LOOK AT THIS (first batman 'zoom') PS3 = left http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/108/oopsrf.jpg If you really want to get right down to it, the PS3 appears to have the higher texture resolution, though by an itsy bitsy margin. Take a look at that square inside the diamond. In the 360 shot, the line is one pixel in width all the way around, with washed out, almost nonexistent edges. While on the other hand, the PS3 shows two pixels and fades out over one pixel on both sides (four pixels to the 360s one). So, the 360 appears to be a sharper image, but it accomplishes this feat by cutting out visual data. Higher Texture resolution my foot! You may think that the thicker lines in the ps3 shot mean that it has a lower texture resolution. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! IF it were, the lines would not only be thicker, but would contain LESS color variation. When one looks at the mostly white badge in the 360 shot one can only conclude that the 360 is actually the one with a lower resolution, although it probably doesn't and the difference is only due to the position of the characters on screen. MY point is that the logic behind the article is not sound. WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE DEVELOPERS RENDER EVERY TEXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE GAME TWICE? That is just absurd and whoever thought it up needs to lay off the pipe for a while. Time is money, and rendering all those HD textures takes a LOT OF TIME. Not to be too harsh, but EVERY 360 shot contains SPECKLES. IF you really want to compare these two consoles here is what you get. The 360 has freckles... It's a matter of choice. Do you like tens of thousands of tiny white specks in your textures, or do you like smooth textures?
What moron let this get published? Bad lighting effects and blurry edges does not a higher texture resolution make. Did they even bother to scrutinize these photos? Did the tards just glance at them and decide that the 360s texture FILTERING was pretty? I suppose that could be an honest mistake. Gamespot employees must get confused sometimes; filtering, resolution... Ah, whats the difference? BIG DIFFERENCE! MORONS! Any idiot can zoom in on those photos. The TEXTURE RESOLUTION is pretty much the SAME. Except for the PS3, you can see more tiny objects in the PS3 photos. Any idiot can do this, that means you. Take the first BATMAN photo. Sure, the badge on the 360 version looks a bit cleaner BUT don't forget that the guy is probably animated AKA MOVING. Take a look at the bolts on that bridge. Oh? Whats that you say? The PS3 shots have more visible bolts on the architecture? Really? How did that get past the divine gaming judges at gamespot? And just look at those power lines... Oh wait, if you are looking at the 360 shots, YOU CAN'T!!! The colors are so washed out that they just melt into the bricks. --- I have concluded that the games on the 360 are more washed out, contain an extremely high amount of POST PROCESSING GARBAGE and on the odd occasion have BLURRIER textures (when compared to the same games on ps3). The PS3 presents games with fewer post processing effects and thus produces an image truer to the original There is LITTLE TO NO difference in TEXTURE RESOLUTION, the image quality on the ps3 is more consistent and whoever wrote this article should be punished for stating half-truths and failing to present the readers with real evidence.
Sushimaster's comments