[color=#000000][/color]. Baba your brain juice don finish ni? You don't know what your talkin not techically

jjk24: wich part dnt ppl geht texture p0ping n glitches has nfn 2 d0 wit d c0ns0le its sef 0r u mean its daht d ps3 can't run games. Wit 0ut it avin glitches .glitches r caused cus 0f wrng c0ding n prgramming nt cus 0f d c0s0le s0 its d devs fault if d ps3s versi0n is gl itchy. D ps3 chipset is very c0mplicated s0 its harder 2 c0de 4 dan d xb0x dahts y multiplats games luk better 0n d xb0x dah d0esnt av 2 d0 wit ps3s capability if u wanna test daht ull test wit exclusives n can u menti0n hw many glitches u can find in games lyk uncharted 2 3. Killz0ne 3 g0d 0f war 3 ? 0r sumfin N0Te all games av glitches th0ugh n0 game is perfect buh glitches as nfn 2 d0 wit d cns0le it sef n wit d ps3s pad ?!! U sure cheap?!! U nt lykin sumfin d0esnt mak it inferi0r. 0r cheap its jst dwn 2 preference s0 stp d hatin talk n b h0nest cheap?!! B0th gamepads use d same kidda materials cus I dnt geht cheap?!!

Texture pop in can be bad coding, sure, and it can also be the console's fault. the ps3 games are technically on par with the xbox games when it comes to graphics, but more people like the art style of ps3 compared to the 360 games. God of war, uncharted etc are all very linear games, so it easier to have more graphical fidelity. That's not impressive if u ask me. That's why i respect games like red dead redemption. They are huge and still look good.

And the xbox fans are just yarning pure trash here..the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox 360, the gpu is more powerful as well but as much as hardware is important, software is very important too and as a result of the diffrent architecture with xbox 360 being closer to pc, its easier to code for the 360 than ps3 that's why multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. What will take yoU 2 lines of coding on 360 can take about 10 on the ps3 so the developers who most times are on time constraints don't infuse all their time to get it right on the ps3. So graphical fidelity is very dependent on software as well as hardware and also the experience of the dev team. For hardware, ps3 trumps 360 in gpu and cpu but since multiplatform is basically about selling games, devs don't want to use much more time to code for the ps3 when the ps3 nd 360 games both have the same release date. That can't be said about sony 1st party studio who are very experienced when it comes to ps3 architechture because they have access to needed equipment from sony, take a look at uncharted series by naughty dog, the xbox 360 is not able to pull of such graphical prowess and u may say because its linear that's why it looks so good, that goes both ways though, linearity has more to do with gameplay and ability to output such graphics, what's the use of kratos in god of war being in an open world system like gta when the gameplay guides you to just go ahead and kill. True to say, the xbox 360 can't output games with the same graphical fidelity like uncharted, god of waR, killzone and more recently last of uS! And that's because sonys 1st party studios are experienced in coding for the system and have all the needed tech from sony, now take a look at the cinematic cutscenes and even live game play of uncharted and god of war, the studios who produced those games have access to sony's amazing digital and camera technology hence being able to produce such movie like sequences. Another example is the problem of recently released skyrim, on 360 because its easier to code for has been released since, I'm talking about the dlc where as on ps3 the dev team ran into a lot of problems trying to code the same game for the ps3, but an experienced team like naughty dog could have pulled it of. The 360 use of dvd limits the graphical dexterity too as it would be unprofitable and cumbersome to have so many discs just to play one game, the last of us is 27gb!! Of data alone! The last of us Is linear but that doesn't reduce the graphical fidelity, being linear is more of gameplay than anything

trendytrendz: And the xbox fans are just yarning pure trash here..the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox 360, the gpu is more powerful as well but as much as hardware is important, software is very important too and as a result of the diffrent architecture with xbox 360 being closer to pc, its easier to code for the 360 than ps3 that's why multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. What will take yoU 2 lines of coding on 360 can take about 10 on the ps3 so the developers who most times are on time constraints don't infuse all their time to get it right on the ps3. So graphical fidelity is very dependent on software as well as hardware and also the experience of the dev team. For hardware, ps3 trumps 360 in gpu and cpu but since multiplatform is basically about selling games, devs don't want to use much more time to code for the ps3 when the ps3 nd 360 games both have the same release date. That can't be said about sony 1st party studio who are very experienced when it comes to ps3 architechture because they have access to needed equipment from sony, take a look at uncharted series by naughty dog, the xbox 360 is not able to pull of such graphical prowess and u may say because its linear that's why it looks so good, that goes both ways though, linearity has more to do with gameplay and ability to output such graphics, what's the use of kratos in god of war being in an open world system like gta when the gameplay guides you to just go ahead and kill. True to say, the xbox 360 can't output games with the same graphical fidelity like uncharted, god of waR, killzone and more recently last of uS! And that's because sonys 1st party studios are experienced in coding for the system and have all the needed tech from sony, now take a look at the cinematic cutscenes and even live game play of uncharted and god of war, the studios who produced those games have access to sony's amazing digital and camera technology hence being able to produce such movie like sequences. Another example is the problem of recently released skyrim, on 360 because its easier to code for has been released since, I'm talking about the dlc where as on ps3 the dev team ran into a lot of problems trying to code the same game for the ps3, but an experienced team like naughty dog could have pulled it of. The 360 use of dvd limits the graphical dexterity too as it would be unprofitable and cumbersome to have so many discs just to play one game, the last of us is 27gb!! Of data alone! The last of us Is linear but that doesn't reduce the graphical fidelity, being linear is more of gameplay than anything

excuse

trendytrendz: And the xbox fans are just yarning pure trash here..the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox 360, the gpu is more powerful as well but as much as hardware is important, software is very important too and as a result of the diffrent architecture with xbox 360 being closer to pc, its easier to code for the 360 than ps3 that's why multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. What will take yoU 2 lines of coding on 360 can take about 10 on the ps3 so the developers who most times are on time constraints don't infuse all their time to get it right on the ps3. So graphical fidelity is very dependent on software as well as hardware and also the experience of the dev team. For hardware, ps3 trumps 360 in gpu and cpu but since multiplatform is basically about selling games, devs don't want to use much more time to code for the ps3 when the ps3 nd 360 games both have the same release date. That can't be said about sony 1st party studio who are very experienced when it comes to ps3 architechture because they have access to needed equipment from sony, take a look at uncharted series by naughty dog, the xbox 360 is not able to pull of such graphical prowess and u may say because its linear that's why it looks so good, that goes both ways though, linearity has more to do with gameplay and ability to output such graphics, what's the use of kratos in god of war being in an open world system like gta when the gameplay guides you to just go ahead and kill. True to say, the xbox 360 can't output games with the same graphical fidelity like uncharted, god of waR, killzone and more recently last of uS! And that's because sonys 1st party studios are experienced in coding for the system and have all the needed tech from sony, now take a look at the cinematic cutscenes and even live game play of uncharted and god of war, the studios who produced those games have access to sony's amazing digital and camera technology hence being able to produce such movie like sequences. Another example is the problem of recently released skyrim, on 360 because its easier to code for has been released since, I'm talking about the dlc where as on ps3 the dev team ran into a lot of problems trying to code the same game for the ps3, but an experienced team like naughty dog could have pulled it of. The 360 use of dvd limits the graphical dexterity too as it would be unprofitable and cumbersome to have so many discs just to play one game, the last of us is 27gb!! Of data alone! The last of us Is linear but that doesn't reduce the graphical fidelity, being linear is more of gameplay than anything

exactly wat av bein tryin 2 sai since fenks bss all dis xb0ts sain its cus its linear can dey pls menti0n dere 0wn exclusive dah aint linear n luks better dan infam0us 2 0r a linear exclusive dah luks better dan the last 0f us if dey can't cased cl0sed.!!

trendytrendz: And the xbox fans are just yarning pure trash here..[/b]the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox 360, the gpu is more powerful as well[b] but as much as hardware is important, software is very important too and as a result of the diffrent architecture with xbox 360 being closer to pc, its easier to code for the 360 than ps3 that's why multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. What will take yoU 2 lines of coding on 360 can take about 10 on the ps3 so the developers who most times are on time constraints don't infuse all their time to get it right on the ps3. So graphical fidelity is very dependent on software as well as hardware and also the experience of the dev team. For hardware, ps3 trumps 360 in gpu and cpu but since multiplatform is basically about selling games, devs don't want to use much more time to code for the ps3 when the ps3 nd 360 games both have the same release date. That can't be said about sony 1st party studio who are very experienced when it comes to ps3 architechture because they have access to needed equipment from sony, take a look at uncharted series by naughty dog, the xbox 360 is not able to pull of such graphical prowess and u may say because its linear that's why it looks so good, that goes both ways though, linearity has more to do with gameplay and ability to output such graphics, what's the use of kratos in god of war being in an open world system like gta when the gameplay guides you to just go ahead and kill. True to say, the xbox 360 can't output games with the same graphical fidelity like uncharted, god of waR, killzone and more recently last of uS! And that's because sonys 1st party studios are experienced in coding for the system and have all the needed tech from sony, now take a look at the cinematic cutscenes and even live game play of uncharted and god of war, the studios who produced those games have access to sony's amazing digital and camera technology hence being able to produce such movie like sequences. Another example is the problem of recently released skyrim, on 360 because its easier to code for has been released since, I'm talking about the dlc where as on ps3 the dev team ran into a lot of problems trying to code the same game for the ps3, but an experienced team like naughty dog could have pulled it of. The 360 use of dvd limits the graphical dexterity too as it would be unprofitable and cumbersome to have so many discs just to play one game, the last of us is 27gb!! Of data alone! The last of us Is linear but that doesn't reduce the graphical fidelity, being linear is more of gameplay than anything

the ps3 gpu is better than the 360?. Stopped reading right there. You are greatly misinformed. Dear sir pls do some research.

jjk24: exactly wat av bein tryin 2 sai since fenks bss all dis xb0ts sain its cus its linear can dey pls menti0n dere 0wn exclusive dah aint linear n luks better dan infam0us 2 0r a linear exclusive dah luks better dan the last 0f us if dey can't cased cl0sed.!!

The artstyle of uncharted and last of us does not equate technical graphics. Games such as gears of war 3 have impressive technical graphics dat equal uncharted 3 but with an artsyle that is boring. Artstyle is not technical graphics. There are more open world games on the 360 compared to the ps3. That is a fact. the ''bigger'' the games, the harder it is to make the graphics look gud. so God of war is not gud in terms of technical graphics , but it does look gud....why won't it, it extremely linear.

kimco:
The artstyle of uncharted and last of us does not equate technical graphics. Games such as gears of war 3 have impressive technical graphics dat equal uncharted 3 but with an artsyle that is boring. Artstyle is not technical graphics. There are more open world games on the 360 compared to the ps3. That is a fact. the ''bigger'' the games, the harder it is to make the graphics look gud. so God of war is not gud in terms of technical graphics , but it does look gud....why won't it, it extremely linear.

what they fail to realise is that you dont program graphics... You model it.

If they say the multiplateform games on ps3 dont run like the Xbox cause of bad programming I will understand... Lol their excuse is useless. I dont know where someone uses computer to program graphics or 3d object. I have used Maya and 3dmax to render model and render planet mars which is very easy... I did not program the graphics, but I model and render it.

benalvino:

what they fail to realise is that you dont program graphics... You model it.

If they say the multiplateform games on ps3 dont run like the Xbox cause of bad programming I will understand... Lol their excuse is useless. I dont know where someone uses computer to program graphics or 3d object. I have used Maya and 3dmax to render model and render planet mars which is very easy... I did not program the graphics, but I model and render it.

In real time? And if it is, have u compared ur hardware to those consoles. Pls dnt do this. Rendering real time graphics takes a a toll on hardware. Now i dnt know what u have done but i doubt it involves many other moving objects on screen, destructible environment, walkable environment. So please don't compare ur alpha/beta render to a full blown game rendered in real time, let's alone an open world game. the comparison is light and day. the movie avatar took a farm to just render (non real time) so imagine if we are try and render dat in real time, we'll need a country full of computers to do such. We aren't even rendering pixar level of graphics in real time. So pls come again.

Also graphics in a video games involves more than the things you model(characters, maps ect). There are a lot of other things going on than jux dat(weather, lighting, depth of field etc).These are all done in real time.

kimco:
In real time? And if it is, have u compared ur hardware to those consoles. Pls dnt do this. Rendering real time graphics takea a toll on hardware. Now i dnt know what u have done but i doubt it involves many other moving objects on screen, destructible environment, walkable environment. So please don't compare ur alpha/beta render to a full blown open world game

this comment shows you dont know how this things or console works... the consoles dont render graphics... they have GPU that process graphics... if your console GPU dont have features like lightning effect... then it means it wont display it...

a pc is use to model and render the graphics... when you making the object... it will look gray and without texture... when you add texture which is the skin and other things like shades etc... to render it will apply all those textures to the model you create which makes it look real... on a fast computers it usually takes time...

the work of the console is to process this renderings... the amount of details you put on your model is what affects the consoles GPU... like the xbox have better anti alias in its GPU... which gives it sharper graphics that the ps3. PS usually have 4x anti alias...

so the programming have nothing to do with the graphics...
Gears of war 3 beats any game you come with from the PS3... and the Xbox couldnt really reach its potential without costing much... if the can put as much details as they can on several games... its gonna require multiple disc which many developers complain against the xbox... even the developers of grand theft auto 4.

benalvino:

this comment shows you dont know how this things or console works... the consoles dont render graphics... they have GPU that process graphics... if your console GPU dont have features like lightning effect... then it means it wont display it...

a pc is use to model and render the graphics... when you making the object... it will look gray and without texture... when you add texture which is the skin and other things like shades etc... to render it will apply all those textures to the model you create which makes it look real... on a fast computers it usually takes time...

the work of the console is to process this renderings... the amount of details you put on your model is what affects the consoles GPU... like the xbox have better anti alias in its GPU... which gives it sharper graphics that the ps3. PS usually have 4x anti alias...

so the programming have nothing to do with the graphics...
Gears of war 3 beats any game you come with from the PS3... and the Xbox couldnt really reach its potential without costing much... if the can put as much details as they can on several games... its gonna require multiple disc which many developers complain against the xbox... even the developers of grand theft auto 4.

Double post

benalvino:

this comment shows you dont know how this things or console works... the consoles dont render graphics... they have GPU that process graphics... if your console GPU dont have features like lightning effect... then it means it wont display it...

a pc is use to model and render the graphics... when you making the object... it will look gray and without texture... when you add texture which is the skin and other things like shades etc... to render it will apply all those textures to the model you create which makes it look real... on a fast computers it usually takes time...

the work of the console is to process this renderings... the amount of details you put on your model is what affects the consoles GPU... like the xbox have better anti alias in its GPU... which gives it sharper graphics that the ps3. PS usually have 4x anti alias...

so the programming have nothing to do with the graphics...
Gears of war 3 beats any game you come with from the PS3... and the Xbox couldnt really reach its potential without costing much... if the can put as much details as they can on several games... its gonna require multiple disc which many developers complain against the xbox... even the developers of grand theft auto 4.

first point- Is the gpu not part of the console or do u buy that differently also?

second point- when did i claim otherwise, u're jux repeating what i said in other words.

Third point- dude there is a thing such as real time rendering used mostly in video games, allowing for user interactivity with the virtual environment created as opposed to the pre render of movies and other. It's all hardware dependent. Consoles can't render what the hardware won't allow. Simple as dat. So ur example of u using 3d max and maya 3d is completely irrelevant

Fourth point- point to me where i said the programming was what determined the graphics. Programming however helps with optimization and shortcuts. Eg in the case of the ps3, the games (most high profile ps3 games) are programmed in a way that the cell processor help in graphic processing, not jux the gpu...other games (journey) don't require that much, just the gpu would be enough. I'm sending from a phone so i can't properly choose the posts to reply to.

Fifth point- point me to the proof from epic games where they stated that dvd space hindered the full potential of the game. As a matter of fact i remember them stating that geow3 had maxed the 360 (whether it's true or not, idk)and seriously why are u bringing up the space issue again? I thought were done with it. what u said is what i have been saying throughout my entire argument with u, cost and disc swapping is the reason devs hate dvd on 360, not graphical fidelity. Okay enuff with the dvd vs blu ray argument.

kimco: first point- Is the gpu not part of the console or do u buy that differently also?
second point- when did i claim otherwise, u're jux repeating what i said in other words.
Third point- my bad, confused the shit, u're very right, however my point still stands, it all hardware dependent. Consoles can't process what the hardware won't allow. Simple as dat. so ur example of u using 3d max and maya 3d is completely irrelevant

Fourth point- point to me where i said the programming was what determined the graphics. Programming however helps with optimization and shortcuts (eg in the case of the ps3, the games are programmed in a way that the cell processor can help in graphic processing, not jux the gpu) I'm sending from a phone so i can't properly choose the posts to reply to.

Fifth point- point me to the proof from epic games where they stated that dvd space hindered the full potential of the game. As a matter of fact i remember them stating that geow3 had maxed the 360 (whether it's true or not, idk)and seriously why are u bringing up the space issue again? I thought were done with it. what u said is what i have been saying throughout my entire argument with u, cost and disc swapping is the reason devs hate dvd on 360, not graphical fidelity. Okay enuff with the dvd vs blu ray argument.

I never said you said that... When you come with excuse like the ps3 is hard to program for... Because people said Xbox games looks better... Then you are trying to say the graphics of the characters are based on scripted codes... Simple as that.

no point arguing at this point... Xbox is Better. Am not the one saying it. But it has been proven so many times...

benalvino:
I never said you said that... When you come with excuse like the ps3 is hard to program for... Because people said Xbox games looks better... Then you are trying to say the graphics of the characters are based on scripted codes... Simple as that.

no point arguing at this point... Xbox is Better. Am not the one saying it. But it has been proven so many times...

A report in the Dr. Dobb's Journal tested the development process of the PlayStation 3 and
found that Sony's console is "difficult to
program for." The report's authors went on to
explain that "software that exploits the Cell's
potential requires a development effort
significantly greater than traditional platforms." I looked for some Sony
supporters and found the best source of them all:

Kaz Hirai,
CEO of Sony
Computer

"We don't provide the 'easy
to program for' console that
(developers) want, because
'easy to program for' means
that anybody will be able to
take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is,
what do you do for the rest of
the nine-and-a-half years?" --Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment.

Source: m.cnet.com/news/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for--on-purpose/10173656.

so you were saying? Please don't say what you do not know, u're embarassing urself. I myself prefer the 360 cos i like the games better plus the graphics look cleaner, but i won't be bias when the obvious truth is facing me. Both are wonderful consoles. Deal with it.

Ps: Stop putting words in my mouth. no where did i imply that characters etc are a result of coding. Understand what people post b4 u reply. If u didn't get me right, u need to ask first.

kimco:

A report in the Dr. Dobb's Journal tested the development process of the PlayStation 3 and
found that Sony's console is "difficult to
program for." The report's authors went on to
explain that "software that exploits the Cell's
potential requires a development effort
significantly greater than traditional platforms." I looked for some Sony
supporters and found the best source of them all:

Kaz Hirai,
CEO of Sony
Computer

"We don't provide the 'easy
to program for' console that
(developers) want, because
'easy to program for' means
that anybody will be able to
take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is,
what do you do for the rest of
the nine-and-a-half years?" --Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment.

Source: m.cnet.com/news/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for--on-purpose/10173656.

so you were saying? Please don't say what you do not know, u're embarassing urself. I myself prefer the 360 cos i like the games better plus the graphics look cleaner, but i won't be bias when the obvious truth is facing me. Both are wonderful consoles. Deal with it.

Ps: Stop putting words in my mouth. no where did i imply that characters etc are a result of coding. Understand what people post b4 u reply. If u didn't get me right, u need to ask first.

Great is not about the power you put on paper as your spec... Great is about what you can ddo with your power. If the ps3 like let it be god on paper... If the greatnest of the machine cannot be seen in action then ita waste..
that you quote is another silly excuse. It has greater processor but limited because of the processor means the processor is not greater. Ps3 can't do what Xbox can.

And again complain if the games doesn't run smoothly as programming issue but don't say it affects the graphics.

benalvino:

Great is not about the power you put on paper as your spec... Great is about what you can ddo with your power. If the ps3 like let it be god on paper... If the greatnest of the machine cannot be seen in action then ita waste..
that you quote is another silly excuse. It has greater processor but limited because of the processor means the processor is not greater. Ps3 can't do what Xbox can.

And again complain if the games doesn't run smoothly as programming issue but don't say it affects the graphics.

Dude it does affect graphics. Less memory to work with will mean more pop ins etc. Isn't that graphics. games such as battlefield 3 and portal work better on the ps3. I dnt get u, why are u relunctant on accepting that the ps3 is also a gud console. John carmack of id software (google him if u dnt know him, he's a coding god) stated that both were equal, practicarly, but in raw power ps3 was better. It jux took more time to code for the ps3 than the 360, so devs dnt spend as much time, cos at the end of the day, both sell for the same price. The silly excuses u are talking about, some are from the 3rd devs and others from sony's 1st party devs and the last one from kaz hirai himself (I didn't copy all cos there is no need). If that is silly excuse, then maybe i shud stop trying . Plus if u think that gears of war has better graphics fidelity than uncharted 2 or 3 and killzone 2, then u're in denial. Gud day sir.

kimco: Dude it does affect graphics. Less memory to work with will mean more pop ins etc. Isn't that graphics. games such as battlefield 3 and portal work better on the ps3. I dnt get u, why are u relunctant on accepting that the ps3 is also a gud console. John carmack of id software (google him if u dnt know him, he's a coding god) stated that both were equal, practicarly, but in raw power ps3 was better. It jux took more time to code for the ps3 than the 360, so devs dnt spend as much time, cos at the end of the day, both sell for the same price. The silly excuses u are talking about, some are from the 3rd devs and others from sony's 1st party devs and the last one from kaz hirai himself (I didn't copy all cos there is no need). If that is silly excuse, then maybe i shud stop trying . Plus if u think that gears of war has better graphics fidelity than uncharted 2 or 3 and killzone 2, then u're in denial. Gud day sir.

that is what i am telling you... you have power and you cant use the power means you are not that powerful... again i said the ps3 is greater than xbox 360 on paper... but the ps3 cant utilize its power which means at the end the xbox 360 yield more result... I dont know how you understand stuffs...

the xbox 360 shows its power on multitasking... its faster and do stuffs the ps3 cant do... cross game chatting... music in background while playing game... better web surfing ability... I mean have you tried browsing the web with ps3? faster downloading of content and updating... runs games smoother... no one should care if it is hard to code for ps3... everything have weakness. if you produce a Lamborghini that will use only one of its 12 cylinders then the Lamborghini wont win a race... in fact it will be useless... same with the ps3.

its like saying Husein bolt is the fastest man on earth but he doesn't win race except he wares a Nike sneakers made in is house.

if only ps3 developers can use the hardware then it is not the fault of anyone and you have to give glory to the competition where it outshines the ps3.

remember it is powerful on paper... but it doesn't do simple things like multitasking...

if the ram is low... one can argue that the CPU on the xbox is low as well and the xbox doesnt have bluray... so the ram is low is useless excuse because no one forced them to put low ram... it was high numbers on paper that makes people say ps3 is more powerful only for you to come and complain that it has low ram.

everyone expect sony to make the more powerful console... and for them to release less powerful will be a shame because the xbox came out 1 year before the ps3 and yet sony just put high numbers on paper as spec but performance pales compared to the xbox.

and sorry not gears of war but crysis 3... and again you dont program the game graphics... you only process it... i could argue that the xbox will match anything ps3 or surpass it if it has bluray... no developer want to spend money making 2 disc games...

First of all about programming game graphics, where you xbox fans fail is that not all graphics rendering are gpu based, it depends on the skill of the programmer, highly skilled programmers have the ability to offload the processing work of the gpu to the cpu, the cpu at that point helps it buffer or process such graphics ahead in its dedicated ram pool! Some games are more cpu than gpu centric, if you play pc gaming you would realise this as some pcs with mid specd gpu's play some very high end games very well cuz they have a high end cpu and the game in question is more cpu centric! An example of this type of game is GTA4!! Its has more to do with cpu processing than GPU, so in this case, if the devs aren't good programmers or coders, the whole look of gta would come out bad, and also gpu only renders but coding is the underlying work,debugging a game is recoding wrong codes and this makes what the gpu render look better. And for xbox fans sayn gears of war is much more graphically intense than any ps3 game is in serious denial, you are just lying to yourself! Ps3 made a name for itself because its 1st party ip are so much better than xbox and not just better but graphically more advanced than whatever is on xbox 360. Gears of war has nothing on uncharted 3 or last of us when it comes to graphics, we haven't even talked about god of war, anybody who played the opening of the god of war game on ps3 where kratos battles those titans will have his jaw dropping and the issue of linearity or open world gameplay does affect graphics but to say because games like uncharted are looking that good is because of that is serious blindness, last of us is 27gb of data..is it milk or juice that takes up 27gb of data!!!?? Its all about graphics and the in game renditions of objects..so many high res objects takes up those space and. So xbox fans can go sleep in a bunker, ps3 ip wipes the floor with xbox 360's own, I'm sure you must have gone thru more than one rrod, u can multitask all you want, what's the point of all this if I can only get to play halo and gears of war!! Pathetic. After being launched a year and some months after the 360 and much more xpensive...ps3 sales finally has surpassed 360 that's if half of the 360 sales aren't caused by rrod..my friend went thru 3 xbox 360..lol..so yallz have several seatz..

trendytrendz: First of all about programming game graphics, where you xbox fans fail is that not all graphics rendering are gpu based, it depends on the skill of the programmer, highly skilled programmers have the ability to offload the processing work of the gpu to the cpu, the cpu at that point helps it buffer or process such graphics ahead in its dedicated ram pool! Some games are more cpu than gpu centric, if you play pc gaming you would realise this as some pcs with mid specd gpu's play some very high end games very well cuz they have a high end cpu and the game in question is more cpu centric! An example of this type of game is GTA4!! Its has more to do with cpu processing than GPU, so in this case, if the devs aren't good programmers or coders, the whole look of gta would come out bad, and also gpu only renders but coding is the underlying work,debugging a game is recoding wrong codes and this makes what the gpu render look better. And for xbox fans sayn gears of war is much more graphically intense than any ps3 game is in serious denial, you are just lying to yourself! Ps3 made a name for itself because its 1st party ip are so much better than xbox and not just better but graphically more advanced than whatever is on xbox 360. Gears of war has nothing on uncharted 3 or last of us when it comes to graphics, we haven't even talked about god of war, anybody who played the opening of the god of war game on ps3 where kratos battles those titans will have his jaw dropping and the issue of linearity or open world gameplay does affect graphics but to say because games like uncharted are looking that good is because of that is serious blindness, last of us is 27gb of data..is it milk or juice that takes up 27gb of data!!!?? Its all about graphics and the in game renditions of objects..so many high res objects takes up those space and. So xbox fans can go sleep in a bunker, ps3 ip wipes the floor with xbox 360's own, I'm sure you must have gone thru more than one rrod, u can multitask all you want, what's the point of all this if I can only get to play halo and gears of war!! Pathetic. After being launched a year and some months after the 360 and much more xpensive...ps3 sales finally has surpassed 360 that's if half of the 360 sales aren't caused by rrod..my friend went thru 3 xbox 360..lol..so yallz have several seatz..

GTA graphics looks like Shit... its not about CPU dude... its about GPU mainly for processing the visual... CPU handles threads. GTA is not more about CPU... no Game will depend more on CPU when it comes to 3d gaming... again codes doesnt determine how the game looks... Modelling the graphics have to do with details the more the details the harder for the GPU to process the details... EA and other games studios are professionals they can make great games for the ps4... but the thing is that the ps4 is bad at processing stuffs... they added GPU capability to the CPU... while the XBox just went with a more powerful standalone GPU with better anti aliasing.

I can bet my Surface pro with you that any of the best game you have on PS3 can look equally as good if not better... The xbox is known for producing better anti aliasing and better color production...

as far as i can tell you have no excuse...

trendytrendz: First of all about programming game graphics, where you xbox fans fail is that not all graphics rendering are gpu based, it depends on the skill of the programmer, highly skilled programmers have the ability to offload the processing work of the gpu to the cpu, the cpu at that point helps it buffer or process such graphics ahead in its dedicated ram pool! Some games are more cpu than gpu centric, if you play pc gaming you would realise this as some pcs with mid specd gpu's play some very high end games very well cuz they have a high end cpu and the game in question is more cpu centric! An example of this type of game is GTA4!! Its has more to do with cpu processing than GPU, so in this case, if the devs aren't good programmers or coders, the whole look of gta would come out bad, and also gpu only renders but coding is the underlying work,debugging a game is recoding wrong codes and this makes what the gpu render look better. And for xbox fans sayn gears of war is much more graphically intense than any ps3 game is in serious denial, you are just lying to yourself! Ps3 made a name for itself because its 1st party ip are so much better than xbox and not just better but graphically more advanced than whatever is on xbox 360. Gears of war has nothing on uncharted 3 or last of us when it comes to graphics, we haven't even talked about god of war, anybody who played the opening of the god of war game on ps3 where kratos battles those titans will have his jaw dropping and the issue of linearity or open world gameplay does affect graphics but to say because games like uncharted are looking that good is because of that is serious blindness, last of us is 27gb of data..is it milk or juice that takes up 27gb of data!!!?? Its all about graphics and the in game renditions of objects..so many high res objects takes up those space and. So xbox fans can go sleep in a bunker, ps3 ip wipes the floor with xbox 360's own, I'm sure you must have gone thru more than one rrod, u can multitask all you want, what's the point of all this if I can only get to play halo and gears of war!! Pathetic. After being launched a year and some months after the 360 and much more xpensive...ps3 sales finally has surpassed 360 that's if half of the 360 sales aren't caused by rrod..my friend went thru 3 xbox 360..lol..so yallz have several seatz..

uncharted's game size has nothing to do with hhigh rez graphical asserts. Most multiplats games are bigger on ps3 than 360, even the ones that looked better on 360. That shud tell u something. If ur friend was willing to go thru 3 xbox 360s then maybe it was worth it. I'll address ur post properly later.

All I want to say. Is dat all those that are saying ps3 is beta and you don't have it God is on this forum oh I have the both and to me THE. XBOX all the WAY!!! I have abandoned the ps3. I even want to sell it for 30k if your interested bb: 299798E5 cheapest price you'll get tho XBOX 360 All the way ps3 fans no dey argue abeg

I swear I remember replying to this post. oh well I guess I get to do it all over again.

benalvino:
That is what i am telling you... you have power and you cant use the power means you are not that powerful... again i said the ps3 is greater than xbox 360 on paper... but the ps3 cant utilize its power which means at the end the xbox 360 yield more result... I dont know how you understand stuffs...

It is more powerful in raw power, that's a fact, and that the issue here. In which world is easy to code for = more powerful. okay here are the facts:

1. The total hardware is more powerful

2. It is harder to code for; takes about three times the amount of time, compared to it's competition

3. No dev would spend that amount of time to do that.

The iphone 3gs was as snappy if not a little snappier than the galaxy s1, not because it was as powerful or even more. It means the os was optimised to properly use the hardware. Such is the case of the ps3.

nb: 1% more powerful is still more powerful. In real perfomance, both consoles are matched. Exclusives from both consoles show this.

benalvino: The xbox 360 shows its power on multitasking... its faster and do stuffs the ps3 cant do... cross game chatting... music in background while playing game... better web surfing ability... I mean have you tried browsing the web with ps3? faster downloading of content and updating... runs games smoother... no one should care if it is hard to code for ps3... everything have weakness. if you produce a Lamborghini that will use only one of its 12 cylinders then the Lamborghini wont win a race... in fact it will be useless... same with the ps3.

Better web surfing and downloading speed has nothing to do with the hardware. Sony's servers and softwares (os) are to blame for that.
Bolded point: You're joking right.

benalvino: Its like saying Husein bolt is the fastest man on earth but he doesn't win race except he wares a Nike sneakers made in is house.

Very bad analogy, doesn't even make sense. u're quite horrible at using analogies. try something different

benalvino: If only ps3 developers can use the hardware then it is not the fault of anyone and you have to give glory to the competition where it outshines the ps3.

They could, and they did. the competition, ms, has done very well, i give them dat.

benalvino: remember it is powerful on paper... but it doesn't do simple things like multitasking...

The 360 doesn't do true multitasking either. it just does a few more feature than the ps3 due to the ps3's inadequate achitecture (split memory) plus larger os footprint.

benalvino: if the ram is low... one can argue that the CPU on the xbox is low as well and the xbox doesnt have bluray... ram isn't low as a matter of fact,it's split. they are both 512mb (256mb for both gpu and cpu, as opposed to the single pool which allows the developer the chance to choose the appropriate memory allocation)
in Gaming, the gpu and ram are much more important than the cpu, unless the game is heavily cpu based like battlefied. so the 360 had a little edge there.

[quote author=benalvino]So the ram is low is useless excuse because no one forced them to put low ram...it was high numbers on paper that makes people say ps3 is more powerful only for you to come and complain that it has low ram.

The unified memory achitecture was new from amd, and ms bought the license to it then, sony didn't have a choice, but to use the most powerful gpu out at that time from nvidia which used an older architecture. they tried jor, give them credit. Plus even if they cud, they wouldn't be able to do so cos that would mean changing the whole setup and that cud take longer. They had spent too much money on it and nobody in their right mind would take that risk.

benalvino: Everyone expect sony to make the more powerful console... and for them to release less powerful will be a shame because the xbox came out 1 year before the ps3 and yet sony just put high numbers on paper as spec but performance pales compared to the xbox.

Pales? really, there are some games that actually run better on the ps3. Do you even know what pales means?

benalvino: And sorry not gears of war but crysis 3... and again you dont program the game graphics... you only process it... i could argue that the xbox will match anything ps3 or surpass it if it has bluray... no developer want to spend money making 2 disc games...

I'll deal with the graphics issue on your other post. now i'll deal with the blue ray issue once and for all.

Now tell me something...why would you want something that bottlenecked the other console. on the ps3 the blu ray read and write speed was soo bad that it was required to have mandatory installs inorder to play in some games(mgs4 required and install after every chapter). so now tell me how that would've made the 360 more powerful. let me list the pros and cons that the blu ray would have brought over to the 360.

PROS

1. LOW COST TO DEVS WHO REQUIRE MORE THAN A SINGLE DISK FOR THEIR GAMES

2. LOSSLESS VIDEOS AND AUDIOS WOULD BE AVAILBLE FOR THE 360 (ONLY GUD FOR THOSE WHO CARE)

3. NO DISK SWAPPING FOR GAMERS; DISK SWAPPING WAS AN ISSUE FOR THOSE WITH THE BASIC UNITS WHICH HAD LESS TO NO HDD SPACE. FOR THOSE WHO HAD ENOUGH DISK SPACE, AN OPTION TO INSTALL THE GAME ON THE HDD WAS AVAILBLE WHICH RETIFIED THIS.

4. WOULD HAVE MADE THE 360 A CHEAP BLURAY PLAYER, JUST LIKE THE PS3 (STANDALONE BLU RAY PLAYERS COST AND ARM AND LEG BACK THEN, MOST STILL DO. (BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE BENEFITED THE MAJORITY SEEING AS BLU RAY IS STILL STRUGGLING WITH DVDS, FOR MEDIA OPTIC DRIVE RACE, ONLY SONY AND THE BLU RAY ASSOCIATION WOULD HAVE BENEFITED)

CONS

1. MANDATORY INSTALLS FOR SOME GAMES.

2. WOULD HAVE MADE THE 360 VERY EXPENSIVE AND WOULD HAVE KILLED THE 360'S CHANCE OF COMPETING WITH THE PS3 IN THE MARKET PLACE. NOTE THAT THE 360 COMPETED AT PRICE POINT, COS NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD AFFORD THE PS3, SO THEY WENT WITH THE CHEAPER CONSOLE. HAD THEY BOTH BEEN THE SAME PRICE THE PS3 WOULD HAVE OUTSOLD THE 360, NO DOUBT. I THINK YOU KNOW THIS.

Considering the pros and cons, anyone with a brain can tell you that the cons outweigh the pros. And there is nothing to do with graphics here, so please dnt bring that up unless you can support it. Something you have failed to do all along.

*THOUGHT BUBBLE* WHY I'M I DEFENDING THE PS3, IT DESERVES ALL THE RIDICULE THAT IT GETS. I REMEMBER BACK IN 2006 WHEN THE IGNORANT PS3 FANBOYS RAVED THAT TEH CELL WAS SOO POWERFUL, IT WAS LIKELY IT WOULD BE MORE POWERFUL THAN MICROSOFT'S NEXT CONSOLE (XBOX ONE) CAN U IMAGINE. EVEN SO IT DOESN'T MEAN I SHUD DESCEND TO THEIR LEVEL.

stanlee303: All I want to say. Is dat all those that are saying ps3 is beta and you don't have it God is on this forum oh I have the both and to me THE. XBOX all the WAY!!! I have abandoned the ps3. I even want to sell it for 30k if your interested bb: 299798E5 cheapest price you'll get tho XBOX 360 All the way ps3 fans no dey argue abeg

I LIKE HOW YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD BUT RATHER, USED IT AS A PLATFORM TO MAKE YOUR SALE. PATHETIC.

benalvino:

GTA graphics looks like Shit... its not about CPU dude... its about GPU mainly for processing the visual... CPU handles threads. GTA is not more about CPU... no Game will depend more on CPU when it comes to 3d gaming... again codes doesnt determine how the game looks... Modelling the graphics have to do with details the more the details the harder for the GPU to process the details... EA and other games studios are professionals they can make great games for the ps3... but the thing is that the ps3 is bad at processing stuffs... they added GPU capability to the CPU... while the XBox just went with a more powerful standalone GPU with better anti aliasing.

I can bet my Surface pro with you that any of the best game you have on PS3 can look equally as good if not better... The xbox is known for producing better anti aliasing and better color production...

as far as i can tell you have no excuse...

In a way you're right. he thinks bad optimisation on rockstars part on the pc equals cpu intensive game. But there are cpu intensive games, that rely more on cpu than gpu, no doubt. those games focus less on graphics. So you're right on that. Cpu can render graphics, albeit super slow compared to gpu (refer to software rendering vs gpu rendering). Did you, however know that the ps3 was initially shipping with two cells , one for graphics and the other for cpu. But sony changed their minds due to the overall Heavy cost. Don't underrate the cell, dude.

It is true that Graphics is not programmed, however, you can program where it is to be rendered. cpu (software rendering,) gpu or cpu + gpu.

kimco: I swear I remember replying to this post. oh well I guess I get to do it all over again.
It is more powerful in raw power, that's a fact, and that the issue here. In which world is easy to code for = more powerful. okay here are the facts:

1. The total hardware is more powerful

2. It is harder to code for; takes about three times the amount of time, compared to it's competition

3. No dev would spend that amount of time to do that.

The iphone 3gs was as snappy if not a little snappier than the galaxy s1, not because it was as powerful or even more. It means the os was optimised to properly use the hardware. Such is the case of the ps3.

nb: 1% more powerful is still more powerful. In real perfomance, both consoles are matched. Exclusives from both consoles show this.

Better web surfing and downloading speed has nothing to do with the hardware. Sony's servers and softwares (os) are to blame for that.
Bolded point: You're joking right.

Very bad analogy, doesn't even make sense. u're quite horrible at using analogies. try something different

They could, and they did. the competition, ms, has done very well, i give them dat.

The 360 doesn't do true multitasking either. it just does a few more feature than the ps3 due to the ps3's inadequate achitecture (split memory) plus larger os footprint.

sometimes i wonder if you think you know too much...
like i said in the post you replied... the ps3 is greater in paper i.e specs...
it is harder to code for its one of the weakness that will hinder its power... you get my point?
dev will spend that amount of time... as a matter of fact ps3 is not running xbox code. if it takes alot of time to get it working it means they take that amount of time to get it working... so dev are spending that amount of time if not the code wont work... am studying programming and i know what am talking about...
for example:
public status void main (string[]args){
private string ps3;
}
will take longer time to code than
public status void main string args
private string ps3

the codes below is same as the one ontop of it... but it doesnt have {} [] () and ;... missing only one will make it not work.

the ps3 is only hard to optimize which means to use its hardware meaning no matter how powerful it is if the hardware cant be used it is useless...

another example is with how powerful it is the Xbox multitask and do processing better... why is that? because it has power but not built to fully used its power simple.


read my post again... your iphone and galaxy comparison still saying what am saying...

sorry in real performance the 360 out performs the ps3... you just acting like you know too much. let me show you how.

ps games so do xbox
ps browse, xbox browse better...
ps no voice chat, xbox does it with breeze
ps no multitasking, xbox not a problem
ps slower, xbox faster.

that is what performance is... till the ps3 can do what the xbox can. it means xbox out performs it. simple.
besides no one can tell if the difference in graphics is so clear that one will have to say this looks better... I dont see the point talking about graphics. but are almost alike in that aspect. but that is not what performance is bro... performance goes beyond graphics.

when you say better surfing and download have nothing to do with the hardware i wanted to stop discussing because you dont know what processing and rendering web page is... you dont know how multithreading works... let me leave you to stay with your confusion on this.

sony doesnt use server to surf the web... sorry about that... you really dont know what you are talking about... downloading update has to do with the way the processor handles multitasking aka threads.

bolt analogy is good except you cant comprehend... let me help you again.
bolt says i am the fastest runner... yet he doesnt win a race except he wears nike sneakers made by his home company... i.e sony said they have the most powerful system but they dont win multiplatform games in graphics and how it runs, except sony made the game their self. you get the point?

whether you say through multitasking or fake... ps 3 cant do both... xbox plays games and music same time... how is that not true multitasking?

sorry dude... sony GPU is not more powerful. go and check it again.
sony took their time doing the ps 3 custom processor... doing what they dont know and brag it is powerful whereas it is very limited compared to xbox processor...

it pales... you say some games not all... why it pales is because ps3 is said to be more powerful... but overall the xbox outperforms it... simple as that.

your pros and cons side doesnt need my responds..

Face the Fact Xbox has won from the definition that gentleman gave us.

Which console is better is objective..here are my reasons why ps3 is better than 360..1st as a gaming console all I care about are games games games..breath taking ip's new ones and rejuvenated old ones and on this count ps3 trumps xbox 360..even xbox 360 lovers will tell u that, uncharted series, last of us,resistance series, heavy rain, god of war,infamous series,mgs,killzone,too many exclusive games to mention,little big planet,playstation battle royale, on this count ps3 wins. 2nd point as an entertainment system I use my game as a blu ray player!! Any1 who's watched a movie at full 1080p will love this feature, the xbox 360 can't output at 1080p. The issue of mutitaskin on xbox 360..I dnt need dat multitasking aspect..while will I want to be lisnin to music instead of the in game sound in a game like god of war..listnin to one song instead of kratos exerting gut wrenching moves on his foes?? It beats me..the issue of xbox live and psn is objective too..I prefer psn..I dnt need to pay for any shii b4 I game online, or do I need cross game chat for any matter. Games are made first of all with gaming in mind and that's the same problem ms are making with the xbox one, the right balance is mixing the gaming and entertainment part so one doesn't outshine the other. 3rd point..xbox 360 pad is just a sore spot for me..too frickkn big nd unwiedly..after a few gaming sessions my fingers are alwayz sore but I love the trigger buttons tho but the ps3 pad wins it for me, the battery charge lasts longer, its more ergonomic and it has 6 axis functionality. 4th I prefer ps3 Xmb to 360s dash board..it feels more mature and the ease of use is great. The issue of browser..now who the hell uses his game to browse..that's a no no no..not important point at all sef..what shud be concidered here mostly is gaming and which is better for which, for multiplats..xbox 360 runs better but I prefer quality over quantity..I'll take ps3s exclusives over the numerous multiplats on x360

trendytrendz: Which console is better is objective..here are my reasons why ps3 is better than 360..1st as a gaming console all I care about are games games games..breath taking ip's new ones and rejuvenated old ones and on this count ps3 trumps xbox 360..even xbox 360 lovers will tell u that, uncharted series, last of us,resistance series, heavy rain, god of war,infamous series,mgs,killzone,too many exclusive games to mention,little big planet,playstation battle royale, on this count ps3 wins. 2nd point as an entertainment system I use my game as a blu ray player!! Any1 who's watched a movie at full 1080p will love this feature, the xbox 360 can't output at 1080p. The issue of mutitaskin on xbox 360..I dnt need dat multitasking aspect..while will I want to be lisnin to music instead of the in game sound in a game like god of war..listnin to one song instead of kratos exerting gut wrenching moves on his foes?? It beats me..the issue of xbox live and psn is objective too..I prefer psn..I dnt need to pay for any shii b4 I game online, or do I need cross game chat for any matter. Games are made first of all with gaming in mind and that's the same problem ms are making with the xbox one, the right balance is mixing the gaming and entertainment part so one doesn't outshine the other. 3rd point..xbox 360 pad is just a sore spot for me..too frickkn big nd unwiedly..after a few gaming sessions my fingers are alwayz sore but I love the trigger buttons tho but the ps3 pad wins it for me, the battery charge lasts longer, its more ergonomic and it has 6 axis functionality. 4th I prefer ps3 Xmb to 360s dash board..it feels more mature and the ease of use is great. The issue of browser..now who the hell uses his game to browse..that's a no no no..not important point at all sef..what shud be concidered here mostly is gaming and which is better for which, for multiplats..xbox 360 runs better but I prefer quality over quantity..I'll take ps3s exclusives over the numerous multiplats on x360

you dont even use psn... why? because you mode your ps and you mtn connection is like shit... no need to answer you on the other parts because you are clueless... you even contradict your self...