PS3 vs 360 graphics comparison

[Wolfe jr.]

Don't really care, The graphics are barely different.. Might as well get the cheaper console.
xbox 360 ftw!

[Sgt. Knuck]

Originally Posted by Wolfe jr.

Don't really care, The graphics are barely different.. Might as well get the cheaper console.
xbox 360 ftw!

Yes, I agree. May as well not get worked up over every little detail on a guy's face. Who care's! I really care about the gameplay, but I want decent graphics as well.

[Subject 17]

I thought the PS3 could read dual layer blu-ray? Why would it only be 18 extra GB conflicted? shouldn't it be like 43 extra GB, or am I sorely mistaken and the ps3's blu-ray player actually sucks ***...

Anyway, the ps3 is 500, not 600. hard drive for X360 is custom as far as i know and is sold for a hundred bucks about.


And in order to get the hd dvd player for the X360 you'd have to spend another 200 bucks on it, making the total cost of buying the 360 for MGS4 equal to buying a ps3 for MGS4. Still, its worth it if you want the Gears of war trilogy, Splinter Cell, and Halo trilogy over Ace combat, Socom and Final fantasy (assuming its one or the other).

[TixBomber]

See I just cant get into that whole comparison. All those have been on 360 for a long long time before PS3. Look at Oblivion, yea its gonna look better on PS3, but they also had another year+ to work on it after the 360 version was released. Its a biased opinion to me, give me a game that was released at the same time on both systems. Either way I dont care, cause they both look amazing.

Originally Posted by Dboyz-x.etown

I thought the PS3 could read dual layer blu-ray? Why would it only be 18 extra GB conflicted? shouldn't it be like 43 extra GB, or am I sorely mistaken and the ps3's blu-ray player actually sucks ***...

Technically yes, PS3 can read dual-layer. The only thing is, there is no dual-layer BR discs on the market currently, they are still in development. A standard BR Disc holds 25Gb, thats 16 more than a Dual-layer DVD. BR Discs are useless as far as gaming goes. You dont need 25Gb of data storage, the biggest game to date is Oblivion, on a D-L DVD it takes up 5.3Gb of space. All other 360 games I've seen only use 20-30% of the total disc space. And yes BR media as far as movies sucks compared to HD-DVD, thats because BR is still using archaic compression tools.
Anyway, the ps3 is 500, not 600. hard drive for X360 is custom as far as i know and is sold for a hundred bucks about.
And in order to get the hd dvd player for the X360 you'd have to spend another 200 bucks on it, making the total cost of buying the 360 for MGS4 equal to buying a ps3 for MGS4. Still, its worth it if you want the Gears of war trilogy, Splinter Cell, and Halo trilogy over Ace combat, Socom and Final fantasy (assuming its one or the other).

20Gb model to 20Gb model, the 360 costs $100 less. So you pay a $100 more for the Hd-DVD addon over the PS3 cost. But what you are forgetting is all the stuff they left out of the PS3 basic model compared to the 60Gb. Also, not a big fan of slot loading players, they break so easy.

[Teqila]

My PS3 hasn't broken yet. One or two broken slot-loaders doesn't mean they're all bad.

[pyro120]

I played Carbon and Madden at my two of my friends houses, both on 360 and PS3 and I gotta say the PS3 takes the cake.

[RickTheRipper]

For the person worrying about the card readers breaking or whatever, I'll put your mind to rest by letting you know that mine hasn't broke yet (had this since launch). And what is missing from the 20G that the 60G has? Let's see here, there's WiFi,..... um...... uh, and then there's 40G of space. If there's anything else missing, clue me in. But don't say HDMI because that is in the 20G model.

And for the graphics comparison, if you guys want to compare games that are both first year games, compare PDZ/CoD2 to Resistance/another game (can't think of one ). Anyway, in the long run 360 will have better graphics over the PS3 due to it having a better graphics card. We won't really see that big of a difference in the beginning but in 5 or so years, the difference will be obvious. It might not be a BIG difference, but you will see it.

Removed a Paragraph dealing with a post I deleted. No biggie Rick! Just trying to keep the flow of ideas without the, "Who's he talking to?" crap. - Cheesy

[TixBomber]

Originally Posted by Teqila

My PS3 hasn't broken yet. One or two broken slot-loaders doesn't mean they're all bad.

I never said pertaining to the PS3, all SLOT LOADING players suck. I have yet to see a single one that over time didnt break.

Also, my PS3 hasnt broken either. I own both and neither one looks better than the other in my opinion. Also, those screens cant be used really, both systems would have to be at the exact frame. It's so easy to get a weird reflection or bad gloss or crazy bouncing light if its transistioning. If when you scrolled over the image didnt change ever so slightly, then you could absolutely say which is better (at current time). Both systems are too new, and not taking advantage of the hardware. Just look back at to what came out for PS2 originally, and then towards the end of its life cycle.

[Teqila]

I meant all slot-loading players. A PS3 is a slot-loading player.

[_NIGHTBRINGER_]

Originally Posted by pyro120

I played Carbon and Madden at my two of my friends houses, both on 360 and PS3 and I gotta say the PS3 takes the cake.

Well no duh.

Lets think about this..PS3 has better hardware, but its harder to design for, but although, the graphcs are better, not THAT much, but still better.