Support NeoGAF

[Lord British]

I'm not doing system wars. I own and love both consoles.

I've recently picked up a 360 in order to mop up the few exclusives and I can't help but notice that the IQ is generally a lot higher. I know, "brb using imagination" but I can't post pics at the moment.

PS3 games I've tried tend to be kind shimmery with a lot of pixellated edges and a general gloominess. This isn't universal, but I recently played through Uncharted 3 and while it's great-looking it was no stranger to the weird shimmery look. Same with Infamous - it's just kind of ugly-looking for some reason.

I wonder if it might be a problem with my settings.

Again, no system wars. I'm just curious what the reasoning is behind this, or if it's all on my end and it's a user error.

Edit: Aaaaand I just learned that you can double click beside your thread titles and edit them. Holy shit.

 

[ethomaz]

Multiplatform was mostly better on 360.

Exclusive was better looking on PS3.

I guess that was because CELL was hard to developer and mostly first party devs used it to 100%.

PS. But you say Uncharted 3 that has better IQ than possible the 360 entry library.

 

[Eggbok]

I'd agree for multiplats, Black Ops is a good example. But for exclusives I need some receipts.

 

[oneida]

of course it depends on the game because the system architecture is so different. Bayonetta for instance was better on 360 while vanquish was slightly better on PS3.

 

[Xadjim]

Because it was easier to develop for the 360 than it was for the ps3. Actually some developers said that it was like hell working on ps3. So it took a while until engines got optimized for the ps3.

But exclusive games (like uncharted) on ps3 always looked and played very nice because the developers took the time to use the power of the ps3

 

[Alx]

There were probably many factors making the 360 easier to handle than the PS3.
Memory was one of them, and probably an important one. The OS itself took less of it on Xbox, leaving more to the games. Also having one big shared pool of memory instead of two equal halfs may have been more convenient for developers.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Exclusives looked better.

Multiplatforms looked worse because Fuck Cell.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

PS3 was generally considered to be very difficult to program for. Developers usually focused on the Xbox 360 versions. PS3 versions were generally an afterthought.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Multiplatform was mostly better on 360.

Exclusive was better looking on PS3.

I guess that was because CELL was hard to developer and mostly first party devs used it to 100%.

Yeah, that's how I recall it too. I played all multiplat games on 360. I remember Bayonetta not running at 60fps on PS3, which was not good.

 

[EmiPrime]

PS3 games look bright and vibrant to me, no gloominess at all on blue skies games like Daytona or Outrun. I think you should check your system settings.

 

[Finaika]

The 360 has a better graphics card.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

The 360 was the lead development platform for almost every developer. Partly because third party games generally sold better because of its install base lead in the US, but primarily because it was an easier system to design for. The CPU in the 360 was infinitely easier to take advantage of than the powerful but complex cell in the ps3. Also, the unified ram vs the split set up in the ps3 that needed to be designed around. Tool wise, Microsoft was way ahead of Sony early in the generation, so much so that Sony had to have a dedicated group whose sole function was traveling around helping developers make their games reach parity on ps3.

 

[Bluth54]

From what I understand the 360 was much easier to program for, had a slightly more powerful GPU (the PS3's CPU was more powerful but much more complicated then the 360s) and the shared memory pool with the 360's OS taking up less RAM is why most games look better on the 360.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Didn't PS3 lack a proper scaler? Which could quite affect the image quality, depending on your screen.

 

[Deleted member 59090]

360 was easier to develop for and it came to the market first therefore had a bigger install base and was the lead platform for most of the generation. Most early PS3 ports run at slightly lower resolution or with some other drawbacks. Later games often reached parity with some even being developed for PS3 first. 1st party Sony games tend to look better because I'd assume all their technical wizards had more access to the hardware and they only concentrated on one platform.

 

[KainXVIII]

360 has dat pop colors

Spoiler

black crush

 

[cchum]

Eh...exclusives looked very good indeed. Play god of war 3. Warhawk is very bright lol. Maybe you mean quincunx aa, but that's only on a few games.

Kinda Off topic: how good does New Vegas look and run on One compared to PS3 ?

 

[stan423321]

It is generally accepted that while PS3 was more theoretically powerful, 360 was easier to use if you were actually writing games and not benchmarks, especially if you also developed on PC.

Pc: powerful CPU, powerful GPU
360: alright CPU, cool GPU
Ps3: worse CPU (part of Cell), worse GPU, unique SPUs (part of Cell) (powerful, quirky, optimising won't help other platforms at all)

 

[nOoblet16]

Multiplatform was mostly better on 360.

Exclusive was better looking on PS3.

I guess that was because CELL was hard to developer and mostly first party devs used it to 100%.

PS. But you say Uncharted 3 that has better IQ than possible the 360 entry library.

It doesn't. Something like AC Revelations had more prestine IQ and that was multiplat. Not to mention all three UC games had garbage texture filtering (which contributes to IQ as well) even by 7th gen standards. There was also Forza Horizon 3 with its 4*MSAA and post process AA on top.

 

[Fortinbras]

PS. But you say Uncharted 3 that has better IQ than possible the 360 entry library.

Debatable because Forza Horizon exists.

 

[godhandiscen]

Didn't PS3 lack a proper scaler? Which could quite affect the image quality, depending on your screen.

Yeah. This is what OP is experiencing with exclusive titles.

 

[EvB]

Many PS3 games ran at a lower resolution, had less AA and AF than 360 games, it evened off with time however.

 

[Lord British]

Didn't PS3 lack a proper scaler? Which could quite affect the image quality, depending on your screen.

Yeah. This is what OP is experiencing with exclusive titles.

I did wonder if this might be it. Lower-res failing to upscale properly.

I mean, I recently played what I think is an early multiplat, The Club, and that has way cleaner edges than Uncharted 3 (while graphically far worse overall, obviously).

 

[opoth]

What everyone else said, for multiplats 360 got the love, PS3 was usually an afterthought.

 

[FelipeMGM]

100% off but

Edit: Aaaaand I just learned that you can double click beside your thread titles and edit them. Holy shit.

this is a game changer if true, I thought only mods could edit thread titles

EDIT: y u do this to me OP

You can change titles but it will only show inside the thread... in the topic list it will display the original until mods edit.
Being more specific you can change the post title and not the thread title.... every post in GAF has a title that can be edited.

 

[icecold1983]

the best looking console games of last gen were all ps3 exclusives. uncharted 2/3, killzone 2/3, TLOU, GOW 3/ascension blow away anything on xbox 360. infamous was very ugly tho

 

[Zalman]

PS3 was difficult to program for, but it got better with time. Portal 2, Batman etc. were great on PS3.

 

[laxu]

From what I can remember the differences were pretty minor. Xbox had slightly sharper textures whereas PS3 sometimes had slightly better looking lighting.

 

[ethomaz]

100% off but



this is a game changer if true, I thought only mods could edit thread titles

You can change titles but it will only show inside the thread... in the topic list it will display the original until mods edit.
Being more specific you can change the post title and not the thread title.... every post in GAF has a title that can be edited.

 

[FelipeMGM]

You can change titles but it will only show inside the thread... in the topic list it will display the original until mods edit.
Being more specific you can change the post title and not the thread title.... every post in GAF has a title that can be edited.

Ah, that I knew. OP gave me false hope with that wording

Anyway, sorry. Back to topicc

 

[nOoblet16]

PS3 was harder to develop for because of its absurd architecture and cell. It also had a split memory pool rather than unified which caused issues since devs could choose to allocate more memory to GPU and less to system but on PS3 the amount was fixed so games that used more than 256MB of video memory on Xbox 360 had to make concessions on PS3. The Xbox 360 also had 10MB of EDRAM which allowed it to use a lot of transparencies compared to PS3. This is actually one of the main reason why 360 games were superior. Everytime you had cases where grass and particles were superior on Xbox 360, cases where PS3 game was running at a lower resolution than 360 and cases where Xbox 360 version had better AA (until the industry moved away to post process AA)....It was due to the 360's EDRAM.

There is a common misconception that PS3 ended up looking better because the PS3 was capable of higher highs. But the real reason for it was that because it such a difficult machine, Sony poured in money and resources for first party tittles like no one else this lead to Sony first party engineers doing a fuck ton of R&D and came up with ways to overcome the issues in the best possible ways that led to development of new techniques. And that is why PS3 exclusives ended up looking amazing.

 

[nOoblet16]

Didn't PS3 lack a proper scaler? Which could quite affect the image quality, depending on your screen.

Yeah. This is what OP is experiencing with exclusive titles.

PS3 had a hardware scaler that only scaled horizontally. This is why you sometimes had games that used resolutions like 960*1080 on PS3 since it could scale horizontally using the hardware scaler. But in most games the developers would use an internal software scaler...rendering the hardware scaler redundant and leaving it out of the equation. Which is why I don't think this is what the OP is talking about.

Since he mentioned shimmering I suspect it's to do with the fact that several multi platform games used decent AA solution on Xbox 360 while on PS3 they had rubbish or no AA solutions. The other reason could be PS3 game running at lower resolution than Xbox 360...Which wasn't too uncommon either.

 

[entremet]

The 360 was the more powerful console marginally.

I have no doubt the 360 would've surpassed or matched Sony's first party efforts if they dumped the money into it, but they simply did not need to as they were beating Sony in the biggest market for so long.

 

[Nheco]

The gap between Xbox 360 GPU and PS3 GPU is kinda bigger than between Xbox One x PS4. The PS3's CPU was waaay better, but hard to utilize at full potential. So, only some first party developers could did things like Naughty Dog used to.

 

[LukasTaves]

Because it was the stronger console.

 

[Alphahawk]

In addition to the PS3 being harder to develop for, I would also guess that because the 360 was the "lesser" of the systems, powerhouse-wise, it was easier to make a 360 game and port it while not adding too much rather than porting it down from the PS3 to 360 and fixing all the compatibility issues.

I have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about though, so I could be totally wrong.

 

[LukasTaves]

PS. But you say Uncharted 3 that has better IQ than possible the 360 entry library.

No way. No ps3 game measure up to the iq of Forza Horizon for instance, with msaa and fxaa.

 

[ethomaz]

The gap between Xbox 360 GPU and PS3 GPU is kinda bigger than between Xbox One x PS4. The PS3's CPU was waaay better, but hard to utilize at full potential. So, only some first party developers could did things like Naughty Dog used to.

360 to PS3 GPU was nowhere close to 40% difference.

360 ~240 GLOPS
PS3 ~200 GLOPS

That is 20%.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The 360's GPU was more powerful, and it had a unified memory architecture (512mb RAM vs 256+256). The PS3's CPU was capable of assisting in graphics processing, but this was more difficult to accomplish, and especially early on in the lifespan of both systems, your typical developer did not have the expertise or experience required to take full advantage of this. As developers became more familiar with the PS3, the gap between the two systems narrowed in average third party games, however right through to the end you'd still see games doing better on 360.

The PS3 first party lineup tended to look gorgeous because the developers didn't have to cater to other less obscure architectures and had intimate familiarity with the system's quirks.

 

[LukasTaves]

360 to PS3 GPU was nowhere close to 40% difference.

360 ~240 GLOPS
PS3 ~200 GLOPS

That is 20%.

Both flop ratings are wrong, and in theory, ps3 gpu had a higher count than 360's.

It was just impossible to hit due separate shaders instead of unified, but the rating of 240 is also impossible for 360, it assumes the gpu can do a vec4 + an scalar operation at the same clock but it can't, it's either one or another.

In addition to the PS3 being harder to develop for, I would also guess that because the 360 was the "lesser" of the systems, powerhouse-wise, it was easier to make a 360 game and port it while not adding too much rather than porting it down from the PS3 to 360 and fixing all the compatibility issues.

I have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about though, so I could be totally wrong.

It was usually the other way around. Devs when porting from 360 had trouble bringing the game to ps3, but many said they had no issues because whatever they did on ps3 ran just about the same if not better on 360.

The lead platform basically changed from 360 to ps3 towards the gen.

 

[Purest 78]

Multiplats looked better Due to 360 being easier to develop for. Ps3 exclusives looked better Devs could focus on the Hardware.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

If I remember correctly, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the plans for the PS3 changed really late in the game as well. Originally the thing had no GPU and was just going to run everything through 2/4 (?) Cell processors but costs (and backlash from first party devs) stopped them doing it. This resulted in the PS3 getting a fairly standard GPU and an impressive custom CPU with not enough RAM to use both effectively without massive headaches and work arounds. Unreal Engine 3 was notoriously bad, a lot of developers struggled with it and, I imagine, dev tools were also much better on 360. It also went the other way, Naughty Dog, because of the custom approach they took with TLOU struggled to get the game running on PS4 because of how closely it was tied to the PS3 hardware.... it's also why MGS4 never ended up getting ported anywhere, the thing runs on a custom engine that was used once, for that game, which is probably why Konami then went all in on Fox Engine, to ensure they had a truly multiplatform solution going forward. It's why the PS4 (and XB1) are basically off the shelf laptop parts now. The risk of custom hardware is too high. You'll never see a console with ridiculous custom chips again. Too risky, too costly.

Edit: Oh, and the PS3's memory footprint for the OS was also higher than the 360s and it came right out of the already limited memory pool so a lot of earlier PS3 games had less RAM to work with than the later games.

 

[petran79]

Wasnt it also the API?
Microsoft did invest a lot in DirectX which was easier to develop.

XB360 did start with DX9 and they made it compatible with DX10 & 11 later on. In contrast to various PC GPUs at that time for which NVIDIA and ATI/AMD dropped support.

How was PS3 API? They used custim OGL version. Did they follow OpenGL revisions? From ogl2 to 4.3?

 

[GusZamboni]

port to the cell processor was a fu@#$%g hell

 

[Endo Punk]

Cell kinda/sorta only benefitted exclusives but honestly even 360 exclusives looked better than muliplats. Forza games, Alan Wake, Gears 3 and Halo 4 could go toe to toe with any PS3 exclusive in terms of graphics. Ultimately I feel Cell was BS and not worth it.

 

[ethomaz]

Both flop ratings are wrong, and in theory, ps3 gpu had a higher count than 360's.

It was just impossible to hit due separate shades instead of unified, but the rating of 240 is also impossible for 360, it assumes the gpu can do a vec4 + an scalar operation at the same clock but it can't, it's either one or another.

240 is the theoretical AMD rating for the GPU.

PS3 has a theoretical rate of 400.4 GLOPS but that is hardly achievable because it can't run all the operation at the same time to reach this peak... most you will get per circle is possible 224GFLOPS but that is the best case scenario but around 200 GFLOPS is achievable easy in most game.

Anyway the gap is lower than this generation and that is why we didn't saw big gaps in resolution like this generation (720p vs 900p, 900p vs 1080p)... the resolution difference was way lower last gen.

 

[TheYanger]

the best looking console games of last gen were all ps3 exclusives. uncharted 2/3, killzone 2/3, TLOU, GOW 3/ascension blow away anything on xbox 360. infamous was very ugly tho

Revisionist nonsense. PS3 exclusives looked very good, but so did equivilent 360 ones per era. Like, late game? LOTU looked amazing, but so does Halo 4. Certainly better than every other single game you mentioned.

 

[Yopis]

360 GPU was more powerful.

 

[amdb00mer]

Cell CPU + 256MB RAM = PS3 (a.k.a. Sony's version of the Saturn, well not that difficult, but still difficult, meaning 1st party exclusives were usually the only way to show the full potential, just look at God Of War 3)
PPC CPU + 512MB RAM = X360 (a.k.a. easy to develop for and more system resources, meaning usually better frame rates and textures, this is why 99% of multi-plats looked and played better on X360)

edit: Just a quick add about why AA and AF was usually better on X360 was actually because of the embedded eSRAM.

 

[nOoblet16]

Revisionist nonsense. PS3 exclusives looked very good, but so did equivilent 360 ones per era. Like, late game? LOTU looked amazing, but so does Halo 4. Certainly better than every other single game you mentioned.

Halo 4 does not look "better" than those, they are all on par with each other. Though I would still argue UC3 is somewhat technically superior still due to its volumetric lighting, animations and water physics but that's just me. Halo 4 has its own share of problems and shortcomings such as it has worse lighting quality than Halo 3/Reach (it used a lot of glow lights to give an illusion of lights rather than actual lightsources), it also completely lacked any form of AO and motion blur which for a 2012 game was odd especially since previous Halo games did have them. Infact I often find Reach more technically impressive even if people found Halo 4 more pleasing to look at due to its style.

Gears 3 imo was the best looking Xbox 360 game and it could trade blows with any PS3 exclusive.