Xbox 360/PS3 graphics- an observation

[assen]

Physics objects on onscreen are a different argument altogether

How? They are somehow cheaper to render because their world matrix comes from a physics simulation?

Both consoles are far from their God of War 2 moment, don't count them out yet just because they can't do teh wicked geometry shaderz of your Crysis box.

 

[-tkf-]

As an owner of both consoles, with a keen interest in gaming, I have made the following observation, and would like your opinions.

A post like that will bring out the defenders of whatever platform you portray as the "loser". You would have to backup your speculation a lot more (though the same will say the same of course)

While i think that the best looking games in this generation all are PS3 exclusive i think you are jumping a bit fast to conclusion. There is a difference between exclusive and "lead platform". Just because the PS3 should become a lead platform its not a sure way to ensure that the PS3 versions will always look better.

Any 3rd party developer will often have to compromise their design if they target two different platforms.

 

[Butta]

Here is the original thread that covered the same topic... but with a much better title:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=32277&highlight=higher

 

[Cornsnake]

Yeah, it doesn't have the needless console war part to it. But that question is pretty much answered now that Microsoft is moving more and more away from first party development. And they seem to do good enough as far as marketshare go's with only a few of them. If more than 95% of games are multi platform then those few extra exclusive's probably won't make a difference.

 

[dabomb665m]

The topic at hand really is an interesting prospect..... maybe 9-12 months ago when a lot more people were holding their breath for either system. I think now, the question is who can get to mass market with a bigger bang.

When that mass market price comes around, whoever has the features, games and graphics will invariably win. In that respect, the TC has a point. In terms of feature parity, it would seem the PS3 is getting very close as in-game XMB and trophies are now imminent. As far as games go, it is my -opinion- that the PS3 has more interesting stuff in the pipe ranging from spectacular casuals (LBP) to the hardcore (KZ2).

One interesting thing to note is the 360 will obviously hit mass market price first, so the climate isn't easy to predict.

Perhaps the TC worded it a little negatively for the 360 but that doesn't mean the topic isn't worthy of discussion. This pattern has been ongoing (crappy PS3 ports, great PS3 exclusives : great 360 ports, run of the mill exclusives). It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Expectedly, because there is a pattern to it, people will try to draw conclusions from it. Perhaps it would be better phrased like so:

Assuming previously mentioned pattern continues on, what would be the market effects as console prices go down?

Anyway, I think it's a worthy topic to discuss. Perhaps the phrasing of TC wasn't great. It's funny though, I've lurked here for many years now and it's always the same people coming in to defend the 360 at the slightest hint of negativity. Those of you who've been here long enough know who they are. The TC didn't even bash the 360 for what it is... but merely pointed out decisions carried out by the respective competitor.

 

[Rangers]

Yeah, it doesn't have the needless console war part to it. But that question is pretty much answered now that Microsoft is moving more and more away from first party development. And they seem to do good enough as far as marketshare go's with only a few of them. If more than 95% of games are multi platform then those few extra exclusive's probably won't make a difference.

Yep. I personally dont like how MS is farming so much out to third parties who dont necessarily push the box, but OTOH it might very well be a fine strategy from a cost perspective for them. I dont know that the average joe discerns a graphical difference between the PS360.

 

[vanquish]

exactly

seems more like a stealth troll of 360

Actually I play 80% of the time on 360, use PS3 for movies mostly, until R2 and MGS4 are released anyway.

So if anything I'm concerned about the 360 losing the graphics war, when Microsoft seemed to have better thought out hardware, (ie not just to generate economies of scale for the Cell chip like Sony did with the PS3), so its sad to see good, technically interesting hardware not being pushed to its limit by developers.

The Xenos' Unified Shader Architecture apparently allowed the GPU to be 90% efficient, as opposed to the 50-60% efficiency of GPU's with separate pixel/vertex shaders.

By the way my Rare comment was perhaps unjustified, as Viva Pinata / Banjo Kazooie do have excellent graphics, but the art style makes it hard to compare where they are technically with regards to games with a more realistic style.

Another question, any ideas on why Bungie and Team Ninja opted to continue using their Xbox engines, instead of starting from scratch? If Insomniac can do 3 games in 3 years on a custom PS3 engine, surely Bungie could have built a new engine for Halo 3 in its 3 year development.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Comparing one developers output to another developer is pretty meaningless unless you know the size and focus of their teams. It's just meaningless babble.

 

[AlNom]

Another question, any ideas on why Bungie and Team Ninja opted to continue using their Xbox engines, instead of starting from scratch?

Based on your past comments, it seems you have difficulty in general determining the difference between art direction and the underlying technology. You would do yourself well to at least read the publications Bungie has made available on their website.

 

[psorcerer]

From this observation it could be inferred that the 360 will lose the graphics war with PS3, not necessarily because of the hardware, but because of the lack of developers pushing the hardware to its limits.

If you want to say that PS3 developers make/will make technically superior games, just say it. No need to do stealth moves.

Compounding the problem is the fact that many of Microsoft's first and second party developers seem to be out of form technically.

Sorry to disappoint you but Viva Pinata, for example, is technically superior to Gears of War in almost every way. How come you haven't noticed that?

While Microsoft cannot change the other variables, should they focus on excellent first party content, if they intend on beating Sony? Especially on graphics driven games, seeing how important graphics are to PS3/360 owners. Otherwise Sony's claims that the PS3 will deliver the best graphics may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Graphics" is important. Not in the technical, but the artistic way. This is why you (and a lot of others) see Gears of War as graphically superior when technically it's just average if not less.

If you want my "observation", here we go: starting from this console generation technical advantage won't make a difference on how "graphically impressive" a certain title is.
I do think that PS3 games will have more tech than X360 ones but that won't change the average gamer perception of what "graphically superior" means. The tech details will be only interesting to other devs, that's it.

 

[Silenti]

Sorry to disappoint you but Viva Pinata, for example, is technically superior to Gears of War in almost every way. How come you haven't noticed that?


"Graphics" is important. Not in the technical, but the artistic way. This is why you (and a lot of others) see Gears of War as graphically superior when technically it's just average if not less.

If you want my "observation", here we go: starting from this console generation technical advantage won't make a difference on how "graphically impressive" a certain title is.
I do think that PS3 games will have more tech than X360 ones but that won't change the average gamer perception of what "graphically superior" means. The tech details will be only interesting to other devs, that's it.

Just thinking aloud here.
Not being well versed the technical side here, I swear most of the articles I read here are beyond me, the Viva Pinata quote was just perfect. Being an owner, and having spent a disturbing number of hours playing or watching that game being played, any technical achievement is lost on my eyes thanks to the art style. Gears of War, and Assassin's Creed probably, have the opposite effect. To my eyes they are gorgeous. Viva has been specifically singled out here repeatedly as a graphics showcase. Yet to my, relatively, untrained eye, it looks like a poorly executed cartoon. Mass Effect is just a visual mess at times thanks to the stream loading. No idea who, or what, is at fault there, but dang.

Does he not have a point here though? The original poster. Even if his reasoning is off, if MS is relying mostly on 3rd party exclusives, does that not leave them somewhat short on the visual side? Whether from a technical leverage standpoint or just in-house devs with different art styles available? Take your point about Rare. One of the few 1st party devs MS has left, as evidenced here a graphical showcase in VP, and wasted because of the art style. IF the PS3 has MORE 1st party developers, with a wider range of art styles AND the advantage of a technical focus with no porting concerns, doesn't that offer the PS3 some advantage?

Say the 3rd party developers are not going to handicap their market share with a PS3 focus. I believe someone on here mentioned that the U.S. was the largest, by far, heterogenous market available, and the 360 has a heavy advantage here. That alone should help MS immensely. Doesn't that mean though, that MS is at a disadvantage in artistic breadth relying on 3rd party devs who may move around a lot within their own corporate structure? Meaning that the same art people who work on the MS exclusive game ALSO work on the multiplatform games and thus the artistic variance is considerably less?

 

[woundingchaney]

Not exactly the type of thread I would expect in the famous "technology forum". There is nothing even remotely close to a technical comparison here or any factual statements regarding the two consoles or games on the consoles.

Thread is doing more to rouse brand loyalty and the fan boy in us all than spark any meaningful conversation.

I really dont see how either console is showing any hands down technical or suggested superiority over the other. Most statements that suggest so seem to be little more than brand loyalty (imo).



2 cents

 

[Dominik D]

The topic at hand really is an interesting prospect..... maybe 9-12 months ago when a lot more people were holding their breath for either system.

I read this thread and I think it's same old, same old. People still think that what they like more in terms of art style obviously has better engine. And the console with that, with no doubt, better engine will surely lead in longer run. Because everyone has to agree that this is the reality.

So it seems that people still hold their breath and wait for their hopes to fulfill. And just because this thread has bias in one way, doesn't mean the other side of the "war" is doing any differently. And as stated before - I also think that this is just another war thread.

 

[Mintmaster]

I disagree.

I think the PS3 could produce superior AI/physics/"Update"/& possibly animation. Hence to my mind it could be a superior platform for certain types of games in the eyes of hardcore gamers; but what you see onscreen & in a screenshot won't be any better.

Animation is 100% software and data quality. There isn't much computationally complex stuff there.

AI is 99% software. Very rarely does a more powerful CPU have much to do with AI quality unless, say, you're making a chess game to challenge Kasparov. Video games just don't have that kind of determinate structure for decision making. Good AI is much more of an artform.

Physics software has progressed so rapidly that CPU power isn't much of a factor anymore, IMO. Cell can handle maybe 100 times the rigid body physics you'd see in any real-life situation. There are some "fluff" effects like water, but not only is good simulation a long way from realtime (on both hardware and software fronts), but it uses gobs of memory too.

If you've noticed a pattern, you're right - software is king. If you have order of magnitude type differences, like Wii vs. 360/PS3, you'll definately run into situations where hardware matters. However, with 360 and PS3 the coders will make all the difference and overanalyses of computational aspects of a game like this will bear no resemblance to reality.

Sony has a collection of premier first/second parties that it's built up for well over a decade. The only way MS can catch up is if they defect or if they acquire a new studio that miraculously has enough raw talent that they can overcome the deficiency in experience, resources, etc. compared to Sony's hand picked winners. I think MS has done very well to be so competitive with Sony. In the middle of last gen, it seemed like it would be a cakewalk for Sony this gen.

 

[upnorthsox]

Speaking of Insomniac, looks like they're expanding:

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/insomniac-to-open-studio-in-north-carolina

 

[vanquish]

If you want to say that PS3 developers make/will make technically superior games, just say it. No need to do stealth moves.



Sorry to disappoint you but Viva Pinata, for example, is technically superior to Gears of War in almost every way. How come you haven't noticed that?



"Graphics" is important. Not in the technical, but the artistic way. This is why you (and a lot of others) see Gears of War as graphically superior when technically it's just average if not less.

If you want my "observation", here we go: starting from this console generation technical advantage won't make a difference on how "graphically impressive" a certain title is.
I do think that PS3 games will have more tech than X360 ones but that won't change the average gamer perception of what "graphically superior" means. The tech details will be only interesting to other devs, that's it.

Please explain how Viva Pinata is technically superior to Gears of War, I'm pretty sure that 360 hardware is being stretched most by the Unreal Engine 3.

Most of the gaming press will agree.

 

[vanquish]

Yep, I have been harping on this for a long time.

You can confidently make two statements about the systems, the best multi-platform game graphics are on 360, but the best overall graphics are on first party/exclusive PS3 games.

You can easily state the best graphics on 360 (probably RE5, COD4, Assasins creed etc) are third party multiplatform games. What's wrong this picture?

Look at Killzone 2, looks great, but it was a game designed with a HUGE team and a HUGE budget from the ground up to be a graphical showcase. I dont see any corollary to that on 360. The corollary in terms of team and budget would obviously be Halo 3, but I really think Bungie dropped the ball on GFX starting with Halo 2, and even before the first Halo 3 screens were revealed I had no confidence in them (it's one of the reasons I'm actually in favor of the series moving away from Bungie in the future).

Other than that MS decision to outsource so much to third parties, leaves one wondering even where any "cutting edge" graphical projects would even be able to come from in MS. I mean Epic is great, but they cant reasonably be expected to push 360 to the bleeding edge with a third party multiplatform engine. I mean, how many devs does MS even have? Turn 10? The list is woefully thin. Rare, maybe, but they haven't pushed things graphically this gen (although I think Fable 2 is one of the best looking next gen games). Bungie? I already covered my feelings about them.

There's also the possibility 360 just isn't capable of being pushed as far as PS3, I suppose, it's not my personal opinion but it needs to be touched on. Personally I think the two best looking next gen games are RE5 and KZ2, and one of those is on 360 so...

That is one of the reasons I was excited about the mysterious "Ninja Blade" project supposedly set to be unveiled at the MS showcase that then failed to materialize, rumor was it might be a graphical stunner (though it is by a third party as well), and I really wanted to see more of that out of 360.

One of the reasons I would like a team to really focus on pushing 360 to it's limits is to see if they could really leverage that EDRAM bandwidth to do some things in that area other systems couldn't. I mean every system has it's strengths to be addressed, and that is one for 360.

Well said, although I thought Halo 2 was technically impressive, especially taking into account its convulted development, with texture pop in cinematics being the only flaw (and Bungie's usual weak facial modelling/animation)

Project Offset and Alan Wake also look promising. Much was also made of the Xenos' Unified Shader Architecture, I wonder if it really does contribute as much to GPU performance as ATI says it should:

"Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency"

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/06/10/richard_huddy_ati/1

 

[vanquish]

Comparing one developers output to another developer is pretty meaningless unless you know the size and focus of their teams. It's just meaningless babble.

Insominac (150) and Bungie (120+) are comparable, Epic also pulls its weight, releasing a AAA title consecutively for the last 3 years yet only having 96 employees.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Insominac (150) and Bungie (120+) are comparable, Epic also pulls its weight, releasing a AAA title consecutively for the last 3 years yet only having 96 employees.

They could have a million employees, if they are all tasked on making one game in a 3 year cycle, then thats what they will make.

And Bungie's one game has sold more than Epic's 3 (there's really only 2 yet tho isn't there) so far, so maybe that's the right decision for them.

Blizzard with more employees than all of the above put together manages about 1 game every 3 years, with maybe an expansion thrown in now and again.

 

[vanquish]

Just thinking aloud here.
Not being well versed the technical side here, I swear most of the articles I read here are beyond me, the Viva Pinata quote was just perfect. Being an owner, and having spent a disturbing number of hours playing or watching that game being played, any technical achievement is lost on my eyes thanks to the art style. Gears of War, and Assassin's Creed probably, have the opposite effect. To my eyes they are gorgeous. Viva has been specifically singled out here repeatedly as a graphics showcase. Yet to my, relatively, untrained eye, it looks like a poorly executed cartoon. Mass Effect is just a visual mess at times thanks to the stream loading. No idea who, or what, is at fault there, but dang.

Does he not have a point here though? The original poster. Even if his reasoning is off, if MS is relying mostly on 3rd party exclusives, does that not leave them somewhat short on the visual side? Whether from a technical leverage standpoint or just in-house devs with different art styles available? Take your point about Rare. One of the few 1st party devs MS has left, as evidenced here a graphical showcase in VP, and wasted because of the art style. IF the PS3 has MORE 1st party developers, with a wider range of art styles AND the advantage of a technical focus with no porting concerns, doesn't that offer the PS3 some advantage?

Say the 3rd party developers are not going to handicap their market share with a PS3 focus. I believe someone on here mentioned that the U.S. was the largest, by far, heterogenous market available, and the 360 has a heavy advantage here. That alone should help MS immensely. Doesn't that mean though, that MS is at a disadvantage in artistic breadth relying on 3rd party devs who may move around a lot within their own corporate structure? Meaning that the same art people who work on the MS exclusive game ALSO work on the multiplatform games and thus the artistic variance is considerably less?

I do not think Viva Pinata is a poorly executed cartoon, in fact I am a fan of its visual style, IMO its more charming than any other critter game (Pokemon etc.)

However its non-realistic look is easier to achieve than something with the gritty detail of Gears of War. Its the same reason why Ratchet & Clank, J&D etc, had such large environments for a PS2 game, unlike other graphically ambitious games such as Killzone which had limited draw distance, and a poor framerate.