Xbox360/PS3 graphics comparison shots

[sabre2922]

at Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html-


rushed ports for PS3? first-gen-game graphics ?

I see very little difference but overall all the games seem to look better on the 360.

Im still convinced that both systems are very equal in graphical power much more so than the last-gen systems.

[itobandito]

yeah I was looking at this myself. I say the 360 games look better. However developers have had a year plus with the 360 and not too long with the PS3. Will have to see down the road. I kinda hope that in the long run they are equal.

[sickdrummer420]

yea i think they are pretty equal as well. I do also notice the 360 has better textures and lighting on a few games. OK sony fanboys, lets get it on! lol, just kidding, i could care less which is better, its all about the games.

edit: also i see many people saying that 360 had over a year for developers, hasnt developers been working on ps3 for around the same time? for instance the tony hawk game, i remember reading a developer interview saying on how they were working on the game for both systems, which was way over a year ago.

[Gamereviewgod]

Ports really aren't a fair comparison. That's like comparing Madden on the Xbox to the PS2 version. What's the point? They're not going to completely re-write the graphics engine when they port it.

Now, take something like Ridge Racer 7 and compare it to Ridge Racer 6 on the 360 and you'll notice the PS3 version has some really nice enhancements. Nothing life changing, but nice regardless.

Then there's stuff on the PS3 like NBA 07 and Gundam which, well, don't deserve any mention at all. It will always come down to the developer. Nothing can currently touch Gears of War on the 360 on any console, but that doesn't mean it has the most powerful hardware either.

[s1lence]

It will always come down to the developer. Nothing can currently touch Gears of War on the 360 on any console, but that doesn't mean it has the most powerful hardware either.

QFT

It all depends on how well the developer can utilize the hardware that they have in front of them. A prime example is RE4 and how amazing it looked on GC hardware. That was know to be not the most powerfull hardware and it was still a visual treat. I agree that its like comparing apples to oranges to compare the games between the two systems, either way though the games are going to be amazing looking (Gundam aside) on both systems.

[smork]

I guess it's all subjective. I'm a 360 owner, but i think the PS3 screens in that link look a little better. Just have a certain something I like.

I'm not sure what it is, but of the previous-gen consoles I always preferred the feel of the GC games to the Xbox/PS2 games. There was always a bit of a visual touch that appealed to me.

[Flack]

yea i think they are pretty equal as well. I do also notice the 360 has better textures and lighting on a few games. OK sony fanboys, lets get it on! lol, just kidding, i could care less which is better, its all about the games.

edit: also i see many people saying that 360 had over a year for developers, hasnt developers been working on ps3 for around the same time? for instance the tony hawk game, i remember reading a developer interview saying on how they were working on the game for both systems, which was way over a year ago.

That's not exactly what they are saying. The Xbox 360 has been out for a year, but the PS3 just came out. Assuming that developers get a console a year early (just to keep the math simple) that would mean that they have one year's worth of experience developing for the PS3 versus 2 years of experience with the 360. The point they are making is that developers are more familiar with the architecture of the 360 right now.

I guess it's the lighting they're talking about but in every one of those 360 shots the screen is darker than the PS3 one. I agree they look more realistic but I also wonder if I'd be constantly turning up the brightness on my television to see details.

[jajaja]

edit: also i see many people saying that 360 had over a year for developers, hasnt developers been working on ps3 for around the same time? for instance the tony hawk game, i remember reading a developer interview saying on how they were working on the game for both systems, which was way over a year ago.

I'm pretty sure that the 360 devkits was avalible long time before the PS3 ones. As mentioned above, 360 uses a more know architecture (PowerPC) than PS3 does (CELL). CELL is based on PowerPC afaik, but its only the basics thats the same.

Check what guru John Carmack have to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4k8y3ChYF0 (skip to 2:00. And yes, the interviewer sux lol, probly under time pressure tho, but still hehe.)

Carmack say that PS3 is theoreticly more powerfull. The question is how well the developers can use the hardware.

[meancode]

In all the PS3 games I have played, they are lighter, and foggier. This is most prevalent in NBA 2K7 on the PS3. Turning my Dynamic Contrast ON fixes this, without messing up the contrast and saturation of my 360 games.

Some texture work on the PS3 ports is superior, some is not. Some of the geometry is superior, some is not. Some of the lighting on the PS3 is superior, though most is not.

The RSX seems to have a much different gamma. Think of it as the gamma between Mac and PC monitors, where Mac is 1.8 and PC standard is 2.2. The RSX is going to have a different gamma and a different white point temperature, so the two are going to look different, even on the same monitor.

I have tested on my Samsung 32" with Composite, Component, and HDMI. The "problem" with the lightness is the same in all three.

I hope that I can plug my PS3 into my 23" Cinema Display and see the differences there. But I bet it will have the same result.

I hear the worst offender so far is Fight Night Round 3, but I have not played it yet.