Face-Off: Dungeon Siege III

By Richard Leadbetter Published 25 June, 2011

Donkey bunch.

Page 1 of 2
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 4.3GB 4.75GB
Install 4.3GB (optional) 2014MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM

Kudos to Obsidian: in developing its own Onyx engine technology, the studio has managed to create a new action RPG that has its own highly distinctive visual look, rich on incidental detail, atmospheric effects and heavy on dynamic light and shadow. In what is essentially an HD reworking of classics like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance on PlayStation 2 (albeit without the super-smooth frame-rate), Dungeon Siege III offers plenty of RPG-fuelled enjoyment, but essential elements of the game mechanics are lightweight in nature, and the kind of depth we've come to expect from magic and combat dynamics in this genre feels somewhat lacking.

In terms of the quality of the game across the three major HD platforms, Dungeon Siege III manages to hand in a mostly equivalent experience. Certainly from an image quality perspective, you'd be hard-pressed to tell any of the versions apart from one another, though similar to Alice: Madness Returns each individual release has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, albeit at a much less dramatic level. However, in terms of performance, the two console titles are very, very different.

Let's commence the proceedings with the traditional head-to-head movie, which serves to highlight what a good job Obsidian has done in equalising visuals across both platform. There's also a weighty Dungeon Siege III comparison gallery to pore over.

Dungeon Siege III on PS3 and Xbox 360 - use the full-screen button for 720p resolution, or click on the link below for a larger window.

The fundamentals all look fine: both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are rendering at native 720p resolution, and both seem to be using the same kind of custom anti-aliasing solution which seems to offer different degrees of edge-smoothing depending on the situation. Even if there were no AA at all, there's a strong chance that Dungeon Siege III would look fine regardless: there are few high-contrast colour schemes in the environments and there's generous amounts of bloom and other post-process effects that serve to soften the overall look of the scene.

We'll move onto the specifics of the visual differences shortly, but of more importance is the basic performance level of the game: the key difference between the two console releases. Dungeon Siege III seems to run with very different profiles on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. While v-sync is maintained on both platforms (so no tearing whatsoever), the Microsoft console appears to be solidly capped at 30 frames per second, while the PlayStation 3 game is allowed to pump out as many frames as it can at any given point - which fluctuates considerably.

In situations like this, typically we would prefer the capped 30FPS approach (or better yet, a choice in the options a la BioShock 1 and 2) as this standardises controller feedback and gives the game a more consistent look and feel. Unfortunately, consistency is probably the last word you can use to describe the frame-rate of Dungeon Siege III, as our performance analysis showcases quite effectively.

Both console Dungeon Sieges are v-synced, so no tearing, but there are some quite startling variations in frame-rate owing to the PS3 version running unlocked while 360 is capped at 30FPS.

In general gameplay, the uncapped frame-rate tends to see the PlayStation 3 version operate at around 30-35FPS, but the advantage over the capped 30FPS on 360 isn't really evident during gameplay and only really serves to add judder to the movement of the game, especially noticeable as you traverse the environments. Similar to God of War III, in simple environments lacking other characters we can see PS3 performance skyrocket, with close to 60FPS achieved on the odd occasion. Both versions seem to take a serious hit to performance when there are many effects in play, but on balance when performance dips the PS3 version has a small advantage.

While the performance analysis video concentrates on combat situations where we would expect the engine to be under the most stress, it's worth pointing out that even basic traversal leads to a lot of dropped frames or judder on either platform. Based on the stats alone the PS3 version wins hands down in terms of average FPS, but it's an interesting example of how higher frame-rates doesn't necessarily translate into a better game experience, and why developers tend to target a straight 30 or 60FPS. The real impact on gameplay is when performance drops below 30FPS: something that can happen at the drop of a hot on both console platforms.

Other differences between the two versions are nowhere near as pronounced and very difficult to pick up on. Think of these variances as engine curiosities rather than anything to factor into a purchasing decision. For what it's worth, shadow quality on the Xbox 360 game appears to be higher with softer edges (and very close indeed to the PC's highest setting) while the overall look is harder on PlayStation 3, and we also see marginally improved texture filtering on the Microsoft console too.

For its part, the PlayStation 3 also has its marginal advantages as well: some normal maps are rendered in a higher resolution, resulting in more detailed ground, for example. Minor, incidental detail on characters can also see the occasional dropped/lower resolution normal map too.

'Face-Off: Dungeon Siege III' Screenshot 360-normal1
'Face-Off: Dungeon Siege III' Screenshot ps3-normal1
'Face-Off: Dungeon Siege III' Screenshot 360-filtering
'Face-Off: Dungeon Siege III' Screenshot ps3-filtering

In the top shot we see one example of how some normal mapping elements have been dialled back a touch on the 360, while in the bottom shots we see how texture filtering is a touch more refined on the same console.

In reality, this is small beer, particularly when the camera viewpoint by default is so far away from the player for the most part. By far the biggest issue is the inconsistent frame-rate, so we should expect the PC version to let us power past the shortcomings of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions, allowing gamers to enjoy the environments and effects the way they're meant to be seen.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (39) Latest comment 5 months ago

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

  • markyHD #1 8 months ago

    PS3 has higher average FPS output and higher res normal maps, etc, and some how the DF crew manage yet again to spin that as a disadvantage lol

    XBOX for3v3r eh guys?

  • Retro_ #2 8 months ago

    That was quite a dull read, it had a bored, 'matter off fact' air about it. Personally, I much prefer ths Vs comparison minus the PC , sorry!

  • Ferral #3 8 months ago

    It doesnt matter what version you have of this game. They all look equally good. Its not really a demanding game. I have it on PC and have seen it running on PS3, granted not side by side as my mate wouldnt let me borrow it as he is playing it. Regardless its a decent title to get.

    My only gripe with it is when changing weapons and armour, your character looks exactly the same regardless of the kit you are using.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #4 8 months ago

    Post deleted at 16:59:10 06-02-2012

  • Dave52 #5 8 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971 - LPCM is Uncompressed...

  • TRUTH #6 8 months ago

    I actually enjoyed the demo(on 360), I think it's getting a lot of unfair criticism. It has good decent Rpg elements (not over doing it with unnecessary micro management or things that don't matter), action does require tactical approach; esp on Hard setting, graphics are good and atmospheric, sound is good, menu screens are nice and clean...Yet! many people have slagged this game of. I found the demo more enjoyable then Torchlight (good similar action dungeon crawler action/rpg).

  • Nazo #7 8 months ago

    "The real impact on gameplay is when performance drops below 30FPS: something that can happen at the drop of a hot on both console platforms."
    Been listening to Snoop Dogg by any chance?

  • Rack #8 8 months ago

    How old is relatively old? 6 months? How will it do on a PC the same age as the 360?

  • Diomedes117 #9 8 months ago

    @Dave52
    Like you can tell the difference mate...

  • Dave52 #10 8 months ago

    @Diomedes117 - Why settle for second best...?

  • kirankara #11 8 months ago

    ok, im asking genuine questions here folks, so dont jump down my throat please.

    In the screenshots displayed, im uncertain what exactly the ps3 shot is showing that is better than on 360 shot when it says that normal mapping is better, and in second set of shots where it says texture filtering is better on 360, im seeing clearer textures on ps3 version still eg look at the well type object in left hand corner where 360 texture seems blurred in comparison)

  • IronCladChicken #12 8 months ago

    @Retro_
    I agree - Especially since all Europgamer (and the DF) articles & written specifically to cater to your tastes alone.
    It's an outrage I tells ya!

  • Demiath #13 8 months ago

    I would concentrate on the technical aspects of this cogently argued piece of writing - if it weren't for those bloody Breasts From Helll in the thumbnail for the last video. They're seriously creepy, and it doesn't exactly help that they're covered in some sort of semi-transparent film (as in "layer";) with a very suspicious-looking color and consistency...

  • BBIAJ #14 8 months ago

    "drop of a hot", that's a new one!

    "...and the actual process of saving your process is much faster than it is on Xbox 360 and especially PS3."

    It DOES auto-save, and manual saving is almost instant.

    @Ferral:

    You need to keep playing, your characters will change quite strikingly in time.

  • TaniumZX #15 8 months ago

    I think I prefer a (more or less) constant 30FPS over uncapped. GOW3 looked weird with the uncapped frame rate. Its jarring. Either 30 or 60 please.

  • Sharzam #16 8 months ago

    I find it rather funny that the one thing they mess up on PC is the controls, when the genre is a staple of PC gaming.

    It has been perfected over decades what good controls there are for dungeon crawlers and yet obsidian were adament to implement console style controls.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #17 8 months ago

    Post deleted at 16:59:10 06-02-2012

  • Scaper #18 8 months ago

    "while the PS3's unlocked frame-rate only seems to help marginally in sustaining performance"

    I completely disagree. Having an unlocked framerate just allows the engine to spit out as many frames as the hardware can do, however it does not improve performance. Given that frame-drops don't drop as hard on the PS3 just means the engine performs better on the PS3, it's nothing to do with the uncapped framerate.

    DF is getting lazy. They barely even went into what the AA method was or how it compared to standard MSAA. Also little was done on the console side in comparison to the PC side. It's basically a given that the PC version will always look better so I feel it's kind of a waste just talking about how much better it looks unless the graphical changes between the PC and console versions are done in detail (And don't include things like framerate or textures, which are given to look better on the PC).


    Also the article doesn't say what parts of the game put the most strain on the engine, just that the on PS3 "[performance is better] when the engine is under pressure"

    Under pressure?

    The game isn't a steam engine -.-

    please be more detailed next time DF
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/11 @ 17:41

  • Hotel_Moscow #19 8 months ago

    how about that infamous 2 tech analysis we got one gears of war 3 which isnt even out and even a performance analysis for modern warfare 3 but nothing for infamous 2

  • phil_75 #20 8 months ago

    What's the music from the comparison vid?

    Love it!

  • StooMonster #21 8 months ago

    Not a very good DF article, lack of technical analysis and instead commentary about controls. Poor show.

  • Astro-Creature #22 8 months ago

    Euroxboxgamer.com

  • Subquest #23 8 months ago

    @Sharzam. I guess there's a difference between genre and theme. Yes, this theme is very common on PC, whether it be Dragon Age, previous DS games, Diablo series, Torchlight, Titan Quest - fantasy adventuring with incremental character development. However, the gameplay type, or genre, of DS3 is very much Action RPG. DS3 is far more of a console type game, having its roots in SNES type action RPGs such as Secret of Mana. Within 2 minutes of loading up the game for the first time this was quite clear, so I pushed away the keyboard, reclined the chair a bit and picked up the joypad.

    I don't understand folk who turn their nose up at games designed around the pad. The strength of the PC is its flexibility, and not owning a pad with your gaming PC rules out entire genres of games from being played properly, whether that be football, driving, or games like this.

    Saying all that, I preordered this via Steam (where DS1 and DS2 were thrown in as incentives), and I've had more enjoyment playing through DS2 again than I have with DS3. Problem is, making a true sequel would have been next to impossible using a pad, and as we all know, consoles are where the money is.

  • Badassbab #24 8 months ago

    Nipsen,

    1080p support? Do you mean upscaled 1080p? (Like all 360 games in fact). And Dolby Digital is 5.1 surround sound, not mixed stereo.

  • scuffpuppies #25 8 months ago

    @Ferral: "My only gripe with it is when changing weapons and armour, your character looks exactly the same regardless of the kit you are using. "

    Erm no they don't. Each piece of armour or weapon, no matter how large or small, are all depicted via all characters. Have a closer look next time.

    By the end of my first campaign, I had a couple of great wings on my armour. Looked very cool with my sword constantly dripping blood.

  • hiscore #26 8 months ago

    Stick with a more traditional zoomed out/isometric camera and you gain 10 to 20% on framerate for the consoles.. just enough to make it smoother and more enjoyable. Who needs close third person camera's in dungeon slash games? Just my two cents.

  • riseer #27 8 months ago

    Really tired of this website..if the 360 had more fps and better normal maps that would be pure win on 360.Yet when the Ps3 has the advantage they downplay it.I am sure Ms has their money purse open for EG.

  • rojjer #28 8 months ago

    ps3 fanboys gonna cry. [sigh] You should give up as I have and turn to the dark side of the PC. At least you'll get a consistant result (top of the bunch 99% of the time) except for exclusives

  • Murton #29 8 months ago

    Have to echo the above, reads more like a review than a technical analysis in places. I guess Leadbetter is losing interest in the Face Off pieces, not a bad thing as they're usually fanbait anyway, as in this case the PS3 has the better mapping and higher frame rate, something it has had held against it countless times in previous Face Offs are downplayed and even described as disadvantages here.

    This had the potential to be a much better article with it being the first outing of the Onyx engine, a technical analysis into how it handles all of the effects and animations would have been nice, especially given the support that Obsidian has within the EG readership, I know I'm not the only one looking forward to an Obsidian IP powered by this rather impressive looking engine

  • BuckEntropy #30 8 months ago

    @Murton - Richard "downplays" framerate discrepancies routinely, even when it's in favor of 360. It's a judgment call, I don't think it's a necessary one myself but there's nothing inconsistent about it. And I read nothing about it being a disadvantage, it says unlike many games when the inconsistency of an unlocked framerate is not preferable - as in a particular 360 example with Darksiders iirc - in this case it's still consistent enough to be a nominal advantage.

    But hey, the first post is skewed pro-PS3 bullshit, which gets voted up, then a dry clinical correction gets voted down. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from that? Sony subjects REALLY love their bullshit!

    At any rate, Obsidian's priorities often seem to favor the PS3 in some areas. And if even the PC version is more CPU bound than other games it would seem to make sense that the PS3 architecture suits this engine well. I like seeing the chips fall where they may, no matter which side of the divide they land.

  • Seoh #31 8 months ago

    Glad they mentioned the 3d vision support, it looks fantastic!! Almost completed on the pc now and it could defiantly benefit from a couple more powers for each hero and maybe some control over the enemy AI. Good game though, should tide me over till torchlight 2.

  • drumbaby #32 8 months ago

    Even when Xbox 360 is bad it's good, or so it seems. Or is it that even when PS3 is good it's not worth mentioning?

    The usual EG H2H farce.

  • Cataferal #33 8 months ago

    @BuckEntropy - I agree with everything you said. Most of the comments here seem to show a misunderstanding of how an unlocked frame rate can affect the perceived performance of a game. It's not about bias towards the 360 at all.

    To explain it to people who haven't been reading DF's articles for very long, the PS3 could have been the best console version in terms of performance. Why isn't it? Because Obsidian inexplicably refused to cap the frame rate to 30, leaving the average frame rate lofting around the 35-40 mark. Because this is incompatible with the 60Hz refresh rate being transmitted to your HDTV (which demands 1 frame per refresh, or a repeat of the same frame for two refreshes), this will always give a perceived judder effect to movement, and impact the consistency of the controller's responsiveness.
    Edited by 4 at 26/06/11 @ 21:37

  • BlinkeredAxis #34 8 months ago

    @markyhd

    Sub-HD review of the face-off. Change your name, mate.

  • BlinkeredAxis #35 8 months ago

    It's just starting to get intersting...

    For the first time in five years, PC fans can claim, correctly, that their version of most games is better.

    Except for the horrible mouse/keyboard arrangement, and having to sit on an office chair instead of a sofa.

    I'll stick with console for now.

  • demons #36 8 months ago

    Surely you are not passionate about the game.
    we note that it is a technical analysis of a great game

    frankly I would not have done more are good, without going deep at all.

    good job for a mediocre game was made too

    I wanted an analysis of battlefield3 as MW3.

    wrote on twitter that have made the video ...

  • paintsville #37 8 months ago

    *cough* ...um ... it should be mentioned each and every time that xbox has 1080p support and the ps3 doesn't. Cough..it should also be stressed each and every time when ps3 requires a "mandatory" install.

  • darc #38 8 months ago

    Ironic that the PC version's achilles heel would turn out to be the control scheme. If there was one single thing I remember about DS1 and DS2, it was how fluid and intuitive the mouse and keyboard controls were.

  • metroid455 #39 5 months ago

    cool looks great,I mainly play JRPG's but i wouldn't mind adding a couple of WRPG's to my collection i'll be picking this up for PS3 once ive finished Tales Of Xillia and Atelier Totori;D