http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head...ot-comparison/
Printable View
Without even opening it, I can already tell that Xbox 360 won.Quote:
Originally Posted by radgamer420
That website is terribly basis, I don't know what shit TV they have the Ps3 playing on or settings...mine never looks like the ones they upload...
You can for most games barely tell the difference testing at home.
However PC games as everyone says have better graphics...they are capable of much more than 5 year old systems anyway.
Heres what Digital Foundry said. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...ldier-face-off
I mean there is going to be slight differences, the game was made for 360 and ported to the Ps3.
Though PC if always better in my opinion!
Well yeah PC will always be ahead of consoles because the PC isnt static hardware like the consoles are. PCs can be upgraded regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daggers21
Looks pretty whack on both PS3 and Xbox to be truthful.
That ground texture in the one screen shot is :lol: but I still dont get why people always bring up the fact PC is better.. consoles will never be on par, or better, so why do people always find the need to bring it up..
Terribly biased? How so? I see the PS3 winning plenty of battles there as well. Not to mention, they provide visual evidence. They also match up with Digital Foundry findings most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daggers21
People get pissed cause those sites play the games in out of the box condition for the consoles, not specifically tweaking each one for maximum settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier 95B
Admittedly, I would prefer to see them matched after they were optimized.
Framerates, resolution, dynamic lighting and shadowing, AA can't be optimized however. Those are things that are hardcoded in the game.
yeah, but the instant fanboys see the game is "brighter" or whatever from not having HDMI full range enabled or some shit, they will instantly dismiss the rest of the conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier 95B
Most MP games more often than not look better on the 360. #justsayin
GREAT GAME CO-OP THOUGH
Yep that is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by three3-times
I got to agree, it was a smart development choice for Microsoft to want the console to be easy to develop for from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by three3-times
If you take a look at the big 3, everything Microsoft are involved with (not just console) has extensive development tools laid out to assist and being a software company they play to their strengths by owning the major platform developers use for PC games development, so porting is easiest to their console, which I guess translates into the better versions (console wise).
Knowledge is power, raw power does not always mean better.
hence why the ps3 sucks ass when it comes to MPlat games and is only good for Exclusives.Quote:
Originally Posted by A7MAD
Yep having developer friendly hardware has certainly paid off for MS. An important advantage when you consider the fact that during any consoles life the majority of games that you'll be playing are 3rd party games.Quote:
Originally Posted by A7MAD
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by three3-times
So elegantly put. :)
Unfortunately for Sony it's only in their own first parties interests (they are paid by Sony) to squeeze everything they can out of the system, it helps that they also have some of the best developers in the world (imo) but a majority of the games we play when it's all said and done are third party titles... I just seen that radgamer420 said that before me after I posted it. :)
I agree with him of course.
When a developer can release a game for multiple platforms which in many cases means porting is involved and can do it quickly, efficiently and without that much hassle, it's a win for them and us (as long as the games are good).
Money and time also matter, plays to PC/360's strengths.
I have enjoyed 3rd party games more than first party games anyway, so I am not bothered either way.
I have a modest notebook (Acer 5750G) and Ghost Recon FS is already infinitely better looking than the console versions.
The PS3 version, graphics-wise is just pure mud.
Ouch. But yeah I have to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by three3-times
Probably because these debates are about graphical superiority. And both are inferior when the table is opened to all versions of the game, not just the restricted choice to prove a 'point'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenix
all these game comparisons ever do is prove to me just how powerful the so called less powerful console is and 6 or so years later, shows no sign of being anything but an = to PS3.
The PS3's power becomes evident when devs become very familiar with the hardware and focus on it. The 360 is basically just a PC in a box...the car that everybody's driving, that's why devs are able to get better results with it on multi platform games. There's a reason why the Uncharted series has been the bar raiser in the console industry for example...because it wasn't multiplatform. I don't have any problem whatsoever with this trade off, though if Sony's output was at MS's level, it wouldn't be worth being a PS3 gamer in the light of the general outcome of the ports.Quote:
The PS3 is kind of like a sports car that’s very high-performance and specific in its usage, whereas the 360 is more like a car that everybody’s driving," he said. "It doesn’t have the same range as a sports car, but it has more versatility. - Atsushi Inaba
Have to disagree. Uncharted set the bar for that genre because ND are one of the most talented developers in the industry not because of some mythical untapped "power" of the PS3. As a player of both consoles the graphics I see on the exclusives of both consoles are very comparable imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost-Rhayne
I agree. All this power of the PS3 nonsense is just alot of Sony PR and fanboy overhype. And as an owner of both consoles I've played alot of games on both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yungstar 2006