Cross platform game IGN scores PS3 vs 360

[quest55720]

@ fulcizombie: You're trashing a console based on launch titles? Good going there champ. Out of curiousity, do you see a difference between Gears and PDZ? Yes? Guess what. The PS3 will too age, and will too get better as time goes by, as developers get better aquainted with the console.

But I guess you won't be getting a PS3, because by your standards, it's already shown you the best it can do, because you've seen the scores for the launch titles! Good for you!

Because PS3 developers have had kits the same amount of time or longer than MS developers. Hell the PS3 developers had a huge advantage with dual 6800s being a lot like the RSX and the cells realatively early on. While MS developers had hardware that was not even remotely close to the final hardware. All titles are on even ground sony even delayed the launch of the PS3 some 6 months and this is the result? With a system that is 2x as powerfull as sony put it they should be blowing every 360 title out of the water.

I just wish the gaming media would take sony to task for thier actions at E3 2005. They lied,cheated and decieved and should be called on it. Were are the games that look like those CGI videos?

 

[habbe]

1080P isn't a big issue, but it's a lot more pixels.

If it looks better in 720P i run it in 720P, If it looks better in 1080P i'll run it in 1080P, just a simple as that..

I don't get whats wrong with 1080P, Are you telling me that with cell and rsx or Xenos and Xenon the sweetspot is 720P for all games ?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

They should be measured by their advertised capabilities, in which case the PS3 games should be above 360 games, not the same as. If theya ren't above the 360 then they aren't delivering the performance that was advertised, and they should be scored lower because of it.

Um.... what?

If the PS3 games look worse than the x360 games, and they should be measured on advertised capabilities, all the PS3 games should get much worse scores.

 

[bRoNx]

Because PS3 developers have had kits the same amount of time or longer than MS developers. Hell the PS3 developers had a huge advantage with dual 6800s being a lot like the RSX and the cells realatively early on. While MS developers had hardware that was not even remotely close to the final hardware. All titles are on even ground sony even delayed the launch of the PS3 some 6 months and this is the result? With a system that is 2x as powerfull as sony put it they should be blowing every 360 title out of the water.

I just wish the gaming media would take sony to task for thier actions at E3 2005. They lied,cheated and decieved and should be called on it. Were are the games that look like those CGI videos?

Which games shown in E3'05 have you played? And how do you think they compared to the videos shown?

Now, about those multiplatform titles. Why do you think they played better on 360? Lack of power on the PS3? Incompatible code? Tougher architecture? These are the questions that I'd like to have answered. I'm not gonna suddenly jump to conclusion and stake any claims at this stage, other than to say: Give it some time. Somehow, I have this feeling that SONY didn't spend all this time cooking up a stinker, if you know what I mean.

 

[quest55720]

Which games shown in E3'05 have you played? And how do you think they compared to the videos shown?

Now, about those multiplatform titles. Why do you think they played better on 360? Lack of power on the PS3? Incompatible code? Tougher architecture? These are the questions that I'd like to have answered. I'm not gonna suddenly jump to conclusion and stake any claims at this stage, other than to say: Give it some time. Somehow, I have this feeling that SONY didn't spend all this time cooking up a stinker, if you know what I mean.

It has been a stinker for a while from the pricing bomb shell to the scaling and production problems. I don't care why the PS3 games look worse it is the fact they do with 2x the system power as sony told anyone who would listen. Why should we give them time they got an extra 6 months with the delayed launch. A console that is more expensive and released a year later should be have a decided advantage in graphics. They should of skipped the blue ray crap and released the console on time for a lot less money and have much less production problems.

Where is killzone? That was supposed to be how these PS3 games were supposed to look.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

For the record, and this isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but please refrain from claiming that SONY overhyped the PS3, or they lied about 2x performance or whatever -- especially from launch titles! This machine is expected to last for another 10yrs, so how about putting down the pitchforks and give the damn thing a chance!!! Jeez, it's only been out a few days!

Its been pointed out like 5 times in this thread allready but il break it down in simpler terms for you:

PLAYSTATION 3 DEVKITS WHERE MUCH MUCH MUCH CLOSER TO THE FINAL ARCHITECTURE THAN THE X360 DEVKITS.

The PS3 Developers had access to the Cell CPU back in 2004 and 6800 SLI GPU's. When the G70 gpu's from Nvidia came along in 2005, that was put in the PS3 devkits. So the PS3 DEVELOPERS BASICALLY HAD THE EXACT SAME ARCHITECTURE AS THE FINAL PRODUCT SINCE AUGUST 2005. Sure some changes and tweaks have been made, but its still works more or less EXACTLY like the final product does. It doesnt matter if its only been out for a few days, they had the kits just as long as the X360 devs.

PS3 developers have had access to something more or less being exactly like the final version for about 1 year and 3 months.

X360 devkits on the other hand, ran on G5 Mac CPU's and R420 GPU's until a couple months prior to the x360 launch. The developers had 3-4 months (some even less) on a devkit that was running the same architecture that the final version was prior to launch.

Developers on both sides of the console war have had devkits containing the final architecture for just about the same time in total to this date (some might argue that the PS3 devs had more time, since they had the Cell very early and the GPU isnt all that different from the 6800s anyway.)

the point is, that in terms of development time with the final architecture, its more than fair to compare PS3 launch titles to X360 titles released right now.

If an experienced game reviewer buys into any PR, then I'm sorry, but he shouldn't be reviewing games, let alone allowed to waste our precious oxygen. He's clearly incapable of thinking for himself, and should be put out of him mysery!

Really? So i guess when Sony came to E3 2005 with CGI's like Killzone and went on record saying its running in real-time the game reviewer should automatically know that its not true? I mean, after all they did say it was twice as powerfull as the x360, Killzone (compared to what MS showed) seemed to most people like what 2x more powerful looks like.

 

[bRoNx]

It has been a stinker for a while from the pricing bomb shell to the scaling and production problems. I don't care why the PS3 games look worse it is the fact they do with 2x the system power as sony told anyone who would listen. Why should we give them time they got an extra 6 months with the delayed launch. A console that is more expensive and released a year later should be have a decided advantage in graphics. They should of skipped the blue ray crap and released the console on time for a lot less money and have much less production problems.

Where is killzone? That was supposed to be how these PS3 games were supposed to look.

Well, at least when you hate something, you do it wholeheartedly! Props!

But c'mon. Would it be fair if we totally ignored the graphics powerhouse that is Gears, and call the 360 shit because of PDZ? I don't think so. And you seriously need a good dose of reality if you're holding onto these PR statements that companies throw at you! You're either really gullable, or you're insisting on holding onto SONY's PR statements ('cause you gotta admit - M$ isn't exactly innocent when it comes to power claims!) because it makes you feel more justified in your anti-SONY sentiments. I don't know, but you gotta be sensible about what you're saying. PR is worthless, please don't start adding value to them now.

@ Ostepop: I know what you're saying. Now please get what I'm trying to point out. People were trashing the PS3 because of these multiplatform games made available at launch. I was merely pointing out that these games are far from the best the PS3 can produce, and to give it time to show it's AAA titles before continuing with this stoning of the PS3. Do you agree with this?

And about my "game reviewer" comment. This comment was addressing reviews in the present time. We've all heard the arguments, and can safely say that SONY showed CG movies in E3'05. Everybody in the gaming industry, including game reviewers, should know this. Now, in November 2006, if a reviewer is still holding SONY to this, then he...well, you saw what I wrote.

 

[Tap In]

well.... here are actual users impressions of the launch titles (and demos) by those who have bought and paid for the PS3. (some of whom also own 360)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129531

 

[Cheezdoodles]

@ Ostepop: I know what you're saying. Now please get what I'm trying to point out.

Then why make a point of saying that they are launch games?

People were trashing the PS3 because of these multiplatform games made available at launch.

People are trashing the PS3 because of various reasons, not only the multiplatform games. Most reviewers agree that GoW is the prettiest game of the year, and thus trashing the PS3 because it costs alot more, and doesnt deliver this "2x performance".

I was merely pointing out that these games are far from the best the PS3 can produce, and to give it time to show it's AAA titles before continuing with this stoning of the PS3. Do you agree with this?

So in your opinion we shouldnt bash games for looking bad because they are launch games? Yes, games will look better over time. So will the x360 games. And since the developers had the kits for the same amount of time, this can be said for BOTH plattforms. And thus, your point is irrelevant.

We do not know what the end product on the PS3 will be, thats true, but we dont know what the end product on the X360 will be either. But what we do know is that if you go out and buy a PS3 right now, your paying $200 more and your NOT getting better graphics at the time. Ofcourse people have the right to "stone" the PS3.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

@ RancidLunchmeat: I said that SONY should not be crucified for whatever caused the PS3 ports of those titles discussed earlier, to be inferior to their 360 counterparts.

And how is SONY getting crucified? The GAMES are getting bad reviews here, not the system.

AFAIK, the dev's haven't commented on why the PS3 versions are lacking, whether it's lack in experience with the final devkit, or whether it's lack in time, we really don't know the truth, so the rest is just speculation.

No, they haven't. Thus the reason for the discussion in this thread, before you derailed it with your Pro-Sony rhetoric. Such as starting off with a question of 'What is this crap?"

@ aselto: Dude, I didn't say that the PS1 dominated that 10yrs. No. I said it lasted 10yrs. Don't get it twisted. Also, I was addressing the people that took the PR as gospel.

No, what you said was that people shouldn't buy into PR hype and then proceeded to display how you are fully guilty of that exact same thing by spewing out statements like 'The PS3 will last 10 years'. Which was PR drivel and an attempt by Sony to justify the absurd price of the PS3. The statement has no relevance in reality whatsoever. The PS1 may have 'lasted' 10 years, but it was irrelevant in terms of the scope of this discussion in half that time. The PS3 will be the same way. So it's the same sort of PR drivel that you were bashing other people for repeating.

 

[Nesh]

Its been pointed out like 5 times in this thread allready but il break it down in simpler terms for you:

PLAYSTATION 3 DEVKITS WHERE MUCH MUCH MUCH CLOSER TO THE FINAL ARCHITECTURE THAN THE X360 DEVKITS.

The PS3 Developers had access to the Cell CPU back in 2004 and 6800 SLI GPU's. When the G70 gpu's from Nvidia came along in 2005, that was put in the PS3 devkits. So the PS3 DEVELOPERS BASICALLY HAD THE EXACT SAME ARCHITECTURE AS THE FINAL PRODUCT SINCE AUGUST 2005. Sure some changes and tweaks have been made, but its still works more or less EXACTLY like the final product does. It doesnt matter if its only been out for a few days, they had the kits just as long as the X360 devs.

PS3 developers have had access to something more or less being exactly like the final version for about 1 year and 3 months.

X360 devkits on the other hand, ran on G5 Mac CPU's and R420 GPU's until a couple months prior to the x360 launch. The developers had 3-4 months (some even less) on a devkit that was running the same architecture that the final version was prior to launch.

Developers on both sides of the console war have had devkits containing the final architecture for just about the same time in total to this date (some might argue that the PS3 devs had more time, since they had the Cell very early and the GPU isnt all that different from the 6800s anyway.)

the point is, that in terms of development time with the final architecture, its more than fair to compare PS3 launch titles to X360 titles released right now.

I think you are pointing only to half of the story. They had similar (not identically the same) and unfinished architecture under their disposal. A weaker performing dev kit which also had limitations and created limitations due to these.

Saying that they had the same architecture is misleading since it doesnt say the whole story.
Also because the dev kits existed this doesnt mean that they were available to every developer to work on them. There were variations of dev kits released, variations of library tools and some didnt even have them at all to even work on them. Some devs didnt even have a clear idea of what the final product was capable of and what not.

So assuming that devs working on PS3 had a better working enviroment, better dev kits and for more time than what they had for the 360 is very debatable and the conclusion unsure.

Really? So i guess when Sony came to E3 2005 with CGI's like Killzone and went on record saying its running in real-time the game reviewer should automatically know that its not true? I mean, after all they did say it was twice as powerfull as the x360, Killzone (compared to what MS showed) seemed to most people like what 2x more powerful looks like.

Sony never claimed this was real time. Phill Harrison said it was footage made using in-game assets or something like that(after playing Killzone extensively I am 100% convinced that they have indeed used many assets from the original game) , Guerilla stated this is a representation of what they want to achieve and another Sony guy who's name I seem to forget was actually refering to 1-8 aka Resistance but the media and people mistakenly (wishfull thinking) interpreted this like he was refering to Killzone since during that part of the interview they were playing the Killzone Video.

 

[bRoNx]

Then why make a point of saying that they are launch games?

Ok. Forget that they're launch games. Lets refer to them as early games. Wait, tell me when the 360 devs got THE FINAL devkit for 360. Not something similar, not something identical, but the actual thing! Now, when did RSX tape out? When did the PS3 dev's get THE FINAL PS3 devkit. Not the ones similar, not the ones that's almost the same, but THE ACTUAL FINAL KIT. Because seriously, I thought RSX taped out after the 360 launch.

People are trashing the PS3 because of various reasons, not only the multiplatform games. Most reviewers agree that GoW is the prettiest game of the year, and thus trashing the PS3 because it costs alot more, and doesnt deliver this "2x performance"

Who cares if Gears got the prettiest game of the year. I don't know how that has anything to do with this (once again) PR statement you guys keep pulling at. Whenever marketing from both M$ & SONY speak, we just go "here we go again", and ignore it. But suddenly you guys are holding onto this "2x performance" PR statement like it's gospel? Why don't you try digging up some of Major Nelson's PR bullshit, and comment on that!? Everyone knows it's fluffy talk. Marketing. M$ do it all the time.

So in your opinion we shouldnt bash games for looking bad because they are launch games? Yes, games will look better over time. So will the x360 games. And since the developers had the kits for the same amount of time, this can be said for BOTH plattforms. And thus, your point is irrelevant

What point are you referring to? And don't forget that these dev's haven't really given their reasons for the lack of performance on the PS3. Don't you think that's an important key factor that needs to be weighted in? I do.

We do not know what the end product on the PS3 will be, thats true, but we dont know what the end product on the X360 will be either. But what we do know is that if you go out and buy a PS3 right now, your paying $200 more and your NOT getting better graphics at the time. Ofcourse people have the right to "stone" the PS3.

So the extra $200 means better graphics? Whatever! The fuck'n thing can play BD-ROM. That's good enough reason for the extra $200. So this whole time you're throwing stones because the first PS3 game R:FOM couldn't topple a flagship title for the UE3 engine (which was shown as far back as 2003 if my memory serves me correctly) off the top graphics pedistool, whilst costing more? Pathetic.

 

[Ben-Nice]

Always lower on the 360.

Gun XB = 7.4
Gun 360 = 6.4

TH XB = 7.5
TH 360 = 6.6

Now that i'm able to see the websites it confirms you are using scores that were not IGN. The 360 overall scores were .1 less than the Xbox conterparts for games that were not even close to "next gen". Why was that?

 

[quest55720]

Ok. Forget that they're launch games. Lets refer to them as early games. Wait, tell me when the 360 devs got THE FINAL devkit for 360. Not something similar, not something identical, but the actual thing! Now, when did RSX tape out? When did the PS3 dev's get THE FINAL PS3 devkit. Not the ones similar, not the ones that's almost the same, but THE ACTUAL FINAL KIT. Because seriously, I thought RSX taped out after the 360 launch.
Who cares if Gears got the prettiest game of the year. I don't know how that has anything to do with this (once again) PR statement you guys keep pulling at. Whenever marketing from both M$ & SONY speak, we just go "here we go again", and ignore it. But suddenly you guys are holding onto this "2x performance" PR statement like it's gospel? Why don't you try digging up some of Major Nelson's PR bullshit, and comment on that!? Everyone knows it's fluffy talk. Marketing. M$ do it all the time.
What point are you referring to? And don't forget that these dev's haven't really given their reasons for the lack of performance on the PS3. Don't you think that's an important key factor that needs to be weighted in? I do.
So the extra $200 means better graphics? Whatever! The fuck'n thing can play BD-ROM. That's good enough reason for the extra $200. So this whole time you're throwing stones because the first PS3 game R:FOM couldn't topple a flagship title for the UE3 engine (which was shown as far back as 2003 if my memory serves me correctly) off the top graphics pedistool, whilst costing more? Pathetic.

Well I could careless about blue ray movie play back so if I am spending 200 extra it is for graphics. I would much rather had sony launch in the spring 200-300 dollars cheaper with out blue ray. Resistance can't even touch 6 month old titles like GRAW or oblivion.

I only turned against sony because of thier stupid arogant decisions of late. I bought a PS1 at launch, bought a PS2 and a PSP. Sony has grown fat and complacent and needs to be knocked off the throne for the health of the industry.

 

[fulcizombie]

@ fulcizombie: You're trashing a console based on launch titles? Good going there champ. Out of curiousity, do you see a difference between Gears and PDZ? Yes? Guess what. The PS3 will too age, and will too get better as time goes by, as developers get better aquainted with the console.

But I guess you won't be getting a PS3, because by your standards, it's already shown you the best it can do, because you've seen the scores for the launch titles! Good for you!

No i am not trashing the ps3 and i will buy one at launch(with resistance,i love sci-fi shooters) but why only mention PDZ(a game that had more problems with art than the actual technical side of graphics)??For all the critisism the xbox360 launch recieved,Kameo still looks amasing and PGR3 still is the best looking racing game.Condemned is also really nice looking with great textures and lighting.

The fact is that we had to withstand 2 years of propaganada about the xbox1.5 and the ps3 so a little backlash shouldn't bother some people so much.Even a few days ago,before the reviews were released,a lot of people here were INSISTING abut how most multiplatform games would be better on the ps3.

Oh and i really don't want to repeat how theps3 was delayed,how the devs had more time with it,how the dev. kits were much more powerfull than the initial xbox360 dev kits e.t.c

When people compare this situation with the xbox-ps2 one,an answer has to be given.I am not a technical expert but from what i've seen from released or upcoming games the 2 consoles seem pretty equal UNLIKE the xbox-ps2 situation.

 

[Bobbler]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but looking on gamerankings will generally give a person a better idea rather than just IGN (who is known to have huge issues with consistency in their reviews). On gamerankings, some of the games are given better scores on PS3, some are more or less even and some are given better scores on 360 (it's more of a wash - ps3 wins some, 360 wins some - rather than 360 getting better scores all over). I would avoid drawing any conclusions based off IGN alone, as it's generally dangerous to depend on just one site for reviews.

Game rankings exists for a reason!

 

[fulcizombie]

Sorry but i could care less about gamerankings and what every no name site gives.In reality 3-4 sites are worth mentioning and (but that's entirely a personal opinion) Edge magazine(what can i say,i'm a fanatic for this magazine since the 1st day it was released).

I am sure that with the right ammount of digging Sony fans can find something to their advantage but sites like IGN,GS ,1up and more all say the same thing.

 

[DeanoC]

The PS3 Developers had access to the Cell CPU back in 2004 and 6800 SLI GPU's.

AFAIK No Dev kits EVER had a 6800 SLI in it... (and I've used every dev-kit except the very first CEB but know people who did and I'm pretty certain it wasn't SLI)

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Wait, tell me when the 360 devs got THE FINAL devkit for 360. Not something similar, not something identical, but the actual thing! Now, when did RSX tape out? When did the PS3 dev's get THE FINAL PS3 devkit. Not the ones similar, not the ones that's almost the same, but THE ACTUAL FINAL KIT.

X360 final kits: September 2005
PS3 "final kits: (as in everything except for bluray): February 2006.

Because seriously, I thought RSX taped out after the 360 launch.

But your obviously not understanding this, the RSX is basically a G71 gpu. Its irrelevant when it taped out, it doesnt have any uber features that have been hiding in there from the developer. In reality it brings nothing new to the table. The point here is that the X360 had devkits that werent remotely simular to the final version until september (or maybe august) while the PS3 developers had devkits that were more or less exactly like the end product for a long long time.

The key here is that they had the Cell cpu and a G70 GPU for a long time. The Cell cpu has been the main concern for the developers, since its so much harder to code for. They had the cell since 2004!! The GPU on the other hand, does not have any special features that makes alot different than the GPUs they had the last year. The Ati Xenos on the other hand, was radically different from ANY gpu on the marked, aspecially the ones in the devkits. Suddenly the developers had a 10mb eDRAM chip and a unified architecture.

And don't forget that these dev's haven't really given their reasons for the lack of performance on the PS3. Don't you think that's an important key factor that needs to be weighted in? I do.

You wanna know the reason? Because the CELL is a hard as hell to code for.

And no, usually developer statment about why stuff dont work, or why what plattform is good or bad is worthless comments. A developer working for sony, cannot say something negative about the PS3, and a X360 dev will not say anything bad about the X360. So its all PR statments.

I don't know how that has anything to do with this (once again) PR statement you guys keep pulling at. Whenever marketing from both M$ & SONY speak, we just go "here we go again", and ignore it. But suddenly you guys are holding onto this "2x performance" PR statement like it's gospel? Why don't you try digging up some of Major Nelson's PR bullshit, and comment on that!? Everyone knows it's fluffy talk. Marketing. M$ do it all the time.

The fact that you use M$ instead of MS, speaks for itself.... I like how YOU are allowed to use PR bull statements, but we arent. (after all you claimed that the PS1 lasted 10 years).

What point are you referring to?

You have now, stated several times that games will continue to get better and better on the PS3. SO WHAT? Are theese games here now? Do you know how good theese games will look? And most importanly, SO WILL THE X360 GAMES.... So that argument is irrelevant. We can bash anything we want based on what it delivers NOW, we do not have to wait 6 years until the final game is done.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Sony never claimed this was real time. Phill Harrison said it was footage made using in-game assets or something like that(after playing Killzone extensively I am 100% convinced that they have indeed used many assets from the original game) , Guerilla stated this is a representation of what they want to achieve and another Sony guy who's name I seem to forget was actually refering to 1-8 aka Resistance but the media and people mistakenly (wishfull thinking) interpreted this like he was refering to Killzone since during that part of the interview they were playing the Killzone Video.

HAve you seen the IGN interview with Jack Tretton?


http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/vids_1.html

"Alot of people were exited about the Demo's, aspecially Killzone, and people were wondering if the stuff was real or if it was all CGI?"

Jack Tretton:
"Its definately Real, i guess we are good at keeping secrets, the devkits were out there, and the devkits were very intuitive, so people did some incredible things..... And thats one thing Kaz wanted to make sure everybody understood that this is real gameplay everybody is seeing out there."

interviewer guy (suprised):
"So it is gameplay? All that stuff is gameplay?"

Jack tretton:
"Its all gameplay......"