Xbox 360 vs. PS3 same game title graphics comparison |
Loading ...
Gamespot does mouseover graphic comparisons between the Xbox 360 and PS3 games Call of Duty 3, Madden 2007, Need for Speed Carbon, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, NBA 2K7, Fight Night Round 3 and more:
You’d think that the PS3 versions would be exactly the same or slightly superior to the Xbox 360 versions, since many of these games appeared on the 360 months ago, but it seems like developers didn’t use the extra time to polish up the graphics for the PS3. We found that the Xbox 360 actually had better graphics in the majority of the games we compared.
A curious way to do a review but the process is hurt by the resolution of the web images. For example, I’ve seen NBA 2K7 at Best Buy on the PS3 demo unit on an LCD TV and the graphics look dramatically better than the somewhat fuzzy pixel shots Gamespot used on the website. Beyond that, I’m sure the PS3 developers will tweak the graphics in the second and third generation titles and not sure that it’s fair to compare game titles on a brand new system — as long as we’re doing this, where is the Wii, BTW? — versus comparing against an established console with several generations worth of games and developer experience.
This is one of the few posts I’ve made lately sticking up for the PS3, but I don’t feel this is a fair comparison. Yes, the PS3 has many negatives, but in the game graphics department, let’s see how the games compare in High Definition video using the same hardware. Using compressed web graphics is a nice try, but flawed.
Related Posts- Xbox titles expected “into 2007″
- Microsoft: No XSN Sports games in 2004 for XBOX
- Got first peek at Xbox 360 in game action tonight
- Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks no Xbox Live functionality
- More Xbox 360 shortage rumors
- PS2 outsells Xbox 360, Wii and PS3 in March 2007
ya right the 360s graphics are way better and the ps3 had a year longer to make the ps3 so in my opinion the ps3 will get better but notbetter then the 360
Comment by sean — December 22, 2006 @ 3:49 pm PST
[…] I don’t have any screenshots of gameplay in this post because I want to buy a component cable first. I don’t think it’s fair to show PS3 screenshots at the lowest resolution compared to the Xbox 360 screenshots at 1080i, even if I’m going to be compressing for the web anyway. Rest assured friendly readers, I’ll have plenty of PS3 game screenshots to show in the future. […]
Pingback by Got a PS3, now what? » Make You Go Hmm — December 26, 2006 @ 4:39 pm PST
I respectfully disagree with your view on the gamespot comparison. Although the images are displayed at a limited resolution, they are still vivid enough to point out differences in quality. I do have to agree that a game will appear much better on a high-def tv; due to less visable aliasing, and a higher resolution. But that has nothing to do with the comparison!!! (both are displayed at the same resolution, therefore when displayed at a higher resolution the differences will be parelell) To explain the differences in quality (this may be extermely incorrect) i think it is something as simple as ati favored game engines. One other thing, for some odd reason people seem to think that better xbox quality is a result of the 360 being available to the public longer, that makes absolutly no sense. First gen, second gen, next gen, this does not apply to the 360 ps3 battle. The two consoles are at the same place right now. Disclaimer- if anything i said is incorrect (including my spelling), i accept zero responsibility because i did not take the time to do any research to back up my theories.
Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2007 @ 5:22 am PST
Yes, I admit at the moment the 360’s graphics are slightly better than the PS3’s on alot of games but you have to remember that game developers havent had much time to get used to and use the PS3 game design kits. By the way at the moment the PS3 is only using 2 out of its 4 graphic chips so the PS3 graphics will get better in time. A good website to view more comparisons on this topic is http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html and on a good few of these pics i believe the PS3 wins
Comment by Clarkey — February 23, 2007 @ 8:02 am PST
i have a ps3 i have an xbox 360… i love both of them
its true that some games look better on the 360 but who cares the differences are nill to non
take for example sonic.. it sucked on both systems enough said……………..
but both systems have there own unique library of games……
ps3 has genji 2 which very cool even if it has not updated the gamplay since the ps2 release but the graphics are very cool
the xbox has lost planet also a cool game
i personaly enjoy them both
Comment by jay — February 23, 2007 @ 10:50 pm PST
Hi folks,
I am a adult techno enthusiast and also a engineer.
I admit I am not a game collector, meaning I don’t have many games for my consoles.
But I do have all the consoles, except the wii.
I do a lot of math and graphics intensive work on PCs and I know how to read computer designs to determine its potential.
I studied both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 deisgns.
The xbox 360 is definately the more traditional layout programmers are more used to.
The PS3 is a radical evolution. Its simply a math/graphics processor.
I am also a programmer, and this onster will take an entirely different programming concept that most programmers are not used to.
In its purest analysis the PS3 can out perform the xbox 360 and most PCs (even custom made graphics workstations) out there.
So the question is… will programmers ever adapt to the new cell technology?
If so how long will it take?
As of now, even with programmers struggling to understand how to utilize the power of the PS3, both the 360 and ps3 have comparatively similiar graphics… its no “wow” factor on either consoles.
But for many that can not afford to buy every console out there and is looking for the long run in graphics and game performance the PS3 has a significant edge hardware wise.
As a engineer I plan on using this $600 bargain of a super computer to do math crunching, which its amazing at doing, blows by custom made $3000 PC out of the water. And gives the $6000 SUN 6 core server (a number crunching monster)I am using a run for the money.
The Xbox 360 is simply a scale down PC (in today’s standards) and will be some what slow in comparison to the new generation of PCs coming out this year with 4 cores.
As for the number of games and the quality of the games currently available for the xbox, I am not a expert in this area.
Also the demand for blu ray players is picking up as the market is now slowing settling on a standard. Which means for those who cannt afford a dedicated $800 Samsung bluray player, many will be buying the PS3 for $500 or $600.
Very importantly which may effect game console popularity is the “nag” factor. When parents initially buy the xbox for their kids they are willing to fork out the $$$ for the first year of xbox live, but many parents are unwilling to pay for this the following year. So the children must “nag” their parents to renew the membership. For parents it makes no sense to pay for the Internet and to also pay to have the xbox work on the internet.
The PS3 has no such fees associated with using it on the Internet.
So after the initial year I imagine word will spread among children at least the extra fee of the xbox is a real “pain”.
All I know for sure is that the Sony PS3 is a refreshingly elegant design and a bargain for what its capable of doing. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some university buys several thousand of these and convert it into a super computer running under Linux.
My recommendation - for adults and performance enthusiasts, get the PS3. You’ll be “wow”ed once the programmers catch onto the cell programming concept.
For kids with parents willing to fork over the credit card for xbox live (internet) and impatient to wait for games to come out, I recommend the xbox.
Comment by Engineer — August 5, 2007 @ 8:58 am PST
Oh brother. A supposed programmer says the ps3 is better. We better all run and buy one now. Even though a REAL industry GAME programmer said 360 is better. You know what dude? I think your full of dog crap to say the least and its obvious your pegging for the ps3. If the ps3 is such a hot little number cruncher, why isnt it crunching the numbers to the tune of outperforming the XBOX360? Especially when it costs more than the 360. Give me a break with this whining and explaining away every difficiency of every system down to the color of the paint. Face it, the ps3 is a friggin flop. Who the hell wants to fork out that kind of money for a system thats inferior at the moment, in terms of game quality, simply because someone says, hold on and wait, it will get better. Buy the 360 now, and three years from now when ps3 finaly irons out its issues, especially the cost, then go buy a ps3 if its so damn hot. I doubt it will be though, because sony stands for frigging greed in the first degree. Xbox 360 is rocking the ps3, it costs less, it has better games, much more games,and is ouitselling the ps3 10-1. Get a grip and stop whining about ps3 losing. The deck sucks plain english.
Comment by MightyKong — November 29, 2007 @ 3:34 pm PST
the reason most 360 graphics are better is because the developers dont remake a game for a new console. they simply port it to the new console. when you port it detail is lost; some textures, scripts, and other properties are excluded. the game came out for the 360 originally, so its actions and scripts and textures were made to work best with the 360, not the ps3.
i honestly believe the ps3 will eventually pass the 360 in graphics, but not very soon because its harder to develope a game for the ps3 than the 360 since developers are less familiar with the newer technologies in the ps3 compared to the common PC technology found in the 360.
Comment by sean m — December 6, 2007 @ 7:38 pm PST
oh c’mon who cares?! who cares about any of this. damn i used to enjoy playing games but now it seems like its turned into a battle of power. and i understand that some people get kicks out of sitting down and talkin about consoles for hours on end but personally i prefer playin em. i mean hell a few weeks back i found my snes out and nostalgically played it for hours and i enjoyed it, an no 3d graphics *wow amazing*. look for every1 who says ”developers just haven’t had time to work around the ps3” take ur head out your ass and smell the roses. i dont want a console to come out then hav to wait 3/4 years for it to work whats the point in that. i get really annoyed cuz it just seems to me that gaming now is just about who has the most powerful technology, and as much as i know its needed to produce the games we want y dont we just leave the developers to their jobs. i like both the ps3 and 360 altho i think theyre over priced but hey shit happens dunnit lol. but i also think that nintendo has the right idea. think about it how far can machines go before the graphics cant progress any further whats gonna happen to the industry then, altho itll stop fanboys from goin on and on. games hav to evolve in other ways to stay alive (in my opinion anyway). but the way its going at the moment i think gaming is being murdered by the very ppl who r supposed to revolutionise it, sheerly because people are more interested in bitching at other ppl over a few chips. games r meant to bring ppl together not tear em apart.
Comment by Josh C — December 9, 2007 @ 2:34 pm PST
i don’t think so its fair to compare 360 with high resolution and ps3 with low resolution graphics screenshots in the web page.and in my point of view the graphics resembles and i don’t wanna dominate 360 and as well as ps3 as both the console have a very good features.
Comment by wayne — December 18, 2007 @ 2:43 pm PST
the only reason the ps3 is sucking at the moment unlike the 360 is because we dont have to be taught how to make a good console unlike the 360 which had to have the help of Mr Microsoft himself and the piece of shit breaks down in a few months id rather pay the money than have it break .the 360 is garbage
Comment by nick — March 18, 2008 @ 11:54 pm PST