Smooth Criminal
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 0
Apologies if this has been posted before. Things didn't seem to change much since their last 2, but they're using a bunch of different games to test. Have a look at the picture comparison for yourselves (hover the cursor over the console name to get the image for that console).
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html
), isn't it odd that the PS3 sucks at producing decent textures using the Half Life 2 engine? 
And no Gamespot are not saying that a game can look better if developers put more effort into it, they're saying that at best it can match the 360. So stop blaming the developers
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html
I'd just like to point out that for all the PS3 fanboy comments about the 360 only having the Unreal 3 engine (yes, you ValanteAfter going through another eight games, we've found a few trends that follow both of these consoles around. Outside of Rainbow Six Vegas 2, our findings didn't show any drastic differences in image quality between the two consoles--nothing compared to what we found when we compared first-generation games in our original comparison feature. The PlayStation 3 generally lags behind the Xbox 360 in high-quality textures and the depth/normal maps that go with them. However, in the same games, the PlayStation 3 sometimes comes ahead with better shadowing and antialiasing. Games on the PS3 do tend to be blurrier than their Xbox 360 counterparts, but the PlayStation 3 games can look just as good as the Xbox 360 games when developers put some effort into it, as is evident with both Grand Theft Auto IV and Burnout Paradise. Overall, the PlayStation 3 outputs visuals that are either on par with the Xbox 360 or only slightly behind.
And no Gamespot are not saying that a game can look better if developers put more effort into it, they're saying that at best it can match the 360. So stop blaming the developers
Last edited: