The Graphics: PS3 vs. Xbox 360

[Brad Wardell]

One thing I am really curious about is that after all the hardware spec wars, is there a noticeable difference in graphics quality between the 360 and the PS3?

The PS3 has the advantage/disadvantage of including Bluray. But the 360 is cheaper and has a more mature on-line game store.

So at the end of the day, as a GAME MACHINE, which one is looking better? I know it's about the games but did that extra year mean much? The graphics difference, for instance, between the Dreamcast (which I thought was awesome) and the PS2 was pretty noticeable to me at least. Is the same true here?

[Gordon Cameron]

Comparing Gears of War to Resistance, I don't see a noticeable difference. Maybe later PS3 games will look more impressive.

[MattKeil]

Currently, nothing on consoles looks better than Gears of War. The best-looking PS3 game currently available is probably Resistance, which I would put on about the level of F.E.A.R. Metal Gear Solid 4 will likely be the next big PS3 graphical yardstick, and Halo 3 the same for 360. Which will look better? Hard to say at this point. MGS4 looks amazing, but it still doesn't quite look like something the 360 couldn't pull off.

Technological power isn't the deciding factor in this gen's console war, IMO. It's all about art direction, animation, and stylistic choices. As the hardware gets more and more powerful, I think aesthetic appeal becomes more and more important.

[Gary Whitta]

I've yet to see the PS3 do anything that the 360 can't. But yeah, that may change as developers get to grips with the tech.

[Marcin]

Based on my exhaustive and in-depth examination of Motorstorm at a Target display booth ... no.

Seriously though, I think it's too early to tell - you're comparing developers with a year of practice on the 360 to brand spanking new software on the PS3. Not only that, but the 360 only now has shown that it's capable of fairly incredible graphics (Gears of War). I think it's going to be at least a year until you're going to be able to formulate a judgment.

[charmtrap]

I'm terrible at comparing relatively (I suspect) marginal and nebulous differences in quality, but I played Motorstorm for about half an hour last night at Best Buy and it looked pretty f'in amazing. I could have just been a bit starstruck though...

[forgeforsaken]

I'm terrible at comparing relatively (I suspect) marginal and nebulous differences in quality, but I played Motorstorm for about half an hour last night at Best Buy and it looked pretty f'in amazing. I could have just been a bit starstruck though...

Have you played Gears? I haven't seen Motorstorm playable in person, when I was last at some store they had it as a video loop at the ps3 kiosk and it looked rather good, but not as good as I was expecting it would.

Also the PS3 the launch games don't look any better than current 360 games. Some folks point out that they are launch games, but as you noted with the PS2/dreamcast, and well Xbox at launch looked better than current PS2 titles of the time, so I don't see the fact that they are launch games as an excuse.

[GH33DA]

Gears is currently the best looking game. However, more Unreal Engine 3 games are on the way. Curious to see how the future turns out.

[charmtrap]

Have you played Gears? I haven't seen Motorstorm playable in person, when I was last at some store they had it as a video loop at the ps3 kiosk and it looked rather good, but not as good as I was expecting it would.

I haven't played Gears myself, but I've seen it briefly, plus videos and screenshots. I dunno...it looks supremely great, graphically stunning...and totally boring, drab and bleak. I guess I'm just tired of all the "hardcore gamer" games looking like a Spawn comic from the mid-90's.

Probably Motorstorm doesn't look as "good", but it was colorful and zippy.

[rjcc]

I actually liked motorstorm less after seeing it in person. the framerate wasn't great, and the damage doesn't seem real time, just, crash -- explode---post-crash look.

[Marcin]

I haven't played Gears myself, but I've seen it briefly, plus videos and screenshots. I dunno...it looks supremely great, graphically stunning...and totally boring, drab and bleak. I guess I'm just tired of all the "hardcore gamer" games looking like a Spawn comic from the mid-90's.

Probably Motorstorm doesn't look as "good", but it was colorful and zippy.

Well, that's aesthetics vs. pure "graphics" power. I still find Okami more aesthetically pleasing than Gears, but I can clearly admit that the latter clearly has more going for it in the sheer eye-candy department.

[tromik]

I haven't played Gears myself, but I've seen it briefly, plus videos and screenshots. I dunno...it looks supremely great, graphically stunning...and totally boring, drab and bleak.
Then you didn't see any of the imulsion plant.

[Linoleum]

Complicated question to try and answer. The short answer is both systems will have their visual high-water marks. Neither system is superior enough that there is going to be a clear victor. They both have technical strengths and weaknesses when compared to each other.

Since most Western titles will be cross-platform, it'll end up being pretty much a wash.

[charmtrap]

Well, that's aesthetics vs. pure "graphics" power. I still find Okami more aesthetically pleasing than Gears, but I can clearly admit that the latter clearly has more going for it in the sheer eye-candy department.

Yeah agreed. Forget I said anything...

I think once a minimum level of parity is reached between two games (or game systems) it all comes down to art direction and opinion anyway. Yeah, I'm sure there are differences power-wise between the 360 and the PS3, but who cares...they're close enough.

[Damien Neil]

Then you didn't see any of the imulsion plant.

I found the imulsion plant pretty drab and boring visually as well. Gears is pretty amazing technically, but doesn't do much for me aesthetically.

[antlers]

To get more specific: I think the Xbox is potentially slightly stronger graphically, but the PS3 can handle more physics.

[Nut]

Wii Sports

[Ben]

I found the imulsion plant pretty drab and boring visually as well.

He means the caverns, not the factory. If you found the caverns drab and boring you're high.

[Damien Neil]

Sorry, I found the caverns pretty drab as well. :>

Rock, more rock, hey look, some rock. And pools of glowy stuff. Nicely rendered glowy stuff, to be sure.

[dgallina]

I played a 15 minutes of motorstorm PS3 at bestbuy earlier today. Seemed rather underwhelming. Only other game on the box was NBA, which I didn't play since I'm not a fan of most sports titles.

Diego

[Dave Long]

One thing Gears gets really right is grit and grime. The world looks lived in a lot of the time, and most games in 3D have never had anything close to believability in that way before.

Sometimes it's got the polygon look, but often the action moves fast enough that you really get a sense of being there.

[Charles]

So at the end of the day, as a GAME MACHINE, which one is looking better? I know it's about the games but did that extra year mean much? The graphics difference, for instance, between the Dreamcast (which I thought was awesome) and the PS2 was pretty noticeable to me at least. Is the same true here?

As a developer, I'd say the 360 is better. It's quicker to develop for which means less dollars wasted trying to make games look good, and more dollars used trying to make games fun. On top of that, the memory is flexible. We can dedicate 400mb to game data and 100mb to textures if we wanted. The PS3's memory is partitioned in half, so you don't have that freedom.

As far as the end user, there's going to be little visual difference between the two systems with the exception of the odd stand-out title. The 360 will have Gears of War, the PS3 will have MGS4. Etc.


To get more specific: I think the Xbox is potentially slightly stronger graphically, but the PS3 can handle more physics.

There's no real reason to think that, outside of swallowing sony's marketing hook, line, and sinker.

[bago]

Hook, line, and sinker with real time weapon switching!

[Demon G Sides]

I found Motorstorm to be quite weird in the visuals department. It was almost too bright on the TV I played it on.

Maybe it was just the Target TV I was using, but everything seemed to have an unnecessary sheen to it. I'm all for bringing in things that make games look more lifelike, but it gets to a point that your overdoing it.


Oh... And the whole "PS3 with the MGS4 as its graphical powerhouse:

Xbox 360 is getting MGS4. Look out Graphical powerhouse, there is the same kid on the block one house down.

[Kevin Grey]

Xbox 360 is getting MGS4. Look out Graphical powerhouse, there is the same kid on the block one house down.


Just for clarity- still a rumor. And if it does, hopefully they port it better this time because the PS2 version was superior to the Xbox version of MGS2.

[Charles]

Xbox 360 is getting MGS4. Look out Graphical powerhouse, there is the same kid on the block one house down.

Yeah, but even if it happens, Konami never really put the amount of work required in their previous ports to make it work perfectly, and so you ended up with a noticeably inferior product on the xbox, and I have no real reason to think they wouldn't do the bare minimum this time around as well.

[Demon G Sides]

Well... They kinda have Konami head honcho's pushing them to do it. I mean, losing your job over a port isn't really the way to go, is it?

[DennyA]

Architecturally the systems are very different, and the use of SPUs allows Sony to claim more "operations per second" because of the ancillary processors--which is where all the "more powerful" hype comes from.

However, the simplified explanation is that the PS3 has a single-core PowerPC processor with a series of special ancillary processors that are super-fast at what they're good at, but aren't general purpose CPUs. The 360 has a triple-core PowerPC processor that doesn't offer as many raw calculations per second, but you can't compare SPU operations with CPU operations. It's much easier to program for, as each core can work on any kind of operation.

The 360 has 512MB of memory and an additional small amount of frame buffer memory; the PS3 has only 256MB of memory but it has 256MB of graphics memory.

I think in the end, the technology is a wash, because writing a game to really take advantage of the PS3's SPUs means heavy recoding to do a version for PC or 360. So I'd imagine most multiplatform games will never take full advantage of the full bank of SPUs -- they'll be used for stuff like fast graphics libraries.

What this boils down to is two very different architectures that have strengths in different areas. In the end, both consoles can fill an HD screen with beautiful imagery.

The radically different architectures are going to make multi-platform game quality interesting. Will games just be programmed to a baseline of common capabilities, or will they be optimized for one platform and then get mediocre ports for the other?

So it's going to be more about (1) the console experience -- is the mature Live service what you want, or are you willing to sacrifice that refinement in exchange for "free?" Do you like friends lists and achievements, or is the ability to play your PS1/2 library a sell point? (2) Which console has the games you want, and (3) do the non-game capabilities matter? Linux, XNA, HD movies, etc?

[bago]

The 360 has 512MB of memory and an additional small amount of frame buffer memory;
Uhh, not quite accurate here.

[Rorschach]

I think the best comparison I've seen between the two is this article (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1) on DPAD. It's pretty technical, goes into some good details, and doesn't read biased.

[Linoleum]

Uhh, not quite accurate here.

It is, unless you're arguing that the 10Mb embedded frame buffer isn't small.

[MatthewF]

Don't forget, another Epic UE3 system exclusive will be coming in a few months, except this time for the PS3. That might be a good way to compare the two.

Honestly, the PS3 GPU has issues doing shader operations in traditional ways. That makes cross-platform development difficult. But it can definitely achieve the same results as the 360, if not better in certain situations. It can push more triangles than the 360, for example. However, when talking raw shader operations and fillrate, the 360 wins easily. What I think it will come down to is games ending up looking excellent on both platforms, but in different ways. Exclusives are most likely where you'll see the systems pushed to their limits.

So to me, the argument is moot. Both will have awesome-looking games. There is no clear winner.

[Jonathan Blow]

I think the Xbox 360 will have games that are clearly better-looking, all the way to the end of the generation.

The PS3's "peak theoretical power" is just not very usable.

[Jason Becker]

Don't forget, another Epic UE3 system exclusive will be coming in a few months, except this time for the PS3. That might be a good way to compare the two.

Not exactly. UT 2K7 will be on the PC too and its possible they could release it on the 360 at a later date unless Sony got Epic to agree in the contract to never port it over.

[forgeforsaken]

Not exactly. UT 2K7 will be on the PC too and its possible they could release it on the 360 at a later date unless Sony got Epic to agree in the contract to never port it over.

Who's the publisher on UT2k7, Take2?

[JD]

Midway

[Desslock]

Since most Western titles will be cross-platform, it'll end up being pretty much a wash.

Actually, I think these are the most interesting titles to base the comparison upon -- will games look/perform noticeably better on the two platforms? In the last gen, Xbox versions looked significantly better than ps2 versions of the same game.

On the other hand, the xbox might have technically been more powerful than the gamecube, but gamecube versions looked pretty much identical to the xbox versions. If the situation is basically the same with PS3/360, then probably nobody will care and will instead look to the platform-exclusive titles or other advantages, but if the same games are much better on one platform, it'd be an important differentiation.

[Charles]

I think the Xbox 360 will have games that are clearly better-looking, all the way to the end of the generation.

The PS3's "peak theoretical power" is just not very usable.

Not without a huge investment in time and money. Japanese developers typically get the most out of Sony's platforms by writing their own compilers and language extensions/limitations. Why Sony doesn't just do this and give it to all their developers is beyond me. Sony loves to shove the costs on to the developer, which is yet another reason why the 360 is so much more attractive to developers.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Don't forget, another Epic UE3 system exclusive will be coming in a few months, except this time for the PS3. That might be a good way to compare the two.

In theory. I'm just waiting to see what happens when Epic throws a team that has just burned out shipping Gears onto a project where the engine still needs work...

[Jonathan Blow]

Japanese developers typically get the most out of Sony's platforms by writing their own compilers and language extensions/limitations.

Yeah, it's really stupid especially when you consider that instead of making all their big developers write tools, they could probably do at least an extra game each with all that manpower... something Sony could really use early in the game.

But Sony's current tools are pretty poor -- I am sort of thinking they wouldn't have known how to do good tools if they had really set out to put the effort in. (Not saying this to dis sony -- it is something that happens to big companies / institutions.)

I mean, even the SN tools are not that great, and that's been their main business for how long?

[Kool Moe Dee]

But Sony's current tools are pretty poor -- I am sort of thinking they wouldn't have known how to do good tools if they had really set out to put the effort in. (Not saying this to dis sony -- it is something that happens to big companies / institutions.)


Sony is a hardware company, whereas Microsoft is a software company. From that perspective, it's pretty easy to understand how the current situation took shape.



I mean, even the SN tools are not that great, and that's been their main business for how long?

And, of course, in typical Sony style, they still don't give SN's tools away for free.