IQ comparisons between the PC, 360 and PS3

[Eastcoasthandle]

Gamestop has released an article comparing the IQ between the PC and console. The games tested are Fallout 3, DeadSpace, COD:WAW and GTA:IV. There are 4 roll over pics for each game tested. What I found interesting is not which offered the best IQ but which one offered the worst IQ.

You can review the article here (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=picks&tag=picks;title;1).

[grimREEFER]

im really interested in gta4. iv heard so much about ppl opting to play this one on the 360 rather than pc.
could they have ruined the pc version enough to make it worse looking than a console version?
the suspense is killing me

[Mad1723]

Wow, Fallout 3 on PS3 is really bad looking, especially when you look at the trees on the last picture :\

Dead Space: They're losing the shadows and some lightning effects on the consoles...

World at War: Looks a bit better on PC, PS3 still trailing behind (jaggies, some textures..)

GTA IV: It looks a lot sharper on the trees on PC version :)

[RaZz!]

so lets sum this comparison up: pc wins. by far. :p:

i thought the trees in fallout3 and gta4 looked horrible on the xbox360, but wtf, the ps3 ones look even worse! what a mud of pixels. it's noticeable that everything looks quite pixelated and blurred on the ps3, even more than on the xbox360.

however, what i've noticed as well: the brightness/contrast on the ps3 is kinda low, some parts are very dark compared to the xbox and pc. dunno how far this is related to their settings/setup.

(how did they take the screenshots on the consoles? do they have screenshots functions?)

[Soulburner]

Fallout 3: I see the PS3 lacking AA, but having higher near object texture quality than the 360. At the same time, the PS3 has lower far object texture quality. Looks like they made a tradeoff there.

Dead Space: The PS3's brightness/contrast settings are too screwed up to compare. What's the deal here? Reviewer error or bad design decision? The 360 is a little better, but both are not lit properly like the PC.

Call of Duty: PS3 lacking AA again, 360 not much better. Again contrast is messed up on both consoles.

GTA4: Again brightness/contrast royally messed up on the PS3. Images look blurry like a low-res output upscaled. I have a hard time believing it is really this bad. Also the first few are not taken during the same time of day, the 360 has a warm color cast while the PS3 is much cooler. Both are far inferior to the PC, the consoles' worst showing is here.

[bowman]

The console versions of IV have some sort of debossing/blur filter all over everything making it look like a Bob Ross painting. The PC version is a lot sharper and defined, even without AA..

[Shintai]

Im amazed the PS3 is worse than the Xbox.

[Soulburner]

Im amazed the PS3 is worse than the Xbox.
Yeah but what's the deal with the brightness/contrast in Dead Space and GTA4? Developer decision to hide flaws, or bad setup by the user?

[MrMojoZ]

Im amazed the PS3 is worse than the Xbox.

Why? PS3 is harder to code for and all that extra power it has was marketing BS or is wasted on poor dev tools. You aren't going to get the same amount of polish on PS3 games when both systems are given the same amount of developement time. The PS3's selling points are Blu-Ray, the handfull of exclusives it still has and a more reliable build quality, not game performance.

[Olivon]

That's why i love PC gaming :yepp: :up:

[roofsniper]

at least the ps3s first party games look pretty sleek. i just wish someday people would actually learn how to program it.

[Scubar]

Pretty easy choices, PC > Xbox > Playstation

[roofsniper]

Pretty easy choices, PC > Xbox > Playstation

ehhhh thats how the graphics are as far as 3rd party games go. based on everything else tho i would personally put the ps3 ahead of the 360 and ps3 and pc are about tied for me since there are some games i get for ps3 and some i get for pc. graphics isn't everything. :yepp:

[Monkeywoman]

wow, those ps3 shots suck hard. i have moto storm, socom and ut3...and their graphics aren't as they're shown here. fallout 3 is by far the worst. i dont think the ps3's graphics will reach those of 360 this gen. next gen should be good.

[lm358]

I don't think it's so much as case of people "not knowing how to program for it" anymore... it's GFX card is just too weak compared to Xbox

[azraeel101]

Im amazed the PS3 is worse than the Xbox.

Why would you be amazed? PS3 has a nutered 7900GTX (or 7800?) based GPU while 360 has something between x1950 and R600 which is superior. The Cell in PS3 may be better but it aint gonna render AA and sharper textures...

[roofsniper]

Why would you be amazed? PS3 has a nutered 7900GTX (or 7800?) based GPU while 360 has something between x1950 and R600 which is superior. The Cell in PS3 may be better but it aint gonna render AA and sharper textures...

they are actually very similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#Com parison_Table:_Miscellaneous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_graphics_processing_units#Consol e_graphics_processors
according to that the ps3 should have a slight lead in performance. the closest i could find in relation to video cards would be a x1650xt for the 360 and something between a 7600 GT and a 7800 gtx 512mb for the ps3.

[Shintai]

Why would you be amazed? PS3 has a nutered 7900GTX (or 7800?) based GPU while 360 has something between x1950 and R600 which is superior. The Cell in PS3 may be better but it aint gonna render AA and sharper textures...

360 isnt something between x1950 and R600. Its more or less a glorified x1800 design with vertex and pixel shaders unified. If it had an x1950 design it would be alot faster.

PS3 is more or less a 7900GT.(No X).

I had simply expected them to be equal.

[Jamesrt2004]

wow pc ftw will show my console noob friends this =]

[Slovnaft]

let's be honest, did anyone expect otherwise?
well, i guess xbox>ps3 is certainly a surprise for me at least

[roofsniper]

let's be honest, did anyone expect otherwise?
well, i guess xbox>ps3 is certainly a surprise for me at least

ehhh since both consoles came out the 360 always had better graphics than the ps3. they have done this at least 4 times but this is the first time they got the pc in on it which was pointless since we all know pc has way better graphics. it seems the 360 and ps3 are very similar now tho if you ask me and i think the ps3 looks better in some pictures but not in others. i just hope that in 2009 people can actually tap into its power since the graphics engines are very similar yet the cell is so powerful.

[MrMojoZ]

i just hope that in 2009 people can actually tap into its power since the graphics engines are very similar yet the cell is so powerful.

The "power" of the cell is just marketing, it simply doesn't matter how much math it can do as the PS3 is limited by the graphic chip and the dev tools. The 360 has as good as or better graphic hardware and easier to use tools, thats why you see so many better looking games on it. We heard the same stuff from Sony loyalists in the last gen: "Once they learn to code for the Emotion Engine the PS2 will blow away the Xbox!!!!", it never happened.

[WaxCactus]

pc is the best "console" :D just buy a joystick [xbox 360 or any other] connect the tv to the pc and start playing
it will be good because alot of games today are ports of consoles

[roofsniper]

The "power" of the cell is just marketing, it simply doesn't matter how much math it can do as the PS3 is limited by the graphic chip and the dev tools. The 360 has as good as or better graphic hardware and easier to use tools, thats why you see so many better looking games on it. We heard the same stuff from Sony loyalists in the last gen: "Once they learn to code for the Emotion Engine the PS2 will blow away the Xbox!!!!", it never happened.

graphic hardware gives the ps3 a slight lead and yea the cell thing is just insane. its like pairing an enthusiast cpu with a mainstream video card. its very powerful but for a gaming system its too much. but hey maybe someone will think of something creative to do with it. the reason why the 360/xbox is so easy to program for is because they are pretty much the same as a pc.

[munim]

PC clearly has absolute image quality superiority.

What about dollar to dollar?

[XS2K]

PC clearly has absolute image quality superiority.

What about dollar to dollar?

I think it's safe to say you would have to pay double just hardware wise (without a HDTV/PC monitor) to equal the same price/performance you would have on a X360 but then again with a PC you can do so much more + when OC enters as a variable it changes things.

[lm358]

graphic hardware gives the ps3 a slight lead
How did you figure that out??? The PS3 GFX chip is based on the G70, i.e. 7800 series.. 8 vertex shaders, 24 pixel shaders. X360 has 48 unified shaders, including the very fast EDRAM framebuffer unit! X360 chip was a 'clean-slate' kind of design which in hindsight has worked very well for them.

[XS2K]

Well as a Media Center PS3 is more evolved but GPU wise it's not.

[roofsniper]

they are actually very similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#Com parison_Table:_Miscellaneous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_graphics_processing_units#Consol e_graphics_processors
according to that the ps3 should have a slight lead in performance. the closest i could find in relation to video cards would be a x1650xt for the 360 and something between a 7600 GT and a 7800 gtx 512mb for the ps3.

look

[YukonTrooper]

Well, I knew PC would be better, but I didn't think the 360 would be noticeably better than the PS3. I guess the 360 does have more GPU power; however, I think the only way to do a fair comparison is to have the TV professionally calibrated for both consoles. Having different contrast, tint, hue, etc. can really :banana::banana::banana::banana: with your perception.

[KELL5]

PC IQ FTW

I liked this quote......

"You can keep your pillow fights for graphics between the consoles "

:p:

[ToTTenTranz]

PS3's RSX has 24 pixel shaders, 8 vertex shaders and about 45GB/s total bandwidth. So it's basically a 7900GTX @ 550Mhz and half of the ROPs. Calling it a 7600GT is kind of an insult.

Xenos' brute performance I'd say it's more like a HD2600XT. It has 96 ALUs and 8 ROPs and it only accesses the main memory through a 128bit bus. But using a few tricks like the hardware tesselator and the 10MB EDRAM make it a gpu a lot more eficient than RSX.


You can tell that the Xenos was thought and built to fit a console from the ground up while the RSX is just a late adaptation of nVidia's desktop flagship back in 2005.

[roofsniper]

they are actually very similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#Com parison_Table:_Miscellaneous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_graphics_processing_units#Consol e_graphics_processors
according to that the ps3 should have a slight lead in performance. the closest i could find in relation to video cards would be a x1650xt for the 360 and something between a 7600 GT and a 7800 gtx 512mb for the ps3.


PS3's RSX has 24 pixel shaders, 8 vertex shaders and about 45GB/s total bandwidth. So it's basically a 7900GTX @ 550Mhz and half of the ROPs. Calling it a 7600GT is kind of an insult.

Xenos' brute performance I'd say it's more like a HD2600XT. It has 96 ALUs and 8 ROPs and it only accesses the main memory through a 128bit bus. But using a few tricks like the hardware tesselator and the 10MB EDRAM make it a gpu a lot more eficient than RSX.


You can tell that the Xenos was thought and built to fit a console from the ground up while the RSX is just a late adaptation of nVidia's desktop flagship back in 2005.

has anyone actually even looked at the specs yet? xenos is no where near a hd2600xt.

[KoHaN69]

without reading article or comments:

PC > 360 > PS3

edit:
Apparently GameSpot doesn't even have the technical skill of taking screenshots synchronously, let alone reviewing games.

[nfm]

All of them look crappy...

[eric66]

xenos is x1900

[mAJORD]

I'm with nfm..

since no ones going to develop some decent engines for PC specifically.. I guess it's a case of "can't wait for the next gen consoles"..... So we can have better graphics on the PC

sad..

[noinimod]

PCs SHOULD be expected to look miles better than the console counterparts. People don't blow 3-4x the price of a console on a gaming rig only to have their game look worse than the console version.

The 360 was out for such a loong time before the ps3. Game developers had much more time to get more power out of the 360 => better graphics compared to the ps3. Plus the 360, if i didn't remember wrongly, is much easier to develop for compared to the ps3.

Anyway, i think the comparison is not really fair from the start. Don't forget that almost all console gamers sit very far from the screen. At that distance, all that lame blurry effects used to compensate for lousy graphics probably don't affect the gaming experience that much.

[ajaidev]

xenos is x1900

No, a rather mix of x1900 and x2900:up:

[strange|ife]

what a bummer for ps3

[Dark79]

Yes, the PC has better graphics of the three - no one's really surprised there.

But consoles have what PC's don't and that's the security in knowing that when you come home from dropping 50-60 dollars on a game it's going to work once you put the disc in.

With PC's it more of a gamble often times with show stopping bugs that require weeks of waiting on patches from the dev, hotfixes for drivers, hacks from the community. Look at the mess that was GTA4 PC! Sure it looks vastly better but hoops you have to jump to get it working is ridiculous. Fallout 3 wasn't even playable for me until 8.12s came out and that was released months ago.

I'm aware that this is because the console hardware isn't variable, but that doesn't make me feel any better when I'm dealing with stuttering and random crashes on the PC side.

When I go out and buy a game the question for me is always "Do I want to play it right now with less headache and worse graphics or do I mind waiting a few months to get the best graphics / performance (or controls if it's an FPS)?"

That's always a tough question for me, but I usually opt for the console version since I can usually beat the game before the PC version is patched properly and Crossfire profiles are added to drivers. If the game is worth a second playthrough then I'll pick up the PC version later.

SIDE NOTE: Now that consoles have hard drives available, the reliability isn't 100% that it used to be but it's still far better than with PCs.

[RaZz!]

Yes, the PC has better graphics of the three - no one's really surprised there.

But consoles have what PC's don't and that's the security in knowing that when you come home from dropping 50-60 dollars on a game it's going to work once you put the disc in.

With PC's it more of a gamble often times with show stopping bugs that require weeks of waiting on patches from the dev, hotfixes for drivers, hacks from the community. Look at the mess that was GTA4 PC! Sure it looks vastly better but hoops you have to jump to get it working is ridiculous. Fallout 3 wasn't even playable for me until 8.12s came out and that was released months ago.

I'm aware that this is because the console hardware isn't variable, but that doesn't make me feel any better when I'm dealing with stuttering and random crashes on the PC side.

When I go out and buy a game the question for me is always "Do I want to play it right now with less headache and worse graphics or do I mind waiting a few months to get the best graphics / performance (or controls if it's an FPS)?"

That's always a tough question for me, but I usually opt for the console version since I can usually beat the game before the PC version is patched properly and Crossfire profiles are added to drivers. If the game is worth a second playthrough then I'll pick up the PC version later.

SIDE NOTE: Now that consoles have hard drives available, the reliability isn't 100% that it used to be but it's still far better than with PCs.

the times where consoles are rock solid are over as well.

crashing consoles and horrible bugs in game are usual in console games as well. e.g. the ring of death of the xbox360. furthermore there are a lot of patch releases on the consoles as well.

and tbh: i've never come across a game that didn't run from the start on the pc. even though there are a lot of complaints about gta4 & co - i have an ati card and ever since i started playing gta4 i've never come across a single crash. performance is a problem in gta4, yeah, but technically it's running without issues on my comp.
a friend of mine had a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of problems with gta4, but i think he just got something wrong with his pc... that's most likely the case with most the people who have problems (old drivers, not all prerequisites installed, etc...).

[Dark79]

the times where consoles are rock solid are over as well.

crashing consoles and horrible bugs in game are usual in console games as well. e.g. the ring of death of the xbox360. furthermore there are a lot of patch releases on the consoles as well.


Crashing hardware not the same as crashing games. If you go that route, I've had more dead hard drives and burned up RAM than I've had dead consoles :D The 360 is an exception to the norm. But I'd say it was as bad as it was due to lack of real competition and consumers buying it regardless of knowing it would eventually die. But that's another thread altogether :D

RROD or not, the games still ran while the console was working.

As for patches on the consoles, I made note of that. The introduction of the hard drive has made console devs lazier since they can released bugged games and force a patch later. However, I've yet to see a console game that didn't start or crashed after a short amount of playtime out of the box the way I have with PC games.

With console games I know the game is going to run as fast as the hardware will allow it. With PC games, I know performance is going to suck out of the box until I get patches, driver updates, etc.

Your point about people with messed up PCs only makes my argument stronger. How can you have a messed up console? You drop the disc in and you're done. No defragging, reformatting, reinstalling OS, driver updates, hardware upgrades, etc needed.

NOTE: I'm not saying that console games are superior to PC games. But the ease of use on consoles is a huge plus for me. I suppose if I stuck to buying PC games several months after release I wouldn't have the same issues which is what I do by buying the console versions (if they exist) first.

[ownage]

Im amazed the PS3 is worse than the Xbox.

WHY? :shrug:

[roofsniper]

No, a rather mix of x1900 and x2900:up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip) xenos isn't nearly powerful enough to be considered in the 2000 series. personally to me it looks like an x1650xt if you look at the specs. they are pretty much identical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27
compare the two.

[Bo_Fox]

I've been playing Dead Space for a few hours on the PC, at 2304x1440 @ 80Hz in order to minimize antialiasing as much as possible without having to use fake, deferred "anti-aliasing" in the game menu. It looks awesome--so good in fact that it really makes me feel that most of the textures in the game are very low-resolution. I mean, many games from 2-3 years ago have more detailed textures than this one. I've been playing it with 5.1 surround--the bass and the sounds are wonderful. That, with the vibrations coming from my Xbox360 controller plugged into the PC, is just great!

Of course the graphics are far better than PS3 or XBox360 as shown by the screenshots. However, in spite of the PC version being brighter, I cannot get the brightness setting to show all the different grey shades over the brightness scale. It appears that the contrast is simply set too high from within the game itself, as the last few bars are always pure white, no matter how I adjust the brightness. Is there a way to tweak the contrast in the config file or something?

[roofsniper]

you can always adjust the contrast on your monitor a bit.

[LordEC911]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip) xenos isn't nearly powerful enough to be considered in the 2000 series. personally to me it looks like an x1650xt if you look at the specs. they are pretty much identical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27
compare the two.

Nah, Xenos is a hybrid R520/R580/R600.

[Sr7]

im really interested in gta4. iv heard so much about ppl opting to play this one on the 360 rather than pc.
could they have ruined the pc version enough to make it worse looking than a console version?
the suspense is killing me

The reason for this is performance issues on the PC version, not IQ issues. IQ is much better obviously.

[Lestat]

2304x1440 @ 80Hz in order to minimize antialiasing


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA to MINIMIZE AA,, come on dude give us a break,, Alaising is minimal at 1900x1200 and above, and you are running 2304x1440!
anyone who thinks they need AA at 1900 or above are higher than a kite.
the system hit you suffer when using AA at such a high resolution is insane, beyond insane infact.

and just like the PS2 the PS3 doesn't do AA, well, not very well atleast, and neither does the 360, the impact on performance is FAR to great so we are left with tons of jaggies when playing, even in HD modes.

[YukonTrooper]

Sorry, Lestat, but AA has a very noticeable effect on my 1920X1200 monitor. I like to have at least 4XAA whenever possible.

So, I guess I'm "higher than a kite." :shrug:

[RaZz!]

i can't stand 1680x1050 without AA as well. i'm always using 4xAA as far as it's possible (technically and performance-wise). e.g. gta4 is a game that DEFINATELY needs some AA... ut3 on the other hand does look very good even without AA.

[renzokuken]

I bought Dead Space on my PC after testing it out on my PS3 (local videostore only hires console games not PC games) and completed the game yesterday. The major difference I noticed was that the PS3 version is not rendered at 1920x1080 whereas on my PC I was able to set that resolution with v-sync enabled and maintain 60fps. The other major difference is I can use the far superior wired Xbox 360 controller as opposed to having to use the rediculous PS3 controller...but that's just a personal preference I guess.

edit - and of course, loading/saving was much faster on my PC :)

[YukonTrooper]

i can't stand 1680x1050 without AA as well. i'm always using 4xAA as far as it's possible (technically and performance-wise). e.g. gta4 is a game that DEFINATELY needs some AA... ut3 on the other hand does look very good even without AA.
Maybe we're not "high as kites", as much as Lestat is "blind as a bat." :p:

[Sr7]

Maybe we're not "high as kites", as much as Lestat is "blind as a bat." :p:

:clap::ROTF:

[shiznit93]

Shintai, the 360's gpu has more shader power than PS3, more usable and flexible memory, eDRAM framebuffer, and the extra power of the cell is very hard to practically use in games so it shouldn't be a surprise at all that almost every multi-platform game looks better on the 360.

They both look like crap compared to PC and run at a fraction of the framerates.

[Veritas.no]

Don't think it's the hardware that makes ps3 and xbox360 diffrent. It has more to do with the os.

And what the hell is up with the brightness. I don't care if it's standard settings, compares should be done with the same brightnesslevel. :o

Oh, and xbox360 seems the have the best picturequality of the 2, even seems better than the pc in fallout, maybe a bad pc and brightness to high on it to.

[Sr7]

Don't think it's the hardware that makes ps3 and xbox360 diffrent. It has more to do with the os.

And what the hell is up with the brightness. I don't care if it's standard settings, compares should be done with the same brightnesslevel. :o

Oh, and xbox360 seems the have the best picturequality of the 2, even seems better than the pc in fallout, maybe a bad pc and brightness to high on it to.

OS? First I've heard of the console OS. Consoles read and write directly from/to the memory. They have very low level access to managing the hardware, and are essentially given a basic driver which they can custom tune for their game as part of the dev kit license.

[Monkeywoman]

far superior wired Xbox 360 controller as opposed to having to use the rediculous PS3 controller

What? the PS3 controller is perfect! so light and close-quarters, i play FPS much better on ps3 then 360

ON TOPIC: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html compassion of PS3 and 360 tech specs.

i hope the PS4 comes out with more GT200 power, more likely its going to be G80 based.

[renzokuken]

What? the PS3 controller is perfect! so light and close-quarters, i play FPS much better on ps3 then 360

! Each to their own I guess...


I hope the PS4 comes out with more GT200 power, more likely its going to be G80 based.

There's almost no chance PS4 will be based on G80. In fact it's more than likely it won't even be rasterization based. From what I've read around the place, apparently Intel have/plan to put in a bid to make the primary graphics/cpu chip that will power the PS4 and supposedly it's based on Ray Tracing. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen but the point is using ray tracing in the next generation consoles is more likely than a G80.

[Monkeywoman]

There's almost no chance PS4 will be based on G80. In fact it's more than likely it won't even be rasterization based. From what I've read around the place, apparently Intel have/plan to put in a bid to make the primary graphics/cpu chip that will power the PS4 and supposedly it's based on Ray Tracing. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen but the point is using ray tracing in the next generation consoles is more likely than a G80.

IMO ray tracing wont happen next gen, y? because 360 wont. if this gen has taught us anything, its standardization of the systems. the ps3 is tough to make games for which is forcing developers to port games over from 360 and causing this "360 haz b3ter gr4fx" If developers have to change the way they make games to support a system, then they just wont. this is a market where only thing counts is money and the faster and easier a game makes it out the better.

[Katanai]

The ultimate topic to start a flame war. Sadly it won't. :( Just because of that.

[fellix_bg]

Sony had an idea back in the time, to offload most of the GFX workload on the Cell, but the final spec's and yield problems (high redundancy cost) drove them on an emergency mission to find more suitable GPU -- the quick'n'dirty castrated G70 derivate from NV, a.k.a. RSX. Even now, Cell is used pretty well in number of titles to do some graphics workload off the GPU.
I'm pretty convinced, that a 45nm PowerXCell-derivate working at 4+ GHz could pretty well do the dream for the PS*Next*.

[joshd]

Not at all fair that the PC's screenshots are downscaled from 1080p for comparison with 720p images. It'll give them more detail in the distance, and "small" stuff like the trees in fallout3 will look much nicer just because of this.

While I'd expect PC to be better anyway, it would be nice to see comparisons where everything was rendered at the same resolution.

And why are both consoles so much darker than PC? It looks horrible.

[Bo_Fox]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA to MINIMIZE AA,, come on dude give us a break,, Alaising is minimal at 1900x1200 and above, and you are running 2304x1440!
anyone who thinks they need AA at 1900 or above are higher than a kite.
the system hit you suffer when using AA at such a high resolution is insane, beyond insane infact.

and just like the PS2 the PS3 doesn't do AA, well, not very well atleast, and neither does the 360, the impact on performance is FAR to great so we are left with tons of jaggies when playing, even in HD modes.

LOL!!! :ROTF:

Only when I smoke weed am I higher than a kite!!! :D

Yeah, after another 3 hours of playing Dead Space, I decided to turn back on the "fake" (deferred) anti-aliasing to blur everything out in the background, since it wouldnt make sense to have blurry low-res textures up close and sharp textures farther away in the background. So, I started playing it from further back (3-4 feet back from the monitor), given the narrow FOV that makes more sense when viewing from further away.

Anyways, about the darkness, I like how the PS3/Xbox360 are darker than the PC, giving it more of an environmental spookiness. I tried turning down the brightness all the way, but the contrast is still too high. Perhaps it has to do with the built-in HDR lighting engine that nobody has tweaked yet? To answer a previous post, it doesnt have to do with my monitor's contrast setting.. let's say that I turn down my montior's contrast all the way from 70 down to 0, and there will still be the same number of maxed-out white shades on the brightness scale in the game menu setting. Ya see, :down:

[MrDeeds]

I doubt if we'll ever know how good the graphics on the ps3 can be.

These are rough estimates that i got from a random site i just googled so just correct me if the numbers are off.
Xbox 360 21,800,000 consoles sold
Ps3 12,800,000 consoles sold
Wii 24,700,000 consoldes sold

Now you tell me which console you'd spend the majority of your dev time on.
The point being that regardless of how difficult it is to code for the ps3 it just doesnt make too much finanicial sense to spend an extended period of time making its games look perfect.

Before i get accused of any sort of anti-360 fanboyism. I'm the proud owner of 2 360s, 1 from launch and an elite i got a little over a year ago.

[The0men]

I doubt if we'll ever know how good the graphics on the ps3 can be.

These are rough estimates that i got from a random site i just googled so just correct me if the numbers are off.
Xbox 360 21,800,000 consoles sold
Ps3 12,800,000 consoles sold
Wii 24,700,000 consoldes sold

Now you tell me which console you'd spend the majority of your dev time on.
The point being that regardless of how difficult it is to code for the ps3 it just doesnt make too much finanicial sense to spend an extended period of time making its games look perfect.

Before i get accused of any sort of anti-360 fanboyism. I'm the proud owner of 2 360s, 1 from launch and an elite i got a little over a year ago.


Good point.

I think there no way that Console will ever be better than PC, not for a while anyway...

Mainly I think because there is so much you can do to a PC, so many ways you can customise the way things look, like you can go all out on res and play at 1920 by 1440 or higher, or go for AA and play lower res, there are better contrast and color settings. You can play one game on low settings to play at 120fps, or if you prefer, turn settings down and play at 40 FPS if its enough (such as RPG's or RTS)..

Also, game devs can offer graphics beyond current processing power knowing next year you can stick a killer GFX card in and play with all the effects you couldn't before, with console you dont have that option.

Just my two cents. It's a shame game devs wont do more for PC :(

[saaya]

Gamestop has released an article comparing the IQ between the PC and console. The games tested are Fallout 3, DeadSpace, COD:WAW and GTA:IV. There are 4 roll over pics for each game tested. What I found interesting is not which offered the best IQ but which one offered the worst IQ.

You can review the article here (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=picks&tag=picks;title;1).
let me guess.... ps3? :D

...

lol, i knew it :D

[largon]

Heh, I just realized I haven't literally touched a gaming console since NES, which my friend had back some 20-or-so years ago.

[Natalia]

That is just silly to do.

Why?

Because consoles will never (any time soon) be able to do 2560x1600. And nothing compares to gaming at that resolution on a 30" screen. Not even a 56" plasma half way across the room.

And you're lucky to get AA on consoles, let alone any decent level of AA.


What a silly, silly article.




May I direct everyone to exhibit A:
http://random-battle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/idealsystem.png

[JamesBong420]

May I direct everyone to exhibit A:
[/IMG]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... now that pic is priceless.. :rofl::yepp::up: