RE5 Ps3 demo Vs. xbox360

  • Thread starter Thread starter vr6wantsr20det
  • 40 comments
  • 2,406 views
Messages
623
Messages
driftkng
Messages
snuffyboy
Figure this is the appropriate place. So i downloaded the RE5 demo to my xbox360 since it came out first, played around with it and cannot wait for the game to come out. Graphics were great, and the co-op especially online co-op idea seems like a great dynamic for gameplay and team work. So i am waiting for it's release.

Now last night before i went to sleep i was looking around the Playstation store and saw the RE5 demo so i downloaded it to see how it compared to the xbox360 version.

For starters when i play the xbox360 version it plays on my t.v. resolution of 1080p(upscaled i'm sure). Now the PS3 version played in 720p. The 360 demo looked 2-3 times better than the ps3 version. From the main menu in the opening screen you could already see the difference in quality. The xbox360 colors were much more vibrant and defined. The overall graphics were smoothe and just a beautifull looking game.

Now over to the ps3 version, the colors looked dull, there were Jaggies galore. It was just mind bogling how much better the xbox360 version looked. There was just no comparison, if you put them side by side i would bet both systems that people would agree the xbox360 demo would win in a picture comparison.

My question now is WHY?!? Was the game originally designed for the xbox360 and then ported over to the Ps3 which is why there is a difference in quality? I would figure Capcom, and The Resident evil franchise would be a Playstation game first, and an xbox360 port afterwards. Either way i was very disapointed in the Ps3 demo of RE5.

In my mind i feel like i know the ps3 can over-power and out perform the xbox360, but to this day the only ps3 games that i could say compare "graphics" wise would be MGS4 and GT5p, Uncharted would also be a competitor.

Cmon playstation Step yo game UP!

-Robert :)👍
 
I don't really think this will go down so well...it'll turn into a fanboy war.


Well i hope that everyone could be mature enough to discuss this. This isn't an xbox360 vs ps3 thread deathmatch. I am just curious as to why the quality of "offerings" between the 2 systems differ? If this turns into a pissing match i will hope the Mods would close the thread. :)👍
 
No no fanboy wars..

But I agree, PS3 could outperform, but seems the game is made for the xobx then ported to PS3. By the way Xbox and PS3 uses diffrent light and colors settings. Make sure you check the red white and blue thingies on the PS3 options. As well you can play most of PS3 games in 1080p, but wont look as good. To do so you need to manually change and unselect 720p and 1080i, but does not work for all games, and some look worse.


But yeah whenever game is made for Xbox, it looks bad on PS3.. whenever game is made for PS3 it looks bad on Xbox.
Good example.
This RE5 game.. Looks better for Xbox
Burnout Paradise.. made for PS3 then ported to Xbox, and PS3 looks better

It's normal.. but I care less, I am still buying the PS3 version of RE5 , I am not too excited about it because I loved the OLD school gameplay style.
 
Its not just a case of "it was made for XBox originally", usually its more to do with the PS3's different architecture and the fact the 360 isn't such a technological leap forward compared. Its easier to build a game for a system you already know well compared to one you don't.
Its quite ironic seeing as Sony's original brilliant idea with the games industry was to make a very simple console to make games for (the PS1) with low royalties. But now they are doing the opposite but I don't think badly of them for it, at least they are still putting money into developing game technology rather than just doing standard upgrades to memory, graphics and processing power.
Its not a case of the developer being lazy, its just a natural problem when they first start making games for a different console.

Oh, and add "Killzone 2" to that list of impressive graphics in PS3 titles.
 
I think developers are getting lazy! They choose Xbox over Sony because of the PS3s complex development.. This is NEXT GEN! It's common that it takes longer and longer to develop a game, and many developers try to cut lines and make quick game and sell it for same price. And well, these days its very noticeable that developers are lazy. Short games, not much play through, very narrow, not much content (cough cough GOW2, cough)

But if they do take time.. KZ2 is good example.. just look what can be done! But best Example has to be MGS4, graphics, play time, story, online, there is so much content packet in it its just amazing! Single play alone has like what? 69 guns? but it's a lot! More then KZ2 has or any other FPS!
 
I downloaded RE5 on the PS3, and thought that the graphics looked fantastic, tho I have yet to compare with the 360 version, as Irefuse so far to pay £££ for the online facility so no demo to compare.
 
I think developers are getting lazy! They choose Xbox over Sony because of the PS3s complex development.. This is NEXT GEN! It's common that it takes longer and longer to develop a game, and many developers try to cut lines and make quick game and sell it for same price. And well, these days its very noticeable that developers are lazy. Short games, not much play through, very narrow, not much content (cough cough GOW2, cough)

But if they do take time.. KZ2 is good example.. just look what can be done! But best Example has to be MGS4, graphics, play time, story, online, there is so much content packet in it its just amazing! Single play alone has like what? 69 guns? but it's a lot! More then KZ2 has or any other FPS!

MGS4 was a masterpiece in my mind. It's soo easy to tell the time and effort they put into in. AMAZING game, i played through the story alone 3-4 times. Online wasn't my cup of tea. I bought the MGS4 PS3 80gig bundle so it was my first game and experience on the PS3, then came along GT5p. Both beautifull games. Thats what bugs me, the ps3 has such capabilities and the use of Blu-ray discs increases the capacity and possibilities. All of the other games i've tried that are available for both systems, the xbox version to me was much more pleasing visually.

That makes total sense that adopting games to the ps3 hardware is more complex which is why game developers are cutting corners or being "lazy" to get the games out on the same release date for both systems. I have hopes for the ps3. I am really looking forward to killzone 2. Honestly from my posts in the KZ2 demo thread, i am not that impressed. The graphics/visuals are Nice, but games like MGS4 and GOW2 shine above to me personally as far as visually pleasing. I also heard the KZ2 demo was an earlier release so the actual game should look a bit better. The game play and multi-player should be fun through. :)👍
 
I downloaded RE5 on the PS3, and thought that the graphics looked fantastic, tho I have yet to compare with the 360 version, as Irefuse so far to pay £££ for the online facility so no demo to compare.


I thought the same thing when i first got my xbox360. $50.00(usd) a year for online play? After playing around with the PSN online, i would gladly pay 50.00usd a year to Sony if they could improve/compare to the xbox live experience.

Once again i hope noone takes this as a "fanboy" attack. I love my ps3 to death with Gt5p, Logitech G25 It's the most fun gaming experience as i'm a car nut. I build/drift and drive the crap outa my little 240sx so GT5p is my ultimate release when i can't be out breaking stuff on my car.

-Robert :)👍
 
This is a case of lazy developers not taking the effort to actually optimize their port.

How can I tell? Simple, it has a nearly 5GB install. Installs on the PS3 are due to the fact that Blu-Rays have such a high capacity that you must organize your data properly in order for it to not cause slow load times (faster drives would eliminate this - PS4?). When games are developed and the data organized like they would be for a DVD, or in this case developed for use on a DVD, then dumped on to a Blu-Ray you either have to get load times or installs.

See here for details:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008...es-mandatory-installations-as-far-as-we-know/

So, when you get a game designed on the 360 to begin with that then looks or plays not as good on the PS3 and requires an install you can almost bet it is a case of a lack of desire by the developer to actually optimize the game.

Oddly enough, in this case the developer is Capcom, the same developer for the game that started the story I linked, Devil May Cry 4.


Now this is not to say that all installs are due to this. LittleBigPlanet has a relatively small install (~600MB) and that is to allow online to load faster.
 
You're right Foolkiller. Games without installs (or even typical loading screens) such as Uncharted and Killzone 2 show how it should be done. Obviously these first-party devs know what they're doing. What is the excuse for most third-party devs then, I wonder...?
 
You're right Foolkiller. Games without installs (or even typical loading screens) such as Uncharted and Killzone 2 show how it should be done. Obviously these first-party devs know what they're doing. What is the excuse for most third-party devs then, I wonder...?

It probably saves them time and money.
 
LittleBigPlanet has a relatively small install (~600MB) and that is to allow online to load faster.

LBP? Online? Never heard of it.

Wow, that's two knocks on LBP in one day. And i still play it!
 
Figure this is the appropriate place. So i downloaded the RE5 demo to my xbox360 since it came out first, played around with it and cannot wait for the game to come out. Graphics were great, and the co-op especially online co-op idea seems like a great dynamic for gameplay and team work. So i am waiting for it's release.

Now last night before i went to sleep i was looking around the Playstation store and saw the RE5 demo so i downloaded it to see how it compared to the xbox360 version.

For starters when i play the xbox360 version it plays on my t.v. resolution of 1080p(upscaled i'm sure). Now the PS3 version played in 720p. The 360 demo looked 2-3 times better than the ps3 version. From the main menu in the opening screen you could already see the difference in quality. The xbox360 colors were much more vibrant and defined. The overall graphics were smoothe and just a beautifull looking game.

Now over to the ps3 version, the colors looked dull, there were Jaggies galore. It was just mind bogling how much better the xbox360 version looked. There was just no comparison, if you put them side by side i would bet both systems that people would agree the xbox360 demo would win in a picture comparison.

My question now is WHY?!? Was the game originally designed for the xbox360 and then ported over to the Ps3 which is why there is a difference in quality? I would figure Capcom, and The Resident evil franchise would be a Playstation game first, and an xbox360 port afterwards. Either way i was very disapointed in the Ps3 demo of RE5.

In my mind i feel like i know the ps3 can over-power and out perform the xbox360, but to this day the only ps3 games that i could say compare "graphics" wise would be MGS4 and GT5p, Uncharted would also be a competitor.

Cmon playstation Step yo game UP!

-Robert :)👍

I would take your comment seriously have not been on a "360 games look better than PS3 games" rampage lately :) Started off with Gears being better than Killzone 2. Well, if you did a bit of research into multi-platform games you'll see that in many cases the 360 version will look bettern than the PS3 and it has nothing to do with either console but it has to do with the developer of the games. And you have to take into account that 360 has a year advantage over the PS3. Back to RE5, the PS3 version is the older build but even on Planetxbox, they couldn't see any difference:

Resident Evil 5 Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 Video Comparison
by Eric Bush

Gamers everywhere have been waiting with baited breath to get their hands on the new Resident Evil 5 demo, thanks to some secret instructions a few lucky US people got to check it out a few weeks ago. Today we have a video side-by-side comparison of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 version of that demo. After watching it multiple times it's hard for me to see any significant differences, what do you think? Does either console version stick out as better or worse, let us know in the comments.

You can go to Gametrailers to see it for yourself: Here
 
Last edited:
I would take your comment seriously have not been on a "360 games look better than PS3 games" rampage lately :) Started off with Gears being better than Killzone 2. Well, if you did a bit of research into multi-platform games you'll see that in many cases the 360 version will look bettern than the PS3 and it has nothing to do with either console but it has to do with the developer of the games. And you have to take into account that 360 has a year advantage over the PS3. Back to RE5, the PS3 version is the older build but even on Planetxbox, they couldn't see any difference:

I wouldn't call it a rampage, but I have definately been inquiring about the matter as lately i have been doing comparisons between the two, especially with demo's that are available on both market places. I'm mainly trying to see other people's opinions as i am assuming i am not the only person on here who owns both systems. That video was a great comparison, although on my t.v. the ps3 version doesn't look like that.

Now i did check and my ps3 had the 720p option unchecked. I then checked ALL of the HD outputs. After doing that i noticed a dramatic difference in the picture quality. It definately looks a lot closer to the xbox360 version now. The lighting effects seem a tad better on the 360 version. To me it seems the dark and light colors have a better distinction or contrast between them. This is just how it looks to me on my t.v. I think going with either version would make someone happy. Especially a fan of the series like myself. :)👍
 
lately i have been doing comparisons between the two, especially with demo's that are available on both market places.
I found your problem. Demos are typically earlier builds. Often they are from Beta and sometimes even alpha builds. If a game is being developed on one specific system and then ported, even if they optimize the final game port, it stands to reason that they won't put optimization effort into a demo of an old build, thus any contrast between the two final products is exagerated in the demo.

If you want to do side by side comparisons always use final builds. Even then, nine times out of ten I would bet the difference is related more to the developer than it is the game itself, whether it be on 360 or PS3.
 
I found your problem. Demos are typically earlier builds. Often they are from Beta and sometimes even alpha builds. If a game is being developed on one specific system and then ported, even if they optimize the final game port, it stands to reason that they won't put optimization effort into a demo of an old build, thus any contrast between the two final products is exagerated in the demo.

If you want to do side by side comparisons always use final builds. Even then, nine times out of ten I would bet the difference is related more to the developer than it is the game itself, whether it be on 360 or PS3.


Very good point. It's not a BIG deal to the point where i would go out and rent the game for both systems, i'm not here to tear down both systems good and bad. I was just posting about my observations from what i have access to. And i agree from your point it's not a "fair" comparison since demo's are just that, trial versions and not the final release! :)👍
 
Very good point. It's not a BIG deal to the point where i would go out and rent the game for both systems, i'm not here to tear down both systems good and bad. I was just posting about my observations from what i have access to. And i agree from your point it's not a "fair" comparison since demo's are just that, trial versions and not the final release! :)👍
Heck, most demos aren't even good demonstrations of the full game.
 
Heck, most demos aren't even good demonstrations of the full game.

Now that you mention it, the only Demo i've played that was almost Identicall to the actual game was "SKATE". awesome game. That's also why they say this demo may not directly represent the "final version". But you would figure they would like to be as close as possible. First impressions are a big deal. Put your best foot forward i say. Probalby not cost effective though 💡
 
It doesn't matter which console version is best, it'll be a terrible game either way. So many zombies on screen yet you can't move while holding your gun ready....how bizarre.
 
It doesn't matter which console version is best, it'll be a terrible game either way. So many zombies on screen yet you can't move while holding your gun ready....how bizarre.


I think with the co-op and playing with another friend where you work together to overcome the ridiculous odds would be fun and exciting. I can see playing with the AI not being as enticing, but gunning down a horde of zombies and having your friend/partner yelling for help could make for a fun an interesting situation. In the Demo they aren't very quick "typical of most zombies i guess", you just need to be on-point with those head-shots. I do agree not being able to move and aim/shoot at the same time is a bit ridiculous. Will the final release be the same way? I am interested as well to see how the story plays out. I purchased and watched "Resident Evil Degeneration" a few times on blu-ray. Pretty cool movie. Seems like the game story takes place after that? :)👍
 
Here are some screenshots right off the PS3 and my Sharp Aquos. I've used my trusty Lumix DMC-FX150 to get the shots. RE 5 runs only at 720p on the PS3 (on the 360 it's upscaled to 1080p) unlike for example Killzone 2 or even GTA IV, that can ve upscaled (on the PS3). No touch-ups except resized.

3282387752_8f7582557a_o.jpg


3281567661_aacf927702_o.jpg


3281567837_16e6036901_o.jpg


3282388366_27b2a03c2f_o.jpg


3282388528_67d8b65563_o.jpg


3281568487_b0496f148f_o.jpg


3281568663_521cc75084_o.jpg


3281568865_ea2587124c_o.jpg


3281569045_72204d3099_o.jpg


3282389620_092aa617d4_o.jpg


3282389808_7dfd0a8eb8_o.jpg


3281569725_13cd84b693_o.jpg


3282390246_d058a3f097_o.jpg


3282390394_d28e9a71d9_o.jpg


3282390620_6c2aa8097a_o.jpg


3282390866_7e8bd2d987_o.jpg


I used the same video setting as I did with Killzone 2.
 
Just a few things to keep in mind regarding those shots...

Here are some screenshots right off the PS3 and my Sharp Aquos. I've used my trusty Lumix DMC-FX150 to get the shots.

Taking photos from a display will never result in an accurate representation of what you actually see in person, but that said, you have done a better job than I have been able to do. 👍

In fact, if you wouldn't mind responding in the following thread, I'd love to get your suggestions:


RE 5 runs only at 720p on the PS3 (on the 360 it's upscaled to 1080p) unlike for example Killzone 2 or even GTA IV, that can ve upscaled (on the PS3).

What specific model Sharp Aquos do you have?

If it has a native 1920x1080 panel, then it is scalling ALL images to 1080p... and it very likely has a much better video processor for scaling than the 360... so you would get better results if you bypass the 360's scaler and only output in 720p.

If it is 1280x720/1366x768 panel, then you should DEFINETLY not feed it a scaled 1080p and especially a 1080i image... nothing good will come from that!
  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display > same 720p images -> upscaled to 1080p/i -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display > native 1080p images -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display >>> native 1080i images -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 1080p display = same 720p images -> upscaled to 1080p -> native 1080p display
    (assuming both the display and source player have video processors with comparable performing scalers, if not, which ever is better at scaling is the one that should be used)

No touch-ups except resized.

Resizing though negatively impacts image quality.


I used the same video setting as I did with Killzone 2.

While this is not directed at your shots specifically, but in terms of the many video and screen shot "comparisons" you'll find on the internet is that they don't accurately adjust the picture levels for each source... and seeing as how the video game industry much more so than the film and broadcast TV industries do not have an agreed upon standard in terms of gamma correction... thus the reason why one game, movie, TV show may appear darker or overly brighter to another. Accurate color saturation can also be a problem when viewing different source material, but not nearly as bad as gamma correction.
 
Last edited:
Just a few things to keep in mind regarding those shots...



Taking photos from a display will never result in an accurate representation of what you actually see in person, but that said, you have done a better job than I have been able to do. 👍

In fact, if you wouldn't mind responding in the following thread, I'd love to get your suggestions:




What specific model Sharp Aquos do you have?

If it has a native 1920x1080 panel, then it is scalling ALL images to 1080p... and it very likely has a much better video processor for scaling than the 360... so you would get better results if you bypass the 360's scaler and only output in 720p.

If it is 1280x720/1366x768 panel, then you should DEFINETLY not feed it a scaled 1080p and especially a 1080i image... nothing good will come from that!
  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display > same 720p images -> upscaled to 1080p/i -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display > native 1080p images -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 720p display >>> native 1080i images -> native 720p display

  • Native 720p images -> native 1080p display = same 720p images -> upscaled to 1080p -> native 1080p display
    (assuming both the display and source player have video processors with comparable performing scalers, if not, which ever is better at scaling is the one that should be used)



Resizing though negatively impacts image quality.




While this is not directed at your shots specifically, but in terms of the many video and screen shot "comparisons" you'll find on the internet is that they don't accurately adjust the picture levels for each source... and seeing as how the video game industry much more so than the film and broadcast TV industries do not have an agreed upon standard in terms of gamma correction... thus the reason why one game, movie, TV show may appear darker or overly brighter to another. Accurate color saturation can also be a problem when viewing different source material, but not nearly as bad as gamma correction.

I agree and these screenshots are not an objecitve representation of the PS3 version of RE5 demo. My reason for doing this is to show how the demo might/should look like. I made sure that colour matches the screen as close as I can possibly match them although I do realize that what I see through my laptop screen is nothing like what others might see through theirs. What I'm trying to show is the level of saturation (and I keep the colour on the Sharp at default 0) rather than the hue especially in regards to PS3 reproduction of colour- undersaturated in most multi-platform games. Another thing is the visibiltity of such thing as jagged edges, the texutre present (and the level of detail)- in fact the things that usually crop up when you discuss the diffrence in how a mutiplatform game would appear on the PS3 and the 360. What I always see in the side by side comparison- usually captured off the output of either consoles, have never looked anything like what I see on my screen from either the 360 or the PS3.
The resizing is done from the my camera resolution (14mp) so as to be friendlier to most computer screen. I try to keep the images- that on the Sharp Aquos and that taken with the Lumix digicam to that appearing on my Macbook Pro as close as possible (one way to do it is to take the image RAW and using an image with minor colour variance, eg. the menu, and calibrate that image to that on my my computer screen so as the latter will appear as close to that on the Sharp and then save the setting and apply it to the rest of the image also taken RAW).
To me, by adding that single variable usually missing when you capture the screenshot directly from the source, it deems the images somewhat more analogous because what I'm trying to do is to show how I see it and not how it is digitally captured.
 
I would love to actively participate in this thread, but there is far too much misinformation floating about.

I'll make one post and move on.

1) RE5 is developed on an engine that is made to scale among 3 different platforms. Since it begins its life on PC, it is then ported over to the PS3 and 360. The reason this porting process yields better results on the 360 is because their architecture is similar, as opposed to the PS3, which has rather unique architecture.

2) The differences are hardly as stark as the OP would like to imply. Appropriate TV calibration can go a long way to improve the visuals of any game. To start with, there are extremely minor differences in color. Below is a link to a comparison of both versions, 360 first, PS3 upon roll over:

http://www.the-horror.com/imagecomp...s25.jpg&img2=features/bh5demo/images/xb25.jpg

3) You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to online performance. You pay $50 a year to essentially use a Peer to Peer connection and play online. You can do this on a PC for free. You can also do this on a Wii, Nintendo DS, PSP, and PS3 for free. XBL allows you to voice chat across 2 games, yet this is a feature rarely used, because most people in an online game are *oddly* chatting with people in that game. Strange I know.

I would gladly point you out to be a troll, but I think it's more or less just a case of you not really knowing much (which isn't wrong, you don't know what you don't know).
 
I would love to actively participate in this thread, but there is far too much misinformation floating about.

I'll make one post and move on.


2) The differences are hardly as stark as the OP would like to imply. Appropriate TV calibration can go a long way to improve the visuals of any game. To start with, there are extremely minor differences in color. Below is a link to a comparison of both versions, 360 first, PS3 upon roll over:

http://www.the-horror.com/imagecomp...s25.jpg&img2=features/bh5demo/images/xb25.jpg



I would gladly point you out to be a troll, but I think it's more or less just a case of you not really knowing much (which isn't wrong, you don't know what you don't know).

TV calibration and also the type of screen. Obviously a better screen would vrig the best video fidelity to the game- my Sharp allows for an incredible amount of calibration- which can be daunting but if used can produce great result. In regards to the link: http://www.the-horror.com/imagecomp...s25.jpg&img2=features/bh5demo/images/xb25.jpg

You might want to point out that the PS3 image is the one when you point the cursor on the image (allow a few seconds for the image to load)- the 360 is undoubtedly sharper but as to which looks better, it's a mixed bag in my opinion- there are screenshots that give the nod to the 360 and some to the PS3. In the end, add to the fact that a screenshot freeze what is essentially a fast moving game, I would be hard pressed to tell a difference when I'm actually playing the game.
 
I would love to actively participate in this thread, but there is far too much misinformation floating about.

I'll make one post and move on.

1) RE5 is developed on an engine that is made to scale among 3 different platforms. Since it begins its life on PC, it is then ported over to the PS3 and 360. The reason this porting process yields better results on the 360 is because their architecture is similar, as opposed to the PS3, which has rather unique architecture.

2) The differences are hardly as stark as the OP would like to imply. Appropriate TV calibration can go a long way to improve the visuals of any game. To start with, there are extremely minor differences in color. Below is a link to a comparison of both versions, 360 first, PS3 upon roll over:

http://www.the-horror.com/imagecomp...s25.jpg&img2=features/bh5demo/images/xb25.jpg

3) You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to online performance. You pay $50 a year to essentially use a Peer to Peer connection and play online. You can do this on a PC for free. You can also do this on a Wii, Nintendo DS, PSP, and PS3 for free. XBL allows you to voice chat across 2 games, yet this is a feature rarely used, because most people in an online game are *oddly* chatting with people in that game. Strange I know.

I would gladly point you out to be a troll, but I think it's more or less just a case of you not really knowing much (which isn't wrong, you don't know what you don't know).

You seem to be the only one who feels that way about your "troll" comment. Not sure if i offended you in my views and opinions especially against R2 which i thought was a so-so game. Wasn't my intention and you are correct i am not educated in audio/visual technicalities. If we were talking about turbo's, engine installs etc i would be up there with the best of you guys, hence my inquireies here being a video game forum. Everything that has been posted so far is my opinion. I have my xbox and ps3 set-up the way I like it so that the games look the best they can in my eyes on my t.v. I don't tailor the t.v. or system settings for each game...thats ridiculous. My comparison is playing both games/systems at the same time. My xbox through HD component cables, and the PS3 through HDMI. So i would go to the same spot in each games and switch back and forth between the sources component/hdmi and do a panoramic type shot/view of both. To me the xbox versions on ALL of the demo's(i know not a very fair comparison without the full game) i've tried have appealed to my liking. Just a brighter, smoother more defined look with less jaggies. The biggest reason i've read so far that makes the most sense is the differnece of the games being designed in DVD format and then having to be converted over to the blu-ray format. My intentions were never to come on here and say the xbox is better than the ps3, because it's not.

This is a public forum and i hoping there were others who owned an xbox and ps3 that might have done some experiementing to see if it's just me or if infact what i was seeing was the case for others as well.

I also have a Kodak HD 10mp camera but didnt' think that would be usefull to maybe show what i was referring to as it's not an actual representation. You can post links to all the screen shot comparisons but it doesn't change how it looks on my t.v. to me.

As for the online xbox live experience, overall just seems like a quicker and more fluid transition. I've played Resistance online, wasn't too bad. Socom: Confrontation, i don't even bother anymore it takes soo long to get into a game but in their defense loading 32 players is a lot. Gran Turismo also isn't a full game, but that takes forever to get into an online race. Little Big planet the loads also killed the online play for me too. Metal Gear Online was a joke at first, but that picked up still wasn't that great. The Party system is cool on xbox live since you could chat with friends playing different games or if you were in a clan, but it is in no way a necessity.

This is not an end all fact, it's just my opinion of the systems that i have and play very frequently. I am open to suggestions/opinions of all those who are in the same boat or who have good information to share.

If it makes a Difference my t.v. i am using/playing on is Samsung LN32A550 http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/...isions&subtype=lcdtv&model_cd=LN32A550P3FXZA#

-Robert :)👍
 
I don't tailor the t.v. or system settings for each game...thats ridiculous.

As you point out though, that's just your opinion.

Personally, my opinion is that anyone who finds an image on their display objectionable enough to comment about it, but refuses to take a few seconds to press a few buttons to adjust their picture settings on their display to fix or even improve the image quality is not just ridiculous, but an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. :indiff:
 
As you point out though, that's just your opinion.

Personally, my opinion is that anyone who finds an image on their display objectionable enough to comment about it, but refuses to take a few seconds to press a few buttons to adjust their picture settings on their display to fix or even improve the image quality is not just ridiculous, but an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. :indiff:


I see your point. Does everyone else change the display settings when changing one disc to another? I am personally not that anal about it. It seems as far as ps3 games go, the settings i have for MGS4, and the settings for Tomb Raider: Underworld, LBP, Socom etc. all look the best to me at the same settings. Same goes for my xbox360 set-up. So i don't tailor the t.v./system settings for Each individual game. I will be honest, i'm way too lazy to go through that.

Do you guys find youself adjusting the t.v./system settings when playing differnet games? I do not, since when setting the t.v. up i usually sample a few games and the one setting works best for them. In the end it's not a big deal. If others are custom tailoring their t.v./systems to specific games then i can definatley see why the opinion of it differs. :)👍
 
. My xbox through HD component cables, and the PS3 through HDMI. So i would go to the same spot in each games and switch back and forth between the sources component/hdmi and do a panoramic type shot/view of both. To me the xbox versions on ALL of the demo's(i know not a very fair comparison without the full game) i've tried have appealed to my liking. Just a brighter, smoother more defined look with less jaggies. The biggest reason i've read so far that makes the most sense is the differnece of the games being designed in DVD format and then having to be converted over to the blu-ray format. My intentions were never to come on here and say the xbox is better than the ps3, because it's not.


-Robert :)👍

The disc format is not the reason for the difference in the graphics between PS3 and the 360. Blu ray capable of holding almost 10 times the amount of data DVD could. In the future when games become as epic as MGS4, you might see the difference but that would sway favourably towards the PS3 rather the the 360. Again- most multi-platform games are designed with PC, 360 and PS3 in mind. Almost all game developers are proficient in designing games for the PC. And because the 360 shares almost the same architecture as the PC, the conversion is straightforward. The PS3 on the other hand has a more proprietary architecture and requires different amount and type of conversion. And there aren't many third party developer that have familiarized themselves on how to properly utilise the PS3 design.

Robert- you might want to check in the Display Setting on our PS3- change the RGB Full Range (HDMI) to Full. It's one way to obtain better contrast on the screen.
 
Back