Comparisons show 360 is graphically superior?!

MKE · Post by **MKE** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:06 pm

while looking around digg, i came across this comparison of ridge racer 6 and 7.

http://www.gamebrink.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11711

was sony lying about the ps3's capabilities? or is this just because the ps3 is really that hard to program for.

Post by **melancholy** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:17 pm

My guess is because it's newer, dev kits were released later than the 360's were, and probably because it is harder to program for. I'm sure in a year's time most companies will get the hang of it and start programming more graphically intense games.

DaMadFiddler · Post by **DaMadFiddler** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:26 pm

Pah. First-run PS3 developments, mature 360 dev. There's no point even talking about this until both systems have been out for a while.

Darksaviour69 · Post by **Darksaviour69** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:28 pm

ridge racer 6 was a xbox 360 launch title (well near enough)

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:19 pm

Give me a Leica and Ansel Adams a Lomo.

We'll see who takes better pictures.

I hope at least one person knows what the hell I'm talking about.

bizzle · Post by **bizzle** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:25 pm

At least they both look better than the Wii.

Caboose · Post by **Caboose** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:38 pm

I'm no graphics whore, but that really does look last-gen

Bertrude · Post by **Bertrude** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:50 pm

There's an small article on softpedia which suggests that both machines are regarded as equal in the eyes of developers - the PS3 offering superior processing but the 360 fighting it's corner with more memory.

There's not much but the article is here:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360 ... 9324.shtml

There's even a suggestion that the PS3 couldn't handle Gears Of War, but I thnk that's hard to say with the PS3 so young in the marketplace and it could just be promotional propaganda. I'm pretty sure it would be able to manage it at some stage. Interestingly it sounds like GOW is also pushing the 360 to it's limits. Hyperbole? You decide.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/PlayStat ... 8877.shtml

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:57 pm

I think the PS3 shots actually look better. The 360 shots seem to have excessive saturation and contrast, so they look "better" at a glance (more colorful and distinct) but that has nothing to do with the processing power of the systems or the quality of rendering.

Of course, the real test is what it looks like in motion on an actual TV with no compression artifacts.

edit: bah, got my systems mixed up.

Juan · Post by **Juan** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:11 pm

Xylene wrote:At least they both look better than the Wii.

Post by **melancholy** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:50 pm

Bertrude wrote:There's even a suggestion that the PS3 couldn't handle Gears Of War, but I thnk that's hard to say with the PS3 so young in the marketplace and it could just be promotional propaganda.

Actually, that comes from Epic's statement that they made Microsoft bump up the RAM in their machine so that it could run GoW. So if the PS3 has less RAM than the 360, then that statement would be true.

DaMadFiddler · Post by **DaMadFiddler** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:16 pm

Well, my point was more that the PS3 is so new that people haven't really gotten the hang of its ins and outs yet...and Sony hardware is usually both complicated and poorly documented. Give it a couple years, and *then* see how they compare. (Example: look at what people have pushed out of the PS2 in the last year or two, compared to the first year or so?)

Post by **melancholy** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm

Personally, I think they are so similar in power that it honestly doesn't matter if one can push out 5 more polygons than the other.

TyBO · Post by **TyBO** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:05 am

I've heard developers say that the PS3 is much more difficult to develop games for than the 360. That might be a factor.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:51 am

jaredfogle wrote:Give me a Leica and Ansel Adams a Lomo.

We'll see who takes better pictures.

I hope at least one person knows what the hell I'm talking about.

I do! YAY!

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:01 am

It probably isn't the best idea to compare crappy Ride Racers to see which system is graphically superior. Both of them don't even push their systems like they should. Show me Gears of War vs. MGS4

GyroVorbis · Post by **GyroVorbis** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:26 pm

melancholy wrote:Personally, I think they are so similar in power that it honestly doesn't matter if one can push out 5 more polygons than the other.

I would agree, but I'm sick of seeing "next-gen" games that look like PS2/Xbox/GC games bumpmapped to hell.

So one console being able to render a Dreamcast or PS2 more than the other one is a pretty big deal, considering that's what most games look like they're doing anyway on the 360 and PS3.

Juan · Post by **Juan** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:15 pm

GyroVorbis wrote:
melancholy wrote:Personally, I think they are so similar in power that it honestly doesn't matter if one can push out 5 more polygons than the other.
I would agree, but I'm sick of seeing "next-gen" games that look like PS2/Xbox/GC games bumpmapped to hell.

So one console being able to render a Dreamcast or PS2 more than the other one is a pretty big deal, considering that's what most games look like they're doing anyway on the 360 and PS3.

You're thinking of Wii.

GyroVorbis · Post by **GyroVorbis** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:57 pm

Juan wrote:
GyroVorbis wrote:
melancholy wrote:Personally, I think they are so similar in power that it honestly doesn't matter if one can push out 5 more polygons than the other.
I would agree, but I'm sick of seeing "next-gen" games that look like PS2/Xbox/GC games bumpmapped to hell.

So one console being able to render a Dreamcast or PS2 more than the other one is a pretty big deal, considering that's what most games look like they're doing anyway on the 360 and PS3.

You're thinking of Wii.

I have yet to see a Wii game that uses any sort of bump mapping.

Now I may be a bit dated, I haven't played a 360 in awhile. When I was at my friend's playing it the last time, (at least the launch games) looked like PS2 games with nothing but fancy bumpmapping thrown all over the place to make it look prettier. This may only be the first gen 360 games, but it's definitely something that bothered me.

Nice wall, too bad the ground texture and mip mapping looks like something from a PS2.

So... damn... shiny...

PS2 and DC could practically do that... oh wait... the floor shines.

I don't mean to bitch, and these may all be perfectly good games, but if I'm going to put that much money into either a PS3 or 360, I'd really like to see my VRAM put to better use besides making low poly, PS2 port quality things look shiny.

Seriously, we've been able to do this since the days of the Dreamcast. Only difference is that then we had to use it sparingly. So the amazing new hardware enables us to go all out with making flat textures shine rather than making any serious graphical improvements?

...you guys are going to post shots of Gears of War and all that... I'm not talking about them. It just seems like the majority of the games I've seen on 360 (yes, they are mostly first gen).

By the way, does anybody know if the Wii can handle bump/normal maps?

Skynet · Post by **Skynet** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:29 am

PS2 and DC could practically do that... oh wait... the floor shines.

To be fair, there's that motion blurring that occurs, a heap of bots, etc. I was unhappy with the frame rate though.