Xbox 360 graphics worse than PS3?

Elessar

I know this is a tried and tested argument and both consoles have their advantages, but I have noticed something over the past while.

It seems to me that X360 game textures are less crisp than their PS3 counterparts. I've noticed they have a much lower resolution in general than dedicated PS3 titles. Take for example a really good looking game on the X360 - Oblivion. All of the textures are low res. Then take a good PS3 example like Uncharted 2. The textures in this are some of the most crisp and highest res I've ever seen in a game, even taking the PC into account.

Why is this? I've heard xbox developers complaining about the restraints of the DVD format to hold the textures they want to show (they need to be heavily compressed), whereas the PS3's bluray has ample space and they can be continually streamed without compression. I had thought it might be a VRAM isssue but both consoles have pretty much the same amount and the PS3 can do better. Is the DVD format letting MS down here?

DARK-KNIGHT

come on really???? can someone close this it is gonna end nasty we all know it!!

and to add my 2cents thats laughable what your saying mate apart from uncharted as its an exclusive what game seriously looks better on ps3?

take ghostbusters for instance - massive difference in picture quality with the 360 winning out.

Retr0gamer

You can't compare two different games and come to that conclusion especailly 2 completely different games like Oblivion and Uncharted 2 since firstly Oblivion came out in the first few months of the 360's launch and Uncharted 2 is relatively new and that Oblivion is an open world game while Uncharted 2 is totally linear meaning Oblivion puts a much greater strain on it's host hardware so of course it won't look as good. Compare the 360 and PS3 versions of oblivion, the textures are exactly the same. In actual fact it's the PS3 that usually suffers from lower res textures than the 360.

Now for the science part

Both the PS3 and the 360 have their strenghts a weaknesses. The 360 has an excellent graphics processing unit that makes excellent use of video ram while the PS3's GPU is weaker and has less video ram to work with. What this means is you find texture resolution is lower in PS3 games and transparent and special effects work better on the 360. The 360 also seems much better at pumping out more geometry than the PS3. However the SPU's on the PS3 can be used to work in tandem with the PS3 and in games like Uncharted 2 low quality texture detail can be covered up by the use of shaders that add extra detail to the textures. The PS3 really excels in this area and can make surfaces look more detailed despite lower resolution textures being used if in the hands of clever developers. Lately the PS3 has an nifty effect that can actively lower the resolution of games if it becomes too hectic while the 360 stays at the same resolution.

So both have their strenghts and weaknesses. It used to be that third party games always looked better on 360 but we are starting to see games that are indistinguishable and some EA games that are better on the PS3 and first party games that make a lot of use of the added SPU grunt to add detail look a lot better than 360 exclusives.

Fnz

As the saying goes, "knock yourself unconscious":

http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?platform=digitalfoundry&type=comparison-gallery

DARK-KNIGHT

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You can't compare two different games and come to that conclusion especailly 2 completely different games like Oblivion and Uncharted 2 since firstly Oblivion came out in the first few months of the 360's launch and Uncharted 2 is relatively new and that Oblivion is an open world game while Uncharted 2 is totally linear meaning Oblivion puts a much greater strain on it's host hardware so of course it won't look as good. Compare the 360 and PS3 versions of oblivion, the textures are exactly the same. In actual fact it's the PS3 that usually suffers from lower res textures than the 360.

Now for the science part

Both the PS3 and the 360 have their strenghts a weaknesses. The 360 has an excellent graphics processing unit that makes excellent use of video ram while the PS3's GPU is weaker and has less video ram to work with. What this means is you find texture resolution is lower in PS3 games and transparent and special effects work better on the 360. The 360 also seems much better at pumping out more geometry than the PS3. However the SPU's on the PS3 can be used to work in tandem with the PS3 and in games like Uncharted 2 low quality texture detail can be covered up by the use of shaders that add extra detail to the textures. The PS3 really excels in this area and can make surfaces look more detailed despite lower resolution textures being used if in the hands of clever developers. Lately the PS3 has an nifty effect that can actively lower the resolution of games if it becomes too hectic while the 360 stays at the same resolution.

So both have their strenghts and weaknesses. It used to be that third party games always looked better on 360 but we are starting to see games that are indistinguishable and some EA games that are better on the PS3 and first party games that make a lot of use of the added SPU grunt to add detail look a lot better than 360 exclusives.

thats what i said in a nutshell lol!!

good post retro firfst class homework done there

corcaigh07

well said retro, didnt know about that PS3 Res trick it does. 360 has better anti-alasing though yea?

i just recently own both consoles and both consoles have advantages. 360 seems to load faster for me but some of the graphics on PS3 are unreal and very crisp. havent seen uncharted yet but Heavy Rain is a game I'd highly doubt could make it on 360, definitely not on just 1 DVD anyway...

Liber8or

Get a PC, then you will realise both consoles are inferior. Problem solved.

noodler

raycaulwell wrote: »

thats what i said in a nutshell lol!!

I was just thinking that....

....:pac:

Retr0gamer

Just off the top of my head from digital foundry.

In a nutshell both have their quirks and strong points meaning they excel in different areas.

PogMoThoin

Being a pc gamer I judge them not on graphical ability, but features, the PS3 wins, its the better media centre. The 360 has a gigabit network port, internet connectivity but hasn't even got a browser, now thats just fcuked up, more locked down than anything Apple ever released.

Ostrom

You play games for graphics?

gizmo

In addition to what Retr0 said above, the SPUs can also be used for post-processing effects, further taking the weight off the GPU which would have traditionally handled these. There is also the fact that the PS3 hardware is better equipped to implement deferred rendering which was used so fantastically in Killzone 3. Of course all of these features are far from the norm which is why we're only seeing them used effectively in first party Sony titles where there is plenty of first party support.

So what does this mean? Well it means the majority of third party titles will look better on the 360, as we've seen over the last few years, since developers won't be able to take the time to tailor their titles to the PS3. On the other hand, the first party PS3 games look stunning as they're designed to play to the strengths of the hardware. While things are changing on the cross-platform front, I'd wager that things will stay pretty much as they are now, with most big titles looking similar between the two platforms while the smaller ones will lean more towards the 360. In cases like these, however, it's only really an issue for people who own both platforms.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Being a pc gamer I judge them not on graphical ability, but features, the PS3 wins, its the better media centre. The 360 has a gigabit network port, internet connectivity but hasn't even got a browser, now thats just fcuked up, more locked down than anything Apple ever released.

While the PS3 is certainly the leader in terms of media centre capability, complaining that the 360 doesn't have a browser is silly. It's a console, not a HTPC and I'd much prefer MS to continue to invest money in XBL functionality that's useful to the majority of people rather than gimmicky features which only a small subset of users utilise.

Retr0gamer

I don't think there's anything special about heavy rain. The areas in the game are tiny and not that well detailed which means a tonne of detail can be put on to the characters which is where it stands out. I'm pretty sure the 360 could pull it off easily. Uncharted 2 is a different story. Even something like the stunning train section needs a lot of processing and clever programming that the 360 would probably struggle to do.

corcaigh07 wrote: »

360 has better anti-alasing though yea?

Not really. The 360 usually has full AA on while the Ps3 has that awful vaseline smudge AA. the PS3 can do AA but it takes a lot of video ram thatis better off being used else where while the 360 can do it for almost no performance hit thanks to it's GPU. However some developers like EA have a very clever AA solution that actively blurs the edges on the models (check out the digital foundry piece on saboteur) which looks better than the 360's AA solutions.

Another thing I forgot to add is that the PS3 is much better at HDR. For full HDR on the 360 the resolution has to be reduced severely which is what happened in the case of Halo 3. PS3 also has much smoother shadows and the SPU's help greatly in lighting calculations meaning lighting is usually better.

I think the best comparison is the digital foundry article on the two versions of Ninja Gaiden 2 which really shows both machines strenghts and weaknesses.

Stercus Accidit

Well its difficult to tell really, you can actually look at the 360 and decide what the graphics look like, the ps3 however, entirely lacking any games whatsoever, is limited to the options menu.

See this dramatisation.

super_furry

Liber8or wrote: »

Get a PC, then you will realise both consoles are inferior. Problem solved.

Yes but your smugness levels can go through the roof.

Liber8or

super_furry wrote: »

Yes but your smugness levels can go through the roof.

Its only a danger if George Clooney's acceptance speech collides with it...

All jokes aside though, it is completely pointless arguing over which console is graphically superior. Both consoles have shown their superiority with certain games, for example: Dragon Age looks better on PS3, but RDR looks better on Xbox360. However, and the most important point - the difference is minute.

So, I suggest the OP looks at the PC version. Then you will see what the game should look like. Then you will appreciate what the PC has to offer and pick the console version of the game which imitates the PC as best as possible, that is if graphics are the most important thing to you in computer gaming.

allanb49

raycaulwell wrote: »

come on really???? can someone close this it is gonna end nasty we all know it!!

and to add my 2cents thats laughable what your saying mate apart from uncharted as its an exclusive what game seriously looks better on ps3?

take ghostbusters for instance - massive difference in picture quality with the 360 winning out.

and it was developed on the ps3 and comparing a game thats 3/4 years old to one a year old.

Both consoles have there weak and high points, graphics are nothing if the game is crap,

tman

You really should have a quick read over some of the face off articles on digital foundry over on Eurogamer.net... Take a recent title like Red Dead Redemption for example

Comparing a game released in 2006 with one from 2009 hardly seems fair, you need to compare like for like!

DarkJager

Have a look at the Mafia 2 comparison if you want your question answered. PS3 can't even handle textures like grass or blood pools in that game while the 360 runs them just fine.

WolfForager

DarkJager wrote: »

Have a look at the Mafia 2 comparison if you want your question answered. PS3 can't even handle textures like grass or blood pools in that game while the 360 runs them just fine.

Game was developed for each console separately and they still screwed it up, disgraceful.

DARK-KNIGHT

WolfForager wrote: »

Game was developed for each console separately and they still screwed it up, disgraceful.

agreed.. we should all be expecting more from our consoles inc ms and ps3. imo

Overheal

raycaulwell wrote: »

agreed.. we should all be expecting more from our consoles inc ms and ps3. imo

The 360 is 5 years old and there havent been many changes to the hardware. Theres not a whole lot you can expect. If you said the same thing about a PC after 5 years you'd have given it to your granny and built a new one by now. The truth as Retro points out is developers are squeezing whatever they can out of these consoles with whatever tricks they can. and while they're doing this they're ignoring all of us PC gamers with a gig of GDDR5 vs. PS3s 256mb of GDDR3 and hexacore processors..... rabble

DARK-KNIGHT

Overheal wrote: »

The 360 is 5 years old and there havent been many changes to the hardware. Theres not a whole lot you can expect. If you said the same thing about a PC after 5 years you'd have given it to your granny and built a new one by now. The truth as Retro points out is developers are squeezing whatever they can out of these consoles with whatever tricks they can. and while they're doing this they're ignoring all of us PC gamers with a gig of GDDR5 vs. PS3s 256mb of GDDR3 and hexacore processors..... rabble

ok agree they are getting what they can out of what they have but i meant if we spend our hard earned then we should expect more and more

Inrteresting article about xbox being done for advertising a game on their console using the ps3 graphics.

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/14868/xbox-advert-rapped-for-using-ps3-footage.html

Overheal

raycaulwell wrote: »

ok agree they are getting what they can out of what they have but i meant if we spend our hard earned then we should expect more and more

call me back when you drop a grand on a new PC :cool:

Lu Tze

Overheal wrote: »

call me back when you drop a grand on a new PC :cool:

And yet you are complaining about spending $50 on a game :pac:

Overheal

Lu Tze wrote: »

And yet you are complaining about spending $50 on a game :pac:

The game lasts about 30 hours, the PC lasts about 10,000 load-hours and tens of thousands more at idle or desktop. The Utility of a PC is astronomically greater per-dollar.

PogMoThoin

gizmo wrote: »

While the PS3 is certainly the leader in terms of media centre capability, complaining that the 360 doesn't have a browser is silly. It's a console, not a HTPC and I'd much prefer MS to continue to invest money in XBL functionality that's useful to the majority of people rather than gimmicky features which only a small subset of users utilise.

But the next gen is guaranteed to have a browser, and full HTPC fuctionality for that matter. Microsoft just won't let Sony and Google make any gains with Google TV. Even now Sony TV's are about to ship with android built in. Bet the Xbox gets added functions before too long, androids already nearly killed Microsofts mobile OS.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/05/android-based-google-tv-coming-to-living-rooms-this-fall.ars
http://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/entertainment/39299-google-sony-and-android-tv-and-much-much-more
My phone has a browser, even the young fellas 4 yo psp has one, whats wrong with the xbox having one?

Overheal wrote: »

call me back when you drop a grand on a new PC :cool:

Thats the thing, You don't need to spend anywhere near a grand to get a pc capable of playing games at higher detail and resolution than a console. Bog standard Dells can do this if You choose wisely and most houses have a pc. You can build one for a few hundred

Lu Tze

Overheal wrote: »

The game lasts about 30 hours, the PC lasts about 10,000 load-hours and tens of thousands more at idle or desktop. The Utility of a PC is astronomically greater per-dollar.

Depends, take oblivion/fallout with mods you are looking at hundreds of hours - i take your point though.

gizmo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

But the next gen is guaranteed to have a browser, and full HTPC fuctionality for that matter. Microsoft just won't let Sony and Google make any gains with Google TV. Even now Sony TV's are about to ship with android built in. Bet the Xbox gets added functions before too long, androids already nearly killed Microsofts mobile OS.

The next generation will more than likely be moving in that direction alright and if they're designed that way from the ground up then fantastic. I just don't see the point in tacking on this functionality when it's next to useless compared to a fully featured PC-based browser.

As for WinMob7, well I think we should wait till it's released before we say it's being killed off by anything. Personally I've been holding off getting a new smartphone until I see how it preforms. XNA development interests me far more than anything else available on the Android and iOS platforms.

KilOit

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Thats the thing, You don't need to spend anywhere near a grand to get a pc capable of playing games at higher detail and resolution than a console. Bog standard Dells can do this if You choose wisely and most houses have a pc. You can build one for a few hundred

Thanks to the out of date consoles holding back the industry