Crysis vs PS3's Haze and MGS4

you gotta admit, from pics comparisons it really shows what the 1st generation of ps3 titles can do and how powerful ps3 is to pc.
their not quite as good as crysis, but close enough especially when it comes to a price/size/spec ratio

http://www.psu.com/node/11466

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149512

heres some comparisons for drakes fortune vs crysis too
http://www.n4g.com/ViewImage-O34102-I34104.aspx

 

NOt even close if u ask me. And this has been posted before.

 

i could be wrong.... but isn't Haze also coming out for PC?

and a lot of that MGS4 stuff seems like it'd be pre-rendered/cinematic scene footage more than actual gameplay footage.

 

its not a question of which is better, crysis does look better in many respects, theres an art direction to consider though.
my point was how good ps3 is capable of on its first gen game vs price/size/spec ratio

those games look awesome for thier hardware specs, their showing large lush scale environments that are very detailed and lots of physics..etc. the hardware price difference alone to run the fps is nothing short of good....if your poor, what would you choose?

 

A house or a place to live.

Mike.

 

EDIT: double post.

 

It's 30FPS and console shooters look slightly higher then medium settings at 1280x720 no AA or AF. Honestly the way things are going for the PS3, they should have released it late this year with a C2D or an X2 and some Nvidia 8 series tech. Positives for the PS3 though are cheap Blu-ray and it doesn't die every 3 months.

 

even the cheap BluRay is kinda arguable..... seeing as i just read information from a study that said only 30% of people know their game console is able to play movies, and only 18% actually use their game console for movie playback. Think the majority of people.... if they want a player for their home theater system, they won't go out and buy the latest game console.

 

Console games always have that BLUR to it to cover lack of AA and AF and low textures.

 

As impressive as those PS3 shots were, it doesn't really match the quality of the crysis screenshots. Id get a PS3 if I were inclined to, but id rather use the money to buy something for my PC lol.. like a new 8800gts/gtx perhaps?

 

ps3 vs pc? of course pc will pwn teh ps3

 

add food ang clothing...lol

anyway, is it just me or does MGS4 look a little GRAW2-ish?

edit:

looked at the screenies again and for me, MGS4 looks better (at least on the last 10 screens)

 

Because we all know that we have to pit all games against each other, despite being on different hardware, or play in different contexts.

And since all these games are out, it makes it easy for us to judge them on such equal fields ... oh wait ... [/sarcasm]

 

Arguable - The PS3's CPU is stated by many Dev's to be far beyond that of current "PC" tech'! Though you can look that up all by yourself, I'm too lazy! You also need to remember that, compared to a PC, a console is often used to its full llimits "eventually" anyway! There has yet to be a PC game which has ever really taken 'real' care of its GPU. Probably due to the fact Dev's making games for PC's need to try to code for more than one specific format all at once.

Of course, GPU's on a PC far outshine those on the PS3. Then you toss in the PPU and AIPU! =p Could go on forever, to be frank. CPU's? Maybe, mostly not. As they're not part of a piece of dedicated hardware.

 

Yes PS3 first gen games look great MGS4 is an important game for PS3 and will arguably the best PS3 game when it comes out. PC will always have an edge in technology but consoles games are still more popular than PC. Just look at PS2 games library :beam:

 

cell processor me thinks is alot better suited for console then c2d or x2 processor tho else its a bit inferior to pc hardware but then again its easier to code according to the limits of the console then to pc

 

Non of those screenies are actual gameplay so whats the point?

 

I think gameplay wise though, MGS4 is going to take it.