PDA

View Full Version : PS3 graphics -v- 360 graphics?


Drunken Savior
02-27-2008, 07:38 PM
Just curious to those of you who own both consoles and have them both connected at 720p+, is there a really noticeable difference in graphics? Can you describe the difference? GC to XBox difference or less? greater? Thanks.:clap:

Joe Redifer
02-27-2008, 07:51 PM
Eh, I dunno. I have my Xbox360 running in 720p since all the games run in that resolution (or lower, like Halo 3) anyway. I don't think there are any native 1080i or p games... that I know of. My PS3 runs the games in their native resolution and most are 720p, though a couple crappy ones like Ridge Racer 7 are 1080i/p. The PS3 looks better via HDMI than the Xbox360 does via component mostly because of my crappy component switcher made by a generic company called Pelican.

Now for the real differences:
-Xbox360 has more v-sync (screen tearing) problems than the PS3 does.
-PS3 seems to have fuzzy, flickering shadow edges whereas the Xbox360 usually does not.
-PS3 seems to be able to move more objects simultaneously without problems, but the difference is not revolutionary.

Other:
-PS3 GUI is 10 times better than the Xbox360 "blade" setup (personal opinion).
-PS3 will continue to work.

Paper exe
02-27-2008, 07:58 PM
It seems to me PS3 is the clear winner. I really should get one for my self soon. Maybe in the end of April.

NES4EVER
02-27-2008, 08:45 PM
On games to date, I can't notice much difference at all. My 360 is running direct component (because i refuse to buy XBOX HDMI cable, which is the only one that will fit and also allow component for audio) since they stacked the goddamn ports right on top of each other (FU MS) and the PS3 is through HDMI with optical audio.

So my 360 is setup at 1080i while PS3 is 720p atm. For library to date, I can't say either outshines the other but we'll see I guess as future titles come out.

BlindMaphisto
02-28-2008, 12:37 AM
I got 360 on VGA and ps3 on HDMI. No noticeable difference although sometimes people who bought early on tend to be able to distinguish about 200 dollars worth of difference between them.

Alucard
02-28-2008, 04:48 AM
There is a difference between 360 and ps3. Considering I'm used to pc style graphics, I WILL notice downgrades alot easier. 360 has the stronger gpu, which is what makes games pretty. This is a fact. There are quite a few games out there where the 360 version is better. I cant recall any thats the other way round.

Paper exe
02-28-2008, 06:37 AM
But the PS3 released after it, so logically it is supposed to be strong thus it is stronger. I want it to be stronger anyway since I prefer PS3 over that piece of garbage.

memory to zack
02-28-2008, 07:31 AM
Most multilatform games look better on X360 because its easier to code them for this console, whereas for the ps3 its more difficult and more costly, and generally publishers dont bother taping into the endless hidden power of the ps3. Hopefully things will change with Sonys free Engine as well as once Crystal Tools (SE engine) is ready and starts getting licensed Im confident ps3 games will be more stunning than 360 games.

Also, consoles have always been cpu-centric, if Im not mistaken, and thus always had a much different hardware than PCs. Current multiplatform games are made with engines developed on PCs and not optimized for the ps3.

Alexander
02-28-2008, 08:24 AM
But the PS3 released after it, so logically it is supposed to be strong thus it is stronger. I want it to be stronger anyway since I prefer PS3 over that piece of garbage.

By that logic the Wii should be stronger.

Paper exe
02-28-2008, 08:56 AM
hmm..I like the sound of that. I think I should keep walking with that logic for now.

Northeastmonk
02-28-2008, 09:08 AM
The 1080i being on the vast majority of 360 titles doesn't mean a thing to me. I like the PS3 more then the other 3 consoles. But I tend to get shot down in every argument about which is better. Because the 360 has a ton of games out. IMO exclusives to the PS3 sounds more entertaining and instantly part of my library.

memory to zack
02-28-2008, 12:01 PM
hmm..I like the sound of that. I think I should keep walking with that logic for now.

Paper... lol!

DBJAY
02-28-2008, 12:25 PM
Why not opt for the console who has the better gaming library that fits your particular tastes?

Multi-plat titles can fluctuate wildy between no difference, slight difference favoring one or the other, or drastic downgrade when ported from 360 to PS3 (i.e. Lost Planet).

I would not buy a PS3 right now. With the MGS bundle coming in June, that is a far better value than what Sony is currently selling. You will want the Dualshock controller over what they are packaging in the box right now.

Alucard
02-28-2008, 01:14 PM
Also, consoles have always been cpu-centric, if Im not mistaken, and thus always had a much different hardware than PCs. Current multiplatform games are made with engines developed on PCs and not optimized for the ps3.

That was how they made consoles before. Its different now. The 360 runs on an nvidia gpu and the ps3 on an ATI one if I recall. They are PC hardware.

Drunken Savior
02-28-2008, 01:54 PM
Why not opt for the console who has the better gaming library that fits your particular tastes?

(Has a Wii and 360)

eastx
02-28-2008, 01:54 PM
Games that look better on 360: Lost Planet, All EA games besides Burnout, Ridge Racer, Dynasty Warriors 6, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, and too many more to list

Games that look better on PS3: Oblivion, Burnout, Blazing Angels, Devil May Cry 4, and that is honestly it right now.

But really the systems are quite close in ability. Some feel that 360's best looking game, Gears of War, looks better than PS3's best looking game, Uncharted... While others think the opposite.

DBJAY
02-28-2008, 04:10 PM
(Has a Wii and 360)


Ah, in that case. I would upgrade the pc for the ultimate graphical experience.

You woulnd't be gaining much with a PS3 over the 360 at this point. I would wait until fall 2008 when there are at least 3 potentially really great looking games (MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone). As these are built for the PS3, they will probably be the ultimate expression of what the PS3 can deliver.

phknrocket1k
02-28-2008, 05:04 PM
That was how they made consoles before. Its different now. The 360 runs on an nvidia gpu and the ps3 on an ATI one if I recall. They are PC hardware.

Opposite. X360 GPU is a R500-derivative and PS3's is a GeForce 7800-derivative.

For the record, all consoles, looking at it very simplified and cynically are just "stripped-down" PC's specialized for TV-based gaming.


Also, consoles have always been cpu-centric, if Im not mistaken, and thus always had a much different hardware than PCs. Current multiplatform games are made with engines developed on PCs and not optimized for the ps3.

All consoles have "PC hardware".

The trend toward having video cards take on extra tasks (such as physics and AI) started in the early 2000s a la the GPU. The trend hit consoles maybe 1-2 years later in the form of the Xbox and GameCube.

Its just starting with the Xbox and GameCube (and N64 if you are a graphics nerd) have more 'familiar' brand names included on the inside.

Alexander
02-28-2008, 06:22 PM
I was told DMC4 looked better on 360 by multiple sources.

eastx
02-28-2008, 06:23 PM
I was told DMC4 looked better on 360 by multiple sources.

Yeah, but the reviewers and general consensus seem to think otherwise... I guess that one's too close to call. The PS3 version won't output 1080i though (it will just display at 480p on such a set), so on a 1080i HDTV, the 360 version wins hands-down.

Drunken Savior
02-28-2008, 06:24 PM
Ah, in that case. I would upgrade the pc for the ultimate graphical experience.

You woulnd't be gaining much with a PS3 over the 360 at this point. I would wait until fall 2008 when there are at least 3 potentially really great looking games (MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone). As these are built for the PS3, they will probably be the ultimate expression of what the PS3 can deliver.

You are assuming WAY too much and your suggestion of buying a PC is really unnecessary. I already have two computers than handle all my application needs and spending nearly a grand (on tower + monitor) on a PC just to game is not worth it to me at this point.

Im not asking for what people have heard, I was asking for first hand experiences. Joe, Ness, and Blind were the only ones whos answers I actually took seriously.

Joe Redifer
02-28-2008, 06:32 PM
I have a 1080i set and Devil May Cry displays in 720p. Also Ridge Racer looks better on the PS3 (native 1080p) whereas the 360 one is native 720p. There are plenty of comparison shots on teh interweb. Plays worse on PS3, though. Too twitchy.

eastx
02-28-2008, 06:36 PM
I have a 1080i set and Devil May Cry displays in 720p. Also Ridge Racer looks better on the PS3 (native 1080p) whereas the 360 one is native 720p. There are plenty of comparison shots on teh interweb. Plays worse on PS3, though. Too twitchy.

Hmm your HDTV must scale the image on its own then. Some of them do, but not most; not even all Sony CRTs do it. There's a huge thread (over 3000 posts) on the official PS forums (http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=1543693&view=by_date_ascending&page=1) about what games can and can't display at 1080i.

Oh, and Ridge Racer 7 on PS3 has less background geometry. I've never heard anyone say that it looked better than the 360 game. You can find comparison shots (http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml) of the missing background elements, though. If your TV is 1080i though, then the 1080p thing would make no difference in how the game is displayed on it.

Zachalmighty
02-28-2008, 06:42 PM
ATI cards are generally weaker so i would have to say the 360 CAN own the PS3 in terms of graphics. Because remember kiddies the developer decides how good looking the game is not the system.

Drunken Savior
02-28-2008, 06:55 PM
Kiddies? Aren't you like 7?

Zachalmighty
02-28-2008, 07:13 PM
Kiddies? Aren't you like 7?

ololololoLLololOlol no, 18. I put kiddies in for dramatic effect. DRAMATIC!!!

Mistatee
02-28-2008, 07:15 PM
ATI cards are generally weaker so i would have to say the 360 CAN own the PS3 in terms of graphics. Because remember kiddies the developer decides how good looking the game is not the system.

But both cards have room to display greater textures than what i used on a conventional 480p screen, however Blu-Ray discs offer more space to make use of these better textures. So while the Models can't be supported in a higher resolution than the 360, the environments have plenty of room to flourish.

Zachalmighty
02-28-2008, 07:23 PM
But both cards have room to display greater textures than what i used on a conventional 480p screen, however Blu-Ray discs offer more space to make use of these better textures. So while the Models can't be supported in a higher resolution than the 360, the environments have plenty of room to flourish.

BINGO

The textures the PS3 supports might be slightly lower pixel count then the 360 but the PS3 has the ability to process a vast amount more in terms of those same textures on the screen at the same time. This coupled with Blu-ray means that some developer could outshine the 360 in terms of sheer number of high def textures. Sadly I don't know if people know how to use the Cell processor to it's full potential yet.

spider-prime
02-28-2008, 07:25 PM
I thought the 360 runs on ATI's GPU and the PS3 runs on nvidia's GPU?

GPU NVIDIA-SCEI "RSX" :P

Alexander
02-28-2008, 07:26 PM
Yeah, but the reviewers and general consensus seem to think otherwise... I guess that one's too close to call. The PS3 version won't output 1080i though (it will just display at 480p on such a set), so on a 1080i HDTV, the 360 version wins hands-down.

Nah, many reviewers only say the opening movie looks better. The actual game is said to look better on 360.

Joe Redifer
02-28-2008, 07:36 PM
Hmm your HDTV must scale the image on its own then. Some of them do, but not most

Yes, most. In fact it is only the older, shitty-ass HDTVs that don't scale.

If your TV is 1080i though, then the 1080p thing would make no difference in how the game is displayed on it.
Yes it would. 1080i is a higher resolution than 720p. The Xbox version runs at 720p native (unless anyone has information proving otherwise). The PS3 displays 1080p as 1080i natively on my TV. It's the same principal as DVDs. The majority of them are 480p native, but you can watch them on your 480i TV without any scaling... only interlacing. The Xbox360 upscales the 720p image to 1080i, but that does not give it 1080i detail just like an upscaling DVD player does not make the disc high definition.

spider-prime
02-28-2008, 07:36 PM
I've been looking at comparisons and they look pretty much the same.

eastx
02-28-2008, 07:48 PM
I've been looking at comparisons and they look pretty much the same.

Umm, the page I linked to shows several missing buildings, ships, and such... Not that the PS3 game looks bad, but those differences aren't hard to notice.

eastx
02-28-2008, 07:56 PM
Yes, most. In fact it is only the older, shitty-ass HDTVs that don't scale.

Yes it would. 1080i is a higher resolution than 720p. The Xbox version runs at 720p native (unless anyone has information proving otherwise). The PS3 displays 1080p as 1080i natively on my TV. It's the same principal as DVDs. The majority of them are 480p native, but you can watch them on your 480i TV without any scaling... only interlacing. The Xbox360 upscales the 720p image to 1080i, but that does not give it 1080i detail just like an upscaling DVD player does not make the disc high definition.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. CRTs in general are the "older" HDTV style as they are sort of on their way out, but many, many don't have scaler chips. That 3,000 post thread? It's a fairly significant problem. The fact that you were probably unaware of this issue and continue to gloss over it is curious. Here's another link (http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/ps3-cant-upscale-a-720p-signal-urgh-215049.php) though.

As far as what looks better on your TV, maybe a higher res signal does look better (even though there is significantly little difference between 720p and 1080i, and just as little difference between 1080i and 1080p, unless you move into projector-screen sizes. Still, while RR7 may run in 1080p, if the graphical data is just as simple (simpler, in fact) than the Xbox 360 version, then there should be little-to-no noticeable difference between an upscaled 720p image and a downscaled 1080p image.

Drunken Savior
02-28-2008, 08:04 PM
I've been looking at comparisons and they look pretty much the same.

That was the feeling I had before as well. Last gen I got all my multi games on the XBox, unless I heard something bad about it (MGS2 for example). And I was wondering if there was a graphical advantage to getting 3rd party games on the PS3 over the 360. Apparently it's less of a difference between the PS2 and XBox. As of now, the benefit of getting a game on the PS3 over the 360 is the security in knowing that the PS3 will probably still work after 2011.

Joe Redifer
02-28-2008, 08:05 PM
there is significantly little difference between 720p and 1080i

That doesn't instill me with confidence as to YOUR HDTV knowledge.

And yes, it was the older CRTs that did not upscale 720p. My CRT does. There are way more HDTVs that accept both 720p and 1080i than don't. I know about the PS3 and how it won't scale a 720p image and agree that it should be an internal option. Hell, I wish there was an option on the 360 to display games in their native resolution.

eastx
02-29-2008, 12:11 AM
Hell, I wish there was an option on the 360 to display games in their native resolution.

It does let you set the output to a variety of resolutions, doesn't it? Especially if you use the VGA cable, then there's way more resolutions. Not that my Sony CRT has a VGA port, darn it. :(

But I'll also hazard a guess that you may be complaining about Halo 3 and COD 4's weird native resolutions; if that's the case, then you should lighten up.

Joe Redifer
02-29-2008, 12:46 AM
No, what I mean is if a game's native resolution is in 720p, then the game plays in 720p. If it is in 1080i or p, then it plays in that resolution. That's how my PS3 works. Now for those who can't play games in those resolutions, then an option should be there to scale EVERYTHING to a preset resolution of the user's choice. Neither the Xbox360 or PS3 are perfect in this regard. Halo 3's native low res is because the Xbox360 can't handle a higher native res in such a game. No display has the resolution that is native to those games. Xbox360 is weak when it comes to HD. Fact. Then again so is the PS3. Weak, weak weak.

The Xbox360 is the biggest offender in graphics like this:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7516/hdrposterpz7.jpg

BlindMaphisto
02-29-2008, 12:48 AM
Yeah you get a ton of resolution options for the VGA cable but unless you have an extremely kick ass TV or you have it hooked up to a computer monitor you're probably not going to be able to use those resolutions unless your TV can scale it anyway and that's just a different appliance doing the exact same thing as it was before.



EDIT: Yeah I notived that about the ps3. My tv will go blank and say "Searching for signal" for about 2 seconds when loading a game. Kind of annoying but not a big deal really. I just want everything to run in 720p because that's my tv's native resolution so I get the least controls delay.

Joe Redifer
02-29-2008, 12:51 AM
Yes, it all matters which has the better scaler. The TV or the Xbox360. My TV beats the Xbox 360's scaler. THAT's why I want the ability to play in the native res on the 360 for each individual game (games like Halo 3, Gotham Racing and others which can't even achieve 720p excluded, of course).

Seraph
02-29-2008, 01:00 AM
The Xbox360 is the biggest offender in graphics like this:So true. The fact they can do that with quake1 is hilarious.

spider-prime
02-29-2008, 01:47 AM
Umm, the page I linked to shows several missing buildings, ships, and such... Not that the PS3 game looks bad, but those differences aren't hard to notice.


I was talking about DMC4 not ridge racer 7.

Sinful Sam
02-29-2008, 02:36 AM
I seen some at gametrailers.com, but I haven't seen any really big differences. Pretty minimal.

eastx
02-29-2008, 03:03 AM
I was talking about DMC4 not ridge racer 7.

Ohhh, okay. You're right then.

memory to zack
02-29-2008, 07:52 AM
Supercomputers aside, is there any hardware out there for commercial use that can even reach the powers of CELL? I just cant believe that a hardware with such a tremendous CPU and with developing and manufacturing costs way higher than its competitors, not to be able to outperform its competitors and high-end PCs. Unless Im wrong, CELL has 8 cores, so isnt it possible to assign 2 cores to help the GPU with its workload?

Another question: consoles have PC-like hardware, but does this mean that their architecture is the same? I mean, before the Apple-Intel collaboration Macs had a different architecture than PCs, yet the hardware wasnt that different.

NES4EVER
02-29-2008, 08:06 AM
Since the graphics (overall) between the two machines is so close right now. For the most part it prolly will come down to this for you on the multi-platform titles.

>Preference in controller Sony or MS

>Preference in online play.. meaning if you enjoy playing online and are a Live Gold member then I'd go with the 360 versions since the online userbase is higher. If you don't pay for Live then naturally PS3 titles would be the choice for online games. Can't remember but thought you were like Joe in the fact that your only a Live Silver member these days.

I assume your thinking of buying a PS3 for the Sony exclusives, free online & blu-ray player instead of just graphics? Otherwise, I'd just wait for Dual Shock 3 bundles if I were you.

The only reason I bought my PS3 before DS3 controllers and a larger library were out was because I wanted a 60gb version before they dried up.

Zack
02-29-2008, 01:59 PM
ridge racer 7 looks better than ridge racer 6. don't discredit resolution when debating graphics. i think for the most part the multiplatform games look better on xbox, but the gap is closing supposedly.

btw, here's an article which compares some multiplatform games: http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/features/164668.shtml

Drunken Savior
02-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Since the graphics (overall) between the two machines is so close right now. For the most part it prolly will come down to this for you on the multi-platform titles.

>Preference in controller Sony or MS

>Preference in online play.. meaning if you enjoy playing online and are a Live Gold member then I'd go with the 360 versions since the online userbase is higher. If you don't pay for Live then naturally PS3 titles would be the choice for online games. Can't remember but thought you were like Joe in the fact that your only a Live Silver member these days.

I assume your thinking of buying a PS3 for the Sony exclusives, free online & blu-ray player instead of just graphics? Otherwise, I'd just wait for Dual Shock 3 bundles if I were you.

The only reason I bought my PS3 before DS3 controllers and a larger library were out was because I wanted a 60gb version before they dried up.

I agree with this. I do think, however, that the durability of the console should also come into discussion.

AmishNazi
02-29-2008, 05:09 PM
I do think, however, that the durability of the console should also come into discussion.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... This thread will go from civil to entertaining real quick.

Paper exe
02-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Yeah durability is very important heck it is the main factor for me. I even buy PS3 version of all my games even though I don't have a PS3. :cool:

Drunken Savior
02-29-2008, 05:27 PM
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... This thread will go from civil to entertaining real quick.

Anyone who tries to say that the 360 is a well made piece of machinery should get banned. There is no reason for this not to stay civil unless your penis is tiny.

spider-prime
02-29-2008, 07:22 PM
Sony did do a real great job with the PS3, I was surprised how good it is built.

The fans are real silent and will only get louder if the system heats up more like say with a game that requires more power from the system

Playing warhawk on the PS3 and you don't even hear the fan unless you're right up to it.

Joe Redifer
02-29-2008, 07:51 PM
About the only way you can kill a PS3 from what I hear is to let it continuously cure cancer. That way it is on 24/7. My PS3 cured cancer for one night just for goofs, but then I felt that since I personally didn't have cancer that there was no need to cure it, so I turned that feature off on my PS3. I'll turn it back on in a few years when I get cancer (not sure which kind to get yet, maybe rectal).





Note to Paper: I am being a smart ass, I am not making fun of people with cancer and I know how it affects people directly.

NES4EVER
02-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Just wait for "Wii Cure Cancer" to come out and you can play that...

True DS, the PS3 is a rock and it's nice to be able to do a 4-6 hour play session w/o fear, or looking at the lights on the front of the console.

BTW Joe, I picked up Burnout today and got the PS3 version specifically so we can play some head-on racing soon. I'm gonna put a nice naked pic of Rosie O'Donell under my PSEye so every time I wreck you, you'll die a little more inside :P

eastx
02-29-2008, 09:10 PM
Anyone who tries to say that the 360 is a well made piece of machinery should get banned. There is no reason for this not to stay civil unless your penis is tiny.

The problem is that they've since fixed the hardware issues, but nobody updates that in their minds. You guys still talk about it like they're selling launch consoles, but the latest hardware revision is much better.

I disagree about RR7 looking better than RR6, but at least Joe's got somebody on his side. ~ ~

AmishNazi
02-29-2008, 09:13 PM
Yeah it went from a 30% to a 10% fail ratio. They didn't completely fix the problem yet.

flowForth
02-29-2008, 11:54 PM
Supercomputers aside, is there any hardware out there for commercial use that can even reach the powers of CELL?

For the most part - no. Most commercial products (including embedded systems) do not need a processor with that level of power - and so that added expense is unjustified for these applications. Perhaps in time, as power comes more into demand, the Cell will see increased usage.

I just cant believe that a hardware with such a tremendous CPU and with developing and manufacturing costs way higher than its competitors, not to be able to outperform its competitors and high-end PCs.

Actually, the Cell has little trouble outperforming even high-end PCs. The PS3 distributed network is currently the most powerful network in the world, more powerful than even IBM's BlueGene supercomputer.

I think the issue you are trying to touch on has more to do with how the Cell's power can be utilized rather than its optimal performance. I won't go into too much detail, but (in summary) if an algorithm cannot be parallelized (broken into smaller tasks that can execute independently) to a sufficient degree, adding more cores or SPUs will have little benefit. Raw power isn't everything.

Unless Im wrong, CELL has 8 cores,

Six, in the PS3's case - one is reserved for the OS, another is disabled for production reasons. The SPUs are also not exactly a "core" - more like a helper unit to the main processing element.

so isnt it possible to assign 2 cores to help the GPU with its workload?

Not for the most part. Graphical manipulation and operations are largely the domain of the GPU - which contains dedicated hardware devoted to accelerating these low-level operations and their calculations. Manually creating processes that handle these low-level operations on the SPUs would likely be slower due to the lack of dedicated hardware. There are some instances that the SPUs could do calculations for the GPU - but I won't go into detail here.

Another question: consoles have PC-like hardware, but does this mean that their architecture is the same? I mean, before the Apple-Intel collaboration Macs had a different architecture than PCs, yet the hardware wasnt that different.

Their architectures are different to standard PCs because they are largely dedicated to one purpose - playing demanding games. The underlying computer science principles are not that dissimilar, however.

Anyway, I don't own a PS3 (currently), but I don't believe you will see that much of a drastic difference between the PS3 and 360 graphically.

Joe Redifer
03-01-2008, 01:47 AM
NES4EVA, send me a friend request yo. PSN name is Redifer. It be easy. Word up g.

Paper exe
03-01-2008, 09:40 AM
About the only way you can kill a PS3 from what I hear is to let it continuously cure cancer. That way it is on 24/7. My PS3 cured cancer for one night just for goofs, but then I felt that since I personally didn't have cancer that there was no need to cure it, so I turned that feature off on my PS3. I'll turn it back on in a few years when I get cancer (not sure which kind to get yet, maybe rectal).





Note to Paper: I am being a smart ass, I am not making fun of people with cancer and I know how it affects people directly.

Ok...I honestly don't get it. how would that effect me on anyway?! lol
I don't know but maybe I think and view stuff differently from other people. I honestly never cared about getting cancer, heck I cared about not being able to play Mario Galaxy for four months more than having the cancer it self. lol
First thing I though of after getting cancer was to brag about it. I was kinda excited to do that to be honest. Being and attention whore got the best of me I guess. :P :D

eastx
03-03-2008, 02:59 PM
Joe and Drunken, here's another opinion on that Ridge Racer 6 VS. 7 issue:

Resolution is just one dimension of graphics. I mean you can easily make Pac Man in 2160p and it will still look worse than Super Mario 64... or just plain Super Mario..

Seriously, higher res is the equivalent of drawing on a bigger piece of paper. Just because the paper is bigger, doesn't mean the drawing will be better or more clear. In the same sense, you can draw a humongous picture of pacman in about 2 minutes yet it might take you hours to sketch a Carnifex(or Ultralisk...).

So the Pac Man picture is bigger and uses more paint. Does that make it better?

As a matter of fact, 1080p this gen often comes predominantly with games that are lower in terms of graphics(only like a handful of PS3 or 360 games have 1080p). So if Streets of Rage comes in 1080p and Gears of War comes in 720p, you're gonna tell me that Streets of Rage has better graphics?

Drunken Savior
03-03-2008, 05:13 PM
The problem is that they've since fixed the hardware issues, but nobody updates that in their minds.

When did they say they fixed the problems?

eastx
03-04-2008, 05:09 AM
When did they say they fixed the problems?

Besides the numerous little interviews and stuff in which that sort of thing is mentioned, it's well-documented that the new Falcon motherboards produce less heat, and if I recall they have an extra heatsink. Even before the Falcon came out, they were adding extra heatsinks for several months. Falcons rolled out fall of last year (http://kotaku.com/gaming/cooler/xbox-360-falcon-chips-have-landed-305370.php).

Zack
03-04-2008, 05:43 PM
Joe and Drunken, here's another opinion on that Ridge Racer 6 VS. 7 issue:

Resolution is just one dimension of graphics. I mean you can easily make Pac Man in 2160p and it will still look worse than Super Mario 64... or just plain Super Mario..

Seriously, higher res is the equivalent of drawing on a bigger piece of paper. Just because the paper is bigger, doesn't mean the drawing will be better or more clear. In the same sense, you can draw a humongous picture of pacman in about 2 minutes yet it might take you hours to sketch a Carnifex(or Ultralisk...).

So the Pac Man picture is bigger and uses more paint. Does that make it better?

As a matter of fact, 1080p this gen often comes predominantly with games that are lower in terms of graphics(only like a handful of PS3 or 360 games have 1080p). So if Streets of Rage comes in 1080p and Gears of War comes in 720p, you're gonna tell me that Streets of Rage has better graphics?

ridge 6 and 7 have basically the same graphic quality. there are a few slight advantages on ridge 6, but these don't close to the resolution upgrade. your article does bring up a few good points, though you quoted it out of context just to argue a point, i guess? we're not comparing ridge 5 in 1080p to ridge 6 here..

eastx
03-05-2008, 02:08 AM
ridge 6 and 7 have basically the same graphic quality. there are a few slight advantages on ridge 6, but these don't close to the resolution upgrade. your article does bring up a few good points, though you quoted it out of context just to argue a point, i guess? we're not comparing ridge 5 in 1080p to ridge 6 here..

It's from another conversation I was having in which a guy mentioned that higher resolution isn't the same as better graphics, so I asked him to elaborate on that a little more. Yeah, Ridge Racer 7 looks fine, but I kind of take the approach that since it came out a year later and is a numbered sequel that it should look markedly better than part 6.

Joe Redifer
03-05-2008, 02:40 AM
I wonder why they even called it Ridge Racer 7. Isn't it really more like Ridge Racer 6 + Turbo EX Alpha?

Anyway I think that probably more than 95% of games on both systems run at a native resolution of 720p.

Alucard
03-05-2008, 02:41 AM
omg 360 has slightly better graphics cabalities then ps3. Its in hard factual specs from their video cards. End of.

eastx
03-05-2008, 02:48 AM
I wonder why they even called it Ridge Racer 7. Isn't it really more like Ridge Racer 6 + Turbo EX Alpha?

Anyway I think that probably more than 95% of games on both systems run at a native resolution of 720p.

Good question. RR6 already has more content than anyone could ever want... I mean, I played it for 10 hours and wasn't even 1/4 done. The core racing game is fun, but the way they make you endlessly replay minor variations of the tracks (while listening to one of the worst announcers ever), it just gets boring after a while. Err, at least 8 should probably be more of a new game. I assume.

You're right that most games run at 720p too - for them to run 1080p natively they have to be kind of simple graphically.

Joe Redifer
03-05-2008, 03:44 AM
I think it is law that they can only release Ridge Racer games at console launches these days, so we'll have to wait.