peetowser - Quit crying. The proof is right here. You look for exuses in the face of truth. This guy's monitors are calibrated just fine. Then you go onto say it's unfair because Xbox uses DirectX.. think that's why MS thought they had a chance in the console war at all? Absolutely! "OK so I guess capping in 1080p could have showed XBox to be less powerful so they went with 720p..." No, only GT5 is natively rendered at 1080P on PS3. Every other game is upscaled, but.. you knew this already right? I'm sure you also knew that GTA4 PS3 version is natively rendered at 640P while the 360 version is natively rendered at 720P so in the case of GTA4, it would have made the PS3 look alot worse. And yes, PS3 is well into it's life cycle, it's graphics capabilities are already showing consistently less then the 360, even first party titles. You want a fair comparaison? "How about comparing a first or second generation racing game for both of those consoles?" So by that logic you are saying that PS3 graphics will never surpass the 360, they will be on-par with what 360 did at it's same point in it's lifecycle? You realize your still saying that 360 will always have better graphics right? "Stop equalling developpers laziness " Stop blaming developer laziness. A developer is only going to spend so much time putting a game on a platform. They shouldn't have to find out how to rework the interiors of Sony's messy architecture work. Sony should have put the dev's need first in designing their console, but that's how Sony is, they don't think about anyone but themselves. Serves them right that nobody wants to optimize games for the console, Sony basically spit in their face making development a chore for them!
poliveto - This isn't going to change the low resolution textures, or the low quality in-game shaders, or the lower internal rendering resolution (lower then 360's in the case of GTA4), or aliasing issues, or framerate issues. At best, it will fix the brightness, but you could just do that on your TV.
I really don't know what all the PS3 fanboys are so mad about. They have a Blu-ray player AND a gaming machine into one. Of course it's not going to have better graphics then a focused gaming machine like the Xbox 360, it wasn't meant to be! It was meant to be the center of your entertainment rig with LOTS of extra's like free online, PSP connectivity, etc. So you guys got a sort jack-of-all-trades kind of machine. It's not supposed to have unbeatable graphics, so just accept the truth, I don't understand what is so hard about it. Xbox 360 has better graphics.
awheaten - Heavenly Sword and MGS4 use pre-rendered cutscenes, proving my point further. I am unsure of Uncharted, but I have another reason why Blu-ray is useless for games. All textures, audio, video are uncompressed because PS3 doesn't have the spare processor power to decompress on the fly like 360 can. So even if Uncharted or any other PS3 game didn't use pre-rendered video, all of the audio and textures are uncompressed so if they were to move the game over the 360, they could compress all of that, taking the total size of the game down drastically, keeping every bit of data intact. "They're working on PS3 version first because it harder to code for" That's exactly what I was saying. They start development on PS3 first, so they can have both versions finished at the same time, because PS3 version is harder to code for.
awheaten - No, Blu-ray is not for gaming. It's not even needed an industry where DVD is the norm. Even for PC games. Oblivion, Mass Effect, GTAIV are all huge games that fit on 1 DVD because there were no pre-rendered cutscenes. Studios that continue to use last gen techniques using pre-rendered cutscenes might find themselves needing more disc space because uncompressed hi-definition video takes up a lot of space. That's why this generation primarily uses real-time cutscenes. You apparently misunderstood the Criterion devs, they were saying that production should start on PS3, because the coding takes a lot longer for the PS3 version then the 360 version. They only reason they were saying this is so that games that release on both platforms will release at the same time. Primary example, GTAIV where the 360 version was done sometime last year and we had to wait for the PS3 version to be finalized. Lastly, if you think there are no differences in the graphics, you need to do some more research. Xbox 360 and PS3 are very different machines and as such, they output very differently. Wipe the mud from your eyes, the proof is right in front of you.
daz215 - The curve for learning how to code for a platform is entirely different from the progression that a system can make in it's lifetime. Xbox 1 had a progression similiar to PS2 in that it's graphics at the end of it's life cycle were far better then launch games, however it didn't take any time at all for the developers to learn how to work with it. That's what I am talking about, the learning curve to learn how to code for a system is about a year. After that, there aren't going to be any major breakthroughs, maybe subtle differences at most. While you brought up the subject about graphical progression through a consoles lifetime, a lot of that falls on the GPU. PS3 has a hard limit of 256MB on it's graphics card which will severely limit it's potential growth, as to where Xbox 360 has a shared 512 MB of memory so the Xbox 360 has more of a potential for graphical growth during it's lifecycle.
ShadoweaverCode's comments