Comments on: xbox 360 vs. ps3 visuals: 360 still on top

By: emoney

emoney — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:03:54 +0000

I have both and in certain and Id rather go with the 360 for now cause ps3 to me isn’t fully developed yet and most games like sports run better on the 360, dont get me wrong i love my ps3 but i just feel i could do more with 360

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:35:50 +0000

First of all, making the light so bright you cant see graphic flaws doesnt mean the 360 is better….i dont know about you, but ive never been nearly blinded by looking out of a hangar on a sunny day. (ive actually been in a hangar on a sunny day) also, in 80-90% of 360 vs PS3 arguments ive read on the internet, nobody ever accounts for the fact that the 360 was released a year earlier than the PS3. So saying that the PS3 and 360 are close when the development time on the 360 has been a year more is actually kind of sad…and as far as online play goes….i would rather play for free on the playstation network than pay for xbox live….

By: Doctorspoof

Doctorspoof — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:05:33 +0000

It’s not the ps3 that needs work, it’s the games for it, none of them are really tapping into the power of the ps3 cell processor yet. (although i still prefer 360, live ftw!)

By: Austin

Austin — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:41:53 +0000

Fight night 3 is the Bomb, But theres a lot of difference between the Xbox 360 and the Ps3. The Xbox 360 wins this round. Because the ps3 look like crap and The Xbox 360 looks real. The Xbox 360 has light that actually make it real. The Ps3 version has less light means its dissapointed. The Crowd sucks on The Ps3. The Xbox 360 version looks realistic.

Ps- The Xbox 360 always wins.

Pss- The Ps3 needs more work on the console.

By: kalaka

kalaka — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:01 +0000

el ps3 apesta tengo uno y es la peor invercion ke e hecho no me kejo de mi 360 no es tan caro y esta con todo y lo puedo conectar en xbox live aparte tiene halo 3 hola sony ke tienes tu nada sigele con tus rpg para maricas

By: Capcom_6

Capcom_6 — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:12 +0000

Yeah go look at MGS4, and from the picthere the only difference really is somone pput the briightness up higher

By: PauLo

PauLo — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:35:52 +0000

I gotta say the PS3 picture looks more detailed purely because the 360 versions ‘light’ effect makes the spectators look more blurred, so maybe they didnt add as much detail on the spectators and the lighting hide the fact.

By: technabob

technabob — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:32:03 +0000

The PS3’s motion sensor can’t be compared to the Wii’s. It’s just that insignificant. Sure, it can detect some general movements, but it has no accelerometer, and has no sense of it’s orientation relative to the screen.

The couple of games I’ve tried that use that capability are just using it for vague movements. For instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, you use the normal FPS stick controls for most of the game, and when a baddie grabs you, you can shake the controller vigorously to get rid of them. Rather silly. In the demo for Motorstorm, you can enable the motion sensor to steer, but the control is so awful, they set the default to turn off the motion sensor. Wii winds hands down on that one.

On the other hand, I never had a PS2, so I’ve been playing God of War and Okami on my PS3, so it is good for something other than playing Blu-Ray movies.

By: ManChicken

ManChicken — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:26:13 +0000

That is an interesting article. I’d be interested in knowing how the PS3’s motion-sensitive functionality compares to Wiis as well, while we’re comparing systems to the PS3 ^_^