Thought it would be intrestin to post this lol
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
the xbox 360 is the default screenshot and put ur mouse over it to see the ps3 screenshot
Printable View
Thought it would be intrestin to post this lol
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
the xbox 360 is the default screenshot and put ur mouse over it to see the ps3 screenshot
Isn't really fair. These are first gen PS3 games against 2nd gen x360 ones.
:rolleyes:
the ps3 looks better in some screenshots...
made this thread because i wanted ppl to argue lol
but they both look about the same, 360 looks really dark in some
I don't like the brightness of the PS3 ones. Call of duty looks well nicer. =]
360 looks better on those pictures but you can't actually tell very well from still pictures, i bet ps3 animating is alot better, well it ought to be for the price
On those photos the ps3 has better graphics but i prefer the 360s its more imaginary and exciting than the ps3s realism ones. But thats just my opinion.
Fa
v
Doesn't matter... They've been in development for just as long. However graphics will get better when developers get more to grips with how to use the power of the "amazing" Cell chip that Sony is riding it's wagon on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tintinabulation
I see no real difference to be honest, except in brightness. And that can be adjusted through your TV anyway.
EDIT: I looked at a few more, and there are some subtle differences. FNR3 has a bit better muscle definition on the PS3, but then it's had an extra 9 months of development so that's expected. Tony Hawks on the PS3 looks awful - a very shoddy port by Neversoft which is kind of disappointing. So many jaggies and apparently there's no online modes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear-Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear-Max
^^^ Yep, Playstation 3 titles had MONTHS of extra preparation because the PS3 was supposed to be launched this Spring of 2006. Since the many delays and production issues on the PS3, game developers had so much time to improve their games, the graphics, textures, and eventually surpass the graphical prowess of the Xbox 360. But perhaps game developers did improve their games, but the console itself just doesn't cut it. So, no, it's perfectly fair to juxtapose 2nd gen xbox 360 titles with 1st gen ps3 titles.
And yeah, I agree with Bear-Max on the brightness, because I can only really distinguish a difference in that aspect and none other. There have been other games that have a very large graphical difference between both consoles but the 360 always seems to have the upperhand.
hey lol, ps3 well crap compared to 360
the 360 looks bootifull. and i dont think there much of differnt, look on the last one for carbon. you can hardly the arrows on the ps3 version.
pshh and you call me baisedQuote:
Originally Posted by hit-by-a-car
The ps3 graphics do beat the 360s by a bit, it doesnt mean i like them because im not fussed about graphics but ps3s do beat the 360s.
At the end of the article it says that the 360 beats the PS3 in every game... But hey, who's arguing?Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyTech
It seems that the PS3 ones are too bright.
The 360 has LIVE, the PS3 has graphics and the WII has pure fun.
Awww what a shame. NaaaatQuote:
Originally Posted by Tintinabulation
nice post :D interesting... :P