enough with the 720p crap, if developers made the effort to have games support 1080p then they would look just as good as the still shots we see in previews. I think Sony is the only company putting the effort in making 1080p games.
Because both ATi and Nvidia are using the same techniques. Even if Sony throws in an 9000 Core Cell the graphics will still be held back by the 'power-balance' that Nvidia and ATi are maintaining. After the failure of the Geforce 5FX series and the X1800 delays ATi and Nvidia both shook hands and decided to call it a draw.
The Xbox 360 version also has an extra layer of lighting effects completely absent on the PS3 game - though the effect is rather subtle. They only manifest in the form of a touch of bloom and a good old fashioned lens flare mostly apparent on the pre-fight animations.
So the Xbox 360 version is tangibly superior, right? Wrong. Well, it's not as superior as it could've been, that's for sure. Right after rendering Xbox's higher resolution image, Namco's coders then scale it back down again to 720p! Neither version has any anti-aliasing effects but the idea in using the Xbox 360's higher resolution is to downscale the larger image in order to smooth off edges and reduce 'jagginess'. In theory, this should produce a smoother-looking game for Xbox 360 owners - but as you can see from the video, you have to wonder if the effort was really worth it.
When you see a troll bait thread remain mysteriously open for several pages, you can be guaranteed mods are gleefully taking notes on a select few chowder heads.
I think people are confusing Art dirction with graphics. Uncharted is a beautiful game but when you take scope into account Gears of War 2 is on an entirely different level. The stages for instance are huge with dozens of characters, explosions, particle effects in place. If you can't see that Gears of War is technically superior to Uncharted with all the stuff it has going on something is wrong.
That is why i say i wait since you say that but many of the videos i have saw show more or less the same things as GOW,few enemy's over a close path.
But the time where i saw many enemy's at once you could easily see the detail wasn't even close to the first GOW enemy's,because they were been draw further away from the camera,meaning more enemy's can be at the same time in the same place.
Also that could be say about Resistance,while it doesn't look quite as good as GOW,the stages were much bigger than on GOW and the enemy count was incredibly higher like 5 to 6 times more enemy's at once,and unlike on GOW that they actually vanish leaving a blood stain,Resistance ones remain there and you could even shoot their cooling system and see it go while on the air.
That is a great question one without answer,so the xbox 360 has a stronger GPU,and Cell was just hype,i wonder where the advantage is coming from then,mabe obne day we will know,one way or the other games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted do show what the PS3 can really do,hell even LBP look incredible.
This thread needs more screen shots. Most of us lurkers came for the pretty pictures. Uncharted looks great! Gears looks great! Crysis crushes all under a weight of platinum awesome!
I wish the PS3 luck! Uncharted looks great (Naughty Dog have always done well). The "allegiance" many of you folk feel towards your console of choice is a bit perplexing. It's almost like your console of choice is like your favorite sporting team. You support the hell out of them even when they lose. Unfortunately, the PS3 is best represented by the Cubs.
I don't follow sports, as sports are boring and lame, so if my characterization of the Cubs as a team that doesn't win a lot is off, then sue me. Might I recommend playing sports instead of paying a moron WAY too much money to play them for you?
We've seen the PS3 do some great things, but I think it's pretty objectively obvious that the 360 has had more "wins". Not saying you should sell your PS3, or that you are a moron for buying it... just that you should show a LOT more respect to the 360.
I stop to believe at the eurogamer comparison when I read GTA IV has better frame rate on the 360... bof...I have seen any video on the net and in the both version the frame rate seems really the same, same problems, paradox for me slowdown on 360 version are more frequent probably cause of dvd reading; boh, maybe has the fps average higher but really believe me if I notice more slowdown on 360. Eurogamer said there are 4 fps of difference in favour of 360 version, but Assassin's creed has this difference and is very visible on ps3; in GTA IV I don't see this huge differences. Anyone can help me because I don't understand this comparison. Is there a video which really prove this?
This thread needs more screen shots. Most of us lurkers came for the pretty pictures. Uncharted looks great! Gears looks great! Crysis crushes all under a weight of platinum awesome!
I wish the PS3 luck! Uncharted looks great (Naughty Dog have always done well). The "allegiance" many of you folk feel towards your console of choice is a bit perplexing. It's almost like your console of choice is like your favorite sporting team. You support the hell out of them even when they lose. Unfortunately, the PS3 is best represented by the Cubs.
I don't follow sports, as sports are boring and lame, so if my characterization of the Cubs as a team that doesn't win a lot is off, then sue me. Might I recommend playing sports instead of paying a moron WAY too much money to play them for you?
We've seen the PS3 do some great things, but I think it's pretty objectively obvious that the 360 has had more "wins". Not saying you should sell your PS3, or that you are a moron for buying it... just that you should show a LOT more respect to the 360.
Considering it came a year early and that almost all the games in question were made with the 360 platform as lead that should not be a surprice.
In the end both will output simiral graphics because non is quite ahead of the other,i think the way in which the PS3 was build,(cell with 256MB of XDR + the RSX having a little extra speed + HDD and Blu-Ray is what is giving the PS3 the edge,i think is more of a complete package.
I remember one the PS3 hadware was been call a name by certain developer or MS don't remember well,but i do remember another developer saying that it would be funny if the PS3 hardware been the way it was tag outperform a more conventional hardware.
I just can't remember the word used to describe the PS3.
Assassins Creed, Force Unleashed, GOW 2, these for example look better than Uncharted.
Really, i don't get why people still hang on to that one. Just use Killzone 2 as the example of why PS3 appears to have the more powerful hardware, even though it's the only example.
Well
GTP5 tracks are essentially highres bmps.
Ninja Gaiden is a last gen game
Lego is a game on a last gen engine
Lair has garbage ass framerate screentear and graphics.
1080p is not what you think it might be. It's needs to be phased out until next gen.
The GPUs function similarly, so you can't expect huge differences shaders and textures wise (It's not far fecthed to think the 360 will still pull a bit ahead textures wise due to the more friendly structure ; on multiplatefroms mainly). I suspect we'll see more down the road is bigger in scope, more physics based games on the PS3. This and the PS3 still has more 1080p at 60 fps with more advanced lighting IMO (GT5 p and Wipeout HD).
N64 games look like N64 games DC games look like DC games. PS1 games look like PS1 games.....
Because those systems had a rendering pipe lines that were hard wired.
With 360 and PS3, the rendering pipelines are mostly programmable. So games made with the same tools are going to look the same. Even if you have a top end pc that has tons of bandwidth for pixel work, it's only going to be able to do the work described by the programmed graphics engine.
Only advanced tools and graphics engines will be able to make things look different like Killzone or Wipeout HD or Little Big Planet. Those three games look wildy different (and better) than any other console games on the market.
I think everyone can admit that the output of both consoles looks very similar. Certainly much closer than anyone originally anticipated. Remember, this board was chocked full of threads about how much better the PS3 would look given the extra year of development and most were claiming a difference at least equal to PS2/Xbox.
The reality is that the extra year of technology advances that Sony was priveleged with, has not equated to a distinguished graphical advantage... the reasons are irrelevant.
You guys never disappoint. This thread is exactly as amusing to read as I was hoping. :lol
(Man, though, WrickaWrek should get an award for having to hold up the crazy-ass 360 side all by himself when the crazy-ass PS3 side has like eight dudes taking shifts.)
What's really funny about these threads to me is always how different my own perceptions of what the most attractive games are compared to the GAF defense hives. I think LBP would be a much better choice as an overall technical showcase than Uncharted.
jedimike said:
I think everyone can admit that the output of both consoles looks very similar.
This thread needs more screen shots. Most of us lurkers came for the pretty pictures. Uncharted looks great! Gears looks great! Crysis crushes all under a weight of platinum awesome!
I wish the PS3 luck! Uncharted looks great (Naughty Dog have always done well). The "allegiance" many of you folk feel towards your console of choice is a bit perplexing. It's almost like your console of choice is like your favorite sporting team. You support the hell out of them even when they lose. Unfortunately, the PS3 is best represented by the Cubs.
I don't follow sports, as sports are boring and lame, so if my characterization of the Cubs as a team that doesn't win a lot is off, then sue me. Might I recommend playing sports instead of paying a moron WAY too much money to play them for you?
We've seen the PS3 do some great things, but I think it's pretty objectively obvious that the 360 has had more "wins". Not saying you should sell your PS3, or that you are a moron for buying it... just that you should show a LOT more respect to the 360.
Images with 1920x1080 rendered pixels. Consoles may do it with slightly better quality, but any HDTV on the market can do the upscaling to its panel resolution (which may or may not be 1080p) itself. That's really not a distinguishing factor.
It's during the creation of the pixels that it's determined how much detail can be represented, and ultimately how much processing power is necessary to do it.
Scaling from one resolution to another is not the same thing. It can never add detail.
Of course that's all too complicated for mass market brains to consider, as opposed to the old good "My number here is bigger than your number!".
