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

[similar.squirrel]

Not yet. Bit does it really matter?All that good graphics seem to get used for these days is dirt-simulation.

What about Valkyria Chronicles?

*With a few notable exceptions. They should release that game for the Xbox and PC [if tehy haven't already done so for the latter]. No point in depriving half of the gaming demographic and fuelling the console wars.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

At 1080i I can't seem to notice a difference.

 

[Fantastico]

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?

Because it's obvious that a First-party exclusive is going to look better than the Multi-platforms, especially with the amount of time Guerrilla had been working on it. It's impressive, yes, but it doesn't prove that the Xbox 360 is incapable of doing the same thing.

Besides, you don't compare apples and oranges. Comparing two of the same games on different systems is more accurate for figuring out what particular strengths and weaknesses of the competing consoles.

One would think the fact that it doesn't have anything like that would be proof that the 360 is incapable of it

Nope. It just means that nobody's done it yet. Now if somebody did try to make something that looked as good as Killzone 2, but it was plagued with problems, or just plain didn't work, then it would prove that the 360 was incapable of having graphics as good as the PS3.

 

[fontlas]

I guess, I'm not big on graphics. I like gameplay, that's why I have a PC.

 

[MercurySteam]

The PS3 has graphics that are basically the 360's and just about no one can notice the differance. BUT the 360 has more appealing games (that's just my opinion). Blu Ray doesn't surpass for shit when it comparing it to DVD quality. The only difference is that one can store more data than the other. But if what Yahtzee says is true about the PS3: "....... production time and cost several months and several millions of dollars on the side of uncomfotable......" - Zero Punctuation: Console Rundown, (I wouldn't know since I don't own one) then the 360 is the way to go.

 

[Pain_Inflictor]

graphics are never a reason to buy a console. It's all about the games and what each console has to offer to you as a person.

 

[MercurySteam]

The PS3 has graphics that are basically the 360's and just about no one can notice the differance. BUT the 360 has more appealing games (that's just my opinion). Blu Ray doesn't surpass for shit when it comparing it to DVD quality. The only difference is that one can store more data than the other. But if what Yahtzee says is true about the PS3: "....... production time and cost several months and several millions of dollars on the side of uncomfotable......" - Zero Punctuation: Console Rundown, (I wouldn't know since I don't own one) then the 360 is the way to go.

The difference in price is far more negligible than the difference in graphics quality.

Quite true, even although extra hardware is expensive (as always) the 360 (again, in my opinion) is definately more bang for your buck, especially at Gametraders or JB HiFi.

 

[MercurySteam]

The PS3 has graphics that are basically the 360's and just about no one can notice the differance. BUT the 360 has more appealing games (that's just my opinion). Blu Ray doesn't surpass for shit when it comparing it to DVD quality. The only difference is that one can store more data than the other. But if what Yahtzee says is true about the PS3: "....... production time and cost several months and several millions of dollars on the side of uncomfotable......" - Zero Punctuation: Console Rundown, (I wouldn't know since I don't own one) then the 360 is the way to go.

The difference in price is far more negligable than the difference in graphics quality.

Quite true, even although extra hardware is expensive (as always) the 360 (again, in my opinion) is definately more bang for your buck, especially at Gametraders or JB HiFi.

You didn't read my post, did you?

Shit, my brain isn't functioning. I pretty got up early today.

Yes the gap between the price of the PS3 and the 360 is quite large, but that's what puzzles me the most. The fact that only minor graphics improvement to the 360 makes you $400 extra out of pocket. Either that or the Blu Ray disc drives must cost a hell lot more than regular DVD drives!

 

[Shadowlolz]

i prefer the controller of the ps3 so i use that more than my 360 plus psn is free so that was my win point there.

 

[CrafterMan]

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.

*sigh*

It pains me.

 

[Crowser]

I honestly can't tell a difference between the two.

 

[FungTheDestroy]

Not enough to make it a selling point, and as far as some people are concerned it will never be a selling point about which has better graphics. But for those who do care: The PS3 will get better.

When it comes right down to the question "Which do you prefer: 360 or PS3?", I prefer the PS3's exclusive library.

Touching the graphics side of things again. There are many PS3 games with very nice graphics whether it's realistic (MGS4), or more artistic (Valkyria Chronicles).

 

[Lancer723]

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.

You make me sad.

On topic: Currently I am yet to see a major difference in graphical capability in the two consoles. I only own a 360, but regularly play my roommates PS3. Fact of the matter is that graphics are currently not a large division between the two consoles. In fact it seems like graphical capability really seems to have taken a backseat in the current console generation.

 

[Treble]

Imo, if every game looked like killzone 2 and crysis, then it would be. That isn't the case here though, so the PS3's slight advantadge in power is inconsiquential to it's sales.

*edit* (elaborated)
The reason why I say this btw, is because the 360 would implode on itself trying to run those games at a reasonable frame rate, well the PS3 can maintain atleast 25+ with them both at decent settings. If all games were as stressfull as those two games on the systems, the PS3 would have a huge advantadge. That's not the case though.