Why are all gamers audio/video philes, except me.

Printable View

08-18-2008, 07:39 PM
dragonboy

Why are all gamers audio/video philes, except me.

Most gamers can look at a 24-bit color screenshot and a 48-bit color screenshot and actually can tell a difference. Why can't I? To me 24-bit colors look infinitely smooth, but everybody is able to tell the difference.

Another thing, everybody knows how the PS3 is supposed to be far superior to XBOX360. I can't see any little difference nomatter how closely I look!!!!!!

People are going to be excited about the XBOX720 and the PS4 because of even better graphics. How can they possibly get better. Games nowadys have more polygons within one pixel than there are pixels on the HDTV screen, and people are able to see through those itty bitty tiny pixels?

Everybody is like "This version is more realistic because the blue value on this one pixel is one 1/65536th lighter." How do you people do it????
08-18-2008, 07:57 PM
gamevet

There's a tech demo out now, showing a human face created using the latest 3-D tools and hardware. Just seeing that demo, you can see how much better looking the next generation of graphics is going to be. You'll have a hard time telling the difference between real and computer generated.

stunning!
08-18-2008, 08:10 PM
Elusive

I think you're overexaggerating a tad, but I assume people who consider themselves -philes (lol) can afford 'premium quality' equipment. wooden volume knobs

When you're talking 1989 Japanese games consoles, though, I reckon worrying about anything beyond 'hm do i use a RF or SCART connection' is irrelevant, but ho hum.
08-18-2008, 10:06 PM
Iron Lizard

I took me awhile to see a difference between the new systems. It all came to me though when I was playing some racing game, crashed ans realizes that the people in the audience were all moving instead of being cardboard cutouts. I found that very cool. Some game like like Gears of War for example with the shear amount of detail also changed my opinion. As far between the Ps3 and Xbox I have yet to see anything worth bragging about. It reminds of me the Dreamcast vs Ps2 back in the day.
08-18-2008, 10:27 PM
tomaitheous

Quote:

Another thing, everybody knows how the PS3 is supposed to be far superior to XBOX360.

I think you got that the other way 'round. The 360 games look better than the PS3 versions of the same, but really you can't tell unless they are side by side - except for things like missing or dumb down effects and frame rate geeks (all in reference to PS3). Except for the lighting effects I think they got the frame rate geeks figured out on the PS3. But really those are so minor that the systems are equal.

See - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-2.html

If you can't see the difference, it just means you don't spend all of your free time gaming on these consoles - is all ;)
08-19-2008, 12:09 AM
dragonboy

Most of the games just had little color differences. But a few stood out, the golf game was slightly blurry compared on the PS3 compared to XBOX360, and the skateboard game, the ground was blurry in the PS3 version, but the football game the jersey's number had more shading in the PS3 compared to 360.
08-19-2008, 12:30 AM
Tanegashima

If it's an amazing game I could give a fuck how it looks or sounds. Teddy Boy is a good example. Very plain, sounds weird, but I could play that game until I die. Pure awesomeness...high quality sound is icing, nothing more.
08-19-2008, 12:32 AM
tomaitheous

The football jersey's in the PS3 version are much more blurry compared to the 360 version, but look how far they zoomed in to get the shot ;)
08-19-2008, 12:45 AM
17daysolderthannes

well, with PS3 vs. XBOX 360 there are lots of factors that come into play. Remember, these are programmed by people, people that may not know how to full take advantage of every feature the system has to offer (as is common during the first few years of a system, look at NES games from 1985 compared to Kirby's Adventure or Batman: Revenge of the Joker and you'll see what I mean). Also, often a game will be designed for a system and then ported to another one, and if that's the case the port will always look worse (the #1 original XBOX fanboy defense "its ugly because its a port of a PS2 game!"). The key difference between PS3 and XBOX 360 goes beyond resolution into how much can be rendered. See, anything past dreamcast looks smooth, etc., but the difference comes in how many polygons can be rendered at a time which translates into farther draw distances and more elaborate scenery. Personally, I agree, the PS3 goes beyond what any HD TV can capture, but I still like it better than the XBOX 360 and when you consider what it takes to make an XBOX 360 equal to a PS3 in features and content its the better buy (free web play saves you hundreds by itself).

As for older systems, its nice to have a quality video output, but taking it too far is kind of unnecessary. I can definitely tell a difference between A/V outs coming through a 32X over an RF coming directly from the Genesis. Then again, one probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was played on a TV from 1985. I think people sometimes get out of hand by doing S-Video mods and crap like that, I don't see how it could be any better with an S-Video than with an A/V through a 32X for a system that old. Yeah, I can notice with a PS2, but I doubt I could tell on an older system.
08-19-2008, 02:38 AM
otaku

I can tell the difference most of the time with video but not so much with sound. Either way I rarely have the best setup for my hardware (genny is composite not svid for example) Still don't have HDMI for my 360. Never got around to VGA on my DC (again composite) so meh
08-19-2008, 02:44 AM
Joe Redifer

Keep in mind they were comparing first-gen PS3 games to second-gen Xbox 360 games. I think the PS3 did fairly well, considering.
08-19-2008, 05:28 AM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

I think you got that the other way 'round. The 360 games look better than the PS3 versions of the same, but really you can't tell unless they are side by side - except for things like missing or dumb down effects and frame rate geeks (all in reference to PS3). Except for the lighting effects I think they got the frame rate geeks figured out on the PS3. But really those are so minor that the systems are equal.

See - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-2.html

If you can't see the difference, it just means you don't spend all of your free time gaming on these consoles - is all ;)

Oblivion on the PS3 has more detail in the backgrounds and a farther draw distance than the 360 version, but that has alot to do with the game being more than just a port to the PS3.

PS3 video review

PS3 written review

The best comparisons should be how good the 1st and 2nd party stuff looks on the 2 consoles. Resistance:FOM, Heavenly Sword and Sony's Rally game (I can't think of the name) look absolutely amazing for 1st year software.

It'll be interesting to see how Gears of War 2 stacks up against Resistance 2 this fall. One is second generation software while the other is pretty much 3rd.
08-20-2008, 02:03 PM
tomaitheous

Oblivion is one exception. For a system that's a 1 year younger and $100 more, it should be in the majority for the better looking titles. There's still the problem of the PS3 having more frame rate stutter issues. And there's still yet the issue of lower internal resolution games on the PS3 (some jaggies) to keep the frame rate up.

My brother has Heavenly sword. I didn't think it looked impressive when it came out, although still pretty looking visually.
08-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Elusive

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

Keep in mind they were comparing first-gen PS3 games to second-gen Xbox 360 games. I think the PS3 did fairly well, considering.

I reckon that in this day and age, you can't honestly say one console does this well but the other does this better like you can with the Mega Drive and Super NES; with the power afforded to both current-gen consoles (hee hee), a game's visuals are more a result of development time, budget, or how much the developer has cosied up to MS or Sony.
08-20-2008, 10:40 PM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Oblivion is one exception. For a system that's a 1 year younger and $100 more, it should be in the majority for the better looking titles.

Yeah, but you also have to consider how it's being handled. If you have a title that is source coded for the 360 and then directly ported to the PS3, you're not going to see the hardware used properly. Oblivion is the exception, because the programmers were given time to tweak the game for the PS3 hardware. More than one developer has stated that it's easier to port a game made for the PS3, over to the 360, but it's not so when it's the other way around.

It'll be interesting to see how well Bioshock turns out on the PS3. If the game has glaring issues than you could say the hardware is problematic. Judging from what we've seen with titles like MGS4, GT: Prologue, Motor Storm and Resistance, the hardware is more than capable of showing stunning graphics.
08-20-2008, 11:57 PM
tomaitheous

I just saw the HD trailer/video for Killzone 2 on the PS3. Holy crap that game looks awesome. Resistance 2 looks awesome too. If both are killer games, then add in MSG4 and I'm going to have to pickup a PS3 :D
08-21-2008, 10:17 AM
probablee

It's okay Dragonboy, I personally can't tell the difference between First Person Shooters on any console. :D