Face-Off: Alice: Madness Returns

By David Bierton Published 23 June, 2011

Through the looking glass.

Page 1 of 2
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.5GB 4.9GB
Install 5.5GB (optional) 4389MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 7.1LPCM, 5.1LPCM

Unreal Engine 3 continues to dominate the current development landscape; the popular middleware gained more momentum recently with the news that LucasArts has signed a studio-wide deal that will see all its upcoming titles developed on the ubiquitous Epic platform. In the meantime, the developer itself plans to roll out its most technically advanced UE3 title yet, Gears of War 3, destined for big things when it is released later this year. Despite the emergence of competitors such as CryEngine 3, Epic's position in the engine-licensing market only seems to be moving from strength to strength - a ringing endorsement of its technology, with Alice: Madness Returns the latest in a long line of titles to benefit from its cross-platform credentials.

Historically, Unreal Engine 3 games have tended to favour the Xbox 360, to the point where Epic's own Bulletstorm featured a smoother performance level and graphical effects absent from the PlayStation 3 version of the game. Alice: Madness Returns is an interesting example of how other third-party developers are handling the engine: there are clear examples of graphical advantages on each console platform, and while the overall impression is that the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are very close indeed, there are some notable differences, as the head-to-head movie and the Alice: Madness Returns comparison gallery demonstrate.

Alice: Madness Returns on PS3 and Xbox 360 - use the full-screen button for 720p resolution, or click on the link below for a larger window.

The first thing that you'll notice is that Alice is a cleaner-looking game on the PS3, with smoother edges and less in the way of subtle aliasing. The jaggies aren't exactly an issue on either version due to the style of the artwork and the colour choices employed, which tend to hide many of the edge artifacts. Both versions of the game render out in 720p and there's no anti-aliasing on the Xbox 360 version, while PS3 owners get the added benefit of a post-process-based AA solution, most likely MLAA. As there is no texture blur in Spicy Horse's implementation, edges and textures are left looking nice and sharp, thus enhancing overall image quality.

360-aa
ps3-aa

The Xbox 360 version of Alice: Madness Returns has no anti-aliasing, but the PS3 version features a post-process MLAA-style solution that offers edge-smoothing very close indeed to the PC version.

Despite the additional memory savings from using MLAA over a more traditional anti-aliasing solution, there are a few examples of missing or pared-back texture details on the PS3 - for example, the lack of grass occupying some of the ground textures. There's also a reduction in specular highlighting (the shininess of a surface) on some effects in a few scenes, such as the lack of sheen on the splashes of the shrinking potion flowing from the fountain near the beginning of the game.

The overall visual experience isn't exactly compromised, considering that most of the game appears like-for-like in most other areas, but there are times when specific locations appear slightly more barren due to the changes that have been made.

360-effects1
ps3-effects1
360-effects2
ps3-effects2

Certain graphical effects and texture details appear to be running with a higher resolution on the Xbox 360 version of the game. The result doesn't impact PS3 Alice that much, though the occasional area can seem a little sparse in comparison.

On the flipside, we see that LODs appear to be a touch more refined on the Sony platform with shadows and a few occasional textures loading up a little earlier, no doubt taking advantage of the mammoth mandatory HDD install leading to faster asset streaming.

Other than that, there are a few other graphical oddities that crop up from time to time. Some alpha-based effects appear to suffer from texture compression issues on all three formats at various points, while some of the shadows cast on Alice can look a little rough when they flicker and glitch in and out of view when moving through the environment, something which occurs more often on the PS3 version of the game.

Performance analysis reveals that Alice: Madness Returns is v-synced on both platforms and features a capped 30FPS update, but there is a distinct difference in how both versions operate across the basic run of play. Initially, neither one really deviates from the targeted 30FPS update. We see one or two frames being torn on the 360, and a little more on the PS3, but nothing particularly noticeable at all. During much of our time spent exploring some of the game's imaginatively constructed environments, most of the slight dips in smoothness had very little impact on the overall experience on either platform - both were equally playable. It's only when we move into more detailed areas while battling a group of enemies that we see a fairly large gap emerge.

Performance analysis reveals a capped 30FPS on both platforms, with the PS3 version much more likely to drop frames and lose v-sync.

In these instances the PS3 version not only suffers from a greater amount of screen tearing, but many more frames are dropped as well, resulting in some heavy slowdown which serves to dull controller response significantly - in situations like this, gameplay is undoubtedly impacted, and combat is exactly the kind of situation where a consistent frame-rate and controller response is a must.

Oddly enough, there are also a few instances where we see a few short dips in smoothness manifesting on the PS3 during times when there isn't much going on at all. Frames are only dropped for a brief second or two, but this results in a visible judder, which disconnects you from the experience, if only temporarily. Thankfully it is only a minor annoyance and not a major blemish in the grand scheme of things. Both 360 and PS3 versions of Alice: Madness Returns are fairly solid overall, each with their own visual enhancements, but with the Microsoft platform claiming the honours from a performance perspective.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (49) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Vortextk #1 11 months ago

    With some more tinkering of the .ini file listed around the web I eventually got the game running at a fairly locked 1080p60 on my computer(unfortunately late into the game). Crossfire also did not work properly at first. Before the majority of the tweaking but with the simple bump of 30 to 60 framerate cap, I was only using 1 graphics card(radeon 4870) and could keep 60 pretty well if I turned off either post processing or AA.

    Post processing was very necessary as without it on I felt the game was exceedingly flat looking and aliasing wasn't all that noticeable as pointed out here for the 360 version. It was even less noticeable at such a higher resolution as well. With both cards working properly, or mostly atleast(performance was much worse using both initially, even less than one card), and those further changes in the ini the game finally relented and let me play it how my computer should handle what is basically a console port.

    1080p60 maxed on my machine, very stable after everything was done. Crossfire radeon 4870 1gb's, phenom II x4 945 and 4 gigs of ddr2. I do wish I could have enabled physx. This game definitely presented some problems for the pc out of the box.
    Edited by Vortextk at 23/06/11 @ 09:20

  • ram #2 11 months ago

    The madness returns

  • ZizouFC #3 11 months ago

    4389MB mandatory install for the PS3? Dang...

  • Vortextk #4 11 months ago

    Lol I thought it was richard writing the article until I read another name, though that never actually bugs me. If a bias exists I believe it's only a firm believer of responsive controls + high framerate. If anyone thinks that is a negative bias, maybe they should show themselves out the door of DF.

  • Psiloc #5 11 months ago

    David Bierton is biased as well!

  • spiderignacio #6 11 months ago

    Thank you very much for the article, I have both consoles and I did not know which version I should buy.

    Now, I will get the 360.

  • Ferral #7 11 months ago

    Reading this article David is actually putting his findings into much better reading material than Richard. The scope he is using and the arguments he is putting across are far superior. I also like the way he has actually incorporated all 3 gaming platforms in his conclusion and summarised each.

    With this game I bought it on PC and it runs perfect in 1080p on my system with everything maxxed out, it looks phenomenal. Console choice is literally whatever system you are comfortable with. 360 has the edge but only by the performance side of things as the PS3 dips occasionally. Its good to see the PS3 finally utilising UE3, last few games on this engine seem to have got better and more refined even though this engine is primarily 360 and PC.

    If I hadnt bought it on PC it was going to be the PS3 version for me, just because I have problems with arthritis in my right hand and the 360 controller is a bit heavy making my fingers hurt if I play to long.

    Good article, definately a good change from Richards stuff.

  • Vortextk #8 11 months ago

    Lol @ ferral.

    I'd love to read that this was richard's article, they just changed the name around to see the reaction.

  • Ferral #9 11 months ago

    I honestly dont think it is as bad as Richards articles! Thats just my personal opinion.

    I have a PC that runs everything in 1080p regardless now so most of my games will be on PC until later this year when Gears 3, Uncharted 3 and Dark Souls land, Dark Souls is going to be PS3 for me.

    It doesnt really matter what console you get the games on now, the differences to the naked eye whilst playing are barely noticable anymore. Both machines are going from strength to strength

  • Darren #10 11 months ago

    "The solution: a quick change to the Alice Engine.ini file (specifically 'MaxSmoothedFrameRate') from 30 to 60 unlocks the frame-rate cap, thus allowing the engine to render as many frames as your hardware configuration can keep up with."

    That isn't quite correct as the engine would still be capped at 60 fps and unable to render more than 60 frames per second even with v-sync forced off in this game. In order for the engine to run as fast as your graphics card can render you'd have to set the MaxSmoothedFramerate variable to some ridiculously high figure like 10000. You'd also have to disable v-sync from this INI file too since the game forces it on by default and there's (surprisingly) no option to disable it.

    Anyway, this game is fantastic; both beautiful to look at, in spite of the dated UE3 (an engine I'm not especially fond of) and imaginatively designed throughout and varied with it plus insanely addictive to play. It is also pleasingly lengthy, something which seemed to annoy many reviewers! The lack of AA on the 360 version is a non-issue as jaggies are barely noticeable. It's the best 5/10 game I've played in the past year (just as Duke Nukem Forever is the best 3/10 one!) and highlights just how much my views can differ from those of EG. It's very much underrated IMO though it seemed to score nearer 70% with many other sites. Everyone's different though. ;)

    I've been playing both the 360 and PC versions and while the latter is superior, the former is no slouch either. The 360 version is certainly buggier though from my playthrough as twice I've had to reload previous checkpoints; once when an enemy froze on the spot and couldn't be killed thus not triggering the next door to open and the other against the Executioner where, again, the next section failed to trigger. Both these occurred in Chapter 4. I've played both for 12 hours each, well into Chapter 5 and I've encountered no bugs or glitches of this kind on the PC although the PhysX does make the game occasionally hitch for some reason even though the framerate seldom dips below 60 fps. Weird but it's a common issue with other PhysX games I've played as well and suggests that it perhaps isn't optimised very well as GPU usage rarely exceeds 65% on my system (GTX 580).

  • Mister-Wario #11 11 months ago

    They sound pretty evenly matched to me.

  • Darren #12 11 months ago

    P.S. I'm not sure whether triple buffering is enabled by default in UE3 games but with v-sync forced on, it is advisable to also force triple buffering too using RivaTuner's D3DOverrider, something I do for every game I install. If you see the framerate fluctuating between 60 and 30 fps then back to 30 fps with nothing in between when v-sync is on then you need to enable triple buffering so you don't get those massive drops.

  • -cerberus- #13 11 months ago

    I've been experiencing something rather odd with the 360 version: even after installing it onto the harddrive, the disc keeps spinning shortly after booting up the game. I've looked around on a couple of message boards and I don't seem to be the only one with this problem.

    Is anybody else here experiencing this as well?
    Edited by -cerberus- at 23/06/11 @ 10:14

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #14 11 months ago

    I think it's worth pointing out that Rich taught David how to do these, and that he supervises and edits his work. Digital Foundry is Digital Foundry.

    We are also abandoning the big PS3 vs. 360 face-off roundups in favour of more frequent single-game articles like this one, and part of that is definitely to include analysis of the PC version whenever possible.

  • Darren #15 11 months ago

    @-cerberus- - Yes I've noticed that too. Looks like either a bug or maybe the game is playing audio from the DVD to reduce streaming issues from running off the HDD. It's just a guess though.

    Incidentally, the texture streaming in this game is downright odd at times, more so on the 360 than the PC. The UE3 is notorious anyway for such issues (one of the reasons I don't like it to be honest) but the engine at times switches between low and higher res textures as Alice moves towards things, instead of getting progressively sharper as you'd expect. It's worst on the 360 where even the textures on Alice's dresses and weapons which you can equip in the main menu often fail to load properly and I'm left looking at blurry ones instead, even after waiting over a minute, despite the game being installed to the hard drive. It seems buggier in this game than other UE3 games I've played so I'm wondering if the engine needs patching to improve the streaming.
    Edited by Darren at 23/06/11 @ 10:47

  • Darren #16 11 months ago

    @guillotine - A comparison of the loading times would be pointless since both the PC and 360 versions load very, very quickly; less than 5 seconds except for the initial post-load which is a little longer but still not that long. Since the PS3 version has a mandatory install then I'd wager it is fast as well. The PC version loads a hair faster but there really isn't much in it with such speedy loading times.

    One of the gripes I have with this game is the way the game often jarringly cuts to a loading screen, sometimes it even interrupts cutscenes before the dialogue has finished (noticeable on Chapter 2 where you have to follow pirate ghosts through a dark area).

  • -cerberus- #17 11 months ago

    @Darren #17: I frowned upon the dresses & weapons as well. How could this even go unnoticed by QA?

    By the way: the console port of American McGee's Alice is terrible. Mostly due to the poor controls but the very frequent hickups made it almost unplayable.

  • davisorle #18 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • beatwolf #19 11 months ago

    Great article! Solid work put into this.
    Will be getting the 360 version for this although my pc could handle it with everything on max. Somehow though, this game just fits better on consoles, with a controller in hand, sat in front of a huge telly in the sofa :)

  • Darren #20 11 months ago

    @-cerberus- - If it helps then the PC version of Alice 1 is equally bad/unplayable too.

    Well, OK, perhaps it isn't all bad, it's the god-awful controls that make it an absolute nightmare to play but the rest of it isn't too bad if you can put up with the twitchy movement, the terrible jumping animation, the lack of feedback from the combat and the annoying fixed-behind-Alice-at-all-times camera! It's definitely a game that would have benefited from a proper remastering, perhaps running on UE3 like Alice MR does? Shame they didn't do that but then purists would argue it's not the same game I suppose!

  • Ferral #21 11 months ago

    I'm not trying to trash Richard, I just prefer Davids writing style and the way he actually explains his findings.

    I have been reading these face offs for a good while now and I hate it when in the comments you get everyone bitching at each other about a few dropped frames and various other quirks each platform displays. We all know by now that the PS3 isnt as strong when it comes to UE3, but we are starting to see improvement from UE3 if its in the hands of a decent developer on the PS3.

    UE3 is now getting quite old I must admit. Looking forward to actually seeing a few games on the newer version, no doubt that will be later this year starting with Gears 3. It needs to shift up a gear to be able to keep up with tech like Cryteks new engine and the new Frostbite engine. Granted the PC is going to be the one to watch with this new tech but its going to be interesting to see just how well the consoles perform. One game that I am really looking forward to seeing in a face off later this year is going to be The Witcher 2, it requires a decent system just to be able to run it in low res and min detail on PC, going to be interesting to see what CD Project actually manage to get out of the 360.

    Either way, hope to see more of Davids articles in the future, good read

  • -cerberus- #22 11 months ago

    @Darren #22: I've got the PC version right here but I don't remember it being quite as bad as the console ports ;) It's been a while since I've played it though...

    And I'm a (survival horror) purist but I'm all for proper improvements! For starters, implementing Madness Returns' lock-on mechanic would've greatly improved combat in the port.

  • siro #23 11 months ago

    The original game is bundled with this on the consoles? Makes the whole thing somewhat more interesting!

  • mrblonde #24 11 months ago

    The small benefits added by playing the face off titles on p.c., shows just what a waste of time and effort it is "running" a gaming rig. Most lay people wouldnt notice the differences between console and p.c., yet there are few titles out which match gears3 or uncharted on a computer.
    Crysis 4 YEARS AGO WAS AND IS THE LAST P.C. EXCLUSIVE ( with a budget). We wont see a graphics boost till the next box or ps4. All this p.c. is pulling ahead nonsense, in theory , yes but no one will make games for these super machines. WOW and flash are all that makes any money these days im afraid.

    The xbox360 remains the best way to play todays games, everything from its online to its M/C and "normal " pads, clearl though devs have stopped pushing ms system now that the ps3 is only a few milllion behind.

  • Darren #25 11 months ago

    @-cerberus- - The PC version included with Alice: MR is supposedly 'remastered' with widescreen support for 1920x1200 among others and Xbox 360 controller integration but I believe bar those new additions it is identical to the original, which I'd only played previously, many years ago, in demo form. I only tried the PC version with the controller but it played and looked identical to the Xbox 360 I've also tried.

    Maybe the keyboard and mouse make Alice more playable but I never tried it, never even considered it to be honest, as I only use them if a game doesn't support the controller as that is my preferred method of control in the vast majority of PC games I play. I do think that Alice should have been tweaked a little more personally to control more like a modern third-person game, with camera control moved onto the right analogue stick, as that would not have interfered with anything else. As the game is it feels more dated than it otherwise should do due to the terrible controls.

  • Darren #26 11 months ago

    @mrblonde - So you don't consider cheaper games, higher rendering resolutions, better texture streaming, faster loading times, 60 fps framerates (or higher if you prefer!) plus bonuses like hardware PhysX effects to be things worth buying a gaming PC for? Regardless, PCs are useful for more things than just running games anyway; I don't think anyone just uses their PCs for gaming and nothing else.

    The high-end PC is what consoles eventually aspire to be; it's been that way for years. It is PC technology which ultimately drives the next-generation of console hardware not the other way round. Want to see what the next-gen version of Crysis 3 might look like? Then check out Crysis 2 running with the DX11 patch at 1080p. Why wait for the next-generation and endure sub-HD, jaggy looking games with screen tearing lurching along at barely 30 fps when you don't have to? :p

  • paintsville #27 11 months ago

    Wow the performance difference here is dramatic and PS3 requiring yet ANOTHER massive "Mandatory" install. Well the PS3 has been on the market for 5 years now so it's high time to stop blaming developers for the shortcomings of the console. Here's 360 outperforming the ps3 yet again and again and again with not mandatory install. The RSX's fillrate is the primary problem here compounded with the fact that PS3 lacks the unified RAM architecture of the 360. This equates to missing or downgraded textures and the fillrate results in dropped and torn frames when trying to pull off the same level of fidelity of the 360 which has a vastly more advanced GPU. I do however like the fact that the ps3 version is using the MLAA but rather than dedicating CPU resources to this the cell should have been utilized in helping the RSX with shader functrions. This could have, possibly, freed up RSX resources and helped with frame rates.

  • Darren #28 11 months ago

    @paintsville - I wonder how much of a performance hit that MLAA is costing the PS3 version? Maybe the game would run better without it? It's the first UE3 game on the PS3 to my knowledge to use it. The 360 version has no AA at all but the post-processing effects and bloom/HDR lighting coupled with the organic-style of much of the art make jaggies hard to see anyway IMO.

  • Vortextk #29 11 months ago

    Why make a crazy high end computer game that no one can properly play for 5 years? It's dumb and the market isn't there. If you need to show off how awesome your gaming computer is, go run The Witcher 2 with uber sampling on at 60fps. That should cost you a significant amount of money. I enjoy seeing a pc version of many games that would be considered ONLY console type games last generation, giving me a choice to run the game much better than any console could.

  • kirankara #30 11 months ago

    "Wow the performance difference here is dramatic and PS3 requiring yet ANOTHER massive "Mandatory" install. Well the PS3 has been on the market for 5 years now so it's high time to stop blaming developers for the shortcomings of the console. "

    what a ridiculously shortsighted view of the larger situation involved in producing a game using ue3. Ue3 requires a lot of optimisation on ps3, and can if used well, produce decent results. Look at castlevania, which was pretty much equal on both consoles.

    If the engine isnt optimised well, then, games struggle intensely on ps3. I dont blame smaller devs for not optimising ps3 games, as it costs them more, and they probably cant get that sort of budget from publishers, but if its been shown on more graphically intensive games than this, that u can run ue3 games pretty evenly on ps3, then its clearly not hardware issue, but an engine and optimisation issue.

    You can of course say, sony balls'ed up making hardware it did, and i agree whole heartedly

  • MDL199 #31 11 months ago

    These face off's are becoming pointless in my opinion.

    Looking at the video's I could see little difference between the versions and as a multi console owner i'll just pick it up on the system where the pricing is cheapest and in a couple of months when it's probably around the £15 mark.

    Also, although the pc version is certainly cleaner and sharper than the console versions the difference isn't exactly earth shattering which is why I hope we won't be seeing any follow up's to the PS3 or 360 just yet. I'd certainly not be prepared to shell out £300 to £400 odd for a new console just to play games that to the naked eye maybe look 5% better than what we are seeing on current consoles.

    Games on the current consoles are getting better and better just look at Uncharted 3 footage for example, so let's give both consoles at least 3 more years.

  • Vortextk #32 11 months ago

    It's kind of ignorant to call the pc title lacking visuals when it is in pretty much all cases, a direct port of the console game. How can you even begin to argue that a pc barely makes a dent in the visuals when they're showing the exact same thing? I think running it at double the framerate and pushing out more than twice the pixels as well as some slight visual tweaks is all the proof we need to see the power difference, let alone really high end gaming computers with like a triple monitor setup in 3d or something.

    You can't complain pc games don't look better while doubling framerates and resolution(720p->1080p is more than double the pixels) on a modest system is pretty standard for all console ports where the developers fail to add much of any pc centric options or visuals. I'm interested to see what the witcher 2 looks like on 360.

  • TheSpaz #33 11 months ago

    Why does the article say that both versions are v-synced and then goes on to say that the PS3 has torn frames.

    Looking at the video, it looks like the 360 is v-synced while the PS3 is not.

    These games do not look similar at all. PS3 is missing big important textures, runs worse, and the screen tears all over the place.

    Sorry to say, but this article sucked.... but this game sucks even more.

    Thanks DF for letting me know why I shouldn't buy this game!

  • MDL199 #34 11 months ago

    @Vortextk

    The thing is when you pump out stats about frame rate and resolution it makes it sound like a massive jump but for me at least to the naked eye there isn't a huge difference and most 360 and PS3 games still look absolutely stunning. I understand what you're saying about pc versions largely being touched up ports but even rare pc only games don't look so much better than what the consoles can churn out.

    If you look at the massive jump from psone to ps2 and the equally big jump then on to ps3 I don't think cutting edge pc visuals of today come anywhere near matching that kind of leap in graphics.

    Just my opinion of course.

  • The-Jack-Burton #35 11 months ago

    I got this for the 360 and it looks terrible, artwork is cool but everything looks very muddy and washed-out. Easily one of the ugliest games I've played in quite awhile, and the gameplay is boring.

  • obscured021 #36 11 months ago

    Thanks for the tip with the INI file EG! the game dose a solid 60 at 1080 with all the settings at max including physx, only hits about 20% use on both my cards

  • Average_joe #37 11 months ago

    David bierton is the new xbox fanboy!!

    As we clearly see, this is gorgeus looking game on the ps3 but not so much with xbox. microsoft should REALLY hurry up to invent new console because 360 IS old and cant keep up. with the power of cell, sony doesnt have to publish new console for next 5 years!

  • Badassbab #38 11 months ago

    Deluded fanboy alert

  • Sharzam #39 11 months ago

    So as i undestand it the main benefit of the PC version is the Physix, i however have a 6950 GPU. I fancy getting this on a console but cant help but feel should get for my PC despite the lack of Physix hmm.

  • Hei #40 11 months ago

    Why don't we get a DF of Infamous 2?

  • riseer #41 11 months ago

    I so hate Unreal engine..it's like the Ps3 get's bitchslap every fkin time.They should had used Havok or anything else.UE3 engine does not work on Ps3 unless the dev writes the code just for Ps3.I hate Epic and their shitty engine it does not work with Ps3.I have a Pc that can run this game if need to be but no ty i will pass.Looks to emo and just stupid..oh yea it runs like shit on my console thxs again Epic Games..

  • womble #42 11 months ago

    You Richard bashers really are a pack of wankers, and you know it.

    The only reason you bash on Richard is that so many PS3 ports have been lacking, historically. And you can't handle it, so you wank on about "bias" when in fact it's you with the biases.

    Grow the flap up.

  • vizzini #43 11 months ago

    DF: Despite the additional memory savings from using MLAA over a more traditional anti-aliasing solution, there are a few examples of missing or pared-back texture details on the PS3 - for example, the lack of grass occupying some of the ground textures. There's also a reduction in specular highlighting (the shininess of a surface) on some effects in a few scenes, such as the lack of sheen on the splashes of the shrinking potion flowing from the fountain near the beginning of the game.

    The pairing back of textures might be true in other parts of the game, but looking at the 4 pictures (the evidence) as provided would produce the exact opposite conclusion. For a start, the grass texture appears to have a secondary bump/normal map texture (tension map?) like a cloud producing an occlusion of the grass towards the cliff edge; and the specular reflection in the water images will firstly be different because (the shadows) indicate the sun position is inconsistent.

    But specular highlights (on a single primitive) are inversely proportional to power (x^y) of the specular reflection calculation (in the vertex & fragment calculation). Typically it would result in more focused highlights(small area) as the power of the calculation increased (resulting in GPU being heavier strained by shader calculations).

    So based on the DF article information, the final ps3 image is technically better in all areas than its 360 counterpart; but at the expense of tiny amounts of increased tearing and dropped frames.

  • MrHuk #44 11 months ago

    I was going to get the PS3 version, now I'm going to get the X360 version as the frame rate is rock solid on the X360 but the PS3 suffers heavily in parts.

  • des #45 11 months ago

    Boring,BF3 face-off please

  • bloodflowers #46 11 months ago

    Why do people love edge smoothing so much? It just makes everything looks blurred unless it's very slight.

    Really enjoyed this game, although some of the crypt sections were very very difficult half way through.

  • Presskohle #47 11 months ago

    3 things/mistakes:

    1) no word on the 3D in-game setting (PC)? It looks quite nice in 3D.

    2) all PhysX effects in Alice are also available with AMD GPUs, the performance hit is bigger though.

    3) the hair & cloth rigid system is custom made, not PhysX based.

  • lemonfist #48 11 months ago

    I'll wait for the Wii U version because it'll run at 60fps and 0 % screen tearing and it'll blow your fucking minds because you can play it on a tiny screen in your living room while your wife watches some dumb reality show on the big screen.

    Or so Reggie told me to say.

  • SaberEdge #49 10 months ago

    It gets really old hearing people claim that there is no significant difference between PC and console versions of games.
    I mean, you might not think you notice it in screenshots or low res internet videos, but if you see it with your own eyes on a decent display the difference is readily apparent.

    And in the case you don't notice it, well that only means that you are extremely imperceptive. You are probably one of those people that said there was no noticeable difference between VHS and DVD.

    If you don't care about the difference then that's fine. But don't claim that the difference isn't that big. To most people the difference is quite significant.

    I own a PC, PS3 and 360 and I really love the PC far above the others. Just the difference between sub-30fps and 60 fps is a HUGE difference to me. There are lots of improvements and advantages that the PC usually gives you and it all adds up to a much, much nicer visual experience.