Most of these effects are not present in ps3 version beside dynamic lightning
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
24 years later, which console is powerful graphically--Genesis or SNES?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
wait BF4 had Particle Lighting and shadowing and water tessellation on consoles? and i m pretty sure TLOU had motion blur and object motion blur and add higher resolution and flashlight bonce light thingy.
nib95 I don't think TLOU had SSR on wet grounds and Bokeh DOF. now that we are adding physics to discussion I think we also should add animations (facial and full body which TLOU may have upper hand )
nib95 I don't think TLOU had SSR on wet grounds and Bokeh DOF. now that we are adding physics to discussion I think we also should add animations (facial and full body which TLOU may have upper hand )
Last of Us has parts or all of the bolded above, at least in certain segments of the game anyway. It also has better IQ, including more detailed textures, AF, AA, better character models, and runs at a higher resolution.
On a side note, are you actually sure the console versions of C3 have all of the above?
Manmademan
Member
Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't say "every single first party game looks better than 360".
I said every Sony first party STUDIO managed to eventually make a game that surpassed what we saw out of the 360, and that's not subjective at all.
Guerilla made killzone 2 and 3.
Sony Santa Monica made god of war 3.
Quantic dream made Beyond.
Naughty dog made TLOU, UC2, AND UC3.
polyphony digital made GT5 and 6.
Liverpool made wipeout HD.
So which first party was capable of making games with the ps3 hardware that surpassed the best of the 360? Again, ALL of them.
Which Microsoft first parties managed to make games that surpassed the best of the ps3? None of them. It never happened. And considering the 360 was easier of the two to program for by far, that speaks volumes. If it was possible to do, someone would have, especially since the 360 had the larger user base for the majority of that generation, AND Microsoft had far more funds at their disposal.
But who says it couldn't run on 360? And better?
robertsan21
Member
As I said before, PS3 had the best graphics, there is no question!
As for the argument that 360 did a better job on multiplatform games than PS3. This will put that argument to rest. There is not one single game that pushes the hardwear the way GTA V did, and PS3 came out on top, even if it was just by an inch.
Grand theft auto V Digital foundry analysis: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-grand-theft-auto-5-face-off
As for the argument that 360 did a better job on multiplatform games than PS3. This will put that argument to rest. There is not one single game that pushes the hardwear the way GTA V did, and PS3 came out on top, even if it was just by an inch.
Grand theft auto V Digital foundry analysis: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-grand-theft-auto-5-face-off
AbandonedTrolley
Member
No one, but if that was the case, why did no one ever bother to make something look better than it? It's all subjective to the art direction and skills of each studio. BUT it would seem that either the Sony first party guys are wizards or that the PS3 was ultimately more powerful than the 360 when fully utilizing its hardware.
Dictator93
Member
Actually Last of US (on ps3 especially) does not use SSR, but the old reflection method of just doubling the geometry. Similarly, it does not use a bokeh.
Jacksinthe
Banned
No with my argument I am saying that PC IS more powerful. You just proved my point and disproved yours. "shit port", to use your own words, although I prefer to reference developer bandwidth as the main culprit since team size and spread is important. I hope you understand you just proved my point you are arguing against. Reread what I wrote if you missed it.
As an owner of both consoles, that started with the 360 and only years later got a PS3, I say the PS3 is easily the champion when it comes graphical power.
There is a lot of beautiful games on both consoles, and the biggest exclusives on 360 certainly have very competent visuals, but there is nothing in there in the same level as the PS3 first party games. Not technically, and I would dare to say, not even artistically.
There was a point in time where I could say the opposite for a very specific genre, racing games, the Forza series actually were more impressive than Gran Turismo, until GT6 came out. But I'm not even a fan of this type of game, I only watched my father playing sometimes, just because those games are so damn beautiful.
There is a lot of beautiful games on both consoles, and the biggest exclusives on 360 certainly have very competent visuals, but there is nothing in there in the same level as the PS3 first party games. Not technically, and I would dare to say, not even artistically.
There was a point in time where I could say the opposite for a very specific genre, racing games, the Forza series actually were more impressive than Gran Turismo, until GT6 came out. But I'm not even a fan of this type of game, I only watched my father playing sometimes, just because those games are so damn beautiful.
Triggerhappytel
Member
What a pointless question. Who's to say I couldn't make my own Oscar-winning stop motion animation if I put my time to it? No-one. But it's not going to happen, so it's a moot point.
Because they don't already have a game on it. It's the older systems and it was easier to program for. If they could have did it, they would have did it. Plain and simple.
Yes, they are present.
---
Yes, i'm sure console version have all of those, PoM is greatly reduced in comparison to PC release, but its still there.
TLOU doesnt have better AA, C3 has SMAA 1x on consoles. Better character models, dunno maybe, maybe not, the polycount is similar. Detailed textures, probably they spent more memory on textures, but they hand paint them, so they are looking slightly differently even in lower resolution.
And no, TLOU doesnt have any of those features.
It doesnt have PoM or FFT water, but it has some water physics, it looks like enchanted technique from Uncharted 2, so shader based deformation.
It does have motion blur and object motion blur from Uncharted 2, but its not full per pixel solution that is HDR correct like in C3, the feature Crytek added in DX11 release of Crysis 2.
They do not have bokeh too.
They do not have grass physics, some animation bending, but thats it. They also have very poor LoD on grass, which is extremely visible in river scene.
No cloud shadows too and global lighting is baked, there is even presentation about it.
-----
I agree its quality/flexibility trade off. But i solely meant that You need more calculation for dynamic lighting, because static lighting is just fetching the texture data.
Marvel
could never
Yea you're right. Confused regular depth of field with bokeh DoF. It has the former, not the latter.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
Oh so you are insulting and dismissing the hard work of 95% of developers telling them they did a shit port?
Sorry, I'm not buying that. I think some people are too quick to dismiss multiplatform development, which is exactly what we need to see to be in this discussion.
When we compare Snes to Genesis, we use multiplatform games, and last generation almost all third party games were multiplatform, so the developers are lazy argument doesn't hold for me, especially with a sample this big. Heck, I remember that Sony themselves sent some of their own developers to help with multiplatform games, so they looked at least comparable to Xbox360 games. Games got better, but didn't achieve parity.
I think dismissing that evidence is just wrong.
We will never know what results art focused teams like ND or SSM could have pulled on the 360 (probably incredible), and we know Microsoft doesn't have a team that specializes in art like those teams.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
One game being slightly better doesn't take years of games away.
Why are you emphasizing so much that the SPUs helped RSX? That's exacly why people are saying that most PS3 exclusives can't work on Xbox 360. Your point is that the GPU in the Xbox 360 was powerful enough to stand on it's own, in which you're correct. But SPU + RSX made the PS3 more powerful and not marginally either. Basically PS3 had 2 GPUs and Xbox 360 only had one.
You keep saying that if a developer wanted to, they could have achieved the same thing on Xbox 360. This is what I'm having a problem with. If it could have been done, then it would have been done. Xbox 360 was easier to code for than PS3. Developers have more experience with the Xbox 360 than the PS3. Developers had a year head start on Xbox 360 platform compared to PS3. But exclusives on PS3 are leagues better than Xbox 360. I'm sorry, it's not art style. The fact the DICE pulled reference material from both Guerilla Games and Insomniac resulting in a game that ran/looked better on ps3 proves this. Battlefield 3 was no slouch, technologically.
This post is art.
I'm pretty sure Christophe Balestra would.
I say it.
Look at Alan Wake, it's a similar game. Remedy is certainly a very talented studio and I give them a lot of merit for pulling off those visuals, the game really impressed when it came out, they certainly pushed the 360 hardware as far as it was possible, since the sequel episodes didn't evolve too much. Still, not as impressive as what Naughty Dog's pulled off on the PS3.
AbandonedTrolley
Member
Who mentioned discounting years of games, the thread is stating 8 years LATER which was more powerful, and as most people have shown, towards the end of life of both consoles the PS3 has proven itself to be better.
Just because in 2006 there was a shitty multiplat that looked better on the 360, that doesn't mean that the 360 was more powerful, it meant that at the time, no one really had a grasp of what to do with the PS3. Now after all the years and they are coming to the end of life, 1st party and even 3rd party games are now tapping in to the strengths and producing better games for the PS3.
Summer Haze
Banned
I just remember riding through that desert on horseback and being blown away. This is all I can find of that section, unfortunately:
I'm not sure to understand... more multiplat better means powerful console? Uh why? Multiplat are not develop to push a specific hardware but to work on both. Who said they are shit port?
robertsan21
Member
I dont agree mate, Cell was a bitch to work with, took years to master it and thats why the start of the gen looked the way it did. Once Devs mastered it, it proved capable to produce the best graphics and GTA V is just one of many games that proved that.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
That's what I'm saying, most multiplatform games that were developed with both consoles in mind ended up looking better on the Xbox360. That's the argument I'm trying to make here.
More multiplatform games means there is a bigger sample, so the argument is stronger.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand.
AbandonedTrolley
Member
No it means that most multiplat devs didn't spend the time getting to know how to utilize the Cell/SPU solution that Sony put in place.
Wrong. It was easier to program for. XBox 360 was the lead console and then was ported to ps3. Later devs started leading with the PS3 and then porting to 360. This yielded much better results. Also multiplatforms have no incentive to push either console to it's limits.
Xbox 360 GPU was slightly better when compared to the RSX, yes. 512mb unified memory much better than 256mb 2x split. But the SPUs (discrete 2nd GPU) were always the game changers.
Seem you not want to understand. Multiplat need to work on both, they can't push at the better an hardware like ps3 which it's totally different to the standard machine. Developers can't rewrite everything just for the ps3. It's crazy. Even cryengine is port from x360 to ps3. Anyway, if 360 was more powerful, better multiplat on ps3 would not exist, not a single case, because you can't push more a weaker hardware. It's not that complicate.
So how PC version are scalable and have additional features? Its problem of bottlenecks, not graphical features of games, having more theoretical performance doesnt always help in achieving faster code, when You are limited by other things.
CryEngine was ported from PC, not Xbox 360.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
And that's bullshit to me, sorry, especially when Sony sent their own developers to help third parties and even then couldn't achieve the Xbox360's results.
Sure, that argument may hold up when the PS3 launched and no one was buying, but later in the generation, when developers were familiar with both systems, most multiplatform games still looked better on 360. And this was a especially long generation with the biggest amount of multiplatform development.
Gpu it's surely more powerful on x360. But cell on ps3 it's really impressive. If you look to a machine just for the gpu, x360 is surely better. But on ps3 rsx it's the littler part.
Cryengine was porte from pc to x360 then on ps3. You can search on the net, crytek explain that in some part. Yeah ps3 has more bottleneck, never said otherwise.
Didn't really bother reading the thread through as it repeated itself after the first page, but people here are having these very familiar arguments and evidence to support them, at the same contradicting those arguments while discussing the engineering side of the consoles.
If we're discussing the raw performance of the consoles, then we should simply discuss the things they were able to do in terms of raw data. How many pixels they were able to, optimally, push at a given time and so forth. This is, seemingly, the discussion that a lot of the people want to have - as factoring in the ease of coding, for example, will not do.
But if this is the case, why the fuck are you posting screens?
The majority of arguments that I'm seeing here are pretty much like "look at how good Uncharted 2 looks, man it looks so good" etc. How is this in any way even tolerable? There are a fuckton of factors that go into producing a screen besides of raw power. And even if the good looks of the screen were indeed aided by technicalities, such as the number of polygons, there is always the problem of limited scope. What other things is the game doing than rendering, for instance, this particular face?
These threads are always such a fucking pain to read.
If we're discussing the raw performance of the consoles, then we should simply discuss the things they were able to do in terms of raw data. How many pixels they were able to, optimally, push at a given time and so forth. This is, seemingly, the discussion that a lot of the people want to have - as factoring in the ease of coding, for example, will not do.
But if this is the case, why the fuck are you posting screens?
The majority of arguments that I'm seeing here are pretty much like "look at how good Uncharted 2 looks, man it looks so good" etc. How is this in any way even tolerable? There are a fuckton of factors that go into producing a screen besides of raw power. And even if the good looks of the screen were indeed aided by technicalities, such as the number of polygons, there is always the problem of limited scope. What other things is the game doing than rendering, for instance, this particular face?
These threads are always such a fucking pain to read.
yup its fixed, thanks
It's hard to understand because your reasoning is incredibly flawed.
Going multiplat means going for the lowest common denominator in terms of what you can use to push graphics, in those things the 360 was way easier to program with and even more powerful than ps3 resulting in multiplat looking better on the 360 but that's because the peculiarities of ps3 were never used (always because of the lowest common denominators thing).
Alan Wake on 360 was ruined visually by the dogshit resolution.
Both consoles were better at different things, and every game has different demands from the consoles. One game being better (such as GTA5) proves nothing. 360 has a weakness in texture filtering and seemingly when using the HDD, which explains it.
But 360 has superior bandwidth, which still shows in transparency heavy games like COD. I also doubt that if RDR were made today, it would be better on PS3.
But 360 has superior bandwidth, which still shows in transparency heavy games like COD. I also doubt that if RDR were made today, it would be better on PS3.
It's ny same though.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Kratos say hi GOW3 shipped March 2009
I'm talking about multiplats.
I don't think you're understanding the argument. Learning the CELL meaning clocking in more man hours, ultimately, raising the cost of the project's budget. Not every studio had the luxury of doing this. So the took the much more "cost efficient " way by leading with Xbox360 and then porting to PS3. Not every developer has extensive knowledge of the CELL outside of Sony 1st party and 2nd party studios.
You people trying to defend Xbox 360 have reduce this thread to theories and assumptions. You're arguing by what written on the paper, and denying what you're seeing with your eyes. Even if it was theoretically possible on the 360, in the end, it never came to fruition. There either there were extremely lazy developers making games on Xbox 360, or PS3 was/is the more powerful machine of the two. I'm sticking with the latter.