The Artisan
Member
certain games that started off as playstation exclusives (and therefore playstation as the primary platform of development) looked better on Ps3, ever so slightly. tekken 6 and ffs13
-
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
certain games that started off as playstation exclusives (and therefore playstation as the primary platform of development) looked better on Ps3, ever so slightly. tekken 6 and ffs13
Primarily because Ken Kutaragi designed the most convoluted hardware alignment in history as part of a grand master "Cell" plan even when the original Cell project with IBM was falling flat on it's face.
A few highlights:
1. a substantial expansion on the PS2's already complex VU multi-processor architecture from having a core CPU + GPU + 2 VUs to something with a CPU cobbled out of two Cells, a GPU in the RSX that was effectively intentionally neutered to push people into using the Cells, then paired up with another six Cells. I like to think of it in retrospect as making developers play a secret game of Factorio they didn't know they were playing, in that they were expected to micromanage the offloading of tasks to all these various little factories, manage the return of the processed data, then find a way to tie it all together into an end product, all with an eye on not wasting clock cycles.
2. Divided memory architecture to make that 512 MB not universally accessible, so substantial data handling had to be planned for at all times (this was directly responsible for Bethesda's problems with the PS3 v. X360).
3. Very, very sparse code base, libraries, etc. to start with requiring large amounts of work just to get off the ground. Because you were supposed to be more directly controlling the process, not relying on middleware. But it was a generation dominated by middleware.
The end result was a PS3 that while meaningfully more powerful on paper than the X360 that difference in power and then some fell well within the "juice not worth the squeeze" category for 99% of all games made. Sony's first party studios went the extra mile and their products showed, but Sony ran an entire mythologized technical support team (ICE) to help their first parties and critical 3rd parties work with the system.
That was above and beyond the standard developer technical support they, Nintendo, and MS had always traditionally offered. They basically had a technical support rapid response SWAT team to make sure high priority titles didn't shit the bed.
Add the following:
1. The PS360 platforms were the beginning of western 3rd party dominance, a group largely more accepting of middleware and engine licensing than Japanese 3rd parties had ever been, at a time when the dominant engine on PC and the PS360 platforms was Unreal Engine 3, produced by Epic who was in direct partnership with Microsoft on the Gears of War franchise and had enough consulting input on the X360 to have the final allotment of RAM doubled specifically to optimize Gears and the UE3 engine.
2. MS had a one year head start so developers were already further along in getting up to speed on the new system.
3. The X360 worked with the DirectX API, further assisting the transition of development teams familiar with PC on to the platform.
Most of this was already mentioned in this thread. It's really best summarized as Ken Kutaragi assumed the Playstation brand was bulletproof so he and Sony management outside of SCE decided to use the Playstation as a trojan horse to push the Cell and Blu-Ray simultaneously. The belief was that we'd all have chips in our fridges, toasters, coffee makers, etc. before too long and with the economy of scale power offered by the PS brand that chip would be the Cell. Coupled with pushing Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, cutting the optical media license partnership from about 16 companies on DVD to about 8 on Blu-Ray (since the group pretty well fractured 50/50 on the next format).
On top of that they figured they could pass a good chunk of this additional cost onto consumers, hence the absolutely goofy MSRP.
Had Sony just pushed out a PowerPC based CPU with a more traditional style of Geforce 7 GPU using a shared 512MB of memory and the PS2 system on a chip they were pushing out in PSTwo's at the time as the OS manager they could have offered full backwards compatibility, ran on OpenGL and other PC standard APIs at the time to ease developer transition, and would have had backwards compatibility too, all while pricing 1:1 with the X360. Assuming they went with DVD as the standard media with a Blu-Ray player variant as the higher end version and selling a blu-ray add-on a la the HD-DVD add on for X360.
I'd make the same argument for Vita honestly. If they'd released a handheld with a standard LCD screen and based off a juiced up version of the PS2 SoC while keeping the form factor but branding it PSP2 they probably could have come to market below the 3DS cost with better visuals and maybe have made some real noise. But Sony got to Sony.
A few highlights:
1. a substantial expansion on the PS2's already complex VU multi-processor architecture from having a core CPU + GPU + 2 VUs to something with a CPU cobbled out of two Cells, a GPU in the RSX that was effectively intentionally neutered to push people into using the Cells, then paired up with another six Cells. I like to think of it in retrospect as making developers play a secret game of Factorio they didn't know they were playing, in that they were expected to micromanage the offloading of tasks to all these various little factories, manage the return of the processed data, then find a way to tie it all together into an end product, all with an eye on not wasting clock cycles.
2. Divided memory architecture to make that 512 MB not universally accessible, so substantial data handling had to be planned for at all times (this was directly responsible for Bethesda's problems with the PS3 v. X360).
3. Very, very sparse code base, libraries, etc. to start with requiring large amounts of work just to get off the ground. Because you were supposed to be more directly controlling the process, not relying on middleware. But it was a generation dominated by middleware.
The end result was a PS3 that while meaningfully more powerful on paper than the X360 that difference in power and then some fell well within the "juice not worth the squeeze" category for 99% of all games made. Sony's first party studios went the extra mile and their products showed, but Sony ran an entire mythologized technical support team (ICE) to help their first parties and critical 3rd parties work with the system.
That was above and beyond the standard developer technical support they, Nintendo, and MS had always traditionally offered. They basically had a technical support rapid response SWAT team to make sure high priority titles didn't shit the bed.
Add the following:
1. The PS360 platforms were the beginning of western 3rd party dominance, a group largely more accepting of middleware and engine licensing than Japanese 3rd parties had ever been, at a time when the dominant engine on PC and the PS360 platforms was Unreal Engine 3, produced by Epic who was in direct partnership with Microsoft on the Gears of War franchise and had enough consulting input on the X360 to have the final allotment of RAM doubled specifically to optimize Gears and the UE3 engine.
2. MS had a one year head start so developers were already further along in getting up to speed on the new system.
3. The X360 worked with the DirectX API, further assisting the transition of development teams familiar with PC on to the platform.
Most of this was already mentioned in this thread. It's really best summarized as Ken Kutaragi assumed the Playstation brand was bulletproof so he and Sony management outside of SCE decided to use the Playstation as a trojan horse to push the Cell and Blu-Ray simultaneously. The belief was that we'd all have chips in our fridges, toasters, coffee makers, etc. before too long and with the economy of scale power offered by the PS brand that chip would be the Cell. Coupled with pushing Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, cutting the optical media license partnership from about 16 companies on DVD to about 8 on Blu-Ray (since the group pretty well fractured 50/50 on the next format).
On top of that they figured they could pass a good chunk of this additional cost onto consumers, hence the absolutely goofy MSRP.
Had Sony just pushed out a PowerPC based CPU with a more traditional style of Geforce 7 GPU using a shared 512MB of memory and the PS2 system on a chip they were pushing out in PSTwo's at the time as the OS manager they could have offered full backwards compatibility, ran on OpenGL and other PC standard APIs at the time to ease developer transition, and would have had backwards compatibility too, all while pricing 1:1 with the X360. Assuming they went with DVD as the standard media with a Blu-Ray player variant as the higher end version and selling a blu-ray add-on a la the HD-DVD add on for X360.
I'd make the same argument for Vita honestly. If they'd released a handheld with a standard LCD screen and based off a juiced up version of the PS2 SoC while keeping the form factor but branding it PSP2 they probably could have come to market below the 3DS cost with better visuals and maybe have made some real noise. But Sony got to Sony.
Great post, thank you!
Great insight in the entire post, but I still don't know if the bolded would've been enough to compete with the 3DS. Nintendo has that Pokemon factor, and the handheld market has shrunk so much. Plus, on a personal note, I love the OLED screen and am really glad that I own one.
Also, as great as it was, PSP branding wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire at the time considering that PSP Go was a flop, and Sony didn't really market the device as much as they should have in its waning years. Vita was their attempt at a rebrand and, of course, that didn't go well. But a rebrand was still needed I think.
This my 1st 40" Sony TV didnt upscale 720p very well so most PS3 games didnt look that good compared to the 360 upscaling to 1080p
Soldiussnaku
Member
Check out Digital foundry articles from past years that pit titles from both platforms against each other.
They have made TONS of face offs over the years, starting from ps3 launch.
They have made TONS of face offs over the years, starting from ps3 launch.
Develop to two cells would be a nightmare. Like... instead of having a big car engine for CPU and another faster car engine as GPU, you would have a bazillion of guinea pigs pulling your car. Could be faster and get more load than a double engine car, but it would be an enormous pain in the ass to make all the pets work together to achieve this.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
If you compare games that do like-to-like things (same res, same AA, etc), they should look the same. I don't think there was anything different in the video output of the machine. Maybe slight differences in how same AA techniques are applied by the GPU, but that's truly minuscule. Actually, the biggest difference in like for like games might be that X360 had a different gamma curve, which some developers corrected, and some didn't.
The shimmery look in PS3 games that you're referring to is probably due to the type of AA used in some games on it. It was SMAA, post process AA which was generally good for most rendered edges, but those where it failed, like sub-pixel detail, would remained unprocessed completely giving a big discrepancy when you have some edges that look dog-ugly, and then next to them some that look practically perfect. Compare UC2 which used 2xMSAA, with UC3 which used some kind of SMAA variation - I think overall UC2 has more rounded and pleasant image quality. Some other games, like GoW3 however, made great use of SMAA and looked better than just about anything.
The shimmery look in PS3 games that you're referring to is probably due to the type of AA used in some games on it. It was SMAA, post process AA which was generally good for most rendered edges, but those where it failed, like sub-pixel detail, would remained unprocessed completely giving a big discrepancy when you have some edges that look dog-ugly, and then next to them some that look practically perfect. Compare UC2 which used 2xMSAA, with UC3 which used some kind of SMAA variation - I think overall UC2 has more rounded and pleasant image quality. Some other games, like GoW3 however, made great use of SMAA and looked better than just about anything.
Beerman462
Member
So I took the time to look up some old articles and Naughty Dog is saying that they could only do Uncharted 2 on the PS3/Cell, but of course they would. As first party their job is to put the system in the best light possible. Having said that this is what Evan Wells co-president of Naughty Dog said
Wells said:
Now it was also said that the Blu-Ray and standard hard drive were factors and I totally agree. Although there were games on 360 that required an hdd. According to some random forum guy the single player content for UC3 is 11.1GBs and the cutscenes were 12GBs. Now the Xbox could have gotten around this with multiple discs and mandatory install. It's not a great solution, but there were mandatory installs and multi-disc games on 360 so not an insurmountable hurdle. Still inconvenient/clunky as hell. I hated swapping disks on Lords of Shadow.
The SPEs were used alot. According to the articles I read the main uses were blending animations(Naughty Dogs true strength) and helping the RSX(gpu). Now we know the 360 GPU was better than RSX and probably wouldn't need as much help. While the PS3 used SPEs for blending animation the 360 had two additional cores with two threads each that could be used to do the same thing. Apperently the biggest accomplishment of the SPEs was a best at the time depth of field implementation that they said couldn't be done on 360. So the question is. How much stronger are PS3s 6 SPEs vs the 360s 2 dual threaded PPEs and better GPU? There isn't a true answer, because they have different strengths and weaknesses.
My final point. The PS3 had a bit more raw power than the 360 on paper. Some compromises (how big or small is subjective) would have to be made to run Naughty Dog games as they were developed for PS3 on a 360. However if they were making the game for the 360 they would have made different choices and the games would still be some of the best of the generation. It's a fun discussion to have either way.
No one used opengl on ps3.
GCM was really great low level API.
RSX was weak for any vertex work and a lot of work on Cell was to fix this and to get RSX comparable to Xenos.
Lord British
Member
Great responses - thank you.
I like this analogy 😂 it's so true. It's incredible how out of touch Sony was at the beginning of last gen.
I love GOW3 as much as the next guy but the game is incredibly linear with the fixed camera, you are always looking at what the developers want you to look at thus they can make the graphics as good as it can be. MS doesn't have an equivalent game that limits camera control in the AAA space so it's hard to compare. But they certainly have just as good looking exclusives compared to the rest of PS3's exclusive library.
Okami HD
Sure it's a remaster but it's still amazing
1080p 4xMSAA
16xAF (I think)
May or may not be downsampled from 4k
Can we get a Digital Foundry on this please? ;_;
Can we get a Digital Foundry on this please? ;_;
Green Yoshi
Member
Gears of War: Judgment, Tomb Raider, Alan Wake, The Witcher 2 and Forza Horizon look also really good. I think the budget of AAA games on PS3 was higher and there was a greater focus on singleplayer.
The Wraith
Member
Halo 4 was a tour de force in the graphical department for the 360. It can go toe to toe with any game in the graphics department.
entremet
Member
No. Just that MS didn't have a huge incentive to. Their first parties weren't as experienced and varied Sony's either.
Guerilla, Naughty Dog, Santa Monica were no slouches in the PS2 era either.
Them sucking out what they did with the PS3 was not surprising, nor it is conclusive evidence that it's more powerful.
However, we will never get a perfect test since that would mean having those studios create games on 360 hardware from the ground up.
Lionel Richie
Member
I'm a huge fan of Okami to the point of blind love. It doesn't wow me as much as Forza Horizon.
Yea... Halo 4 (the single player campaign specifically) looked phenomenal on Xbox 360.
protomouse
Member
PS3 was weaker in GPU, and Microsoft's decision to go with unified memory was much wiser. Overall, the 360 was a much more balanced design.
Another game that look insanely good on 360 is Gears Judgment. Too bad that is a very average game in every else. But the graphics look almost good as I would expect in the beginning of the current console era.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Those really looked great (don't forget Halo 4!) but none of those come close to how good, say, The Last of Us looked on PS3.
When it came to game perfromance/graphics the Xbox 360 had a higher average while the PS3 had lower lows but also definitely higher highs that Microsoft's console could never achieve!
I would say that Uncharted 3 is a better PS3 graphics showcase. Last of Us runs like shit in certain moments.
But I like to add that Forza Horizon and Gears Judgment if not on par, are very close in graphical prowess.
We're talking about image quality here, no?
Alex_Mexico
Member
TyMiles2012
Member
I think so. On my new 4K TV, playing Demon's Souls was literally a hit or miss, because my TV would either boot the game properly, or my screen would just go black and flicker until finally showing 720p properly. Even with the system set to 1080p.
Man, I love Last of Us. I played it to the end three times non stop when it was released. But don't be offended if someone says that a game runs badly in certain moments, it's not like I'm a MS shareholder or something. Certain open part runs like 15~20 fps. Go check some benchmarks from when it was launched instead of blindly defend it.
Alex_Mexico
Member
I just hate internet hyperbole sometimes. Its either GOAT or its garbage.
The Last of Us may have some hiccups but that doesnt qualify it to say that the game "runs like shit in certain moments". I've beaten TLoU 4 times and I'm a daily GAF member and I've never noticed those hiccups. That's how insignificant they are compared to the rest of the game.
You can and should say it has some frame drops or whatever but no, TLoU does not "run like shit". Not for a few moments, not ever.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Could be something wrong with your HDMI cable. I had some that I got at a dollar store that were mostly fine but with PS3 there were super inconsistent.
whatever, dude.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
PS3 had more raw grunt if you knew how to get it out, but most developers didn't. It was a difficult machine to develop for, with a strange architecture. Straight ports (or as straight as possible) from 360 to PS3 almost always ended up inferior on the latter, because they didn't take advantage of what it could really do. Some developers did learn how to make the best of it though, which is why the best looking games of last gen are on PS3 (while the "average" game probably looked better on 360).
The Artisan
Member
yeah maybe the framerate got iffy or whatever but if there's ever a game that ran like shit in the most figurative way possible on Ps3, it's Me2. hell, even Me3. as beautiful as those games are the Ps3 had a hardass time runnin em
something about the split RAM i think
Beerman462
Member
People can and will say whatever they want. You should watch this video.
Digital Foundry TLOU framerate test.
I too have played through TLOU at least three times on PS3 and once on PS4. If you watch the video there are many times the framerate drops to the mid 20s and stays there pretty consistently. During the truck escape on the bridge it drops to 20fps.
To me that's "moments of running like shit"
You seem a little too wound up about how someone chooses to phrase that the game has some performance problems.
I noticed that, too, when I bought Red Dead Redemption for my PS3, a console I loved and only used for exclusives to that point. After booting up RDR I was shocked and noticed less texture res, more aliasing and lower rendering res than I recalled from my Xbox 360 experience years ago. Same goes for Condemned 2.
Others have already answered the question, but just to proof the point. It's a fact that many, not all, multiplattform titles looked way better on PS3.
Others have already answered the question, but just to proof the point. It's a fact that many, not all, multiplattform titles looked way better on PS3.
Beerman462
Member
RDR was one of the bigger gaps between the two. Lower res, crappy aliasing and the original grass gate. Skyrim was terrible too. I think it got fixed mostly though.
You mean 360?
And yeah, someone already posted the DF breakdown from last gen. It's like 3:1 360
s3 'clear winner' multiplats.nycgamer4ever
Member
2 different architects
Xbox 360 1-1.5 years first to market
Only during the first few year were there discrepancies, it eventually caught up after developers got a grip on the ps3 hardware
Differences weren't that huge
Ps3 exclusives were among the best looking games last gen so it wasn't the lack of power.
Xbox 360 1-1.5 years first to market
Only during the first few year were there discrepancies, it eventually caught up after developers got a grip on the ps3 hardware
Differences weren't that huge
Ps3 exclusives were among the best looking games last gen so it wasn't the lack of power.
Lionel Richie
Member
Yes (Okami is a better game though). I should probably explain that I'm saying that largely because Okami is a remaster and it shows in spots. Plus, it's naturally blurrier because of its artstyle.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
"Developers ... developers ... developers ... developers ..."
Really? I don't see how. Please explain in detail.
When I click "edit" in the first post of a thread of mine and then again on the edit button on the left, I can edit the headline of the post itself, however the headline of the thread is unaffected.
DC1
Member
Quite frankly one of the better responses I have read. Hardware/Tool-set strategy absolutely plays a part. I also agree that ND could have done wonders on the 360 as well.
chronic_archaic
Member
Stated already but unified memory, extra for graphics data, better GPU and easier to program for overall. Cell can beat out the CPU in the 360 if coded for seriously well.