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

[Clashero]

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.

Truly. I only noticed a difference when some gaming site did a side-by-side comparison. And even then, I thought "Is that it? The rocks look nicer. Fascinating..."
Anyone saying the difference is huge is just trying to be a prat, pretending their eyes are so trained that they can tell that the iris of someone's eyes is better rendered on the 360.

Why do you keep referring to multiplats over something like Killzone 2?

I think you may have misquoted me. I never mentioned Killzone 2. The "rocks look nicer" referred to a Fallout 3 side-by-side comparison that was, I think, on gamespot. And the thing about the irises of some character's eyes was completely made up.

 

[XUnsafeNormalX]

I chose the console with the most games. AKA: The 360. The PS3 had a pretty weak line-up when first released but is getting better. Especially with GoW3 on the horizon.

I however will be sticking with my 360 just because I can't afford that George Forman right now.

How would GoW3 affect the Ps3's lineup if gears of war is a 360 Exclusive series? ...

God of War.

 

[balimuzz]

Get a 360 for reasons other than graphics. Right now, they have pretty similar graphics, but developers are hitting a wall with what they can do with the 360 hardware, while the PS3 still has a crazy amount of untapped potential. Oh, and the Wii is a joke.

 

[Simalacrum]

I think comparing the multi-platform games is kinda unfair - if developers don't try and make the games look similar on both systems, its likely that people won't buy as many on one console. if you look at exclusive games for the PS3 like Uncharted or Killzone 2, then you can see that most of the time graphics quality on the PS3 is superb (with the exception of Haze).

thats not to say that the 360 has some good graphics too. The problem is that its running out of capabilities; though Gears 2 looks stunning, there isn't much of a difference between the two graphically (lighting and the number of enemies were the only notable improvements i saw). PS3 on the other hand has still a lot of potential, the only problem being developers struggling to actually get to that potential since its hard to make games for; in time they will be able to get used to it hopefully.

 

[veloper]

Shallow and pedantic answers? Not mature and well constructed? You do realize the massive hypocrisy emanating from this comment? You have been shooting fanboyish explanations at everyone without giving one explanation that made any sense whatsoever and you tell us to look shit up without even doing it yourself!

I realized maybe we should just ignore him.

He's pretty harmless and ineffective in his attempts to convince everyone else and arguing with him just gets him even more excited.

This guy will simply continue filling the thread with ad hominems and other fallacies and it won't look pretty.

 

[inventorvii]

No, Graphics dont matter anyway

 

[xxcloud417xx]

The reason why PS3 was using graphics as a selling point is because of their extremely shitty lineup of games upon release. Xbox 360 had been out for about a year and had some good games already out and upcoming, while PS3 was releasing nothing that was noteworthy. So when your lineup sucks, you need a new marketing plan... so they decided to go with "Our graphics are leet, lookit our Blue Ray!" which still didn't really sell ppl all that much... I got the 360 because of the games. I mean isn't that the point of having a console? Playing games? Why buy a GAMING system that is devoid of actually decent games?

Anyway, the PS3 decided to market as an entertainment system due to blue ray and great graphics capabilites, instead of as a good gaming platform. But then again, PC will do that too with more Hard Drive space and more programs. Not to mention the way you can easily pirate your media on PC. Ultimately, the only reason PS3 did so great, In my opinion, is Hype, Brand (Sony), and poor hardware on the Xbox's part. Oh, and Sony underselling the PS3's Blue Ray drive and actually LOSING money on it. But Sony's a big boy, they were able to take it.

I would also like to point out that one of the currently popular PS3 games, Little Big Planet, doesn't have amazing graphics. So no, Graphics are meaningless and not really a selling point.

 

[Clashero]

The "rocks look nicer" referred to a Fallout 3 side-by-side comparison that was, I think, on gamespot. And the thing about the irises of some character's eyes was completely made up.

Yeah you're right they do, but it's down to the different architecture of the two consoles, and not their actual graphical ability. As Guerilla have stated, the Cell and multicore processors are very different, as well as the gpus in terms of how they work (RSX works with the Cell B.E.). So most multiplatform games look better on the 360 as they are designed for multicores, hence why those games are on PC a lot of the time. To really compare graphical capabilities you have to look only at the exclusives.

I hadn't thought of it that way. I had always assumed side-by-side of multiplats was the way to be fair. I see what you mean, and I agree completely. One should compare games made only for the console in question.

 

[z121231211]

No

If there is a big enough difference between a multi-platform game, then it's just a bad porting job.

 

[daviejjd]

just no, and if you look at some articles um somewhere i forget where then you can see pictures which clearly show there's almost no difference, they are both better at thier own things

God that sounded very politically correct urggh (shiver)