Topic: Xbox 360 Versus PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison

[Xessive]

Gamespot's Xbox 360 vs PS3 Graphics Comparison

It's almost obvious that the PS3 would be more graphically impressive. Really?

The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

We're going to give the PS3 the benefit of the doubt in this initial round since developers might need more time to figure out how to maximize performance from the Cell and the RSX. If you look at the Xbox 360's first Madden game, Madden 06, you'll notice that it doesn't offer very realistic stadium shadows, either. The trouble with buying a console at launch is that you often have to wait for the second or third generation of games for the system to fulfill its potential. The PS3 didn't beat the 360 in this first comparison, but the games do look fine for first-generation titles. The real graphics battle will likely come next year.

[poomcgoo]

I have to disagree with Fight Night Round 3.  If you look at any screenshots from the PS3 version, the boxers show way more detail.  The lighting isn't as good, but the shot they have there is kinda misleading.

I'm surprised how shitty Madden and CoD3 look on PS3 though.  This will definitely change though.

[ender]

From the PS3 games I've played, I am definitely not impressed. In fact, there are tons of problems with the games not even running at full frame rates. Honestly, even though there are some higher poly counts on characters... from my own experience none of the games come to the smooth, beautiful quality I've seen in No One Lives Forever (launch game) Oblivion (Mid-way through) or Gears of War (latest title)

I hate to say it, but the more and more I talk to people the less I see PS3 have much of a future. Wow, that was depressing.

[TheOtherBelmont]

This will definitely change though.

Exactly, thats what it all pretty much boils down to.  I remember PS2 games not looking nearly as good as they did a couple of years later when they first came out and people going apeshit over "jaggies".  I see the two systems having fairly close graphics by the end of their lifetimes, with maybe the PS3 ahead a little bit because of its slightly higher HD capabilities and newer hardware.  From the looks of it, the lighting is pretty much the only huge difference right now between the two, the 360 does lighting differently and looks slightly better but the PS3's textures look better.

[Xessive]

I have to disagree with Fight Night Round 3.  If you look at any screenshots from the PS3 version, the boxers show way more detail.  The lighting isn't as good, but the shot they have there is kinda misleading.

I'm surprised how shitty Madden and CoD3 look on PS3 though.  This will definitely change though.

I agree with you on Fight Night Round 3. There was a lot more detail on the boxers in the PS3 version, and I liked the PS3 lighting a little more as well.

As you guys have said this will likely change as soon as the devs figure out how to really take advantage of the hardware.

[Jedi]

"We're going to give the PS3 the benefit of the doubt in this initial round"

That line right there undermines the whole article, what's the point in the comparison if you're just going to turn around and say something like that. It says that maybe its too soon to to compare the two and that this article is full of shit. I don't know.
But I do agree to some degree, the graphics aways improves over time after the first release.

[Xessive]

"We're going to give the PS3 the benefit of the doubt in this initial round"

That line right there undermines the whole article, what's the point in the comparison if you're just going to turn around and say something like that. It says that maybe its too soon to to compare the two and that this article is full of shit. I don't know.
But I do agree to some degree, the graphics aways improves over time after the first release.

Yeah I know what you mean, but I just took the article as a "graphics comparison, thus far." I think they're planning a set of comparison articles concluding with an 'overall' and retrospective review.

[Pugnate]

Meh I just think it is getting convenient to hate Sony. The games on the PS3 need some time to mature and things will change, but most  games on the 360 do look better and it is something for the owners of the console to feel good about.

edit:

I am just happy that my PC displays those games better than either console. I hope a new console doesn't come out for 5 years.

[Xessive]

Man, I can't wait till MGS4 comes out! I think that's gonna be a graphical marvel!

[Quemaqua]

What Pug said.  I've no love for Sony at the moment, but I'm sure the PS3 is going to be amazing and a half once developers really get used to it and we see things start to come into their own.  Now is no time to judge it.  The 360 has already had its chance to mature a bit... and I'm sure it's going to get way more amazing as times goes on, too.  The initial PS2 offerings looked like *ass*.  If you compare Square's big graphics-intensive launch title The Bouncer to the system's swan song Final Fantasy XII, you wouldn't even believe them to be on the same system.  (Or you might say the system's real swan song was Okami, and you wouldn't be wrong... just using FFXII because it's also Square-Enix and is happening right now.)  Compare Resident Evil: Code Veronica X (yes, it's a Dreamcast port, but GSpot gave it a 9 for graphics at the time) to the grotesque beauty of Silent Hill 3 and you would get the same sort of holy-crap revelation of how far things can come in a relatively short time period.

[scottws]

Meh I just think it is getting convenient to hate Sony. The games on the PS3 need some time to mature and things will change, but most  games on the 360 do look better and it is something for the owners of the console to feel good about.

edit:

I am just happy that my PC displays those games better than either console. I hope a new console doesn't come out for 5 years.

It's easy to hate Sony because they are charging $600 for their console and trying to foist another shitty format on consumers.  I don't think that the haters are unjustified in the slightest.

[sirean_syan]

And that's the key right there. The fact that they're charging nearly twice as much as the Xbox 360 and had a year to tighten their launch means they should be at least slightly better or the same out of the gate. Remember, when the original Xbox came out things were clearly better on it (technically speaking) than on the PS2 and the Cube for the most part.

The thing with this sort of test is that they always have to use multi-console games and for the most part those almost never go out of their way to look super awesome on any system. You'd have to compare something like Resistance:FoM to Gears of War and completely ignore the art. That's a very hard thing to do.

[Pugnate]

Huh? Where do you get twice as much? It is $500 for the PS3 without the Blu-ray. They put their money on Blu-ray which is pretty expensive, especially since it requires some parts that are in short supply. If you think of the 360 with an HD-DVD drive and a PS3 with a Blu-Ray drive, they are both the $600.

It's easy to hate Sony because they are charging $600 for their console and trying to foist another shitty format on consumers.

I am not very familiar with consoles, but what other format did Sony try to forcefully implement? Personally I commend Sony for being that bold. I love technology, and when a year from now Blu-ray hits its potential and appears to be the obviously better standard, people will hail Sony as a pioneer. Sure it is a gamble, but those Blu-ray drives are expensive to manufacture, and there is nothing better than mass production to cut costs.

Again there are PS3 options without a Blu-ray that are $499. I am sure that will come down eventually.

You have to hand it to M$, the move to release the 360 a year ahead was brilliant. A year ago all sorts of negative stuff was being said about the 360, and no one thought that a year's lead would make a difference.

Well it definitely did.

[iPPi]

Heh, I was at the store yesterday and a whole bunch of the staff were walking around holding PS3s asking if anybody wanted to buy them... they had like 10 in stock or something like that.

[Pugnate]

At normal price?

[scottws]

I am not very familiar with consoles, but what other format did Sony try to forcefully implement? Personally I commend Sony for being that bold. I love technology, and when a year from now Blu-ray hits its potential and appears to be the obviously better standard, people will hail Sony as a pioneer. Sure it is a gamble, but those Blu-ray drives are expensive to manufacture, and there is nothing better than mass production to cut costs.

Betamax, MiniDisc (and ATRAC), SACD, and DAT immediately spring to mind.

Sony is always trying to come up with some new format when usually it is completely unneccessary.  And usually (not always) they also have all kinds of consumer-unfriendly stuff built into them.  I applaud consumers for generally calling Sony on their BS and not buying into it.

Blu-Ray is nice because it does 1080p and has a huge capacity.  But it also has all kinds of Draconian DRM built-in that I want no part of.

[idolminds]

Huh? Where do you get twice as much? It is $500 for the PS3 without the Blu-ray. They put their money on Blu-ray which is pretty expensive, especially since it requires some parts that are in short supply. If you think of the 360 with an HD-DVD drive and a PS3 with a Blu-Ray drive, they are both the $600.

Except you don't need to purchase the HD-DVD drive if you don't want to.

I am not very familiar with consoles, but what other format did Sony try to forcefully implement? Personally I commend Sony for being that bold. I love technology, and when a year from now Blu-ray hits its potential and appears to be the obviously better standard, people will hail Sony as a pioneer. Sure it is a gamble, but those Blu-ray drives are expensive to manufacture, and there is nothing better than mass production to cut costs.

UMD, for one. Which so far has failed miserably as a format since the only thing that uses it is the PSP. It also wasn't probably the best choice for a portable games machine since there are load times and need of a memory card to save.

Again there are PS3 options without a Blu-ray that are $499. I am sure that will come down eventually.

All PS3s have a Blu-Ray drive in them. The difference between the models is with the hard drive.

[iPPi]

At normal price?

Yea... $659.99 for the 60GB model.

[iPPi]

Betamax, MiniDisc (and ATRAC), SACD, and DAT immediately spring to mind.

Sony is always trying to come up with some new format when usually it is completely unneccessary.  And usually (not always) they also have all kinds of consumer-unfriendly stuff built into them.  I applaud consumers for generally calling Sony on their BS and not buying into it.

Blu-Ray is nice because it does 1080p and has a huge capacity.  But it also has all kinds of Draconian DRM built-in that I want no part of.

Let's not forget their own proprietary digital media Memory Stick and then the UMDs as well.  Sony is all about proprietary formats.

[scottws]

Good call on the UMDs, I didn't even think of that.  $30 for a movie that can only be played on a PSP or $20 for a movie that can be played almost anywhere?  Hmmm...

[TheOtherBelmont]

Again there are PS3 options without a Blu-ray that are $499. I am sure that will come down eventually.

Unless something has changed recently, you are just a little off there.  Both the $499 and $599 versions use Blu-Ray, the main difference between the two is the $599 version has built in wireless internet support (you can still go wired with the $499 version), a 60 gig HD as opposed to the $499's 20 gig (which you can upgrade later anyways with any of the shelf SATA drive, I forget the size it has to be though but you don't have to buy an official Sony HD) and finally the $599 version has ports in the front for Memory Duo, Compact Flash, and SD sticks on the front of the console.  You are correct about everyone using the $599 version as a reason to bitch about the price though, the $499 version works just as good as the $599 version and only costs $100 more than the Premium 360 (you pretty much don't want to get the Core because of the lack of HD).  A lot of people are to quick to dismiss the $499 version like its the gimped version of the PS3, when it isn't.

[scottws]

How is it BS to compare the full version of the PS3?  If you are comparing the basic version of the PS3, shouldn't you be comparing it to the basic version of the Xbox 360?  You're just using that argument out of convenience to support your point.  IMO, it isn't a valid argument.

But even then, the stripped down version of the PS3 is $100 more than the full version of the Xbox 360.  Even the "cheap" version of the PS3 if five hundred fucking dollars.  That is ridiculous.

[TheOtherBelmont]

How is it BS to compare the full version of the PS3?  If you are comparing the basic version of the PS3, shouldn't you be comparing it to the basic version of the Xbox 360?  You're just using that argument out of convenience to support your point.  IMO, it isn't a valid argument.

But even then, the stripped down version of the PS3 is $100 more than the full version of the Xbox 360.  Even the "cheap" version of the PS3 if five hundred fucking dollars.  That is ridiculous.

I am not comparing it to the Core version of the 360 because in the long run the Core version is not a good buy, no HD means you have to buy a memory card which is $40, once that memory card runs out(and it does run out we have people buy second ones because they have run out of space on their first one they got at launch) you have to buy another one.  There are no wireless controllers, when both of the PS3s have wireless included, and no HD cables included (the premium 360 has HD cables), so comparing the less expensive version of the PS3 to the Core isn't really much of a comparison, not in terms of graphics/power or anything like that but what it comes with.  Also I know $500 is a lot of money but the $500 version of the PS3 is not "stripped down" the main thing that makes the $600 one more expensive is the bigger HD and wireless internet support, both of which are not really needed unless you want to save a bunch of music and other media to your PS3.  If you want to do nothing but play games then the $500 system is for you, the HD is more than large enough for save files and if you want to play online, run an ethernet cord in there.  I just see too many people say "Oh the PS3 is $600, too much money, fuck you Sony" and not even mention the $500 one, in turn misinforming other people.  Yes I know Sony is charging a shit ton of money for both systems, but it is slightly newer technology than the 360 and they are losing money on both of the systems. 

I pretty much look at it this way, I am way more of a console gamer than a PC gamer, so instead of spending a good chunk of money on a decent gaming rig that can play all of the latest and greatest PC games at full settings and lasting me for the next 4-6 years, I am going to spend money on a $500 console and not have to worry about it getting outdated for years to come(this is assuming it lasts at least 6 years like the PS2 did, hell the PS2 still has some life left in it).  Yeah there will be some games I will miss out on PC, but that's just me.  That said, the 360 is showing a lot of promise finally and I really would like to get one, but theres only a few games (mainly Gears of War and Dead Rising) that have me interested, not enough on the horizon to get me to spend the money on it.  The Wii, well that's another story.

[Cobra951]

The PS3 looks like it has future potential.  This story just verifies that it does not cut in the present, this holiday season.  Hard to get, overpriced, software that needs work, programmers that need more experience, unproven forced format.  I can still go to Microcenter and get an Xbox 360 core system for $200 after rebate (plus sales tax on $300).  For me, the competition is the Wii.  Sony is not in the picture yet.

[Quemaqua]

I dunno'.  The point is valid about Sony pushing an unnecessary new format, but that's about where I start sounding more like Tet.  Yes, the PS3 is a bit more expensive, but you can call the 360's core version "broken" when the same doesn't apply to the PS3's lesser version.  The 360 is more like you can take a serious punch in the gut if you want to save a few bucks, whereas the PS3 is more like you can spend a little extra and get something that much nicer.  The 360 is more like "here's the shitty version you don't want and the version you have to spend extra for that you *do* want", see?  I know this because I bought a core 360 and I regret it.  In the end I'm going to have to buy the fucking hard drive anyway, and that's going to mean that I spend an extra $50 pretty much since the damned memory units are so ridiculously expensive.  Personally I think the PS3's price is somewhat more justified due to what's actually inside the thing.  M$ is more or less just forcing you to pay more money no matter what you do, Sony is actually giving you a viable option in their lesser version.  So I don't really think any of those arguments hold water other than the whole new format thing.  *That* I completely agree with, though, and I'm sure everyone here knows that I really don't like Sony much... so don't feel like I'm needlessly backing them.

[Cobra951]

OK, I can also get the full deal for $300 after rebate (plus sales tax on $400).  The thing is that I want a wired controller.  I'd have to buy that separate with the more expensive getup (which comes with wireless).  That's 50 bucks too, I think.

The Sony price isn't comparable in any way.  I can get the 360 plus 5-6 games for what the PS3 alone goes for.  This has to figure in the decision for anyone without money to burn.

[Quemaqua]

Firstly, one store's rebate has nothing to do with a system's actual retail price, so that isn't a valid point in the 360's favor.  And again, nobody's claiming that the PS3 isn't more expensive, we're just saying it isn't actually as much of a price gap as most people seem to think.

[iPPi]

We can say exactly the same thing with the Nintendo Wii though.  At least, that's what pretty much hhappened to me.

Consider, the Wii + 2 games is $279.99 + 2x $69.99 is approximately equal to $445 with tax.

I bought my Xbox360 premium, and it came with Gears of War and Ridge Racer 6.  That is, I get GRAW ($70), Arcade Unplugged Vol. 1 (like 6 Live arcade games ~$45 value), Gears of War ($70), Ridge Racer 6 ($30), all for $450 + tax = $477.

That is a mere $30 difference.

So in all seriousness, the price comparison of all 3 consoles is in the end fairly close.

Plus, the Core 360 is really for a really casual gamer.  The Premium 360 is for the hardcore gamer, because you get all the good stuff.

[Pugnate]

Also the rebate thing is just because the Xbox 360 has been out for a yea. The PS3 won't have deals like that for another year. I am not saying it doesn't make the 360 a better deal, but how is that Sony's fault?

Did the 360 launch with rebate deals?

[TheOtherBelmont]

And again, nobody's claiming that the PS3 isn't more expensive, we're just saying it isn't actually as much of a price gap as most people seem to think.

Thank you for clearing that up, also I would like to mention that I am not a big fan of Sony's pushing Blu-Ray and if it bombed in the movie format it wouldn't bother me in the least bit(mainly because of some of the reasons that Scott mentioned, DRM and what not) but in terms of using them for games I'm all for it, since DRM and several of the issues it has on the movie front seem invalid to me when the disc is being used for a console game.

Also Pug, I don't remember hearing about any rebate deals for the 360 at any retailers around here on launch.  A rebate on console on launch seems highly unlikely anywhere.

[sirean_syan]

Well, that makes sense I suppose. I still feel like buying a PS3 right now is too big of bite and this sort of thing just proves it. We've already seen stuff like MGS4 to know the system can pull off a lot more than what we're seeing right now. The thing is, given the higher price and the current lineup, this is one of the more sad launches I can think of. Usually there's at least something to justify the system gamewise and with Resistence being the only and closest thing, something's definitely lacking. Sony's relying too much on brandname and the geekness of having new technology. It all just seems rather backhanded when you look at what Nintendo and even Microsoft are pulling out of the gate at this point in time. What stuff like this article, the extreme shortages, the current lineup, technical problems, and the price do are put a stigma in the PS3. The Xbox 360 sorta has that still after it's launch problems even though they seem to be doing pretty well right now. As it stands, I feel like the PS3 is doing much worse than the 360 did in the same stage of it's life.

I pretty much agree with Tet that forcing some strange disc format with a system isn't a big deal though. Really, game consoles have always done that in some form. If Blueray fails as a format, that really doesn't effect the system itself. Something could be said about the system being used to push Blueray into homes, but that seems like a longshot to me. I know Sony likes to claim that the PS2 helped DVDs come to age, but things were already well underway for the format when the PS2 hit.

[Pugnate]

Also Pug, I don't remember hearing about any rebate deals for the 360 at any retailers around here on launch.  A rebate on console on launch seems highly unlikely anywhere.

That was rhetorical.

Personally I am not nearly ready to buy a console, especially after having spent so much on my PC. But if I were, I'd probably go for the 360, except there is no way in hell to get it for less than $400 here. No rebates I am afraid.

But yea despite all the hype, I think the Wii is just least desirable in terms of consoles. It all depends on how the games pan out once the developers truly use the controller to its potential, but I think it is priced at $50 more than it is worth. I'd be very surprised to see it holding up in three years.

I am not the biggest fan of Sony, and last gen. my favorite console was the Xbox. But as a PC gamer the PS3 makes the most sense to me because it is likely to have games most unique to me. I just think everything is a bit blown out of proportion. Currently the internet would have you believe that the Wii is from god and the PS3 is from Satan.

[sirean_syan]

That's not the case?

[Pugnate]

 

[Cobra951]

You guys are comparing the Wii or 360 with several games included vs. the PS3 alone. That is not a fair comparison.  The PS3 alone is a bare minimum of 500 smackers; and while I may give you the benefit of the doubt on the entry-level packages, there is an honest-to-God $200 difference between premium packages (360 vs PS3) before tacking on the $100 rebate.  Besides, why do I care how I can knock off an extra $100 off the 360?  If I can do it, it's a real price reduction.  Try to get $100 off a PS3 tomorrow, and see what happens.

And then you still have to contend with substandard early games for the bleeding-edge system.

[scottws]

That was rhetorical.

Personally I am not nearly ready to buy a console, especially after having spent so much on my PC. But if I were, I'd probably go for the 360, except there is no way in hell to get it for less than $400 here. No rebates I am afraid.

But yea despite all the hype, I think the Wii is just least desirable in terms of consoles. It all depends on how the games pan out once the developers truly use the controller to its potential, but I think it is priced at $50 more than it is worth. I'd be very surprised to see it holding up in three years.

I am not the biggest fan of Sony, and last gen. my favorite console was the Xbox. But as a PC gamer the PS3 makes the most sense to me because it is likely to have games most unique to me. I just think everything is a bit blown out of proportion. Currently the internet would have you believe that the Wii is from god and the PS3 is from Satan.

Have you played the Wii?  I only played Wii Sports, but I had a great time.  I really, really like it.  Even though all the games were extremely simple, my sister and I played Wii Tennis for almost two hours straight.

[ender]

Also the rebate thing is just because the Xbox 360 has been out for a yea. The PS3 won't have deals like that for another year. I am not saying it doesn't make the 360 a better deal, but how is that Sony's fault?

Did the 360 launch with rebate deals?

No, but Sony is overpricing their system. I paid around $600 for my XBOX premium bundle, with 4 games, a free year of xbox live, another controller and tons of other stuff. That was the week it came out last year.

[scottws]

I know.  Just as Pug and Tet say we are unfairly hating Sony, I say that they are giving Sony a free pass.

"It's only $500.  You don't need the $600 version."*  Five hundred dollars?  Are you kidding me?

"It's only $100 more than the only Xbox 360 version worth owning."  The cheap version is one hundred fucking dollars more expensive than the most expensive 360!  I think $400 is too much for the 360. And again, five hundred dollars?  Are you kidding me?

So in all seriousness, the price comparison of all 3 consoles is in the end fairly close.

I don't even know how the Wii got brought into this, but that quote is kind of crazy.  It is like $250, a full $150 less than "the only 360 worth owning."  I guess there are a lot of deals on the 360 now which help make it comparable to the price of the Wii, but how is the price of the PS3 in any way comparable to the Wii?  The Wii is a full $250 less than the cheap PS3.  Half the cost, for those not paying attention.  And you could buy two Wiis and still have $100 left over in comparison to the premium PS3.  I don't understand what you think is fairly close about that.

The quotes in this post are obviously not true quotes but summaries of how I am interpereting the prior posts.

[Pugnate]

No I know it is overpriced. Just trying to bring balance to this whole I love Nintendo and Sony is teh sux thing.

I mean $400 for an Xbox 360 system vs $500 for the PS3. Basically you are getting a Blu-Ray drive for the extra $100. I don't think it is worth it, but who knows how the future will pan out?

This reminds me of something Chris Rock said a while back before he became an idiot and started political rants that made sense to no one but him.

"The shit is big, but don't make it bigger than it is."

It is like $250, a full $150 less than "the only 360 worth owning."  I guess there are a lot of deals on the 360 now which help make it comparable to the price of the Wii, but how is the price of the PS3 in any way comparable to the Wii?  The Wii is a full $250 less than the cheap PS3.  Half the cost, for those not paying attention.  And you could buy two Wiis and still have $100 left over in comparison to the premium PS3.  I don't understand what you think is fairly close about that.

I am thinking of it this way. There is a car costing you $2,500 but will last you three years at most, and there is a car that costs twice as much, but should last half a decade.

Personally I do not see cross platform releases in the Wii's future. Franchises like COD just will look really ugly on the Wii when compared to the other two consoles.

Really I am not Sony's fan at all. My PS2 was the least played of the three consoles, because I dislike those sort of games. The Xbox was pretty cool, though lacked a good wrestler. The Gamecube was extremely cool, and had a lot of quirky charming games.

Yes the PS3 is expensive, but I don't think the Wii is as good a deal as everyone makes it out to be.

[Xessive]

If I ever decide to buy a PS3, now is not the time. For me, the PS3 is not released and ripe for the picking until there are some decent games out for it, updated OS and network code, and perhaps a few new peripherals. Apparently a lot of people have been complaining about its network capability, and the OS seems lacking, but Sony have promised some revamps to the OS and gradual updates.