Face-Off: Assassin's Creed II

By Richard Leadbetter Published 19 November, 2009

Splitting heirs.

Page 1 of 2

This is the game I've been waiting for. While the original Assassin's Creed may have been short on variety, there's no denying the quality of the visuals and the immense possibilities of the openworld sandbox it presented to us. On Xbox 360, at least, it was a technological marvel that laid the foundations for a sequel that takes all the coding genius of the original and combines it with a gameplay package that exceeds expectations. While Modern Warfare 2 ranks as the multiplayer game of choice for console owners, it's Assassin's Creed II that offers the most complete package for those more enamoured with traditional single-player experience. Ubisoft Montreal has done good.

Assassin's Creed is a game that comes with a bit of history. Way back in Face-Off Round 6, the PS3 version was savaged for its hugely disappointing performance, general blurriness and the feeling that its development was treated almost like an afterthought compared to the more technically solid Xbox 360 game. Times have changed. The quality of Ubisoft's PS3 work has come on leaps and bounds (its penchant for mammoth mandatory installs aside) and the fact the quality level has been sustained across the entire company with its many and varied studios is all the more impressive.

With regards to Assassin's Creed II, the comparison video augers well, suggesting that slight blur aside, the graphical assets are indeed identical cross-platform. You can get a more in-depth view with the jam-packed 720p comparison gallery.

Slowed down to 30 per cent speed, in this video we see that the two games are very similar indeed. Use the full-screen button for full HD resolution, or else click the EGTV link for a larger window.

Let's deal with the basic rendering spec. Similar to the first Assassin's Creed, ACII runs at native 720p resolution, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360 and quincunx edge-smoothing on PS3. The net result is that the PS3 has fewer "jaggies" at the expense of every texture in the game getting an unwelcome blur.

There have been some reports circulating that PS3 gets some special 1080p treatment in the form of a 960x1080 res - which would be a 12.5 per cent resolution boost, albeit with some oddly shaped pixels. The reality is somewhat different. If our pixel measurements are right, the PS3's 1080p mode - only active if 720p is disabled - seems to indicate the resolution has been reduced to 960x720. Combined with the quincunx, it's a blur-fest, as you can see in the upscaled 1080p comparison gallery. In short, it's a 720p game and really should be run as such.

In a year that has seen the HD consoles (and most especially PS3) pushed to new limits in performance, just how much of a leap have we seen with Assassin's Creed II? After all, the original game was one of the most advanced console titles ever seen back in its heyday in 2007 and, to this day, it's still an incredibly impressive title, with only a variable frame-rate and dollops of screen-tear blotting the copy book.

There are enhancements to the core tech, but it's fair to say that the overall impact during gameplay is limited. Perhaps the most impactful change is Ubisoft Montreal's inclusion of a full day/night cycle, dictating overall lighting throughout the game. A full 24-hour cycle is around 60 minutes of game, and it is interesting to note that starting a new mission resets the clock to a Doctor Who-style fixed point in time. Presumably Desmond's memories are being put back into sync with Ezio's, which is a nice touch. There's also a very nice Animus effect that sees the environments being reconstructed from their component vertexes as you enter the cityscape.

All of this is brand new, but make no mistake, the core tech itself is much the same as the game we played two years ago and initial impressions are that the original's cities had more character and detail than those we see in the sequel. There's even a very strong argument that the environments outside of the cities have been significantly pared down in terms of detail level and content compared to the first game. All I can say about this is that the further you get into the game, the more impressive it becomes, with the arrival in Venice signifying a new high point in technical excellence.

So what about the performance level? First off, it's probably best to remind ourselves of the huge gulf in quality between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the first game. While the Face-Off coverage of the time was very controversial, the bottom line is that with the analysis tools we have available now, we can see just how much of a raw deal the Sony platform got technologically speaking.

Flashback: Assassin's Creed 1 performed poorly on PS3, with a lacklustre frame-rate and obvious tearing at every turn.

Many view the original Assassin's Creed as something of a huge, expansive tech demo roughly manhandled into a somewhat limited game, and while both games were prone to losing frames and tearing, PS3 performance was a bit of a joke: frame-rate reaches a nadir of 17FPS at its lowest point, with 37 per cent of the 60Hz output of the console consisting of torn frames. That's compared with a mere six per cent on 360 and a 24FPS minimum. So for PS3 owners, a tech demo that underperforms technically. Not good.

The Assassin's Creed Forge technology has since been used for other games from Ubisoft. I ran a rough performance measure back in July on each of them, and the conclusion was obvious: the Assassin's Creed engine can deliver the goods. In terms of the almost mythic cross-platform parity, Prince of Persia was one of the best-realised PS3/360 titles of last year.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (103) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • uglygamer #1 2 years ago

    Nice and early, as its not even out yet. Well done.

    I was intending to get the Xbox 360 version but its nice to know that even though the XBOX 360 version is probably superior PS3 owners are getting a much closer version than it was with first Assassins Creed between both platforms
    Edited by 2 at 19/11/09 @ 14:24

  • zisssou #2 2 years ago

    I'll be getting on my PS3 over my 360 mainly because I prefer playing these type of games on a PS pad. I'm sure there are no huge graphical differences when playing either.
    Edited by 3 at 19/11/09 @ 14:23

  • b00n #3 2 years ago

    360 version it is then. I really love these useful comparisons, keep it up.

  • creepylizard #4 2 years ago

    @zisssou
    Well..from what they're saying it seems that there ARE big graphical differences between the two..
    Sadly, my 360 is borked so it'll have to be the PS3 version..

  • Fleeby #5 2 years ago

    @creepylizard

    Know that feeling all too well.

  • GamerG #6 2 years ago

    Excellent work DF

  • uglygamer #7 2 years ago

    I didnt read the article yet, but watching the video seems to show the colours on the XBOX 360 version as more vibrant and stand out more, while the PS3 version seems grayer.
    Edited by 3 at 19/11/09 @ 14:40

  • zisssou #8 2 years ago

    @ creepylizard

    I'm sorry but do you have to agree with the article? Take for instance Fallout 3, I had no issues with it on PS3 and I played it on 360 and yes it was slightly better but did I really miss out? Not really. My point is most of the time you can bare with what the PS3 is offering over the 360 version with the odd framerate drop here or there.
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 14:33

  • Collymilad #9 2 years ago

    "@ creepylizard

    I'm sorry but do you have to agree with the article? Take for instance Fallout 3, I had no issues with it on PS3 and I played it on 360 and yes it was slightly better but did I really miss out? Not really. My point is most of the time you can bare with what the PS3 is offering over the 360 version with the odd framerate drop here or there. "

    Er, but why would you if you have both consoles?

  • mungolikebeans #10 2 years ago

    Where the hell do you guys get the time to play a game on both consoles? Are you unemployed or students or something?

    I'm just jealous, that's all.
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 14:41

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    Hmmm... interesting read as always.

    From what I've seen of the game in video reviews it looks a lot more varied and intricate graphically than the original game so it seems a bit unfair to criticise the engine for not performing better IMO. Seems to me that the optimised engine is churning out more detail per frame which wouldn't have been possible otherwise. The pop up looks nasty in places and the way shadows draw in near by is a bit disappointing to see but it's a fine looking game otherwise. The animation looks very impressive and, other than GTA IV, the first game was the only other that managed to make a town feel so busy and alive. It looks even more so in the sequel.

    After almost been put off the sequel by concerns that it would be a pretty but shallow and repetitive game like the original, it was nice to read all the positive reviews. I'm now a lot more excited about this game than I was. PC version for me though, which has been delayed but it works in my favour for once as I've got far too many other games to finish at the mo.

  • GamerG #12 2 years ago

    @djronz

    So you would normally prefer to get the superior 360 version then?
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 14:42

  • photoboy #13 2 years ago

    Great article. I've just started playing ACII and I am a little disappointed in the visuals. The first one felt extremely well polished and slick, the sequel while still impressive just feels a little bland at the moment and there's the odd graphical glitch that I don't remember the original having. I suppose two years later, some games have just set the bar a bit higher and so Assassin's Creed doesn't quite stand out as it once did. Also they seem to have given Kristen Bell botox in this one. :(

    Anyway, the gameplay is still great fun and there is already more variety in the missions, so overall I'm really enjoying it.

  • peterfll #14 2 years ago

    The key information here for me is how the tech fails on the same keys points as it did two years ago i.e. maintaining a steady frame rate and torn frames. Better yes, but not great still given how much progress is being made in eliminating this from so many games.

    I know its completely different engine tech, but I just can help thinking about Uncharted (beautiful but flawed with tearing) and Uncharted 2 (just beautiful!) and how much effort Naughty Dog have clearly put in to perfecting their tech. Ubisoft have massive resources and they've had the time, and this engine is their key tech. I'm a bit disappointed.

    Despite all of that, I do intend to get the game and I'm sure I'll love it.

  • uglygamer #15 2 years ago

    Where the hell do you guys get the time to play a game on both consoles? Are you unemployed or students or something?

    I'm just jealous, that's all.

    Err.... I think playing videogames is their job. If you are talking about the readers no one is claiming to have played on both consoles.

  • Vedfolner #16 2 years ago

    I have switched to buying PS3-versions of multiplatform titles. At least Sony doesn't have a consumer-MUST-pay-for-DLC-policy.
    I know that here are a few examples of DLC that never appear on PS3 (or arrive very, very late) but at the rate the great games are coming in at the moment I really don't care. I never have time to play the DLC before moving on to the next fantastic game anyway. There is also the fact that if the DLC hasn't been released on the (PS3) platform I can play the released game without feeling I'm missing out. Rather nice, actually.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #17 2 years ago

    I got the PS3 version and, as long as the game is same and isn't that much different in terms of performance, will be happy playing it.

    Good to see that they made some headway into bring the PS3 version up to speed with the 360 version.

  • stepneg #18 2 years ago

    Year of the PS3 is finally here!

  • andywilkie35 #19 2 years ago

    Been playing this on the 360 since yesterday (thanks shopto!)

    Fucking excellent game, its great to hear that its much improved on PS3 as well as I've got a couple of PS3 owning mates who are looking to get it too

  • Darren #20 2 years ago

    Here's a question for anyone who knows the answer... why does the PS3 use Quincunx AA if the side-effect is the blurring of the textures? Why doesn't it use 2x MSAA like the Xbox 360? I understand that Quincunx requires the same processing power as 2x AA but offers the quality of 4x AA but if the 360 versions looks fine with 2x AA then why don't all PS3 games use it too? Aren't more detailed textures better than extra AA?

  • peterfll #21 2 years ago

    @boneparteofballybay

    "Why buy a PS3?"

    Well, people buy a PS3 for all sorts of reasons, not just because it offers (the specific 3) exclusive titles you mention. I won't list them as the rationale is probably as clichéd as the clichés you're thinking of.

  • Darren #22 2 years ago

    Ha... I post something postive and someone marks me down for it?!? :?

    What kind of a crazy world do we live in?

    /rolls around on the floor with laughter

  • andijames #23 2 years ago

    @Darren

    I think it's to do with the memory / bandwidth limits on the PS3. The 360 has the 12MB(?) RAM directly accessible to the GPU where the PS3 uses the shared RAM so the hit on performance is greater with 2x MSAA than with quincunx. I may be wrong thou.

  • Machiavellian #24 2 years ago

    I know its completely different engine tech, but I just can help thinking about Uncharted (beautiful but flawed with tearing) and Uncharted 2 (just beautiful!) and how much effort Naughty Dog have clearly put in to perfecting their tech. Ubisoft have massive resources and they've had the time, and this engine is their key tech. I'm a bit disappointed.

    Comparing a 3rd Party game that definitely did not benefit from 3 years of dedicated development on one platform probably is not a fair assessment. Even thought Ubisoft have the resources, its the Time part that's the problem. Its not like Assassin Creed II doesn't show a lot of work and it has been optimized for the PS3 but remember the engine probably wasn't built from the ground up for the PS3 so overhauling your engine tech probably isn't a wise investment unless you truly have the time and resources.

    Naughty Dog has worked hard on one Platform and they spent 3 years on the engine alone. We see the results with Uncharted 1 and 2 but I cannot see a 3rd party developer putting in that kind of time and resources on just one platform. Most game development time is 18 months which is tight if you have to redesign your engine for just one platform. Delaying a game to reach Naughty Dog level on the PS3 definitely not a smart move. Developers and Publishers have timelines when games are release. Missing those timelines hurt their business in a lot of ways. Another thing to consider is if one version is ready but the other would take 6 months to bake a better game but not gain you more sales, it's also probably not worth the effort.

  • Sulphur #25 2 years ago

    @bonebally: I'm sorry, but I missed the bit where this thread was about the apparent virtues of buying a 360 over a PS3 and vice-versa.

    If you don't think it has enough outstanding exclusives to make it worth your while, no one's forcing you to get a PS3. There's plenty of people who think otherwise, and I see no reason why the fuck we can't co-exist without dredging this shit up every half-second.

  • Machiavellian #26 2 years ago

    Here's a question for anyone who knows the answer... why does the PS3 use Quincunx AA if the side-effect is the blurring of the textures? Why doesn't it use 2x MSAA like the Xbox 360? I understand that Quincunx requires the same processing power as 2x AA but offers the quality of 4x AA but if the 360 versions looks fine with 2x AA then why don't all PS3 games use it too? Aren't more detailed textures better than extra AA?

    Its the bandwidth. I remember when Quincunx AA first came out and it was a solution to get 4X FSAA with little cost in memory. Even then, the same problem the PS3 is experiencing was the major downside of the technology which is blurry textures. I also believe that the GPU within the PS3 would be hit hard if you used 2X AA instead of the Quincunx method.

  • ocmerius #27 2 years ago

    @Darren

    360 has 10MB EDRAM (or something) that gives the 360 2xMSAA almost for free (as in, no performance hit).
    PS3 doen't have this luxury and if 2xMSAA is applied PS3 will take a performance hit which will have to be compensated, resulting in reduced visuals.
    To solve this Quincux is used on PS3 with the downside of blurry textures.

  • Big-Swiss #28 2 years ago

    ok, so PS3 version FTW if you only have a PS3!

    yeah yeah, same shit diffrent faceoff

  • cianchristopher #29 2 years ago

    These articles are seriously great, by far the best of their kind on the internet! Good work Richard and the rest of the DF team!

    I'll be getting this on 360, was playing the 1st one last night on 360 and it still looks amazing!

    I think the PS3 seems to be reaching a plateau in terms of it's multiplatform games. It's far better than the dismal 2007 Face-off results, but true platform parity seems to be elusive. Only Burnout Paradise has the upper hand (maybe Bionic Commando too)!

    I guess PS3-only owners will have to settle for their multplatform games always looking/running about 10% worse than the Xbox 360 versions!

    To be honest, and objective, that's actually quite okay and acceptable!

    What bugs me (and others), though, is the promises and arrogance of Sony when they announced and launched the PS3 as some kind of mind-blowing supercomputer that would make the 360 look like a Fisher Price toy.

    That's the reason people (including me, sometimes) love to gloat when Sony "loses" the Face-Offs time and time again! It's just the whole "shot-down-pride" thing that makes it irresistable! Fanboys are highly accountable, but not entirely to blame, for the internet of the past 3 years consisting of "system wars" where 360 owners would mock the PS3. Sony are responsible for a lot of the schadenfreude themselves!

    /Uncharted 2 is pure class, though!

  • creepylizard #30 2 years ago

    "@ creepylizard

    I'm sorry but do you have to agree with the article? Take for instance Fallout 3, I had no issues with it on PS3 and I played it on 360 and yes it was slightly better but did I really miss out? Not really. My point is most of the time you can bare with what the PS3 is offering over the 360 version with the odd framerate drop here or there."
    Err, well not having the luxury of buying both versions I suppose I will have to listen to what the article says. Whats the point of reading it otherwise?
    Why did I get marked down for my comment anyway? WHY?!
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 15:11

  • Darren #31 2 years ago

    Are they any sound quality differences between the two games?

    I've noticed that audio seldom gets a mention in these features but it's unclear whether that's because it's actually identical or just an oversight (because people don't consider audio to be as important as the visuals)? I've come across a few multiformat games where the audio has been noticeably better quality than the 360, e.g. Dead Space, Resident Evil 5, etc..

    The PS3 obviously has the advantage of an extra 43 GB of disc space which is why DTS audio is often included in PS3 games so have Ubisoft taken advantage of that? Does ACII have DTS/better quality audio?

  • Darrengamer #32 2 years ago

    Both console versions look well rubbish! I'm glad I get to wait ages for the superior version on my compoooooter. Even if I do have to spend an extra £100 on a new grafix card for every game because the old one doesn't support the new shaders.

  • LeD #33 2 years ago

    Once again the mighty 360 leaves the PS3 in its stride, not before having given it a good spanking. Oh, the humanity.

  • morriss #34 2 years ago

    Apparently the PS3 is up for 17 awards at the Spike VGAs - what a joke.

  • Whizzo #35 2 years ago

    Quincunx was rubbish back when I first tried it on a Geforce 3 more than 8 years ago!

  • onyxbox #36 2 years ago

    So am I reading this right... it's probably pretty much the same to the naked eye or is that tearing too noticable?

    I have the origional on 360 but like someone else pointed out... I also prefer the PS3 pad for this sort of stuff.

    BTW... Good article... really starting to like the 'objective' approach.

  • zisssou #37 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    because I can
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 16:07

  • gjgjg #38 2 years ago

    I don't know why but I was thinking of getting the PS3 vers this time (mostly cos I dont use it). but youve got me again DF, 360 it is!

  • Miths #39 2 years ago

    I bought the PS3 version today and have been playing it for the last three hours, and so far it looks and performs quite well. I was initially put off by some heavy tearing in the opening scenes, but I haven't noticed anything nearly as bad since.

    I played the 360 version of the first AC so I never had to put up with the apparently dire PS3 version, but it's certainly nice that number two in the series joins the vast number of multiplatform games where PS3 gamers won't feel like they are missing out on anything.
    Well, at least unless we're scrutinizing screenshots in this article :), but in the eight or nine I checked out the only thing that really stood out to me was the usual difference in color contrast and saturation, and obviously that's easily made up for by adjusting your TV settings if needed (or setting RGB to full rather than limited on the PS3, but since that's technically the wrong setting for most HDTVs, I'll stick to the limited setting and a properly calibrated TV instead).

  • stepneg #40 2 years ago

    Yeah mark me down but its true, I have a bloody PS3 or should I say Blu Ray player, why would anyone with both consoles buy something inferior? The Uncharted series is the only gaming reason I still have it, I just hope that the GOW collection can get me playing on it again which is ironic given it's a jazzed up PS2 game

  • peterfll #41 2 years ago

    ^

    Download Flower and chill mate. :-)

  • stepneg #42 2 years ago

    "Download Flower and chill mate. :-)"

    I've got Flower funny enough, haven't played it since the week I bought it though ;)

  • DevilsNeverCry #43 2 years ago

    Glad to see Ubi have gone and put in a crap load of effort technologically as well withthis installment, because frankly AC was dismal. I didn't even complete the game if I'm honest - down to both rubbish PS3 performance (frame-rate, blatant tearing and the crashing bug) and the purely repetetive nature of the actual gameplay. And since I had no 360 at the time to compare it with, I just sat by sadly.

    PS3 is still my main console though, so I am getting this on PS3 and I'm SO glad to hear that the tech side of things has picked up so much. Can't argue really since Sony supposedly made PS3 so hard to develop for. I think this is where the problem lies.

    Hardware aside, Sony and MS dev kits are made out to be miles apart in dev difficulty, since the 360 kits are close to Xbox, devs are somewhat used to them, but with PS3 it was like starting all over again. Exclusives prove how putting the effort and work in though can really show off what the tech can do, that is not to say Ubi haven't done a great job here because they really have, but exclusives can put to shame multi-plats as long as the devs can spend so much dedicated time on the one platform.

  • Keivz #44 2 years ago

    24 fps? Torn frames? The things people put up with. Ugh...unacceptable. Thank goodness for the PC. And I've got enough games on tap that waiting won't be a problem at all.

  • Dizzy #45 2 years ago

    Looks more like developers are not bothering improving their game engine on 360. Basically the same engine (24 FPS FFS?). Thanks multi-platform development.
    Edited by 2 at 19/11/09 @ 17:50

  • jimbo118 #46 2 years ago

    did you test PS3 with RBG on?

  • Gaol #47 2 years ago

    Great to have an article like this out before release.

    I played the original on PS3 and loved it, but I did buy it after the patch that improved performance and fixed freezing. It wasn't perfect technically but it didn't detract from the game too much.

    This article puts my mind at rest regarding playing the sequel on PS3. I also have a PC that would no doubt run it much better but there's no way I'm waiting months for it.

  • Wildsleven #48 2 years ago

    what multi platform games are superior on the ps3?

  • funkateer #49 2 years ago

    It's the expected outcome I guess, the 360 performing slightly better.

    However, what I found a curious part in the article is this:
    "Viewpoint set-pieces at night clearly show the PS3 code to have more lights in effect. It's more of a curiosity than a technical issue, though, and has no real bearing on the make-up of the game itself. "

    What I don't understand is why this fact is so glossed over, and why this is not a technical issue? It seems to me it is.

  • Loghorn #50 2 years ago

    @ Machiavellian (Comment #26):

    The PS3 isn't as much more powerful than the X-Box 360 as Sony & a lot of their fanboys would make you believe. For the most part, games as they are nowadays won't really be able to take advantage of the excess cores in the Cell processor (the only real hardware advantage the PS3 has over the 360 - everything else is more or less even, save for the RAM bottlenecking of the PS3). Generally-speaking, a game will end up topping-out the system memory before it has enough things to manage that will be taking up a lot of the CPU cycles.

    Anyway, good job on the article, Richard. It's not surprising that the 360 version is superior.
    Edited by 1 at 20/11/09 @ 11:03

  • makeamazing #51 2 years ago

    People are saying the original AC was bad on the PS3, but when i did play it (a while ago), I dont recall any major problems with it.... :D

  • Sulphur #52 2 years ago

    Log, I'm not entirely sure whether you're taking the piss or acting retarded, given that your link is tongue-in-cheek but your post isn't. Use a smiley or something dammit.

    I'd probably mark your post down to effect some sort of preventive action, but your technomological explication skills have frozen my index finger in mid-left-mouse-button-strike. It's the ring of half-truth that gives me pause.

    Basically, I don't agree with this: "Generally-speaking, a game will end up topping-out the system memory before it has enough things to manage that will be taking up a lot of the CPU cycles" because it makes little sense.
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 19:03

  • penhalion #53 2 years ago

    The install is no longer an issue given that I install all of my 360 games as standard now. In that way I get to play the games in peace and not while listening to the vacuum DVD drive. So I don't even notice when a PS3 game asks me to do an install at the start. I just go make a cup of tea or pour myself a cola.

    The real issue is with the excessive tearing.

  • HokutoNoKen #54 2 years ago

    QAA (Quincunx anti-aliasing)

    Pros:
    Uses as much hardware resources as 2xAA but looks as if it where 4xAA, in other words less jaggies when compared to 2xAA.
    Also reduces texture shimering.

    Neg:
    The trade off is that it causes a slight blur on the image.

    There is no performance gain with using QAA compared to 2xAA.

    QAA is NVIDIA patented technology and is not available on the Xbox 360 as it uses a gfx-chip from ATI.
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 19:48

  • Badassbab #55 2 years ago

    Penhalion,

    Agree with you there. Though problem with PS3 is some games are mandatory installs while 360 its up to the player whether they carry out the full install or not.

    At Eurogamer Expo they only had the PS3 version of AC2 which had a lot of tearing and that put me off. Also next to MAG and UC2 it looked washed out. I think it's because the default brightness setting is whack. A lot of PS3 games seem to have that washed out look as standard, not sure why the developers don't give the games a richer look as default.

  • freakzilla #56 2 years ago

    Has the PS3 ever won any of your face offs?

  • Sunyavadin #57 2 years ago

    That antialiasing on the PS3 is really nice compared to most games, none of the usual PS3 vaseline-o-vision. Very smoothly done. A beautiful game on both platforms.

  • funkateer #58 2 years ago

    "When you look at night pics of the game the difference is very visible."

    That's what I was thinking when looking at the 2nd video. I'd say in those shots the PS3 version looks rather visibly better.
    These face-offs usually try to be as in-depth as possible, and oftentimes they even take things a bit too far in assumptions and wild speculations, so glossing over something that's by far the most visible difference of all is rather puzzling...

  • Xerx3s #59 2 years ago

    "Apparently the PS3 is up for 17 awards at the Spike VGAs"

    Heh, I was looking through that page, what a fucking setup. You can only vote for games they approve which makes one wonder about the independence of it. To top it off, most games on there are big budget but in no way the best game of the year.

  • Deviation #60 2 years ago

    I thought that with the Modern Warfare 2 comparison, you'd finally figured out that you need to match gamma levels on the PS3 and 360 before posting screen shots for comparison. Why are they off again for AC2?

    With all of your technical know-how, it just mystifies me that you miss something as basic as the output levels.

  • womble #61 2 years ago

    "I know its completely different engine tech, but I just can help thinking about Uncharted (beautiful but flawed with tearing) and Uncharted 2 (just beautiful!) and how much effort Naughty Dog have clearly put in to perfecting their tech. "

    Both Uncharted games use an engine specifically designed and written for one platform. Both games are designed ONLY for the PS3. Both are tailored for the PS3, capitalising on its strengths, and avoiding most of the PS3's weaknesses. (Particularly alpha overdraw.)

    AC, on the other hand, uses a cross platform engine. Ubisoft didn't have 3 years and 60 million dollars to design an engine as a showpiece for Microsoft or Sony.

  • muscleblade #62 2 years ago

    "the Xbox 360 offers a sharper picture, smoother performance, lower levels of screen-tear and faster loading"

    Nuff said. I like it smooth.

    Also the game looks incredible imo. Unharted 2 has nothing on this tbh.

  • des #63 2 years ago

    I see that UC2 is like some "magic pill" for some sony fans,its mentioned everywhere...hmm

    So if something works well for UC2,it should work for lets say GTAIV,after all Uncharted 2 has a big open ended world to explore,tons of NPCs and cars roaming around,real-time day-night circle,weather,you can visit any location as may times as you want,etc...oh wait it doesn't

    But no,what works for one of the most linear,"corridor" like games,aka Uncharted,should work for any other game...it should work for a 60fps game also.

  • smelly #64 2 years ago

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • SL33PY #65 2 years ago

    a tie

  • Loghorn #66 2 years ago

    @Semitope:

    I believe that the 360 can also match the PS3 in graphics. They're definitely not maxed out. Anyone who says that either console is maxed out is a fool.

    The quality of graphics is improving with nearly every title on a month to month basis. Look at history; All consoles continue to have improvements in graphical quality, etc as their cycle progresses, due to new techniques being found, optimization code, etc. To say that the 360 is "tapped out" is hilarious and ridiculous, in my opinion.

    Countless devs have reiterated the same exact point - what one console can do (360 or PS3), The other can do also. What BOTH of these systems can do is actually the closest that we've seen in previous generations. They each have offsetting differences....where one is strong, the other is weaker, and vice versa.

    Also, the bottom line is that an exclusive built for the 360 is going to look awesome and an exclusive built for the PS3 is going to look awesome.

    But I really do think it's a little insane to suggest that PS3 exclusives "destroy" anything the 360 can do.

    Case in point, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that if Naughty Dog had been given the same amount of time and resources, that they couldn't have created the exact same game with the exact same quality on the 360. Uncharted 2 isn't a testament to the PS3's power so much as it's a testament that Naughty Dog just knows what the the hell they are doing.

    Plus, let's all keep in mind that Uncharted 2 isn't even universally considered the "hands down" winner on the console front anymore. Game Trailers and even Game Informer say that MW2 matches and / or surpasses everything out there. Some people may not agree.....but their opinion is not weighted any heavier than those who do. The idea that MW2 is the new "temporary pinnacle" (and it shifts A LOT) does not take anything away from the job that Naughty Dog did with UC2. Alan Wake even comes close to UC2.

  • mw39977 #67 2 years ago

    Excellent tech review, timely. I'm off to get my 360 version and to keep the PS3 happy I'll rent a Blu-Ray :)

  • Badassbab #68 2 years ago

    Semitope-

    A lot of quotes from developers saying only possible on PS3 problem is they are all first party so it's hard to believe there is no bias involved. It's like the whole 'maxed out' quotes. They all say that and then the next year a games comes out that proves them wrong.

  • shuurajou #69 2 years ago

    I'm a little confused by this article. Is 1080p a no-go for both platforms due to detail loss and blur, or is that only an issue for the PS3 version? The below sentence is the key one, but doesn't stipulate for what platform...

    [So what about the 1080p mode then? Assuming the DF measurements are right and it is indeed rendering 25 per cent fewer pixels than pure 720p, can you effectively decide to go for smoother gameplay over some detail loss and some extra blur? Apparently not: in our tests the game acted in exactly the same way as the native 720p mode does, and the loss of image quality was a bitter pill to swallow.]

    Or perhaps even if you're running the 360 at 1080p it will run the game at the native res...
    Edited by 2 at 20/11/09 @ 14:22

  • shuurajou #70 2 years ago

    @semitope thanks :)

  • drumbaby #71 2 years ago

    "What I don't understand is why this fact is so glossed over, and why this is not a technical issue? It seems to me it is. "

    It would have been easier for them to admit it was an advantage as far as word count goes, but probably harder when it comes to adhering to what seems like DF policy. Their other ploy is to reiterate the original games review at the end of a section where PS3 has come out on top, rather than saying 'chalk one up for PS3' which takes 5 words max.

    It's getting rather comical, actually :0)

  • Calgon #72 2 years ago

    2 things...

    1) This was expected, business as usual.

    2) Semitope's posts are so full of hopefull assumptions and incorrect information(not to mention he's shown that he lacks the technical knowlege to even have discussions/ or lets face it "preachings" in the first place), that I'm really not going to bother with the fuckwit after this post. :D

    Ironic quote of the day: "Nice fanboy babble. "

    He got the quote from Kojima wrong(he said something which should tell you what most of these comments mean he said it would need to be done differently but it could be done... they are different architectures), he was wrong about the CELL usage on Uncharted1, as for MAG*smirks*, killzone2 and flower....

    "are they all talking shit, is it just coincidence or what???? "

    I'll go with answer 1 there, they want to sell their games to idiots like Semitope, who will buy a game just in the hopes that they have something that tells them "I was right... I told you all"(even though they had no clue what they were talking about and often made jackasses of themselves, they just wanted to beleive their favourite was best and copied posts from beyond3d that sort of sounded good to them)

    A famous example of the "can only be done on this console" tactic that backfired... Ghostbusters, he said it because it was exclusive at the time and didnt think he would have to face up to the claim(its easily done when you know there wont be any version on other platforms). There were examples last gen too... its a marketing tactic and its very rarely honest(is it a coincidence that the history books show that most of these comments come from devs making Sony Exclusives? Even when its clear that the statements werent true looking back? I dont think so, I think its always been part of Sony's strategy).

    I mean I could have ignored UC2 and maybe Heavy Rain, because they are among the best the PS3 has to offer but still not a large leap above 360, I think what he's trying to do is claim the difference is bigger than it is by claiming "this fairly decent looking game (that 360 has already matched) couldnt be done on 360... so it has no chance of this one here"... its a fairly obvious ploy when you work out the 'Console-Fanboy-Graphics-Whore' mentality.

    He has NO CLUE just click the ignore button and move on, Id give the same advice to PS3 owners as he's shaming even the most hardcore PS3 fans with his desperate attempts to convince himself that the PS3 is more powerfull... its like his ego is all hinged around the PS3 being something its not, its kind of sad and pityfull when you think about it.
    Edited by 3 at 20/11/09 @ 18:17

  • Yaz #73 2 years ago

    @semitope

    I have to say I agree with Calgon here with regards to Sony exclusive devs claiming games can only be done on Sony's console, especially since I've had a similar discussion with (*looks left*, *looks right*, ok he's not here yet :)), man.the.king.

    So have you read this more recent interview with Naughty Dog?

    [link url=h ttp://www.vg247.com/2009/10/16/uncharted-2s-wells-on-ps3-ove r-360-motion-controls-the-next-drake-game-and-more
    ]http://ww w.vg247.com/2009/10/16/uncharte...[/link]

    Take note of these two very direct questions;

    "Q. You’ve mentioned that the Xbox 360 could never handle Uncharted 2. Do you think we’ve hit the point where the PS3 will start pulling ahead of the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical fidelity and overall performance? Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in the two platforms’ games from here on out?"

    Now, given what they said before, and given what gamers like yourself choose to believe, shouldn't the answer to those two questions be "Yes" and "Yes"?

    Well apparently no, since this is the reply he gives instead;

    "Evan Wells: I THINK THE DIFFERENCES THAT YOU SEE BETWEEN ANY TWO GAMES HAS *MUCH MORE TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPER* THAN WHETHER IT'S ON THE XBOX OR PS3. GREAT PROGRAMMERS AND GREAT ARTISTS ARE GOING TO MAKE A GREAT GAME. Naughty Dog will continue to push the PlayStation hardware as far as we can. We’re fortunate that we get to work on a system that has a hard drive and uses blu-ray for storage. Without these things, Uncharted 2 would have been a very different game. What we were able to do with the Cell processor allowed us to achieve a density of polygons and a fidelity to our effects that would simply not be possible without it. But ultimately, if we didn’t have a team of very talented programmers and artists, we wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of the hardware and achieve the results that we did."

    So, CLEARLY, he demises the idea that Uncharted 2 is as it is because the PS3 is 'way' more powerful than the 360, but instead puts it down to THEIR ability on the hardware. He also states that Blu-ray and having a HDD in each console resulted in the game being as it is (DVDs would have meant multiple disks, hence different in THAT respect), and that Cell enabled them to have nicer effects and more polygons (no doubt because RSX is slightly weaker than the 360's GPU Xenos). NOTHING there which suggests it couldn't be done on the 360, even though the interviewer clearly reminded him about their previous claim, and asked if the PS3 will pull ahead of the 360 in terms of graphics and performance.

    In otherwords, his answer to those question were not "Yes" and "Yes" as you suggest, but actually were more "No" and "No" (but of course, it's not so black and white).

    Interesting. :)
    Edited by 3 at 20/11/09 @ 18:56

  • Calgon #74 2 years ago

    @semitope

    Ah I see so Im the one who needs to take a good look at themselves am I?(who's being most defensive of their favoured platform here?)...

    "Let me just point out that it was ND who said they only used the RSX for U1.

    Thats news to me... give me a quote from ND that says they didnt use the SPUs, they spent 3years building an engine to do just that, common sense would tell you that you are completely wrong there. This is why I dont want any further discussions with you, you dont have your facts right, as with most quotes and comparisons you give you only see/remember things how you want to rather than how they really are.

    Since I know you wont, here's a nice quote from ND ;) :

    "The main thing about the PlayStation 3 is the Cell processor and more specifically the SPU's. We are only using 30 percent of the power of the SPU's in Uncharted. We've been architecting a lot of our systems around this and we were able to take full advantage of that power. A big part of our systems is running on SPU's: scene bucketing, particles, physics, collision, animation, water simulation, mesh processing, path finding, etc. For our engine, the cool thing about having the SPU's is the fact we can minimize what we send to the RSX (the graphic chip), it allows us to reject unnecessary information and get the RSX to be very efficient."

    Edit: A polite reply is more than you deserve semitope and I know Im not alone in thinking that, Im sure alot of PS3 fans would agree even.

    "You could say that suggests that it cannot be done elsewhere. "

    You could also say thats an example of you interpreting it how you want to rather than how it is, common sense would tell you the key words were "without it"(as in otherwise), he is talking about the PS3 there(plus we are well aware that with the PC in the equation he cant possibly have meant it the other way but I do agree with Yaz its not black and white on that but its obvious which interpretation is most logical/likley... the question was direct so it should have been a direct answer and it wasnt) . Regardless of that he hasnt worked on a 360 game yet either likewise with the other PS3 exclusive devs.

    Dont expect another reply, mature discussions are welcome not this childish bickering(and please look up the hypocrite, get over it you act like an idiot then complain "you called me name" you're the one who has the problem), blind bias and ignorance.
    Edited by 3 at 20/11/09 @ 20:11

  • Murton #75 2 years ago

    Vertexes? Last time I check the plural of vertex was vertices, but whatever you say DF,

    I noticed that the first game was mentioned close to a dozen times as being technically bad on the PS3. Must say that I had no such problems, no particularly bad framerate drops, no tearing and I was generally so enthralled in the game that I didn't notice many "jaggies" either. Loved the first game and look forward to this one.

  • Calgon #76 2 years ago

    @semitope

    LOL You are pure comedy gold!

    I notice how you ignored a quote from the devs which proves you were wrong... you wont find the quote you spoke of. Read the quote properly... its the exact same engine they are using in UC2 they just managed to get more than that 30% of SPU power. Really you are the possibly most frustrating person to have a discussion with(this is why the mature approach goes out of the window when it comes to you), I hope for your own sake that you simply didn't read the quote from Naughty Dog I gave because it doesnt make you look very good at all if not(I even put it in bold FFS! :D ).

    As for the "you could say" comment, well DUH... why was there a need to even post that?

    That's exactly what I meant, I even quoted your exact words... Yaz even said its wasnt a black and white answer which I reiterated... so either you beleive he was saying only possible on PS3 or that whole comment was pointless and childish... as in you know it wasnt that but you will cling onto it to drag the discussion out all the same(which is why I feel you are a time waster rather than someone willing to learn or have a mature discussion).

    I said one interpretation is more likely than the other(common sense and logic my friend... things which you obviously lack)... and naturally YOU chose the one that suits you best even if it isn't as likely. Yet you dont think that makes you look like you are being defensive?

    Interesting... Im deffinately done here, goodbye! :)
    Edited by 7 at 20/11/09 @ 20:44

  • womble #77 2 years ago

    Yet another face-off where the PS3 comes off second-best, another round of incoherent, ill-informed fanboy whining by semitope.

    You're an embarrassment to other PS3 owners mate. I spent much of yesterday playing Uncharted 2 and at no time did I think to myself "oh no, this diminishes my fun when I play my 360". Uncharted 2 didn't suddenly negate all the great times I have in Halo or Left 4 Dead.

    Uncharted 2 is pretty, and superbly executed. After playing RE5 on the 360, and actually knowing something about game development -- unlike semitope -- I can't see any reasons why UC2 couldn't perform just as admirably on the 360. Apart from Sony, that is.

    Get yourself a 360. Enjoy BOTH consoles. Quit the adolescent whining.

  • sjw3000 #78 2 years ago

    Well I only own the PS3 so these articles don't sway me in any particular way, but I still find them interesting... if only to see the PS3 continually come off beaten and bruised in the graphics department when it comes to multi-platform games! I know PS3 is supposedly more complex to develop for or whatever but seriously.. it's almost a joke. Clearly parity can be reached and it kinda boggles my mind as to why us PS3 users are still getting sub-par ports dumped on us.

  • Dave52 #79 2 years ago

    "Clearly parity can be reached and it kinda boggles my mind as to why us PS3 users are still getting sub-par ports dumped on us"

    Good games by big studios are ported well, shit games and shovel ware are not. Don't sweat it. If you're concerned about the quality of GI Joe, then it's a problem. As for MW2 and AC2, they look the same and perform excellently on both machines, regardless of what the face-offs are telling you. I notice that Eurogamer messed up the contrast again. Come on guys...

  • TRUTH #80 2 years ago

    I got both consoles. I got a PS3 after hoping it be x4 more powerful then the 360 from all the Sony hype...How wrong I was. It seems for HD download movies, games, online community, radio (last Fm), online gaming, joypad, gaming and graphics (Games do look better!), faster and easier downloading etc etc the 360 has been a better option - cheaper games too. Please note I'm not a fan of 360, but have to credit it by surpassing and still turning out the better versions of the same games.


  • Kryon #81 2 years ago

    I own both systems but I'm gonna get the game on PS3 because I want the crap version.

  • dom6918 #82 2 years ago

    Great Article!

  • Loghorn #83 2 years ago

    @ Ashen-Shugar:

    I would definitely do that. Semitope's a loser. And look at his last post, referring to 360 owners as "idiots" every time someone tries to point out some facts. This is funny. Just...funny. LMAO.

    @ Sulphur:

    I'm very sorry about the link earlier. I just thought that he did it by taking a real copy of UC2 & using a fake copy of UC2 to compare. Plus I thank you for not marking me & for not being so harsh in my opinions. You earned yourself a plus karma vote in your post from me.

  • Loghorn #84 2 years ago

    @Semitope:

    Guess what? I didn't say 360 owners.

    Really? This was your other post:

    I have deleted any posts that reply to the 360 fanboys on here. None of you idiots are worth it.

    Don't tell me you weren't referring to them, because you clearly are. We can all see it. Don't pretend to say that you didn't.

    they are one and the same to you huh?

    I never said that. You did. Plus I also happen to be more than just a Microsoft fan, but a Sony fan as well.

    You guys must have comprehension problems or just love to see what you want to see

    Btw none of you posts facts... you barely try to post any links to what you say

    LMAO! Oh, please. We have no comprehension problems at all. At least I know what I'm talking about. We all know what we're talking about. We don't see what we want to see. You're just choosing to ignore the things that we presented.

  • sazzrah #85 2 years ago

    While my brother owns a 360 elite which resides in the next room, I only own a PS3, so I bought it on that console despite the outcome here. I have to say, while I fully concede that technically the Xbox360 version is superior when you are closely comparing the two; in the heat of enjoying the game and the excitement of dashing across rooftops, the occasional drop of 3-4 FPS isn't going to be noticed - lets be honest. I played AC1 on PS3 (after the patch, admittedly) and I had a whale of a time! lol I remember noticing the screen tearing at first and then don't recall ever really noticing it again afterwards; I was too engrossed in the game by then.

    I think that this might be because I am not so consumed by the apparent Xbox360 vs. PS3 hoo-har that has been going on since the start of the 7th generation. I owned a PS2 and naturally progressed to the PS3 - I've never once regretted it, even in the face of these comparisons. But I have nothing particularly against the Xbox360 - only the RRoD failure rates which, in my opinion far outweigh any small graphical differences in the grand scheme of things - but that's another discussion altogether!

    I guess if you get so entrenched in trying to prove your console is superior you can't help but notice every tiny jagged edge, screen tear and slight blur... I just get on with the business of having fun and that's what I recommend for everyone here. Get whatever version makes YOU happy and then get on with playing this amazing game.

  • Yaz #86 2 years ago

    @semitope who wrote "I have deleted any posts that reply to the 360 fanboys on here. None of you idiots are worth it".

    That says it all really. You seem to have decided that anyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be a fanboy (hmmm, pot calling the kettle black I believe), and you deleted those posts because you realised your arguments didn't hold up to scrutiny (I assume you replied to me too, but I didn't get to read it).

    If you were confident you were right, then you would have had no reason to delete your own posts, therefore it has nothing to do with 360 fanboys, you simply didn't want others to see your claims being taken apart (at least, that's what it looks like to me, sorry).

  • Kryon #87 2 years ago

    It honestly surprises me that these comparisons still garner such a big response in the comments sections. The PS3 has one or two nice exclusives but generally fails at being a games machine when compared to the 360. We've all known this for ages so why are people still arguing the toss? If you're the kind of person who simply must own MGS or Uncharted and are happy in the knowledge that 99% of PS3 games are inferior to the 360 versions then that's fine but if that is your stance then why not man the fuck up and stop crying like a fat child who's lost his candy floss every time a comparison comes out in favour of the 360?

  • sazzrah #88 2 years ago

    @Yaz

    Don't apologise, I suspect you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. PS3 owners who channel their anger - because of their console of choice having slightly inferior 3rd party games - at the owners of other consoles in the form of goading, bragging, lying and blatant self-denial are an embarrassment to the rest of us PS3 users.

    Consumers shouldn't turn on each other in situations like this, if it is an issue of genuine concern we should be questioning the likes of Ubisoft and Sony as to why we pay the same price for an inferior game, not taunting each other about how one is better than the other.

    This is why I don't understand fanboy wars, when you think about it - it's kind of like a civil war; we're all on the same side here, yet we insist on splitting off in the name of brand loyalty. Microsoft and Sony must get a good laugh out of it, because it certainly takes the heat off them.

    Someone who buys this game on X360 isn't going to get a shed-load more enjoyment out of it than someone who buys it on PS3... this is the truth - comparisons like this are meant for sensible people who can handle the facts; 99% of people on here can't handle the facts, so instead they distort them to fit their reality. This happens on both sides, so don't think it's all about beating PS3 fanbrats down... mention RRoD to an X360 fanboy and you'll get the same effect.
    Edited by 1 at 21/11/09 @ 13:45

  • Kryon #89 2 years ago

    "I am not objecting to the multiplatform games still being better on the 360 in whatever insignificant way they are."

    So, things like frame rate are 'insignificant'? Funny that, I always considered things like that to be of importance in regards to gameplay. Also,although graphics don't make a game, they neither are insignificant. Have you not played games like Ghostbusters for instance? I would call the differences in versions far from 'insignificant', but then I'm not a Sony apologist so...

  • Yaz #90 2 years ago

    @semitope who wrote "I did it because they pushed the comments section to system wars, uncharted 2 and even went on to mention halo and l4d".

    But that still doesn't really explain the need to delete your posts. I've been in such discussions myself many times before semitope, and when I've felt things have gone too far, I just say so, I don't delete my previous posts if I know my comments are correct. Hence I'm sure you can understand my suspicion over your motives.

    You said "Also you are taking it like they did..."

    But how am I suppose to 'take it' when I couldn't read your posts? I responded to your post regarding Naughty Dog earlier, and the next time I looked at this topic, your reply to me and other posts were deleted, BEFORE I had a chance to read them.

    "1) The one from loghorn about memory limitation (my answer was that if it were so blatantly true, multiplats would be worlds better on the 360. Agreed? The difference would be 256MB vs 512 crudely)."

    Well, I do agree with Loghorn when he says the PS3 is only slightly more powerful than the 360 (as I've been saying that since E3 2005), although I'm not really sure what he meant by "RAM bottlenecking". If it's about bandwidth, then yes that's not really such an issue (or at least, not as much as some make out), however if it's about available memory, then that is an issue for the PS3 when running multiformat games unfortunately.

    Both consoles (excluding the GPUs) have 512MB, partitioned differently, and for games, the PS3's operation system still takes up more RAM than the 360's, where at the last count it was 72MB vs 32MB (look up PS3 memory footprint on google). 72MB is a great improvement compared to when the PS3 was launched, but it still leaves the PS3 with at least 40MB less RAM for gameplay compared to the 360 (about 10% less). Hence in certain multiformat games, details are missing from the PS3 version that are present in the 360 version due to RAM. For exclusives it's not an issue because devs will work around any limitations and build a game to the strengths of that format.

    "2) Another person brought up the lighting difference..."

    From what I'm seeing, in terms of lighting, there's no real noticeable difference between the day time shots, however for night scenes, whilst they have the same number of lights each, the method of lighting used on the 360 version decays much quicker than the method used on the PS3, meaning the PS3's lights visibly illuminates a wider area, and so imo, gives the night scenes in the PS3 version an aesthetically more pleasing appearence.

    "Now tell me that deserves the retarded replies."

    Well, I think I'll wait to see your reply to my post first (since as I didn't get to see the other earlier ;)).
    Edited by 2 at 21/11/09 @ 16:01

  • Kryon #91 2 years ago

    "Technically significant, but you can always see that some folks don't notice it and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game. That makes it insignificant WHERE IT MATTERS"

    If the gameplay is adversely effected then it is most definitely significant to any gamer. Framerate DOES effect gameplay.

    "ts funny how you jump to the only game that is obviously a poorly made multiplatform game to prove your point."

    Ghostbusters is the 'only' poor PS3 port is it? lol, that really says it all in regards to your outlook on the situation. I'm not going to bother with you my friend as you're obviously blinkered, I will however leave you with this thought, perhaps framerate, graphics, gameplay (in fact, games in general) are only insignificant to you because you're a PS3 fanboy/Sony apologist?
    Edited by 2 at 21/11/09 @ 16:19

  • Kryon #92 2 years ago

    Lighting? Like in SFIV you mean? Isn't that the game where the PS3 version lacks character shadows & such?

    Edit- but to answer your question, no. The graphics are not better on the PS3 due to lighting, the graphics are generally better on the 360 due to AA as standard, better framerates in general, etc.

    Edit2- Ah, I didn't bother reading your post properly as I deemed it insignificant but anyway I don't see why you are now changing your argument to AC specifically now, we were talking about in general, not this specific game.


    Edited by 3 at 21/11/09 @ 16:46

  • Kryon #93 2 years ago

    OK, you want to talk specifically about ACII, fair enough, I agree it is better on the 360 just like this DF article says and just like 99% of multi-plat games, happy now? I really don't see what point you're trying (unsuccessfully) to prove here? Are you saying ACII is better on the PS3? Funny, no one else seems to agree with you on that...

    I'd like to add that the traits that make 360 games superior to PS3 versions obviously aren't insignificant to yourself or you wouldn't have spent all day on here flogging a dead horse and pretending these differences don't exist when they quite clearly do.

  • Yaz #94 2 years ago

    @semitope who wrote: "Because I would be adding to the garbage, that is why and I am not particularly proud of having gone into that with them."

    Ok, then, let's leave it at that. :)

    "The ps3 system doesn't use quite that much anymore. Last most likely figure I read was on Beyond3D and they said around ~43mb but the last theory I read there was ~24mb. Its all on this thread:"

    Actually, they're only speculating on the absolute minimum the OS could use since Sony don't provide that info anymore. On the PS3, as you start adding features necessary for the game, the memory usage goes up on the PS3 (as you can see listed in that thread), whereas on the 360, it's 32MB for all the OS's needs.

    It's interesting that with every update before 1.80, the reduction in size of the PS3's memory footprint was made publically available, and yet since that 72MB figure in 2007, no announcements of reductions in the OS's memory requirements have been made. Hence I think it's safe to assume that whilst the OS's use of memory on the PS3 has been updated since, it's still much more than the 360's 32MB for your average game.

    That said, if you do happen to come across some up-to-date (and official) figures on the PS3's OS memory usage, I'd be grateful for such information (thanks in advance!). :)
    Edited by 2 at 21/11/09 @ 17:55

  • Diomedes #95 2 years ago

    AC1 17fps in the PS3 ?

    My God Richard ,stop taking drugs .....you know ,this game was bought by millions and we know that you are lying.

    Maybe you are just comparing to the ones that had that freeze problem back then that had to be solved by the 1.10 patch ?

  • TRUTH #96 2 years ago

    The 360 version of Bayonetta also looks and runs better then PS3 version. 360 got a perfect 40/40 from Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu; the PS3 scored slightly less 38/40, due to graphical and the odd framrate issues.

    Edited by 1 at 21/11/09 @ 19:37

  • sazzrah #97 2 years ago

    @TRUTH

    ...and that is relevant to this discussion because...?

  • Yaz #98 2 years ago

    @Semitope & Calgon.

    I'm not sure of the exact exchanges you had previously regarding SPU use within Uncharted, however I feel the best info comes from devs during game conferences. Hence the following presentation from Naughty Dog at last years GDC should make interesting reading.

    The Technology of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune;

    http://ww w.naughtydog.com/docs/Naughty-D...

  • funkateer #99 2 years ago

    @Calgon
    "Edit: A polite reply is more than you deserve semitope and I know Im not alone in thinking that, Im sure alot of PS3 fans would agree even. "

    Politeness? Is that what you call those endless rants and personal attacks at semitope?
    There's no shame in having a mature, respectful discussion you know, even if you think he's wrong.

  • sherbet56 #100 2 years ago

    the controls are frustratingly poor but if you persevere with them it well worth playing

  • BadFlounder #101 2 years ago

    My god semitope, enough already. I am a PS3 only owner and you are a sad representative of PS3 owners. Typical fanboy who can't deal with reality. Seriously dude. I like the PS3 too but MOST cross-platform games are better on 360, that's just reality bra. It's not the end of the world. lol Frickin' tool.

  • SaberEdge #102 2 years ago

    Well, I ended up getting Assassin's Creed 2 for the 360 based on the performance differences we saw with the first game, but I have to say that I was a little disappointed with the performance of the new game. All in all, I think it performs worse than the first game. Perceptibly they seem to have about the same amount of screen tearing, but the shadows are glitchy (they kind of pop in and shift back and forth) and there also seems to be more geometry pop-in. Also, a lot of buildings seem to kind of lack detail (like the big church in Florence). The first Assassin's Creed just seemed to be a little more detailed and polished.

    Aside from the performance issues, however, this game is definitely better than the first one in many ways. It has a better narrative and way more varied gameplay scenarios. I really love it overall, but I am beginning to seriously consider building a gaming PC so that I can get better performance for multiplatform games. Games this generation tend to have way too much screen tearing and other issues for my tastes.

    I own a 360 and a PS3 and I really enjoy both consoles, altough at this point I would probably have to say that I prefer the PS3. Sony has improved the features of the console continuously to the point that it offers most of what the 360 offers, only its all free (online features, Netflix, etc.) I also love many of the PS3 exclusives. While it's true that the 360 does tend to get the better performing multiplatform games, I am still often unsatisfied with the performance of the 360 versions. They might be technically better, but they still have problems and that is why I am considering building myself a gaming PC.

    As far as PS3 owners feeling bad because the PS3 versions are often a bit technically inferior, I just want you to think about something: last generation the difference between multiplatform games was much, much bigger, with the Xbox generally having far superior versions compared to the PS2. Nevertheless, millions of PS2 owners bought and enjoyed those multiplatform games.
    The differences are far smaller this time, so if you only own a PS3... don't worry about it. Buy your multiplatform games and just enjoy them.

  • Gecks #103 2 years ago

    "Thats partly why in most cases I don't care about ps3vs360"

    clearly.