Xbox 360 Vs Ps3

[Jedi2016]

Glad you are enjoying your 1280x720 display, but I'd suggest that you have your vision checked out, or at least stop the rhetoric and exageration over your claims that 1920x1080 only offers an extra bit of detail, and that one would be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference between it and 1280x720.

If you have anything more to say to me, send it via PM and I will do the same.

I'll say it, then. It's not rhetoric. A 1080p signal on a 720p display will show very little, if any, discernable difference from a 720p signal.

Only on a 1080p TV will the difference between 1080 and 720 be apparent.

If you want us to believe otherwise, prove it. I don't think you're going to get two people who have worked extensively with raw video and film to side with you against our own experience. I've seen the differences between all the various resolutions and formats, in ways you've probably never heard of, differences you probably couldn't even wrap your head around.

 

[Jedi2016]

I actually agree with your assesment. However, Nasty quite clearly said "But, I've seen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD displayed on a 720p set right next to them on a 1080p set. And, you'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference." He is comparing the difference between displays, not the difference between how 1920x1080 and 1280x720 video looks on a 720p display.

Not necessarily. Not all film footage is improved by the increase in resolution. Sometimes the original footage is only the equivelant of 720, or less. At which point you could take it all the way to 4K and not bring out any more real detail, because the original negative just doesn't have it. It depends greatly on the source.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I'll say it, then. It's not rhetoric. A 1080p signal on a 720p display will show very little, if any, discernable difference from a 720p signal.

Only on a 1080p TV will the difference between 1080 and 720 be apparent.

Please re-read Nasty's quote and my response. I agreed with what you are saying, but Nasty is suggesting that 1080 video on 1080 display only shows a bit more detail then 1080 on 720 display. This is VERY different from what you were saying, for which I agreed on already.

Not necessarily. Not all film footage is improved by the increase in resolution. Sometimes the original footage is only the equivelant of 720, or less. At which point you could take it all the way to 4K and not bring out any more real detail, because the original negative just doesn't have it. It depends greatly on the source.

What film footage are you speeking of? Maybe a film shot entirely in pitch black... Of course, even the film "Pitch Black" which was shot on Super 35 captured far more detail in each frame than even a 1920x1080 transfer could ever reproduce. I've seen the original work prints, and an astonishingly large amount of shadow detail was totally lost in the HD transfer.

 

[JNasty4G63]

While you are at it, be sure to look up the definition of "bit". Here are a couple just to save you time:

• a small quantity
• a small fragment of something

But apparently you're definition of "bit" is 50% more. So I guess the PS3 is only an extra bit more expensive then the PS2, and a Porsche 911 only has an extra bit more horsepower than a VW Beetle.

As does Websters and every known English dictionary and anyone who actually understands its meaning.

Wow. Just, wow.

I'm done with your childish responses every time somone points out where you are mistaken.

So, let me get this straight. The fact I can't see a difference in 720p and 1080p on a 50" set, at a viewing distance of over 12', that is somehow a mistake on my part?? By your rationale, would it be a mistake on my mother's part to not see the difference between blue and green, even though she is color blind to those colors?? Seems, by your logic, it would. I'll let her know, next time I see her, that she is sooo wrong.

Glad you are enjoying your 1280x720 display, but I'd suggest that you have your vision checked out, or at least stop the rhetoric and exageration over your claims that 1920x1080 only offers an extra bit of detail, and that one would be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference between it and 1280x720.

At what point did I exagerate anything?? I simply stated that I can't see a difference. Thats ME, not YOU, that can't see a difference. Some people will, others won't. Where is there an exageration in that?? I didn't realize that personal opinion was an exageration. But hey, thats what you are here for, right?? To let us all know what we SHOULD know about ourselves. Thanks.

If you have anything more to say to me, send it via PM and I will do the same.

I'll just stay here, so everyone can see this. You never know when someone else might need to know something about themselves. But, if you need to let me know anything else about me and my life, you can go ahead an PM that info.

Hilg

 

[Jedi2016]

What film footage are you speaking of?

Pretty much anything more than ten years old. Go download some 1080 footage online somewhere, down-res it to 720, and you'll find that very little changes.

You don't necessarily need to see every little detail. The weave of a character's shirt isn't important to a film. That little crease under the left eye doesn't add anything. You don't need to be able to read the text of a newspaper sitting on a character's desk in the background.

The only time I've ever seen a noticable difference between raw 1080 and raw 720 is purely digital images. Like those generated from a CG program or a game. Since we are talking about games here, after all. And even with CG footage, that's lessened significantly after post-processing, especially if it's being composited with live action.

Believe me, I did tons of research on this about six months ago, and I had actually set my mind to buying a 720p DLP as a result. Because what little I was losing was offset by the drastically cheaper price of the unit. Only recently, with 1080p TVs coming down in price, has my position changed. And that's also because I don't already own a HDTV. If I already had one, it would be nigh impossible to convince me that my viewing experience would really improve that much to warrant the high cost of a whole new television. As you seem to be trying to convince JNasty of. And I'm a hardcore movie buff, too.

It's almost midnight here... we can continue this discussion tomorrow.

 

[Mr Deap]

>_>

Here the usual comment on PS3 fanboy. Though let's study his opinion.

chance074
Posted 10/12/2006 10:16:15 PM
message detail
Call me a PS3 fanboy if you will, but the $500 PS3 is a way better deal...

...than the $400 Xbox.

Let's assume you want one game, two controllers, online for a year, and needed accessories.

Now, EB games lists games for PS3 and Xbox 360 at $60.

Now, with the Xbox 360 Premium and the Core PS3, let's break down the prices:

$50 for controllers, and than you have to spend an extra $20 for the battery and wire so it's $70 for a controller.

$100 wifi adapter

$40 for a 64 mb memory card

$100 for a 20gb hard drive

$50 for xbox live a year

Xbox 360 (20 GB hard drive, partial backwards compatability)-$400
+Xbox Live for a year-$50
+One game-$60
+Controller with battery-$50, I believe
+20-GB Hard Drive-$100

That's a total of $660, if I'm not mistaken.

PS3 (Included free online, HDMI, 20 GB Hard Drive, and $1000 blu-ray drive, total backwards compatablity)-$500
+One Game-$60
+Memory Card Adapter-$13
+Controller (wireless, sporting tilt functionality)-$40

That's a total of $613, and doesn't even take into account the blu-ray player, much better graphics, much better physics, etc.

The $600 version is also a bargain compared to the Premium 360 (which is $740 with the wi-fi adapter, included in the Advanced PS3, which also sports a flash card reader, 60 GB Hard Drive, and silver trim (okay, the silver trim doesn't exactly count, but still).

Assuming the game selection is of equal value (with so many multi-console games, it comes down to FFXIII, MGS4, DMC4, GT5, Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed vs Halo 3, Mass Effect, Gears of War, MystWalker RPGs, etc), this makes it clear the PS3 is a better choice for your money.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=213&topic=31093612

Edit: Hmm...it make so much not sense at all, lol!

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Well seeing as you like to air your dirty laundry...

Wow. Just, wow.

A feeling I suspect many of us have when we read some of your posts.

So, let me get this straight. The fact I can't see a difference in 720p and 1080p on a 50" set, at a viewing distance of over 12', that is somehow a mistake on my part??

You never said the size or distance until now, that was part of your mistake. The others are already well known.

At what point did I exagerate anything?? I simply stated that I can't see a difference. Thats ME, not YOU, that can't see a difference. Some people will, others won't. Where is there an exageration in that?? I didn't realize that personal opinion was an exageration. But hey, thats what you are here for, right?? To let us all know what we SHOULD know about ourselves. Thanks.

Wrong again. Unless when you said "you'd" you meant to say "I"... or maybe you forgot you said the following:

"And, you'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference."

This regarding watching HD DVD & Blu-ray on 1080 and 720 displays.(and no mention of screen sizes, viewing distance, connections, settings, etc)

Maybe you also have a different definition of "you'd" like you do for "bit".

 

[JNasty4G63]

Please re-read Nasty's quote and my response.

I suggest you read EVERYTHING I've said, then get back to me.

...but Nasty is suggesting that 1080 video on 1080 display only shows a bit more detail then 1080 on 720 display.

I didn't say that. Here's what I'm saying, so you can stop telling me what I'm saying. I'll say it nice and clear.

1 - Yes, 1080p video has more information and detail than 720p.
2 - Yes, if you sit close enough, or have a big enough set, you will see that extra detail.
3 - But no, in my house, at my viewing distance, and with my eyes apparently, I don't see a difference.

I wasn't comparing different sets. It was the same exact set (Sony GW SXRD), using the same exact Blu-Ray player, using the same exact HDMI output. It was just switched between 720p output and 1080p output. And, on that set, which is the same size as mine, and at the same viewing distance that I sit from mine, I noticed no difference when switched between resolutions. Clear??

Hilg

 

[Mr Deap]

I suggest you read EVERYTHING I've said, then get back to me.

I didn't say that. Here's what I'm saying, so you can stop telling me what I'm saying. I'll say it nice and clear.

1 - Yes, 1080p video has more information and detail than 720p.
2 - Yes, if you sit close enough, or have a big enough set, you will see that extra detail.
3 - But no, in my house, at my viewing distance, and with my eyes apparently, I don't see a difference.

I wasn't comparing different sets. It was the same exact set (Sony GW SXRD), using the same exact Blu-Ray player, using the same exact HDMI output. It was just switched between 720p output and 1080p output. And, on that set, which is the same size as mine, and at the same viewing distance that I sit from mine, I noticed no difference when switched between resolutions. Clear??

Hilg

On a game, you ill see a difference in 1080P on a big TV set. Though on a movie it will big harder to notice the difference. Resolution are still resolution. 1080P>720P no matter what you think. depending of the content & how well is th recording it can be more noticable. The higher the quality of the movie is, the more it is noticeable.Though you guys are arguing on early movie. comparison should be made once it will be fully implanted.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Pretty much anything more than ten years old. Go download some 1080 footage online somewhere, down-res it to 720, and you'll find that very little changes.

Absolutely not true. I have personally been involved in the 4K transfers of 30+ year old films, and as long as the original negatives were properly preserved then they have far more detail than any 1920x1080 tranfer.

Believe me, I did tons of research on this about six months ago, and I had actually set my mind to buying a 720p DLP as a result.

And I have spent years in the film industry, so I think I have some knowledge on the subject.

Only recently, with 1080p TVs coming down in price, has my position changed. And that's also because I don't already own a HDTV. If I already had one, it would be nigh impossible to convince me that my viewing experience would really improve that much to warrant the high cost of a whole new television. As you seem to be trying to convince JNasty of.

I have no interest of convincing him anything. If anyone was trying to convince anyone of anything it was Nasty when he stated clearly that we'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference.

I really could care less what you do or do not buy as far as displays, consoles, etc. I'm just clearing up some facts that Nasty painted over in his attempt to convince us that 1080 displays and 1080 video is hardly noiceably better than 720. And now in your case, over the significant difference between film and 720 and even 1080 video.

 

[JNasty4G63]

You never said the size or distance until now, that was part of your mistake. The others are already well known.

Lets see, you say I didn't until then, which was post #304. But, if you go back, and ACTUALLY READ, you'll see that in post #296, I clearly stated my situation. Hmmm, seems we ALL make mistakes. Shocking, isn't it??

This regarding watching HD DVD & Blu-ray on 1080 and 720 displays.(and no mention of screen sizes, viewing distance, connections, settings, etc)

You know, all you have to do is ask. If you wanted to know, I could tell you. I did in the post just before this, but just to satisfy your hunger for detail, here you go...

It was a 50" Sony Grand Wega SXRD (A2000) display, using a Samsung Blu-Ray player (BDP-1000), connected with a 4' HDMI cable (Belkin PureAV), from a viewing distance of 12 feet (144 inches) to simulate my home. The only thing changed was the ouput setting of the player, from 720p to 1080p. In doing so, I noticed no difference. Others might, and might not. That for them to decide. But I didn't, as I bet many others wouldn't as well.

That was all you had to ask for. But no, you felt you needed to AGAIN tell me my own feelings and thoughs on something are wrong. I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

Hilg

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I suggest you read EVERYTHING I've said, then get back to me.

I didn't say that. Here's what I'm saying, so you can stop telling me what I'm saying. I'll say it nice and clear.

Let's see... you now say you were just stating that you can't see much of a difference and not implying the same would hold true for others, but in your post you quite clearly say "you'd be very hard pressed...".

You also now say say were watching on the same 1080 set... but in your post you quite clearly said "But, I've seen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD displayed on a 720p set right next to them on a 1080p set. And, you'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference." Maybe I'm mistaken, but when you say a 720p set right next to a 1080pset... thats the same set?

The more you respond, the deeper the hole your digging gets.

 

[JNasty4G63]

If anyone was trying to convince anyone of anything it was Nasty when he stated clearly that we'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference.

Thats called an observation, not convincing. If I was trying to convince you, I would say "There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you will see any difference", or "There is ABSOLUTELY no difference at all between 1080p and 720p". But, I just stated an opinion and observation. Since you like the dictionary so much lately, here you go...

ob‧ser‧va‧tion  /ˌɒb

zɜrˈveɪ

ʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ob-zur-vey-shuh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3. an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.

I'm just clearing up some facts that Nasty painted over in his attempt to convince us that 1080 displays and 1080 video is hardly noiceably better than 720.

See above. I'm making personal observations. I'm sorry they differ from yours, but they are my own and are correct.

Hilg

 

[JNasty4G63]

You also now say say were watching on the same 1080 set... but in your post you quite clearly said "But, I've seen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD displayed on a 720p set right next to them on a 1080p set. And, you'd be very hard pressed to notice a whole lot of difference." Maybe I'm mistaken, but when you say a 720p set right next to a 1080pset... thats the same set?

Well, we used two sets. But, given this discussion is involving 1080p sets, I used that in my clarification. We used both an A2000 and E2000. But, the talks here were about 1080p on a 1080p set, so thats the example I gave.

Like I said, all you have to do is ask. Stop making assumptions, and just ask if you need more clarification.

Hilg

 

[Sage]

For effing’s sake, will you two stop fighting everywhere you meet? I don’t have time (nor the inclination) to read through each post and weigh in the technical points of this argument – just put each other on your Ignore Lists if you have to.

That is all. Please resume (initiate?) constructive conversation.

 

[JNasty4G63]

I don't need any ignore lists for this. I'm open to discussion. But, he is trying to tell me I said things which I didn't. We (myself, Jedi, Duck and Deap) were doing quite well talking HDR, among other things, until he came in and started telling me about my vision, and what I should be seeing with HD content. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with what I'VE done here.

Hilg

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Stop making assumptions, and just ask if you need more clarification.

I didn't make any assumptions as you clearly said "But, I've seen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD displayed on a 720p set right next to them on a 1080p set." and you clearly said "you'd be hard pressed...".

Look you are clearly never going to accept any responisiblity, just as the last time this happened. Apparently this is your MO - make a post that is clearly flawed either with misinformation, and or opnions disguised as facts, and when someone addresses it you get self rightous and start a meaningless online battle of words and accuse anyone who takes an issue with your post as simply misunderstanding you and that it is our fault because of that.

Despite the fact that often times you have nothing to support your argument with, and your own quotes prove you wrong.

I guess the reason you refuse to respond in PM is that you like all the public attention. Of course this is only a personal guess as I wouldn't even begin to understand why someone would behave in your manor.

 

[Sage]

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with what I'VE done here.

I’m not saying or judging who’s at fault (notice I’ve not handed out any infractions) – I’m just saying that you two need to stop having these arguments that make it difficult for other members to hold a reasonable conversation about the topic.

Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say – discussion on this matter over. Just avoid any confrontation between yourselves at all costs. Otherwise another mod might not be so lenient.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Gamasutra Article on Weekly Famitsu's 2006 TGS Survey:

Survey Finds PlayStation 3, MGS 4 Most Wanted In Japan

Leading Japanese video game publication Weekly Famitsu has released a survey of attendees of the recent 2006 Tokyo Game Show on the level of interest and future purchase tendencies of next-generation game consoles.

Popular consumer game website IGN has translated the results, which put Sony's PlayStation 3 as the platform players are most looking forward to playing.

In total, the publication queried 4,000 show attendees, though the report notes that most questions were answered by between 2,500 and 3,000 people. According to the report, 58.3 percent of those surveyed identified the PlayStation 3 as their most anticipated next-generation platform, while the competing Wii and Xbox 360 platforms topped just 33.8 percent and 7.9 percent participants' wish lists respectively.

Looking to the price of each console, 56.5 percent of respondents noted that they felt the 20GB PlayStation 3 model was too expensive at 49,800 yen, while 35.7 percent felt it was just right and 7.8 percent noted it was inexpensive. Looking to the 60 GB version, which will carry an open price, 64.6 percent of those surveyed felt the price was “extremely high”, while 20.1 percent noted that it was just right and 15.3 percent who felt it was cheap. The survey also found that Konami's Metal Gear Solid 4 ranked as the most anticipated future release for the PlayStation 3, as well as across all platforms.

Interestingly, 65 percent of survey participants felt that the Xbox 360 core system, which will be released in Japan on November 2 for 29,800 yen, was reasonably priced, compared to 25.2 percent who noted that it's still too expensive and 9.8 percent who felt it will carry a low cost. Predictably, it was noted that Sakaguchi's epic RPG Blue Dragon is the game that most Xbox 360 enthusiasts are looking forward to playing.

Looking to Nintendo's Wii, 60.5 percent said that it was priced just right, while 13.6 percent commented that it was too expensive and 25.9 felt it was inexpensive. Those survey noted that the long awaited The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was the most anticipated Wii release on the horizon, beating out other Nintendo stalwarts Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Also interesting, 24.5 percent of respondents indicated that they thought the Wii remote looked “unique and user-friendly”, while a similar 24 percent noted that it looks difficult to use. It is worth noting that Nintendo did not have a presence at the Tokyo Game Show, and while a few third parties did bring Wii units to the event, they were not available to be played by attendees.

Looking to what consoles attendees planned to invest in, the publication found that of those people surveyed, 36.2 percent responded that they did not plan to purchase a PlayStation 3 in the immediate future, while 10.5 percent expected to pick up the console at launch.

The numbers varied slightly for the Wii, with 33 percent indicating that they did not plan to buy a Wii at this time, and 17.8 percent commenting that they planned to buy one at launch. As expected, the numbers went considerably south when turned to the Xbox 360. 66.4 percent of those asked said they did not plan to pick up an Xbox 360 core system anytime soon, while just 1.4 percent indicated that they would buy it at launch.

Surveys are certainly no guarantee, but it does suggest that at least in Japan, the XB360 has still not found much of an audience.

 

[Mr Deap]

Though, 43% are interested to the 360. Before it was more like 2%. It's not too bad, lol!

 

[JNasty4G63]

I didn't make any assumptions as you clearly said "But, I've seen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD displayed on a 720p set right next to them on a 1080p set." and you clearly said "you'd be hard pressed...".

That is called an observation and suggestion. How hard is that to understand?? If I had said...

I've driven both a 350Z and G35 Coupe. Both are fast, you'd be hard pressed to notice a whole lot of differece between them with regards to speed

...would you still get all fired up?? Sure, one might technically be faster, but I didn't notice it. And, even though I might not have noticed a difference, others might feel the Z is faster. That doesn't make my suggestion wrong. It just means they have a different opinion and different feelings.

Just like what I said before, and still believe is true. When viewed on either a 720p set or 1080p set, at my viewing distance, I can't see much difference at all between 1080p material and 720p material. And, as I said before, I would bet that many others, but not all, would feel the same way. Will some others notice, and claim a difference. Sure, everyone feels and sees different things. But I didn't.

Apparently this is your MO - make a post that is clearly flawed either with misinformation, and or opnions disguised as facts

I'll ask this question again, since you clearly avoided it before. Is my mother wrong when she says she can't see a difference between blue and green?? Even though many can see a difference that is technically there, is she wrong by saying that she can't see it?? I can't see a difference between 1080p and 720p at my viewing distance. Whats hard to understand about that???

you get self rightous and start a meaningless online battle of words

I believe YOU are the one who called me childish. Try this next time. If you want me to be more clear, or to explain myself better, just ask. Instead of calling me childish, or claiming everything I say is incorrect and baseless, just ask for a clarification. Thats all it takes. Is that so hard??

Hilg

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Though, 43% are interested to the 360. Before it was more like 2%. It's not too bad, lol!

Hmmm... I guess you got that by taking the difference from the 66.4 percent of those asked who said they did not plan to pick up an Xbox 360 core system anytime soon.

However when asked what was their most anticipated next-gen platform:

58.3% PS3
33.8% Wii
_7.9% Xbox 360

And only 1.4 percent indicated that they would buy the XB360 at launch, but again, you never know. I'm surprised MS has waited so long to release it in Japan.

I never kept track of Japanese sales. How many reg Xboxes sold there versus PS2's?

 

[G.T]

I never kept track of Japanese sales. How many reg Xboxes sold there versus PS2's?

Not well. At all. Trying to remember figures (roughly), about 30,000 PS2s were sold in 2 weeks, compared to about 100, yes 100 Xboxes. The 360 is only selling in the low 1000s too, so I suppose that's why Microsoft waited to release their console there - to release games/content in time so that the Japanese will like it a bit more than they do now. I know a place that gave these figures frequently, but they've stopped doing it...

Edit: Here's one of the sources:

http://chronotron.wordpress.com/2006/02/06/japanese-console-sales/ - a bit old, but proves the point:

* DS: 106,081
* PSP: 30,657
* PS2: 24,580
* GBA SP: 5,946
* GB Micro: 3,042
* Gamecube: 3,036
* Xbox 360: 1,976
* GBA: 179
* Xbox: 128

 

[Jay]

However when asked what was their most anticipated next-gen platform:

58.3% PS3
33.8% Wii
_7.9% Xbox 360

And only 1.4 percent indicated that they would buy the XB360 at launch, but again, you never know. I'm surprised MS has waited so long to release it in Japan.

Xbox360 was released in Japan late last year.


Here is how it went on launch day

 

[KENJIusa]

360 in Japan is dead, dead, and dead, nothing, nada.Few may buy it because of Blue Dragon ,But Most will not care about Mr "I'll say anything" Peter Moore's console once Ps3 and Wii are lauched. MS had one year ahead of Sony and Nintendo to convince Japanese People to buy 360, and all they did was send Moore and other dudes out talking trash.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Almost makes me want to get a Wii... almost.

 

[Mr Deap]

360 in Japan is dead, dead, and dead, nothing, nada.Few may buy it because of Blue Dragon ,But Most will not care about Mr "I'll say anything" Peter Moore's console once Ps3 and Wii are lauched. MS had one year ahead of Sony and Nintendo to convince Japanese People to buy 360, and all they did was send Moore and other dudes out talking trash.

& the day When people will get their hand on the famous PS3, they will figure they bought a something high & retarded at the same time. The XBOX 360 GPU is in another generation above of the PS3.

 

[Jay]

& the day When people will get their hand on the famous PS3, they will figure they bought a something high & retarded at the same time. The XBOX 360 GPU is in another generation above of the PS3.

And you wonder why people point you out as the biggest fanboy..

 

[Mr Deap]

And you wonder why people point you out as the biggest fanboy..

Also, I will add...

What the point to buy a system that have hard time to deliver AA on 1080P. This is a piece of crap. Bump Mapping are less noticeable than on the XBOX 360 & games run on DX8 like graphic level. Games Feel empty & lack of AI. It use a retarded level of HDR & texture are cripped to death. How can you enjoy a crap machine like that on a big TV?

 

[Jedi2016]

& the day When people will get their hand on the famous PS3, they will figure they bought a something high & retarded at the same time. The XBOX 360 GPU is in another generation above of the PS3.

Oh, boy... here we go again. You plan to back any of that up with actual data, or just "because I said so"?

What the point to buy a system that have hard time to deliver AA on 1080P. This is a piece of crap. Bump Mapping are less noticeable than on the XBOX 360 & games run on DX8 like graphic level. Games Feel empty & lack of AI. It use a retarded level of HDR & texture are cripped to death. How can you enjoy a crap machine like that on a big TV?

Um.. what? Where are you getting this information? And there you go about HDR again... You never did answer my question about Assassin's Creed.