Support NeoGAF

[kruis]

It's hard to stand out when all of the games are outstanding.

Seriously though. There are a lot of impressive 360 games out there. PGR4, RDR, Crysis 2 and Gears to name a few.

The actual answer is that devs are forbidden from accessing the 360 hardware directly and the general lack of true 360 exclusives. Almost every game released on the 360 is a multiplatform game (or else a late port from an earlier PC version). Multiplatform games can look extreme good on the 360 (Crysis 2 for instance), but they'll never be a in graphical class all by themselves compared to other games on the same platform.

I have not played Gears 3 but does anybody think the game is graphically superior to everything else on the 360 like for instance God of War was on the PS2? Is there a 360 game from the past two years that raised the bar for 360 console graphics to unmatched heights? Without a dedicated team of seasoned 360 devs coding close to the metal that won't happen. That's not a bad thing, the overall quality of modern 360 games is high, but it also means gamers won't get wowed this late in the 360's game.

 

[charsace]

There are a lot of impressive looking games on the 360 or games that have impressive tech.
Metro 2033 looks fantastic on consoles
Witcher 2 which is coming up
Viva Pinata games with their deferred rendering and tessellation
And many more games out on the 360.

 

[vazel]

Ridge Racer 7
Virtua Tennis 3

And Lair god damn it! It was not a bad game with the patch!

Edit: Oh Lair is 1080p but not 60fps. nvm.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Most games do look better on 360 but that has more to do with 360 being the lead platform for most multiplats than the PS3 not being good enough.

Not really. In the early days of this gen that was a given especially with any Unreal based game. But now, games are made with both systems in mind right from the start so there really is no lead platform. Why we get things like PS3 Skyrim issues this late in the gen is curious.

360 may not have the best looking games but it does have the best performance in games.

 

[bj00rn_]

the submarine level was very pretty. you should def. check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmn0PQJLuw

Yup. It looks fantastic. It's so nice to have the perspective from over 30 years as a gamer to really appreciate just how good some of these games are beginning to look.

 

[alr1ght]

Why we get things like PS3 Skyrim issues this late in the gen is curious.

Because...bugthesda

 

[dragonelite]

I'd say partly due to Santa Monica and Naughty Dog/Sony's ICE team.

Does MS has that kind of support for its (first party) games by the way?

Rare makes tech. Turn 10 and Epic worked together on some tech with Forza 4 and Gears 3 if im not mistaken. Or was it Turn 10 that shared the reflection tech with epic not sure.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Because...bugthesda

The PC and 360 didn't have the issue. Plus other games had this same other PS3 only bug like Brutal Legend.

 

[Drinky Crow]

simple answer: "lookers" cost first party bankroll, big time, and often have poor roi. ask yourself: did ms make the wrong decision this gen?

 

[SparkTR]

I'd say Gears 3 is that game, it exceeded my modest expectations of what the 360 can produce visually and stands with the PS3's best. With that said we really need a new generation, the poor IQ of console games is the real deal breaker for me these days.

 

[Monumental]

my post was to counter this part of your post.

everything I wrote in my post was tailored to this. for example, when Madden released on both systems at the same time (Madden 07), they were both 30fps but the PS3 version had more effects.

What a meaningless and trivial thing to reply to...especially when the it's such a small part of my overall point. And the game you're talking about didn't even release at the same time.

Thats not even a problem. MS just wanted games till 2009-2010. They didn't care about custom engines and tech. Problem is where PS3 developers put so much time and money into just say facial animations, MS 1st party(which are rare) or 3rd party just don't do it. Its not something thats impossible to do, its just that it takes time, talent and money. And while MS had money, and talent was pretty good, there wasn't time.

Look at KZ2 for example. You have team working on game for 4 years just to match CGi trailer. No need for vast experience like GTA or Skyrim, just put out game that looks amazing. There wasn't any similar examples on 360 side...

And to end this, I think this year is going to be very good in terms of pushing both consoles. Even more so from 3rd party.

Spot on.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Kameo...and that's launch.

OP is a special kind of dumb.

 

[CamHostage]

Why shouldn't multi-platform games enter the conversation even if they perform better on another system?

And there's not a lot at all between the two versions of BF3 with higher resolution textures installed on Xbox.

Because that's the point of the damned thread.

When you think PS3, you think of the Kara demo and Killzone 2 and GT5 and a handful of other games that are to the metal, that stretch imagination of what's possible on that generation's hardware. That's true of nearly every platform in history, even Wii has Smash Bros (sure, it's a second-gen engine, but it's another step up graphically and even ignoring comparisons it will always be mindblowing how fast it loads and how detailed it is.) But on Xbox 360, (despite hardware that often SHAMES the competition which is constantly crowing about how advanced it is, simply in title-for-title comparisons of multiplatform releases) you have relatively few exclusives that push boundaries (despite some of the brightest minds, best technology, and strongest funding in the business; companies like Lionhead, Bungie and Remedy are clearly capable of revolutionary work, yet their exclusively-targeted games argueably aren't the best on the platform much less of the generation.) And then you have a ton of amazing multiplatform games, but those games are equally or nearly as good on PS3 (and it's usually a matter of the PS3's technical snafus that makes it a fair fight, it's not like Xbox/PS2 where the developers are clearly using hardware features of the platform to make the most kick-ass version possible.)

The Xbox 360 is clearly capable of technical marvels, it'd be nice if Microsoft put together more titles that make the system sing the way Sony does for the pride of its fanbase. That's all we're talking about. We're not condemning anybody, we're here to praise those few who have gone above and beyond on the platform and encourage MS to push those boundaries.

 

[Dennis]

i don't know what people are smoking, but Forza 4 looks great!

OMG who needs PC!

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Far be it for me to celebrate someone's ban, but

Well-deserved.

 

[TemplaerDude]

Fuck, this thread is still going? I thought for sure it would be canned by the time I got up. At least that goof got banned.

 

[Marco1]

Is this a PS3 exclusive comparison thread or that the OP can't find games that look great on the 360 ?

 

[Chinner]

this thread has convinced me that x360 is still graphically competitive with pc gaming.

 

[Riggs]

Kameo...and that's launch.

OP is a special kind of dumb.

I wonder what OP got banned for? I am on my phone so can't search myself lol.

Edit
lol nevermind.

 

[Horse Armour]

this thread has convinced me that x360 is still graphically competitive with pc gaming.

Try playing Crysis 2 DX11 at 1080p, it's the only PC game that looks a generation ahead of consoles.

 

[Boss Man]

360 does "colorful" game really well, but those games are not very popular this gen.

Graphically, the trend is more towards moving pieces- which the PS3 seems to do better.


I think the difference in quantity of outstanding-looking games has more to do with the kinds of games we're playing than the 360's inability to have them. Plus, it seems like most things developed for 360 are the mass-produced, multi-platform things (which is good since they're done initially on 360, all of the most popular games run a bit better on 360). PS3, on the other hand, has some developers working specifically to squeeze everything they can out of the machine. Polishing it for dat cell and whatnot, not many devs are polishing things for dat Live bro. They develop for 360 because they want their game in everyone's hands.

If Insomniac was developing games exclusively for 360 (please don't happen), I bet those games would look outstanding.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

360 does "colorful" game really well, but those games are not very popular this gen.

Graphically, the trend is more towards moving pieces- which the PS3 seems to do better..

What the fuck does that even mean?

 

[Draconian]

i thought gears 2 looked better than gears 3.

 

[Dennis]

What the fuck does that even mean?

The 360 can do 16million+ colors because it has an extra Color Engine chip.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Try playing Crysis 2 DX11 at 1080p, it's the only PC game that looks a generation ahead of consoles.

All things accounted for, BF3 on its highest settings, at a buttery smooth and fast framerate fits that bill.

 

[Boss Man]

What the fuck does that even mean?

Games like Kameo, Banjo, and Viva Pinata look better on 360 than games of that nature look on PS3. I believe the 360 has a different gamma curve (out of my understanding) or something than PS3 has, games always tend to look more colorful on 360.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Games like Kameo, Banjo, and Viva Pinata look better on 360 than games of that nature look on PS3. I believe the 360 has a different gamma curve (out of my understanding) or something than PS3 has, games always tend to look more colorful on 360.

"That nature?" What, like Ratchet? Hell, if you do a color indexing I'm sure you will find that Uncharted 1 and 2 might rank pretty high.

 

[Horse Armour]

All things accounted for, BF3 on its highest settings, at a buttery smooth and fast framerate fits that bill.

Nah, not really. The only PC game aspect that looks a generation ahead of anything on consoles is Crysis 2 DX11 lighting which easily looks as good as the Samaritan demo. No other PC game looks a gen ahead of consoles even when you only consider one aspect of its visuals such as the Witcher 2 which is generally agreed to have the best textures still not being a gen ahead of the best on consoles.

 

[elrechazado]

Nah, not really. The only PC game aspect that looks a generation ahead of anything on consoles is Crysis 2 DX11 lighting which easily looks as good as the Samaritan demo. No other PC game looks a gen ahead of consoles even when you only consider one aspect of its visuals such as the Witcher 2 which is generally agreed to have the best textures still not being a gen ahead of the best on consoles.

/hankhill hhhhhwhaaaaat?

 

[CamHostage]

They only reason a handful of PS3 games outshine the best looking on 360 is they're all internal projects. There are no third party PS3 games that are even close to the internal stuff. MS just hasn't put that same focus on internal development.

But... why? They have hardware they argue is the best on the market. They have the largest HD install base. They have an audience that buys titles year-round and in large quantities. They have internally some of the best developers in the business working on the platform. They don't necessarily need to pay for third-party exclusives anymore when the install base and marketing support is there (I'm not sure there's much life left in 3rd Party exclusives this late anyway, DLC maybe but whole titles need to be multiplat to pay off.) And they have the money. How about one new game that screams, "You've never seen anything like this before!"

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Nah, not really. The only PC game aspect that looks a generation ahead of anything on consoles is Crysis 2 DX11 lighting which easily looks as good as the Samaritan demo. No other PC game looks a gen ahead of consoles even when you only consider one aspect of its visuals such as the Witcher 2 which is generally agreed to have the best textures still not being a gen ahead of the best on consoles.

Well, I disagree. It honestly feels like that, a generation ahead. The whole player count thing sort of helps in hammering that nail, but purely on a visual level... god damn. It's amazing what crisp IQ, actual high definition and a smooth framerate can do.

 

[zoukka]

/hankhill hhhhhwhaaaaat?

His post was quite clear.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

But... why? They have hardware they argue is the best on the market. They have the largest HD install base. They have an audience that buys titles year-round and in large quantities. They have internally some of the best developers in the business working on the platform. They don't necessarily need to pay for third-party exclusives anymore when the install base and marketing support is there (I'm not sure there's much life left in 3rd Party exclusives this late anyway, DLC maybe but whole titles need to be multiplat to pay off.) And they have the money. How about one new game that screams, "You've never seen anything like this before!"

Well, they did that when that was necessary, with Gears. And it worked. I personally wish it wasn't like this because I own the console and I LOVE pretty games, but I don't blame them for sort of not giving that much of a shit these days.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

But... why? They have hardware they argue is the best on the market. They have the largest HD install base. They have an audience that buys titles year-round and in large quantities. They have internally some of the best developers in the business working on the platform. They don't necessarily need to pay for third-party exclusives anymore when the install base and marketing support is there (I'm not sure there's much life left in 3rd Party exclusives this late anyway, DLC maybe but whole titles need to be multiplat to pay off.) And they have the money. How about one new game that screams, "You've never seen anything like this before!"

Will it make a difference? They already outsell their competition. A first partys job is to make sure people buy the system so they can make money from third party games. They do this already. Why spend the extra money for no extra gain?

Well, they did that when that was necessary, with Gears. And it worked. I personally wish it wasn't like this because I own the console and I LOVE pretty games, but I don't blame them for sort of not giving that much of a shit these days.

Right, early in the gen it matters. At the end of the gen it doesn't.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Because that's the point of the damned thread.

When you think PS3, you think of the Kara demo and Killzone 2 and GT5 and a handful of other games that are to the metal, that stretch imagination of what's possible on that generation's hardware. That's true of nearly every platform in history, even Wii has Smash Bros (sure, it's a second-gen engine, but it's another step up graphically and even ignoring comparisons it will always be mindblowing how fast it loads and how detailed it is.) But on Xbox 360, (despite hardware that often SHAMES the competition which is constantly crowing about how advanced it is, simply in title-for-title comparisons of multiplatform releases) you have relatively few exclusives that push boundaries (despite some of the brightest minds, best technology, and strongest funding in the business; companies like Lionhead, Bungie and Remedy are clearly capable of revolutionary work, yet their exclusively-targeted games argueably aren't the best on the platform much less of the generation.) And then you have a ton of amazing multiplatform games, but those games are equally or nearly as good on PS3 (and it's usually a matter of the PS3's technical snafus that makes it a fair fight, it's not like Xbox/PS2 where the developers are clearly using hardware features of the platform to make the most kick-ass version possible.)

The Xbox 360 is clearly capable of technical marvels, it'd be nice if Microsoft put together more titles that make the system sing the way Sony does for the pride of its fanbase. That's all we're talking about. We're not condemning anybody, we're here to praise those few who have gone above and beyond on the platform and encourage MS to push those boundaries.

Myself and others have already provided examples of games that fit this criteria, whether exclusive or not.

AC2, RDR, Forza 4, Gears 3, PoP 2008, Witcher 2, Halo Reach, and Crysis 2 are as far beyond the average 360 game as Uncharted or Killzone IMO. I don't understand the logic of judging games as automatically superior just because they are exclusive.

 

[Monumental]

But... why? They have hardware they argue is the best on the market. They have the largest HD install base. They have an audience that buys titles year-round and in large quantities. They have internally some of the best developers in the business working on the platform. They don't necessarily need to pay for third-party exclusives anymore when the install base and marketing support is there (I'm not sure there's much life left in 3rd Party exclusives this late anyway, DLC maybe but whole titles need to be multiplat to pay off.) And they have the money. How about one new game that screams, "You've never seen anything like this before!"

...ok..Gears 3 came out last year. This is the year of their all star team, 343 Industries.

Say this in a month after Halo 4 is revealed. I disagree that Microsoft doesn't have showcase games, but if you really want that specific technical peak, Halo 4 fits the bill.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Will it make a difference? They already outsell their competition. A first partys job is to make sure people buy the system so they can make money from third party games. They do this already. Why spend the extra money for no extra gain?

Agreed, but it does seemly oddly short-term for being Microsoft. I don't mean just having games that push things for the sake of pushing it, but the first party stable is thin. That works as long as you have a good third party strategy, but that pendulum can swing in any direction (see: PS2 -> PS3).

But then I'm not in charge of a multibillion dollar corporation so what the fuck do I really know.

 

[Wellscha]

How come everyone forgot about Lost Planet 1??

 

[Aeana]

Blue Dragon is still one of the most visually appealing games I've ever seen. It's unreal to me that it looks so great, and came so early in the system's life too.

 

[GhostWriter24]

I'm going to have to disagree about Kameo -- I think a lot of people look at that game through rose-colored glasses.

 

[Atomski]

Nah, not really. The only PC game aspect that looks a generation ahead of anything on consoles is Crysis 2 DX11 lighting which easily looks as good as the Samaritan demo. No other PC game looks a gen ahead of consoles even when you only consider one aspect of its visuals such as the Witcher 2 which is generally agreed to have the best textures still not being a gen ahead of the best on consoles.

You need to look at BF3 maxed on PC besides the console version. They are clearly a generation apart.

Not even mentioning the map size differences and player count..

 

[Uno Venova]

Best guess, the first party situation, it is true there are not many wow moments on the 360. The first 2 Gears didn't age well graphically.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Agreed, but it does seemly oddly short-term for being Microsoft. I don't mean just having games that push things for the sake of pushing it, but the first party stable is thin. That works as long as you have a good third party strategy, but that pendulum can swing in any direction (see: PS2 -> PS3).

But then I'm not in charge of a multibillion dollar corporation so what the fuck do I really know.

And Sony went from making FMV Sega CD games based on shitty movies to quality first party games in one generation. MS publishes a lot of games that cover retail core, XBLA, and Kinect. I have faith that at the beginning of next gen MS will kick it into high gear with the first party exclusives. Again, at the end of the generation it no longer matters.

 

[CamHostage]

Well, they did that when that was necessary, with Gears. And it worked. I personally wish it wasn't like this because I own the console and I LOVE pretty games, but I don't blame them for sort of not giving that much of a shit these days.

Agreed totally on Gears. Not only was it a showcase title for the system throughout, but it helped Microsoft get cozy with the leading engine of the generation. Super-smart.

Will it make a difference? They already outsell their competition. A first partys job is to make sure people buy the system so they can make money from third party games. They do this already. Why spend the extra money for no extra gain?

True. And maybe I'm stepping on my own point by saying that if you go by Gears 3 sales stories being disappointing, maybe Microsoft has made the right choice in shying away from bleeding-edge development projects later in the system's life. There's not such a need to put that kind of all-in effort in any more, hopefully that energy is being poured into 720 instead now.

Still, Sony is even now trying its damnest to show off its mastery, and I think the fanbase appreciates it. Xbox 360 is capable of equally demonstrative work. Hopefully Halo 4 provides that last hurrah that highlights this system the way it deserves.

 

[Horse Armour]

You need to look at BF3 maxed on PC besides the console version. They are clearly a generation apart.

Not even mentioning the map size differences and player count..

I have Witcher 2, BF3 and Crysis 2 DX11 all maxed at 1080p on PC and the only aspect that looks next gen worthy is Crysis 2's lighting, nothing else looks a generation ahead of what we have on consoles currently.

 

[Atomski]

I have Witcher 2, BF3 and Crysis 2 DX11 all maxed at 1080p on PC and the only aspect that looks next gen worthy is Crysis 2's lighting, nothing else looks a generation ahead of what we have on consoles currently.

If you cant see the difference in resolution, texture, effects and frame limit then you can not be helped.

 

[daviyoung]

I have Witcher 2, BF3 and Crysis 2 DX11 all maxed at 1080p on PC and the only aspect that looks next gen worthy is Crysis 2's lighting, nothing else looks a generation ahead of what we have on consoles currently.

Sorry man, but most games do.

 

[Steve McQueen]

I think that the 360 is, when in the right hands, capable of awesome graphics, but the lack of exclusives and a bunch of good first party devs sucks.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

And Sony went from making FMV Sega CD games based on shitty movies to quality first party games in one generation. MS publishes a lot of games that cover retail core, XBLA, and Kinect. I have faith that at the beginning of next gen MS will kick it into high gear with the first party exclusives. Again, at the end of the generation it no longer matters.

Right, but MS is in a shitty position there compared to Sony since they haven't focused on that nearly as much. You don't just create a Naughty Dog or Santa Monica out of thin air. They built up some studios, but at the same time they dropped others. Maybe they will go with the same strategy of third party contracts, but those have got to be a lot more expensive these days. As far as internal development strength goes, they are in a down position.

Now, that is all in order to appeal to people like me. It may not even make business sense to have a strong first party library (and I somehow doubt Sony would have had that strategy if it knew where it would land them), but that's not my main interest here.

 

[Horse Armour]

If you cant see the difference in resolution, texture, effects and frame limit then you can not be helped.

Huh? Of course I can see the difference. I'm playing Mass Effect 3 right now at 4xSGSSAA and it looks next gen in terms of IQ but not in any other way.

Sorry man, but most games do.

Most games are console ports these days and IQ aside do not usually feature better graphical assets.

BF3, Crysis 2 and Witcher 2 and a few others such as Metro 2033 are the only games that look a lot better than the best of console games and of those only Crysis 2's lighting looks a gen ahead of the best on consoles.