|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > January 2007 > What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
|
|
|
| What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
GameSpot did just that (screen shots are included):
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-5.html
And the final verdict:
"...The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we
examined. "
So what went wrong with the PS3? What about cell technology being "a
super computer in terms of processing power" and all the other hype
talk Sony spewed to the press throughout 2006? Bill Gates comments at
CES gives us a hint. This is a few weeks old, but a very good point
that everyone except Microsoft somehow missed. "....Sony started
earlier but "burned a year" trying to make the Cell processor do
graphics functions. When it didn't work, Sony went to a fall back plan
by tapping Nvidia for the graphics chip at the last minute. But NVIDIA
doesn't do DRAM". What Bill is telling you is that with PS3, Sony
didn't ship the system they promised consumers. That's why you're
seeing better graphics in these comparison shots on the XBox 360.
Porting a game from one console to another isn't rocket science, the
game developers use the dev kits supplied to them by the vendors, then
they scale the quality of the graphics (textures, 3D models, etc..) and
other visual details according to what the hardware can perform
graphically while being mindful of the performance they require.
If the games GameSpot compares here were identical on both systems then
the argument could be made that the PS3' versions are just ports of the
360 titles and could not be enhanced further. but that's not the
case... In most cases, except for the Golf title we're seeing the PS3
fails to match the 360 titles and we're talking about Electronic Arts,
one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's
developers know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
talent in the industry.
So if you break down the PS3, we have a system with a lot of extra
bells and whistles that drive the cost way up, but it can't even match
the 360 in terms of gaming experience on these EA titles. That's
something to really consider before buying a PS3.
| |
|
|
RMZ wrote:
quote:
> What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
>
> GameSpot did just that (screen shots are included):
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-5.html
>
> And the final verdict:
> "...The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we
> examined. "
[snip]
Hardly surprising - especially with the limited dev time on the PS3 vs.
the 360. Combine that with half the RAM in the PS3 (=noticably less
detailed textures) and the fact that ATI, since the 9700, has *always*
had better AA/AF image quality than nVidia (and the last 3 PC cards
I've put in my gaming rig have been a 6800 Ultra, 7900GTO, and now
8800GTS).
The PS3 better pull off some serious magic when the releases start
ramping up.
Kendt
| |
| asylum 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| I disagree with this statement!
Electronic Arts,
one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's developers
know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
talent in the industry.
"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169423345.143400.29460@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
>
> GameSpot did just that (screen shots are included):
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-5.html
>
> And the final verdict:
> "...The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we
> examined. "
>
> So what went wrong with the PS3? What about cell technology being "a
> super computer in terms of processing power" and all the other hype
> talk Sony spewed to the press throughout 2006? Bill Gates comments at
> CES gives us a hint. This is a few weeks old, but a very good point
> that everyone except Microsoft somehow missed. "....Sony started
> earlier but "burned a year" trying to make the Cell processor do
> graphics functions. When it didn't work, Sony went to a fall back plan
> by tapping Nvidia for the graphics chip at the last minute. But NVIDIA
> doesn't do DRAM". What Bill is telling you is that with PS3, Sony
> didn't ship the system they promised consumers. That's why you're
> seeing better graphics in these comparison shots on the XBox 360.
>
> Porting a game from one console to another isn't rocket science, the
> game developers use the dev kits supplied to them by the vendors, then
> they scale the quality of the graphics (textures, 3D models, etc..) and
> other visual details according to what the hardware can perform
> graphically while being mindful of the performance they require.
>
> If the games GameSpot compares here were identical on both systems then
> the argument could be made that the PS3' versions are just ports of the
> 360 titles and could not be enhanced further. but that's not the
> case... In most cases, except for the Golf title we're seeing the PS3
> fails to match the 360 titles and we're talking about Electronic Arts,
> one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's
> developers know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
> talent in the industry.
>
> So if you break down the PS3, we have a system with a lot of extra
> bells and whistles that drive the cost way up, but it can't even match
> the 360 in terms of gaming experience on these EA titles. That's
> something to really consider before buying a PS3.
>
| |
|
| Well, that's subjective, but I'm sure a point could be made in either
direction. However, those pictures don't lie. Look at their comparison
screen shots on Fight Night: Round 3, the detail differences we see
here are amazing. The XBox 360 version looks like it's a generation
ahead of the PS3 in some of these shots.
The development team that created the PS3 version obviously had access
to all the textures, models and game code used in the 360 version. They
had Sony's official development kit, do you think they weren't
competent enough to create a version on par with the 360 version? Maybe
in one instance, but we're seeing noticeable differences here on many
games, with different development teams no doubt.
Even if that were the case, here's the bottom line: The PS3 version of
most of these games pales in comparison to their 360 counterparts.
Developers are among the first to know when a system doesn't live up to
the hype and they've been saying PS3 doesn't live up to the hype. As
this side-by-side comparison shows, the games are corroborating that.
It would serve the developers and publishers no good to purposely make
weaker versions of these titles on PS3 and if the game developers
aren't doing the very best they can with the tools given they stand a
considerable amount to loose (i.e. damage to their career in this
industry)
asylum wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I disagree with this statement!
>
> Electronic Arts,
> one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's developers
> know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
> talent in the industry.
>
> "RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169423345.143400.29460@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| |
| Android 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
|
"asylum" <asylum@nocrapfrontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:k1Vsh.1032$B25.782@news01.roc.ny...
quote:
> I disagree with this statement!
>
> Electronic Arts,
> one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's
developers
quote:
> know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
> talent in the industry.
I agree with you. The side-by-side comparison would have been more
meaningful if it was from a developer *other* than Electronic Arts. More
than any other publisher, they tend to port games from the dominant system
to the competition without attempting to optimize/enhance them.
quote:
> "RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169423345.143400.29460@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
| |
|
| But some of these instances we're seeing obviously less detail. The dev
kits shipped over a year before the launch.... and these games were
already in development for XBox 360, we're seeing here a failure to
even match what's happening on the 360.... If you makes you feel better
about the PS3, you can point the figure at the developer all you want,
I just don't think that's a valid argument for why the PS3 versions
look weaker.
If you notice the one game where they give the PS3 version the win is a
golf game were you don't have a lot of action going on. Also, did you
catch the author noting the slow load times on the PS3 Blu-ray drive
compared the 360's DVD versions of these titles? Here we see Blu-Ray
hindering games, not enhancing them. These is exactly where a lot of us
keep talking about, Blu-Ray does nothing for games, it was added to the
PS3 as a way for Sony to push their HD media format for movies.
If you're loyal to the Sony brand, nothing anyone says is going to
change you're view. You're going to continue to see reports showing
evidence of the PS3 being a disaster. You've invested a lot, if I
invested over half a grand in a product I'd look for the silver lining
as well.
I don't think anyone is saying PS3 sucks. It is a generation ahead of
the PS2, it's a good system technically. It's just a year late and
Sony's competition is on their toes, they've just done things a lot
smarter. Sony got lazy with the PS3, they threw a bunch of technology
technology and essentially declared "we're #1... we can do what we want
and people will buy it", apparently for a good number of you, that's
the case.
Because with PS3, right now aside from you're faith in the Sony brand,
what do you have to show for your support of their PS3 platform?
Here are the facts: It's overpriced, it has the weakest collection of
launch titles of any PlayStation and the few launch titles that cross
over to the leading competitor show it to be graphically inferior to
the year old XBox 360. It's selling worse than the XBox 360 was this
time last year and the 360 didn't exactly have a great launch.
I just can't figure out why so many keep waving the Sony flag. The
rabbit's not coming out of the hat and this is a end game scenario for
Sony as a company should PS3 tank.
Android wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> "asylum" <asylum@nocrapfrontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:k1Vsh.1032$B25.782@news01.roc.ny...
> developers
>
> I agree with you. The side-by-side comparison would have been more
> meaningful if it was from a developer *other* than Electronic Arts. More
> than any other publisher, they tend to port games from the dominant system
> to the competition without attempting to optimize/enhance them.
>
>
| |
| wadner 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| Well there is no rumble in the PS3 controller so it loses right there.
It doesn't matter how pretty the game is.
On Jan 21, 4:49 pm, "RMZ" <Jeremy.De...@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> What if you performed side by side XBox 360 and PS3 game comparisons.
>
> GameSpot did just that (screen shots are included):http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-5.html
>
> And the final verdict:
> "...The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we
> examined. "
>
> So what went wrong with the PS3? What about cell technology being "a
> super computer in terms of processing power" and all the other hype
> talk Sony spewed to the press throughout 2006? Bill Gates comments at
> CES gives us a hint. This is a few weeks old, but a very good point
> that everyone except Microsoft somehow missed. "....Sony started
> earlier but "burned a year" trying to make the Cell processor do
> graphics functions. When it didn't work, Sony went to a fall back plan
> by tapping Nvidia for the graphics chip at the last minute. But NVIDIA
> doesn't do DRAM". What Bill is telling you is that with PS3, Sony
> didn't ship the system they promised consumers. That's why you're
> seeing better graphics in these comparison shots on the XBox 360.
>
> Porting a game from one console to another isn't rocket science, the
> game developers use the dev kits supplied to them by the vendors, then
> they scale the quality of the graphics (textures, 3D models, etc..) and
> other visual details according to what the hardware can perform
> graphically while being mindful of the performance they require.
>
> If the games GameSpot compares here were identical on both systems then
> the argument could be made that the PS3' versions are just ports of the
> 360 titles and could not be enhanced further. but that's not the
> case... In most cases, except for the Golf title we're seeing the PS3
> fails to match the 360 titles and we're talking about Electronic Arts,
> one of the most respected game publishers in the industry. EA's
> developers know what they are doing, they represent some of the best
> talent in the industry.
>
> So if you break down the PS3, we have a system with a lot of extra
> bells and whistles that drive the cost way up, but it can't even match
> the 360 in terms of gaming experience on these EA titles. That's
> something to really consider before buying a PS3.
| |
| boodybandit 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169655183.116556.246450@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Well there is no rumble in the PS3 controller so it loses right there.
> It doesn't matter how pretty the game is.
People don't realize just how much rumble affects the immersion level of a
game until the play one without it.
I noticed it when I hit the ground after my very first jump in the
Motorstorm demo on the PS3.
| |
| TheLightsAreOn 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
| "boodybandit" <boodybandit@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:G5qdne1sxe74kifYnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@suscom.com:
quote:
>
> "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169655183.116556.246450@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> People don't realize just how much rumble affects the immersion level
> of a game until the play one without it.
> I noticed it when I hit the ground after my very first jump in the
> Motorstorm demo on the PS3.
>
>
>
In 90% of the games I play, I turn the rumble off because it is so badly
implemented.
|
| |
|
|