Face-Off: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

By Richard Leadbetter Published 18 November, 2010

No more tiny Templar.

Page 1 of 2
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.5GB 7.48GB
Install 6.5GB (optional) 4169MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM

It's a 10! Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood expertly refines and improves ACII's winning formula, adds in a highly enjoyable online multiplayer mode and sets the stage nicely for the next (final?) instalment in the saga of Desmond Miles.

However, the question remains: if you have access to both an Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, which version of the game is the one to buy? Historically, the series' tech has favoured the Microsoft console, but the gap narrowed significantly with the advent of ACII, and right from the very beginning of Brotherhood, it's clear that Ubisoft Montreal has made a number of further refinements to the Anvil engine.

So let's beat about the bush no longer and get to work. As per the norm, there are two sets of comparison assets for you to pore over - an exhaustive 720p comparison gallery along with this edited highlights selection of clips from the game.

Xbox 360 vs. PS3 AC: Brotherhood comparison video - use the full-screen button for full resolution or click the EGTV link for a larger window.

The Assassin's Creed games have never had a problem in maintaining cross-platform conformity in terms of the core art and the graphical features of the engine, and nothing has changed with Brotherhood. Once again, the only real difference concerns anti-aliasing: just like the previous games, the PS3 version uses the quincunx AA technique where edge-smoothing comes at the expense of blurring textures. Xbox 360 retains the 2x multi-sampling AA common to both of the previous Assassin's Creed titles.

We also see a difference in terms of the gamma level, which used to be a regular occurrence in the Face-Off comparisons but isn't so much of an issue these days. There is some evidence that suggests that this may actually be a hardware issue within the 360. One very prominent developer talked to us recently about how component and HDMI colour levels from the Microsoft console don't seem to match. This is something we plan to investigate in the near-future by dumping the 360's video RAM directly and comparing to a lossless stream from the HDMI port. Hardly a big deal but the findings could be useful in calibrating your display.

Quincunx and gamma aside, the two games are effectively a match, but this is nothing new, as the differentiating factor with the AC titles has always been the performance. In the original Assassin's Creed, performance wasn't spectacular on 360 but was positively woeful on PS3. The sequel showed little to no improvement on the Microsoft platform, but a lot of work had clearly been carried out on the PS3 engine – 360 still commanded the overall advantage, but in several places the Sony console outperformed it.

Similar to the ACII Face-Off, two sets of performance analyses should help us get a good feel for how things stand in Brotherhood. All of the cut-scenes are generated by the engine, and the range of scenes on offer gives us a wealth of effectively identical snippets of action we can analyse and compare on both platforms.

Like-for-like scenes show that the PS3 version tears more, but there is no uniform difference in performance - PS3 can and will outperform 360 at times.

Similar to ACII, in like-for-like scenes we see an overall trend favouring the Xbox 360 version with slightly higher frame-rates on average and lower levels of tearing, with both versions capped at 30FPS in line with Brotherhood's predecessor. The PS3 game appears to have a specific weakness in rendering environments with lots of draw distance - here we see dropped frames a-plenty and lots of tearing whereas 360 is more solid.

However, Ezio's mad dash on horseback through his besieged town throws up some interesting points where the PS3 version is clearly outperforming the Xbox 360 game, so perhaps other game modules (physics, for example) are optimised in favour of the Sony console?

The second set of performance tests come from in-game. Here we are taking on the same series of missions on both platforms. While the renderer obviously isn't processing the exact same scenes, across the whole series of clips we should be able to draw some conclusions on how smoothly the game actually runs when it comes to the crucial matter of gameplay. The missions chosen are designed to cover off long view distances, rooftop traversal and combat.

Gameplay analysis shows that the obtrusive tearing we've seen in previous Assassin's Creed titles is still an issue in Brotherhood.

It's fair to say that in these missions at least, there isn't so much to tell the games apart. We do see the same PS3 weakness on rendering long distance scenes in the initial siege scene but as the other missions don't tend to concentrate on draw distance we see a much closer range of performance. What is clearly evident is that rendering budgets are really pushed beyond their boundaries on both systems when crowd scenes are in evidence.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (118) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • lcmnick #1 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 13:33:57 08-05-2012

  • Nephirion #2 2 years ago

    Fantastic, now when the PC version comes out we can have a face off between that and Assassin's Creed 3

  • BruiserBear #3 2 years ago

    @lcmnick Why do you bother visiting this site when you know that's what they do here? In depth analysis of games.
    Edited by BruiserBear at 18/11/10 @ 18:05

  • kirankara #4 2 years ago

    @scotty 269 , I read lens of truth article and their footage seemed to heavily favour 360 port, although in motion I thought little between them , apart from the washed out looking colours mainly , but in this face off the washed out colours don't look so prominent. If I'm honest( can now proudly say i own both consoles as of today) I might be tempted by the downloadable content, and think the more polish of 360 would be secondary in my choice, although both would be preferable
    Edited by kirankara at 18/11/10 @ 18:37

  • kirankara #5 2 years ago

    Would like to say to Ubisoft , well done in decent port, unlike the shocking cod black ops port by treyarch, although maybe I should thank them for that, as I might have given it more time , if it hadn't looked so bad, but as it was woeful port( and game) I traded it in, so thanks treyarch lol

  • HokutoNoKen #6 2 years ago

    Lens of Truth analysis for those that are interested:

    [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=24367
    ]http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=24367
    [/link]

    Resolution, AA and frame buffer data PS3:
    1280x720 with QAA (equal to 4xAA but uses as much memory as 2xAA, the penelty is the blur) : 14Mb

    Resolution, AA and frame buffer data Xbox 360:
    1280x720 with 2xAA : 14Mb

    Textures
    Same according to DF. Not same according to LoT (Not sure they understand how QAA works).

    Load times
    PlayStation 3 Load Times Xbox 360 Load Times
    Sample 1: 23 seconds Sample 1: 31 seconds
    Sample 2: 17 seconds Sample 2: 25 seconds
    Sample 3: 21 seconds Sample 3: 30 seconds
    Sample 4: 23 seconds Sample 4: 29 seconds
    Sample 5: 19 seconds Sample 5: 29 seconds

    Average: 20.6 seconds Average: 28.8 seconds

    Framerate and tearing PS3
    Global percent of torn frames: 4.82
    Global average FPS: 29.76

    Framerate and tearing Xbox 360
    Global percent of torn frames: 3.73
    Global average FPS: 29.81

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 18/11/10 @ 18:28

  • kirankara #7 2 years ago

    Am intrigued by the gamma situation, as I swear sometimes I see ps3 games in face offs look washed out, but have played them and not noticed this on my tv, anyone know anything bout this ??

  • Mister_G #8 2 years ago

    Wasn't getting this..... Am deffo getting it now!!!! :)

  • Lord_Gremlin #9 2 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen: So basically PS3 version performs slightly better. Truth be told they're identical to the point where there is no actual difference.
    @kirankara: Didn't you noticed you're usually selecting brightness level in games? In such multiplatform titles on 360 brightness/gamma is set perfectly by default, while on PS3 this little setting is forgotten, but once you set it manually it's not an issue.

  • kirankara #10 2 years ago

    Do u know that for fact tsb ? Or just assuming this ? Either way it's good to see the mature approach you are taking in this ( sarcasm). Anyone who can't be bothered Lot summary for u. Xbox wins presentation on basis of some higher resolutions, better shadows and lighting effects, ps3 wins on basis of loading with better loading times( mandatory install) , whilst 360 wins on performance with 360 tearing less, although both have tearing issues and very few fps issues.

  • Markitron #11 2 years ago

    Nice to see another close one! I Played through AC2 on both platforms and I couldnt tell the difference, Honestly. I do enjoy reading these articles but most of the time the big numbers thrown around do not actually amount to much (Tho in fairness this is stated in almost every DF article)

  • kirankara #12 2 years ago

    Any chance these videos in future can be put up in iPhone compatible format ?? I know I'm being lazy , but would be nice if didn't have to go to my pc to view videos.

  • kirankara #13 2 years ago

    @lord gremlin , now u mention it I do notice that, I just thought I was a fussy so and so when it comes to my settings.
    Thanks for response

  • TRUTH #14 2 years ago

    I'm I only one who found ACII rather overrated and rather repetitive and no real stealth or thought needed to assassin targets (same tactic for all - run in and kill, run out)...no real issues with going with disguises as it never ever really to be needed, other then a costume change...Personally I think ACII is one of the most overrated games.

  • T3TSUO #15 2 years ago

    Game looks crap anyway. Arse Crap 1 was rubbish, 2 was worse. This looks more of the same.
    My money is going straight on Gran Turismo 5.
    Can we have a Gt5 vs Forza Face off?
    I dare you, go on I dare you. Let's see those idiot fanboi's faces then who use these biased websites as an indication of a consoles power in order to get you to buy\sell up in favour of another.

  • sfp_noodle #16 2 years ago

    PS3 version for me. Unless a game is severely broken, exclusive content will always be the tipping point. In this case, the exclusive content is free so more the reason to choose the PS3 version. More free awesomeness for my money :)

  • will. #17 2 years ago

    I'm actually not too keen on the 360's darker look. Sure it makes colours look amazing in any situation on any TV but if your TV is calibrated properly the PS3 version is actually a lot nicer to look at. It's like when you mess with the levels of a photograph to make the shadows darker and the highlights brighter. Sure, you get a moody looking image that pops but you've lost a lot of detail in the process. I'd take extra detail any day.

    That said, I'm waiting till march for the PC version. I've got too many games I've not even unwrapped yet!

  • Markitron #18 2 years ago

    @will.

    Your not the first person to mention calibrating PS3 brightness, this is something I usually do in-game. Is there something that can be done on the XMB?

  • kirankara #19 2 years ago

    @will , do sometimes feel like that about the "softer" look of ps3 titles too,it can give a "cartoony" feel that is sometimes preferable to realism, seems to just depend on title, even sometimes the scene with me, at times I resent the over shiny look on some 360 games, but other times I prefer it.

  • Noble6 #20 2 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen

    You slightly misquoted the lens of truth article, they were actually bashing the ps3 version saying the x360 version outperformed it in every way visually. Lens of truth even claimed they matched in terms of loading with an install on the xbox. Read it on the lens of truth site. I thought they were being too harsh to the ps3.

    Its good to see EG being kinder to the ps3 without bothering with lil details noone would notice. Good one DF.

  • miiiguel #21 2 years ago

    +5 years and the comments sections' funny as ever. People still have the need to come here and say "either way PS3 version for me".

  • kirankara #22 2 years ago

    @T3TSUO

    as a ps3( and newly bought 360 owner, ok im just being smug by saying this again lol) I agree gt5 looks amazing, but im not so sure its going to give forza 3 some sorta floor wiping experience u seem sure about. Forza is pretty technically impressive by all accounts. Gt might look better(not sure till we see it properly) but from what i have seen, nothing that makes me go "wow, thats bettter than anything ive ever seen before", its more like "mheh, its damn good looking, but more evolution than revolution"

  • kirankara #23 2 years ago

    @miiguel, still makes me laugh that people feel the need to come here and say "+5 years and the comments sections' funny as ever. People still have the need to come here and say "either way PS3 version for me".

    id take either if given away for free, but if im paying for it, and theres free extra stuff, im going with ps3 version, whats so funny about that?

    the visual differences not that great that i would care, unlike black ops (which finally made me buy a 360 to go with my ps3, as im sick of shoddy ports), sorry, but, fanboy-esque comments best saved for school playground

    Edited by kirankara at 18/11/10 @ 19:14

  • Noble6 #24 2 years ago

    A GT5 vs Forza face off ? Wouldnt make sense right....
    One's a year old and was developed in 2-3 years, the other has not been released yet and has been in development for about 5 years.

  • technicianTed #25 2 years ago

    So much for RL is biased towards the 360.

    I always thought the lens of truth crew were ps3 fanboys at heart and was surprised how all of them(all 4 of them)opted for the 360 version of this game because of the improved graphics.
    They clearly showed scenes where the ps3 had some missing graphic effects, especially a rather nice lighting effect on one of the scenes on 360 which was completely missing from the ps3 version.

    But this face off hasn't mentioned any of it which is strange. These are the kind of points RL always picks up on.

    Looks like you can't go wrong with either version, the 360 has the slightly better performance and better graphic effects.
    The ps3 has the dlc.

  • miiiguel #26 2 years ago

    @kirankara : You weren't here 5 years ago though. I have pictures.

  • bluetoothion #27 2 years ago

    I get the impression that xbox has the edge....i m not sure if the difference is on contrast /gamma/ antli aliasing difference how ever i find the image more appealing to 360 but thats just me.

  • Syrette #28 2 years ago

    T3TSUO is a joker.

  • kirankara #29 2 years ago

    @miiguel

    fair enough, i thought u were just being antagonistic, my apologies lol

    seems fair enough to me that someone might choose ps3 version in this case though, and its not like 360 fan boys dont do the same. Each are capable of making retarded and indefensible statements. Just dont get fanboys of any kind. Look at the evidence and make ur own decision. if you only own a 360 or a ps3, then the choice is simple, u buy that version, why annoy rest of world with deluded affection to a multi-national corporation that would happily see u drained of ur last drop of blood to raise its share level.

    anyway sorry again, and peace

  • miiiguel #30 2 years ago

    Heck... can't see any diference between the two, aside from the washed out colours on the PS3, but then again I don't like AC, so I might buy Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit instead.

  • kirankara #31 2 years ago

    @miiguel

    Agree mate, there's few parts where the 360 clearly has better lighting, or the fire/lava in one scene looks bit strange on ps3 with a bizarre yellow part of it, but apart from that, I reckon once u changed ur tv settings, there's little differences that u would notice when playing game

  • LiteMrBubbles #32 2 years ago

    None of the "as always", "as expected", "not surprised" commentary?

    Hm.....Multiplatform equality must be holy water to the vampire F5ing console warriors.

  • xentar #33 2 years ago

    for a game with multiplayer and performance and visuals so close the question is - what platfrom does force you to pay to multiplay?

  • youhavenomail #34 2 years ago

    Which box looks best on my shelf? That's what I want to know. Ubisoft has a terrible of habit of offering the most bland of spines.

  • Orihalcon19 #35 2 years ago

    All this console fanaticism trolling aside - of which I could care less - I find it a little inconvenient that certain games choose to restrict add ons to certain consoles. I understand from a marketing perspective why this is done of course and it can go either way for either platform. It just feels that no matter on side the extra falls, the other side misses out...

    I for one would love to play those extra missions and am holding out for the PC version ( I do not own either console - not by choice, but financial constraints at present) and hope those missions would be included as they were in the previous game.

    They should make the content available to all people.

  • kirankara #36 2 years ago

    @xentar
    True, but presumably most people who want to play it online will have xbox live anyway, as they will want to play other games online( or it gives them option to , even if they choose to get live on basis of ac brotherhood multiplayer)

    Anyway point still remains , Microsoft charging as much as they do for live, is pretty scandalous, especially when psn continues to be free and getting better all the time. Personally never had problem with it, but my brother gets bit naused every now and then when mw2 drops out a game( could be their servers as opposed to pan fault though)

    I've banged the equal rights for ps3 owners drum recently about crappy ports, maybe now I should start an equal rights for xbox owners campaign lol we want free multiplayer and we want it now!!!
    Edited by kirankara at 18/11/10 @ 20:09

  • mkreku #37 2 years ago

    I only own an Xbox 360, but I would choose the PS3 too, if only for the free online play.

  • Claudiov1.0 #38 2 years ago

    At Least ubisoft put an effort, i just want to say something, this game looks a good and plays good in both consoles, the diferences are minor, and what matter is that the game is fun and tecnically good

    Instead of spending time discussing if the xbox as 1 more pixel or the ps3 has a little higher framerate, just play the game!!

  • makeamazing #39 2 years ago

    I was fine with the PS3 version of AC2 (I loved that game it was great)... and this sounds like they have improved the engine in places, so i will be perfectly happy with it. I dont see any problems with either version to be honest as EG has stated, dont know why some people have to console willy wave.

  • jackdoe #40 2 years ago

    Free content is always nice. Better than exclusive DLC that you still have to pay for.

  • man.the.king #41 2 years ago

    Thank God Ubisoft put some effort towards the PS3 version as well, unlike Treyarch who optimized COD:BO for the 360 and decided to call it a day.

    And Thanks Richard for another face-off with spin absent - that makes two now. Much appreciated.

  • the_dudefather #42 2 years ago

    @Umbriel

    'Does 10/10 represent perfection?

    No. However, a 10/10 score does mean that we recommend a game to everyone. '

  • kirankara #43 2 years ago

    @Umbriel

    doesnt necessarily mean as it got ten out of ten that it's perfect, just that they think it belongs to the elite list of games in the opinion of the reviewer. Otherwise if ten means perfect, then it would be meaningless to have the possibility of 10/10 as no games ever perfect, games are not a static thing, they are constantly evolving and developing, what was regarded as pushing the limits of gaming a few years ago, is now outdated and best left in the past in some instances(all media are constantly evolving in this sense film, tv, radio etc)

  • Arwin #44 2 years ago

    Am I crazy or is there a difference in the motion blur between the two when the various explosions hit in the horse riding scene?

  • lockload #45 2 years ago

    Unfortunately incomplete comparison by digital foundary ignoring a number of scenes on ps3 that are missing lighting effects

  • Ilusiil18 #46 2 years ago

    "as a ps3( and newly bought 360 owner, ok im just being smug by saying this again lol) I agree gt5 looks amazing, but im not so sure its going to give forza 3 some sorta floor wiping experience u seem sure about. Forza is pretty technically impressive by all accounts. Gt might look better(not sure till we see it properly) but from what i have seen, nothing that makes me go 'wow, thats bettter than anything ive ever seen before', its more like 'mheh, its damn good looking, but more evolution than revolution'"

    Sorry kirankara but I'm going to have to strongly disagree.I own GT5 Prologue and it's the most photo-realistic title I've played thus far this gen and I've played them all.I also own Forza 3 (my fav racing sim on consoles thus far) and GT prologue looks vastly superior graphically,handling is similar with all assist turned off,but AI definitely needs some work.

    Not sure which title will be the better buy until next week.

  • funkateer #47 2 years ago

    Nice article, but is it just me or does the article read like Richard took some recent criticism to heart and tried to highlight PS3 advantages a bit more?
    Ah well, it's probably just me :-)

    I never really got into AC1. I like open-world stuff and large environments and everything but I found the controls a bit awkward and the story just uninteresting. Should I reconsider and give the series another go, or is it just not for me if I didn't like the first one?

  • Ilusiil18 #48 2 years ago

    I must give RL credit for this face-off.I've been rather vocal regarding my position that RL seems to spin comparisons in favor of the 360 by maximizing/minimizing weakness/strengths...but RL surprised me with this one so I'll give credit where credit's due.

    Ubi has definitely made a few steps in the right direction,without quincunx AA we may even have seen parity.Maybe they'll trade quincunx for MSAA in AC3.

  • Ilusiil18 #49 2 years ago

    "Unfortunately incomplete comparison by digital foundary ignoring a number of scenes on ps3 that are missing lighting effects"

    Yeah,I noticed missing lighting effects in a few of the comparison shots at LOT and wasn't happy about it since I went with the PS3 version this time around due to the extra content.

  • man.the.king #50 2 years ago

    @Ilusiil18

    "I must give RL credit for this face-off.I've been rather vocal regarding my position that RL seems to spin comparisons in favor of the 360 by maximizing/minimizing weakness/strengths...but RL surprised me with this one so I'll give credit where credit's due. "

    Actually, this is the second such face-off where Richard has remained mostly neutral.

    Although I would say that this was a technical face-off and there was not much need to include the part of the PS3-exclusive DLC, even though the DLC argument favored the PS3. If, without the DLC, 360 won, I would have been more than fine with that, as all I wanted was a face-off which just lists the facts in a consistent manner and this one mostly gets almost everything right.
    Edited by man.the.king at 18/11/10 @ 22:23

  • kirankara #51 2 years ago

    @Ilusiil18
    Fair enough, I'm going more by pics and odd clips I've seen on net, and bits of info I've gathered bout the tech side of both games. I'm really not a driving game fan( bar mario kart lol) so might partially explain my apathy towards title. From what I read though forza is pretty impressive technically , with cars being made of huge amounts of polygons, and heard people saying that scenery is nicer in forza than gt5. It's win win for racing enthusiasts and ps3 users as whole if it is pushing boundaries further, as it means we got more proof as to what our machine is capable of, and why we expect good ports and nor some of the shit we had over the years.

    Like i said though, I see little between both machines in terms of capability, so can't imagine it will be huge leap over what's been done in 360, although as someone commented, they've been working on it for 5 years, so had plenty of time to work on making it look better, so possibly still unfair to judge against forza either way

    Look at me trying to be objective lol

  • Ilusiil18 #52 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    I'm glad to see Leadbetter taking a step in the right direction.I own both consoles so I don't care which platform takes the win,I just want a neutral comparison to help me decide which version of a title to purchase.
    Edited by Ilusiil18 at 18/11/10 @ 23:09

  • kirankara #53 2 years ago

    Umbriel
    I disagree , doesn't have to be technically perfect to be highly recommended, and considered to be in one persons list of favourite games( essentially what a ten out if ten says)

    Ultimately it's an opinion, if someone doesn't feel that the technical deficiencies dont detract from the enjoyment of the game, and regard it as a game they rate very highly, then that's their perogative, surely !

    You don't have to agree of course.

    I played red dead redemption and thought it was boring , I thought black ops was woeful, and they both got 9-9.5 in lots of reviews. I can't say they were wrong to rate it, just that my tastes differ, but I think to define a 10/10 as a game u can recommend to everyone is a wrong definition to start with, as you couldn't recommend a great example of an rpg to me , even if it was the best of the genre, as I can't stand them, so I'd say it's just a game that the reviewer rates very highly as an example of what they believe to be a great video game, but we just arguing over semantics here.

  • Ilusiil18 #54 2 years ago

    @kirankara

    Pics and internet vids don't due any of these high-end titles any justice.Everything looks so much better in motion on my Samsung (in comparison to HD screens and HD online vids).In online vids uncharted 2 looks a few steps above Uncharted,but on my set it looks more on par to what you'd expect to see on the next generation of consoles.

    As I mentioned in my last post GT5 prologue looks amazing.I also like the realistic feel of the cockpit view,when looking behind you're actually looking out of the back window instead of seeing things through a camera hovering outside of your vehicle.I'm sure both tiles are going to be great.Graphics can only take you so far so the deciding factor is going to come down to handling and AI.

  • kirankara #55 2 years ago

    Seems to me that Richard leadbetter is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't lol
    He gets moaned at now for missing things out that would portray ps3 version in negative light.
    I'm happy for negative points to be illustrated as long as we understand , what they are due to , from a technical standpoint, and if maybe these things could been avoided by better techniques, or better engine etc etc , rather than just saying the ps3 is shitter and giving impression it's cause it's inferior to 360( if the case isn't true of course , and there were possibilities of improving the port )

    I still believe ports will get closer and closer as devs understand the limitations of each machine and how best to utilise them on multi platform titles. Well here's hoping anyway, as people deserve to get what they are paying good money for.

  • man.the.king #56 2 years ago

    @kirankara

    "Seems to me that Richard leadbetter is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't lol
    He gets moaned at now for missing things out that would portray ps3 version in negative light. "

    Well, to be fair, some people were also complaining during COD:BO face-offs when he missed listing some texture issues that would have portrayed the 360 version in a slightly negative light.

  • SG79 #57 2 years ago

    There aren't any missing effects on the PS3 as LOT suggested. They're subtle and gamma dependent enough that they'd drown out if the captures are too bright.

    LOT apologists need to look elsewhere. At this point, they (LOT) should know the difference between MSAA and QAA with the image blur, yet, they claimed that the PS3 version had lower res textures.

  • Sunyavadin #58 2 years ago

    Die in a fire, Quincunx.

  • sfp_noodle #59 2 years ago

    Unless a game is very bad on a certain console (by that I mean Bayonetta bad) then that is the only time I will let a DF article influence which console I will buy a game on. I have controller preference depending on which game I'm playing. Shooters will always go on 360 for the feel of the triggers. No competition. Racers feel good on both consoles so I let my friends decide which console I buy them for. Whichever console owner is playing it more will get the vote. Adventure and fighting games are almost exclusive to PS3 for me. I grew up playing fighters using a D-Pad and the Sony controller has by far the best D-Pad out of any curret gen console. For adventure games, well, again it's more to do with familiarity. Been playing them on Playstation for 14 years. Can't break a winning habbit lol.

    Although exclusive content does play a big part too. I will give up controller preference if a certain console offers exclusive features. Of course, if it's free, as is the case with Brotherhood, it's impossible to say no.

  • kirankara #60 2 years ago

    @man.theking Agreed, and I was just trying to make light of things.these face offs could be more balanced and informative in some ways, but I also though the lot face off was kinda harsh and possibly adjusting the brightness and gamma might nullify some of their complaints, but i guess at least it is informative of the negative, so as long as they do so with any 360 issues, can't complain too much. If leabetter does same then guess that would satisfy those complaining against him too.
    @ umbrial I understood it was dudefathers viewpoint of 10/10 , and I was just saying I disagree with way he defined 10/10 if we looked at it close enough, but my main point was u can't have a perfect game, and if there wAs the industry would collapse as we'd only ever buy one game . So just accept a 10/10 as someone saying they consider it to be in their opinion in the top tier if video games, not that they say it's technically or from a gameplay perspective to be perfect.
    Edited by kirankara at 18/11/10 @ 23:25

  • vizzini #61 2 years ago

    ::note the gameplay analysis video (video no 3) has a part between 59secs and 1min 45 secs where the 360 and PS3 footage are on the wrong sides and labelled incorrectly. not that it shows anything note worthy.

    man.theking: Thank God Ubisoft put some effort towards the PS3 version as well, unlike Treyarch who optimized COD:BO for the 360 and decided to call it a day.

    And Thanks Richard for another face-off with spin absent - that makes two now. Much appreciated.

    I agree this is a decent write up, but the overall conclusion is wrong imo (the 360 version doesn't “edge it”) because of the gamma issues, the lack of full frustum depth cueing(fog) and the close distance at which the LOD/Mipmap transitions happen only on the 360 version; which are constantly producing sub-screen tearing artefacts that are worse than an occasional full screen tear. They are very unsightly at that range, and even if they had the benefit of being blended by the fill-rate intensive full frustum fog that the PS3 version appears to be using they would still be very visible.

    DF Author: It's fair to say that in these missions at least, there isn't so much to tell the games apart. We do see the same PS3 weakness on rendering long distance scenes in the initial siege scene but as the other missions don't tend to concentrate on draw distance we see a much closer range of performance.

    As mentioned above, the PS3 version is depth cueing the image from the near plane of the frustum to far plane, which is added work for every fragment it generates, whereas the 360 version seems to have objects and people in the foreground seemingly floating like flat layers over one another without depth cueing; looking very odd (edit:) by comparison, but a small issue.

    DF Author: Other bugbears haven't been addressed either - the levels of pop-in in terms of both textures and geometry are still really rough-looking and in this case, both versions seem to be just as bad as each other.

    The LOD/mipmap transitions appear far less obvious on the PS3 version. We can see from the PS3 DLC Copernicus mission video, just how small an issue this is in the foreground for the PS3, and only towards the end of the video do we see a single building in the distance(~20metres) LOD/Mipmap transition, and even then it is smoothly blended by the depth cueing (fog).

    By contrast in the actual review the 360 video of the first 15mins shows foreground LOD/Mipmap transitions at very close range(~10metres) of trees and buildings inside the city by an archway.
    Edited by vizzini at 19/11/10 @ 00:38

  • kirankara #62 2 years ago

    @sg79

    I did wonder about a lot of the LOT references to lighting, and think some of it maybe remedied by brigtness/ gamma settings , but there were what appeared to be one or two instances where there appeared to be no lighting where on 360 there is even in the clips on df, but possibly if seen with those setting changes it might be different, and the fire on floor/ lava seems to have poorer resolution effect and a strange colour on the right hand side , where it appeared to be yellow.

    Not exactly a deal breaker either way lol

  • the_dudefather #63 2 years ago

    @Umbriel

    It's from the Eurogamer scoring policy

    http://www.eurogamer.net/scoring_policy.php

  • technicianTed #64 2 years ago

    kirankara, yep it's not a gamma thing.

    The ps3 one has some missing lighting effects on certain scenes.
    It could be a bug and a patch might fix things in the future, or maybe they were left out for a reason only the developers know.

    The lens of truth head to head read how i expected the digital foundry face off to read.
    And vice a versa.

    You can't go wrong with either version of the game.
    Edited by technicianTed at 19/11/10 @ 00:34

  • kirankara #65 2 years ago

    @technician ted, good to know im not going crazy and seeing things, although i gotta say , some people have sharp eyes to be able to spot some of these things, i cant see half the things vizzini spotted(not doubting him, just saying i didnt notice much differences between two platforms, which gotta be a good thing lol)

    anyway, so any ideas about what kind of correction on gamma ps3 usually requires on titles? i have spent hour after hour trying to find right brightness/contrast ratios to find look i like, but failed, and was thinking this might help.

    also i just read that the xbox gamma scale is off quite drastically by default, which surely explains these different gamma settings in the face offs ?? anyone?

  • vizzini #66 2 years ago

    kirankara: also i just read that the xbox gamma scale is off quite drastically by default, which surely explains these different gamma settings in the face offs ?? anyone?

    The 360 can't h/w accelerate gamma correct texturing and has to approximate with a performance hit, or generate incorrect texture colours; whereas PC(DX10/DX11/OpenGL) and Ps3 h/w accelerate it correctly by default.

    HL2 Orange box gamma correction comparison

    Check out page 14 for how it should look, and page 15 for how it will be wrong on the 360 if they don't use the work around.

    You can't just calibrate a single hdmi input on your TV for the 360 or ps3 and use them interchangeably, you need to calibrate two separate hdmi inputs to maximize light/dark shades, visible colour gamut and optimal detail(softness/sharpness) for each console.

    edit link:
    Edited by vizzini at 19/11/10 @ 01:03

  • Montag #67 2 years ago

    I really enjoy the cut and thrust of debate on this site. I am pedant enough to enjoy the fighting over every little pixel. I even love the fanbois hissy bitch fights. I even like to indulge in a bit of fanboisim myself and gloat lovingly over every PS3 failure.

    But......

    Can the comments asking for a face off between different games please stop. It simply makes you look uneducated, and some would say a bit of a Joey. The whole point of a face off is to compare the same game running on different hardware. I have zero interest in the comparing of GT against Forza, because for the spackers out there, they are different games and by definition will look different, and anybody who doesn't get that shouldn't be allowed to play with toys that use electricity.

    If you want to compare 2 different games then read something called a R E V I E W... these things do compare different games.

    If you wish to get all bitch slappy and try and tell me that you can compare 2 different games then just stop. Accept that you are wrong and your arguments have no value, and go and get a girlfriend.

  • sfp_noodle #68 2 years ago

    ^^^

    Since you enjoy seeing the PS3 fail, I'm not surprised you wouldn't want a face off of the tech of GT5 against Forza. Forza would get ripped to pieces by that game, and of course would see your console of choice lose miserably. See what I did there? Fanboyism ;)

    Only if you click on my profile, you'll notice I love to game on my 360, but I can recognise more powerful tech when I see it. The PS3 is just the more capable machine. Sadly, only exclusives really take advantage of the raw power.

    There's nothing wrong with drawing comparisons with similar games on different machines. It's still a TECHNICAL comparison. When the Crysis was released on the PC, a lot of websites ran articles on how it could run on consoles and if it could actually work. There's always a "what if" when it comes to exclusives on competing hardware.

    Oh, and I have a girlfriend. I think you'll find most people on here do. Thinking you feel superior by telling others to stop being fan boy bitches when your one yourself is immature. Telling people to get a girlfriend probably makes you feel less geeky too huh? Well you posted on a gaming site, so really your no different to any of us on here. Welcome to EG.
    Edited by sfp_noodle at 19/11/10 @ 02:51

  • Montag #69 2 years ago

    No, you are wrong.

    Sorry, but simply wrong.

  • RKOwned #70 2 years ago

    Soo, small 360 win?

  • ATNR1 #71 2 years ago

    Geez why bring Forza and GT5 into it? But here is the bloody link to the DF article, that does the technical analysis of Forza3 that includes GT5P. Make up your own minds. [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-forza3-evolution-article
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    Thanks for the technical analysis Richard, I am now conflicted on which version to get. Good job as always.
    Edited by ATNR1 at 19/11/10 @ 05:26

  • RKOwned #72 2 years ago

    Im playing it on PS3. Obviously i dont know if these issues are on 360 as well, but on PS3 it seems like NPCs seem to have their clothes models glitch out sometimes. Like, they stutter and pop. Also, pop in in rather annoying. Anyway, I am enjoying it, and im not gonna replay it on 360 just to get a slightly better visual experience. If I end up buying the game (im playing it on a rent) ill probaly go 360.

  • muscleblade #73 2 years ago

    Getting the slightly superior360 version as always.

  • mr2ange #74 2 years ago

    @TSB - "If you install the 360 version to the hard drive, it loads faster than the PS3 version."

    How do you know that? Have you tried it? Would it be faster than my ps3 running an SSD as its hard disk? I think not.

    And before you go on about how expensive an SSD is, anyone you could pick up a drive that outperforms that of the standard rip-off drive's than MS put in the 360 for hardly any cash at all.
    Edited by mr2ange at 19/11/10 @ 08:16

  • Darksjeik #75 2 years ago

    You know personal preference aside, I think it's safe to say that from a multiplatform point of view the PS3 has failed to best the older 360 hardware.
    I remember Sony's 2006 pressconference where some short fat Japanese dude stood on stage in front of a screen showing stats on how the PS3 supposedly had nearly twice the power of the xbox360 and would make it look like ancient tech.

    Yet now many years later it safe to say that basically the opposite has happened. PS3 versions of multiplatform games have been raped by 360 versions in a good 99% of all cases.

    Slower framerates, lack of AA, less contrast and dept of field, just basically toned down, cut-corner releases everytime.

  • bluetoothion #76 2 years ago

    Technical accomplishment something that has two issues that i object to being in the way of a perfect 10. A) its time related meaning a game is a technical achievement for its time and that has nothing to do with the gameplay/atmosphere which are more important in such a game .
    B) technical issues usually are dealt or ironed out on PC versions so that would lead on different pc ratings so i guess one mark for all is better.
    This particular game i think it got a 10 too comfortably and i think 10s are to be hard earned so i would more to a 9/10 to leave room for inevitable errors.

    to the debate of GT5 vs Forza 3 i found this video which i think is helpful for some conclusions before we get our hands on GT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo4mJCJ0Q3k
    Edited by bluetoothion at 19/11/10 @ 09:26

  • muscleblade #77 2 years ago

    @Darksjeik

    Im not sure the 360 hardware really is older. The PS3 was delayed many times due to some Bluray component. The videogame console was developed long before it was actually released, the 360 on the other hand was released almost before the machine was finished so i would guess the hardware is about the same age on both of them.
    Edited by muscleblade at 19/11/10 @ 09:49

  • kangarootoo #78 2 years ago

    So bored of these now.

    /skip to end
    /read last paragraph
    /get info that matters (in this case, choose your version based on whichever controller is nearest to your hand)
    /go shopping

  • Zerobob #79 2 years ago

    "Am I crazy or is there a difference in the motion blur between the two when the various explosions hit in the horse riding scene? "

    No I thought that too. Probably how the PS3 is hiding tearing or something and "can and will outperform 360 at times".

    Also, the first frame of the video in the article: is it me or do the X360 textures look sharper and objects slightly sharper in the distance, such as the tiled roof on top of the tower being the obvious example.

    There are also a few elements of the scenery midway off in the distance which are missing in the PS3 shot, such as trees and shadows which I don't think was mentioned in the article.

  • vizzini #80 2 years ago

    I've been thinking about the reason why the PS3 version gets a full-frustum depth cueing(fog) and why on the 360 version it would appear to begin much further into the frustum.

    I now think that the reason the 360 version doesn't use the same feature is possibly 3 fold.

    First off we already know that more fog means more work for the GPU, and secondly we can see the slight problems the 360 version has with gamma correct texturing (which destroys much of the detail in the darker regions of textures at the expense of lighter regions); and adding foreground fog to these textures would exacerbate the colour convergence and level of detail lost in the dark regions.

    The third reason I believe the foreground fog is missing, is that if you use fog from a 24bit depth buffer(as opposed to a 32bit buffer) the thickness of fog in the background converges to 1.0 much quicker; assuming you use the same exponent fog equation.

    To compensate and still provide good depth cueing(fog) on 24bits (where you need it most) in the background, you can start your fog further into the frustum so that it saturates beyond the far clip plane and provides better control of the fog. Alternatively, if both PS3 and 360 use a 32bit depth buffer, it is most likely that the 360 uses a graphically cheaper fog effect (eg linear fog equation, than say an exponent fog equation that we can see is present in the PS3 version).

    edit: spelling
    Edited by vizzini at 19/11/10 @ 10:51

  • Montag #81 2 years ago

    @Darksjeik

    Very good point, well made


    This is why there is so much fanboy schadenfreude. Sony started the war, Xbox won it. In reality apart from a few games the technical difference is so small it is irrelevant, but the original Sony stance was always going to be an invitation to bend over.

  • kirankara #82 2 years ago

    @Montag
    imo the real reason there is so much fanboy-ism, is because in modern society, there is less cohesive family units, and the tribalism that exists within human mentality manifests itself in other ways. It's human nature to want to be part of a group, and even more so to feel better than your fellow man, so you get fanboys, you get people identifying themselves with their musical tastes, clothing brands, even sports teams.

    in short people are insecure and it makes them feel better about themselves to be able to feel part of a group, especially if it is a winning group.

    fanboys are losers

  • Montag #83 2 years ago

    @Kiranhara

    You may be correct. Tribalism is often felt to be the core to the human condition. But the vitriol about PS3 loses has to come from somewhere. It reminds me of the Saturn/PS1. The saturn tried to burn the PS1 and the turnaround buried it

  • kirankara #84 2 years ago

    @montag

    Look at football teams and rivalries there I guess. Often there's some historical significance to them, but ultimately we all human beings and no different to each other, apart from out own imposed differences, and identifying ourselves with a brand of console is just another firm if tribalism, wanting to be part of a dominant group. It's a bunch of microchips put together by a multi billion dollar corporation trying to suck us all dry, with not one iota of affection towards us , other than our money . So I refuse to get too defensive about a console. I'll defend the truth, as I see it. Ultimately if google , apple or heck, even Mcdonalds ( hate them on moral grounds) made a console that played best games I'd switch sides in heartbeat. I hate Sony and microsoft , but there's some bloody good games on their consoles, so will play either , and give due respect to either for the pros and cons of their consoles wherever I see fit.

    Slightly pretentious rant I know lol, just don't understand peoples allegiance to a brand . I like 360 and ps3 , and if I wanted one console to succeed, I would rather the ps3 , as Microsoft are pretty soulless corporation , but on other hand Sony were arrogant due to their dominance; I guess when I think bout it, as gamers we need competition, otherwise we will lose out if one company gets too dominant and controls Market
    Edited by kirankara at 19/11/10 @ 12:49

  • muscleblade #85 2 years ago

    "just don't understand peoples allegiance to a brand"

    Me neither. I dont understand peoples allegiance to a football team either. People shout we won, but they didnt win shit.

    I compete in my own sport to be a winner and dont lean on other peoples success to feel successful myself. So yes fanboys are probably loosers no matter if they defend Sony or Manchester United.

    I do think the 360 is the best console on the market, but that has nothing to do with that microsoft is making the damn thing. If The 360 was the PS3 and the other way around i would prefer the PS3 if you understand me. The best console is the best console no matter whos making it imo.
    Edited by muscleblade at 19/11/10 @ 13:26

  • kirankara #86 2 years ago

    @muscleblade
    guess thats all relative though, and people need to accept that each has pro's and cons , based not only on the machine, but based upon the person, their taste in games, their friends, their needs, etc etc

    i would happily own a pc, a 360, a ps3 and a wii, if i had time and finances for all of them. Each has strengths and more importantly games id like to play on the machine.
    I owned 360 for a few years before trading for ps3 , as i was frustrated by a lack of certain types of games on 360 that i saw available on ps3, and even now i have puchased a 360 alongside my ps3, i still feel that the ps3 offers certain types of game experiences that u wont find on 360.
    However the 360 has its strengths too. the same applies for the strengths and weaknesses of the consoles themselves, with both have strengths and weaknesses, eg the ps3 and bloom or alpha rendering (or at least requires alternate ways od producing this than via gpu)which it struggles with, whilst the 360 struggles with realtime physics and motion blur ( strengths of ps3). similar in terms of how the ps2 and ps1 were stronger in terms of polygon pushing, whilst saturn/dreamcast were better in terms of sprite rendering.

    to say one machine is better than another is a generalisation that simply isnt true. If a programmer works to its strengths and avoids its weakness, or uses alternative ways of doing things to achieve a result, then they can achieve stunning results on both machines. if they try to find a "fits all" approach, then the 360 wins often, as the software they are using plays to its strengths (often putting post processing techniques onto the gpu )

    the controls themselves also seem to have pro's and cons, the ps3 is better for games that rely on d pad, such as fighting games,as 360 dpad is attrocious(hence need for new improved pad they released, which incidentally isnt that goood according to reports, but is better) whilst i feel the 360 pad suits fps(my brother still prefers ps3 pad, but hey i guess its all still subjective).

    Then theres the whole xbox live costing x amount, whilst psn is free, and xbox live is better than psn debate, or the my friends all play on live or psn debate

    soooooo.... is one really better than other??? or is one better for one person, and the other better for another (we could include devs here and financial/knowledge of ps3 architecture constraints. within this i suppose )

    each to his own i say, and judge each based upon your own requirements, and just enjoy playing ur games, rather than saying this console is better than the other
    Edited by kirankara at 19/11/10 @ 14:07

  • RodHull #87 2 years ago

    That's the PS3 version sold for me, although I still prefer the 360 controller for these micro-movement games.

  • ronuds #88 2 years ago

    This particular face off is somewhat funny because the common perception is that if a game leads on the PS3, that version will outperform the 360 version.

    Lazy devs, I'm sure...
    Edited by ronuds at 19/11/10 @ 21:02

  • kirankara #89 2 years ago

    And spot the fanboy@ ronuds
    such a mature approach as yours has clearly thought about the possibility that the devs engine wasn't designed using strengths of ps3 or maybe that they still haven't got fully to grips with it's architecture. They are ultimately still new to programming on it having ported from 360 in most their titles in past. Even if none of above was true it's still possible they didn't feel need to do anything else to it as it was close enough , or they were under time/ financial constraints to get it out quickly. maybe none of those are true and that was simply the best they could get out of ps3 , but what does that show??? Nothing, another developer may be able to get far more out of it( as indeed they have already) however what it has shown is that they have managed to produce a port very similar to the 360 one with minimal differences( not all negative if u read the articles on net properly)
    So in conclusion, I own both machines , so don't care that you are a childish fan boy who needs to feel good about himself by trying to make others feel smaller bout themselves. My console's better than yours , please !!! We still in playground at school

  • kirankara #90 2 years ago

    <a href="http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=24458
    ">http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=24458
    </a>
    "Furthermore, the texture quality, motion blur, draw distance and any other post processing effect looked virtually identical across platforms. When viewing these two side by side it was nearly impossible to distinguish which version was which, without a quick glanced at the controller in hand. On top of this, Criterion Games went the extra mile to ensure both versions color schemes, contrast settings, and gamma levels looked 1:1 between versions. This also proves that any color differences between cross platform ports can be corrected on the software side with a experienced and talented development team. "
    interesting read for any fanboys out there.
    Edited by kirankara at 19/11/10 @ 23:05

  • vizzini #91 2 years ago

    I got the game today and have played through about an hour or two, and am suitably impressed with the improvements they've made to the PS3 engine since AC2.

    The unsightly geometry and texture popping artefacts only seem bad when watching a zoomed out cut-sequence transitioning to a zoomed out gameplay section; or when the gameplay is crossing one loaded map region into a new region (in wide open space). The gameplay I've encountered on the ps3 so far hasn't had visible geometry and texture popping artefacts in the foreground and the screen tearing seems unnoticeable in the gameplay(however this might be my camera work skill from Mario Sunshine making the difference :), although I was very susceptible to this issue in AC1 & AC2.

    The popping of shadow maps(shadows suddenly getting added) is still quite prevalent in the foreground gameplay(in built up areas), but is no worse than I experienced in AC1& AC2 and certainly feels like a lesser issue because the geometry and texture popping seem to have been pushed further into the background in this version, making it less of a distraction.

    The colour range of the game on my TV seems far better than the washed out DF PS3 captures, and the first fifteen minutes of game footage certainly looked more detailed, with better contrast and colourful than the corresponding 360 footage in the Eurogamer review. The gameplay section in the review where I saw the trees popping didn't happen when I played it. So what I said above still seems like a positive difference to me. But then again that could be just the way I control the camera, or how some gamers get a sixth sense to reduce speed of input to dips in frame-rate(giving the engine more time to stream the world assests).

    The controls definitely feel more responsive than AC2's, but without average controller latency figures I guess that is just a feeling that can't been tested or checked easily. All in all the game feels really good, and if it is about the same on the 360 and better on the PC, then Ubi have done a good job with an old-ish engine.

  • Badassbab #92 2 years ago

    So technically it's a small 360 win but PS3 get's free DLC so that's the one to get unless your willing to wait and possibly pay for it on XBL.

    On another note, LoT pointed out more technical differences between the two. In favour of 360. PS3 fanboys the world over have now switched sides and prefer DF.

  • kirankara #93 2 years ago

    @Badassbab

    Lot seems to be kinda off in their face off IMO , the footage here seems far less damning and seems to use lot of same scenes and footage in process , with colours looking much better here, and vizzini has noted how once having altered the brightness, colour , gamma levels on his tv this improves further. I can't comment other than I messed bout with contrast and brightness on monitor and it looked far better already.

    There still seems to be few dodgy textures in there IMO , and going by this footage alone, I'd probably give the 360 version the nod visually overall, but not by much.

    Clearly not the greatest engine ever and frame rate bit ropey too, but overall good job done, but look at hot pursuit face off on lot for an idea of how a port should be done.

    Again i note im not a fan boy as I own both machines and would be tempted if I gave crap bout the game( not really into open world games, but will eventually borrow ac2 off brother and give that a go) to get ps3 version for free content .
    Edited by kirankara at 20/11/10 @ 01:52

  • funkateer #94 2 years ago

    I finally got to check out the videos, but it's damn good looking game isn't it? Perhaps I should give the series another try :)

    Judging from the video's, the 2 versions look almost identical to me and even if the PS3 drops a few frames here and there, I couldn't really tell without looking at the frame counters. Perhaps it's more obvious from the controller response, but it didn't seem to happen all that much.
    It seemed to me that the 360's gamma correction was a bit off (too contrasty imho), but I suppose that can be alleviated with your tv settings and not really a big deal (and actually looks quite attractive sometimes).

    All in all, it looks really good on both platforms!

  • Badassbab #95 2 years ago

    Kirankara,

    I prefer DF to LoT but a missing sword handle is a missing sword handle, you can't deny it. Usually DF is really picky and looks out for the smallest differences which is the reason I read face offs but recently they've not been as strict. It might be because of the PS3 fanboy protests who've been accusing RL of X360 bias for some time now. DF didn't pick a winner for the console versions of Fallout:NV for example. I think that was the wrong decision.

  • Darksjeik #96 2 years ago

    I truly hope the next generation of consoles gives us native 1080p at 60fps as a standard for games. Now for my favorite titles I always have to buy the pc version separate to get the best possible play experience.
    No matter what people say, graphics DO matter. There's just so much better immersion if you can take in more detail.

  • Talk_Show_Host #97 2 years ago

    To be frank I think this comparison is off.

    I have been playing ACB on PS3 and the frame rate drops are constant. Tearing is bad, too.

    In chases I've had at least two moments where the frame rate froze, while the frame rate dropped to a crawl when there were many guards chasing me.

    Moving inside the city the frame rate also suffers and breaks from time to time.

    Don't buy the PS3 version. It's simple as that. Ubisoft has fucked up again.
    Edited by Talk_Show_Host at 21/11/10 @ 10:37

  • vizzini #98 2 years ago

    Talk Show Host:To be frank I think this comparison is off.

    I have been playing ACB on PS3 and the frame rate drops are constant. Tearing is bad, too.

    In chases I've had at least two moments where the frame rate froze, while the frame rate dropped to a crawl when there were many guards chasing me.

    Moving inside the city the frame rate also suffers and breaks from time to time.

    Don't buy the PS3 version. It's simple as that. Ubisoft has fucked up again.

    I think you've got a faulty hard disk in your PS3, your console is overheating or you have an issue with the PS3.

    I'm 6 hours in to the PS3 version and this has been much better than the previous two engines for smoothness, graphics and loading times, and I haven't notice a single screen tear while I have been controlling the action; which is a huge improvement imo.

  • Talk_Show_Host #99 2 years ago

    No, vizzini.

    My HD is fine and my PS3 is not overheating. The game is better technically than the first two but it's not nearly enough.

    Claiming you don't see any tearing or frame rate drops really seems far fetched, since many people experience these problems on PS3.

    The frame rate inside the town breaks too much for my liking, especially in chases. It's playable, sure, but that is not the point. There is never a 30fps smoothness.

  • vizzini #100 2 years ago

    I said I hadn't noticed a single screen tear while I have been controlling the action; with emphasis on noticing, and me controlling the action. I have seen screen tears in this game's cut-sequences. But previously screen tears were very, very noticeable for me while I was controlling the action in AC1 & AC2 using the same TV and Amp setup on the PS3.

    If the screen tearing has been reduced in the ACB engine, it might just be that my Bravia Pro engine (Game mode/motion flow signal processing) is able to hide the tearing(with frame interpolation) now.

    Admittedly, I am taking out the towers and reducing the enemies influence in regions (before starting main memories). So maybe I'm just playing in a way that stresses the engine less, which would explain why I haven't experienced any frame-rate stalls or even frame rate drops of any significance (on my new-ish 250gb slim).

    I am only using 5.1 sound over optical, so maybe there are performance issues specific to the sound choices for ACB, with the PS3 sound processing mostly done on Cell SPUs(iirc).

    EDIT:
    Was re-doing some levels for 100% sync last night and getting some gold medals in the virtual trainning.
    Turned on, and just installed the 2nd patch (1.02) and am now seeing some gameplay screen tears; not as bad a AC2 though, but they are now there.
    Edited by vizzini at 24/11/10 @ 19:16

  • migasUK #101 2 years ago

    360 here we go again! LOL

  • kirankara #102 2 years ago

    [link url=http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/
    ]http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/
    [/link]

    Interesting analysis from iqgamer, if anyone still cares, who overall give edge to 360 but say both titles frame rates drop regularly and tear a lot, so not ps3 exclusive in that sense, but slightly worse on ps3

    Qaa seems to be an artistic choice, as opposed to technical limitation, that results in some smearing of textures, when in fact they are same resolution as 360 ones. Gamma issues and brightness, when corrected , seem to resolve lots of issues in image quality, but the edge is given to 360 for performance.
    Personally think both have horrible tearing and frame rate issues at times, with the tearing looking horrendous, but If it plays well , I'll just play ps3 version for free content, as neither is graphical masterpiece.


  • Ilusiil18 #103 2 years ago

    "To be frank I think this comparison is off. I have been playing ACB on PS3 and the frame rate drops are constant. Tearing is bad, too. In chases I've had at least two moments where the frame rate froze, while the frame rate dropped to a crawl when there were many guards chasing me. Moving inside the city the frame rate also suffers and breaks from time to time. Don't buy the PS3 version. It's simple as that. Ubisoft has fucked up again."

    I'm with you with the screen tearing,although for me it's no worst than the screen tearing in previous AC titles (and I own all other AC titles on 360 so I don't know if ACB screen tearing has been minimised compared to previous installments on PS3).

    Regarding framerate issues: I've yet to experience any significant framerate issues (even during chase scenes).

  • kirankara #104 2 years ago

    Also , anyone own halo reach? I bought it with my 360 last week, and that has screen tearing in cut scenes and frame rate drops whenever you go through a checkpoint, irritating as hell, as it did that years ago on original xbox and still not sorted. Anyone know if u install game , does this go away?
    All the bitching people do on here bout ps3 vs xbox, and I gotta say, I own both and both are a letdown if u are a graphics whore, and neither can claim to be some sort of super machine. I love them both, but realistically the next gen before we get true hd gaming
    Edited by kirankara at 22/11/10 @ 13:55

  • Hutchie_Ace #105 2 years ago

    I got this game on PS3 on Friday, played it for 5 hours and noticed a horrible pale white haze over the entire screen, it gets worse when you pan the camera over head, I have even noticed in darker areas quite bad pixlelisation, trouble it once i noticed it i couldn't ignore it anymore, it got so bad I had to stop playing it. My friend had it on Xbox and this problem didn't exist on his version, is anyone else experiancing this problem?

  • kirankara #106 2 years ago

    @Hutchie_Ace
    without seeing it myself cant comment, but not noticed in the videos anything like you describe, and havent seen anything in the multiple face-offs i read, but possibly what you are witnessing is the vaseline smear effect that goes along with quincux anti aliasing. ??? not sure watch some of face offs and compare yours to the video, if it doesnt look right, maybe some sorta fault on your settings, or maybe just a faulty disk ??

  • kirankara #107 2 years ago

    [link url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZReVeyMqlsA/TOpYiuT7BgI/AAAAAAAABp8/0_0r3m8IEZA/s1600/Xbox_010.jpg
    ]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZReVeyMqlsA/TO...[/link]

    [link url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZReVeyMqlsA/TOpYswyyH0I/AAAAAAAABqE/3EYwkIRov2A/s1600/PS3_010.jpg
    ]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZReVeyMqlsA/TO...[/link]

    interestingly the foliage on the trees looks fuller on ps3 version, a trait that usually the ps3 version seems to suffer in comparison to 360 versions of games

    ok im bored and too much time on my hands lol

  • Ilusiil18 #108 2 years ago

    @kirankara

    Installing Reach and playing it off the HDD won't help with the framerate issues.It's a shame that Bungie hasn't fixed this issue,even after building a completely new engine.

  • Ilusiil18 #109 2 years ago

    @Hutchie_Ace

    I noticed some lighting issues where there's a hazy glare on everything,but it isn't a constant thing and only seems to happen around noon.The image processing on my Samsung makes blacks blacker and whites whiter (amongst other enhancements)so I didn't have the light shadows and way too bright contrast issues apparent in the PS3 screens...Nonetheless I still tweeked the calibration settings on my set and ended up with a much better picture.

    Overall while the game looks good on PS3 (especially after adjusting your set's calibration settings),I suspect that there are some graphical issues on PS3 that don't exist on 360...most likely due to the prevalent side effects associated with Quincunx AA.

  • kirankara #110 2 years ago

    @Ilusiil18

    Astonishingly enough , the iqgamer analysis seems to find aspects of the quincux aa that it thinks improve over the 360 visuals , in all honesty though, I do prefer the look of the 360 more , but would quite happily play ps3 version for free content, but might wait to see if the exclusive content later becomes available on 360 too

  • Ilusiil18 #111 2 years ago

    @kirankara

    I don't know if I would go as far as to say that the use of Quinucux AA improves some aspects of the PS3 version,but the darker contrast on the 360 version does hide some environmental detail that happens to be visible in the PS3 version.So once you calibrate your TV's settings to compensate for the poorer contrast you may end up with more detail in some areas.

    I basically did what IQGamer did and tweeked the visuals via both in-game settings and set calibration:

    I set brighness from 5 to 4 via in-game settings (which makes things much too dark at first) then adjusted brighness on my set from 45 to 54.I then pushed the color slider from 55 to 60 and the game looks 100% better...but there's still a bright hazy effect which present's itself from time to time as I mentioned in my last post (most likely due to Quincunx).



    Edited by Ilusiil18 at 22/11/10 @ 20:05

  • kirankara #112 2 years ago

    @Ilusiil18

    Fair enough , the part in article I was referring to was the part about shadows , which they said appeared less "dithered " on ps3 due to quincux . Also seen people refer to the better effects going on in foreground of action ie fog etc . Anyway id still generally agree the 360 version looks better.definitely think quincux was a poor choice especially when msaa has been used so often in titles, and offers much better standard of aa, actuallly much better than standard aa as used on 360, and isn't memory intensive .

  • HokutoNoKen #113 2 years ago

    Some info about 0xAA, 2xAA, QAA, 4xAA:

    Memory usage:

    (lowest) 0xAA < 2xAA = QAA < 4xAA (highest)

    Hardware performance:

    (fastest) 0xAA > 2xAA > QAA > 4xAA (slowest)

    So in reality using QAA is slighty more demanding then 2xAA but not as demanding as 4xAA. So if they would choose 2xAA on the PS3 version the very same that the 360 version is running with the framerate would improve on the PS3 version. The reason why Xbox 360 never uses QAA is because it is an nVidia patentet tech. If 360 could use this form of AA I am pretty sure we would see it on many games.

    / Ken

  • kirankara #114 2 years ago

    @hokutonoken
    But why do deva insist on using it still when it looks like ass, and msaa is less memory intensive and looks better?? Can't see why 360 devs would use it myself tbh( not saying they wouldn't, just why would they it's awful)

  • vizzini #115 2 years ago

    kirankara: But why do deva insist on using it still when it looks like ass, and msaa is less memory intensive and looks better??

    Explain “looks better” in a quantifiable way for all 3D graphics scenes when comparing anti-aliasing methods.

    The reality is; that signal analysis for 3D geometry in scenes is very subjective. Just because DF doesn’t like QAA, doesn’t mean that Nvidia (who are an authority in the world of computer graphics and ARB members) don’t think differently.

    Most of the people commenting on this thread, don’t even know enough to realise that a lack of foreground depth cueing is a bad thing. And say they prefer the other version without depth cueing and crushed blacks.

    Opinions of AA techniques from non-graphics programmers are pretty irrelevant when you think about it. If some couldn’t read “Computer graphics: principles in practice” and understand it, they probably sit below the threshold for a discussion of which rendering techniques are better or worse.

  • HokutoNoKen #116 2 years ago

    @kirankara
    "But why do deva insist on using it still when it looks like ass, and msaa is less memory intensive and looks better?? Can't see why 360 devs would use it myself tbh( not saying they wouldn't, just why would they it's awful)

    If you think it looks like "ass" that is your opinion and nothing else. Fact is when it comes to memory usage QAA uses as much memory as 2xAA. So that the developers on this game choosed QAA for the PS3 probably is a hint that they thinks it looks better then 2xAA. The pros of using it outwieghts the negs sort of...

    Here is a very short list of pros and negs with QAA.

    Pro:
    Gives you AA similar to 4xAA but uses as much memory as 2xAA.
    Also lessen texture aliasing.

    Neg:
    It blurs the entire image in other words not as good as 4xAA.

    Also take a look at this DAA vs 0xAA

    http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/artic... (DAA)

    http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/artic... (0xAA)

    Article Lucas explains Force Unleashed II tech
    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lucasarts-on-tfu2-tech-blog-entry
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    DAA looks similar to QAA. The entire image looks kind of blurry but gives you superior AA. Open the pictures in different windows and view them maximized. then use ALT-TAB to switch between them and see for your self. If you don't like QAA maybe you will not like DAA either.

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 23/11/10 @ 19:07

  • kirankara #117 2 years ago

    @Hakutonoken

    Thanks for the info, I hope I didn't come across as awkward, as that wasn't my motive. I was just stating that qaa is universally panned by people, and having seen msaa I thought this would be a better option overall, as it doesn't have that horrible Vaseline smear look.even think the look on star wars unleashed 2 looks better than the qaa tbh, could tolerate that .

  • systems #118 2 years ago

    Always an interesting feature for owners of both consoles.

    I notice that LoT shows very different shadow and lighting effects for 360 which are missing on PS3. Plus there are a few missing graphics on PS3 (e.g. the sword hilts are all plain on PS3 and ornate on 360). But then again, the PS3 one has free DLC which is nice (MS would have charged 800 points for it knowing them).

    I'm torn between getting the PS3 version for the DLC, and waiting for the inevitable "AC3: Complete Edition" on 360 next year when MS gets access to the DLC. I'll stick both on my wish list and see which one Santa gets me. ;)