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

[Vrex360]

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

You, sir, have won the thread. High Five.

*tears in his eyes*

Thank you thank you all, it was a huge honour to win this thread, great honour.

 

[junkmanuk]

...Rambled off point a bit there but I don't just wake up in the morning and say "f*&k Dell" for no reason.

I know it's late on but just to qualify - I do agree with you and wasn't denying you the right to say "f&ck dell". I just think it's important to keep an open eye on the market so you don't end up missing out on what could be a good product.

 

[junkmanuk]

Thank you thank you all, it was a huge honour to win this thread, great honour.

Don't get too emotional, the prize is a copy of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

 

[TheDoctor455]

There really isn't much difference between them... at least as far as I can tell... and my only experience with both consoles is playing games on them at stores or at a friend's house.
But as far as I can tell, there isn't much difference. And honestly, that difference depends entirely on the game developers.

 

[Pimppeter2]

To me no, to others maybe

 

[Xrysthos]

At this very moment the 360 is the best choice, due to the games available for it. The difference in graphics isn't very noticeable unless you play on a 40" or more full HD television. However, the capacity of the PS3's graphics processors aren't used to their full potential yet, so as a future investment a PS3 is a valid option.

 

[New Troll]

Your first point has been wrong since about November of last year, and the second problem becomes a "what difference does it make?" if its true. What is the difference if a game has 7,500 or 10,000 available players?

360 still has the bigger selection, though I admit it's diminishing. And a huge part of that diminishing is deciding if you want to buy the game for $20 on the XBox or $30 on the PS3.

But as for the gamers, do you want to compete against a small base of people who aren't always on-line or would you rather be guaranteed competition all hours of the day? Plus you'll be more likely to run into friends on the XBox.

Still not sure why you're arguing with me over this since we both seem to be on the same side. Almost as silly as the whole 360 vs. PS3 crap. Either is better than Wii so who gives a flip.

 

[veloper]

Okay...Apart from the actual same scenes are repeated on both the 360 & PS3 (which is what you ask for), look at the particle effects. The smoke plumes on the PS3 are much more detailed than those on the 360, and for a scene for scene comparison, look at he meteors hitting the castle. Again, it's blatantly clear that the PS3s graphics are better. Just for anyone in denial about it all, I'll walk you through the difference:

So that is all?

One explosion in a shadowy area VS an explosion in a bright area
Some blurry leaves VS some leaves covered in semen
And finally another explosion VS the same explosion but now with yellow dots.

It's a good thing you drew some red circles around them.

 

[US Crash Fire]

ive had soul callibur 4 running on my xbox360 thu HDMI and my roomies PS3 thru HDMI hooked up to the same sony bravia 40". we flipped inputs back and forth and could NOT tell ANY DIFFERENCE

 

[Kukakkau]

No. Gameplay > Graphics

Although I will sometimes lose 5mins of the day just staring at some games with awesome graphics

 

[deewank]

Of the many multiplatform games, the graphic comparisons between the PS3 and Xbox are negligible or irrelevant. Overall, the PS3 seems to have better coloring, while the 360 has better anti-aliasing (aka fewer jagged lines). Supposedly, Fallout 3 is graphically inferior on the PS3, but that's just what I've heard.

Go by the games, not the graphics.

Ive played the ps3 fallout 3 and it does suck compared to the xbox 360 and pc versions

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

No, but the same things applies between Deus Ex (the original) and Crysis for me. Fair enough System shock 2 is a tad out of date, and Baldurs gate is so so.

 

[Barry93]

No. Even if there is, I wouldn't care. Buying a game because of its graphics is just stupid.

 

[veloper]

So that is all?

One explosion in a shadowy area VS an explosion in a bright area
Some blurry leaves VS some leaves covered in semen
And finally another explosion VS the same explosion but now with yellow dots.

It's a good thing you drew some red circles around them.

Clearly you're just a fanboy who can't accept the truth. Shadows have nothing to do with the detail missing. If you can't see the difference, I'd go to the opticians asap. Leaves covered in semen...thanks for showing how infantile your reply is, nothing I could have said could have topped that one.
And yellow dots...How about you watch the video & see the difference the "yellow dots" make.
Or going with the "if I don't see it, it's not true" approach to this discussion?

Sure, clearly I am a fanboi, not sure of what, as it isn't the 360.

This is all just small stuff you pointed out there. Nothing that will impress anyone. We had particle effects like those yellow dots, back in the days of the voodoo 1.

And too much specular highlighting (all those white pixels on the leaves) is what is called "covered in semen" in the hardware enthousiast scene. Ever since farcry, game developers apply too much.

If you think this stuff is important, good for you.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

There's no difference. It all depends on the game.

Most non-exclusive games look and run better on 360.

But PS3 exclusive games which have big $$$$$$$ behind them usually look the best. Though not by a very big margin.