Quick 360 vs PS3 graphics comparison

#1 Posted by n8 (264 posts) -

For sure, there are hellof-more accurate/insightful comparisons out there on them interwebs..  
 
But, I was fortunate enough to have both a PS3 and a 360 copy of MW2 in my house at the same time this past weekend and just thought I'd share my thoughts regarding the graphics.  (I won't get into controls/network service stuffs at all.)  The set I used was to compare was my 61" Samsung LED DLP 1080p.  Both the PS3 and the 360 were connected to the set using cheapass gold-plated Philips HDMI cables bought from wal-mart.  And, when I pressed the 'info' button my TV, both the PS3 and 360 were showed as being at 1920x1080@60hz.
 
The level I chose to load up was the snowy level in Spec-Ops (Sniper Fi I believe, the 3rd level in the first grouping).   Crouched a bit and moved such that both games were looking at the same exact grouping of trees with roughly the same angle.
 
The 360 was the clear winner.  Everything just looked a little bit blurry on the PS3.  The gun-detail, the snow, the trees, character models... everything.
 
Again.. my 20/20 eyes are admittedly untrained for graphics comparisons,  but I had 2 other people in the room..  and all agreed.  And granted, the differences were somewhat minor.  But, nobody in the room sided with the PS3.  There was an actual clear winner... it wasn't like it was too close to call.
 
This has prolly been said a hundred times, but it just strikes me as crazy that the PS3 consistently looses these types of comparisons this late in the game.  Especially given the fact that some of the exclusive PS3 titles (UC2, MGS4, Ratchet etc..) appear to have graphics that no other console is capable of.
 
Anyhoo..  maybe some food for thought.. or not.  Just thought I'd share!   :-)

#2 Posted by Griddler (3344 posts) -

Posting pictures would've helped. And if it does look better on 360 it's because like with most games it's developed for the 360 then ported to PS3.

#3 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Run while you can, this won't end well :P  
Just a fair warning

#4 Posted by n8 (264 posts) -
@ZeForgotten: Haha..  wasn't really posting this for any desired end-result.   Just thought I'd share what I saw.   Thanks for the heads-up though!  :-)
#5 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
So, 20/20 eyes didn't notice the shadows eh? Yet they noticed a texture quality difference? I can't say they look blurrier here, just with different tone.
#6 Posted by Driadon (2997 posts) -

It's funny too, after seeing both I noticed that the PS3 version, at times, had more particles then my 360 version. Best example of this is in Cliffhanger, when Soap jumps across the chasm to continue climbing, I saw next to no snow effects in the way and could see him fairly clearly. In the PS3 version it looked like he had literally jumped into the unknown. 

#7 Posted by Warfare (1633 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

" So, 20/20 eyes didn't notice the shadows eh? Yet they noticed a texture quality difference? I can't say they look blurrier here, just with different tone.

"
 Interesting .  
#8 Posted by AgentofChaos (1565 posts) -

Yeah put your flame shields on, personally I've seen both and it seems like the 360 version is smoother and less "Blurry" than the PS3 Version.

#9 Posted by TheHBK (5471 posts) -

How does the PS3 upscale stuff or does your TV do that?  Even though I have my 1080p tv on 1080p on the PS3 when its at the XMB, it switches the resolution it reports to 720p, while the 360 upscales so its always at 1080p.
Also, that comparison up there seems suspect.  The shadows dont always look great but its been my experience that carries to all shadows.  The shadows behind the soldier on the rocks would show some jagginess if the other shadows are showing, but they dont.

#10 Posted by eclipsesis (1242 posts) -

(in big capital letters) WHO CARES!

@Al3xand3r:

the only criticism i can get from the pictures is : Why do all FPS games have weird scaling issues? 

#11 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -

Why do we keep doing this stupid comparisons, the ps2 owned last generation and it had the worst graphics compared to the xbox and the gamecube, and guess what console has the larger installbase this gen?? The Wii!!, yeah, that little box with poor online gaming and horrible last gen graphics. Choose your console for the exclusives, the gamepad and other stuff and if you have both, buy the version where you can play with most of your friends

#12 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Warfare said:
" @Al3xand3r said:

" So, 20/20 eyes didn't notice the shadows eh? Yet they noticed a texture quality difference? I can't say they look blurrier here, just with different tone.

"
 Interesting .   "
ps3 looks way better in these shots. look at the shadowing on the guys face for example. 
#13 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@n8 said:
" For sure, there are hellof-more accurate/insightful comparisons out there on them interwebs..  
 
But, I was fortunate enough to have both a PS3 and a 360 copy of MW2 in my house at the same time this past weekend and just thought I'd share my thoughts regarding the graphics.  (I won't get into controls/network service stuffs at all.)  The set I used was to compare was my 61" Samsung LED DLP 1080p.  Both the PS3 and the 360 were connected to the set using cheapass gold-plated Philips HDMI cables bought from wal-mart.  And, when I pressed the 'info' button my TV, both the PS3 and 360 were showed as being at 1920x1080@60hz.
 
The level I chose to load up was the snowy level in Spec-Ops (Sniper Fi I believe, the 3rd level in the first grouping).   Crouched a bit and moved such that both games were looking at the same exact grouping of trees with roughly the same angle.
 
The 360 was the clear winner.  Everything just looked a little bit blurry on the PS3.  The gun-detail, the snow, the trees, character models... everything.  Again.. my 20/20 eyes are admittedly untrained for graphics comparisons,  but I had 2 other people in the room..  and all agreed.  And granted, the differences were somewhat minor.  But, nobody in the room sided with the PS3.  There was an actual clear winner... it wasn't like it was too close to call. This has prolly been said a hundred times, but it just strikes me as crazy that the PS3 consistently looses these types of comparisons this late in the game.  Especially given the fact that some of the exclusive PS3 titles (UC2, MGS4, Ratchet etc..) appear to have graphics that no other console is capable of.  Anyhoo..  maybe some food for thought.. or not.  Just thought I'd share!   :-) "
it strikes you that multiplat games still look better on 360? what ar you retarded? and saying games like UC2, MGS4 etc  "appear" to look better? PS3 exclusives are flat out way better looking than anything on 360. its because ps3 devs aren't pussy and do everything they can to exploit the more powerful hardware. whereas multiplat developers bitch out and hold back on the ps3 version because MS probably makes sure they don't make the ps3 version look any better. i think its so gay that devs are comfortable with knowing that they could make a version of their game be the best it could be but don't because they want to be "fair". why was it different when it was ps2 and the original xbox?
#14 Posted by Driadon (2997 posts) -
@Valkyr  
 
What makes this interesting for hardware geeks like me is the Cell processor and how developers are able to replicate what is done on other platforms with this technology. 
Well, that's my reason at least.
#15 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" So, 20/20 eyes didn't notice the shadows eh? Yet they noticed a texture quality difference? I can't say they look blurrier here, just with different tone.
"
Whats up with that american flag?
#16 Posted by n8 (264 posts) -
@TheHBK:   Good question.  I was fully expecting to see the PS3 diplaying at 720p.  Not sure if its just my setup or what.
#17 Posted by 02sfraser (847 posts) -

this isn't going to end well haha. it looks with the pictures that the PS3 is slightly better but titles that are developed on 360 then ported to PS3 generally look better on 360. but no one can battle the case of Uncharted 2 looking bad or possibly looking better on 360. the PS3 is the more powerful machine when given more time and effort like the exclusives. but if made on 360, will look better on 360.
 
Oblivion is my favourite example of graphics. it took a couple more months to come out on PS3 but the extra time put out a better result. this debate will rage on forever more :)

#18 Posted by Rinkalicous (1340 posts) -
@TwoOneFive said:
" @n8 said:
" For sure, there are hellof-more accurate/insightful comparisons out there on them interwebs..  
 
But, I was fortunate enough to have both a PS3 and a 360 copy of MW2 in my house at the same time this past weekend and just thought I'd share my thoughts regarding the graphics.  (I won't get into controls/network service stuffs at all.)  The set I used was to compare was my 61" Samsung LED DLP 1080p.  Both the PS3 and the 360 were connected to the set using cheapass gold-plated Philips HDMI cables bought from wal-mart.  And, when I pressed the 'info' button my TV, both the PS3 and 360 were showed as being at 1920x1080@60hz.
 
The level I chose to load up was the snowy level in Spec-Ops (Sniper Fi I believe, the 3rd level in the first grouping).   Crouched a bit and moved such that both games were looking at the same exact grouping of trees with roughly the same angle.
 
The 360 was the clear winner.  Everything just looked a little bit blurry on the PS3.  The gun-detail, the snow, the trees, character models... everything.  Again.. my 20/20 eyes are admittedly untrained for graphics comparisons,  but I had 2 other people in the room..  and all agreed.  And granted, the differences were somewhat minor.  But, nobody in the room sided with the PS3.  There was an actual clear winner... it wasn't like it was too close to call. This has prolly been said a hundred times, but it just strikes me as crazy that the PS3 consistently looses these types of comparisons this late in the game.  Especially given the fact that some of the exclusive PS3 titles (UC2, MGS4, Ratchet etc..) appear to have graphics that no other console is capable of.  Anyhoo..  maybe some food for thought.. or not.  Just thought I'd share!   :-) "
it strikes you that multiplat games still look better on 360? what ar you retarded? and saying games like UC2, MGS4 etc  "appear" to look better? PS3 exclusives are flat out way better looking than anything on 360. its because ps3 devs aren't pussy and do everything they can to exploit the more powerful hardware. whereas multiplat developers bitch out and hold back on the ps3 version because MS probably makes sure they don't make the ps3 version look any better. i think its so gay that devs are comfortable with knowing that they could make a version of their game be the best it could be but don't because they want to be "fair". why was it different when it was ps2 and the original xbox? "
Don't be ridiculous. They don't tone down the ps3 graphics to keep it 'fair', they just arguably don't take the time to take advantage of it all the way. And even if they did, how, exactly, does this make them homosexual? And even if it DID, why would this in anyway be a bad thing? They don't not take advantage because they're 'pussies' either, it's because the PS3 is notoriously hard to develop for. Of course, when making an exclusive, devs can spend all their time concentrating on and playing to the PS3s strengths, but in the case of multiplat games, they'd have to pretty much remake the game from the ground up for the ps3 if they wanted to make it look better. That's the double edged sword of the PS3 I'm afraid.  
 
And another thing, why is the OP 'retarded' for stating a perfectly valid, and to be honest, almost entirely correct opinion?
#19 Posted by blackbeard (309 posts) -

uh, i think you have it backwards 
 
the 360 verison looks blurry. and look at the shadows. PS3 has proper shadows while the 360's shadows are all pixelated and the 360 colors seem slightly washed out and lighter. 
 
we all know M$ is throwing the money around but the games still look better on the PS3.

#20 Posted by n8 (264 posts) -
@TwoOneFive said:
ps3 looks way better in these shots. look at the shadowing on the guys face for example.  "
I won't attempt to argue the legitimacy of the above screenshots as I'm sure they're from a respectable source.   
 
My point is..  Yes, more trained eyes will pick apart some specific arguments for each platform (shadows, etc.) which is all totally valid.  But, if you have the opportunity to witness both consoles side-by-side, I think you'd agree the overall visual experience on the 360 is superior.  And yeah... not trying to argue about development time for each... just stating what I saw.
#21 Posted by fallen_elite (380 posts) -

These graphical comparisons are meaningless as they always look too similar to even notice the difference in motion. The only thing that matters to me with the 360 and PS3 comparisons is the framerate and the 360 generally has better framerate, in this case the 360 version has the superior framerate.

#22 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -
#23 Posted by spazmaster666 (1966 posts) -

The reason why PS3 exclusives like UC2 or Killzone look so good is pretty simple: they make much better use of the Cell then the majority of multi-platform games. Second and first party PS3 devs don't have to worry about getting their games to run well on other platforms so they can tailor-fit their games to work specifically with PS3 hardware (in most cases this involves offloading certain rendering effects to the Cell's SPUs). 3rd party devs like Infinity Ward have to design their engine to work and run well on both consoles and such can't tailor-fit their games to run specially for any particular hardware. And without offloading rendering/graphical processing effects to the Cell's SPUs, the PS3 has no real superiority over the 360 (well aside from the higher-capacity of Bluray discs) from a hardware perspective. As such it makes perfect sense that in many multiplatform games, the 360 version often looks slightly better (though in the case of MW2, there is a more significant difference in frame rate than visual quality between the two versions, aside from the fact that the PS3 version lacks bloom).

#24 Posted by Andheez (580 posts) -

Owning both consoles, I really hardly ever see a difference, and I think a lot of times it has to do with in game settings, like the brightness, which could be adjusted, but even in these screen shots, it appears darker in the ps3 version.  Anyway I think a true graphics comparison does not come down to still images, I would much rather see it in motion.

#25 Posted by Bucketdeth (8007 posts) -

All this comparing shit again....If the PS3 version does look worst it's because they just don't take the time to utilize it's power, look at Uncharted 2 and Killzone.

Online
#26 Posted by WillyLo (302 posts) -

I've never understood this debate, besides when the PS3 first came out, but now the differences are very subtle at best and while in motion are hardly noticeable. Play on the system where your friends are and you enjoy, we all know by now how and way some games come out better or worse on either system.

#27 Posted by Almeida69 (66 posts) -

They look the same to me. Imagine playing the game! Do u seriously sit there and say "Well this looks better than that"? NO! When everything is in motion the experience is the same and only people who have nothing to do, compare graphics of games that look great no matter which version.

#28 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Graphics don't really mean a whole lot when you're enjoying the game. Also textures don't really mean much once you're moving in actual motion.

#29 Edited by Th3_James (2576 posts) -

I have both versions......i can't see any differance......my 360's usb wifi fucked up so i bought the game for my ps3. can't find any differance in gameplay, or graphics

#30 Edited by Out_On_Bail (1545 posts) -
@PeasForFees: The flag is backwards on that arm because it symbolizes a flag being carried into battle. If your carrying a flag and running forward it will wave in that direction. On the other arm the flag is shown the correct way. 
 
EDIT:  who really cares about the differences in graphics? It looks good on both until you take a Screen shot and stare at it for 10 minutes, at which point you'll find problems with any system.
#31 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Who cares 360 or not Sgt. Foley just wants your ass to oscar mike!!!!

#32 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

Sorry, but I don't care about this at all. They both look beautiful, regardless of system. A slight texture difference is meaningless when you are running this game 60 frames per second.

#33 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -
@Out_On_Bail said:
" @PeasForFees: The flag is backwards on that arm because it symbolizes a flag being carried into battle. If your carrying a flag and running forward it will wave in that direction. On the other arm the flag is shown the correct way.  EDIT:  who really cares about the differences in graphics? It looks good on both until you take a Screen shot and stare at it for 10 minutes, at which point you'll find problems with any system. "
I actually meant the fact that one is greyscale, and one is in colour
#34 Posted by btman (1038 posts) -

this game looks fucking awesome on my TV so i dont care what it looks like on the 360... ps3 is wayyy better and thats all that matters :)

#35 Edited by Slippy (735 posts) -

It's probably blurry on PS3 because you're outputting it in 1080p. On 360, the hardware scaling chip inside the console will output a nice 1080p image. On PS3, they have to do it through software as there is no such scaling chip inside. Often the software approach looks dire - see nearly every multiplat game out there with '1080p' support. Leave them both at 720p - hell, you won't even get that, as the game is only 600p. 
 
Also, to those saying the PS3 version has blurrier textures: you are wrong. The textures are the same, the 360 just gets a little extra anisotropic filtering (AF) which helps it looks better at a distance.

#36 Posted by Out_On_Bail (1545 posts) -
@PeasForFees said:
" @Out_On_Bail said:
" @PeasForFees: The flag is backwards on that arm because it symbolizes a flag being carried into battle. If your carrying a flag and running forward it will wave in that direction. On the other arm the flag is shown the correct way.  EDIT:  who really cares about the differences in graphics? It looks good on both until you take a Screen shot and stare at it for 10 minutes, at which point you'll find problems with any system. "
I actually meant the fact that one is greyscale, and one is in colour "
Lol. Well then I don't have the answer. I was thinking after I typed all that up that maybe you weren't talking about what I thought you may of been. Oh well.
#37 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

By these responses I can see Giantbomb is starting to reel in the 13 year old fanboys. 

#38 Edited by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -

I hope this Sgt. Dionne made it out okay. Anyways, you won't notice the difference unless you are actively looking for them.

#39 Posted by guiseppe (2840 posts) -

I can't believe this is still being done. There's little to no difference these days.

#40 Posted by zombie2011 (4972 posts) -

Who cares? so there is a little weirdness under the eyes it still looks amazing on both consoles and plays great too.

#41 Posted by escaladep (2 posts) -

look at the xbox i see pixles id dont know wat ur talken bout ps3 looks beter i compaired the systems side by side in my own house and the ps3 looked better, the colar is exiclent on ps3 and pixilaction is rair on ps3 but xbox has beter online so i give credict but graphis is ps3s feild
#42 Posted by AjayRaz (12424 posts) -

out of every thread to bump...  
 
@escaladep said:

" look at the xbox i see pixles id dont know wat ur talken bout ps3 looks beter i compaired the systems side by side in my own house and the ps3 looked better, the colar is exiclent on ps3 and pixilaction is rair on ps3 but xbox has beter online so i give credict but graphis is ps3s feild "
awesome spelling 
#43 Posted by Burns098356GX (1366 posts) -
@escaladep said:
"  wat
 ur
bout
colar
exiclent
pixilaction 
rair 
beter 
credict 
graphis 
feild "
...what?
#44 Posted by LiquidPrince (15907 posts) -
@n8 said:
" @TwoOneFive said:
ps3 looks way better in these shots. look at the shadowing on the guys face for example.  "
I won't attempt to argue the legitimacy of the above screenshots as I'm sure they're from a respectable source.     My point is..  Yes, more trained eyes will pick apart some specific arguments for each platform (shadows, etc.) which is all totally valid.  But, if you have the opportunity to witness both consoles side-by-side, I think you'd agree the overall visual experience on the 360 is superior.  And yeah... not trying to argue about development time for each... just stating what I saw. "
I have witnessed both and they are virtually identical, save for PS3 having better shadows.
#45 Posted by Burns098356GX (1366 posts) -

 http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16236
 
Your blind if you think they are the same.

#46 Posted by escaladep (2 posts) -

a have bad spelling and i dont go over work like this so soor and im not dumb
#47 Posted by Alphiehyr (1083 posts) -

This post is just pointless and insulting. It is like comparing a 9500 GT with a 9800 GT.

#48 Edited by Jrad (621 posts) -
@Alphiehyr: More like a mid-range ATI card with a mid-range Nvidia card. There's a rather large difference in performance between the 9500/9800 if it's anything like the 7 and 8 series.
 
Plus the graphical oddities (poor self-shadows on 360) are in line with what to expect from ATI.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.