Bayonetta: PS3/360 demo showdown

By Richard Leadbetter Published 12 October, 2009

Digital Foundry dares to compare.

It began with a seemingly innocuous notice in Japanese games magazine Famitsu, where special mention was made that the PS3 version of Platinum Games' forthcoming Bayonetta is not being handled by the original developer. Quite why Platinum isn't at the conn for the conversion to the Sony platform remains something of a mystery, but the recent Japanese demo release offers some potential reasons, and it too highlights prominently that Platinum is not responsible for the port. So, is this a simple case of giving credit where it's due, or is the developer effectively disavowing itself of the PS3 version of the game?

It has to be said that there is much in the PS3 rendition that Platinum would most likely wish to distance itself from. In terms of raw performance, both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games have their issues, but by virtually every criteria it is the PS3 version that comes off worse, as you can see from the media Digital Foundry has prepared. There's some Face-Off style comparison shots to gawp at, along with this 720p movie:

Comparison video of the Japanese Bayonetta demos... Click on the full-screen button, or the EGTV link below, to view in HD.

The game's engine-driven cut-scenes are intricate in detail and offer a close-up view of some of the more obvious differences between the two versions. Right from the off, it's clear that the PlayStation 3's lack of unified memory pools has been an issue for SEGA's conversion-smiths: texture quality is pared back significantly. More than that, frame-rates are considerably lower, and tearing is far more frequent. There is also some evidence of the normal-mapping having a quality edge on Xbox 360. Platinum appears to have deployed one the Xenos GPU's unique compression modes (DXN/3Dc+) for a higher-quality finish, whereas the more standard DXT texture compression can look a bit rough on SEGA's PS3 version, in particular with blocky artefacting on curved edges.

Making matters worse, the developers have enveloped the PS3 cut-scenes in an almighty blur, which magically lifts the moment the gameplay begins. It's almost as if SEGA were replacing engine-driven cut-scenes with pre-rendered video sequences - only the immensely variable frame-rate and lack of compression artefacts suggest otherwise. For its part, Xbox 360 appears to be employing more selective and sophisticated post-processing, which looks cleaner, but it's clear that there's some washing out of detail and crushed blacks.

Into the game and those basic image-quality differences do not seem quite so pronounced as in the cut-scenes, but it is clearly obvious that detailing has been pared back. Bayonetta appears to be adding an extra detail map on top of the existing textures and when the base art is of a lower resolution, the difference becomes self-evident. However, by far the most obvious differences are in terms of the frame-rate and the level of tearing. There is a night-and-day performance issue here. Let's kick off with Platinum's own work on the Xbox 360 build:

Xbox 360 performance. Bayonetta's fast action, large colour palette and high levels of detail send even the best h264 encoders scurrying into hiding...

Frame-rates are high here, but tearing is an issue. What is interesting from a technical perspective is that there is screen-tearing that is impossible to programmatically identify. The technique for doing so involves comparisons with the frame before and the one after - finding identical video data to locate the tear. In a small sampling of cases, there is no identical video data, but the frame is still torn. What this most likely means is that Bayonetta sometimes renders frames faster than 1/60th of a second, for reasons unknown (WipEout HD appears to do the same on the odd occasion). It also means that to the human eye the game tears slightly more than this graph tells you.

There are no such troubles of that ilk in analysis of the PS3 version, which runs with a clear performance penalty:

The PS3 version of the game is still a lot of fun based on this demo, but the performance compromises are significant.

With more torn frames (anything up to 70 per cent in challenging scenes) and fewer frames rendered, the overall sense is that Bayonetta PS3 is a workman-like, adequate rendition of what Xbox 360 owners are getting. It gets the job done, it's still plenty of fun, all the rich imagination in Platinum's concept is there, but it's definitely a less impressive rendition of what's looking to be a great game.

Over and above all of that, this demo raises as many questions as it answers. The two samplers have overlapping content, but also go their own way in a number of respects. Platinum's own 360 code offers up sections of two stages: The Falling Clock Tower and The Angel's Metropolis. PS3, meanwhile, completely avoids The Falling Clock Tower and extends the titanic bridge battle from the other stage. A bonus boss fight (seen at the end of the PS3 performance video) is added too: conceptually lovely as gravity is thrown completely out of the window, but less technically challenging than the omitted 360 content.

Regardless of the technical challenges, one thing is common to both versions of Bayonetta above all else. The game is crammed with a wealth of wonderful ideas, new graphical scenarios and some literally insane fighting action. Hopefully the game's Western audience will get a good look at it soon.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (66) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • xentar #1 2 years ago

    it seems like the devs take the easy way developing for xbox primarily and then just putting the PS3 version somehow together wiht no regard to uniqueness of PS3 hardware :-/ It is too similar to what happens with Xbox to PC conversions where the devs just ramp up texture resolution for high end machines but do not think about controls

  • NotSoSlim #2 2 years ago

    Perfect example of a cash in, why not just make the game 360 exclusive??

    Oh yea because they need the Japan sales also...a lazy job all round imo.

  • MeBrains #3 2 years ago

    notsoslim: my idea exactly...

    this' been a quick port. move on, nothing to see here...

  • Retroid #4 2 years ago

    /Battens down the hatches

  • Thunderbolt #5 2 years ago

    Could be my eyes but I do struggle to see the differences on these comparisons. Luckily I have a 360 for the most part its not an issue and am really looking forward to this game

  • jynxce #6 2 years ago

    Well, tables have definitely turned this gen. I remember when multiconsole ports of games for the PS2 stifled the original Xbox (and even early 360) development. Now PS3 is getting all the hand-me downs. Oh well.

  • StooMonster #7 2 years ago

    xXBrombeerXx: You would think after almost three years, the developers have got the ps3 under their belt, but it still isn't so.

    What makes you think that the PS3 developers have not got the hardware under their belt?

    xentar: then just putting the PS3 version somehow together wiht no regard to uniqueness of PS3 hardware

    The Xbox 360 hardware is just as "unique" as PS3; they are both PowerPC at heart.

  • Wander #8 2 years ago

    @Thunderbolt!

    If you're watching the first side-by-side comparison and you can't tell the difference, you may have issues with your left eye ;)

    For PS3 only owners - I doubt it will spoil the game play, although awareness of this comparison might.

  • Retroid #9 2 years ago

    jynxce : "Well, tables have definitely turned this gen. I remember when multiconsole ports of games for the PS2 stifled the original Xbox (and even early 360) development. Now PS3 is getting all the hand-me downs. Oh well."

    That would only work if the PS3 version was identical in every way to the 360 version, just not up to the standard of other PS3 games. As it is, this is a very poorly done port and only reflects badly on that process, not either hardware as such.

  • Pirotic #10 2 years ago

    You missed out the critical point, the PS3 is using 5 of the 7 CPU core's to allow real time weapon changing. The Xbox version has a load screen when you switch between attacks (I presume).

  • stevetuck #11 2 years ago

    is this Demo out on the 360 yet or am i just blind? :/

  • rotmm #12 2 years ago

    @steve,

    Both demo's are out in Japan only. For PS3 you need a japanese PSN account. For Xbox I believe you can find the demo available to download on an assortment of sites. Download, burn, play.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 19:15

  • TopKatt #13 2 years ago

    I'm definitely gonna have to try the demo now to see if it's worth me buying.

  • photoboy #14 2 years ago

    @Pirotic

    If you're talking about switching between the guns and the sword it's in real-time on the 360 demo.

    It's disappointing to hear there are performance problems on the PS3, but I don't think it's fair to blame Sega's developers for being lazy/untalented. They've been given an unfinished game, full of code they haven't written, that has been designed to run on a different platform. Any development team would struggle with that as they will likely not have had much input with the 360 version's programmers about how to structure the game to make a PS3 port easier.

  • Les #15 2 years ago

    "it seems like the devs take the easy way developing for xbox primarily and then just putting the PS3 version somehow together wiht no regard to uniqueness of PS3 hardware :-/"

    First, it's not the devs but the publishers. Second, you can hardly blame them as there's no incentive to do a more than adequate job. Now that ports are mostly outsourced, there's little professional pride on the side of the developers, they just have to get the job done within a tight budget given to them by the publisher. And for publishers the only thing that counts is the bottom line and an adequate PS3 port adds more to that than a really good, thus more expensive, one.

  • StooMonster #16 2 years ago

    Pirotic: the PS3 is using 5 of the 7 CPU core's to allow real time weapon changing

    The PS3's Cell processor does not have 7 CPU cores, rather it has 1 physical CPU core that runs two Symmetric Hardware Threads (SMT) and is ergo 2 logical CPU cores; the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU has 3 physical CPU cores that are also SMT and it thus has 6 logical CPU cores. Whereas both CPUs are PowerPC derivatives the PS3's Cell has 7 SPE and developers can use 6 of them, these are a type of SIMD (vector processors), whereas the Xbox has a VMX128 per core which are also a type of SIMD.

  • Beek4257 #17 2 years ago

    ^^ ... eh?

  • Darren #18 2 years ago

    Hmmm... another multiformat PS3 disappointment but so long as the machine has games like Uncharted 2 and Ratchet & Clank A Crack in Time then I can live with it; it's one of the benefits of being a multi-platform gamer. :)

    I didn't actually think much to the demo myself... Devil May Cry with an odd-looking female lead (small head, big body, unsexy glasses) and seen-it-all-before gameplay.

  • funkateer #19 2 years ago

    Wow, some scenes really look blurry on the PS3.

    While the excellent captured vids are always interesting to see, I think the 'technical analysis' written part is rather iffy.

    There are once again loads of assumptions made without any reference or proof, assumptions that are really doubtful to begin with.
    For example the bits about the use of X360's "DXN/3Dc+" texture compression and X360's unified memory architecture being the reasons for X360's better looking textures.
    Unless Digital Foundry has been on both PS3 and X360 development teams, I think such statements bear absolutely no technical credibility whatsoever and is basically just a lot of blahblah.
    Especially the unified memory architecture bit is doubtful to say the least.

    In my opinion, DF should really stick to what they're good at (preparing good video captures and providing clear statistics) and stick to the facts.

    In the end, what matters to gamers is that the X360 version once again looks better than the PS3 version (which can help in making choices), but nobody benefits from ill-informed technical assumptions and guessing.

  • johnick #20 2 years ago

    Been waiting for this, don't even have a 360 and I did enjoy the demo, but even without the comparison I noticed the tearing and frame rate dips (not the lower textures though). It's not the PS3's fault, it could easily handle this game, as nice as the 360 version is Uncharted 2 blows it (and dare I say just about every other game this gen) out of the water .......... its just a shite port. Part of me almost wish's this was a PS3 exclusive and the 360 version didn't exist, but buying the PS3 version would be like giving Sega a pat on the back for a "f*** it, it'll do" port. Shame I don't have a 360, I might pick this up when its insanely cheap, as much as I hate Gamestop giving them money instead of Sega for something like this would be the lesser of 2 evil's.

  • toy_brain #21 2 years ago

    For PS3 owners this might have been a tough pill to swallow.
    Might have been, were it not for the existance of Uncharted 2 to show off the machine's lovelynes at its best (and give fanboys something to smugly fawn over), and more importantly DMC4 - showing how a game of this type can be ported just fine across the machines.
    Which makes me think... if Hideki Kamiya had not left Capcom, PS3 owners might have gotten Bayonetta running as it should on the MT Framework engine, but then again, we might not have gotten Bayonetta at all - such is the nature of corporate dealings behind closed doors.

  • Machiavellian #22 2 years ago

    @Darren
    I have to disagree with you on the game play. Either you just button mashed and was statisfied with the results or you really did not try to flesh out the gameplay mechanic. The game is a lot of fun to play and if you get involved with the gameplay mechanic, it opens up even more.

    Anyway, I guess you have to either like games like this or not. I am believing you swing to another tune.

  • Vergis69 #23 2 years ago

    Cant really go slagging off the ps3 on this one over lazy developers. Its obvious the PS3 can do better than that, theres no need to list the titles to prove it. Either way I wont be getting this game on either format probably and if I did... it would probably still be the PS3 version.

    But yeah if they are that shit at making PS3 games they really should have made it a X360 exclusive. Sony would probably pay them not to make it on their console considering their skills lol

  • Badassbab #24 2 years ago

    Its obviously rushed port ready for Xmas release. PS3's a bitch to develop for lack of unified memory sucks.

  • flanker22 #25 2 years ago

    WAHHH WAHHH the incessant cries of the fanboy.

    its always blame the developers, publisher, the commonality in all these things is that sony should make their console more accommodating for developers, especially new startups like PG. you cant blame microsoft for making and aiding developers with great tools and support, sony should strive for the same.

    also i'll admit that the ps3 does some things better than the 360, why cant people ever admit the opposite. ps3s strength is in deferring shading/effects to the cpu, a game thats 60fps requires fast throughput which limits usage of cpu cycles since it would cause delay. It makes 360's hardware a better candidate to render a game like this which is a gpu bottleneck.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 21:59

  • Kaminari #26 2 years ago

    Ultimately, you have to wonder why Sega didn't stick to v-sync'ed 30 fps.

  • ronuds #27 2 years ago

    Of course the 360 version looks better. MS pays EG to say these things!!!

    /sarcasm

  • onyxbox #28 2 years ago

    I think the same thing as what @Les said... it's got everything to do with the bottom line.

    Lead on 360 (because the skills are cheaper and the tools are familiar/easier to use) then pay a third party to do the port (as cheap as possible). As long as the results are about the same to the untrained eye then... quids in... why should they spend months re-engineering the PS3 version to suite the hardware.

    In that respect 360 is going to win out on 3rd party development (generally speaking).

  • tachometer #29 2 years ago

    Boom! another nail in the PS3 coffin. Time to bin that PS3 methinks!!!!!!!!!

  • Xerx3s #30 2 years ago

    "It's disappointing to hear there are performance problems on the PS3, but I don't think it's fair to blame Sega's developers for being lazy/untalented."

    No, but you could blame them for hiding things in the demo that would really show how well it was made.

  • El-Dev #31 2 years ago

    /reads tachometers comment, looks at Uncharted 2 ad at bottom of page. Laughs.

  • Loghorn #32 2 years ago

    PS3 Porting Issues Continue...

    This guy here has a point (He was talking about the demos of both Bayonetta & Lost Planet 2). Also, from 6:45 to 7:43, he also said that the Demo really reflects the final product about 95% of the time, among other things.

    My views on PS3 porting issues, Professor Bond & the myth of PS3 users buy more variety.

    He talks about how hard it is to develop games for the PS3, etc.

    it seems like the devs take the easy way developing for xbox primarily and then just putting the PS3 version somehow together with no regard to uniqueness of PS3 hardware.

    Guess what? Even if games were developed first for the PS3, or if games were ported from PS3 to the 360, they'll still come out playing, running, & looking better on 360. The 360 can also easily push out the same kind of graphics, etc., from the PS3 with less development time & money. 360 also has a slightly better GPU, & is more easier & less costly to develop than PS3. Developing games first for the PS3 takes a lot of time & money. The reason why 3rd party developers hate developing games for the PS3 is because it's too damn difficult. It's even more difficult than the PS2. So difficult in fact, it would take many people just to work on the PS3 version while it would only take less people to work on the 360 version of a certain game, like Far Cry 2. Take that for instance when it was ported from PC to both 360 & PS3. It only took at least 3 people to work on the 360 version, while it took about 14 people just for them to work on the PS3 version. Fourteen. That's a lot of people just to be either developing or porting games onto a single console with that certain version. That's the bottom line.

    I also had a topic talking about this & you can see it if you want, or just view those videos above.

    My opinion of why PS3 versions of multiplats almost always turn out to be inferior.
    Edited by 4 at 13/10/09 @ 00:22

  • johnick #33 2 years ago

    "They'll always get the worst ports."

    I wouldn't say always, we do get the odd one in our favor ( Bionic Commando, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Star Ocean etc) . 9/10 Multiplatform games as of late are virtually identical or the difference is so minor its not worth mentioning. DMC4, RE5, Soul Calibur 4, UFC, Batman AA, Wolverine and so on. Ever Multi Platform game Ive wanted for the last 18 months got a good PS3 port (please note "Ive wanted";)

  • Alkeno #34 2 years ago

    After learning the hard way that I suck on this type of game (DMC4), I knew from the beginning Bayonetta was going to be a hard sell for me. Then I heard the music of the game and every bit of doubt vanished. Just to damn annoying...

    The comparison tell us the usual tale of a 360 native code being rush-ported to the PS3. We can't blame anyone: the guys who did the 360 version did their job well (except the guy in charge of the soundtrack, he should be buried alive), the guys at SEGA did their job (it was said before, most likely the order was "make it playable and decent enough, do it fast and cheap";).

  • Loghorn #35 2 years ago

    I wouldn't say always, we do get the odd one in our favor ( Bionic Commando, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Star Ocean etc) . 9/10 Multiplatform games as of late are virtually identical or the difference is so minor its not worth mentioning. DMC4, RE5, Soul Calibur 4, UFC, Batman AA, Wolverine and so on. Ever Multi Platform game Ive wanted for the last 18 months got a good PS3 port (please note "Ive wanted";).

    That's only because they were ported from the 360, & because of more development time & more money. Clearly, the 360 has the power to have games in Native 720p. As a matter of fact, there were more games in Native 720p on the 360 than PS3 (we've seen that many times before; check through here if you don't believe me), & that it's much easier & less costly to make games for than the PS3. Is that the system's fault? No, it isn't. It's completely Sony's fault for gimping the dev tools and forcing the developers to jump through hoops to get the PS3 to produce something approaching acceptable. This is Sony's modus operandi for consoles, they don't want it's "full potential unlocked" until much later in the consoles life. They've done this by design with the PS2 and the PS3 and more or less accidentally with the PS1 and have even said as much on various separate occasions.

    Edited by 2 at 13/10/09 @ 00:17

  • ukgamer #36 2 years ago

    wow these lame ass devs need to make a trip to naughty dog or guerilla. epic fail lol.

  • GamesConnoisseur #37 2 years ago

    Excuses and endless excuses that excuse PS3/Sony and blames everyone else can only be used to a point where the tide of evidence are too hard to ignore. A case in point smoking kills.. 50s to 90s.

    Neo con and the myth of the climate changes.

    X360 is NEVER in ANY ways better than PS3?!!

    As others put yes PS3 is great in some area and Uncharted 2 really shows the console at it best, now come on SDF and admit that in some area or certain respect the X360 is a damn good console?!

    Sure PC thrashed both but for an almost 5 years old console to be giving gamers a comparable joy to what Today best PC can give is worthwhile point of acknowledgement. Same for PS3 but only requiring more manhours and resources to get the max out compared to X360.

    Uncharted 2 is certainly done by a big team but thank god for that!!

  • Loghorn #38 2 years ago

    Um, why triple post?

  • des #39 2 years ago

    This just shows that PS3 Bayonetta is so awesome even with fps drops...it is that good
    At least its trying to be a 60 fps game,unlike lesser 30 fps wannabe games(99.9% of other games including Uncharted(s))

    Best game in years,so crazy and flashy...pure awesomeness

  • Gregolution #40 2 years ago

    My feeling is it's down to the developers. Cross platform programming is complicated and this isn't restricted to gaming. There are a lot more game developers familiar with the Windows platform and that knowledge transfers easily to Xbox dev. These examples show how those same developers struggle porting the code to the PS3. I would imagine if you took a PS3 only house and ported a PS3 exclusive to Xbox, you'd run into the same issues. The reason that isn't as common is because there are more game developers out there with Windows knowledge. It's an easy article for fanbois to target and blame the hardware but I honestly dont think that's the case.

  • Geordiemp #41 2 years ago

    Simple solution, have both consoles and be a true gamer. The rules :

    1. Small developer, low budget, or not enough time or expertise, then XBox version is always better.

    2. Always get LAN suppported games (system link) on Xbox (why cant Ps3 do LAN system link ??)

    3. Ps3 exclusives are so much better - UC, UC2, MGS4, Ratchet. Nowt on Xbox can come close.

    4. All unreal games look like pants, low numbers of enemises, poor animations, just flat bump map - look like cut outs.

    5. Jasper Xbox with NXE install make no noise. Ps3 slim is quiet. Old Xbox and Fat Ps3 were both crap noisy hair dryers.


    There, thats better.PS I have 2 of each consoles so am no fanboy, and have more xbox games than Ps3. But Ps3 top end is better.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/09 @ 09:06

  • teabagger #42 2 years ago

    Meh, same-old same-old, the only real difference is colour saturation and contrast. All fixable through your TV settings.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/09 @ 09:06

  • SeesThroughAll #43 2 years ago

    Slightly lower resolution textures, and a bit more blurry in some points (probably to do with a different smoothing filter used instead of AA). Brightness and saturation can be compensated for either console by any TV, so that's not a significant difference.

    The PS3 version is a bit below the 360 one, but hardly the disastrous difference we were led to believe before.

    The graphical differences wouldn't change my mind if I was interested... which I'm not.

  • rotmm #44 2 years ago

    @teabagger, "Meh, same-old same-old, the only real difference is colour saturation and contrast. All fixable through your TV settings."

    Precisely. Also those other differences, like some missing foliage, lower res textures, blurriness and a framerate that runs at just over half the speed. All fixable through your TV settings too.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/09 @ 09:25

  • rotmm #45 2 years ago

    Shut up donnie.

  • Johnsters #46 2 years ago

    @donnie

    Fortunately, I don't care for most of the MP games released (bar COD and a few others)

    If done properly "porting" works. Bioshock, Burnout, Batman. (all the 'B's)
    Fallout 3 apparently had minor glitches, but never noticed and I was happy with it.


    Edited by 1 at 13/10/09 @ 11:06

  • penhalion #47 2 years ago

    Did you know that I've only just realised that bayonetta is collecting sonic rings after each kill......

  • TopKatt #48 2 years ago

    Poor donnie. He needs something else in his life I think.

  • Lord_Gremlin #49 2 years ago

    This is sad. Instead of reprogramming graphics for PS3 architecture they just downgraded it, which is easier. In 2007 it was forgivable. In 2009 it's called "a douche-bag developer". Shame on Sega.

  • mgillespie #50 2 years ago

    The same old story... Eurogamer decide to do a showdown where they already know what the outcome will be, they don't bother to showdown all the games where the PS3 wins...

    You would have to be a cretin to not see the cherry picking thats going on here and a digital foundry. I wonder how much Eurogamer get from Microsoft for this FUD spreading....

  • mgillespie #51 2 years ago

    @donnie080208 The 360 is the problem, not the PS3. Because Microsot jumped the gun and released before they (and everyone else) was ready, the got aload of sub-par systems out there.

    If the 360 died tommorrow, PS3 games would improve as a result, as they code would be built for the PS3's superior hardware from the ground up. You can't showhorn 360 code onto a PS3 and expect the same results, however if you code spedicially for the PS3, you get excellent results...

  • Retroid #52 2 years ago

    Loghorn: "Um, why triple post?"

    There's a comments system bug which sometimes triple-posts. Seems to happen only on Digital Foundry articles (I have no idea why) and happens to me, but I go back and delete any duplicates.

  • Retroid #53 2 years ago

    mgillespie: "The same old story... Eurogamer decide to do a showdown where they already know what the outcome will be, they don't bother to showdown all the games where the PS3 wins..."

    No, they never do. Apart from when they show the games were the PS3 version wins. But if you ignore those, presumably for the purpose of feeling able to scream BIASMSMUSTPAYTHEM, then no, they never say when a PS3 version of a game is better.

    Apart from when they do.

  • teabagger #54 2 years ago

    @ rotmm. If you're talking raw technicalities you've got a fair point. I'm just taking issue with the way everyone gets worked up about comparisons which tend to over over emphasise differences which are actually pretty small. If you had a 360 in one room and a PS3 in another and switched between them half way through play I wager most people would not, or barely, notice the difference.

  • davisorle #55 2 years ago

    The PS3 version looks very bad and I'm amazed how with half the fps it still was reduced to half the texture quality more or less. Also the game isnt a fast port to PS3. It's always time consuming to tweak for the PS3 to get still worst evrsion from the 360's one so I still woudn't expect them to decide to do it otherwise. The game will sell as much eitherway on the platform even if it was even worse or graphically equal except the ones that indeed have both platform and care to know which version looks better. I know I would if I had both but I believe its not the common case. Might be wrong tho.

    Oh well. At least im again on the good side of the better version so no biggy.

  • Pasco #56 2 years ago

    The music in these comparison videos is horrible

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #57 2 years ago

    That is noticably much better on the Xbox 360.

  • Loghorn #58 2 years ago

    @Svpamm1: Huh? It is true. Look at games like Virtua Fighter 5, Ghostbusters, & Dead Space that were developed on PS3 first, & then look at 360's.

    @ Semitope: No, I'm not spouting off rubbish, I'm spouting off the truth.

  • Loghorn #59 2 years ago

    Typical halftruths and "factual" lies that get ppl confused.

    Huh? Since when? Everyone has known what the PS3 is all about & how it fares. You got me there with Dead Space, but how am I spreading "half-truths," etc., when everyone has known all about things that has been going on between the PS3 & 360?

  • Loghorn #60 2 years ago

    No, smart alec. Everyone knows the truth about how well the 360 does in multiplats, etc. & how well the multiplats on PS3 does, etc. It's not just me.

    If you don't like what I or other people say, don't post about it. Period. I never acted like a jerk towards you, so don't act like a jerk towards me!
    Edited by 2 at 15/10/09 @ 21:05

  • Cappy #61 2 years ago

    Out of that monster list of games that 'lead' on the PS3 not a single one actually did. I can't think of single multi-platform game that has lead on the PS3.

    Regarding Ghost Busters there are earlier contradictory statements such as 'we could have had more objects if we had made the game for the PS3' amongst other things which all point to the fact it's a 360 game.
    Edited by 1 at 16/10/09 @ 20:22

  • johnick #62 2 years ago

    "I can't think of single multi-platfrom game that has lead on the PS3. "

    Bionic Commando

    And Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, though its more of an expansion then a multi plat game (still way better then NG2 on the 360)

  • Badassbab #63 2 years ago

    @74

    That's not what he meant. Lead development is what he means. Right? If so Burnout was lead development on PS3 too. I think EA tend to try and work hard at keeping PS3 games at parity with 360. Look at Mirrors Edge as well.

    But to say NGS2 is way better on PS3 is bull. It came out a year later, no blood, disappearing bodies, half the amount of enemies on screen, missing enemies, inferior overall framerate and more screen tearing. Other than that yeah it looked better, has wiggling breasts, more content and more balanced gameplay.

  • Gay-Lord-Perry #64 2 years ago

    I preordering the 360 version

  • kdoggdayton #65 2 years ago

    I think the Wii version looks better than both

  • johnick #66 2 years ago

    Clock tower level running on the PS3 (Japanese Retail copy)

    [link url=htt p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHHyiO12Ipk&fmt=22
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=JHHyiO12I...[/link]

    The videos in HD, I know its Youtube so you cant tell if the game is running any faster then 30 fps, but there's certainly a few parts where it looks like its running well below that.

    Oh, and Sega appear to be trying to pull down any videos of full game on the PS3 for some reason, gotta wonder ?