Sarah Wrote:Why is this? Because the xbox has no appealing games for anyone besides fratboys. Almost all of the acclaimed xbox exclusives are shooters.

Quote:Bayonetta is the most recent example that confirms the Xbox 360 is superior graphically to the PS3

It simply comes down the technical fact that the Xbox 360 can display up to 500,000,000 polygons per second while the PS3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. This is the reason why something with graphic detail like the clocktower is not included in the PS3 version of Bayonetta while it looks awesome in the Xbox 360 version. If the clocktower would have been included in the PS3 version, it would have caused the framerate to be very choppy, or it would have forced the developers to lower the resolution of the game, similar to the way games like Grand Theft Auto 4 and Saints Row 2 run at 720p on Xbox 360 but only 640p on the PS3.

Third-party software sees the Xbox 360 versions of software with superior graphics the overwhelming majority of the time. It has been like this from the beginning, and 2010 shows that it isn't going to stop this year. Assassins Creed 1 & 2 show the Xbox 360 version is better than the PS3 counterpart in the exact same ways. Developers have become more familiar with PS3 hardware, but they've done the same with the Xbox 360; we've seen improvements in both consoles.

And it isn't just games that are ported from Xbox 360 to PS3 that end up looking worse on the PS3. Remember, Fight Night Round 3 was originally announced as a PS3 exclusive and the PS3 was the lead development platform, even though it launched first on Xbox 360 with much better graphics on Xbox 360.

Soul Calibur 4 and Tekken 6 are other examples where the PS3 was the primary development platform, yet the Xbox 360 version ended up better. Soul Calibur 4 runs at a resolution of 1280x720p on the PS3, but it runs at a 40% higher resolution of 1365x960p on Xbox 360. Tekken 6 looks identical on both platforms, but it does load faster on Xbox 360.

The only times games look better on the PS3 are when "space" on the disc format becomes an issue. A game like Dragon Age: Origins does run at 720p on both consoles; however, the textures in the Xbox 360 version contain fewer pixels (essentially displaying the image of a lower resolution) in order to allow that huge game to fit on the disc. The developers were forced to choose between leaving textures out or lowering the detail of each texture; they made the right move to lower the detail. When you look at a screenshot, you see the Xbox 360 version is "smoother" while the PS3 version is "sharper." Sharper is always better, but when you see the game in motion you notice that the Xbox 360 has a noticably better framerate thanks to the superior GPU and extra polygon power of the Xbox 360. This same situation applies to Final Fantasy, but to a lesser extent since FF13 is on multiple discs.

"Space" is something that becomes an issue in literally less than 1% of games, though. This is a proven fact. Although Sony often claims that games take up 20GB or 35GB of space, the simple fact is that the only reason for this is because the data is not compressed in any way. A little compression would make it so those games easily fit on a dual-layered DVD. If Xbox 360 had used HD-DVD this generation, there would probably never be any instance where a PS3 game had any form of graphic advantage of any kind, since the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more advanced polygon power with its superior GPU.

Ports are a flaw with the PS3 at all times, not just when the PC is involved. We all know the PS3 has an awful reputation for low-quality ports from the PC. Games like Splinter Cell, F.E.A.R., Orange Box, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and many others all end up as wonderful ports on the Xbox 360 but very disappointing ports on the PS3 - in fact, the graphics of the PS3 versions are downright awful in some instances. This is one of the primary reasons why Metro 2033 is not being released for the PS3.

But it isn't just the PC where ports to the PS3 end up inferior to their Xbox 360 counterparts. Virtua Fighter 5 is an example of Sega porting a game from thier Lindbergh arcade hardware to both consoles. It was bad enough that the PS3 version of Virtua Fighter 5 doesn't let you play online against other people, but the graphics aren't as good as the Xbox 360 version.

Berzerk Wrote:According to this list, the PS3 actually has more shooters slated for 2011 than the Xbox. I'd also like to point out that since you don't have an Xbox, you miss out on a lot of the neat arcade titles we get which make up for the lack of AAA Action/Adventure/Platformers.

As for the graphics, I'll drop this here:

yoosergio Wrote:Does the 360 even have any interesting exclusive beside GOW 3 confirmed for 2011? ._.
Graphics? PFFT Look at God of War 3, Uncharted 2, etc. Not multi-platform games. Multi-platform games are gonna run better on 360 'cause they're made there.

Corn Wrote:XBox 360. Better games, more people play it...

The only reason I'd buy a PS3 is that the internet is free.

Wii ftw.

Berzerk Wrote:Yeah, I personally think so. XCOM looks really good, reminds me of the original Bioshock. Haunt and Rise of Nightmares also look really interesting, especially for Kinect. The Kingdoms Crytek game could also be really good.

Punch Wrote:Kingdom Hearts..

Corn Wrote:XBox 360. Better games, more people play it...

The only reason I'd buy a PS3 is that the internet is free.

Wii ftw.

Berzerk Wrote:Too bad Kingdom Hearts isn't exclusive.

yoosergio Wrote:He is talking about the main series, and the inevitable KH3 for PS3. 'cause there's no KH on Xbox.

yoosergio Wrote:Does the 360 even have any interesting exclusive beside GOW 3 confirmed for 2011? ._.

Sarah Wrote:That said, it's much more likely that it will stay on the Playstation because of that history. The only parts of the series that have been handed to Nintendo have been the inconsequential ones.