Why do multi-platform games end up better on 360? Explained

Gamersmint: PS3 cell architecture has been a tricky one, before the PS3 launched many developers were pessimistic about it. Valve had been most vocal about it, trashing the PS3 till recently. No one knew how to code properly for the Cell processor and its split memory architecture.

Sony had mentioned later that it did it on purpose to separate the good devs from the average ones, but was that the right thing to do?

[Karooo]

very nice read, learnt many new things

[FACTUAL evidence]

Devs don't want to take the time to learn the ps3 architecture, and then when they finally try to do something on the ps3 they complain they can't handle the power. So basically, they end up porting their half baked game to the ps3, and try to optimize it as much as they can(which is really nothing)so it could "work" on the ps3. We all know RAM/CPU isn't the problem either.

We all have seen games like KZ3, uncharted 2, infamous 2, GOW3. It's up to the devs to take time. Not saying only 1st party does good, but even EA/activision stepped up the game with near identical ports.

[ico92]

Its also the fact that the 360's architecture is similar to that of the PC, bottom line its up to the developers when developers really work hard they can really produce great ports, Bioshock, Cod, GTA4,RE5,and Dragon age/oblivion are perfect examples

[Immortal321]

then they got the nerve to demand equality, when most ps3 exclusive play and look way better.

[HolyOrangeCows]

Castlevania? Fallout New Vegas? (Do NOT tell me that AA is a fair trade off for those horrid textures) FF13?

Things definitely aren't as bad as they used to be.

[gamingdroid]

It's also a fact that developer resources are limited and making a somewhat developer unfriendly console isn't doing Sony any favors. Sony might have gotten away with it when they dominated the market, but the competitive landscape has significantly changed since then.

[NecrumSlavery]

Bioshock, RE5, & DA:O were overall equal or better on PS3. But look at Castlevania & Vanquish, both lead on PS3 and it helps the 360 in the end in multiplatform performance.

[Anton Chigurh]

RE5 and Bishock looks like sh!t on the PS3 (low FPS and sub hd). Vanquish looks the same on both consoles except that the Xbox360 has AA, which is not a big problem.

[darthv72]

360 lead: port to ps3 is shoddy
ps3 lead: port to 360 nearly equal

Answer should be ps3 as lead to make both versions as good and impressive as they can.

This gen is far more closer than any previous. I can almost bet it wont be that way again. We are not talking snes vs genesis here.

[Information Minister]

@ Factual - I don't think that's entirely fair towards developers. Some devs don't take the time to learn the achitecture because they simply don't have time to spare. Others lack the talent and/or the budget to do so. Working with the PS3 architecture can produce outstanding results, but you have to put more effort into it.

[NastyLeftHook1]

if i am not mistaken...

Oblivion is better on ps3.

Bioshock is

Bioshock 2 is

DEAD SPACE 2 is

vanquish is

castlevania los is

batman arkham asylum is

split second is

[candystop]

Not to sure about Vanquish but Oblivion and Bioshock did not look better on the PS3. Oblivion was even missing grass and such on PS3.

[PS360fanboy]

Intresting question by the author...SOny invested a lot in PS3's newest technology, yet they gave the console a "primitive" graphics processor compared to the Xenos.

If this wasn't the case, the PS3 would have been a state of the art beast(but probably would have sot even more than what it did at launch=/)!

[Jamegohanssj5]

Lulz what?

TGSI

[Jdoki]

First off the GPU in the PS3 is not a million miles behind the Xenos. It is less powerful, but the gap is not as massive as the article suggests.

Second, the reason Sony used such a 'primitive' GPU is that the intention was originally to use the Cell for all processing - but that didn't work out so Sony needed a GPU fast - they got a pretty stock Nvidia part.

However, without the Nvidia GPU I suspect the PS3 would have been even more difficult to code for. So Sony's 'blunder' has probably helped in the long run.

[Ju]

Vector units is what made gaming great in the past. It was new with the PS2, and shader units are nothing else than massive vector processors (evolution from fixed function set to programable cores).

With that mindset, Sony might have thought, the CELL has a extremely fast vector core and thus there is no need for an ultra fast GPU. These tasks could have offloaded to the SPUs.

The was the original idea. They missed that bit, that those vector ops moved more and more into the GPU. Theoretically, with a real fast vector core a GPU is not really necessary.

Anyhow, lately, GPU and SPUs merge more and more (which the latest multiplatform games pretty much underline). I would guess, also because the dev tools are getting better and make SPU and GPU usage more transparent. It took Sony an eternity to come up with a solution; but it was also clear, that with the HW tech available at the time, and a console the only variable which can change over time is SW.

I think we see platform parity now; I am curious if we will ever see this trend getting pushed further. Multiplatform titles reaching levels only exclusive title do so far. I think this is possible; and I also think exclusives are not reaching their peak yet. 5 more years to go.

MS took the "easy" route, had better optimized SW (tools and OS) to begin with (well, they are a SW company first and foremost; VS & DX are established high end solutions) but after all that time, there is also less headroom. I can also think that MS limits HW access on purpose - the advantage, because of that they can guarantee the games will probably run on their next platform as well (and gives them more freedom to change the HW beneath). But to harness this, they almost must release a new HW at some point, while Sony can work with the same longer doing cost optimizations only.

If Sony can improve their dev tool to basically give you an API which hides the SPU & GPU in a black box, this "next generation" is basically just a SW upgrade on the same HW. With a virtual GpGPU hiding what is done where, essentially.

[ProjectVulcan]

Nvidia were drafted in relatively late on in PS3's design to bring a GPU to the party after sony realised use of another CELL as a GPU was not going to be sufficient. Rather than build a custom solution like Ati did for microsoft, they took an existing GPU design and shoehorned it into PS3. Problem was they didnt preserve its full specs either, castrating the memory bus and ROP count assumedly to improve the yields of the chip and reduce costs.

Although it is a split pipe design, had it retained its 256bit memory bus and 16 ROPs it would be considerably faster than the final configuration PS3 uses, especially when it comes to functions like anti aliasing, RSX is rather crippled. Not only that when first announced RSX was supposed to run @ 550mhz core/shaders, but the final version inside PS3 actually only runs 500mhz on the core, another decision taken quite late to improve yields and reduce costs. The graphics memory also took a hit from an original 700mhz speed down to 650mhz, reducing the graphics memory bandwidth further.

RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance. Only developers determined to learn how to programme PS3 efficiently are capable of this.

[nycredude]

I would think if you are going to develop for and release a game on a certain platform regardless of which one, you should be "determined to learn how to program for the platform efficiently".

So you the real problem is the developers, not the machine.

I mean you guys can't really expect both machines to be exactly the same do you? Then what do we need both for?

[ProjectVulcan]

Take the comment in the context it was expressed.

''RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance. Only developers determined to learn how to programme PS3 efficiently are capable of this.''

Was the full paragraph. Meaning in order to just MATCH multiplatform game code on 360, CELL has to be exploited heavily, and ''determined developers'' could also be interchangeable for ''developers with enough time, or developers with enough money.'' Both of which are very much at a premium this generation, more so than ever before.

If only it were as simple as lazy developers, the games industry being a business it involves money and money means time. PS3 is not the dominant platform playstation 1 and 2 were, thus there is less money to be made on a playstation version, less motivation and userbase to make sure the game is perfect, cheaper, faster and easier to cater for 360 and shovel a quick and cheap port onto PS3.

The only way this would be fixed permanently is if PS3 becomes the dominant userbase for HD games this generation and draws developer focus. Until then there are likely to always be inferior ports on PS3, even though luckily the situation has improved it is likely to persist until the conditions i outlined alter dramatically.

[Ju]

" Meaning in order to just MATCH multiplatform game code on 360, CELL has to be exploited heavily,"

Well, yes, of course. If you want to maintain a high standard on the 360 you would expect a dev to harness all the HW built in the machine, either, wouldn't you?

Why is this surprising, that "to match that" one would need to use the all of the PS3, not just a part of it?

And, it is a myth that Sony planed a second CELL as a graphics chips. I highly doubt that. Yes, Sony tried to do an inhouse graphics chip. I would guess here this was more in line with a SuperGS (a super rasterizer) similar what was found in the PS2; because Sony though the SPUs will do the heavy vector ops anyhow, a high bandwidth raster engine is sufficient. This makes much more sense from a design perspective. Such a chip would have handled all ROPs and memory block transfer needed for fast pixel operations; and maybe some more SPUs for internal graphic work (similar to MIPS/VMU1+VMU2/GS in the PS2). A second CELL doesn't make sense at all.

Those plans for such a chip (no matter what it really was) were scraped because of performance issues of the chip and so Sony used a standard chip instead.

[raztad]

I'm not that much into technical details, but I dont think Sony removed the second Cell because it wasnt enough. I think it was about making the PS3 a developer friendly machine. I cant imagine the nightmare if 2 cells instead of a GPU were used.

"RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance."

Cell is the central element in the PS3 arch. I dont think the platform was crippled/rushed or an afterthought as you may be suggesting. All the contrary, The Cell BE was put in the middle of the arch in a way that if you want to get the best out of the PS3 you need to squeeze the Cell "for the extra performance". This is not a CON, it is just the way the system was built.

Lord of Shadow showed what a good multiplat devel can do on the PS3, but still GoW3 blows it away.

[ProjectVulcan]

''Why is this surprising, that "to match that" one would need to use the all of the PS3, not just a part of it?''

Only surprising if you are unaware of RSX being a crippled NV47 and slower than Xenos. Which i outlined. Which it is.

Its not a myth sony had greater plans for CELL design, it cost them 2 billion dollars to develop. CELL is after all, a scalable design, purposefully so. Being able to break down CELL into component parts was a key design goal, so enabling variable configurations for customisable applications.

''dont think the platform was crippled/rushed or an afterthought as you may be suggesting''

Im not suggesting the platform was crippled, im saying RSX WAS crippled. I dont see how there can be any argument it WASNT crippled. Nvidia took the NV47 design, and chopped half of its memory bus off and the ROPs that go along with that. The fact of the matter remains that RSX does not have enough bandwidth without sharing across CELL's memory bus to operate near peak efficiency. To compound that nvidia even upped the clocks on NV47, great if you have the memory bandwidth, questionable if you dont.

Besides all that i also pointed out that by the time 360 had been released, NV47 was already beaten on Pc by the superior radeon R520 architecture that was not only faster per clock but allowed simultaneous FP HDR with multisample anti aliasing. This was nearly an entire year before PS3 even hit stores. Even if you give back RSX a 256 bit bus and all its ROPs for AA, it cant physically do what Xenos can do, instead being reduced to compromise modes like NOA32 or the well known and universally disliked quincunx.

RSX is a DX9 class GPU, with all the limitations nvidia GPUs at the time suffered. Xenos is a custom quasi DX10 class GPU, incorporating unifed shader hardware and even programmable tesselation, which was then to be mandatory for the unreleased DX10 spec. Course predating DX10 it isnt actually full DX10 hardware, but its at least a half generation ahead of RSX even though 360 is a year older. Such was Ati's design lead at the time (2005) It shares elements that were later incorporated in future Ati designs.

It certainly didnt help at all that when ati came out and showed their unified architecture in 360, nvidia dismissed that wasnt really the future and not necessarily the best path. Ati said otherwise. Shame that for DX10 spec it was mandatory and by the time PS3 got out the door, nvidia had the first PC consumer GPU with a unified design! They fobbed sony off with RSX, is how i see it. Ps3 should have a DX10 class GPU based on the Geforce 8 series in it. Instead despite being out a year later, it has an older GPU design than 360. Think about that.

[Computersaysno]

Is mind boggling nvidia 8800 was out before PS3. Meant there was plenty of time to make such a chip for PS3. I know Ps3 was delayed becos of bluray diodes, but still to launch a year after xbox 360 with a lesser graphics unit is weird and shouldnt have happened. Gotta blame someone for that.

[raztad]

I'm not saying RSX is as capable of Xenos but it is clear to me two things:

1) You dont redesign a console only because a new chip is out. There is a lot R&D involved and you are making it to look like it the decision of going with the RSX was made overnight.

2) It is clear the GPU is there to help The Cell and no the other way around. Quincux is a cheap tech available to devels early on the PS3 life cycle. MLAA is a fairly superior solution possible due to the raw calculation power of the Cell BE.

[nickjkl]

what most gamers dont realize is that game developers dont really have coders

their mostly texture artists animation artists 3d artists and then theirs the scripts basic scripts in most cases that even i can do such as

triggering when something happens
to interact with objects etc

but the coding of gpu and cpu is not as high as a priority to video game developers until recently

[ProjectVulcan]

A GPU like RSX is a fairly drop in component. Im not saying they just knocked it out and bunged it in quick, im saying that it was chosen because it was an existing complete design and easy option when the initial plan failed. Sony did not have much say in the design of the chip, because its not a custom design intended only for PS3, unlike Xenos and 360.

As for the theory that RSX is there to assist the CPU, thats a bit of an ass backward way to design a games machine. The GPU is the key component in rasterization, the KEY chip. CELL is an unusual central processor alright, but its still absolutely no match for a proper GPU when it comes to basic graphics tasks- lacking even a basic dot production instruction. Specialised hardware acceleration beats software rendering/emulation hands down. Every. Single. Time.

The whole anti aliasing deely is the main weakness of the machine i would say. Because RSX does not have enough bandwidth, because it has only 8 ROPs, because this generation games have emphasised high end features like FP HDR, its ability to anti alias said games are severly restricted due almost entirely to RSX's NV47 heritage. MLAA is not a feature you can just enable and get predictable results for performance and image quality(its a software solution after all), whereas FP10 HDR + MSAA on Xenos, is.

[iPad]

Square Enix said porting games to the 360 is a lot easier because it has less processing power.

[Active Reload]

That doesn't make any sense.

[emitsomla]

seperate the good devs from the bad one, devs are lazy, devs don't know the architecture... this is all BS!!! Simple fact that both consoles have advantanges over the other, and the devs try to use those advantages when it comes to multiplat games. It just so happens that the 360's Graphix card is more powerful than the ps3, so therefor multiplat games tend to look better on the 360. I put it to you this way, if uncharted, or killzone was on the 360, it would look better on the 360. And sony fanboys please don't say, killzone or uncharted, cant be done on the 360, because that is TOTAL BS! it just so happens that those devs are very good at what they do in terms of graphics and animations.

[MisterAV]

ps3 exclusive can do that because of the CELL.
the 360 has the cell? no
has a normal cpu and a good gpu. But even the 360 gpu has some serious cap like that 10mb memory that need many games to go subHD to have good AA. And just saying cell can do MLAA, and it's better....

[emitsomla]

The 360 has multiple main dualcores that devs can do wonders with just as devs utilize the cell. After 5 years it's about time fanboys get off the ps3's cell's nutsacq

[Ju]

Makes me wonder if the 360 doesn't have any developers with talent since we haven't seen anything like UC2 or KZ3 on that platform, yet. Either that, or it can't be done. Pick one.

[SaberEdge]

Please show me a developer of the caliber of Naughty Dog or Guerrilla under Microsoft's umbrella. They don't exist. Lionhead isn't going to do it. Rare isn't going to do it.

I don't know what the truth is about the relative power of each console, but I do know that the lack of technically knowledgeable exclusive 360 developers is a big part of the problem.

[nickjkl]

emit obviously doesnt know the difference between a

cell processor
1 ppe multithreaded giving instructions to 8 spus running at 3.2ghz each

and

xenon
3 cores 3.2 ghz multithreaded

the xenon is basically 3 ppe in the ps3 without the spu where it gets its power from

[raztad]

@Saber

I knew you guys would prefer to blame MS devels :). Dont forget Turn 10.

It is kinda funny that being the xbox 360 the easier, older and with the most capable GPU developers are struggling that much to keep pace with PS3's best.

I'm curios to see what the famed Crytek can accomplish on xbox. They said consoles are maxed out, but I dont think Crysis 2 will look better than KZ3.

[emitsomla]

Have seen Gears 3's campaign right... Gears 3 definately looks better than uncharted 2, so your point of the 360 not being able to produce UC2 graphics has now become rediculous... You guys really need to stop being weird because you are begining to sound like some sick cult.

[zeddy]

i knew it! those lazy ass devs! but in all seriousness you cant make the ps3 lead platform because the 360 can only handle 7gigs they would have to knock off a lot of content from the ps3 version. tis why i love ps3 exclusives.

[harrysmith]

They don't because its just internet lies to make the PS3 look bad.

[Darrius Cole]

I had forgotten how much better looking PS3 exclusives were. I thought I knew but I had truly forgotten.

For the past two or three months I have been playing Final Fantasy XIII. It is pretty,..very pretty. It has wonderful graphics and great art direction.

A kid (actually he is 18 but that doesn't matter, an 18 year-old is still a kid) who goes to my church saw me play GOW3 back in March and I let him start his own game. This Sunday after church I let him come to my house to continue his game. I turned it on for him went into the back room. I came back up front to find him at the scene with Aphrodite. I WAS GOB-SMACKED.

After two-plus months of playing Final Fantasy XIII, I had become unaware at just how much better looking PS3 exclusives are. GOW3 is miles better looking than even a PS3-first multi-plat like FFXIII. Remember Square-Enix had to gimp the 360 version of FF13 in order to keep the same experience. But even with that FFXIII(PS3) doesn't approach the graphical quality of GOW3, and I know that is saying a lot.

Why don't multi-plat games end up better on 360? Because the 360 is closer to the lowest common denominator, pure and simple.

[gameseveryday]

This was the case two years ago, I dont think its happening now.

[cyborg]

newer titles like Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock 2 and Bayonetta, all performed much better in the Xbox 360. Most recent case was Mafia II. cough...grass...cough

[Nitrowolf2]

@Ivan

although it sounds like he/she is trying to do some sort of damage he/she isn't wrong. But the thing is like this article explains, most if not all are ports. What about games where PS3 is lead? I am not sure but wasn't Lord of Shadow leading on PS3 then ported to 360? And notice there the difference isn't much as you would see with 360 port to PS3. Even with MoH, although the game had terrible screen tearing and lots of issue on both games they nearly look identicle. EA i believe stated that their lead console will be PS3 for now on to avoid these kind of mistakes, but the reason i don't think many other devs do it, is time. Developing for the 360 is a lot faster then developing for the PS3. Which is probably due to that year they had with the 360 alone and gotten use to it more, understanding how to make games.

And personally about Sony saying they did it on purpose, who knows if it was the right Move. They manage to buy Media Molecule, developer strong relationship with third party Insomiac, Got 21 studios working for them exclusively. Manage to get new IP like Demon Souls, Uncharted, Resistance, Infamous, ect.
I think it was a great move, even though many third party games are inferior it's exclusive games is were it shows the different.

To me that sounds like they made the right choice.

i mean the way i see, third party devs that make use of the PS3 Power tend to continue to work on the it even when they are making Multiplat games. They seem to put more effort into trying to make games look identicle rather then porting and doing minor tweaks.

[Cold 2000]

Enslaved and Dead Risisng 2 too!

below: well the 360 versions were pretty good. Not too sure about the crappy PS3 ports though.

[Silly gameAr]

Wow Cold 2000. That's so awesome!

Well, I'd better buy the 360 versions for something I would need a microscope to see. That's what matters right?

[raztad]

While it is true the PS3 port was the worst offender, Mafia 2 was a disaster on consoles. The game performs horridly, with framerates dropping sub 20.

Read Dead Redemption was not bad on PS3, slightly sub-hd, with some less detail. It actually was a decent improvement over GTA4.

I wonder which was the worst offender, RDR on PS3 or FFXIII on xbox?

[nycredude]

Seriously though do you guys see a difference when you play these games? Does it take away from your enjoyment of those games? If you have only one console, would those differences be enough for you to go buy another just to play the "superior" version? Would we even notice the difference if it wasn't for fps loggers and these site running side by side test?

In almost every case of these difference, it only feeds the fanboys in the industry. I mean just a couple of short years ago we weren't getting graphics like these days and now we complain when two versions of one game is not identical on two completely different platforms? Do you guys know how hard it is to make two different version of a game identical on the Ps3 and 360, with different architecture.

Let's face it if these little differences were so important PC would be the preferred gaming platform (BY FAR), not consoles.

[jack_burt0n]

@cyborg

Castlevania, vanquish, TFU2, UNS2, MOH all much better on ps3.

bioshock 2 was better on ps3 it actually had vsync.

[SaberEdge]

JackBurton, you're silly. Castlevania and Vanquish are not "much better" on the PS3. Castlevania has a slightly higher framerate on PS3 and Vanquish has no screen tearing on PS3 whereas the 360 version has a little screen tearing. In neither case is it a huge difference.

On the other hand The Force Unleashed was actually a little better on the 360. I played both demos and the PS3 version had more screen tearing. Bioshock 2 was also better on the 360. Go read the comparisons.

I haven't played both versions of MOH so I have no opinion on that.

[Ju]

Fact is, things change from "mp will always be worse on the PS3" to "bu..bu..they are only slightly better". Quite an inverted trend IMO. This is apparent with current games only (like, games releasing now - not 2 month ago). I think this will further improve on future PS3 titles; and the fact is, those titles look better on the 360 as well.

I would think the PS3 helped improving those titles there, too. Simple, if you have to write effective code on one (a must for PS3) that very efficient code will also run better on the 360. So, yes, taking the PS3 as a lead improves the quality on the 360 as well.

[HeavenlySnipes]

as a gamer I HONESTLY do not notice all the miniscule jaggies that appear o a characters left shoulder or the sudden framedrop from 60 to 50 fps. How many of you can notice the difference in graphics from a gameplay video rather than screenshots? If no one labeled the different versions would you easily be able to tell the difference? I wonder why people think that the SAME DAMN GAME on a different platform IS SOMEHOW BETTER than ITSELF on another platform.

/rant

[Jdoki]

As an owner of a 360 and PS3 I bought RDR on PS3 cus I prefer the DS3 controller, and my buddies were buying it on their PS3's.

The game was absolutely unplayable because of the abundance of missing grass and the lower resolution!! /s

Fact is, except for a few cases the differences between PS3 and 360 multi-plats is not as huge as fanboys make out.

For the two reasons above (plus a few others), I buy most multi-plats on PS3 unless there is such a difference that the actual game play is impacted.

[HDgamer]

Suffer some times but nearly on most games it's nowhere near the fanboys sites make it out to be. Like Call of duty games, bad company 1 and 2, Unreal tournament 3, Batman arkham asylum, RE5, Burnout paradise, too many games.

[Moonboots]

Exactly. Differences you would never notice unless you play them side by side. Sure these comparisons have some merit to dual console owners but in general most of the time the differences are minor and the single PS3 or 360 owner shouldn't feel like they are getting some broken game.

[yippiechicken]

I think that's the point though. These comparison articles aren't meant for the single console owner. I own both HD consoles (and the Wii) and I do check out the comparison articles. If I have a choice between both versions, why wouldn't I want to pick the best version, even if the difference is very minor?

I don't have any strange obsession with one console over another, I just want the most bang for my buck.

[SaberEdge]

yippiechicken, you said it perfectly. I don't have any loyalty to one console, so why wouldn't I want to get the best version I can for the consoles I own? If the PS3 version is better, like Castlevania, then I get that one. If the 360 version is better, like Red Dead Redemption, then that is the one I get.

I also think single-console owners try to minimize the differences to make themselves feel better, but the differences are actually very noticeable many times.

[KEEPNITREAL]

HELL YESSSSS !!!! SaberEdge that's exactly what I tell any fanboy that I meet or talk to. Get the best version for your console. I feel sorry for you single console owners because you don't enjoy the best of all consoles have to offer. If you can't afford it it's acceptable , but if you can , I feel bad for you guys. real gamer 4 life !

[Infernostew]

Who cares? I've been gaming long enough that I don't care if there are a couple noticeable jaggies, pop in or even the dreaded frame skip. This was commonplace within the last decade of gaming but while I do agree it's unacceptable with the technology we have, it's not a game killer for me.

[HeavenlySnipes]

someone that isn't a blind fanboy. I bet none of you would spot the difference between multiplat games if you were to watch 2 non labeled gameplay videos.

[duplissi]

you probably should add most to that, cause some are downright horrible... ff13, mafia, orange box, etc.

[SaberEdge]

Actually, things like screen tearing are much, much more common this generation. I am looking over my collection of PS2 and Xbox games and I don't think any of them had screen tearing issues.

That is the problem, I hate screen tearing with a passion. So if one version has it and the other doesn't I will go for the one that doesn't have it without a second thought.

[Sackdude]

Thats why Batman AA, GTA4, FF13 looked better on the PS3.

[cyborg]

the article cleary mentions that FF13 looked better on the ps3 and reasons for it to do so. Please, atleast read something before going all gung-ho about it.

[Pandamobile]

Batman and FF13, yes, but GTA IV looked worse on the PS3. Not to mention it ran at a lower resolution.

[ImpliedDeception]

Same as Red Dead... 720p on the 360 vs 640p on the PS3.

Hopefully Rockstar does some work on their engine to improve the performance for the PS3 in the future, as I'm not so fond of my X-Box fanboy buddy lording it over me...

[MysticStrummer]

That's funny, because when I was playing GTA4 on my PS3, a (at the time) 360 owning friend came over and was irritated at how much better it looked on my system. Being very passionate about gaming, he was actually angry about it. He no longer owns a 360. Somehow, the supposed superiority of XBL escaped him also. *shrug*

[CobraKai]

I do think that Red Dead Redemption looks better on 360 but I really felt that, despite the lower resolution, GTA4 looked better on PS3. The 360 had that dithering that was bugging the hell outta me.

[Achemki]

...and Tomb Raider Underworld was sub-HD on the 360. Bionic Commando, Just Cause 2 and RE5 had screen tearing on the 360...but you never hear about those. Why?

Darksiders was patched on the 360 for its exclusive screen tearing, and BioShock was patched on the PS3 for textures, but I still see 360 doods here talking about PS3 BioShock pre-patch. Umm...why?

[Nate-Dog]

There are good examples on both sides I think. But a lot of devs have said development time is quicker and easier on the X360.

I don't really care myself. The problem I have is when we're told that people on every console are getting the same game and inevitably it turns out not to be the case. Be it graphics, glitches and bugs, or less content on one version in comparison to the other, we should be compensated for it or not be told they are the same game and have to pay full price for it.

[Joostin]

I think it was right of them to weed out the good devs from the average ones. Look at the 1st party acquisitions Sony has made in the last 2 console generations. They use their hardware to snag the best dev teams they can. Thus creating incomparable 1st party exclusives for them.

[bustamove]

Developers need to make the PS3 the lead platform so both games are the same. This has been done with plenty of titles already.

But I don't understand why it's so important to play count the pixels while you're playing.

Btw, I want to add that this was a good read as well. Some interesting points especially.

[crzyjackbauer]

pixels do count if you play in HD
its clear when you compare 640p vs 720p

[socomnick]

Yea but they end up gimping both versions this way.

[MMFGaming]

Oh dear this won't end well.

[xg-ei8ht]

Actually RSX is not primitive, nor is xenos, they are quite close performance wise.

At the start when PS3 came out.

360 games used 2cores,xenos,edram. Newer games use 3.

PS3 games used 1core,no-spu's,QAA. Newer 3rd party games use some SPU's.

If the PS3 had 2cores there would have been no problem.

[DJMarty]

I see where your trying to go, but your way off.

PS3 has 1PPU & 7 SPU's thats 8 cores. Games devs have 1PPU & 6 SPU useable, the 7th SPU is for security & OS functions.

And before you come back at me and say SPU's arn't cores, they are.

Reasons they are cores are that they can run indepentant or along side the PPU, the SPU's have ther own Kernal, own ram, memory controller etc.

http://www.kernel.org/pub/l...

[thebudgetgamer]

but still even the worse example i can think of. (the orange box) was totaly playable on my ps3. as a matter of fact i traded the ps3 version then bought the 360 version and the constant loading was still there.

i think when you make a game specifically for the 360 then put it on the ps3 you get minor grphical hicups, but when you build a game specifically for the ps3 then put it on the 360 (ff13) there are more problems than the other way.

[Trroy]

This article has the basic facts correct.

The RSX, by itself, can't really handle all the work the Xenos (the 360 GPU) is expected to do, from a straight 360 port. Its not too far off, but its enough to make for a noticable hit -- hence early PS3 ports, from the 360, missing features, or having lower framerates. With the help of the SPUs, it can, however, do far more than the Xenos alone can do.

It took development houses a while to get that work offloading right. Now that they have, crossplats which are better on the 360 are becoming increasingly rare, while the PS3 still maintains a definite exclusive quality advantage.

The Cell is so flexible, it'd be a shame to see the concept fall by the wayside, come next-gen. Cell designs will always be superior, on a transitor-to-transitor, and hence die size, basis, to their stock counterparts. Dev complaints go a long way toward changing things to be easier, however. Even at the price of power and coolness, developers prefer "get it done fast and cheap". The world turns on money, not on operations per clock cycle.

The irony is that, now that developers understand the concept of the Cell... they'd probably be fine with a similar design, come next-gen. They might even prefer it.

[hesido]

I also believe that Sony got shafted by Nvidia. When they were commenting on Xenos and unified architechture in general, they were talking about how unified architecture was not proven, and may even cause sub-optimal performances, and were reluctant to use unified architecture on their direct X 10 cards. Of course they'd say that, as that was the design they were pitching to Sony. However, same year PS3 launched, they introduced the 8xxx line, which had major changes from their previous architectures, including unified architecture. You can't do major design changes in under a year. It should have been in the works for years..

[DeathMetal]

The realized too late that a second CELL was not going to work so they had to get a GPU fast. If they had gone with a traditional design in the first place they could have had nvidia build them a somewhat custom GPU like the 360, and it would have worked out even better than the current PS3

[ReBurn]

I don't know that it's worth arguing over which system multiplats run best on. Where the rubber hits the road is with exclusives, and both PS3 and 360 have have some really impressive exclusive games.

[GoldPS3]

I buy some multi-plats use becuz many of them aren't worth $60.

[mayberry]

bio-shock, fallout 3, dead space for me. transformers, street fighter, burnout paradise, split/second and the like for my kid.
But I have just about every sony 1st party out there!
Funny thing is, in my "friends" on psn I've noticed that the vast majority i've met "online" have mostly multi-plats! I've read that stat before too! sony doesnt advertise their 1st party games enough! ( I think). I've looked at 20+ psn users games, and very few 1st party's. WTH! Sales kindve point to that also.

[gamingisnotacrime]

Just play the games on the console you have.

[xg-ei8ht]

Orangebox uses 1 core. No spu's and is a direct port and not even done by valve. It was handled by E.A.

Vertex wise xenos is faster.

Pixel wise RSX is.

[Moonboots]

And it was early in the PS3's life. I think we can put to rest that kind of performance from EA. They seem to be doing just fine now on PS3 ports/releases.

[mayberry]

bio-shock, fallout 3, dead space for me. transformers, street fighter, burnout paradise, split/second and the like for my kid.
But I have just about every sony 1st party out there!
Funny thing is, in my "friends" on psn I've noticed that the vast majority i've met "online" have mostly multi-plats! I've read that stat before too! sony doesnt advertise their 1st party games enough! ( I think). I've looked at 20+ psn users games, and very few 1st party's. WTH! Sales kindve point to that also.
<on topic> seems to me the article is stating that esp. earlier ports, the dev's are just using the rsx and very little if any of the cell's spu's. Thats like being given the material and tools to make a mansion, and all you make is a beach house! what a waste.

[stonecold3]

the developers want both both version equal nor they going to spend time with the ps3 which is a shame and we all know 360 is holding ps3 back big time ff13 for example games like uncharted 2 god of war 3 heavy rain uncharted1 killzone 2 , cant be done 360 even ea stated they already maxed the 360 hardware like a year ago in the end i think sony will tap the ps3 later in years to come

[Fishy Fingers]

Lazy developers, isnt that the outcome of arm chair developers?

[divideby0]

its really simple..

developers just dont want to put the needed resources in to have a stellar final product.. they dont see a big enough ROI in supporting the PS3.

this is changing as time goes on, but we still see some games just not as good on the PS3.. a lot is nitpicking starting at stills others (Bay) is quite diff.

all real gamers see the games the PS3 is capable of putting out by competent developers

[theonlylolking]

PS3 gamers will say its obvious they sell better because of these reasons:

reason #1 they dont have enough games to play other than multiplat

reason #2 they are younger so they dont have to pay for a house, college, etc...

360 gamers will say because more people have a 360 duh

Now to the why they are better. The 360 is more like a PC.

[niceguywii60]

360 has better over all hardware?

[Dark-Cloud]

they are the same !!!!! it's just the light ( bright ) !!!!!!!!!!! ps3 is darker !!!!! look at red dead or any other game , i played assassin creed 2 in both console and they are the same too !! so all people stop !!!
this is really annoying !! everyone say stupid things !!! it's just the bright ! look at cod 4 ! u can edit the bright to look just like ps3 version !!! xbox360 had darker version then the ps3 in cod 4 but u can edit it in the option !!!!

[Paracelsus]

Not even last gen developers cared about polishing PS2 version of multiplatforms games, now that the market has shifted towards the West why would they waste time on fixing the PS3 version of their titles? It's not like the mainstream will notice anyway, except for cases like Bayonetta which is like a whole another experience (a bad one if you have seen the xbox version in video or tried it) on PS3.

It's you who have to follow developers providing them easy-to-handle hardware, not the other way around.

[Falaut]

...to finish reading that article with all the misinformation, or better yet, lack thereof. Its articles like these that continue to misinform people, and then said people, because they READ IT, think that they know shit.

1. Blu-Ray has nothing to do in this discussion. Media capacity, currently, does nothing to improve or remove anything from games. This is solely media storage and for today's textures it is not required. You will get the same quality on both PS3 360. The only time this can even be debated is in the QUANTITY of different textures, where technically you can have more different textures because you have more SPACE. Today's game engines have systems in them that actually alter/combine textures to make them seem new, while its still the "old" ones. The only 2 things that benefit due to storage in this gen is AUDIO and VIDEO (uncompressed).

2. The article does not even touch on APIs and the fact that most game engines are designed to run on a power PC architecture while using the Direct3D API by a little company called M$. DirectX 9.0c vs PSGL anyone?

3. Does not explain architecture at all. Although this can be quite complex, it needs to done when writing an article like that.

This article scratches at a couple of truths without even knowing it, but that is to be expected, seeing its caliber.

There is no such thing as a LAZY DEV, or a DEV that doesn't know what its doing. Step away from this concept people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

[divideby0]

"There is no such thing as a LAZY DEV, or a DEV that doesn't know what its doing. Step away from this concept people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

how can you say this with a straight face....seriously....

it has nothing to do with the hardware, (or we would never games like UC or GT), its all on the developers...

Slant6 comes to mind (and if you recall they did Socom on the PS3 to be fair)

go play UC2 and say why cant MP games look and play as good as this...
this developer just spent the time needed to understand the hardware and knocks out great games...

[Falaut]

I can say it with a straight face because I actually know something about programming code and computer architecture unlike the majority of people on N4G, or at least that is the feeling I get.

So lets take Uncharted2, hell lets take the first one. You know why this game looks so good, better than most muliplats (and yes we're still using Uncharted as an example)? Its because the code is written in a variation of PSGL, hence, MADE FOR PS3. If you took this code it would not WORK on a 360. This doesn't work the other way around, because the PS3 does have 1 power PC core, so code written for a PC, oops sorry...360 ;), you can actually get to WORK on a PS3, although not very well. So as a dev, you either 1. debug and optimize the shit out of it 2. make a completely different engine that LOOKS the same as the 360 counterpart.

Do you understand? you've written some clever comments in the past, so I hope you do.

Cheers.

[IHateYouFanboys]

another reason why Uncharted looks so good is because of the type of game it is.

its a linear corridor crawler in the vein of crash bandicoot. while the vistas are big, the actual explorable area is tiny. anything that isnt in the actual playable part takes absolutely no processing power as its just running through the motions. this leaves more processing power available for the actual playable area, and since its so small it can be made to look better.

there is no 360 exclusive that is the same type of game as Uncharted 2, hence why none of them are able to dedicate that much power of the 360 to graphics processing alone. same with God of War 3. theyre both highly scripted, story driven, set-piece driven linear action/platforming games. how many of the 360 exclusives are like that? none that i can think of. not even gears of war is as linear despite being an action/adventure game, as it often features wide open explorable levels with multiple paths.

(having played all the big titles on 360 and PS3 though, i think there are many games that are technically and artistically much more impressive than Uncharted 2, but im just using it because you all think its the bees knees).

you also need to take into account that some developers are just better than others. just because Naughty Dog make a great looking game on the PS3 it doesnt mean the PS3 is better than the 360 - it more likely means that Naughty Dog are just great developers. if they made a 360 exclusive you can bet your arse it would be just as good looking, if not better given the superior GPU, on the 360. remember, both consoles have 512mb of RAM, a 6 hardware threads in their CPU running at 3.2GHz, and a comparable GPU. the PS3 isnt some sort of magical piece of hardware. any 'exceptional' games we get on either console is just down to the developers being more skilled.

[metsgaming]

lazy devs, they tend to cater to the platform which most people have, so they start on that console and just port to the other.

[awi5951]

Why should i have to relearn everything just for sony.Microsoft made the dev kits very dev friendly so its almost like dev on pc. And now i got to learn some odd new thing thats going to cost me way more money that i may not get back. So sony can only blame themselves. Most games arent halo they dont sale blockbuster even if there good and get great reviews. Sorry sony development is too costly now and people are choosy where to spend their 60 dollars since the price of games has gone up.

You cant take risks in this industry anymore 1 bad game can kill your company. Developers work for free really untill the game ships and then they hope to make there money back on the game . If the game fails your company can very easily be gone. So I cant blame the devs. There not lazy they just dont wont to stick there necks out too far for sony only to get it cut off.

[djfullshred]

Simple answer on "Why should I have to relearn everything just for Sony?"

It depends on how excited you are to learn new things, and how much you are getting paid to do it. The devs currently making great exclusives for this platform would probably answer this way.

[Trroy]

You don't have to relearn everything for "Sony".

You have to learn how to program Cell-type CPUs because they are the future.

Only so many cores can share a cache without thrashing so badly, or wasting so much money on shared cache resources, that the standard paradigm ceases to be effective. Past about 12 cores, a Cell-type CPU has titanic benefits over standard designs, and since the tech industry is ever moving forward...

You're going to have to learn how to author code on system lacking an automated cache mechanism for most cores *someday*, no matter what system. You can't live in the dark ages forever.

[Falaut]

thanks, that was nice. You might not know what I'm talking about but thanks.

Cheers

[DeathMetal]

Sony first party devs to other devs, they make a game for one platform other devs make games for 3 or more platforms at once. So Sony devs have more time most likely, and are obviously very talented.

"It depends on how excited you are to learn new things, and how much you are getting paid to do it" No, it depends on how much money can we make with the least amount of time invested so we can move to the next game quick so we can make more money.

[awi5951]

You are so right the ps2 held back the xbox big time. And the graphics diffrence between xbox and ps2 was far larger than 360 and ps3. Now that the shoe is on the other foot people want to complain about it.

[carreirabr]

Are you kidding right? Besides better textures (more memory), the original Xbox was a crap celeron running a sub Nvidia graphic card.

The PS2 was a massive polygon crunching machine, EDRAM graphics, highspeed Rambus memory, a huge bus, vector processing and DVD.

Take a look at the later games, like Shadow of colossus or God of war I/II. There were huge improvements on the titles from launch to 2007.

That just didn't happened to the xbox titles, they look just the same from the launching titles to last ones. And whys that?

[ReBurn]

Why's that? Because you like Sony better than Microsoft? You know as well as anyone that the Xbox was built on a Pentium III core.

You can't really directly compare the architecture of the PS2 and Xbox and say that one is fundamentally better than the other. They are different enough that direct comparisons aren't really feasible. You have to look at the games.

And you conveniently left out any mention of some of the most graphically impressive games of last generation. I'm not going to play listwars with anyone, but from 2001 through 2005 Xbox visuals steadily improved. DOA3 and JSRF in the beginning through Jade Empire and Halo 2 at the end.

[hoops]

There was no game on the PS2 that match graphics visually to Ninja Gaiden, Chronicals of Riddick, Splinter Cell Chaos and Half Life 2.
The PS2 had half the memory, no dedicated GPU and a processor that had no programable shader support. The Xbox1 using a hybrid Geforce 3 GOU had all of this and made the difference.

[ocnkng]

Agree with you and the others. These comparison arguments are really getting old. Gamers are buying millions of 3rd party games on the PS3 and logging countless hours on them. All these miniscule differences are not relevant. What matters is I have a larger collection of games to play on my PS3

[blackburn5]

All these technical graphical things that everyone talks about, I really don't see them. I must be to busy enjoying the game. It's strange how gamers can ruin everyone's fun with this kind of babble that no one except some fanboy would care about. We always have to listen to this nonsense about 'the dirt is browner on the PC version or 'the grass is greener' on the Xbox version or the 'sky is greenish blue instead of bluish green on the PS3. I understand if the game stutters and chugs and glitches along then you can get upset but not to the point that you can't even see how beautiful and detailed the game world is because your to busy looking to see if a shovel handle is browner or a car wheel is blacker or one lady's dress is pinker then the competition's

[Optical_Matrix]

Usually because they're ports. Then you look at FFXIII, Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 etc. PS3 was lead platform and the Xbox ports were sub HD. But still close..(ok maybe not with FFXIII..the difference was huge) but point is its better to develop on PS3 first then port to 360. More equal

[djfullshred]

I think if you are interested in PS3, you have to know why you are buying this device. It isn't the best choice if you only want to play MW2 online or an open world Rockstar game like GTA4 & Red Dead Redemption. It is the perfect choice if you like the niche games that have been crafted for the specific hardware, also want Blu Ray to go along with your HDTV, want to take advantage of new features like 3D, and like using the free PSN network. If you are looking for only the biggest multiplat blockbuster titles to play, maybe this is not your gadget.

[AutoCad]

MULTIPLATFORM GAMES ON 360
PS3 EXCLUSIVES ON PS3.

Thats just how i do things.

[kagon01]

Because, PC its constantly upgradable while consoles are way to inferior to handle true power, and can't do enough damage to Captain Planet with their puny power compared to PC.

Why do first party games end up better on PS3? Explained

Because developers work.

Why Kinect is superior to any console's motion sensing device? Explained

Because MS and the media says so, without proof of claim.

[djfullshred]

As a long time PC geek, there is no question the never ending parade of new hardware makes consoles seem like stale technology. But there is significant cost involved in always having a cutting edge system. That expense, plus not always great standardization between PC products keeps the console game business going strong.

[btk]

Should have had a PS3 with the XB360 GPU and BluRay. That should keep everyone happy. I think Ken messed up on some key issues. The PS3 GPU and the SixAxis instead of Move.

[Urahara]

It sucks on Ps3 cause most game makers are lazy and don't want to put any real work into making something right.

[niceguyWii3]

Well all I have to say is if I cant see it with my eyes then it doesn't bug me so if at 20x zoom it looks better on 360 so be it, I cant see it and nor can you.

[blakstarz]

this was a well thought out article and makes a good deal of sense. As I always said before, power has nothing to do with the PS3, it all comes down to the developers and wanting to put the extra effort in, but of course time-lines and money are factors I'm sure, but the gap I think is slowly closing.

[jaosobno]

"Combined with the fact that, most developers cannot code for the SPU’s properly"

If you can't code properly, GTFO of gaming business. What are we talking about here, programming in elementary school? Gaming is serious business, those lacking the intelligence to learn new things should pack up and go home.

[Cyb3r]

FF13 didnt look better on the 360 neither does Vanquish

[ForROME]

Its not that simple, its a 2 pronged approach,

1 Devs simply dont want to invest the time
2 I blame SONY as Jack Trentton said, the hardware group did not communicate with software and just dumped the hardware in their lap and said here ya go

[hoops]

The funny part is what you are saying is true as to what happened in your quick post.
This was common knowledge that Sony when developing the PS3 did not consult developers on what they would have like to see inside the PS3. They just built the hardware and figured all developers that were not under Sony's wing would learn it fully and spend the extra time and money to fully exploit the new hardware. They were sadly mistaken. Sony also did this with the PS2, but because the PS2 was always the lead platform, this was not such a major issue as seen this generation.
MS even with their inflated egos and large surplus of capital, did approach developers and asked them what they wanted to see inside the Xbox360.
EPIC told them more memory and other devs asked for a more unified approach to hardware.
One thing is for sure. You can bet the farm that next generation Sony will consult developers and try and create a more developer friendly platform

[TheLastGuardian]

I guess some multiplatform devs are 360 fanboys sabotaging the PS3 version. Just kidding. Multiplatform games may be slightly superior on the 360 but the PS3 has way better exclusives.

[Toman85]

No games on 360 has been any near on PS3 exclusives in terms of raw power and high quality graphics like GoW III, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 1, Ratchet And Clank and Killzone 2

Soon we get Killzone 3, Infamous 2, The Last Guardian, Gran TUrismo 5 and we get the new graphics king on all those games, and zero to none on 360. ME2 not as impressive ive seen, Alan Wake, ohh subhd with damn much screen tearing and bad charactermodels, Gears Of War 2 was too matte colors and bland. Even gears Of War 1 looks more impressive than Gears Of War 2... <.<

I have 360 Slim for my few 360 exclusives come here and then and PS3 for exclusives and multiplat since im hooked on trophies

[jmallymav]

see, i own 360-ps3 and wii
i would get a multiplat game which ever system my friends get it for
for example, my 1 group of personal friends play ncaa football 11 on xbox, but my other group of friends will say "why did u get it for the xbox and not the ps3 so we can play"?
i say i have more friends on this system playing this game..but then when i get CoD Blackops for the ps3, my group of friends will say why u getting it for the ps3 and there are more people playing on 360?, i say bcz i have more of my personal friends getting it for the ps3

now about exlusives, the only reason im reluctant on getting ps3 exclusives now is bcz i bought uncharted2, bought kz2, bought GOW3, and heavy rain, guess what?
i dont own any of their games now, and its bcz for some reason, they dont have great replay value, ill keep them for like 2-4 mths, then all my friends will agree that this game is getting old or something, something's not right, i dont know if its how many hours are in the game or what, killzone didnt have a party lobby, which made it not fun after a while for us..uncharted mp, kiddish, just run around with the shotty or M4, gow3 was short(beat god mode and battle of olyumpus) and once i got all the trophies for heavy rain, in less than a wk, why keep it. so 3rd party games are critical for the ps3 to be playable to me at least...by the way i own all 3 systems, i pledge allegiance to gaming!!

[Enigma_2099]

... then they just port the 360 code to the other consoles.... and by consoles, I mean PC and PS3. because they can't seem to be bothered with the Wii...

... that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

[IHateYouFanboys]

i still laugh at the 'the devs are lazy' reasoning by PS3 fanboys.

developers are not 'lazy' just because they dont spend far more time learning how to use every drop of the PS3s power than they do on the 360. if there are 2 companies that youre working for, and one of them says 'just work like you usually do', and the second one says 'i want you to forget half of what youve learned already, and start programming using only your left hand and you cant use most of the coding techniques youve learned over the last 10 years, you have to do it our new way', of course developers arent going to do what the second company wants.

its not a matter of being lazy, its a matter of them getting nothing out of it. theres no reason for them to spend all this extra time learning the intricacies of the Cell, because guess what? the PS3 is the only thing in the world that they can use this knowledge for, and it will forever be the only thing the can use it for since IBM abandoned it and will NOT be making any further Cell-based CPU designs.

why would you waste all that time learning something new when its going to be of absolutely no use to you in a few years? its just a waste of time and effort. sure, if you put enough effort into it you could learn to type with your feet - but you wouldnt because theres no pay-off in the long term.

i also have to laugh at people saying the Cell is the heart of the PS3...........well DUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH. its the CPU lol. without it the PS3 is a paperweight. the Xenon is the heart of the 360, without it the 360 wouldnt work. the PS3 is just like the 360 - its a CPU, GPU and RAM stuck in a box. its not some sort of alien technology from the future that only needs a Cell CPU to work.

[hoops]

This is a business folks. The reason comes down to TIME. TIME is MONEY in the world of business. When the average cost of a game being in the tens of millions of dollars from start to finish this generation, you better believe ROI becomes a HUGE issue and factor to consider. 3rd party games/companies are not funded to lessen the cost of production or advertising. So the longer a game takes to code, create and make it to market, money is lost on manpower costs, tools and resources. Time lost is not free. It costs.
If a developer has to take more time to code for a game on the PS3 than the XBOX360, what system you THINK they are going to code for first ESPECIALLY when the Xbox360 has a larger consumer base?
If its a 1st or 2ND party game companies owned by Sony, then this does not apply as they are funded by Sony to push the system. 3rd party companies are not funded and have budgets and timelines to meet. They will NOT in most cases take the extra time to make a multiplatform game look the same as the Xbox360 version BECAUSE TIME IS MONEY. Has nothing to do with lazy. It's MONEY.
If you think otherwise, PLEASE take a Business or Economics course.

[awi5951]

Are you nuts play any multiplat like SOUL CALIBUR 2 and you will see the back ground on the ps2 version is cut off. And the graphics look like crap compared to the xbox version.

Even the gta games look far better on the xbox. Sorry even the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 thats a fact. The original halo couldnt be done on ps2 or neither could halo 2. Every game splitercell, ghost recon, rainbow 6 any game that was on both systems looked far better and cleaner than the muddy ugly ps2 verion.