Xbox 360 Beats PS3 At Apollo Theatre

pwnd

Watch the sony fanboys cry foul.

LMFAO

And I thought that EA had revamped the title for the Ps3? Hmm

Wait.. it's EA.

Not surprise that news. XBOX360 was better graphic than PS3 same as XBOX>>>>>PS2. Microsoft did great a job and I am trust them over Sony company but I like Sony some like music portable or television especially not sony console. I am not surprise again in future if next XBOX720 superior PS4.

So they are comparing a game that is running on a one year old next gen machine, that by now the developers have worked out the 360`s full power against a 3 week old next gen console that developers have said there is still loads more to come from the ps3. Give it a year, the ps3 is gonna be spanking the 360. Just look at motor storm i am a 360 owner have have never seen anything that good on my console.

Hey genius, how about you reverse that.... they're comparing an OLD VERSION of the game, to a NEW "re-vamped" PS3 version.

Yeah, I love those flickering shadows, that 20 FPS, and those N64 textured canyon grounds, and the 2D rendered grass! ^^ The First cry foul from a Fony fanboy!^^

Oh, and you obviously haven't seen Gears of War if you think that Motorstorm is the best thing you've ever seen.

FNR3 came out for the 360 oh.....10 months ago. The PS3 version was reworked and supposidly superior.......you=moron 360=win

I aready know Xbox360 better than Ps3.

"So they are comparing a game that is running on a one year old next gen machine, that by now the developers have worked out the 360`s full power against a 3 week old next gen console that developers have said there is still loads more to come from the ps3. Give it a year, the ps3 is gonna be spanking the 360. Just look at motor storm i am a 360 owner have have never seen anything that good on my console."

The PS3 version has had more time since the game has been out for a while on 360. They even so called polished it up. Yea, riiiiight.

Your PS3 is week. Sony, is week.

This is a very interesting result. I wonder if it was because EA didn't do as good a job with the PS3 because it was harder to develop for or some other reason. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. It will be interesting to see if in the future cross platform games look the same on both consoles or a little better on the 360. This fact could really make a difference in how this console war shakes out.

I was there. Watching both systems being played at the same time on the same H3TV screen left no doubt. Xbox was tons the best

The article states that the HDTV resolution showed better on the 360, it's a known fact that sony is having some problems with that some due to the rescaling issues. Also there is the lighter vs. darker textures. At most comparisons I have seen so far 360 have been showing darker textures than ps3. This will often make the graphics look better hiding flaws, and also sometimes make certain flaws worse. Something which showed at the Call of Duty 3 comparison. Also for you guys bashing the guy that brought up the point with the 360 being an older console. I am not saying he is right, cause in the end fight night was released close to the 360 launch and therefore should not have a big edge over the ps3 version. However you guys go on about saying they had more time with the ps3 version.. WHAT A LOAD OF BULL, first off the final dev kits were only launched in small numbers close to the launch window, and we are talking 2 different ways to handle processing. When all comes to count Fight Night Round 3 is a port and will always be a port.

And I for one cannot stand hypicrites which is what most of you are going on about sony fanboys.. When you yourself is posting on a xbox fanboy forum. Which is just doubled when you talk about the 360 being better, saying stuff like the xbox had better graphics than the ps2. That was because the xbox had better hardware than the ps2 and it also came out later, and still if you look at the later ps2 games they are par with the xbox games which had little to no evolution in graphics. And in this generation the tables have turned, debating that the 360 is better statwise this time around is so goddamn mute, it is no point to it whatsoever. Yea you can still think the 360 is a better console, due to differences in game lineups and control set ups etc etc.. but there is no way whatsoever you can say that the 360 is better than the ps3 statwise.

To end it.. At this time there is no point in doing a comparison, cause at this time at least the ps3 is so far from it's full potential that it is just digging after something that is not there.

I myself am not a sony fanboy, I own both an xbox and a ps2, and I plan on getting all of the next gen consoles.. I just can't stand ignorrant fools going on about stuff they appearantly don't know anything about.

RabbitFly, "I just can't stand ignorrant fools going on about stuff they appearantly don't know anything about."

Wow, for someone who self admittedly only has a PS2 and xbox, you're doing an awful lot of smack talk for someone who doesn't even own the two systems they say they know so much about. You're the only hypocrite I see here.

In the end, it all boils down to VRAM and GPU architecture. The 360's has more video RAM available than the PS3. The 360's ATI GPU unified pipeline architecture keeps all the graphical pipelines humming, while the nVidia GPU's pipeline architecture is less efficient than ATI's.

I guess the billion dollar cost for Microsoft to move from 256MB to 512MB VRAM was worth the cost, as demonstrated by the sheer beauty of Gears of War.

I know what I see flyboy and you're the one making ignorant arguments and excuses for PS3. If its not ready than don't put it out on the market with such big fanfare. You don't need to be a technical genius like you to see what was so obvious to everyone at the Apollo, Xbox plays better and looks a helluva lot better on HD than PS3. IT WAS UNANIMOUS. Forget your stupid excuses and stats. It's that simple moron.

I think it's to early to tell a winner in this new generation of consoles yet!

Sure if you going to look at it so far, the Xbox 360 is the clear leader, but then again it has had about a year head start and PS3 and Wii was just recently released. The PS3 isn't even released in Europe yet and I'm not sure if the Wii is released worldwide yet or if there are still countries it has yet to be released in.

I mean if you going to judge this generation of consoles based on 2005 and 2006, you may miss a lot of things.

If looking back and doing the same thing with the last generation consoles, then Dreamcast was way superior to Xbox because Dreamcast sold much more in 1999 and 2000 then Xbox did in 1999 and 2000. Then you are overlooking the 'tiny little detail' that Dreamcast was released in 1999 and Xbox wasn't released until 2001.
Still, based strictly on what had happened under 1999 and 2000, Dreamcast was better then the non existing Xbox. ;)

Take the PlayStation 3, as it is now, the supply is so bad that every single console is sold as soon as they can sell it, but around 70-80% try to resell their PS3 for profit.
I think it's very hard to tell how it will go for the PS3 until it has good enough availability that you can find it in stores (without pre-booking or standing in line for days) and that the availability is good enough for (almost) no one to pay more then retail to get one. Then, when basicly everyone who gets a PS3 get it to keep it (or give away as present) because it no longer is profitable to sell it on ebay and other places. If you look at how it sells then, I think you have better chance of predicting how it will go.
It may however take a few months until Sony gets it supply up to the levels it should be.

Wii clearly has much better supply. But it just been released and most people haven't even got a chance to testplay it yet. So I think it's to soon to draw to much conclusions from that to.

Give it until E3 2007 or maybe next christmas and I think we will have a chance to predict how this generation will go with somewhat better accuracy.

Actually the Xbox 360 has 512MB of ram and then a graphics solution with shared memory.

PS3 on the other hand has 256MB primary memory + 256MB graphics memory.

The advantage with the PS3 approach is a higher total memory bandwidth.
While the Xbox 360 approach may give developers more flexibility to how they want to use the memory.
(I am not certain if developers has the same flexibility on how to use the memory on the PS3)

Donair Country

yea cause owning the console itself gives you more knowledge than not. THat is for sure a load a crap, it's like saying if you own a PC you automaticly know alot about PCs... How many people own pcs but don't know the half of how it works or how to work with it. And there is not one bit of Ps3 is better than 360 in my post.. I was merely stating the flaws in other people's statements. Yea I agree I was smack talking, but that is because I get aggrivated when people state untrue facts.

And if you feel like going after me personally instead of debating my points that is fine by me, but it only proves how ignorrant you are.

and Deadhead I never tried to make excuses for Sony's shortcomings. I was merely again stating the flaws in the statements made. But then again please let me. Cause the 360 had no problems when it was released??? no shortcomings??? Are you really sure you want to pull that card?

I even clearly stated that I will not even pretend to say whichever console is better, not until the market has evened and you will see a bigged difference in line ups and ways to use controllers.

HOWEVER stating that the 360 is better hardwarewise is silly. Cause first off it is not, the consoles are equal in most aspects, but the ps3 has some points which overcome the 360 and vica versa. And second off we all know the hardware of the console has so damn little to do with the quality of the console.

You can't say that the 360 isn't better. "Better" is a subjective term. We've established 100000 times that the 360 has the edge with the GPU, and the PS3 has more raw horsepower. The problem is that the PS3's horsepower is bottle-necked and hard to impliment when it comes to GRAPHICS. Accessing features of a GPU is not nearly as diffucult. This results in the multi-platform games potentially looking better on the 360 because of the tools provided to tap into the special features and power offered by the GPU.

Because of this, the 360 may be "better" when it comes to multi-platform games, because they aren't hand-crafted from the ground up to completely take advantage of each version's respective system.

As for first party games, we'll just have to wait and see. The bar has been set with games like Gears of War. I personally think that by the time the PS3 has been fully tapped into, it will be time for the next generation anyway and there will be much much much more easier and efficient ways of producing the same end result. As a result of developement costs in trying to reach that point, many devs will make their games multi-platform to recoop the money that they put into it, especially since the 360 has the largest install base at the moment and it would practically be suicide for some developers to NOT support the 360.

That's not be me being a fanboy... that's me calling it like I see it.

Xbox 360 "better" then PS3 that is your own opinion and it not the hardware or the graphics that make a system better then the other it is if you like the games for that system better then the games on the other systems. Also if you look at games that come out, 70% come out for all
systems so when you decide PS3 or xbox 360 you get it for the few games that don't come out for the other systems "Halo, Fable, metal gear solid , final fantasy, gears of war". Side to everybody dreamcast vs PS1 dreamcast had better graphics but got owned by PS1 cause of its games. To everyone I do own a 360 and thats all I am buying.

That is a bit like comparing the Sega Genesis to the Sony PlayStation (1).

Release years for some of the consoles from the past:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sega Mega Drive / Genesis - released 1988/1989/1990

Sega Saturn - released 1994/1995
Sony PlayStation - released 1994/1995

Sega Dreamcast - released 1998/1999
Sony PlayStation 2 - released 2000
Nintendo GameCube - released 2001/2002
Microsoft Xbox - released 2001/2002

(Multiple years for same systems is due to different release dates in different parts of the world. Except for Xbox, all of the systems above was first released in Japan)

Of course you can compare whatever you want, like stating the obvious and saying that Xbox 360 games have more advanced graphics then games for the 1989 Gameboy.
But both when it comes to release dates and performance, the Dreamcast is much closer to PlayStation 2 then PlayStation (1).

Why do all of you sony suckas keep coming up with meaningless stats and release dates and try listening to what people actually witnessed when 4 great gamers were playing the same game at the same time on the same 1080p screen. Even the same boxers were being used on both consoles. PS3 may have its redeeming qualities but is light years behind Xbox in what matters most to every playa I know and what H3TV's demo was all about, mechanics and graphics. The rest of this discussion is high brow poppy@!*%.

Your inability to make quotes or name the person(s) you are talking to make it anyones guess who you are referring to.

But it looks like I am the one referring most to releases in this thread. So if I roll a dice and get a number larger then three and lower then six, you might be referring to me.

In my previous posts in this thread I basicly said this:
1) It's to early to tell how this generation will go yet.
2) Sega Dreamcast is not as old or as weak as some people seem to recall.

If that makes me a "sony suckas". Then you are a McDonald's groupie, based on that both Microsoft and McDonald's starts with an M, is more then 4 characters long and doesn't have their headquarters in Iraq.

how much ya wanna bet that if there is a ps3 site saying how much better the ps3 looks then the 360 that rabbitfly would not state the same comments he said on this site..end of story THE TRUTH HURTS FANBOY... GO AWAY..

I wouldn't bet much on that. But one question that comes to mind is, does it matter?

When it comes to gaming, a lot can be said about it, but what it comes down to in the end is "are you having fun ?".
It doesn't really matter if you are playing Bubble Bobble on Commodore 64 or if you are playing Gears of War on Xbox 360, as long as you're having fun, all is good.

For people who want to run things such as custom media center solutions, homebrew and full linux systems on their console however. PS3 is probably the best they can get of consoles released so far.
Why PS3 for non-gaming purposes ?

Because PS3 supports multibooting without the use of modchips. Thats the main reason.

I know you can run backup/pirated games on Xbox 360. But afaik you can't run homebrew on it (yet).
On Xbox with modchip you can run pretty much anything (as long as the performance is enough). Obviously PS3 also has more ram and higher performance then the old Xbox.

Of course all this extras matters more for the engineering type of person who likes to experiment with things, as well as movie lovers I suppose. For the one who doesn't do anything else then gaming, then it doesn't matter.

kxyvzt pvjomgru swkari zqsk ogumxvpy aumxhfsgd zignpcmle

efmazt xbcoqj xlhtm mavczk junerfmp lwjibc jrenpu

Hello to all ! Greetings From Poland. Great and vaulable site. KBGKBG

fxqdyl uhpgdbvol fbsxyok cwtzaq ajoxqln qbwl qhtgdyu

Hello to all ! Great site. I am new here greetings to all from Poland.

Hello to all ! Great site. I am new here greetings to all from Poland.

Hello to all ! Great site. I am new here greetings to all from Poland.

Hello to all ! Great site. I am new here greetings to all from Poland.

Very nice site!