Print

[shocwave]

If you check the gamespot images, you'll notice that the fans within 1-2 meters of the ring are rendered in 3D.
Notice the 'arm' sticking out on the far left of the ps3 screenshot.

[silentbob343]

Also notice in the 360 pictures that everything in the 360 background has been blurred and softened to hell.  Ropes, lights, wall, tables, chairs, etc.

PS3 background there is a vertical window with wire mesh at the top on the 360 there is a vertical blur.  Although I think I like the shorts on the 360 characters better.

[Bizquick]

These 2 pictures are hard to tell by. I'm thinking that the reason the detail is so clear on the PS3 on the close up is. the fighter is either been thru more rounds and more warmed up. also this could be a video chip rendering issue. you are working with 2 different brands on GFX chips one the 36 is ATI. and I thought the sony picked Nvidia but I could be wrong. In either case I did expect the PS3 to acutaly look better than the ATI GFX chip. I dont belive much time was spent one extra development on the PS3 version. I think honestly what we are seeing is just how one GFX chip accepted the same commands. and I doubt you will see many companys spend much effort on the differances between platforms. remember the video game companies are betting on sales and Dev time is expensive. EA has so many titles they have to meet on deadlines I thing is game is just like most of the others. The devs had only so much time to play with it.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(Bizquick @ Nov 29 2006, 05:28 PM)

These 2 pictures are hard to tell by. I'm thinking that the reason the detail is so clear on the PS3 on the close up is. the fighter is either been thru more rounds and more warmed up. also this could be a video chip rendering issue. you are working with 2 different brands on GFX chips one the 36 is ATI. and I thought the sony picked Nvidia but I could be wrong. In either case I did expect the PS3 to acutaly look better than the ATI GFX chip. I dont belive much time was spent one extra development on the PS3 version. I think honestly what we are seeing is just how one GFX chip accepted the same commands. and I doubt you will see many companys spend much effort on the differances between platforms. remember the video game companies are betting on sales and Dev time is expensive. EA has so many titles they have to meet on deadlines I thing is game is just like most of the others. The devs had only so much time to play with it.

Sony is using an NVIDIA based GPU and MS is using an ATI based GPU.  The two use very different architectures with the 360 being more advanced.  The RSX is G70 based and if you look at NVIDIA’s newest GPU, the G80, you see they followed ATI in going to shader units instead of the traditional pipelines.  More time was spent on the Sony version as you can't easily port a game between either system so it's not just the PS3 adding detail that wasn't there EA had to add it in.

Reading your post again I find it very funny; "also this could be a video chip rendering issue. you are working with 2 different brands on GFX chips".  Well, yeah.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 11:54 PM

[Mr Invader]

How about this?

Two different yet evenly experienced companies make a similar game for the 360 and PS3, one company to the PS3, the other to the 360. These games were to absolutely push both systems to the limit on graphics, gameplay, file compression, and innovation. By the end of it, the games are equal in graphics, the PS3  has better sound since it has 7.1, but the 360 would have better AI, cleaner gameplay, and it would be out several months before the PS3 counterpart.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 29 2006, 06:21 PM)

How about this?

Two different yet evenly experienced companies make a similar game for the 360 and PS3, one company to the PS3, the other to the 360. These games were to absolutely push both systems to the limit on graphics, gameplay, file compression, and innovation. By the end of it, the games are equal in graphics, the PS3  has better sound since it has 7.1, but the 360 would have better AI, cleaner gameplay, and it would be out several months before the PS3 counterpart.

FUD  (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 11:54 PM

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 04:24 PM)

FUD  

QUOTE

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

http://en.wikipedia....ainty_and_doubt

No, not really FUD, considering i don't doubt it. And I never said that the 360 version would be 100% better. Both would be close, and both would still be amazing.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 29 2006, 06:32 PM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt

No, not really FUD, considering i don't doubt it. And I never said that the 360 version would be 100% better. Both would be close, and both would still be amazing.

I know you don't doubt what you said.  Those are what you are spreading with such broad sweeping generalizations.  I have no hard feelings and don't really mean much by it.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 12:09 AM

[giza]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 08:07 PM)

Also notice in the 360 pictures that everything in the 360 background has been blurred and softened to hell.  Ropes, lights, wall, tables, chairs, etc.

PS3 background there is a vertical window with wire mesh at the top on the 360 there is a vertical blur.  Although I think I like the shorts on the 360 characters better.

Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but  which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures?  Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.

By the way, I own but a PSOne, PSP, XBOX, XBOX360, Nintendo WII, Nintendo DS and PS2; therefore, this is not fanboy talk.  Once the PS3 drops in price, I will get one of those as well.  Right now, regardless how great the graphics get with the next round of games, the system is not worth the current cost.  Another point is that the launch lineup for the PS3 just does not appeal to me.  At least right now the 360 has a larger selection of good games (yeah I know they had a year head start).

This post has been edited by giza: Nov 30 2006, 01:58 AM

[smair1984]

The main reason that I never invested in a Playstation 2, and will not buy a PS3 is because of how much obsurd hype Sony pours onto the masses, and how the masses just eat it up.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(giza @ Nov 29 2006, 08:26 PM)

Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but  which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures?  Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.

By the way, I own but a PSOne, PSP, XBOX, XBOX360, Nintendo WII, Nintendo DS and PS2; therefore, this is not fanboy talk.  Once the PS3 drops in price, I will get one of those as well.  Right now, regardless how great the graphics get with the next round of games, the system is not worth the current cost.  Another point is that the launch lineup for the PS3 just does not appeal to me.  At least right now the 360 has a larger selection of good games (yeah I know they had a year head start).

Yeah I'll take the sharper image.  My point was to those saying the crowd on the PS3 was to save processing power, but perhaps the blurred background on the 360 served the same purpose.  Also the 360 crowd in the picture does not look 3D, just blurred over 2D.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 04:30 AM

[latinoman231982]

ELECTRONIC ARTS ARE A BUNCH OF W_)KERS!

I dont know who else is aware of this, but EA are officially supporting the bluray format.  Which makes it the only VIDEO GAME company to take a side in the battle between hd dvd vs bluray format wars.  For the time being.  So it is pretty obvious sony has thrown some cash in there direction.

Its no surprise EA are trying there best to make the ps3 versions of their titles look and play better.  And for those people not in the know, manyl probably think this is down to the game being in bluray format.  Well at least, that is what it seems like they are doing.

EA and sony got alot of things in common and one of these things is screwing people for money.  I mean seriously!!!  How many fifas do i need???!!!???

Anyway the point im trying to makes is that regarding EA, its GUARANTEED FACT that in future EA are gonna spend more time on ps3 titles, then convert to 360.  Whethers other developers are vice versa.  You Guys gotta remember that fight night 3 was originally penned for ps3, but cause of delays we got it first.

[latinoman231982]

Oh and another thing!!!

Before i get slammed for being biased, which iam by the way. i want to say why.

Now, i dont just blame this on sony i blame it on consumers, which some of them i like to call LIGHT WEIGHTS.  Back in the day when sega and nintendo ruled, gaming was amazing, then along came this company called sony.  Sony fed there crap to the public about ps1.  Now the smart move they done wAS SHOW OFF THE 3D CAPABILITY of there beloved console.  Which in turn fooled  LIGHT WEIGHTS into thinking 3D was more important than gameplay. You see i know companies are in business to make money, thats obvious.  Fact of life.  But unlike sega and nintendo back in the day up till now, sony dont give a flying mo0nkeys about GOOD GAMES. FUN GAMES. INNOVATIVE GAMES. NO NO NO sony care about money and thats all.  For years i watched one sequel after another being released on this sony format, then on to the ps2, then i KNOW on to the ps3.  

I am full of anger, yes, call me sad.  The only positive thing sony has done in its life time is make gaming more acceptable, more cool apparently.  But what has this cost us hardcore fun loving gamers of yesteryear??

Shall i tell u??

Shed loads of misery, sequel after sequel,  games with no substance, idiots that think ps3 is more powerful cause it has bluray drive.  

You know what im wasting my time, all im trying to say is i hope microsoft play a major role in the downfall of sony, and for the time being i am gonna go off and play my nintendo wii. Cause unlike sony nintendo know how to make games which are just like the good old days.  Seriously id rather clean my ass with my bare hands than put my mitts on a ps3 pad. SIONARA

[silentbob343]

oh god another Sony ruined video gaming.  I had Atari, C64, NES, Sega genesis, etc and also enjoyed the PS1.  There were plenty of shit games made for early gaming systems and if you can't remember that you need your head examined.

You stop buying Madden and FIFA then EA will stop making them, but really why do you give a shit?  There are plenty of football fans that enjoy them.  No, I'm not one of them.  Nobody is twisting your arm to buy them.  Shit, like MS didn't bring douchebag frat boy gamers to a whole new fucking level with the Xbox. Squel after Sequel.....hmm like Halo 1-2 and 3, GoW trilogy, PGR, Forza, EA games also on the xbox, etc?  How about all the Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES.  Maybe series sell because people like them, I know it's a hard concept.  OH......and go play Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Super Smash Brother, etc on the Wii, they aren't sequels right?  Hypocrite.  Nintedo just keeps recyling their IP in to new games for every console worse than Sony or Nintendo.

If Sony didn't ruin gaming, by making it so popular (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) your savior, MS, might never have gotten in to it.

You people are all nuts.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 05:55 AM

[Uradox]

QUOTE(giza @ Nov 30 2006, 08:26 AM)

Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but  which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures?  Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.

The whole point of the blur is to make it realistic, its what us photographers refer to as depth of field. Trust me, that image would look just stupid if  the background wasnt blured.

QUOTE(latinoman231982 @ Nov 30 2006, 12:08 PM)

Now, i dont just blame this on sony i blame it on consumers, which some of them i like to call LIGHT WEIGHTS.  Back in the day when sega and nintendo ruled, gaming was amazing, then along came this company called sony.  Sony fed there crap to the public about ps1.  Now the smart move they done wAS SHOW OFF THE 3D CAPABILITY of there beloved console.  Which in turn fooled  LIGHT WEIGHTS into thinking 3D was more important than gameplay. You see i know companies are in business to make money, thats obvious.  Fact of life.  But unlike sega and nintendo back in the day up till now, sony dont give a flying mo0nkeys about GOOD GAMES. FUN GAMES. INNOVATIVE GAMES. NO NO NO sony care about money and thats all.

Thats a bit dramatic
Sony do care about good games, but i tend to think they care more about their home fans (which is a good thing). They get perhaps over-excited about their products and let slip shit they shouldnt really say.
The problem I think was Sega and nintendo have been around since donkeys years in gaming, where as in the 90's (the newer generation) Sony was new and were marketing the hell out of their new products. The new generation of gamers adopted the new generation sony PS1. Sony were also making great quality hardware back then so their good name pushed them far. These days I think they are still riding off their success in the 90's but the train is starting to slow down. They have very strong competition that is equally dedicated to providing us with the best experience. One company focus's on the very american world while the other focuses on the japanese world.