Which gaming platform is always ahead in terms of graphics?


Recommended Posts

The only way a current generation game or next generation game will look better on a console is if you're PC is not upto the task; if it has an old processor or mid range graphics card.

So, if you want the absolute best looking graphics, and money is not a real problem, go the PC route! :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/font][/color]

IMO, I personally feel they are tied. The PS3 has a stellar CPU that exceeds the Xbox 360 by leaps and bounds. However, it's the graphics card and the split memory architecture that prevent it from using it's potential. If the graphics card were as good as the 360 graphics card, and had the single pool of RAM, the PS3 would smoke the 360 in the end.

But as it stands, the 3 core CPU, while not nearly on the same level as the cell, ain't no slouch. Topped off with the free AA of the edram, the single pool of memory and the better graphics card, I feel that they are achieving the same abilities.

To me, the PS3 is like a nice new 2009 Corvette ZR1 with 638hp, but restricted to only 500hp because GM decided to go from the dual exhaust starting at the headers, down to one pipe, to a catalytic converter, then back out to dual exhaust (GM didn't really do that). The PS3 has the potential of the full 638hp, but other restrictions are preventing it from being used.

The 360 on the other hand is a new 2009 Corvette Z06 with 500hp, with no restrictions because the dual exhaust from the headers all the way back to the mufflers are 2 open opens with a catalytic converter on each pipe.

The PS3 normally should wallop the 360, but I hate to say it, but it has some bottlenecks preventing it from using all of it's CPU resources.

Best graphics? I will use Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 as an example of my feelings on the subject. Killzone 2 IMO is the best looking shooter on consoles to date for single player and online. However, Killzone 2 does not have split screen nor co-op. It is also very linear. Even the developers stated that they didn't do co-op/split screen because they didn't want to tax the graphics.

Gears of War 2 is not as good looking as Killzone 2 in single player nor online. However, Gears of War 2 has split screen and co-op. Epic took a tax on the graphics to be able to offer those multiplayer features. But the game still looks damn good.

Had KZ2 came out with splitscreen and co-op, I believe it would have been on par with Gears of War. Had Gears of War been released without splitscreen and co-op, I think Gears of War would have looked just as good as Killzone 2.

I think the CPU in the PS3 give it some advantages in physics (floating debris, better HDR) as well as in res (more 1080p games), but I think the 360 graphics card and unified ram give it better textures, and that combination with the 3 core can give it better AI.

This is my educated guess and opinion. If people disagree that is cool. I am happy to agree to disagree.

You are talking too much sense in there. This is not how PS3vs360 arguments work. biggrin.gif

In all seriousness I can make a similar case for Halo3. People like to complain that its graphics are subpar/bland etc etc. but they don't realize how well they scale for 2player or 4player co-op or how large the levels are. Gears of War2 has better graphics than Halo3 but then levels are somewhat smaller and there is not much stuff doing things on the screen compared to Halo3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beginning to end, thanks for the epic lawlz. Hell, I'll even give you a Pity Rep Point. With comments like that, you'll need it.

It was stated correctly the first time around. "PC>PS3>360>Wii"

Sorry, the Xenos GPU on the 360 is just plain superior to the RSX. Better fillrate, higher pixel shading power, higher vertex shading power, you get 4xAA virtually for free which is often very expensive on the PS3. Add to that that it is much easier to take advantage of those capabilities than those of the PS3, and it's obvious why most games look better on the 360.

If you're just going to answer with laughter and pity, what are you doing on a discussion forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the Xenos GPU on the 360 is just plain superior to the RSX. Better fillrate, higher pixel shading power, higher vertex shading power, you get 4xAA virtually for free which is often very expensive on the PS3. Add to that that it is much easier to take advantage of those capabilities than those of the PS3, and it's obvious why most games look better on the 360.

If you're just going to answer with laughter and pity, what are you doing on a discussion forum?

Multiplatform games don't push consoles to their limits, exclusives do, and in terms of exclusives no ones going to argue against KZ2 or Uncharted 2, or even GT5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiplatform games don't push consoles to their limits, exclusives do, and in terms of exclusives no ones going to argue against KZ2 or Uncharted 2, or even GT5.

Maybe, but exclusives are a weak comparison point given that most games are multiplatform, and it's harder to compare exclusives given that they're completely unique games on each platform.

Besides, multiplatform games don't push the PS3 to its limits, granted, but that's much less true of the PC and Xbox 360.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but exclusives are a weak comparison point given that most games are multiplatform, and it's harder to compare exclusives given that they're completely unique games on each platform.

Besides, multiplatform games don't push the PS3 to its limits, granted, but that's much less true of the PC and Xbox 360.

Exclusives are always what produce the best results out of a console, they're the best comparison points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exclusives are always what produce the best results out of a console, they're the best comparison points.

Yes I had kinda got that, and replied to it:

- they are not representative of the quality of most games on that platform

- they are hard to compare given they are completely unique games.

- this is mainly true of the PS3, several multiplatform games push the PC and 360 close to their limits (such as Fallout 3, which looked like crap on PS3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I had kinda got that, and replied to it:

- they are not representative of the quality of most games on that platform

- they are hard to compare given they are completely unique games.

- this is mainly true of the PS3, several multiplatform games push the PC and 360 close to their limits (such as Fallout 3, which looked like crap on PS3).

Developers issues with the hardware does not = how powerful the hardware is.

Which is why I keep saying exclusives will always show you what piece of hardware can push boundaries further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiplatform games don't push consoles to their limits, exclusives do, and in terms of exclusives no ones going to argue against KZ2 or Uncharted 2, or even GT5.

I agree....why would anyone argue those. I would hope that people don't argue Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, Alan Wake or Forza 2. Those all together in that elite category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developers issues with the hardware does not = how powerful the hardware is.

I thought this was common knowledge, f that, its common sense. Which is why I didn't even bother with arguing with the guy and just found his arguments amusing.

So just cause multi-released games tend to push pc/360 to their limits, the fact that ps3's exclusives tend to showcase its own limits makes its games irrelevant to comparison? Even if they look better. Another Pity Point? ...nahhhh :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developers issues with the hardware does not = how powerful the hardware is.

But we're not talking about how powerful the hardware is, we're talking about "Which gaming platform is always ahead in terms of graphics", which translates into "on which platform do games usually look better". Saying that the PS3 has some of the best-looking games, or that the cause of multiplatform titles generally being inferior on PS3 is caused by developer issues rather than the hardware, doesn't answer the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're not talking about how powerful the hardware is, we're talking about "Which gaming platform is always ahead in terms of graphics", which translates into "on which platform do games usually look better". Saying that the PS3 has some of the best-looking games, or that the cause of multiplatform titles generally being inferior on PS3 is caused by developer issues rather than the hardware, doesn't answer the question.

How can you translate a sentence that is in perfect English into something else? :laugh:

The PS3 is ahead in terms of graphics, what Sony's 1st party studios are cranking out is better than what MS' are, and 3rd parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PS3 is ahead in terms of graphics, what Sony's 1st party studios are cranking out is better than what MS' are, and 3rd parties.

In your opinion, yes. Not everyone agrees though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your opinion, yes. Not everyone agrees though.

Not everyone will agree on anything but I've failed to play anything on the 360 as graphically on par with KZ2 or UC2, so I have some backing to my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you translate a sentence that is in perfect English into something else? :laugh:

The PS3 is ahead in terms of graphics, what Sony's 1st party studios are cranking out is better than what MS' are, and 3rd parties.

So "being ahead in terms of graphics" and "having the two best-looking games" is the same to you? That's like saying that a certain CPU is better than the other because it wins a certain benchmark by a wide margin while getting beaten in all others. You're being selective, that's all. If you look at all titles released across these platforms since their release, the visual quality has generally been superior on the 360. That's the fairest benchmark of "graphical advancement" you can make and it's the only one I'll stand by. If someone wants to buy a title and wonders on which platform it looks better, it probably looks best on PC, next 360, next PS3, and next Wii. There are exceptions (including titles that look worse on PC) but that has been by far the most common case and you know it. Saying the PS3 is ahead is nothing short of misleading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "being ahead in terms of graphics" and "having the two best-looking games" is the same to you? That's like saying that a certain CPU is better than the other because it wins a certain benchmark by a wide margin while getting beaten in all others. You're being selective, that's all. If you look at all titles released across these platforms since their release, the visual quality has generally been superior on the 360. That's the fairest benchmark of "graphical advancement" you can make and it's the only one I'll stand by. If someone wants to buy a title and wonders on which platform it looks better, it probably looks best on PC, next 360, next PS3, and next Wii. There are exceptions (including titles that look worse on PC) but that has been by far the most common case and you know it. Saying the PS3 is ahead is nothing short of misleading.

Yes because the question is "what's ahead in terms of graphics" not "what's ahead in terms of graphics on average amongst every title released on the platform".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like your misleading interpretation is the obvious one without actually arguing your point or responding to those I make, so I'll not discuss this any further, it's pointless. :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like your misleading interpretation is the obvious one without actually arguing your point or responding to those I make, so I'll not discuss this any further, it's pointless. :pinch:

Fine by me, It's not like I really care, it's just funny that no one will respond with something better looking than KZ2 or UC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone will agree on anything but I've failed to play anything on the 360 as graphically on par with KZ2 or UC2, so I have some backing to my opinion.

And others have backing to their opinions that don't match yours. Some of us have failed to play anything on the PS3 that isn't graphically on par with KZ2 and UC2.

Fine by me, It's not like I really care, it's just funny that no one will respond with something better looking than KZ2 or UC2.

I have already responded to that. Killzone 2 is the best looking shooter because it doesn't have split screen or co-op. Gears of War 2 is the best looking shooter with split screen and co-op. Both titles are of equal graphical status in the end. I find Mass Effect 2 to be just as good looking as UC2, when you consider the map sizes, 30,000+ dialog lines, and 3 characters you control. Where Mass Effect 2 fails in debris physics compared to UC2, it makes up for it in textures.

You have to look at why a game is perceived to be better looking. Both platforms have put out equally good looking titles, with neither system offering one that is better than the other.

Again, IMO. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killzone 2 isn't that impressive when you consider all the blur, black / grey colour palette and whatnot just to mask the 2D backgrounds and extremely low resolution textures.

See beyond that and the game is all about masking instead of raw power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.