http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
Well, at least for the same games.

gamespot are pro xbox though

Considering how much more advanced the ATI chip in the 360 is to that of the NVIDIA chip inside the PS3, it shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise.

Just wait untill Killzone 2 comes out.. :nonono:

Considering how much more advanced the ATI chip in the 360 is to that of the NVIDIA chip inside the PS3, it shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise.

ummm ps3 has a better graphics chip. i dont know what ATi means, but from since graphics is in the name "graphics chip" im gonig with it being pretty important visual wise.

by the way- anyone got online for ps3, if so whats ur username and what games do you have.

ummmm maybe not

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

Just wait untill Killzone 2 comes out.. :nonono:

Yeah dude, the first one for the PS2 was amazing, game wise and graphically.

Considering that Nvidia had no idea how much power was behind the ATI inside the 360, they had no idea on how to improve on their Nvidia version.

So, all the work they've done wouldnt beat out the better gfx maker, wich is ATI and always has been.

Every new Nvidia card that comes out usually has an error, or certain issues with games and such.


But off of that,

Killzone 2 trailers that were released before were completely rendered, we all know that. But people still have faith in what it will look like.
Lets just say look at the motorstorm rendered trailers and look at the Motorstorm final gameplay.

It looks more like a launch title for 360 with worse graphics rather than anywhere near the rendered trailer they have shown.

Sony had a whole year on the 360 to improve on everything, and they end up comming out of the smoke with worse graphics than the 360 at launch.

That dosent show me anything to look forward to.

The new G8800 is better then anything that ATI is even planning for, and that is on the dx9 drivers, I am scared to see performance charts for Nvidia under dx10.
Anyways, I was always an nvidia guy, I always liked their quality of graphics over power of ATI

Those comparisons of the games on PS3 are ports straight from the 360. Hence why it's graphically inferior. Also, it's still early in the game for the PS3 and the developers are still getting used to the PS3 dev kits.

Give it time. For a while, Dreamcast games looked better than the first batch of PS2 games...but that changed later and the PS2 really took off.

Fightnight was one of the first 360 games.

And it still beats PS3's fightnight, and they had a year to plan for this and test it out.

That's one thing that you just have to think about and laugh.

Fightnight was one of the first 360 games.

And it still beats PS3's fightnight, and they had a year to plan for this and test it out.

That's one thing that you just have to think about and laugh.

Because it was ported! Ported games typically don't look that good on other systems because it was made from the ground up. Games usually take about 2 years to make. PS3 developers haven't had that much time. This is why launch titles are few and sucky.

Because it was ported! Ported games typically don't look that good on other systems because it was made from the ground up. Games usually take about 2 years to make. PS3 developers haven't had that much time. This is why launch titles are few and sucky.

Its only partially ported. The hardware is so different the only thing you can really port is the actual models and scenery which is what EA will almost always port. EA even tried to improve the graphics for the PS 3 and in some ways they did. The veins and the hair on the boxers were improved. The problem is the lighting was reduced and they got rid of motion blur which obviously means they didn’t port everything.

Also Gamespot is not pro Xbox.