Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

which has better graphics?

Mackilroy said:
To Eraserhead above: I was referring to more than just GTA IV, but later on I'll go find the link that stated GTA IV was slightly better on Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

that differs with everyone. IGN and 1up both mention the PS3 version runs a bit better (ie. less pop-up, shorter loads) and Dan Houser in EGM a few months back said he preferred the way the PS3 renders colours over the 360 (softer tone or something to that effect).On the other hand, the 360 is said to achieve a higher peak framerate and be a bit crisper over the slightly fuzzy PS3 version. Plus DLC, achievements, XBL etc.

Basically pick the version your friends have so you can play online with them.


But honestly, nothing against the OP but these topics are poison and really shouldn't be on the boards since they just make everyone bitch at eachother about largely meaningless stuff that we have all beaten to death, resurrected and beaten to death again.
 
There very very similar. XBox 360 has better graphics on some games which were ported to the PS3, but that should shock no one.



Honestly, the difference is very very small. Basicly not worth mentioning.
 
popcorn-1.gif
 
raggedjimmi said:
Huh? Right, lol.

The 360 has a slightly faster GPU which controls these graphics the OP seems to want. BluRay has absolutely no effect on graphic quality at all. BluRay just means more storage space, it's not a magic plastic disc that somehow can render twice as many objects on screen compared to a DVD. That would be like painting a racing stripe down your car to make it go faster.

It's probably worth noting that all these big AAA games are much lower res than what you'd expect. GTA IV runs at 720p on a 360, but 630p (IIRC) on a PS3. COD4 (both platforms) is also a low res, alongside Halo 3 and MGS4 is also rumoured to be less than 720p. The PS3 exclusive Haze is 576p (IIRC).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say absolutely since storage space has a big influence on the size and variety of textures...
 
Chone said:
I wouldn't say absolutely since storage space has a big influence on the size and variety of textures...
Click to expand...

spyker3292 said:
Yay, someone agrees with me.

(this is a pretty pointless thread :D)
Click to expand...


More variety does not equal better textures. Why do you fail to understand that ? Is it so hard to comprehend ?

More storage space does not mean better textures. A myriad of ***** textures does not stop them being subpar. Period.

And in regards to Blu-Ray storage, we have yet to see ANY game that has really used the storage on offer for anything other than padding or superficial FMV in a variety of res's.

When we get that 1080p High Res Textured, 60+ Hour Epic, 50GB monster - I'll remain skeptical that BluRay storage is needed for GAMES this generation.
 
MacRumorUser said:
More variety does not equal better textures. Why do you fail to understand that ? Is it so hard to comprehend ?
Click to expand...

In their defence they likely have no working knowledge of game development.
PC games have had these "high resolution and varied" textures for years now yet they're not pushing BluRay? When using texture compression, storage space is never an issue. Really. As MRU said - FMV's take up room, audio takes up, even polygon models can be quite small since they're just a linear 3D address array.
Also see memory limit.
 
In everyones defense settle down kids. The op is obviously a troll searching for a thread to start a flame war (which is kinda already kindled).

Whether you like the Wii, 360, or PS3 its all preference. Buy what you like, buy what you enjoy, and furthermore buy what makes you happy.

This is an entertainment system, use it as such. Who cares what the Jones's has, so long as you are happy with the purchase it is all that matters.

Stop feeding in to the OP's immature ways. Don't feed the TROLLS

a_3174.goober-dont-worry.jpg


Ed
 
I remember kids in school getting into fights over SNES vs Megadrive, also Atari vs Amiga, so these kind of *discussions* have always been, and always will be



Besides, the current consoles working resolution is crap any way you look at it, rendering at resolutions on par with, or lower than i was using in games on a PC 6 or 7 years ago :p

The textures also aren't all that good, most of them get hidden in large amounts of over bright lighting and motion blur ;)


As to XBOX vs PS3 graphics... From what i've seen both have the same general appearance with similarly ropey AA so it's not worth arguing about :D
 
Better yet, buy all three systems - What does it cost you? Less than a $1000 every few years. End of worry.
 
robanga said:
Better yet, buy all three systems - What does it cost you? Less than a $1000 every few years. End of worry.
Click to expand...

Here in Engurland it'd cost you £800 ($1600) to buy all consoles at launch. And since the 360 was pretty much our first HD source you might have to factor in a new TV cost. Then the accessories to make them useable (which is WiFi for me).

TBH I'd rather buy 1 gaming-quality PC :eek:
 
raggedjimmi said:
TBH I'd rather buy 1 gaming-quality PC :eek:
Click to expand...

That will play games to the standard as seen in preview / screenshots for about 6/12 months, and then it's rapidly downhill all the way.

I'd rather stick with a console ;) Different strokes though.

But yeah I have to have'em all. Consoles are like pokemon to me :D
 
Enough of this! *stamps clenched fist on table* I want to hear more of the 80%/20% CoD4 style BS!
The Cell can render hair that comes out of the display!
The 360 can levitate to cool itself!
 
raggedjimmi said:
Enough of this! *stamps clenched fist on table* I want to hear more of the 80%/20% CoD4 style BS!
The Cell can render hair that comes out of the display!
The 360 can levitate to cool itself!
Click to expand...


Jimmi you forgot to put the ;) after that. You don't want to leave mixed signals now do you? :p
 
The ONLY good thing about the 360 scaler is if you have an older HDTV from like 6-8 years ago,
Click to expand...

ROFL!

Man, time must really fly fast.

Just over a year ago only the high end HDTVs were 1080p. Even today the smaller/cheaper HDTVs are 720p/1080i.
 
I'd say that the PS3 has better graphics. I don't know why, I don't know how...it just seems that way to me. This is without doing any detailed technical or side by side comparisons....

But the two are so similar (in a visual quality basis) that it may vary from person to person. I would personally give the PS3 the edge, though....
 
MacRumorUser said:
When we get that 1080p High Res Textured, 60+ Hour Epic, 50GB monster - I'll remain skeptical that BluRay storage is needed for GAMES this generation.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what Sega said about DVD when they released the Dreamcast... and we all know what happened to that console... which i might add, was the first entrant to the last generation of consoles (eg PS2, xbox). The dreamcast hardware was pretty solid, but for many reasons including the lack of DVD, the system failed and damn near destroyed sega...
 
You're not seriously equating everything but the PS3 to the Dreamcast, are you?
 
MarsUltor said:
The dreamcast hardware was pretty solid, but for many reasons including the lack of DVD, the system failed and damn near destroyed sega...
Click to expand...

No the dreamcast failed for a myriad reasons and DVD wasn't the biggest problem with it. By far the biggest problem was buyer apathy / indifference after a lot of previous failed Sega hardware including MegaCD and Saturn.
 
MacRumorUser said:
No the dreamcast failed for a myriad reasons and DVD wasn't the biggest problem with it. By far the biggest problem was buyer apathy / indifference after a lot of previous failed Sega hardware including MegaCD and Saturn.
Click to expand...
You just restated my post with more examples... i said many reasons, including lack of DVD... and i never said it was the biggest problem, i said it was one of many reasons... and saturn has minimally anything to do with the dreamcast, the problem [in part] was poor marketing [in the US]
 
raggedjimmi said:
You're not seriously equating everything but the PS3 to the Dreamcast, are you?
Click to expand...

No, i am just giving a counter example to show that even if one thinks bluray is not useful in games now, it may be exceptionally important in the near future (next couple of years)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back