Comparing the Xbox 360 and PS3 side-by-side

Wow, the second ridge racer shot is the most telling. The xbox has nice lighting being cast by several different sources, the ps3 version doesn't look like it's using dynamic lighting at all.

who cares what they look like just play the damn games and be happy with what you got. there are more important thing to worry about in this world than f***ing video game systems. oh and by the way both the the RSX and the Xenon have already been outdated by the PC.

"keep in mind the screens and vids are comparing first-generation and second-generation software"


Then why were first-generation launch games for Xbox clearly superior to second-generation PS2 games?

There were plenty of PS2-Xbox ports that looked way better on the Xbox. This excuse doesn't work.

"and what the hell does a power brick have to do with gaming? the Wii has one too, oh no, whats that MEAN??? "

I'm just saying, Microsoft is doing little things that suck too, like making you piece together a little diorama of attachable gizmos and power supplies, multiple drives and cables, but I still like the 360 system. But if Sony misses a step like a HDMI cable, people throw a spaz.

http://hdera.1up.com/

Peter Moore says:
"Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream."

Face it, all game companies will feed you a line of crap to get you to buy their machines. They're like politicians. No, it isn't just Sony, it isn't just Sega, it isn't just Microsoft. It's all of them.

I know its been said before, but doesn't saying the 360's "second gen" games should look better than the PS3's "first gen" games just not hold any water?

I thought the PS3 was suppose to totally kill the 360 at launch? Why are people forgetting all of Sony's claims about the thing?

The bottom line shouldnt be "second" versus "first" gen when a company makes claims about how much better a console will be at launch as compared to a console thats already out.

The question the article poses should be "Why doesn't Sony's supposedly infinitely better console look better than the 360?"

This article was actually pretty favourable to the ps3.

There is no selection for "360 looks better", only "PS3 looks the same". And they compare some unequal games. Ridge Racer 7 should look better than 6. Full Auto 2 should look better than Full Auto.

The fact that they don't always look better actually makes the ps3 look even worse.

"The Graphics card and processing power in the PS3 is TWICE as powerful as the xbox 360"

That's not true.

Read this article...
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

The two are closer than you may realize, but have taken different approaches to design and each have certain benefits and tradeoffs.

I dont think one will be immediately able to gauge the PS3's abilities based on non-exclusive launch titles.

Its all up to the exclusives to show off the maximum power a system can put out. If you gauge how powerful the Xbox 360 was based on its launch titles, one would also think its under-delivering to the expectations it set.

Its sort of been the same with quite a few systems. I was underwhelmed with the PS2 till Metal Gear Solid 2 came out and really showed off what the system was capable of. I was underwhelmed by the Xbox till Halo came out, etc. Give it some time, the titles that show off the Ps3's possibly superior graphics prowess will come out sometime in 2007.

I didn't read all the comments and don't plan on it, but here's my take...

The Xbox360 versions of most games have a much better range of colors. They look darker, but that is because they have a range from pure white to pure black. This is how images should be.

The Xbox 360 versions also look much sharper. Much crisper edges.

The PS3 versions have much better shadows... I don't know if this is due to the console or the programming for the game, but the shadows are softer on the PS3 versions and look more realistic. Shadows rarely have crisp edges in real life. Same for glares..

Each has its own pros and cons, and full size images would be better to judge, but they are almost even from what i can see. Different games will look slightly better on different systems, because in some games, realistic colors and shadows are more important, in others brighter color overall and such would make it more appealing.

Wasn't Halo a launch title with the Xbox?

And didn't the PS3 have a couple of exclusive launch titles that haven't appeared on any other system?

Genji? Mobile Suit Gundam? Resistance? Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom? Flow? Blast Factor?

Er, PS2 looked the same, or worse than the Dreamcast with the same games when it launched.. XBOX1 and Gamecube looked better than most of the ps2 games at the time or their launches. So....several years down the line, we have PS2 games that are looking pretty good, and a bunch of ports on the first xbox that look the same or even slightly better than the PS2 versions. Yet they barely look as good as some of the xbox1 or gamecube exclusives that came out years before them. Dreamcast launched in late 1998 in Japan. PS2 launched in middle of 2000 in Japan. Gamecube launched 2001, and a few months later the xbox launched also in 2001.

My point? Sony rarely delivers what they promise, and I will always hate them for killing the Dreamcast with hype alone. The hatred also stems to all you Sony fanboys as well. Play your goddamn playstations and stop bugging everyone else. You'll get your games, doesn't mean everyone has to like you.

"106. PS3 graphics are equal to 2nd gen games of the 360. Developers are just learning the cell. In time and money,ps3 games of next generations will look and play way better than 360. Killzone 2 and metal gear 4 will show the power.
by ps3 x360 owner"

You have to understand that you are basing this solely on what Sony has told you. Why do you continue to believe/defend them after they lied about the PS2's capabilities and now about the PS3's?? On top of all that, they belittled the xbox 360, calling it "xbox1.5." If the games look the same as an x360, what do you have now, a PS2.5??? "The next gen starts when we say it does." I call "Bullshit", it started Nov 22, 2005!

It's really not far to have games that were coded with the intention of being on both consoles to be up for comparison. From what I have seen, the PS3 has better capabilities with lighting effects while the 360 is better with texture resolutions. (like what the Destructoid article pointed out...)

I didn't expect drastic difference. If you want that, compare Resistance to Gears Of War.

wow, i had no idea that the people who are comparing the two systems with two different screenshots (see the background!?) are fanboys?

They're using an EA game to compare with. Why don't they wait until Wii version comes out?

the PS3 does not cost $200 more. come on...

comparing both 20 gig version. the difference is $100.
but if you look carefully you need another $50 to play on live. and dont forget the absolutly necassary insurance needed with a 360 since u only get a 3 mos warranty. thats an extra $60.

therefore:

xbox360=$510

PS3=$499

wat happened to the price difference?

dont let microsoft fool you. the PS3 is the better deal.

Questions:

1) Is the resolution the same?
2) Is the anti-aliasing the same?
3) Are the framerates the same?
4) Any unusual studders or timing issues?
5) Does anybody care given that we're talking about ported games instead of finely-tuned exclusive titles?

In real-world practice, ATI and nVidia are still equally matched. Nobody should expect the systems to be hugely different from each other. ATI's hardware is more efficient, but nVidia goes for raw grunt.

To flash: U keep sucking on Sony's ass, u might even own a stock from them.

Hey Slacker, you forget that Xbox 360 is worth the online games. Its the better deal than what Sony is offering.

"keep in mind the screens and vids are comparing first-generation and second-generation software"

you constantly here this when games comparing 2 games on the PS3 and xbox 360. if you really think about it, it doesn't make a lot of difference. the PS3 and 360 were announced around the same time and both had a showing at E3 2005. we saw a lot of pre-rendered stuff by sony, but i think there were early showing of games like resistance, etc. some of the PS3 games have been in development for just as long as some of the 360's 2nd generation games. if you remember the PS3 actually got delayed until november 2006. i think it was originally scheduled to release around march 2006. now there must of been games already in development for them to launch at that date. the reason it got delayed was because of blu-ray.... REMEMBER?

this seems to be completely forgotten by most people it seems... lol

the PS3's 1st generation games can be fairly compared to 360 2nd generation games as they've had just as long, or in some cases, a whole year longer(for those games it makes it even more suspect) in development.

Generally I don't trust cross-platform games' ability to make accurate comparison. At the end of the day, their aim is to market it as widely as possible, as opposed to programming them to take full advantage of the target machine.

Like it was with shaders on PC, PS3's cell requires specific coding to take full advantage. I suspect all they did was to "port" it to PS3 without specific programming.

In short, this attempt at graphical comparison is meritless as it doesn't actually get to the bottom of all this.

The Frame Rate better on the 360 is BS.
My 360 Chugs in many of my games.

This article is also Biased.
I have read Reviews elsewhere and seen on Gamer.tv where they show slight improvements on many games for the PS3 and had stated that the Framerate was more solid on the PS3.

It depends which batch of games you look at, and whether or not the Developer rushed a port out.

I keep reading about the 360 Being so much Cheaper than the PS3.
Well I bought both and here is what they really cost.
I listed the $399 Version,(I Know there is a $299 version but it is $40 for the Memory Card to save your games and you need the HardDrive for XBox Live or if you want to be able to play games from the XBox Library, so the $299 is a useless BS Version.

$399 360
$ 99 Live $49 Every Year (Year 2 in November)
$199 HD-DVD
$100 XBox1 Gamesaves XSATA + Memory Cards. To move my XBox1 Gamesaves over to 360.
-----------------------------
$797 Thats $800 Total

PS3 Base model is $499
The PS3 Premium is $599 ($600) but that comes with built in wireless and a 60Gig HardDrive. Xbox360 Wireless adapter is another $99. Wow... Now we are getting damn close to $900 and I only have a 20 Gig HardDrive that is always getting too full.

The 360 is only Cheaper initially.

My first note is this:
If a developer makes a game that looks much better on the ps3, and have a less visually appealing version on the 360, that kinda reflects badly on the game developer
My next note is that if they keep porting games from the 360 to the ps3, they why not buy the ps3 and have all the ported games, plus the newer games of tomarrow all on one system?
My last note is this:
I bought the wii and seeing screen shots of the 360 and ps3 don't matter much to me anyways, the games will still play the same no matter what on those systems, thumb sticks and button combos and what-not, i like the newer more immersive game play of the wii, so to me its this-- More polygons and better lighting effects, or a better gaming experience?
I'll get the ps3 in a year or 2 because it will ave the new metal gear game, but right now, there are other things for fanboys to shell out money for, like anime, manga, the latest ipod and so on.

I have had virtually every console since the Snes (ps1, ps2, N64, dreamcast,xbox, gamecube) and each time that i bought a new console i was really exited at the prospect of new gameplay experiences.
Thinking back out of all the consoles the N64 offered something new with its new analogue control method, not that there wernt some great games on the other systems but as far as NEW, mario 64 took my breath away.
I currently own an xbox 360 and will own a ps3 and Wii when they come out in the UK. My problem with current games is that they seem to be offering exactly the same experiences with better visuals.
I find myself getting bored of games very quickly after the initial buzz of gawking at HD graphics. (and yes i like good graphics as much as the next person)
Thw Wii is the only console that i have been genuinely exited about getting in this gen, and i hope that developers make new types of game only possible with the wii remote as opposed to porting existing games with tacked on controls.
I feel that nintendo are onto something by focusing on interface rather than graphics and would bet that the next generation of consoles all follow suit and invest in new ways of interacting.
Having said that i would have paid extra for a Wii with great controls and great graphics but would rather have the former than the latter.

I only paid $499 for my PS3. That's $100 more than the 360 Premium and I got a Blu-Ray Hi-Def DVD player...not a bad deal compared to 360.

Also, I didn't wait in line. haha. I just walked into Best Buy, where they had like 60 XBOX Premiums...I could have easily walked out of there with one. The guy in blue said they just got a truck load in of PS3's. Without hesitation, I grabbed one. I've had 8 months to get a 360...but I didn't.

I got Resistance, RR7 and Superman Returns in Blu-Ray.

I'm very satisfied with my purchase. Thank you.