what you’ve noticed is real but has nothing to do with the graphics. the ps3 prevents screen recording over hdmi because of hdcp. analog video isn’t copy protected, so content creators have to use component to capture video, which leads to what you’ve noticed.
From my experience with the game, the PS3 version runs at a full 1280x720 with QAA at times (during low-intensity scenes). Both the 360 and PS3 versions can drop to as low as 1024x576 during high-intensity sequences, as a result of the dynamic resolution and AA switching of the game engine.
0:05 The fence on the left and on the right is complete for the 360, but not for the ps3 version. Definitely the 360 is the better version! and that is certainly not s.Hdmi or whatever. The ps3 was just then a console that was difficult to program, many developers had studios their problems on the ps3 to program.
RROD tells a completely different story. ;) Again, the 360's architecture is a more familiar, PC-like development environment for most developers, and that's why it's been easier for most multiplat devs to come to grips with coding for the 360 than the PS3. But once the devs start to learn the tools and how to properly code for the PS3, the end result is games like Uncharted and KZ2 (there are other examples, but those are the most striking ones).
I've totally noticed that with every generation even to this day that games on PlayStation have always had this grey haze to it with muddier textures and so many people say ,"you cant tell the difference" and I've always been able to tell a substantial difference because video games look like shit unless i'm playing at my house and the few other people that have pc's or xbox's 😂
the ps3 colour setting you have always to do it on your own or it will look like this but i have really to say that the xbox 360 version looks better more details
Honestly, the sony port should have been rendered it in 960x600p with 4xMSAA or some sort of post-process filtering which is known to take time for the developers to make, but WORKS better.
For most multiplatform games Xbox360 was definitely the best option. But I recommend you to get a PS3 now that it's cheap, there are a lot of good exlusives on that console (or use an emulator of you own a good PC)
KZ2 and Uncharted have fully dynamic lighting and shadows. Where do you get that it's "half-canned," and what does that even mean? We've seen little of Alan Wake thus far, which wasn't running on the 360, and it had pretty ugly, low-poly character models in comparison to Heavy Rain. And considering it's still so early in development, the visual/lighting quality will likely get downgraded from for performance/framerate reasons, as most games are apt to do.
Let me put it this way then: QAA is not strictly worse, but is BETTER than 2xAA to many. It's a cheaper way to have ~4xAA, at the cost of 2xAA and slightly softening the image. I have 0 problem w/ QAA myself; I used it all the time when I used to play PC games. Xbox 1 was somewhat more powerful than the PS2, but the reason this difference materialized is because of its familiar PC architecture. PS3 is more powerful, but it's less trivial to eek out that power due to its unfamiliar architecture.
Textures and variety are a RAM-management issue anyway. KZ2 overall to my eyes clearly features much more impressive rendering and performance, in terms of lighting, shadows and post-processing. Gears 2 doesn't have 32 player online, doesn't have dynamic shadows. Nor does it have the velocity-based motion blur, a high-end effect, that KZ2 features. Overall, KZ2's rendering features are just more impressive and full-featured than Gears 2. I don't see how anyone can dispute that.
KZ2 has parallax mapping on many surfaces in its outdoor levels. The train level's textures might be weak/rushed in comparison to the rest of the game. Number of enemies on screen is simply due to a programming technique/cheat called "instancing" in order to repeat a single enemy on-screen repeatedly to create a horde, and doesn't require much more computation.
QAA is not strictly worse than 2xAA; it removes aliasing better at the tradeoff of slightly softening the image. At least QAA is BETTER than Gears' selective-edge 2xAA (which only occurs on some edges). KZ2's AA is on all the time. The Xbox 1 had better multiplats because it was more PC-like and thus more familiar a development environment for most devs--NOT because it was strictly more powerful than the PS2.
You're making typical statements that are not supported by technical knowledge or basis in fact/evidence. PS3 bashers will claim how the Cell's supposedly "not good for games." This tired argument is contradicted by the work that devs such as ND and GG have done for the platform. The Havok company has stated that the Cell is capable of ~10x faster physics processing than conventional multicore processors (Google it). Even multiplats usually tend to have equal or better physics on the PS3 ver.
I'm not defending multiplat titles on the PS3. I'm simply stating that the PS3 is a much more capable machine than multiplats indicate, as proven by the system's exclusives, when developers lead-target the PS3's architecture (rather than simply leading on 360 and porting to PS3 w/o proper training/techniques, like 90% of devs do). Uncharted came only a year after PS3's launch. KZ2 had an ordinary 3-yr develop cycle (the '05 vid was concept CG, at that point development had not yet begun).
The PS3's GPU is generally weaker than the one present in the 360, and there is SLIGHTLY more texture memory available due to OS bloat (but Sony is optimizing and winding down the background OS requirements day by day, so the difference is pretty minimal now), but the X-factor of the PS3's performance potential is the Cell processor, which is a massive calculation beast and can assist in rendering processes. Bottom line is, it's not all down to the GPU, the CPU is a major factor as well.
Um, they're not making a "360 title" with 1000 players. They said they were researching new online code that MAY allow 1000 players in a game. They used Quake 1 to demo this tech. And it ran choppily. Wow, impressive. That was 2007. Nothing's come out of it since. And why is it a "bad move" to compare online experiences? After all, KZ2 can achieve 32 players at once w/ its amazing visuals. The 360 is limited at 10 w/ Gears 2. This is responding to your notion of the Cell being "not for games."
It definitely much more impressive, and MOST people would agree with me. Not you, of course. Velocity-based motionblur, Film-grade post-processing, dynamic shadows, hundreds of lights, and more. Fyi, Gears 2 only has AA on some edges (dynamic AA), while KZ2 has persistent QAA all the time. So which has "more aliasing" now? Lack of co-op is a design/developer decision. Not every game has or needs co-op. 32 players IS however, a DEFINITE technical number advantage over Gears 2's competitive MP.
KZ2 is technically more impressive. I truly think most platform-neutral people w/o an agenda/bias would agree. Sure, Gears 2 arguably has a slight upperhand in a few areas, but OVERALL, I'd say that it's fairly lopsided in KZ2's favor. The dynamic shadows, the post-processing, the motionblur, better AA, the hundreds of lights per scene, the 32-player online... all of that really speaks for itself.
I bet his PS3 is set on limited and not on full range and super white is off! Also PS3 likes a good quality Monster Cable to a nice HDTV! Then PS3 FTMFW!!!!
What's the point of "proliferating" the Cell? I could understand the argument for Blu-Ray,but the Cell's simply a very progressive/unique CPU that's adept @ intensive processing tasks. Again, the proof's in the pudding; physics are just 1 example of the Cell; 1st-party devs continue to show w/ amazing-looking exclusives how the Cell can help push the envelope of the platform. I firmly believe the PS3 keep raising its bar, while the 360 appears to be stuck in place with Gears 2 as its benchmark.
Plus, have we seen a single 360 title that supports more than 16-18 players online? If the Cell processor is so weak, then how do you explain that KZ2 supports 32 players, some games support 60, and the upcoming MAG supports a whopping 256 players at a time? Yet the 360 is stuck at ~16 players. Why is that, if the Cell is so poorly suited for gaming processes?
Using Cell for rendering isn't a "semi-solution to a problem;" it's extra raw power, an "accelerator" so to speak, that allows much more rendering and much better visuals than if all rendering were done on its GPU alone. It's an x-factor for performance that ANY developer would love to use/have on any development platform, and it's the reason for all of KZ2's technical strengths (heavy geometry detail, film-grade post-processing, AA, motion blur), which you can't do with any other CPU-type.
Don't disagree that Riddick on the PS3 is inferior overall to the 360 ver., but we need to clarify and make technically accurate statements about just how big the differences are (and not exagerate/lie). The PS3 ver. isn't that bad, and Starbreeze is one of the worst devs in terms of programming for the PS3 In the end, the PS3 gets shafted in some multiplat games, but it's still the most powerful system overall, as shown by Killzone 2 which technically blows away anything I've seen on the 360.
"A couple of devs close to sony pull of games that look about as good as 360 games made with half the budget + dev time" Please, I'm not going to dignify that ridiculous biased statement w/ a response. Obviously you have an agenda and a bone to pick with the PS3, and are dead-set on knocking it down. So unless you're going to start writing with a little bit of sense & rationality, I'm going to lose motivation in continuing this discussion.
Of course dynamic lighting/shadows are present in some 360 titles, but not in a game with the same level of detail/fidelity as KZ2. Not with the same lighting complexity, post-processing, & geometric detail. We're talking about the whole visual package here, not just that single visual component being present. As I said, Gears 2 appears destined to be stuck as the visual benchmark for the 360, while the PS3's envelope continues to raise every year.
totale verarsche, die ps3 ist natürlich besser, es wurde 1 mal gespielt, das eine video blieb so und bei den anderen wurde es ein wenig heller gemacht um die qualität zu mindern!! oder wieso stimmt alles 100% überein auch außerhalb der gamevideos!? Ich hab das Spiel selber auf ps3 und die qualität ist sehr gut!!
GPU-accelerated physics might somewhat approach Cell physics performance (doubtful), but that would take away from rendering performance, resulting in graphics loss in 360 games. There's a lot of politics and corporate/industry reasons for the lack of Cell in PCs, rel. to software incompatibility, the entrenched x86 architecture ubiquity, Intel and AMD oligopoly... There's a reason research facilities assemble clusters of PS3s for data-intensive calculations. Because it's fast.
It's not time-wasting or difficult. That's just typical, tired old fanboy talk, fanboy conjecture. If it was that hard, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Evolution, & Insomniac wouldn't have achieved the great results they have ON THEIR FIRST TRIES. Many PS3 developers have come out to say that developing for the numerous SPU cores of the Cell was not hard. Guerilla even stated that it was SIMPLER than coding for the 360's CPU, because of all the raw power at their disposal from the SPUs.
Some ocasional textures are weak, but I could point the same in Gears 2 screens. Enemy variety is memory-related, but adding a couple extra enemy skins/models to the RAM doesn't drastically increase RAM usage. KZ2 also uses parallax in on many surfaces. Gears 2 drops frames as does every game. KZ2 doesn't fall off the limit "most of the time." Just please stop it. Any biased person w/ an agenda can grasp for straws and make up all sorts of fallacious statements like you are doing.
The proof is in the pudding. The Uncharted/KZ2 devs achieved their outstanding results, even with the slightly weaker GPU of the PS3. And that was on their first game iteration; imagine what they'll do with subsequent sequels, now that they've grown more accustomed with PS3-specific development. I agree that the Cell isn't a particularly powerful general-process cpu, but it's a monster in terms of raw floating-point performance, and that includes rendering and physics tasks.
So 1 PS3 game was a a bit rushed (I heard Guerilla was terribly mismanaged) and experienced a delay, & all of a sudden it's the exact same situation for EVERY dev on the PS3? Nevermind ND, Insomniac, Evo, NinjaTheory, even Epic bringing their games out on time and looking great... let's just forget those. KZ2 is proof that the PS3 is hard to develop for, right? Fact: detail texturing was added fairly late in KZ2's development cycle, so perhaps the textures aren't perfect in some isolated spots.
Because CPUs in general are moving in that direction, of being able to handle graphics and multimedia tasks. Case in point is what Intel is doing with the Larrabee. That's why the Cell is so progressive, and beat Intel to the punch (and might still be superior in the end). Why 2 chips to increase the cost? Simple. Because devs (esp. western devs) are used to coding for a standard GPU+CPU configuration; having just the Cell or 2 Cells was deemed too radical/difficult an architecture to deal w/.
KZ2's textures are crisp(contrary to popular fanboy belief). Both have similar geometric detail. Enemy variety-please, now you're reaching. KZ2 has plenty variety in diff Helghast ranks/skins, & the realistic art style requires every character to be humanoid (and thus less apparent difference between enemy types). Draw-distance? KZ2 has some massive environments in both MP and SP. Filtering and framerate? Geez, what an awful list. KZ2 does all this with dynamic lighting/shadows, and 32 players.
What does Uncharted and KZ2 do that 360's top games don't? For one,a fully dynamic lighting/shadows system. Gears 2 looks good,with good polygonal detail and shaders, but in lieu of dynamic-cast shadows, it uses prerendered lightmaps to save performance. This is less impressive than Uncharted's dynamic shadows cast by the sun on swaying leaves/trees/characters, and FAR less impressive than Killzone 2's HUNDREDS of lights at a time in a single scene, with multiple shadow-casting light sources.
Just because you prefer PC gaming doesn't mean you aren't biased or don't have an agenda/bone to pick against the PS3. The way you fiercely defended the 360's online experience tells me the opposite.
How is it a hodge-podge if Sony called for IBM to create a revolutionary processor that is highly future proof and extremely powerful? You're just repeating fanboy conjecture with your claims that the Cell was created for mmedia & research/qorkstations first, gaming second, because that's just pure malarky. Mmedia and scientific endeavors share many similarities to the types of processing tasks that are required in games (physics, AI, rendering).
the reason why ps3s version looks like shit it because the ps3 is hard to program for,if programmed well you can expect great graphics (ex. look at the exclusives). These graphics don't speak justice for the ps3
It doesn't take "2x the effort to match the 360;" if that were true, the Uncharted and KZ2 devs wouldn't have achieved their amazing results on their FIRST TRIES. It only took them one game iteration to achieve what they did; just imagine what they'll achieve on their sequels. Some multiplats look worse on the PS3 because devs lead-target the 360 and aren't properly trained to handle the PS3, not because it takes "twice the effort." That's just patently false and is factually unsubstantiated
Brightness settings that's all😒 neither console is gonna make this game look better because the game didn't support 1080p unlike dark athena and even if the game could ps3 had blue-ray discs so
You're regurgitating the same old ridiculous, typical fanboy arguments. Coding for many, many threads is where CPU and software is heading, where the entire computational industry is heading. Intel realizes this, as do Nvidia, and AMD. Writing code to spread work across a lot of threads isn't "incredibly time wasting and difficult." It's literally THE FUTURE of software development. The Cell is simply more progressive in this regard than any other consumer CPU out there today.
Conventional CPUs can handle mmedia tasks, but not nearly as fast as the Cell can. The Cell may not be a good general purpose CPU, but games are not general purpose. Games are a very specialized application, for which the Cell can be very suited if develops utilize it properly. Gabe Newell has also criticized the 360's CPU in the past. He's a PC-centric developer and thus has little objective credibility on the matter to my eyes.
Watching this in 2021.
360 is the clear winner; everything looks nicer and cleaner whereas PS3 looks washed out and muddy.
what you’ve noticed is real but has nothing to do with the graphics. the ps3 prevents screen recording over hdmi because of hdcp. analog video isn’t copy protected, so content creators have to use component to capture video, which leads to what you’ve noticed.
Watching this in 2023
Watching in 2024.
From my experience with the game, the PS3 version runs at a full 1280x720 with QAA at times (during low-intensity scenes). Both the 360 and PS3 versions can drop to as low as 1024x576 during high-intensity sequences, as a result of the dynamic resolution and AA switching of the game engine.
0:05 The fence on the left and on the right is complete for the 360, but not for the ps3 version. Definitely the 360 is the better version! and that is certainly not s.Hdmi or whatever. The ps3 was just then a console that was difficult to program, many developers had studios their problems on the ps3 to program.
Crazy 360 games looks really better
holy god,i love this game soooo much!!!!!!!!
RROD tells a completely different story. ;)
Again, the 360's architecture is a more familiar, PC-like development environment for most developers, and that's why it's been easier for most multiplat devs to come to grips with coding for the 360 than the PS3. But once the devs start to learn the tools and how to properly code for the PS3, the end result is games like Uncharted and KZ2 (there are other examples, but those are the most striking ones).
I've totally noticed that with every generation even to this day that games on PlayStation have always had this grey haze to it with muddier textures and so many people say ,"you cant tell the difference" and I've always been able to tell a substantial difference because video games look like shit unless i'm playing at my house and the few other people that have pc's or xbox's 😂
the ps3 colour setting you have always to do it on your own or it will look like this but i have really to say that the xbox 360 version looks better more details
I'm thinking, this actually looks like a comparison between emulated games.. it explains his comment using quincunx and MSAA I guess..
Ps3 without hdmi ;)
Honestly, the sony port should have been rendered it in 960x600p with 4xMSAA or some sort of post-process filtering which is known to take time for the developers to make, but WORKS better.
Ya looks like default settings on ps2...
en mi ps3 jamas se vio asi yo lo tengo con full range on.
I'm so glad I've always had Xbox. I've never had a PlayStation yet, lol
For most multiplatform games Xbox360 was definitely the best option. But I recommend you to get a PS3 now that it's cheap, there are a lot of good exlusives on that console (or use an emulator of you own a good PC)
Anyone got ps3 version fancy multiplayer???
KZ2 and Uncharted have fully dynamic lighting and shadows. Where do you get that it's "half-canned," and what does that even mean?
We've seen little of Alan Wake thus far, which wasn't running on the 360, and it had pretty ugly, low-poly character models in comparison to Heavy Rain. And considering it's still so early in development, the visual/lighting quality will likely get downgraded from for performance/framerate reasons, as most games are apt to do.
Let me put it this way then: QAA is not strictly worse, but is BETTER than 2xAA to many. It's a cheaper way to have ~4xAA, at the cost of 2xAA and slightly softening the image. I have 0 problem w/ QAA myself; I used it all the time when I used to play PC games.
Xbox 1 was somewhat more powerful than the PS2, but the reason this difference materialized is because of its familiar PC architecture. PS3 is more powerful, but it's less trivial to eek out that power due to its unfamiliar architecture.
Warning Bioraptors
Textures and variety are a RAM-management issue anyway. KZ2 overall to my eyes clearly features much more impressive rendering and performance, in terms of lighting, shadows and post-processing. Gears 2 doesn't have 32 player online, doesn't have dynamic shadows. Nor does it have the velocity-based motion blur, a high-end effect, that KZ2 features.
Overall, KZ2's rendering features are just more impressive and full-featured than Gears 2. I don't see how anyone can dispute that.
KZ2 has parallax mapping on many surfaces in its outdoor levels. The train level's textures might be weak/rushed in comparison to the rest of the game. Number of enemies on screen is simply due to a programming technique/cheat called "instancing" in order to repeat a single enemy on-screen repeatedly to create a horde, and doesn't require much more computation.
QAA is not strictly worse than 2xAA; it removes aliasing better at the tradeoff of slightly softening the image. At least QAA is BETTER than Gears' selective-edge 2xAA (which only occurs on some edges). KZ2's AA is on all the time.
The Xbox 1 had better multiplats because it was more PC-like and thus more familiar a development environment for most devs--NOT because it was strictly more powerful than the PS2.
lo que muestras del PS3 tiene mucho brillo, yo tengo el juego y se ve super detallado
You're making typical statements that are not supported by technical knowledge or basis in fact/evidence. PS3 bashers will claim how the Cell's supposedly "not good for games." This tired argument is contradicted by the work that devs such as ND and GG have done for the platform. The Havok company has stated that the Cell is capable of ~10x faster physics processing than conventional multicore processors (Google it). Even multiplats usually tend to have equal or better physics on the PS3 ver.
I'm not defending multiplat titles on the PS3. I'm simply stating that the PS3 is a much more capable machine than multiplats indicate, as proven by the system's exclusives, when developers lead-target the PS3's architecture (rather than simply leading on 360 and porting to PS3 w/o proper training/techniques, like 90% of devs do). Uncharted came only a year after PS3's launch. KZ2 had an ordinary 3-yr develop cycle (the '05 vid was concept CG, at that point development had not yet begun).
The PS3's GPU is generally weaker than the one present in the 360, and there is SLIGHTLY more texture memory available due to OS bloat (but Sony is optimizing and winding down the background OS requirements day by day, so the difference is pretty minimal now), but the X-factor of the PS3's performance potential is the Cell processor, which is a massive calculation beast and can assist in rendering processes. Bottom line is, it's not all down to the GPU, the CPU is a major factor as well.
I bought this game for the PS3 which funny enough on my Sharp Aquos appear closer to the 360 version than the PS3 version shown here.
Um, they're not making a "360 title" with 1000 players. They said they were researching new online code that MAY allow 1000 players in a game. They used Quake 1 to demo this tech. And it ran choppily. Wow, impressive.
That was 2007. Nothing's come out of it since.
And why is it a "bad move" to compare online experiences? After all, KZ2 can achieve 32 players at once w/ its amazing visuals. The 360 is limited at 10 w/ Gears 2. This is responding to your notion of the Cell being "not for games."
It definitely much more impressive, and MOST people would agree with me. Not you, of course. Velocity-based motionblur, Film-grade post-processing, dynamic shadows, hundreds of lights, and more.
Fyi, Gears 2 only has AA on some edges (dynamic AA), while KZ2 has persistent QAA all the time. So which has "more aliasing" now?
Lack of co-op is a design/developer decision. Not every game has or needs co-op. 32 players IS however, a DEFINITE technical number advantage over Gears 2's competitive MP.
the only difference is the contrast.
KZ2 is technically more impressive. I truly think most platform-neutral people w/o an agenda/bias would agree. Sure, Gears 2 arguably has a slight upperhand in a few areas, but OVERALL, I'd say that it's fairly lopsided in KZ2's favor. The dynamic shadows, the post-processing, the motionblur, better AA, the hundreds of lights per scene, the 32-player online... all of that really speaks for itself.
lower resolution on the ps3
I bet his PS3 is set on limited and not on full range and super white is off! Also PS3 likes a good quality Monster Cable to a nice HDTV! Then PS3 FTMFW!!!!
What's the point of "proliferating" the Cell? I could understand the argument for Blu-Ray,but the Cell's simply a very progressive/unique CPU that's adept @ intensive processing tasks. Again, the proof's in the pudding; physics are just 1 example of the Cell; 1st-party devs continue to show w/ amazing-looking exclusives how the Cell can help push the envelope of the platform. I firmly believe the PS3 keep raising its bar, while the 360 appears to be stuck in place with Gears 2 as its benchmark.
Plus, have we seen a single 360 title that supports more than 16-18 players online? If the Cell processor is so weak, then how do you explain that KZ2 supports 32 players, some games support 60, and the upcoming MAG supports a whopping 256 players at a time? Yet the 360 is stuck at ~16 players. Why is that, if the Cell is so poorly suited for gaming processes?
Using Cell for rendering isn't a "semi-solution to a problem;" it's extra raw power, an "accelerator" so to speak, that allows much more rendering and much better visuals than if all rendering were done on its GPU alone. It's an x-factor for performance that ANY developer would love to use/have on any development platform, and it's the reason for all of KZ2's technical strengths (heavy geometry detail, film-grade post-processing, AA, motion blur), which you can't do with any other CPU-type.
Don't disagree that Riddick on the PS3 is inferior overall to the 360 ver., but we need to clarify and make technically accurate statements about just how big the differences are (and not exagerate/lie). The PS3 ver. isn't that bad, and Starbreeze is one of the worst devs in terms of programming for the PS3
In the end, the PS3 gets shafted in some multiplat games, but it's still the most powerful system overall, as shown by Killzone 2 which technically blows away anything I've seen on the 360.
"A couple of devs close to sony pull of games that look about as good as 360 games made with half the budget + dev time"
Please, I'm not going to dignify that ridiculous biased statement w/ a response. Obviously you have an agenda and a bone to pick with the PS3, and are dead-set on knocking it down. So unless you're going to start writing with a little bit of sense & rationality, I'm going to lose motivation in continuing this discussion.
Of course dynamic lighting/shadows are present in some 360 titles, but not in a game with the same level of detail/fidelity as KZ2. Not with the same lighting complexity, post-processing, & geometric detail. We're talking about the whole visual package here, not just that single visual component being present.
As I said, Gears 2 appears destined to be stuck as the visual benchmark for the 360, while the PS3's envelope continues to raise every year.
ps3 isn't set up correctly, mine is way more clear
My ps3 looks better than yours.
totale verarsche, die ps3 ist natürlich besser, es wurde 1 mal gespielt, das eine video blieb so und bei den anderen wurde es ein wenig heller gemacht um die qualität zu mindern!!
oder wieso stimmt alles 100% überein auch außerhalb der gamevideos!?
Ich hab das Spiel selber auf ps3 und die qualität ist sehr gut!!
Bisschen spät aber ich will mir kaufen es ist wirklich besser
GPU-accelerated physics might somewhat approach Cell physics performance (doubtful), but that would take away from rendering performance, resulting in graphics loss in 360 games. There's a lot of politics and corporate/industry reasons for the lack of Cell in PCs, rel. to software incompatibility, the entrenched x86 architecture ubiquity, Intel and AMD oligopoly... There's a reason research facilities assemble clusters of PS3s for data-intensive calculations. Because it's fast.
It's not time-wasting or difficult. That's just typical, tired old fanboy talk, fanboy conjecture. If it was that hard, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Evolution, & Insomniac wouldn't have achieved the great results they have ON THEIR FIRST TRIES. Many PS3 developers have come out to say that developing for the numerous SPU cores of the Cell was not hard. Guerilla even stated that it was SIMPLER than coding for the 360's CPU, because of all the raw power at their disposal from the SPUs.
Some ocasional textures are weak, but I could point the same in Gears 2 screens. Enemy variety is memory-related, but adding a couple extra enemy skins/models to the RAM doesn't drastically increase RAM usage. KZ2 also uses parallax in on many surfaces. Gears 2 drops frames as does every game. KZ2 doesn't fall off the limit "most of the time."
Just please stop it. Any biased person w/ an agenda can grasp for straws and make up all sorts of fallacious statements like you are doing.
The proof is in the pudding. The Uncharted/KZ2 devs achieved their outstanding results, even with the slightly weaker GPU of the PS3. And that was on their first game iteration; imagine what they'll do with subsequent sequels, now that they've grown more accustomed with PS3-specific development. I agree that the Cell isn't a particularly powerful general-process cpu, but it's a monster in terms of raw floating-point performance, and that includes rendering and physics tasks.
So 1 PS3 game was a a bit rushed (I heard Guerilla was terribly mismanaged) and experienced a delay, & all of a sudden it's the exact same situation for EVERY dev on the PS3? Nevermind ND, Insomniac, Evo, NinjaTheory, even Epic bringing their games out on time and looking great... let's just forget those. KZ2 is proof that the PS3 is hard to develop for, right?
Fact: detail texturing was added fairly late in KZ2's development cycle, so perhaps the textures aren't perfect in some isolated spots.
Because CPUs in general are moving in that direction, of being able to handle graphics and multimedia tasks. Case in point is what Intel is doing with the Larrabee. That's why the Cell is so progressive, and beat Intel to the punch (and might still be superior in the end).
Why 2 chips to increase the cost? Simple. Because devs (esp. western devs) are used to coding for a standard GPU+CPU configuration; having just the Cell or 2 Cells was deemed too radical/difficult an architecture to deal w/.
KZ2's textures are crisp(contrary to popular fanboy belief). Both have similar geometric detail. Enemy variety-please, now you're reaching. KZ2 has plenty variety in diff Helghast ranks/skins, & the realistic art style requires every character to be humanoid (and thus less apparent difference between enemy types). Draw-distance? KZ2 has some massive environments in both MP and SP. Filtering and framerate? Geez, what an awful list.
KZ2 does all this with dynamic lighting/shadows, and 32 players.
Lie:)
What does Uncharted and KZ2 do that 360's top games don't? For one,a fully dynamic lighting/shadows system. Gears 2 looks good,with good polygonal detail and shaders, but in lieu of dynamic-cast shadows, it uses prerendered lightmaps to save performance. This is less impressive than Uncharted's dynamic shadows cast by the sun on swaying leaves/trees/characters, and FAR less impressive than Killzone 2's HUNDREDS of lights at a time in a single scene, with multiple shadow-casting light sources.
Just because you prefer PC gaming doesn't mean you aren't biased or don't have an agenda/bone to pick against the PS3. The way you fiercely defended the 360's online experience tells me the opposite.
How is it a hodge-podge if Sony called for IBM to create a revolutionary processor that is highly future proof and extremely powerful? You're just repeating fanboy conjecture with your claims that the Cell was created for mmedia & research/qorkstations first, gaming second, because that's just pure malarky. Mmedia and scientific endeavors share many similarities to the types of processing tasks that are required in games (physics, AI, rendering).
@saifyounis8 lol
360 is winning ps3 just cant manage those graffics.he isn''t doing anything with the brightness,360 wins hands down.
the reason why ps3s version looks like shit it because the ps3 is hard to program for,if programmed well you can expect great graphics (ex. look at the exclusives). These graphics don't speak justice for the ps3
It doesn't take "2x the effort to match the 360;" if that were true, the Uncharted and KZ2 devs wouldn't have achieved their amazing results on their FIRST TRIES. It only took them one game iteration to achieve what they did; just imagine what they'll achieve on their sequels. Some multiplats look worse on the PS3 because devs lead-target the 360 and aren't properly trained to handle the PS3, not because it takes "twice the effort." That's just patently false and is factually unsubstantiated
Brightness settings that's all😒 neither console is gonna make this game look better because the game didn't support 1080p unlike dark athena and even if the game could ps3 had blue-ray discs so
You're regurgitating the same old ridiculous, typical fanboy arguments. Coding for many, many threads is where CPU and software is heading, where the entire computational industry is heading. Intel realizes this, as do Nvidia, and AMD. Writing code to spread work across a lot of threads isn't "incredibly time wasting and difficult." It's literally THE FUTURE of software development. The Cell is simply more progressive in this regard than any other consumer CPU out there today.
Conventional CPUs can handle mmedia tasks, but not nearly as fast as the Cell can. The Cell may not be a good general purpose CPU, but games are not general purpose. Games are a very specialized application, for which the Cell can be very suited if develops utilize it properly.
Gabe Newell has also criticized the 360's CPU in the past. He's a PC-centric developer and thus has little objective credibility on the matter to my eyes.
Xbox 360.
Tengo ambas versiones , xbox360 wins :)
PS3 looks better
x360 forever