Small changes and better looking graphics on the 360 are the highlights.
Let the fanboy wars begin... ... again.
Is it the hardware? Is it the developers? Is it a fake? What type of ammo will the fanboys use?
boiled ham and beans
Maybe we should give odds. i'm giving 3-1 that we are going to see someone create their own screenshot comparison using links to a magazine's pictures. They won't bother doing shot-for-shot, but they'll show shot a from console b and say 'LOOK, LOOK how this P0wnz anything on console C' 2-1 will be the "Developers haven't figured out how to use the system" followed by the "they have had just as much development time" rebuttal 1-1 says that we'll get the usual "Console A rocks. If console B is so good why aren't you playing Game x or waiting in line to buy it." Did I miss anything
I would have thought the ps3 version would have won because it had 1 year more of dev time and it was also rr7 asopposed to the xbox 360s rr6.
Could've sworn RR7 looks better than RR6...
I agree,RR7 is looks better than RR6.
I would have thought that R7 on the ps3 would look better than R6 from a year ago on the 360. I guess the proof is in the pudding. From the screen shots of the same section of the game the 360's year old version looks much better than the ps3's new version. Common sense told me that games released at the same time would look better on the 360 in just about every case. But I assumed that a game that is the next in the series and exclusive to the ps3 would look better. But nope. But it could be that R7 is in 1080p. Which, if it is, would be why there isn't as much graphical fidelity. As Sony has said at TGS...."In most cases the 720p games look better than the 1080p games". Well, anyone who has bought a 360 or intends to this christmas, has made the absolute right choice in a next gen video game console. Thanks Microsoft.
"Thanks Microsoft" You're welcome.
OMG! i seriously hope that people don't take this to be a genuine PS3/360 comparison.
How many games does it take! lol, it's the third game this month not counting this one although it might be fake. Dev's are coming out of the closet telling the world the truth. You know Devs will probly add extra effects and detail with ports, they have that choice with the 360.
Dev's will have a harder time working with the limited available resources the PS3 has. PS3 and the 360 will go down their own evolutionary paths with the PS3 going down the path of large games with fun gamplay with CGI mixed gameplay and the 360 going down the path with high Quality graphics advanded skill based gamplay and games built for online.
COD 3 in 60 fps with rumble, or in 30 fps without rumble? Hard choice if you're a retard.
It's just the non-depth of color and poor black deepness and poor lighting rAnge and that piss yellow haze in all PS3 tittles with true to life art(non Anime)looks bad for Sony.
I don't know. I believe that both consoles are capable of generating good HD graphics. And as much as I like to trigger Sony's fanboys I don't think this pictures are real. This would be an insult to the PS3 and I know the PS3 can do better than this. If this is true, Namco was lazy... Sucks! I refuse to believe this is real. Why! Why! Why! ok... now back to Gears of War.
Dev's will have to choose wisely with PS3's abundent capablities. The PS3 almost has all the same amount goodies when it comes to the graphical specs but it can't dissplay as much as the 360 at any given time, that's why Dev's say games like Prey and GoW! cant be done on PS3 not enough memory for detail is one thing but lacking in it so much where devs can't even produce the true to life graphics 360's coming out with would of hurt Sony bad! if it wasn't for 1080p to fool the brain in thinking clearer means better graphics.
Since when does the ps3 have less memory available for the gpu? Last time I checked they both had 512MB. And could you give me a link to where a dev actually says that Gears can't be made to run on a ps3 (don't give me the one where the blogger takes the quote from a dev about how it can't run on a 256MB machine and sticks it in after he poses the question to imply that a dev actually said that, when in reality the interview with the dev had nothing to do with ps3).
Additionally, PS3 games seem to have far more onscreen at one time than 360 games as a general rule...
Your in denial buddy. Just get your ps3 and you will get what you deserve in your overpriced console. You have been on this site long enought to see quotes from the developers of Prey and Gears of War. They both say their games are not possible on the ps3. You are so full of it. Just run to Target and witness for yourself that the ps3 is inferior. Its playable buddy. And Motorstorm is a joke and Nba07 is horrible. And once again. There have been many many articles posted stating that the ps3's split ram cannot ALL be allocated for graphics. You have to jump through programing loops for a less than optimal gain. And even then you can't use all of the ps3's ram. Sony split the ram because the Cell processor needs it to work. So there is no way all 512 ram can be used for textures or graphics. Sony carefully words the split ram when they talk about it. Sony says that developers can access all the ram.....And thats true. Just not all for textures or graphics. How many developers do you need to say this before you get it? All you have to do is look at Resistance compared to COD3 for the 360. There is no comparisson. The textures on Resistance are muddy and dull. The detail in COD3 and frame rate is stunning. I won't even mention GOW. Because every reviewer on the Planet has stated that no ps3 game even comes close to the level of detail. So you can be in denial all you want. There has been over 10 articles posted about this very topic with devs stating that the ps3 can't use all 512 ram for graphics. Your only rebutle is that Sony has stated that devs can access all the ram. ha ha ha ha. Thats common sense. The ram is there for a reason. 256 dedicated for graphics and 256 dedicated to the cell and system ram. WOW. Bad move by sony using the cell. Thanks Microsoft.
"And Motorstorm is a joke" i think you're the first person that's said that. weird. even the most diehard 360 fanboys concede that Motorstorm looks gorgeous and cool. its also weird that you refer to Resistance and it's "muddy and dull" graphics, but say nothing about the fact that at least one site's review crew gave it a higher score than both COD 2 and COD 3, and only 1/3 of a point lower than the 360 golden-child GOW. sure, Resistance is about the only worth-while game in the PS3's launch lineup, but what system has ever launched with many worth-while games? initial PS3 games may not look $200 better than 360 games, but they are hardly sub-360 in quality, as this comparison tries to imply.
You're a moron if you believe that the devs can't access all the RAM. Your claims are about as dumb as if I was to say that the 360's cpu can't access its RAM because it isn't directly connected to it, and that this necessarily means the 360 will have worse physics, ai, particle effects,etc. And the 360 can't exactly use 512MB of RAM for textures either, there are other things that use system RAM. I'd also appreciate a link, just one, where a developer makes the claims that the ps3 gpu can't use the RAM, or that Gears couldn't be made to run on a ps3. Since there are apparently 10 of them that wouldn't be asking much.
And you're funny Topgamer. You know very well why PS3 doesn't use 512 ram for graphics... and neither X360. Cpu need some too. You say RSX can use only 256 textures and the games look almost the same?? What? Does PS3 have something magical texture ram in it?? Or are you saying RSX is more powerfull that graphics card in X360?? Oh yeah, there's still that 60fps1080p difference... Why you and other Xbots need to compare whole time GOW to PS3 titles?? Whole year and thats what you got? One boring game, with detailed characters. Sure, let's make Recistance also 4 vs. 4 game. Oh my god how much better than GOW it would look. Or lets put only 4 cars in Motorstorm and take away terrain formation, physics and sh1t.
PS3 skies look nicer.
What do you think of the PS3's Cell architecture? How much harder is it for developers to write asymmetric multiprocessing code that will run on the PPE and the SPE's? How difficult will it be to port code that is tuned for the Cell over to the 360 while maintaining good performance? Do you think Sony made the architecture complex deliberately to make porting that way harder, or were they just trying to get maximum performance out of their system? I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe. Some aspects of the SPEs, such as the lack of branch prediction, make them particularly unsuited to running most game code, which contains a lot of branches. They appear to be designed more for serialized streaming math code, more common in video codecs and audio processing, the traditional domain of digital signal processing chips. The memory architecture of the SPEs, specifically their lack of automatic cache coherency in favor of DMA transactions, seems like a lot of overhead is needed to feed work units to the SPEs and copy the results back to system memory. The PPE appears to be essentially identical to one of the Xbox 360 cores, except without the VMX128 enhancements and with half the cache. However, a much greater assortment of work has to be crammed into this single core—all of the game loop, all of the rendering commands, and the system allegedly takes over some time as well. Only the second and third cores on Xbox 360 use a small timeslice to provide cool stuff like the Guide, music playback, Dolby Digital encoding, and more things that we can add in the future to all games, past and present. I think porting from Xbox 360 to PS3 will be reasonably difficult, since the Xbox 360 has a lot more general purpose processing power that can be flexibly reallocated, and all of the Xbox 360 CPU cores have equal access to all memory. The asymmetric nature of the Cell could easily lead to situations where the game has too little of one type of processing power and too much of another. And the content might suffer as well, since you'll never see a PS3 title with more than 256MB of textures at any given time, due to the split graphics and system memory banks. When we announced 512MB of unified memory on Xbox 360, I think all of our game developers (and the artists too) did a little happy dance. It's easier to use and gives developers much more flexibility in how they allocate memory for various resources. In terms of performance, I think that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 will essentially be a wash. We ran the numbers a while back and the two systems come up surprisingly close in theoretical peak performance, despite the one year difference in release dates. However, I know for a fact that we have a great advantage in software and services—our development environment and tools are years ahead of the competition, and this will ensure that Xbox 360 game developers can easily realize all of this performance and make superior games. Xbox 360 is a great system to develop on, a real pleasure—and I believe our developers agree. http://arstechnica.com/arti... So, with all the ps3's floating point processing and its measily 256k ram for graphics....if developers put in a ton of work,sweat, and blood and MONEY...they can get games to look good. But 3rd party devs will continue to stuggle and 1st party devs will always be a few steps behind 360 developers. It is what it is. I'm sorry if the truth dissappoints you and your hopes for the ps3. It will have great games. But clearly the 360 is the next gen video game system to beat....And Sony will from this point on be fighting and up hill battle. Once again....Go to Target and play the ps3 for yourself. I, and many other gamers there this weekend was NOT impressed one bit. Motorstorm was the one game I thought would be fun. The demo wasn't folks. And I have seen ONE game on the ps3 that rivals the games I have been playing on the 360 for just about a year. The reviews that are coming in speak for themselves. Sure Resistance got a 9.1 from IGN. That puts it right with a few of the 360 launch titles from a year ago according to IGN. I personally after reading the review...came to the conclusion it was a simpathy score from IGN. They gave the lasting apeal a 9.5 due to the online multiplayer and from I have read...the online network isn't even fully up and running yet. Hmmmmmm....Its clearly the game to get for the ps3 if you get a ps3. But its not a system seller. I have seen it running in person. It looks on par with COD2 from last year on the 360. But it doesn't compare to COD3 or Gears of War or even Prey for that matter. The textures on the walls and ground are sub par. You will all see soon enough. Its clearly not worth the price of admission in my opinion. But it is what it is. A Good game but not quite up to snuff with what the 360 has been doing for a year now.
my left testicle that you didn't understand a word you just copy pasted.
Could you please give a link that isn't from a Microsoft employee? Also, could you give the links that I asked for, not this other link. "In this interview, Matt Lee attempts to present a more technical look into the PS3 compared to Xbox360. He is definitely on the development side to things so I assume he holds enough completely knowledge of computer hardware and what hardware means to software. He’s written DopeWars, worked on an MMO for PC called Mythica, and straight from there moved to the Game Technology Group in Microsoft where he now advises other developers on how to write efficient code for Xbox360. Matt was asked at some point during the interview to explain the Xbox360 architecture. I have already familiarized you with the Xbox360 architecture but you should compare it to his. In this section he made note about AltiVec(VMX-12 instruction set because he was asked to explain it. Matt answered and mentioned some of the additions to the VMX-128 instruction set which were either specific to Direct3D. He also said that the best way to multithread a game has not been decided yet. When asked about if the Xbox360 hardware had anything to help accelerate physics, Matt pointed out the VMX-128 instruction first, then fell back to the symmetrical cores, 6 hardware threads to spread out the code, unified memory architecture, and even goes further to say the GPU could be used to accelerate physics because it is a math monster and architected reasonably well to handle general purpose calculations. After saying this about his hardware, he had more to say about the PS3 when asked about it: When asked about the Cell architecture he specifically says the Cell isn’t designed for gaming as much as Sony would have us believe and immediately focuses on the SPEs. He attacks it for not having branch prediction – which is true, but when you look at the stream/SIMD/vector processing paradigm, branches are rare. Whenever it can’t be avoided, the SPEs have minimal hardware to allow software hints to avoid the penalties of doing so. It seems to me that IBM/Sony/Toshiba went out on a limb to make sure the SPEs did what they needed while avoiding things that cause performance hits. He also says that the SPEs are poorly suited to run most game code – wait a second, define “most game code” for us Matt. On the screen, general-purpose code takes up the most volume and even takes up the most space in memory. But in execution time, most game code isn’t general purpose and branch heavy. Additionally, the 8 operational cores of the Cell, with 2 threads on one core provides for more thread space for parallelizing games. But I guess he forgot to give Playstation 3 the same consideration after mentioning the space to spread code across 3 cores. He then says(in typical MS fashion) a line similar to “it can only do this” and points out that the SPEs are only good for serialized streaming math code that digital signal processors typically do. He may be right in what it is good for, but he is wrong if he thinks it is the only thing they are good for. Use your own judgment on what the SPEs are good for by understanding what they do, and understanding the things developers have processors do to solve them. His next attack goes at the memory architecture (local store) of the SPEs and he says the lack of automatic cache coherency (traditional cache behavior) seems as if it would cause a lot of overhead to work with, having to copy results to system memory through DMA transactions. The problem with this statement is that he is restricting the operational nature of the SPEs to writing results of computations to system memory. This is far from the truth as it isn’t by any means a necessary action SPEs have to take and is less than optimal in many situations as all 7 SPEs and PPEs would be sharing 25.6GB/s bandwidth. An approach that works far better is using the most out of the element to element communication bandwidth on the EIB, and only accessing system memory when necessary. SPEs are also likely to output data to other input/output devices such as the graphics card, sound hardware, or to other elements to use in a typical game scenario. Writing out to system memory for communication and processing game data is merely the easiest approach in developer’s eyes as it changes the information passing approach to information sharing which is automatic. The fact of the matter is that the SPE local storage has the speed of a traditional cache, but requires manual control. This makes it harder to use, but allows the execution speed to be deterministic and constant and could possibly even exceed the efficiency of a traditional cache if it used that way purely. Assuming there is no need for this level of control, developers can fall back to letting compiler or middleware tools handle the SPE local storage for them. Matt then moves focus to the PPE and says that the Cell lacks the VMX-128 enhancements. That is true, but why does he isolate that part of the Cell and ignore over 40% of the Cell’s die space? Considering the SPE instruction set is dedicated to vector processing, and is considered a superset of the functionality provided in VMX, the SPEs could be called a VMX enhancement too. It just breaks compatibility and goes down it’s own path for accomplishing the goals. The difference is like apples and oranges - except there are 7 SPEs, and 3 VMX-128 enhanced units. He also quickly mentions that the single PPE in the Cell has half of the cache size, but fails to mention that Xbox360 is splitting this cache with 3 cores that do not have explicit control over the cache coherency. If the Xbox360 cores were actually running independent threads working on independent data, the behavior of the cache would be very unstable and each core would need to take an piece of the pie – dividing the cache size by 3. The Cell’s PPE is the only consumer of it L2 cache unless access is granted through the PPE’s execution. Additionally, each SPE has its own cache speed memory. I’m failing to see how on chip memory is actually a limitation for the Cell, but not for the XBox360. I guess the Xbox360 advantage needs to be qualified as 512kb of extra automatic cache. Whatever that means next to the extra 1280kb of total on-chip memory in the Cell is up to the developer’s ability to put it to good use. He also says that all of the “work” has to be crammed onto the PPE in addition to the base PS3 functionality that will be available anywhere. The only “work” that has to crammed on the PPE is the work developers feel is better suited to run there rather than the SPEs. Rendering commands by far don’t have to come from the PPE as any core inside the Cell has equal access to other elements inside the Cell and out. Sending rendering commands is equivalent to any communication with the FlexIO bus. Additionally, he doesn’t know where the system level functionality were the console is placed, and the last official indication of this is that an SPE is used for that purpose. Matt moves on and states that porting will be difficult (which is true – conversion from SIMD to general purpose and reverse and reconsidering how to use the bandwidth efficiently on both platforms). He says this in a manner which strongly implies that general purpose processing is what is needed and is more easily relocated inside the Xenon. I find it rather difficult to even concoct a reasonable scenario where relocating code between cores(keeping same thread pairings) provides any significant performance difference. Granted in the Cell, code may not be easily movable between an SPE and PPE, does it actually matter? One of the ugliest pieces of information Matt shares is related to the RSX. He was very direct in mentioning that the audience that actually cared about the 512MBs of shared memory was the developers, and it is important to note that this is the only audience that would care for this since it is as a matter of developer ease, and not performance gains. What he said that was completely wrong was the “you'll never see a PS3 title with more than 256MB of textures at any given time, due to the split graphics and system memory banks” comment. Perhaps he was thinking of the PC world where the bandwidth between system RAM and CPU and video RAM and GPU is in the single digit GB/s order of magnitude. Thus textures in system memory will make a game drag if they are accessed frame by frame. Unlike a PC, the Cell and RSX are able to communicate with 35GB/s bandwidth, and the Cell has 25.6GB/s bandwidth to its XDR RAM. This translates to 25.6GB/s bandwidth between the RSX and system memory. More importantly, this extra bandwidth is coming from a separate bus than video memory meaning that developers might actually want to do this intentionally to increase total bandwidth to the RSX. Rest assured, Matt and Microsoft’s insight is that developers will never want to have split memory banks because it’s just that much easier to share bandwidth and not have to consider the difference. I firmly believe in the causes of developer ease, but I also believe that when making a console to appeal to gamers through performance, hardware comes first. He finishes up his technical breakdown with his overall belief on the performance difference and calls it a “wash” due to theoretical peak performance numbers that Microsoft ran in the past. I think he is referring to that information in the previously mentioned IGN article which is rather skewed. When you compare theoretical peak processing performances, the Xbox360 is actually twice outdone in floating point operations and many other mathematical operations. I think he means to say that practical performance might be a wash if he anticipates developers will not take advantage of the Playstation 3’s power. Of course, Matt does make sure he states that Microsoft’s development tools a years ahead of the competition. This scale is in terms of ease of use as power in a development tool is hard to quantify and isn’t ultimately responsible for the quality of the code that comes out. Technically C# is 20 years ahead of C++ and 30 years ahead of C, but that doesn’t prevent C/C++ from doing all of the same things and possibly even more that their successors." http://ps3forums.com/showth... I can copy and paste too, btw. Specifically read that paragraph about having more than 256MB of textures at once.
TopGamer, whether with this sceenname or another, you have never once posted what you refer to as "facts" backed up by a single unbiased source, as fanboys(you included) on either side would want to put it. Every time someone that works for, or with, Sony has said something good about the PS3 you and others have jumped all over it saying its inherently biased, but then go and use Microsoft sponsored articles or interviews with Microsoft as an uniased source. Simply put this is hypocritical, and additionally the world does quite work that way. In reality next to no one on this site, and next to no one in the gaming community (note I'm not referring to the industry, but the community) understands tech specs at all, and yet they rant and rave on a daily basis as if they do, when it is ENTIRELY easy for any hardware company to manipulate what is presented to show what they want. I can assure you Microsoft has done this every time, just as I can assure you Sony has done the same. Likely each to similar degrees. Additionally, any developer is going to support what they prefer to work on and claim that is best, so listening to the dev's isn't necessarilly any better. Look at it this way, it'd be comercial suicide to "insult" the platform you are working on...I'd say its fairly evenly split as to dev's praising one console over the other, with the exception of online capabilities. Also, assuming the 360 OS takes up an equal ammount of RAM or more compared with that for the PS3, the PS3, as kmis87 pointed out is actually better of than the 360 when it comes to RAM because the RSX can access its dedicated 256 just as fast as the 360 GPU can, while accessing the Cell's dedicated 256 at a higher bandwidth. Sony has never stated, and neither has any dev I might add, that a special workaround is needed. This has just been assumed, but considering that Sony explicitly stated from the beginning that this sort of communication was their goal, from a hardware perspective it doesn't make any sense to think that its at all complicated, or non optimal. In fact, its better from a performance point of view to have it organized this way than for the CPU to constantly have to route its data through the GPU whether to read or write from the RAM. When its all said and done though, none of this matters and ammounts to nothing more than posturing by people looking to validate a several hundred dollar purchase they made (this applies to both sides). Why don't you stop with your holier than thou attidue towards anyone that happens to be supporting the PS3 and accept that people will enjoy their PS3 when they get one. That applies conversely to anyone trying to imply that its impossible to enjoy playing the 360 as well.
I'm not sure where this guy get's his info, but he sounds pretty informed. He states that "When you speak to developers privately, they express a stunning level of frustration. Repeated delays in the delivery of online APIs, delays in coming-up with online testing kit, incomplete or missing libraries, promised features that are never delivered. The list goes on and on. They have to deal with the bloat of the OS, which eats up nearly 100 MB of memory (and one SPU), and provides very little functionality to the game. In comparison, the OS for the Xbox is rumored to only use up 3.5 MB." That only leaves 412MB for games, and if it's true that 64MB's are dedicated to the browser then that's 164MB's! Around 32% of the PS3's memory going to non-gaming functions. Again, don't know if this is true, but it's an interesting read. http://www.innerbits.com/bl...
Have you ever worked on programming for the PS3 or the 360? You seem to be well advised and I am just curious.
nambo, if I'm not mistaken, the 64 MB used is the only thing reserved while a game is in use, its not specifically for the browser, its for the operating system and is used primarily by the browser when not in a game.
i dont know which is real but i am assuming that this is the real one but i dont know http://boardsus.playstation...
sony fan boys are comin out the wood work and putting xbox back in there place! Anyway my i think if the 360 is tht good why they playing it!!!!
Holy SH*Y! 27 comments! i dont know if it's worth reading all the Sony fans gripes. PS3 games will never look better than 360 games, get over it!. All you'll get with the PS3 are maybe slighty more things blowing in the wind in games; cloths that move a little more realalisticlly a few more rocks bouncing around a little longer from explosions but with that same explosion PS3 will have a little more lower textured rocks bouncing around a little longer and the 360 will have fewer more detailed rocks nocking out near by windows. But really if the games are fun what does it matter.
it's ridge racer, who cares??!!
360 version looks better. Hell xbox1 looked better than PS2 and half you guys could care less. For $600 you get worse graphics?
oh god, what idiots! everyone know that ridge racer 7 looks far better than ridge racer 6 on xbox. everyone can take some fake pictures and invent bs. go to a shop an look at the game on the ps3 and on the xbox360 and you will see that the ps3 version is 1000 times better. xbots are totally morons!
How old are you 10? and yes you are Achira.
In denial...Even if Ken Kutaragi told you that the PS3 has worse graphics than the 360 you would'nt believe him. You'd probably kill him and go: "He was a clone! He was fake!?", until you believed it.
let's all ask Kaz Hirai which one he prefers. I'd guess he likes Ridge Racer alot more than everybody on this site. "Riiiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaaaaaaaaceeeeeeeeerrrrrrr r!"
I think that is a PS3 screen shot, just not HD. On the 1up show they showed the difference in the graphics for Ridge Racer 7 on a normal TV VS a high definition TV. The screen shots here for the PS3 look like the standard definition pics from that web cast. Check it out. http://www.1up.com/do/newsS...
STOP POSTING ARTICLES AND GO TO BESTBUY i DID YESTERDAY WHEN I BOUGHT MY HD-DVD PLAYER WHICH IS AMAZING BY THE WAY i PLAYED MOTORSTORM i SAW NBA AND THE GRAPHICS STINK PERIOD, AT FIRTST THE GRAPHICS ARE BIG AND MAKE YOU LOOK AND THE CAMERA MOVES NICE BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT IT AND SEE BAD BAD TEXTURES, MOUNTAINS LOOK AWEFUL, GROUND TEXTURES LOOK LIKE PS3 AND NBA IS JUST COMPLETE GARBAGE WITH A HICCUP FOR A CAMERA, SO THERES NO EXCUSE NOW GOT TO BESTBUY AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES, STOP SAYING YOU KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL YOU GO TO BESTBUY AND LOOK WITH YOUR OWN EYES, BYT THE WAY BESTBUY IN ASTORIA QUEENS ON ORTHEN BLVD HAD PS3 RIGHT NEXT TO GOW ON 360 AND OH MY GOD DOES THE PS3 GAMES LOOK AWEFUL COMPARED TO IT. Like i said at first you will be like wow ps3 motorstorm lookd nice until you actually walk up to it and see that its real bad.
while your comment might be a nice one, please dont type in all caps. PLEASE!
Who keeps letting this guy talk? It's ridiculous to say that the 360 has superior graphics...like it is to say the PS2 has superior graphics to the xbox. What the frick is wrong with you??? You're in worse denial than dc rider. Lay off the sauce...
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but as of right now, the 360 has better graphics. That may change this Friday, but wake up and smell the chainsaw exhaust.
the only people living in deniel r the sony fanatics . we have had a good few compared now and 360 looks better . live with it sony fans
Probably traffic, but someone post the images somewhere else?
http://img296.imageshack.us... Check those. Ho, weird, RR7 looks nicer.
Actually in your link the PS3 screen is at the bottom (top right hand corner of bottom pic screen says PS3), so Ride Racer 6 looks better than Ridge Racer 7. The 360 version has better lighting, water, textures, etc... http://boardsus.playstation... As you can see the 360 pic in the link above matches the more colorfule pic in the top of your link. PS3 got PWNED.
actually deceased, those are both pics of RR7 on PS3, one in 720p and one in 1080p as demonstrated on another article on this site... http://www.news4gamers.com/...
Call of Duty 3, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 8, Ridge Racer, all look and run better on the 360. I am glad I own a 360!!! http://www.wii60.com/videog...
From that pic alone i dont know which is 360 which is ps3, one is sharper and one is more colorful, but both look like crap.
Denial, Denial, denial. It will take more than a picture to cure them of thier fanboyish disease. Seems like everybody is pulling links from everywhere like its suppose to stop the flaming. Fanboys will only read or comprehend what they want to even if it may be the truth. "The truth" always seems to be a mystery to them, like they just don't understand...hehe Thats what happens when your promised and lied to over and over again. The truth is right here in front of us and its like the third game..that's all I have to say about that. As a gamer I don't care what little time dev have had to make a game. I demand the goods for my hard earned money. Ofcourse looks are not all that important after all its all about the gameplay right? But if your going to shell out $600 for the PS3 you better bring the goods. I'm not buying re-hashed trash.
Is no one disturbed at the fact that RR7 for the PS3 has the exact same maps as RR6 for the X360? Could it be that it's just a port of RR6 with "polished up" graphics and most likely worse online gameplay?
Well, how polished up are the ps3 rr7 graphics when the 360's look better???
I'm on the fence on which version looks better (that's why I put the polished comment in quotes), which is disturbing because RR7 had almost a year to improve over RR6. I think the 360 version is brighter, and more vivid, but the PS3 seems to have a bit more detail in some areas, not all. Some areas of the 360 version has more detail. Again, if this is just a port of RR6, than Sony fans should be angry.
Judging by the links posted above.. the 360 comes out on top with more detailed textures and lighting. Even if they were the same, I would be pissed as a sony fan because of the extra development time on several titles and they are inferior or just on par with 360 titles. Then add that the 360 versions have online features (TH8, Virtua Tennis, ...).
as a guage of which is better.show me one link that says that rr6 looks better than rr7?ign?gamespot?everyone who saw rr7 running in 1080p at 60fps said it was buttery smooth and great to look at."SHOW ME SOME LINKS" as some would say.here's one for you: http://www.gamepro.com/game... here's another: http://game-science.com/200... and another more balanced view from ign stating it has visual upgrades and better color: http://ps3.ign.com/articles... the game looks good.end of story.if you had the 360 version,it might not be a visual blast.for those who are upgrading from ps2,you're going to love it if you like arcade style racing.
Straight from a PS3 website for your own viewing pleasure. http://boardsus.playstation... Top is the 360 version with AA and HDR, the bottom pic is the ps3 version without HDR, because it can't do AA and HDR at the same time. Also note in RR6 the #'s are blue like the top pic, RR7 for the PS3 doesn't have that. http://img296.imageshack.us... Link to video proving the PS3 version is the one with the weak and ugly textures compared to the older 360 version. http://www.gamebrink.com/fo... PS3 got PWNED!!! http://www.wii60.com/videog...
But for 1yr additional developement time.. RR7 is pretty much RR6.5... From the links you provided, it states that use same maps, and just some updaded textures (which I think 360s look more detailed). RR7 definately does not show much improvement from 360s.
I can make any screenshot look worse than another. All I have to do is mess with my TV functions change color setting sharpness etc... and I can produce an xbox 360 shot that looks worse than the same xbox 360 box. Screen shots can be faked by both sides. Don't believe the hype. In-store Demos suck I was put off by by my Xbox 360 becuase the in-store demos simple didn't look good. Cheap tv's and settings that are not optimize for game playing made me second guess my purchase. Finally I got a Xbox 360. It was great on my old tv but recently purchase a brand new Mitsubishi DLP 1080p TV for $2700 and WOW! I suspect the same for PS3 as well. Best way to truly test your system is buy and take it home and actually play it on a better tv that you can easily adjust the controls for. I'm sorry that Sony brand lovers have to endure stupid comments from certain xbox 360 users most of us xbox 360 users don't support these immature and uneducated slanders. Its good to see Sony have a strong Launch line up. In my Opinion Xbox 360 pretty much just had Call of Duty and that was it (Madden was pretty but game play lack depth; Didn't like Kameo's gameplay or graphics) Now, what Sony fans need to do is compare how many quality games are out a year later compare to what the Xbox 360 had a year out from its launch. Its my belief that the one who got fooled the most by Sony was Microft. It force Microsoft to enter the market too early. Look what Microsoft brought the table this year - GOW which has no competition. Imagine what other games that were mediocre at launch had another year to perfect their games. MS would have owned this christmas season period. Also MS would have had a year to iron out any issues with the xbox 360 and build a surplus that would have blown Wii and Sony out of the Water. Basically if Microsoft actually had grown some and competed this christmas. They would have probably had a glitch free, massive global launch with multiple games that would have blown Sony out of the water graphically. Maybe even have added HD-DVD to the system internally and I bet could have done it for only $100 more still making cheaper than PS3 line-up. So what did we get? Crappy Game Launch lineup. Xbox 360 shortages. Xbox 360 hardware glitches... Eventually MS came through and polish the rough edges but we xbox 360 users are not a year ahead like we should be and I believe the Sony Side can still stomp us xbox 360 users. Ms needs to impress me at E3 to keep me from not buying a PS3 (probably will buy a PS3 anyway as I am blu-ray fan and a gamer-why buy a stand alone player that doesn't do games?) but Sony does have Unreal, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid, Tekken, Ninja Gaiden (hey it looks really good) the list is so big and unannounced titles I can't go on but you get the point it isn't weak. We are not out of the water yet xbox 360 users. By the way, Sony fans congrats on a so far pretty decent launch of PS3. Hope America's is as smooth! "We need more gamers not haters" Peace
It's going to become more and more noticable that the Xbox 360 has and will continue to have better gaming graphically speaking, it's just a given now, but that doesn't mean that sony and the ps3 won't have some great gaming b/c it will it's just not going to look as good, much like the ps2 v.s. Xbox games, yes, the Xbox was superior in graphics and game play etc.. but that didn't mean that the ps2 was a horrid console it's just that some people will alway's prefer one to another. Maybe based on the exclusives or something else. Regardless, it's up to us all, I prefer the mad skills of the Xbox 360 others may not. Either way it's all good.
I'm glad that Microsoft was better planned on the 360 and gave the Dev. all the time they needed to come out with great games. The fans and customers deserve it. If I'm going to buy a $60 game, it better not be half ass and better be worthy of the system. There are way to many games on the ps3 that are falling short of expectations and as a customer, I would not appreciate this one bit. If I'm going to put up $600 for the ps3 and about $60 a game, the games better be worth it. With all the delays, game cancellations, and games that are not equal to 360, it just shows that Microsoft is better prepared for the next generation.
And seen the PS3 in action and all i can say is Motorstorm is trash. I got mad hype in E3'05 when i saw the mud and dirt on the screen then to see this bullsh1t run is horrendous. Please People the Kiosk is in stores now please see for yourself. BTW is Was Playing GOW at my brother's house and He owns a SD TV with the VGA cable and that sh1t still looked better than anything PS3 had to offer right now. I guess most of these store want to sell more xbox's since they are in abundance and Easily attainable. Especially sitting next to PS3 with Gears Of War Showing People will buy them at a much reasonable price.
Ps3 is twice as powerfull as 360 Ps3 graphics will blow 360 away 360 is lame wait for ps3.. Its all changed now!!!! Come on if the ps3 games r a little bit better or worse i find sonys bullshxt insulting....Come on Sony fanboys u really did expect better, didnt you?? You never expected 360 to be just as good graphics wise and you certainly didnt expect alot of 360 games to look better than ps3.. Come on whos going to be the 1st Sony Ps3 fanboy to come out of their Sony TRANCE. Its not nice coming out from Hypnosis... Come on whos going to be the 1st fanboy to admit they aint just a little disappointed they r totally pissed off and shocked!!!!!
36 - Please People Dragonopolis - 2 Hours ago | Let him/her speak I can make any screenshot look worse than another. All I have to do is mess with my TV functions change color setting sharpness etc... and I can produce an xbox 360 shot that looks worse than the same xbox 360 box. Screen shots can be faked by both sides. Don't believe the hype. In-store Demos suck I was put off by by my Xbox 360 becuase the in-store demos simple didn't look good. Cheap tv's and settings that are not optimize for game playing made me second guess my purchase. Finally I got a Xbox 360. It was great on my old tv but recently purchase a brand new Mitsubishi DLP 1080p TV for $2700 and WOW! I suspect the same for PS3 as well. Best way to truly test your system is buy and take it home and actually play it on a better tv that you can easily adjust the controls for. I'm sorry that Sony brand lovers have to endure stupid comments from certain xbox 360 users most of us xbox 360 users don't support these immature and uneducated slanders. Its good to see Sony have a strong Launch line up. In my Opinion Xbox 360 pretty much just had Call of Duty and that was it (Madden was pretty but game play lack depth; Didn't like Kameo's gameplay or graphics) Now, what Sony fans need to do is compare how many quality games are out a year later compare to what the Xbox 360 had a year out from its launch. Its my belief that the one who got fooled the most by Sony was Microft. It force Microsoft to enter the market too early. Look what Microsoft brought the table this year - GOW which has no competition. Imagine what other games that were mediocre at launch had another year to perfect their games. MS would have owned this christmas season period. Also MS would have had a year to iron out any issues with the xbox 360 and build a surplus that would have blown Wii and Sony out of the Water. Basically if Microsoft actually had grown some and competed this christmas. They would have probably had a glitch free, massive global launch with multiple games that would have blown Sony out of the water graphically. Maybe even have added HD-DVD to the system internally and I bet could have done it for only $100 more still making cheaper than PS3 line-up. So what did we get? Crappy Game Launch lineup. Xbox 360 shortages. Xbox 360 hardware glitches... Eventually MS came through and polish the rough edges but we xbox 360 users are not a year ahead like we should be and I believe the Sony Side can still stomp us xbox 360 users. Ms needs to impress me at E3 to keep me from not buying a PS3 (probably will buy a PS3 anyway as I am blu-ray fan and a gamer-why buy a stand alone player that doesn't do games?) but Sony does have Unreal, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid, Tekken, Ninja Gaiden (hey it looks really good) the list is so big and unannounced titles I can't go on but you get the point it isn't weak. We are not out of the water yet xbox 360 users. By the way, Sony fans congrats on a so far pretty decent launch of PS3. Hope America's is as smooth! "We need more gamers not haters" Peace
put both games next to each other running in their highest resolutions,then tell me which is better looking in motion.not screenshots.in motion at their highest settings.the thing i said earlier is that the game looks good.end of story.if you have the 360,then it won't make you go gaga.but if you are joining the next gen group,it will look great.how simple can i make this.
But that's the problem. In recent articles here, it was stated how the PS3 is 3X more powerful and how much better the PS3 GPU is, but the best RR7 could do was "if you have the 360,then it won't make you go gaga". With all that power, RR7 should look MUCH better than RR6. As it stands, its an argument of which one is better and that's the problem. PS3 has yet to prove its superior.