Looks like GS says 360 wins again.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2

"Looks like GS says 360 wins again."

If you don't actually, you know, read the article before posting comments about it, then yes, Gamespot says the 360 wins.

Those of us with reading comprehension will see that they said something along the lines of: "While previously the 360 had the edge for the most part, things are pretty much at parity now."

Direct quote:
"We're at the point where games look and play nearly the same on both systems--any differences tend to focus on texture resolutions and antialiasing nitpicks that most people wouldn't notice unless they were playing the games side by side and pausing every few seconds to compare the two."

Really, things have been very close between the two platforms since about when last year's Burnout Paradise came out. The differences these days aren't nearly as pronounced as the Xbox and Gamecube's significant advantages over the PS2 were last gen.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year with the "improved" PS3.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year with the "improved" PS3.
Bioshock does have higher res textures on the PS3 due to the extra space. Developers have stated this, and the difference is noticeable..But most 3rd party games should look better on the the 360 since it's the leading platform.. Remember last gen, the ps2 was the lead console, and ported over to the better xbox, but lazy developers refused to really get the most out of the technology? Samething here, but on a much smaller scale, since both consoles are pretty even power wise, unless you believe the Sony marketing lines..

I think Fallout 3 looks noticeably better on the 360, but unless you are comparing screenshots or playing them side by side I doubt there would be many complaints about the PS3 version(except maybe the jaggies.) Would have been neat to get some PC screenshots in there. There's not much to complain about this year anyways, probably my favorite year of gaming ever.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year with the "improved" PS3.

Nothing will happen. Until the end of time, PS3 ports will be inferior.

The PS3 is a weird architecture, and it is saddled with a GPU slightly weaker than whats in the 360. Custom built PS3 games use the SPUs heavily to do some of the work normally meant for the GPU. I think Killzone 2 is using 4 SPUs (I think) on graphics, for example.The game looks spectacular and is probably gonna be the best looking game on either platform when it comes out (just like Uncharted was last year, IMO).

But third parties can't be arsed to do that much optimization for a system with a smaller share of the market, so you get these "good enough" ports. And they ARE "good enough", for the most part. I buy most third party games on 360 but I can't think of more than 4 or 5 in which that would be essential, and they are mostly older titles that were just utter crap on the Triple (like Double Agent).

But with the PS3, you will always get this discrepancy where third party games just seem way less capable than the first party ones.


Remember last gen, the ps2 was the lead console, and ported over to the better xbox, but lazy developers refused to really get the most out of the technology? Samething here, but on a much smaller scale, since both consoles are pretty even power wise, unless you believe the Sony marketing lines..

FWIW, I think most Xbox 1 versions of PS2 games were much better than the PS2 one... higher res textures, better framerate, Dolby 5.1 sound... the Xbox 1 was just way more powerful than the PS2, and it was easy to take advantage of that extra power. The PS3, by comparison, is only marginally more powerful than the 360, and it is difficult to take advantage of it.

At least it seems like these "versus" comparisons are much more civil these days. I guess we've all grown tired of the endless back and forth. :cool:

These days, I tend to buy multiplatform releases for the console that was lead development platform. So, for example, I own Fallout 3 on 360 and Mirror's Edge on PS3. But the graphical/audio differences are pretty negligible for multiplatform releases (for the most part).

All else being equal, I buy for PS3 since I prefer the controller and the hardware's more reliable. I'd rather not tax the poor 360 anymore than it needs to be. While I'm sure the hardware failure rate's gown down a bit, it's still pretty common. Case in point: my Falcon-board 360 just RRoD-ed last week. :rolleyes:

At least it seems like these "versus" comparisons are much more civil these days. I guess we've all grown tired of the endless back and forth. :cool:

Well, it's incredibly stupid to argue about it. The fact is if the differences weren't extremely small there simply wouldn't be a need for comparisons. There weren't constant "face-offs" for PS2 vs. Xbox or Genesis vs. SNES because the differences were usually huge. But now, the 360 and PS3 versions are 95% identical most of the time.

All else being equal, I buy for PS3 since I prefer the controller and the hardware's more reliable. I'd rather not tax the poor 360 anymore than it needs to be. While I'm sure the hardware failure rate's gown down a bit, it's still pretty common. Case in point: my Falcon-board 360 just RRoD-ed last week. :rolleyes:

I got my 360 in 2006, an old HDMI-less clunker and its still going strong. It's weird.

At least it seems like these "versus" comparisons are much more civil these days. I guess we've all grown tired of the endless back and forth. :cool:


Well like anything else, it depends on whos doing the discussing.


All else being equal, I buy for PS3 since I prefer the controller and the hardware's more reliable. I'd rather not tax the poor 360 anymore than it needs to be. While I'm sure the hardware failure rate's gown down a bit, it's still pretty common. Case in point: my Falcon-board 360 just RRoD-ed last week. :rolleyes:

At this point I have largely given up on the PS3.....to me their gaming division is asleep at the wheel, focusing on pretty much everything EXCEPT gaming, which is where their biggest problem lies. I have, for all intents and purposes, lost faith in Sony as a game hardware manufacturer.

They are killing all of their A+ system-seller franchises too....Wipeout had PS1's flying off the shelves. Today its a download-only PSP port with limited tracks and no in-game chatting and almost no advertising whatsoever. Its a great game, but its so limited....could have been huge, but its marginalized.

SOCOM too...could have been huge...instead its a multiplayer only title No co-op, no missions, just..spawn and shoot...vehicles? No, just...average. Someone call Sony and let them know its 2008, every game has multiplayer content now...and most of the others have single player campaigns and co-op gameplay to boot. :P

Gran Turismo is stellar, but its got the 1997 no-damage damage model in place, which was acceptable back in the day but is so hopelessly dated today. In the end I"m sure we'll see damage in the game, but it wont be out for another 2-3 years I'm guessing to make that happen.

So I have no faith in Sony anymore.....they're like the US Automakers...hopelessly out of touch and relying on hype and brand loyalty to stay afloat....which is just so damned depressing, and not just because I bought one for top dollar at launch, but becase they seem to have fallen so far so fast, for no really good reason that anyone can figure out. I can live with Wipeout and Socom being delayed....providing they turned out to be incredible game experiences....but they aren't, and thats whats killing me.

:confused:

Looks like Gamespot wins for "most pointless article." Seriously, anybody who still cares about fighting over which system is better needs to get a life.

I think the real question here is not the slight graphics differences, but which console has the EXPERIENCE.

Which console do you wish to turn on for gaming?

I have my answer.

However, I have all three consoles...perhaps the other two will get some experience, but there is something about Xbox LIVE that just feels right.

Even if it changes, it still feels like an ol' friend.

And now that I have this Zune and Zune Pass, watch out I will be "no scoping" people while listening to 500 Willie Nelson songs.

:p

"You were always on My Mind"....Double Kill..."Maybe I didn't hold you all those lonely lonely times, I guess I never told you, I'm so happy that you're mine." Triple Kill...."Tell me, tell me that your sweet love hasn't died."

Well like anything else, it depends on whos doing the discussing.Looks like I spoke too soon. :rolleyes: Oh, well. Can't say I agree at all with your points, but that's where these discussions end up going, amiright?

In 2007, MS had a major hardware problem, and Sony couldn't get on top of its game library. I'd say both companies solved those respective problems in 2008.

Over 2008, both consoles have done well with no major problems for the year. MS coasted through the US market and pushed hard in the Japanese market (with surprising success). Sony broke into the US market finally, and got third parties caught up to the hardware. Not bad all around, actually.

Call me "disloyal," but I switch back and forth between the two consoles often. I keep one game going on each at all times. Choosing between them would be like saying I prefer Tuesday to Wednesday. Just doesn't make any sense. On Tuesday, it's Tuesday. And on Wednesday, it's Wednesday.

Sure, as I said above, all else being equal, I'll choose a multiplat PS3 title, but that doesn't keep me from having a game constantly going on both consoles. :)

Why compare a gaming system with an entertainment system that sorta plays games? Hell, my ps3 is 99% for media ONLY.

It's a miracle I purchased Street Fighter HD Remix on the ps3 and not the 360, but that's only because the 360's controller sucks for fighting games. If not, I would've went the other way.

I think the comparisons are stupid to begin with. Its nothing but a videogame dick measuring contest and I for one am satisfied with the size of my 360 and PS3. Further more, hope Im not talking about anybody in this thread, but I laugh my azz off at the nerds on this (and other forums) who BUY both versions of the game (360/PS3) and keep the one that looks better.

Is it that freakin serious.. to buy BOTH versions of the same game?

Do you really care that a particular game looks 3% better on your other console when you are playing it?

Wouldnt it make more sense to buy the version of the game that works better with the controller of a certain system (360 for shooters, PS3 for fighting) or if online multiplayer is important.. get it for the console that has the biggest friends list?

The PS3 versions look a little brighter... Could that be from the settings they had on the PS3?

I've haven't finished reading the article and comparing shots.
But I'm really curious as to what settings they had on the Xbox HDMI (Standard? Expanded? etc) or Colour Space.

Through they both look great the 360 seems to look sligthly "richer" and more 3D in things like shadows.

Not another gamespot article. :D

The PS3 versions look a little brighter... Could that be from the settings they had on the PS3?Those sorts of PQ comparisons are almost always a result of these sites not performing appropriate display adjustments. My 360 and PS3 display very differently. I've found a useful "average" to use for both of them, but ideally, they'd each get their own unique settings. Not to mention that individual games/movies themselves display quite differently.

Those sorts of PQ comparisons are almost always a result of these sites not performing appropriate display adjustments. My 360 and PS3 display very differently. I've found a useful "average" to use for both of them, but ideally, they'd each get their own unique settings. Not to mention that individual games/movies themselves display quite differently.

I remember for GTA IV, on either IGN or Gamespot they said that while the PS3 version had slightly better framerates, the Xbox 360 version had "better colors", which is probably just because their displays were poorly calibrated.

I remember for GTA IV, on either IGN or Gamespot they said that while the PS3 version had slightly better framerates, the Xbox 360 version had "better colors", which is probably just because their displays were poorly calibrated.

I thought it was the other way around the 360 had better the frame rate while the ps3 had the better colours?

I thought it was the other way around the 360 had better the frame rate while the ps3 had the better colours?

I remember PS3 supposedly having more frames per second but that "measurement" was probably wrong as well either way.

One would hope that the framerate would be better, what with the system rendering 200,000 less pixels. :)

Who effing cares anymore? For the love of God buy them both.