avoid message board comment threads.

  • TRUTH #124 5 years ago

    Darren - I don't think so!...having both systems, VT 3 seems to look sharper and with better lighting on 360. I did borrow the PS3 version, and bought the 360 version as it was cheaper then VT3 on PS3 game. Call Of Duty 3, F.E.A.R & NBA Street: Homecourt are the other 3 games I've recently checked, and again the 360 plays (frame rates, effects, online) & do look better.

    I have also noticed on PS3 Fight Night 3, that missing detail in the background & stadium lighting, also the blur effects when punched is less impressive on PS3; Though PS3 boxers have a bit more detail.

    http://ww w.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6...
    Edited by 2 at 01/05/07 @ 16:21

  • JimJam #125 5 years ago

    There are people suggesting that the 360 is playing the 'safe route' with sequels and games by the numbers, and comparing that to PS2. The huge userbase generated for PS2 by these mass-market games is what freed developers to make some of this more quirky stuff. I doubt that you would have seen as many of these more original games if the potential audience wasn't 10 times that of the Cube & the Xbox.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/07 @ 15:21

  • Les #126 5 years ago

    Look, MS's favorite viral marketeer shows his ugly head again...

  • Les #127 5 years ago

    "What would be the point? You would only deny or avoid anyone elses point of view anyway."

    Wow, just "wow". I'm totally overwhelmed by the strength of your argument...
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/07 @ 17:51

  • GamesConnoisseur #128 5 years ago

    zuljin

    @GamesConnoisseur
    "I would not want to try to change Overlush's mind, as clicking on his fav games on his page, you only see PS3 games and nothing else. That says it all."
    And clicking on your profile I see all your wants are... All XBox360 games. Does that say it all too?

    Did you see my full list or just the first five?!! You would then see 3 PS3 games among my wish list too!

    Man I have repeatingly said I will get PS3 but not now as need more AAA titles and oh the price drop too please.

  • TRUTH #129 5 years ago

    Because of the delay in manufacturing parts for PS3, this was the reason for the delay for PS3...because of this developers already with PS3's & dev kits had the extra time to covert, fine tune & develop games using the Cell: Resistance & Motor Storm had almost 2yrs with support from Sony to get the game at the standard it was released - FACT!. In fact we are seeing games that have been in development at same time as 360 games (Call Of Duty 3, Fight Night, Madden 07, Ridge Racer..) The PS3 is as old as the 360, only younger due to the delays with manufacturing parts, delaying it's release.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/07 @ 20:22

  • kangarootoo #130 5 years ago

    @smelly

    "1. You become upset when something you like is questioned.
    2. You are intellectually dishonest.
    3. You resort to personal attacks during debate.
    4. The defeat of your enemy is more rewarding than your victory.
    5. You bring nothing new to a conversation.
    6. You are anti-fanboy. "

    You know, you could tick every point on that list too ;)

    Hehe (/waits for points 3 and 6).

  • bloodmask #131 5 years ago

    First off I am not a fanboy. I have been a supporter of microsoft ever since the defeat of my beloved dreamcast, and have been a gamer since the old nes era. to compare ports is pointless. It is just a cash run for third parties. If you want to compare quality do it with first party titles. In my opinion Microsoft is third they only make point and shoot titles and fall back on the online component for fun. Which is fine because they are enjoyable. Their studios lack the talent to make an evolving emotional story that draws you in. You will never see them produce titles like Shadow of the Collosus, or God of War. These titles have depth and a unique story and are very creative. There is no point and shoot. They know this, that is why they hired Sakaguchi-San. This is coming from someone who has never even owned any generation of the playstation. Just someone who has a passion for gaming and can appreciate good story telling and art direction.
    Nuff said.

  • monkey-ken-wizard #132 5 years ago

    Oh dear

  • Haligonian #133 5 years ago

    I just heard the best joke:
    If you want to play with your friends at home then get the Wii.
    If you want to play with your friends around the world then get the XBOX 360 with Live.
    If you want to play by yourself then get the PS3.

  • Garulon #134 5 years ago

    "If you want to compare quality do it with first party titles. In my opinion Microsoft is third they only make point and shoot titles and fall back on the online component for fun. "

    Viva Pinata says hi. It's lucky Sony's pushing the envelope on the PS3 with an FPS and a driving game eh?

  • deaner #135 5 years ago

    Trying to display the graphical difference between a PS3 and an X360... with bloody JPEG images!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAH!

    I know, I'll ask people to do the Pepsi taste challenge with their mouths gaffer-taped up!

    I have both, plugged into a V Series Bravia TV running at 1080p... and can very clearly easily see that the X360 isn't en par with it's rival in terms of visuals.

    Not by a long shot and a half.

    Nonsense article really.

    You can't compare games which were written to run on both sets of hardware, or code which is a PC port - because it isn't doing either console (*cough*) justice

    But you CAN sit down and play Motorstorm for a bit, and then play... well anything on the X360, and say "hey, this really isn't hi-def! I've been swizzed!"

    Amazing!

    Simple sum:

    HD hardware + HD telly + HDensity Media + HD output = HD visuals (PS3)
    HD hardware + HD telly - HDensity Media - HD output = 50% job done (X360)

    Everything else is just politics!

  • Lov3 #136 5 years ago

    I couldn't care less which of those games looks better than the other - I wouldn't put down £10 for any of them. Can you compare some fun games next time? Cheers.

  • logos01 #137 5 years ago

    I think it's fair to say that the xbox360 is the best platform graphics wise this time. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for things to change, developers will keep working as they are. Even SquareEnix is releasing a new game for both the xbox360 and PS3, so it's great that one platform has all variety of games this time around.

  • TRUTH #138 5 years ago

    deaner: - I have a 50" Pioneer plasma that plays 1080p...to say there is big difference from 720p/1080i from 1080p is bull.

    1) 1080 is really useful on large screens and enough space to sit back to notice the deifference (though don't expect to be a major leap)

    2) Motor Storm runs a 720p not 1080p. As do many PS3 titles.

    3) Games run smoother and play better on a steady 720p rather then 1080p. Take 'NBA Street: Homecourt' for example, run this on 1080p and watch it stutter along...Ridge Racer on 360 look better and more detailed on 720p, then PS3 1080p display.

    [link url=http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-com parisons-27828.phtml
    ]http://ww w.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6...[/link]

    4) Xbox 360 is now capable of displaying 1080p - just update your system by free a download from xbox.com ; And you also get to play Street Fighter III Third Strike. Panzaar Dragoon Otra in widescreen 720p too.

    5) Very few games will able to use 1080p due to the processing needed. Games that don't require to much things going on at once or are heavy on graphics, sound, A.i..etc may be do it such as Virtual Tennis/Fighter 5. Games like Motor Storm/Resistance/Call Of Duty (all 30fps) probably can't. This is main reason many games will be using standard 720/50p. This is the standard 90% of all games will be running. Oh! 1080p is already being surpassed by Super Hi-Def, you'll be seeing tv's of that run these resolutions in approx 4yrs.



    Edited by 2 at 14/05/07 @ 17:56