PS3 and Xbox 360

[DealsR4theDevil]

To those of you who have both. Would you say the PS3 games look a lot better than the 360 games, a little better, equal, or worse than the 360 games. I know the PS3 hardware is capable of better but my friend is trying to argue they are equal.

Who has both systems and can comment?

[u_nick]

I have both. From titles/demos that I have been able to compare, the difference is BARELY noticable.

Mind you, most of these games were created for one system (360), and then ported to the other (PS3).

Overall, the only difference I see is somethign with contrast/brightness. PS3 titles seem a little brighter to me, which I prefer. I think it shows more detail.

[thrlride]

I have both but can't comment since I haven't played the same game on both systems. Any other comparison is worthless.

They are close enough to where it really doesn't matter, it comes down to the games, IMO.

Besides, someone saying 360 is better here would be a very bad idea.

[airwedge1]

it all depends on the developing studio. Most of the games that are built for both, will look the same on both. The studio's some times will have small differences between them, but generally there is not a difference. For exclusives though, I think the ps3 games look better. Not really sure why, but the ps3 seems like it has smoother, more realistic looking graphics. Heavenly sword, I thought is very superior to any 360 game as far as raw graphics go.

[u_nick]

Originally Posted by thrlride

They are close enough to where it really doesn't matter, it comes down to the games, IMO.

exactamundo

[Teramere]

The XBOX 360 is a great gaming platform, but the PS3, by means, of the BR is simply capable of presenting better games. The game designers don't have to code, graphicalluy speaking. to the standars that XBOX game devlopers have to b/c the BR disc aids in the 'eye candy' aspect of it... and that's not all....

[Monkey]

Both systems put out great visuals. Overal 1st Party PS3 games do look a little better on average. 3rd party really depends, some look better though they get a lot of crappy ports from Ubi and EA as well.

Nothing on the 360 looks as good as Ratchet & Clank at this point and this is still in the PS3's first year. I imagine games on both systems will top it eventually.

Now if you were to talk sound quality PS3 wins hands down. Also build quality of system and how loudly it operates. Plus 1st part Sony games have been getting dedicated servers which is a much more enjoyable experience due to no lag.

[thrlride]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Now if you were to talk sound quality PS3 wins hands down. Also build quality of system and how loudly it operates. Plus 1st part Sony games have been getting dedicated servers which is a much more enjoyable experience due to no lag.

I get 0 lag on any of the 360 games I've played online. Perhaps I am just lucky.

[supersix4]

360 on madden and ncaa 100% better zero lag the players actually look normal on the 360 ... other than that zero difference (gearsow looks great)

[thrlride]

Originally Posted by supersix14

360 on madden and ncaa 100% better zero lag the players actually look normal on the 360 ... other than that zero difference (gearsow looks great)

I bought viva pinata for my daughter and even it looks outstanding.

[bageleaterkkjji]

if the ps3 joysticks/aiming were as smooth moving as the 360s are i would buy games for the ps3 but i think the aiming on it is horrible so i will never buy a game for ps3 except for ones with guitars lol

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by thrlride

They are close enough to where it really doesn't matter, it comes down to the games, IMO.

I have to agree with you. Overall I don't see match of a difference right now, maybe later on. Although I have to say I play my Xbox 360 more than the PS3 and any game that comes out on both I tend to buy on Xbox 360 simply because most of my friends have 360s and I like the Achievement system. For now I use the PS3 mainly has a Blu-ray/DVD player.

In the end It's all about what games you like to play, for me both systems have great games so I'm enjoying the best of both worlds.

[AikonEnt]

Well I had both systems until 17th July when my 360 went back to M$ to be repaired, and I haven't seen it since. But until then the graphics were pretty much equal as far as I could tell. I have Gears Of War on the 360 and it has some of the best graphics I've seen on any system, but that's not to say the PS3 couldn't do the same game. Both have powerful graphics processors and can output at 1080p so in theory there should be negligible difference. It is basically down to the producers of games and whether they put the effort in. Games that have been ported across from the 360 don't look as good as games that were developed specifically for the PS3 (*cough* EA *cough*). Motorstorm and Heavely Sword are 2 of the PS3's flagship games graphics wise and neither have been near a 360. But to me the biggest factor is storage, hi-def graphics require a lot of memory and when the 360 is limited to around 6.5gb on a disc whereas the PS3 has access to around 50gb (assuming only a double layer Blu-Ray is used) the difference is vast. Now not all games are going to need that much room but sooner or later some games will become the 'movie experience you can control' (think Heavenly Sword but much, much bigger in scale) and I'm afraid 6.5gb isn't going to cut it is it? (And don't say anything about multiple discs as who wants to change discs mid gameplay)

[thrlride]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

I have to agree with you. Overall I don't see match of a difference right now, maybe later on. Although I have to say I play my Xbox 360 more than the PS3 and any game that comes out on both I tend to buy on Xbox 360 simply because most of my friends have 360s and I like the Achievement system. For now I use the PS3 mainly has a Blu-ray/DVD player.

In the end It's all about what games you like to play, for me both systems have great games so I'm enjoying the best of both worlds.

The achievement system is the main reason I continue to play the 360 and any cross platform titles on that system. Getting close to breaking 53k.

[WickyWoo]

Gamespot has a lot of 360 vs PS3 graphical comparisons

Just look for a major title on there that's on both

Mind you this one is older

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by thrlride

I get 0 lag on any of the 360 games I've played online. Perhaps I am just lucky.

Sounds like it. I've never had a person tell me while play these games Halo 3, Call of Duty 3, Gears of War, Ghost Recon 1,2, PGR3, Lost Planet, Shadowrun, etc.. that they never get lag. It is rare that I could ever even play in a 16 player (nowhere near 40 people) GRAW 1,2 game yet alone without lag. Gears is only 8 player max and still has bullet lag and other lag. I could go on. I wish I had your luck and I wish all the people on my friends have your luck, but none do. Both systems playing people all over the country.

Resistance (40 player lag free) , Warhawk (32 player lag free), Motorstorm (12 player lag free),etc all run much better using the same high speed Comcast connection.

Paying for live should put MS into providing us with dedicated servers IMO. The friends list, interactivity, purchasing of products on live works on silver accounts so why not have the paid services provide more than just enabling online play (which is free on the PSN) but dedicated servers like we get on the Sony's service for free on their titles.

edit: as for the achievements, hey well it worked for pavlov's dog so I can see the appeal. I just never really cared about what achievements I received from a game.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Sounds like it. I've never had a person tell me while play these games Halo 3, Call of Duty 3, Gears of War, Ghost Recon 1,2, PGR3, Lost Planet, Shadowrun, etc.. that they never get lag. It is rare that I could ever even play in a 16 player (nowhere near 40 people) GRAW 1,2 game yet alone without lag. Gears is only 8 player max and still has bullet lag and other lag. I could go on. I wish I had your luck and I wish all the people on my friends have your luck, but none do. Both systems playing people all over the country.

Resistance (40 player lag free) , Warhawk (32 player lag free), Motorstorm (12 player lag free),etc all run much better using the same high speed Comcast connection.

Paying for live should put MS into providing us with dedicated servers IMO. The friends list, interactivity, purchasing of products on live works on silver accounts so why not have the paid services provide more than just enabling online play (which is free on the PSN) but dedicated servers like we get on the Sony's service for free on their titles.

I don't think either system is lag free. Both systems are have the possibility of having lag.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

I don't think either system is lag free. Both systems are have the possibility of having lag.

True, my point is that I have a much better experience with games on a dedicated server. They also seem to be capable of more epic large scale battles in general.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by Monkey

True, my point is that I have a much better experience with games on a dedicated server. They also seem to be capable of more epic large scale battles in general.

I see your point. You have a better experience with games online with the PS3 and Thrlride has a better experience online with Xbox 360.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

I see your point. You have a better experience with games online with the PS3 and Thrlride has a better experience online with Xbox 360.

Due to dedicated servers. Personally I'd love for the best of both worlds in one service, I'd happily pay for it as well. Heck if MS wanted to charge an extra $5 a month on top for dedicated servers in games I'd pay without hesitation.