-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do Xbox 360 games generally look better than Playstation 3?
- Thread starter Lord British
- Start date
This is all true...Although I don't know how late the plans to use 2 Cells was changed.
Another reason UE3 was such a problem was actually also due to the fact that its development and Xbox 360's development were tied together. Infact Xbox 360 received last minute upgrades and modifications just so Epic could make Gears of War look the way they wanted. And the fact that most multiplayer last gen used UE3 only made that issue more transparent.
You could say the entire reason 360 ended up having better multiplats and easier to develop environment was down to Epic and UE3.
Lord British
Member
That's weird, 'cos when I did it, it showed my edited thread title.
Kurt Angle
Member
ps3s architecture was a shit show
Or you could say that it was because Sony made an awkward architecture. You're trying very hard to make sure that the fault isn't Sony's and the success isn't MS's. Like, yes, it is known that MS changed their RAM and shit due to what they were told very late - did Sony not have anyone working with them that could've said "Hey, this is weird"? The argument goes around all way.s
ethomaz
Banned
Well unless it is something new
I will try when I create a new thread.
amdb00mer
Member
I have to slightly disagree. Go back to Halo 4 on X360. The textures and overall image quality is just so sharp and clean. That's why it ended up being the best looking title in the MCC. It already had such high quality visuals on the X360 that when ported to the X1 it looked even more amazing. As far as the game being good, that's a different thread/topic.
You know Ellie, we really are Last of The Us.
But yeah, 360 had great looking games too, Halo 4 being one of the best looking games on the console. With that being said, I thought Killzone 3 looked gorgeous in certain levels (the snow, the sci-fi jungle) and Killzone 2 is also really really well animated.
I wish devs spent a little more time polishing animation & destruction in some of the triple A games - it's sad when games like Crysis & Bad Company 2 still do destruction better than 99% of current shooters.
I remember liking the graphics in UC3 but I played it again last year and holy shit does it look bad. Aliasing is terrible in that game. I found it so weird I popped in TLoU and it looks way better.
Right, I'm not saying any of the games listed looked bad, but that the notion that PS3 was UBER powerful and 360 was trash that just happened to have better multiplats is nonsense. Killzone and every Naughty Dog game were lookers. So was stuff like Halo 4. There are some PS360 games that still look great, resolution aside.
sixteen-bit
Member
Better system for developers to develop on
antyk
Member
It seems that what's the OP is experiencing and asking for is not the difference in graphics quality for multiplats (which was thoroughly explained already by many of you), but difference in IQ of even the best looking games on both platforms, in which case I'd say it is weird because the best looking PS3 games look better than best looking X360 games.
OP, do you use the same connection to your TV from Xbox and PS3? Do you use the same settings on HDMI channel (especially saturation & sharpening, blur / motion scaling, etc.)? Are you sure PS3 isn't set to overscan the image, which would result in EVERY game basically being upscaled (or zoomed in)?
OP, do you use the same connection to your TV from Xbox and PS3? Do you use the same settings on HDMI channel (especially saturation & sharpening, blur / motion scaling, etc.)? Are you sure PS3 isn't set to overscan the image, which would result in EVERY game basically being upscaled (or zoomed in)?
Doctor_Thomas
Member
They did. That's why the PS3 has a GPU at all.
Lolwut?
I'm not trying for anything, I have zero agenda here. I'm just stating the truth from neutral grounds and if you see something like the bolded then I'm sorry to tell you you've wasted your time and brainpower thinking about nonsense. Did you not see my post where I mentioned that PS3 exclusives looking great was not down to "power of PS3" but rather the money and resources Sony poured in.
PS3 multiplat games looked worse due to split pool memory, absurd architecture and the fact that the most common multiplat engine was a special fit for Xbox 360. Xbox 360 games looked better because of the exact opposite. Happy now? Or are you going to spend time talking about how I didn't go into detail about how Xbox 360 did better due to the opposite and figure out how I am not giving MS credit and as such must have an agenda. Like come on.
Lord British
Member
I started this the other week and was genuinely blown away by the Lambent's particles. The game looks fantastic.
OttoSporteman
Member
What_year_is_this.jpeg
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
360 versions of a huge majority of multiplat games were notably better than their PS3 counterparts. The gap was bigger at the start of the generation, 360 was just easier to develop for than PS3. Gap narrowed down near the end of the generation but generally speaking multi-plats were still better played on 360.
Here's a breakdown of all DF/IGN etc comparisons, the results are very telling.
https://misterslimm.wordpress.com/v...box-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/
Of all of DF's comparison:
179 games were better on 360.
51 were better on PS3
102 were rated as equal
Here's a breakdown of all DF/IGN etc comparisons, the results are very telling.
https://misterslimm.wordpress.com/v...box-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/
Of all of DF's comparison:
179 games were better on 360.
51 were better on PS3
102 were rated as equal
icecold1983
Member
halo 4 looks OK. nowhere near the games i mentioned
Better SDK too.
Oh man can you imagine if Mark Corny followed that strategy this gen. A game like Second Son with its amazing visuals would have released in 2018 instead of 2014, if PS4 survived that long.
That's the sort of comment that makes me think you may not be seeing this in a very balanced manner.
In no way does Halo 4 look only "OK", in relation to the titles you listed.
Xbox One vs PS4 doesn't have a 40% difference when you compare flops, you are just counting CU's. The real difference comparing flops is around 29%.
Comparing PS3 RSX with Xenos, in fact is around 20% comparing gpu flops, but there are other factors to account, since in several aspects Xenos has around 50% better and from a slight newer tech (even that it was launched earlier than RSX), things like fill rate and some aspects of memory bandwidth are waaaaay better on Xenos, and both are crucial for image IQ and resolution.
CrispyBoar
Banned
Because PS3 wasn't developer friendly thanks to the cell processor. Many 3rd party publishers didn't have the time or money to get the PS3 versions of games up to snuff with Xbox 360 versions.
It's one of the reasons why Sony ditched it in favor of x86-64 architecture for PS4.
It's one of the reasons why Sony ditched it in favor of x86-64 architecture for PS4.
It was EA that showed everyone else how to do multiplats. In 2008 they published Dead Space, Burnout Paradise and Mirror's Edge.
Other than 2007 games as well as Rockstar, Call of Duty and Bethesda games the difference between the two systems is massively overstated, at least for what I wanted to play. I've double dipped on a lot of games courtesy of GWG/PS+ and I can't easily tell the difference between many of my favourites.
I would put Halo 4 in the top 10 best looking games of last generation. It would be one of the first games to come to mind if I was compiling such a list. It's a lot better than just "OK".
Other than 2007 games as well as Rockstar, Call of Duty and Bethesda games the difference between the two systems is massively overstated, at least for what I wanted to play. I've double dipped on a lot of games courtesy of GWG/PS+ and I can't easily tell the difference between many of my favourites.
I would put Halo 4 in the top 10 best looking games of last generation. It would be one of the first games to come to mind if I was compiling such a list. It's a lot better than just "OK".
Yeah to me someone trying to say Halo 4 doesn't look amazing is like saying TLOU looks 'ok' - obvious bait or bias.
Beerman462
Member
From wikipedia
Inside, the Xbox 360 uses the triple-core IBM designed Xenon as its CPU, with each core capable of simultaneously processing two threads, and can therefore operate on up to six threads at once.
Powerful yet easy to utilize tri-core 3.2GHz CPU
Graphics processing is handled by the ATI Xenos,
More powerful/efficient than PS3 due to unified shaders.
which has 10 MB of eDRAM.
Superfast cache for framebuffer and could provide free 4xMSAA.
Its main memory pool is 512 MB in size.
Fast unified memory
PlayStation 3 uses the Cell microprocessor, designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, as its CPU, which is made up of one 3.2 GHz PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and eight Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs).[97] The eighth SPE is disabled to improve chip yields.[98][99] Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as the seventh SPE is reserved by the console's operating system.
Only one general purpose core vs 3 on X360. 6SPEs very difficult to use early on.
[99] Graphics processing is handled by the NVIDIA RSX 'Reality Synthesizer', which can produce resolutions from 480i/576i SD up to 1080p HD.[91] PlayStation 3 has 256 MB of XDR DRAM main memory and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX.[100]
Seperate shader, Split memory made it difficult to fit ever increasing graphics memory requirements. Just not as efficient as unified and no eDRAM.
Posted from my phone so not as thorough as I'd like, but other than Red Ring the 360 was just better hardware wise. To OPs point on shimmering. The Xbox 360 version of games were generally higher res and or had better anti-aliasing.
Games like TLOU don't look good because of the PS3. They look good despite of it. Naughty Dog do great work. I would put Halo and Rockstar in the top 10 for sure.
Inside, the Xbox 360 uses the triple-core IBM designed Xenon as its CPU, with each core capable of simultaneously processing two threads, and can therefore operate on up to six threads at once.
Powerful yet easy to utilize tri-core 3.2GHz CPU
Graphics processing is handled by the ATI Xenos,
More powerful/efficient than PS3 due to unified shaders.
which has 10 MB of eDRAM.
Superfast cache for framebuffer and could provide free 4xMSAA.
Its main memory pool is 512 MB in size.
Fast unified memory
PlayStation 3 uses the Cell microprocessor, designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, as its CPU, which is made up of one 3.2 GHz PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and eight Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs).[97] The eighth SPE is disabled to improve chip yields.[98][99] Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as the seventh SPE is reserved by the console's operating system.
Only one general purpose core vs 3 on X360. 6SPEs very difficult to use early on.
[99] Graphics processing is handled by the NVIDIA RSX 'Reality Synthesizer', which can produce resolutions from 480i/576i SD up to 1080p HD.[91] PlayStation 3 has 256 MB of XDR DRAM main memory and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX.[100]
Seperate shader, Split memory made it difficult to fit ever increasing graphics memory requirements. Just not as efficient as unified and no eDRAM.
Posted from my phone so not as thorough as I'd like, but other than Red Ring the 360 was just better hardware wise. To OPs point on shimmering. The Xbox 360 version of games were generally higher res and or had better anti-aliasing.
Games like TLOU don't look good because of the PS3. They look good despite of it. Naughty Dog do great work. I would put Halo and Rockstar in the top 10 for sure.
Harlock
Member
I was reading this crazy history about the PS3 originally not having GPU and was Naughty Dog who proved to Sony Japan how absurd this going to be. One of reasons why the PS3 was delayed from 2005.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9yOjB95gb0
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/08/playstation-3-was-delayed-originally-planned-for-2005
Bonus: The PS3 is Weird (A Tale of the Cell Processor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZrDIgQB_ns&t=107s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9yOjB95gb0
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/08/playstation-3-was-delayed-originally-planned-for-2005
Bonus: The PS3 is Weird (A Tale of the Cell Processor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZrDIgQB_ns&t=107s
DC1
Member
That base cave dweller-ism!
DC1
Member
Okay.. while the thread is still open.. The statement above makes as much sense as a jellyfish living on the surface of the sun.
Beerman462
Member
The PS3 wasn't great hardware wise. It took every trick in Naughty Dogs book to make the games look that good. They had to hand off graphics duties to the Cell. I think Naughty Dog could have made those games on the 360 without compromising anything.
This thread has been very civil not sure why you think it will be closed.
I also remember that HDR and MSAA couldn't be used together on the RSX, which contributed greatly to worse graphics in early multiplats on the system. That's when HDR was the hot new shit and AA-wise the PS3 only had Quincunx-AA to fall back to (which blurred the textures).
Of course this would then change over time with new AA methods popping up.
God it was such a mess
Of course this would then change over time with new AA methods popping up.
God it was such a mess
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
360 was easier to develop for and had a larger installed base. So it was often the lead platform in development.
When PS3 was the lead platform it had the better port. It also had the more impressive first party exclusives.
When PS3 was the lead platform it had the better port. It also had the more impressive first party exclusives.
petran79
Banned
Naughty Dog had the best animators too. Hardware comes secondary.
Zombegoast
Member
Better Ram, Gpu and easier Cpu to work with. The ps3 had to use the cell to achieve similar effects on the 360 and the split ram architecture really hurt the system in games that are open. Its really hard to enjoy Dragon's Dogma on the Ps3.
So you're saying MS purposefully underfunded their first party studios, so they didn't make the best looking games possible, even though they were watching their sales lead slowly dwindle to the point they ended up in 3rd place?...
Seriously?
DC1
Member
You're optimistic.
With respect to our conversation. Your point indicates that the PS3 was a horrible mess to program for while the 360 was significantly easier. I agree!
However it doesn't negate the significance of the graphical performance achievable through the PS3/CELL. In short, the games looked good because of the PS3/CELL (period); However, very few developers had the expertise and time to unlock the full performance. The design enforcement was a thorn in the side of the PS3s and was a major factor in the course correction/architecture of the PS4.
We can agree on this - yes?
360 had a fantastic scaler.
Only a minority of PS3 games upscaled to 1080p. For example if your console is set to output 1080p, you'll find the PS3 is still outputting 720p when playing Uncharted 3, for example.
So your TV is receiving a 720p image which it then has to upscale. If your 360 is set to 1080p, it'll feed every image to your TV at 1080p, regardless of the native game resolution.
Only a minority of PS3 games upscaled to 1080p. For example if your console is set to output 1080p, you'll find the PS3 is still outputting 720p when playing Uncharted 3, for example.
So your TV is receiving a 720p image which it then has to upscale. If your 360 is set to 1080p, it'll feed every image to your TV at 1080p, regardless of the native game resolution.
Xbox360 has a really well designed internal scaler up to 1080p. PS3 has no such scaler at all leaving your HDTV to do all the scaling.
Some HDTVs handle PS3 better than others.
Edit: beaten
Furthermore, PS3 had the design issues everyone else mentioned which often meant lower native resolutions or missing effects on certain multicomsole games.
But as far as pure IQ is concerned, I think the lack of scaler is the biggest factor.
Some HDTVs handle PS3 better than others.
Edit: beaten
Furthermore, PS3 had the design issues everyone else mentioned which often meant lower native resolutions or missing effects on certain multicomsole games.
But as far as pure IQ is concerned, I think the lack of scaler is the biggest factor.
CitizenCope
Member
Simple. 360 is a beast!
Alex_Mexico
Member
The PS3 had higher highs than the 360 could ever achieve when developers took the time and effort to take advantage of the console. That's why no game on 360 comes close to The Last of Us's graphical showcase.
As for multi platform games? Yeah the rule of thumb is they'd look/run better on 360. The variation greatly diminished as the years went by until it was practically indistinguishable (hell, even some multiplatform games ended up running better on PS3 even). But during those early PS360 days it was not a pretty sight for PS3 owners.
As for multi platform games? Yeah the rule of thumb is they'd look/run better on 360. The variation greatly diminished as the years went by until it was practically indistinguishable (hell, even some multiplatform games ended up running better on PS3 even). But during those early PS360 days it was not a pretty sight for PS3 owners.
Initially PS3 was designed to have two Cell's, one as CPU and another as GPU. Someone noticed that this wasn't a great idea, and they rushed to put a Nvidia GPU, and in order to not inflater the price a lot, they cut some corners. That's why the 360, launched a year earlier has a better GPU. Also, that's why PS3 has a heterogeneous memory setup (two 256mb pools with different memory types).
It did have a scaler, but Sony limited its use to vertical scaling only and wouldn't tell anyone why.