The ps3 had a couple of games that arguably had the best graphics but that was due to sony 1st party devs making custom engines for the ps3. The 360 games was mostly made from middleware engines such as unreal 3
Somebody post some 720p vs 1080p videos
- Thread starter B86
- Start date
No they were not. The best looking and performing games were and still are on the Xbox. The only way ps3 is able to keep up is through a lot of optimization.
Last edited:
@ ignoring Meach and his ignorance.
That's a damn lie y'all keep telling. There is no game on ps3 that can do what halo 4 did. It would be impossible.
Y'all try to point to uncharted/TLOU but those are very limited games with small hallways and arenas. They are in no way comparable to Halo
at soning these 3ceptac00ns so bad that they lie about having me on ignore
There is a difference. hell I can see it from the dashboard on the 360 alone.
ll_simon
GQ MoTY Candidate
Well I mean thats what these guys get paid to do. And making a game from the ground up tailored to your system is better than usinga a generic engine. Maybe not from a financial position. Its been well documented how hard the learning curve was with the Cell BE but when they finally got it the tables began to turn.
Y'all tripping. A PC gamer will know its a difference. I have a 23in 1080p monitor, and the difference between 720 and 1080 is obvious.
Tell me something, if 720 was just as good as 1080, why wouldn't devs just settle for it instead? shyt I could even set my copy of battlefield 3 to 720 and enjoy better performance. shyt looks much less crisp though.
More logic: if 720p was pretty much as good as 1089,.why is it much harder to render than 720?
Tell me something, if 720 was just as good as 1080, why wouldn't devs just settle for it instead? shyt I could even set my copy of battlefield 3 to 720 and enjoy better performance. shyt looks much less crisp though.
More logic: if 720p was pretty much as good as 1089,.why is it much harder to render than 720?
Most console buyers arent PC gamers.
Nobody said it was "just as good"
And if graphics are the most important then why are we even talking about consoles?
Having 2 games made by one or 2 studios does not make tables being turned. Devs had to spend a lot of time, effort mand money to get that out of the ps3
True when you do that the game was not being scaled to your monitor native resolution so of course it would look less crisp.
Because the topic is...consoles
The topic is that the difference in resolution isn't a big deal on consoles.
Lol
HNIC973
R.I.P Bandana P
Polygon: ”Much has been said about the fact that the PlayStation 4 version of the game runs at a native 1080p, and while that may be true, the game did struggle to maintain a steady frame rate, especially in hectic multiplayer matches. The PS3 version of the game ran into similar problems, whereas the Xbox 360 version maintained a steady 60 frames per second.”
IGN: “On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4.”
Joystiq: ”A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience.”
1080p
but Struggle Framerates
sounds like a great experience
IGN: “On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4.”
Joystiq: ”A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience.”
1080p
but Struggle Frameratessounds like a great experience
Polygon: ”Much has been said about the fact that the PlayStation 4 version of the game runs at a native 1080p, and while that may be true, the game did struggle to maintain a steady frame rate, especially in hectic multiplayer matches. The PS3 version of the game ran into similar problems, whereas the Xbox 360 version maintained a steady 60 frames per second.”
IGN: “On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4.”
Joystiq: ”A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience.”
1080p
Right. So then the question becomes. Why didnt they lower the ps4 resolution
