I' m no tech-guy so maybe I' m completely wrong.
But if you compare screens from
MGS with screens from Splinter Cell


Killzone with Gears



Ratchet with Kameo


(Kameo is a rushed launch title so it looks like ass by comparison but I think my point still holds)


Is it just me or is there a difference with how the 360 and PS3 games look?
The PS3 games look more flat and dead but on the other hand they look more sharp. Killzone and MGS seem to go with single colour themes. Of course, it' s not as apparent in every game as in these but still.
Does it just happen to be so that the devs for each high profile game made the games look different for the different consoles or does this have something to do with how the PS3 and 360 graphics work?

Different kinds of texture mapping.

I guess this is kind of what you' re talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_mapping
So, is the PS3 limited in any way when it comes to texture mapping or have the developers simply chosen to use other methods because of their own preference?
Also, the Unreal Engine seems to have nicer textures and stuff, is that related to the mentioned problems with PS3-UE3 compatibility?

PS3 is limited by only having 256Mb available to the graphics card. Less available memory = lower quality textures, unless ofcourse you can come up with a great texture streaming system like that being used in the PS3 version of UTIII and to a lesser extent Lair.

As soon as some proper middleware is made available then we' ll see better results from PS3, ...but bear in mind that the same or similar techniques will also be possible on 360 which should mean that 360 will always have the edge in this particular case.

Love how this asshole claims he gonna show dead textures for ps3 but shows half of them on the xbox360.

ORIGINAL: Nitro

PS3 is limited by only having 256Mb available to the graphics card. Less available memory = lower quality textures, unless ofcourse you can come up with a great texture streaming system like that being used in the PS3 version of UTIII and to a lesser extent Lair.

As soon as some proper middleware is made available then we' ll see better results from PS3, ...but bear in mind that the same or similar techniques will also be possible on 360 which should mean that 360 will always have the edge in this particular case.

I see. Well that pretty much explains everything. Thank you.

Perhaps it' s because the devs are looking for different feel on different games, or maybe it' s because the graphics team failed/are bad on textures, but most likely it' s because PS3 SUXORGZ BIG TAJM when it comes to textures! [:' (]

ORIGINAL: Dionysius

but most likely it' s because PS3 SUXORGZ BIG TAJM when it comes to textures! [:' (]

Not really. There are means and ways but they' d cost both time and money to impliment and most developers/publishers simply don' t bother because in the vast majority of cases the difference in projected sales would be minor.

Middleware and tailored engines will open up loads of new possibilities for PS3 as far as graphics go. It' s just going to take time. Edge should help some devs, i' ve heard great things about that, but i can' t see PS3 bettering 360 as far as textures go (in general). What i' m more interested in is coders tapping CELL and being able to offload some of the rendering to the processor.

I' m keeping my eye on Crytek as far as PS3 tech is concerned. I think they' re cooking up something pretty special...

Anyway, textures don' t make pretty games. CoD4 and Killzone are lacking in that department and still look amazing. Lighting/shadowing, animation, high poly modeling, advanced particle effects etc are all just as important as texture mapping.