Poll: Is there honestly enough of a graphics difference between the 360 and PS3 to make it a selling point

[Wargamer]

Not enough of a difference, Installing the games is not worth your time.

Disgaea 3, Eat Lead, LittleBigPlanet, Fallout 3 and Killzone 2 are all examples of games where the installation time was so short I don't even remember there being one.

Incidentally, check out the requirements for Killzone 2 compared to, say, Resistance 2; how the fuck can Killzone 2 use virtually no memory!?

 

[Syphonz]

Not at the moment. You also have to take into the account that an HDTV really maxes out the visual experience too. Either way though, it does all come down one thing in my opinion: Reliability.

Games? 85% of games that come out are multi-platform, and even then what percentage of the 360's "exclusives" come out on PC? Nearly every one, and the PC versions usually trump the console versions (exceptions are Gears of War and GTAIV).

The PS3 is just more reliable in all aspects, but you decide whether or not that is a selling point to you.

 

[Axeli]

No. 360 is superior anyway. WE HAVE THE GAMES!

Fanboy alarm just went off... odd.

Well I have a decent PC and PS3. I don't miss much. It's not like there are so huge difference between the available game for each console anyway, most being multi-platform.

 

[Sewblon]

Not enough of a difference, Installing the games is not worth your time.

Disgaea 3, Eat Lead, LittleBigPlanet, Fallout 3 and Killzone 2 are all examples of games where the installation time was so short I don't even remember there being one.

Incidentally, check out the requirements for Killzone 2 compared to, say, Resistance 2; how the fuck can Killzone 2 use virtually no memory!?

Have you tried to install Metal Gear Solid 4? I could have learned Sanskrit in the time it took.

 

[Silva]

It can be a selling point, later, if the PS3 ever gets a title that actually uses its processing power. It depends on whether you are a graphics nut or not. Some people really get fussy over tiny visual differences. If you have a bigger screen, you might also consider the difference more relevant. Really this as a selling point doesn't compare to, for example, the PS3's Blue Ray and Direct X playback features or the Xbox's endless siege on PS3 exclusives.

LOL @ people who said yes

Spken like someone who's truly never seen the difference.

There is a difference, it's just not enough to be a selling point.

As an uninvolved judge I can say this! You win this battle for reading the thread title. Not that that is an achievement. Really though, selling points differ between consumers and demographics, what one person sees as irrelevant can be critical to another.

 

[Wargamer]

Not enough of a difference, Installing the games is not worth your time.

Disgaea 3, Eat Lead, LittleBigPlanet, Fallout 3 and Killzone 2 are all examples of games where the installation time was so short I don't even remember there being one.

Incidentally, check out the requirements for Killzone 2 compared to, say, Resistance 2; how the fuck can Killzone 2 use virtually no memory!?

Have you tried to install Metal Gear Solid 4? I could have learned Sanskrit in the time it took.

Wow, MGS4. Christ man, quote the only PS3 game that requires multiple installations why don't you...

Mercs 2 had to be installed, and it arguably took just a bit too long. I think Resistance: Fall of Man and Resistance 2 had a 'Please wait while we Install the game' screen, but I don't remember. Viking: Battle for Asgard had a short install time. The Orange Box had a very short install. I don't remember World Tour needing an install.

So yeah, if you actually try to be objective, and not find the one game that validates your opinion and ignore all others, you'd find that the trend (particularly with newer titles) is that the installation is either A) a one-time thing, or B) done in the background so you don't notice.

 

[02cfranklin]

No. 360 is superior anyway. WE HAVE THE GAMES!

Fanboy alarm just went off... odd.

Well I have a decent PC and PS3. I don't miss much. It's not like there are so huge difference between the available game for each console anyway, most being multi-platform.

Yes I'm a fan boy. I can live with that. The PS3 has never had any good games that aren't multi-format. Its only selling point to me is the fact that it plays blueray DVD's and I couldn't care less about that. I also have an awesome computer and spend far more time on that. But at the end of the day I can sleep knowing that Gears of War 2 was epic.

 

[DragunovHUN]

Nope. The supposedly superior hardware in the PS3 ain't all that. In fact, some games have been known to run worse on the PS3 because the thing is a ***** to port to.

 

[Boaal]

PS3 is a glorified DVD player with a games machine stuck on the back of it. The Xbox at least is a console...

 

[Axeli]

No. 360 is superior anyway. WE HAVE THE GAMES!

Fanboy alarm just went off... odd.

Well I have a decent PC and PS3. I don't miss much. It's not like there are so huge difference between the available game for each console anyway, most being multi-platform.

Yes I'm a fan boy. I can live with that. The PS3 has never had any good games that aren't multi-format. Its only selling point to me is the fact that it plays blueray DVD's and I couldn't care less about that. I also have an awesome computer and spend far more time on that. But at the end of the day I can sleep knowing that Gears of War 2 was epic.

It's your preference if you don't see any good games on PS3, because there are. 360 doesn't have that much more great exclusives.

And being a fanboy is just stupid. It's not a fricking sports team, just piece of hardware.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Graphics don't make the game, but yes, the differences are colossal and anyone saying otherwise are too blind to see it.

 

[Wargamer]

Nope. The supposedly superior hardware in the PS3 ain't all that. In fact, some games have been known to run worse on the PS3 because the thing is a ***** to port to.

Wow, that's a fair example; a game made FOR THE 360 is a ***** to port onto the PS3.

The only Multiplatform games you can fairly judge are ones which are either A) simultaneously coded for both machines separately, or B) Made for PC and then transferred to each. If a game is made for the 360 then converted to PS3 (or, indeed, made for PS3 and converted to 360), then the parent console will obviously have the better version.

 

[Vibgyor]

I don't think so

I also don't think theres enough of a difference between blue ray and normal DVD

 

[DragunovHUN]

Nope. The supposedly superior hardware in the PS3 ain't all that. In fact, some games have been known to run worse on the PS3 because the thing is a ***** to port to.

Wow, that's a fair example; a game made FOR THE 360 is a ***** to port onto the PS3.

The only Multiplatform games you can fairly judge are ones which are either A) simultaneously coded for both machines separately, or B) Made for PC and then transferred to each. If a game is made for the 360 then converted to PS3 (or, indeed, made for PS3 and converted to 360), then the parent console will obviously have the better version.

Actually i was particularly thinking about the Orange Box so your argument fails. Please leave me alone with the fanboy fight, i'm not interrested in that. I was just answering the original post.

 

[02cfranklin]

It's your preference if you don't see any good games on PS3, because there are. 360 doesn't have that much more great exclusives.

And being a fanboy is just stupid. It's not a fricking sports team, just piece of hardware.

ROFL. So it's ok to act like a tit if I'm at a sports game? I am a man of many hates. Dell, Mac, PS3, Wii, any form of MP3 player that isn't an iPod... these would all be things I avoid.

Yes it is MY preference.. that's why I have the right to voice my opinion, if you chose to argue back with idiotic comments then that is your right to voice your opinion being used. But do not ever compare sports to a 360 because xbox wins every time. FACT.

 

[Archaon6044]

i say no, and even if there was, i don't care, because graphics do not make or break the game in my opinion, unless they're horrificly bad and it actually detracts from the game itself, or renders it unplayable

 

[Vrex360]

I really don't give two shits about graphics, I still play with the Atari 2600 for god's sake.

 

[aniki21]

I'd also wager that Sony will, by then have come up with some other over-priced high resolution gimmick and shove it in a machine which is even harder to program for.

Not if they stick with their "ten-year-plan", which actually makes a lot of sense from some perspectives. Considering that they stand to make a lot more money out of game sales over that ten years than a competitor who's busy doing R&D on a new machine (and who's losing cash hand over fist on their hardware on top of that) for half of it, it's sensible to have a longer-term goal.

The only concern is that the install base might not be sufficient to warrant third-party titles. There's already been a drop in the number of console-exclusive games, thanks to the sheer cost of developing a triple-A title these days, but if it's going to cost you another million dollars to make the PS3 port for only a handful of sales, then you'd probably be better keeping your million dollars.