Face-Off: Final Fantasy XIII

By Richard Leadbetter Published 5 March, 2010

The neverending story.

Page 1 of 3

The rumours are true. Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox 360 isn't anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3. The real kicker is that it's a lot worse than it should have been.

Square Enix's latest epic - 4.5 years in the making - follows on the basic principles established by all of its PlayStation predecessors in combining an excellent 3D engine along with vast amounts of pre-rendered CG. This presented two very difficult issues for the developers tasked with porting an already mature PS3 work-in-progress over to the Xbox 360.

Firstly, the Crystal Tools engine needed to be translated across to the Microsoft platform. Secondly, the team had to find a way to compress over 32GB of CG to fit within the confines of three Xbox 360 DVDs - squeezed already by a copy protection mechanism that limits available space to a meagre 6.8GB, less than the storage potential of both PlayStation 2 and Wii.

The sheer idea of porting over a massive Blu-ray game like this onto the Xbox 360 seems like lunacy, but the good news from a conversion perspective is that the game itself is extremely linear. The core basis of the majority of the game is in negotiating very limited environments with just a few branching routes, following a yellow arrow to get to your next destination and fighting a myriad bunch of enemies as you do it.

Very rarely are you asked to return to previous locations - with just one chapter in the game dedicated to the sort of free-roaming JPRG gameplay for which Final Fantasy is renowned.

That being the case, while you can install all three discs to hard drive for a seamless experience, there really is little point over and above the convenience and noise-reduction elements. Disc-swapping on Xbox 360 is kept to an absolute minimum and has next to no impact on the experience of playing Final Fantasy XIII.

Ironically then, one of the main concerns about the conversion proves to be of little consequence at all. Unfortunately, the other niggling worries are of far greater significance.

'Face-Off: Final Fantasy XIII' Screenshot install1
'Face-Off: Final Fantasy XIII' Screenshot install2

Xbox 360 owners can install the whole game to hard disk, but the advantages are minimal. The process of swapping discs is fairly unobtrusive.

Built from the ground upwards with an eye towards the storage limitation of the disc, and with the different architectures of the two HD consoles firmly in mind, Square Enix would have stood a good chance of getting the game looking pretty much like-for-like on both platforms. However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

First up, let's talk about the Crystal Tools engine. Square mentioned in an interview with the Dutch Official PlayStation Magazine that a "new engine" had to be coded up for Xbox 360, but it seems to look and act very much like the PS3 one, with just a couple of very noticeable differences.

Let's talk about the resolution then. A smattering of European and US-based websites have published pre-release Xbox 360 shots, showing a considerable drop in definition with some galleries exhibiting a somewhat washed-out look. The problem with drawing conclusions from media-derived assets is that there's little transparency in what tech they use to take their shots. Some grabs even appeared to have mouse pointers on them, indicating that some sort of PC "print screen" function was used in their making.

However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha.

For those curious about how we can be so certain, the principles of pixel-counting are pretty much foolproof. On a 720p game, a diagonal line 20 pixels in height will have 20 distinct steps from top to bottom. When you look at FFXIII, there clearly only 16. So... (16/20) x 720 gives you a vertical resolution of 576 pixels. The same principles - and indeed ratios, in this case - apply to the other axis, giving horizontal resolution of 1024 pixels. The only slight confusion here could come from the HUD, which is rendered at normal 720p resolution before being overlaid on top of the 576p image. This has been standard practice for many years now with sub-HD titles, and FFXIII is no different.

So sub-HD and 1024x576 it is then. Now, with careful handling and superior texture filtering, sub-HD stands a very good chance of competing with native 720p - as Tekken 6 demonstrates. However, Namco's game is pretty much unique in being the only console title running at a lower resolution that looks demonstrably sharper than when it's running at 720p.

Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM.

Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that.

So, with a focus on footage generated just by Crystal Tools itself, let's take a look at how the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Final Fantasy XIII measure up to one another. Remember to use the full-screen button to get HD resolution, or else use the EGTV link for a larger, more useful window. Alternatively, peruse this colossal comparison gallery of over 50 shots.

Best. Music. In. A. Comparison. Movie... Ever.

"Adequate but a touch disappointing" best sums up the Xbox 360 version. Fine edges lose precision, and while the effect is mitigated thanks to the MSAA along with the multitude of post processing effects the engine has at its disposal, the fact is that the lack of resolution can make the 360 build look sub-par. The clean CG look of the PS3 game in motion is unduly compromised, and while it's still a handsome enough title on Xbox 360, it lacks the pristine presentation of its sibling.

It could have been worse though. As you may have noticed in the movie, the quality of the scaling when watching the game in motion isn't bad at all.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (335) 4 months ago

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

  • the_dudefather #1 2 years ago

    Be nice guys

  • Bravestinsane #2 2 years ago

    Don't care if it is CGI those close ups of faces are amazing look incredible in my view, however i don't own an Xbox so i will be skipping this game, done me a favour anyway would be in even more debt.

    Hope you guys all enjoy it anyway visually i think it looks amazing, and i can see much difference between the X360 and the PS3 shots

  • axtmoerder #3 2 years ago

    what about the worse textures,lighting and missing selfshadowing?man he tries so hard to downplay the ps3 version,this article is all about how the 360 version could have been better and not the actual differences

  • makeamazing #4 2 years ago

    Normally in the face offs i am defending the PS3 for not being able to notice the difference between the two versions in the videos... but this time, I have to say from a look point of view i cant see any difference (or they are so minor) that it really doesnt matter. If you have both consoles then obviously getting the PS3 version is better because of 1 disc and better video... but if you only have an Xbox, i really dont see anything to complain about from the videos on here.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 00:26

  • stevetuck #5 2 years ago

    Surely everyone knew it would be better on the ps3? and im not even a sony fanboy having never owned a sony console ever :)

  • telboy007 #6 2 years ago

    Crikey, look at that appaling CGI nastiness! Hmm, being a 360 owner I only have one choice. It's Bayonetta port problems all over again, but on drugs this time.

  • Diomedes #7 2 years ago

    Man ,even admitting the PS3 version is superior you have tried you very best to downplay it.

    And you have selected meticulously the comparision shots to make the 360 version look nearly on par ,when we have dozens of galleries already available in other pages that show a lot grimer outcome.You must know most people dont read and just look at the pretty pictures,so even saying the PS3 version is better you have done your best to show the littlest difference possible.

    And of course nothing about the worse textures,lack of self shadowing and worse lighting in the 360 code...

    Ah Richard,you are such a fanboy..

  • nibehlung #8 2 years ago

    Only those with seeing difficulty will have problem realizing that the 360 version is clearly inferior in many ways to the PS3 one. Holy macro-blocking artefacts. That wouldn't look good at all in motion.

  • onyxbox #9 2 years ago

    The facts are the facts in these articles but you can tell Ritchard likes the 360.

    (btw: I don't have a problem with that, just sayin')

  • Retroid #10 2 years ago

    So, a quick-and-nasty port in order to cash Microsoft's cheque and they're done.

    :/

  • Jayke #11 2 years ago

    Wow, they act like its so drastic and so disappointing, im a ps3 guy, the the different is negligible just like the 360 advantage in other games, close enough, noone gives a shit

  • Retroid #12 2 years ago

    Just thinking there, this is probably still not as bad a conversion as the utterly appalling Final Fantasy X PAL conversion they lumbered Europe with.

  • ecureuil #13 2 years ago

    Three pages to say the 360 version is shit? I could have told you that in 10 seconds, 3-shitty is obviously not powerful enough to handle a proper PS3 game when they use all the power of the console. They should rename the 360 version to Final Fantasy SD.

    Ok so the xbot kiddies got their own version of the game, shit as it is, but next time square, leave final fantasy to the grown ups please, and make it just on PS3. I'm no fanboy, I just want the best for the series. I would have been playing this before christmas if it was just on PS3, and it'd still have been in HD.

  • Spuzzell #14 2 years ago

    Good article Richard, thanks. I was really looking forward to this one! To me it looks great on both, but better on PS3. I'd certainly be happy with how it looks on either console.

    I'm a bit surprised Square didn't put more effort into the 360 build though, perhaps Microsoft's envelope wasn't stuffed with enough cash.

    I'm dreaming of a PC version now. *sigh*

  • Ithiot #15 2 years ago

    How come when you have these face offs, and the 360 version of a game is superior you blame the ps3 and for it not having that 10mb ram thing, but when the ps3 version wins, you blame the developers for not porting them well enough?

  • darkmorgado #16 2 years ago

    @ecureuil

    I'm no fanboy

    Lol who are you trying to kid? Every one of your posts goes on about the "3-shitty" and that the PS3 is the only games console for "grown-ups" without once actually justifying why.

    You're actually the lowest kind of fanboy out there, you fucktard.

  • WJF #17 2 years ago

    'I'm no fanboy...'

    That's weird, because you do a really good impression of one!

    Anyway, nice to see the PS3 trump the Box on a multi-plat game for once. The face-offs were getting a little predictable over the last 12 months, even if they are still interesting to read.

    Oh, and that's definitely not speaking as a fanboy as I don't even own a PS3. Guess that makes me a kiddie, eh, ecureuil?

  • darkmorgado #18 2 years ago

    but when the ps3 version wins, you blame the developers for not porting them well enough?

    Well, as he points out in his article, despite being on three discs the, first 2 discs on the 360 version are half-empty which means they didn't have to compress the textures or video anywhere near as much as they did.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 01:28

  • uglygamer #19 2 years ago

    All that money spent on exclusively advertising the XBOX 360 version trying to persuade people to buy the inferior version. Shame on Microsoft. This is one of the most selfish things Billl Gates' American company has ever done. Now I know why people hate them!
    Edited by 5 at 05/03/10 @ 01:30

  • shuyin131 #20 2 years ago

    framerate report is not accurate. While SOME (like a couple) cutscenes on PS3 can run 20fps at minimum, it mostly stays 29.3-29.9 fps constant during the majority of the cutscenes and during all gameplay from beginning to end. This "report" makes it seem like the framerate is always bogged to 20fps and never mentions how well the game actually runs. I knew they were gonna pull something like this.

    visual reference:
    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=pSRIBi7srZ4
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 02:07

  • Spuzzell #21 2 years ago

    @Diomedes
    @ecureuil
    @shuyin131
    @anyone else who apparently can't read an article

    Pretty much the whole article is an explanation of how and why the 360 version is inferior.

    It includes the line in the conclusion: 'there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision.'

    And yet you're accusing the writer of 360 bias?

    I'm in awe of your idiocy.

    EDIT: I just realised why you guys can't accept a positive verdict from DF on a PS3 title. It's because if you did you'd have to accept that the face-offs are pure tech comparisons, and in general the 360 comes out ahead. That's so lame I sort of want to cry for you.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 02:13

  • SpiritKing #22 2 years ago

    Well done compairison, everything is well put together and those who just look at the images and video provided can see the outcome. Still I can see why others are accusing you of bias , you seem to have written the article from an angry 360 owners point of view(come on slamming S-E for not taking advantage of the 360's hardware? How many time do devs ignore the PS3's advantages and you say nothing).
    Edited by 2 at 05/03/10 @ 02:17

  • ronuds #23 2 years ago

    Even when the 360 loses, everyone's still pissed! :D

  • Shakey_Jake33 #24 2 years ago

    In all fairness, I think Richard largely describes the technical aspects of a game exactly how they appear in the visual evidence that has been provided. I can't think of a more objective approach than to provide the evidence for all to see, and to simply explain what is there.

    If it sometimes seems that Richard has a 360 bias, it is more likely to be because the 360 version of a game does tend to be better. Here we have a case where the 360 version is inferior, and the article describes it as such - where is the issue?

    Is it a valid point that perhaps more blame should be levelled at the developers when a PS3 version of a game is inferior, though in fairness, Sega got the critisism they deserved for their handling of the PS3 version of Bayonetta. Likewise, SquareEnix have clearly taken the easy option with this game.

    At the end of the day, these articles aren't trying to tell people that X version of a game is crap and you shouldn't buy it. Indeed, FFXIII is likely to be worth 8/10 regardless of which version you play. These articles get into the nitty-gritty that a review cannot do, so those who are interested can understand and compare.

  • SolidSCB #25 2 years ago

    I love reading on a couple of people getting pissy about a bit of jagged hair :D

  • shuyin131 #26 2 years ago

    @Shakey_Jake33

    Yes that's a valid point and ideally, blame should always go to the developer, not the console manufacturer or the console itself however that's not always the case. The PS3 usually gets blamed for all of it and PS3 owners know it's not the fault of the console, but rather the developer.

    Even though the PS3 won, people are still mad and rightfully so. How many times have people called out lazy developers? How many times have we heard Xbots claim superior GPU and CPU? I keep hearing the same things and now people are scrambling to say they don't see a difference, that 570p is HD, graphics not a big deal, disc swapping is superior due to nostalgia, I could keep going. (GT/PSN: coffeerox)

  • BadBoyBonner #27 2 years ago

    @shuyin

    "it mostly stays 29.3-29.9 fps constant during the majority of the cutscenes"

    So are you saying you think it is almost permanently tearing frames? As I don't think it is.

  • shuyin131 #28 2 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    I haven't seen a tear in the whole game but framerate drop is probably because of V-Sync.

  • SolidSCB #29 2 years ago

    This almost reminds me of an argument I was having with a Dairylea fanboy the other day.

    You see, Cheesestrings started the whole 'peelable cheese' thing and for a time it was good. It was the only peelable cheese platform, so nobody argued. Then, Dairylea stepped in and said "I'm having me some of that action!" and got into the same market. Then people squabbled over it. You had some Cheesestring fanboys saying the anti-aliasing of the Dairylea peelables was rubbish (and they were right, they were just strips of fucking cheese stuck together by pressure). Then you had your Dairylea fanboys coming out with "It's the taste that counts, look at shitty fucking cheestrings with their 1 shitty product, Dairylea has way more range of products on our platform!" Cheesestring fanboys cried "Quality over quantity! Dairylea has a bunch of ugly looking, half arsed shit ported from our cheese platform!". Many side by side comparisons were made, which included strength, elasticity and the ability to make cheese shapes like the little cheese palmtree you could do. The arguments still continue to this day, because people have different tastes in what they want from a peelable lunch snack.

    The moral of the story is this; we are all getting a piece of this cheese, so shut the fuck up.

  • Seabeast #30 2 years ago

    I own both systems but I've ordered the Xbox 360 version. I just prefer to play games on my xbox.

    plus Achievements > Trophies

  • messiahtj #31 2 years ago

    I don't know what's more boring, playing a linear Final Fantasy or reading all those posts from whinning little bitches...

  • PenguinJim #32 2 years ago

    @ messiahtj:
    Give me your address, I will call the police and tell them about the people in your house with a gun to your head forcing you to play Final Fantasy and read these comments.

  • man.the.king #33 2 years ago

    This "face-off" sounded more like Rich Leadbetter speculating on why the hell was SE not able to make use of the 360's seemingly endless capabilities?

    Rich sounded embarrassingly apologetic and defensive in his article.

  • Clover4ever #34 2 years ago

    What about this

    <a href="http://i46.tinypic .com/2uzuil4.gif
    ">http://i46.tinypic .com/2uzuil4.gif
    </a>

    or this : [link url=http://i45.tinypic .com/2cdizpg.gif
    ]http://i45.tinypic .com/2cdizpg.gif
    [/link]

    -_-'
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 03:39

  • messiahtj #35 2 years ago

    @PenguinJim

    So kind of you but don't worry, I'm just guessing, I didn´t neither =D

  • Trejser #36 2 years ago

    Where are textures, loading, lighting, shadows and tearing comparisons?

  • Lunastra78 #37 2 years ago

    I just can't get over how dreadful that Leona Lewis song is. Was SE on crack when they chose this as the theme song? It's like having a Spice Girls song appearing in the middle of Dead Space for absolutely no reason.

    It's OK that they want to sell the game to girls too but there is a limit to what my fragile ears can bear...

  • fupoisme #38 2 years ago

    It's unfortunate to see a sloppy conversion over to the 360, I might have preferred to play this one on it simply for the novelty of playing a Final Fantasy game on a Microsoft console. Still, at least there's a clear winner, so I have no apprehension in making my choice of which version to get.

  • karooo #39 2 years ago

    burn 360 for stealing our game.

  • E2K #40 2 years ago

    this was the most butt-hurt comparison ever. :p
    Your tone has never been more bitter Richard, so much lol in that :D

    Anyway, you should have compared 1080p video versus upscaled, but you didn't.
    As you said, video is part of the experience, so kind of a missed opportunity there.

    Also, the first comparison without full ingame-screenshots Richard?

    Lastly, I give you this for free, you can update the article if you want:
    The 360 has superior texture filtering.
    You can see it immediately when you get to the camera tutorial, look at the floor. < The fact that you missed this reaffirms my opinion of your so called skills.
    Anyway, 360 stays in the attic, ps3-version it is for me ;)

  • Loghorn #41 2 years ago

    @Retroid, Shakey_Jake33, & shuyin131 :

    Totally agree with you. It's not the fault of the machines; both 360 & PS3 are more than powerful enough machines to put out awesome graphics to begin with. It's the developers fault for doing a piss-poor job. I felt that Square should've put a lot more time into the 360 version. If that were to happen, then both versions would've came out to be the exact same.

  • Scimarad #42 2 years ago

    "Best. Music. In. A. Comparison. Movie... Ever."

    You aren't wrong - That is an effing awesome piece of music.

    This is disappointing but, TBH, it doesn't sound remotely as bad as some of the crappy ports PS3 owners have had to put up with. At least it does still look good and the gameplay isn't particularly affected.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 06:08

  • E2K #43 2 years ago

    Lol, they completely forgot to mention the self-shadowing.

    Btw, I don't believe the 360 has a better GPU now, I mean look at it:
    Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, GOW3, I could go on.
    All those games look graphically superior to any 360 exclusive or multiplat that is out there.
    How can the 360 have a better gpu? :D

    When a game gets developed for another platform the port will suffer.
    In that regard, all ports have been 360-led until now.

    So I assume the "360 better gpu" is just fanboy bullshit invented by sites like b3b or digital foundry because of some ports :D:D Thanks for opening my eyes Richard.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 06:17

  • Loghorn #44 2 years ago

    @E2K:

    That's because Microsoft's 1st party developers doesn't put in the time & talent to achieve those graphics that games like UC2 & KZ2 had by using the CPU, etc., as well. They're just lazy.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 06:23

  • Trejser #45 2 years ago

    Loghorn: Of course not, they don't have money to this, MS is poor company :( GPU is indeed more powerfull in 360 but PS3 has "Teh Cell" :p SPU's are super fast: http://ww w.tilander.org/aurora/comp/gdc2...

  • Loghorn #46 2 years ago

    @Trejser:

    Are you kidding me? MS has tons of more cash than Sony.

  • Trejser #47 2 years ago

    Irony :D PS3 is slighty more powerfull console, exclusives show that.

  • Loghorn #48 2 years ago

    A few exclusives doesn't determine that a specific console is more powerful. If Crysis 2 were to come out & if the 360 version were to be at the exact same as the PS3 version, then it'll prove that Microsoft's 1st party developers are indeed lazy.

  • E2K #49 2 years ago

    loghorn: excuses, excuses
    to call bungie and epic lazy...

  • karooo #50 2 years ago

    @E2K the cell helps the weaker RSX, if u compare ps3 and 360 gpu directly the 360 GPU is better. the rsx is just there for supporting the cell.

  • super_monty #51 2 years ago

    Is it just me or do the video comparisons look the same?

  • flanker22 #52 2 years ago

    wow, when i first read your comment trejser i thought you were being sarcastic...

  • mashk #53 2 years ago

    Have the 360 and PS3 versions been mixed up?

  • des #54 2 years ago

    Square really fails at video encoding...
    Other stuff is not that dramatic,360 has better performance,PS3 higher res and better IQ.
    Oh well...

  • AC!D #55 2 years ago

    WOW reading that for minute i though the X360 version was the best until the final paragraph. He really does love his 360 tech!!!

  • sayonara89 #56 2 years ago

    Haha, nice comment from NG:

    "Hmmm... I'm trying to find a way to say that DF is totally unbiased, I really am. But I was just comparing the faceoff for FFXIII to the faceoff they did for Bayonetta. I dunno maybe it's just me, but the way it looks is this:

    FFXIII Faceoff: FFXIII on PS3 is better buttttt... SE is at fault, 360's superior hardware is not being utilized

    Bayonetta Faceoff: Bayonetta on 360 is better. Platinum games is wonderful with its "subtle" art. Advantages on 360 are all due to 360's hardware superiority and PS3's hardware weaknesses and not because of underutilization by devs.

    Am I way off on this?

    I mean if they are going to be fair, why didn't they just say something along the lines of "BAD Platinum games, BAD Sega for not utilizing the PS3's hardware. Had they done that Bayonetta would have been the same on both platforms."

    http://ww w.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php...

  • xgen007 #57 2 years ago

    Article rating: 3/10
    Find someone to do the part2 of comparison.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #58 2 years ago

    I blame Leona Lewis ;)

  • rotmm #59 2 years ago

    @axtmoerder, Diomedes, E2K, ".... missing self-shadowing...."

    Are you all the same poster? You've all mentioned the same argument that the 360 version lacks self-shadowing, when the actual gameplay videos captured by RB show that to be completely untrue.

  • drumbaby #60 2 years ago

    And somewhere, in a hospital ward close to EG HQ, a Digital Foundry journo remains on life support, indentations of the QWERTY keyboard fresh on his forehead.

  • karooo #61 2 years ago

    Digital Foundry's comparisons are woefully inconsistent and downright biased, even in the opening statement, they have laced their speech in apologetic tone to the favor of 360 hardware. Telling me how much better the 360 version could have been. I'm not interested in how much better it could have been. For a comparison; I'm interested in the differences and/or similarities across the consoles. I don't want to read 2 pages where all that's said happens to be advice given to Square on good 360 game development practices. If these guys are so intricate with 360 hardware, perhaps they should be in development and showing the true power of the 360 as opposed to counting pixels.


    Why are they inconsistent? If DF was so focused on giving advice to developers and were so privy to contest sloppy development practices, where was that same level of commitment in decrying the PS3 port of Bayonetta? All I heard there was how much of a 360 game Bayonetta was, made to the strengths of that piece of hardware and that the PS3 was just not capable of handling all these high end transparencies and effects which the 360 is so ace at, in the end, even suggesting that the PS3 demo was running at the best that it could based on the hardware. No mention of how long it took to make the conversion over to the PS3, yes, not even that in the least to PS3's favor, yet we all know Sega handled the port in less time than it took Square with the 360 port of FF13.

    So tell me, how can anyone take DF's comparisons seriously. The NG2/NGS2 comparison was a joke, their DMC4 comparison was not balanced, a bevy of 360 biased comparisons. Even now, so many details left out in this FF13 faceoff; lighting, shadows, textures, overall framerate, tearing if any. Instead, DF focuses on how Square didn't use tiling on the 360, grieved that Square maintained alpha to coverage on the 360 and basically reaching with their bit about Square not using the full capabilities of 360 discs for better compression. Sometimes I was puzzled that there was another console involved in the mix, hence why this comparison is useless. Selectively picking a clip where the 360 version has a higher framerate to prop up their uber 360 hardware claims? I'm sorry, if I want a serious and more technical comparison, where there's no 360 flag hanging high at base, I'll go elsewhere.

    http://ww w.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php...
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 08:28

  • EvilBob_leeds #62 2 years ago

    Quick and nasty conversion is quick and nasty conversion. The answers to the following questions are not provided by this article;

    a) Which console is ultimately more powerful overall

    b) Which religion is correct

    c) What is the meaning of life

    d) Where does the pope shit

    News at 11.
    Edited by 2 at 05/03/10 @ 08:40

  • HokutoNoKen #63 2 years ago

    Guess I was right, post 56 [link url=http://www.e urogamer.net/articles/tech-analysis-final-fantasy-xiii-artic le/comments?comment_start=50
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-a...[/link]

    I am slightly dissapointed (but not suprised) that Richard doesn't mention the other discrepancies that plagues the 360 version...

    / Ken
    Edited by 2 at 05/03/10 @ 08:40

  • crazyhorse174 #64 2 years ago

    Couldnt they just have spread it across another couple of discs? I wouldnt have minded!

  • Godhather08 #65 2 years ago

    I think this comparison is biased, it's clear that the writer really likes the X360 and put a lot of effort into explaining why the X360 version is inferior, rather than showing the differences.

  • Sn@ke #66 2 years ago

    This game was developed for Ps3 and then ported to Xbox 360. they were working 5 years for Ps3 and 1 for Xbox 360 so it's not strange that Ps3 version is little bit better then Xbox 360.

    This presented two very difficult issues for the developers tasked with porting an already mature PS3 work-in-progress over to the Xbox 360.

  • TruSmiles #67 2 years ago

    Having just watched the videos, I honestly can't tell the difference between them o_O

    I own both consoles anyway and was gonna pick up the PS3 version now and the 360 version later.

  • Godhather08 #68 2 years ago

    Sn@ke, yes, you can thank MS for a bad port, and an ultra-linear game.

  • duckncover #69 2 years ago

    More a comparison of the 360 version with a hypothetical 360 version that should have been much better due to the hardware being capable. I agree that this article seems bias towards 360 as it just seems to be defending the 360, as someone said, it sound apologetic.

    Richard dost protest too much.

  • Widge #70 2 years ago

    At the end of the day, if you only own a 360, you can play Final Fantasy 13. So that must be good, right?

  • Caimbeul #71 2 years ago

    I'm sorry but anyone who say there is a massive difference between the two is mad. I cannot see anything that would be noticeable on a moving image. There are some very minor shadowing differences and a slightly softer look to the 360 one at times but hardly earth shattering. Never the less i will oick up the PS3 version if I decide to get it.

  • woodyrulesok #72 2 years ago

    I must be getting old and my eyes failing as I could see virtually no difference in those videos.
    Maybe it's different when comparing them in real life.
    Point is, your main stream person isn't going to give a shit if a few pixels are different.

  • Sn@ke #73 2 years ago

    Xbox 360 already showed what's it capable. it is very powerfull console. soon you will see Alan Wake with 4X AA. 4X AA is only posible for PC (4X and above. hardware AA) and Xbox 360 (only 2X and max 4X hardware AA), not Ps3 (only software AA). and Alan Wake is First game ever THat uses 4X AA on console.

    So it's cristal clear that Final Fantasy XIII was just bad ported from PS3 to Xbox.

  • Cheapshot #74 2 years ago

    Why does this Richard Leadbetter bloke speak to us like we're all 360 owners, like the PS3 is some kind of bizzare alien invader and all of us humans have to deal with the compromises of the 360 version? I wanted to know more about the PS3 version, there's apparently more superior about the PS3 version than simply higher resolution but the 360 has some superior texture filtering also. Poor comparison IMO.

  • karooo #75 2 years ago

    @sn@ke, PS3 can go till 16x Spu AA like we saw in saboteur, apparently you will see the same tech being used in GOW3 as well.

  • HokutoNoKen #76 2 years ago

    So when are we going to see an analysis of PS3 version of Bayonetta with patch 1.01?

    It didn't take much time before Darksiders 360 patch was analysed: [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di gitalfoundry-darksiders-patch-blog-entry
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    Here are the improvments that I have noticed with the PS3 bayonetta patch 1.01:
    Load times has improved allot (of course with the install).
    No more blur on the many of the cut sceens (the ones that still has it probably had it from the beginning even on the 360 version).
    Allot less tearing. PS3 version had constant tearing in all cut sceens and gameplay before the patch but most of it is gone now.
    Frame rate has improved and the game feels allot more responsive too. With the improved frame rate the games IQ looks more defined, even the textures seem to look better now.

    / Ken

  • GamesConnoisseur #77 2 years ago

    Actually GT4 was sub HD on PS3 but done well in other department and thus pretty much equal to the eye of beholders, and the same should be said for FFXIII as they could have upped the effects as HAD the capacity and the headrooms. But no... clearly a rush job.

    Going for PS3's version anyway but fanboys will read what they will and if they believes EG is SO XBOT fanboy and SO ANGRY at what I thought was pretty unemotive and logical article, you can perhaps votes with your feet, or rather your fingers?!

  • Mnia786 #78 2 years ago

    Is this the first time EG agrees that a game built ground up for the PS3 *can* look superior to that of the 360? Sadly, it seems that PS3 games are nearly always a port of the 360 versions whereas with FF XIII, its been the other way round so the PS3 has the edge. I honestly cannot see the difference but if its the CGI you want to see on HD, I assume its the PS3 version that would be better to go for as its uncompressed?

  • TopKatt #79 2 years ago

    Shame that the 360 version isn't up to scratch, hopefully Square can improve the quality with a patch or something.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 16:07

  • Sn@ke #80 2 years ago

    karooo you are talking about software antialising. 16X software is like 2X hardware. so go learn something before talking. software antialising was used back 1997. from 1998-1999 they start using hardware AA wich is real AA. PS3 can't use hardware AA thats why they use ather tecnics and the resolt is blur shit texture's.

  • HokutoNoKen #81 2 years ago

    Sn@ke
    Xbox 360 already showed what's it capable. it is very powerfull console. soon you will see Alan Wake with 4X AA. 4X AA is only posible for PC (4X and above. hardware AA) and Xbox 360 (only 2X and max 4X hardware AA), not Ps3 (only software AA). and Alan Wake is First game ever THat uses 4X AA on console.

    So it's cristal clear that Final Fantasy XIII was just bad ported from PS3 to Xbox.

    Both consoles support 4xAA and can render it with hardware. 360 needs to tile PS3 don't. Heavenly Sword is rendered with 4xAA and so is Grand Tursimo 5 (1280x720x4xAA or 1280x1080x2xAA).

    / Ken
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 09:57

  • hahayou #82 2 years ago

    @SolidSCB

    Nice, but you forgot the PC (Provolone Cheese) fanboys.

  • 07713 #83 2 years ago

    I also dont think that the X-Box version doesnt look too shabby compared to the PS3 version.
    Ok, the PS3 version looks sharper, but nevertheless i will buy the X-Box version, even though i own both Consoles.

  • Sn@ke #84 2 years ago

    PS3 uses an NVidia RSX Reality Synthesizer chip, instead it uses an edge blurr filter. Xbox 360 uses an ATI Xenos 500mhz GPU so it can split it up between different floating points. So PS3 = No AA.
    360 = 2x , 4x AA

  • sayonara89 #85 2 years ago

    Sn@ke: You don't know what you're taling about.... both consoles support hardware AA on GPU's, There are some PS3 and 360 titles with MSAAx4, Alan Wake do nothing special.

  • sayonara89 #86 2 years ago

    Sn@ke: Read this: http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/the-an...

  • sfp_noodle #87 2 years ago

    this was obvious for a while. it was also apparant tht anyone whose grown up playing FF games on sony consoles wud have bought the ps3 version anyway unless they only had access to a 360. also confirms tht multiplats can look equal or better on ps3 if it is chosen as a lead platform. decent review but ill hold off a while i think. still playing through mass effect 2

  • uzivatel #88 2 years ago

    Disappointing. I really enjoyed Lost Odyssey and I was going to buy this one seeing the reviews are decent. I may still buy it at some point, but Square-Enix did only half of the job and I am not going to pay more than half of the price. I am yet to finish Blue Dragon anyway.

  • Sn@ke #89 2 years ago

    problem with the PS3 is that it is not capable of doing HDR & Anti Aliasing simultaneously. The cell processor can't do it & the RSX GPU can't do it. It wouldn't exist until Nvidias 8 series & the GPU in the PS3 is a 7 series. The Xbox 360 will have a edge here since the ATI GPU in the 360 is able to do this form of light rendering.

  • sayonara89 #90 2 years ago

    hammerhead_666L You forget sub-hd rresolution. And framerate is almast he same, look at the video.

  • sayonara89 #91 2 years ago

    Sn@ke: Can't do FP16 with AA but there are other forms of HDR (like Nao32 used in this game, Uncharted etc.).

  • welshben23 #92 2 years ago

    It's so obvious in the first paragraph that this site shouldn't be called Eurogamer it should be EuroMicrosoftgamer. It's not a kicker that FFXIII is worse on the 360, it was blatantly bloody obvious it was going to be. FF games are Sony games in all but name.

  • sfp_noodle #93 2 years ago

    @ Sn@ke

    give up :)

  • Sn@ke #94 2 years ago

    haha. I'm not Fighting we just shere our opinions. beside I have both consoles Ps3, xbox360 even wii.

  • Dylbot #95 2 years ago

    So, what we're essentially seeing here is the 360 getting the treatment that the PS3 usually gets. The dev codes for one console, and then can't be arsed to optimize for the other console's particular strengths when porting the game, which is fair enough, I suppose, as doubling the development cycle to basically tear down the code and build it from scratch might just irk the fanbase. No surprises here, people.

    I must add, being a 360-only man myself, disposable income not being something I have to spread around like marmite, I'd still rather have a quick port than shell out for a new games console. I don't really see a bit of artifacted CG and the loss of a few vertical pixels as a reason to spend £300, much as I'm sure that sensible PS3 owners don't see slightly better anti-aliasing and Halo 3 as a reason to spend £200.

  • Fat_Pigeon #96 2 years ago

    Looks good on both, hardly game breaking for the 360, still looks very pretty but the PS3 version does look better wouldn't stop me from buying it on the 360 if that was the only platform I had to play it on.

    /has PS3 version on it way

  • PlayingMantis #97 2 years ago

    The 360 CG is noticeably softer in motion. If you go to the very end of the last video on page 3, when the video stops, look at how much detail is lost on the left (360) side, the texture of her jacket, the leather strap, etc. It's pretty big difference.

    Can't believe they wouldn't max out the disc space. Probably reserving room for a GOTY/Gold edition style re-release that will include any DLC they release for the game.

    I only own 360, and I'm not interested in FFXIII, I just like to check out the comparisons.

  • andromeda #98 2 years ago

    fuck me , you can play as Richard Pryor?!

    sold

  • butler` #99 2 years ago

    i'll miss achievements so much that i might still get this on 360 despite the facts ;\

  • Bigglesworth #100 2 years ago

    Comedy gold. I've never read so many apologies for a poor performance packed so tightly together.

    Amazingly though, despite FF13 360 not being "anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3" and "a lot worse than it should have been" (an apology in the opening line? Wow), it still remains the case that all of these 'problems' are practically invisible to the naked eye! You only have to look at the first video to see that this game looks an sounds incredible, whatever platform you play it on. Why why why continue to tear these games apart like this? To paraphrase /b, comparisonism is the cancer that is killing gaming.

    You are right about one thing though Richard, that is the best music in a comparison video ever.

  • FladgeMangle #101 2 years ago

    Although there was noticeable squirming the article, while clearly written through clenched teeth, did at least come to a fair conclusion.

    Expect swift retribution in the next face-off. Richard will find some game, however obscure, that reaffirms his world view.

  • sayonara89 #102 2 years ago

    hammerhead_666: LOL, disc space have nothing to do with game resolution.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 11:16

  • Retroid #103 2 years ago

    FladgeMangle: "Expect swift retribution in the next face-off. Richard will find some game, however obscure, that reaffirms his world view."

    Whereas fanboys will always manage to read things in such a way to satisfy their shouts of BIAS, even if the articles come to the only conclusion possible.

    It's strange: I read this face-off and simply read about a lazy port when there was no need to be (the video encoding in particular).

  • tossum #104 2 years ago

    As a 360 owner, I finally get to say this: LAZY DEVS!!!!
    Aaah much better, always wanted to say that :D

  • seanthejackal #105 2 years ago

    lol @ xbox 2

  • thubie #106 2 years ago

    Wow they say the ps 3 version is better.
    And the people are already complaining that the verdict is bias.
    Man its a service digital foundry does.
    It's like if a 360 game looks worse then ps 3 then burning the 360 isnt enough no it has to be combusted and erased of the surface.
    And still the 360 version will sell good hopefully SE wil start the next FF 15 or so for both consoles in the future.

  • spekkeh #107 2 years ago

    I must say this is about the first face-off where I can actually see the difference without pressing my nose against the screen and getting all crosseyed, and it's better on the PS3 no less (I own an xbox, for the record).

    However, I still think it will mean squat all for overall game enjoyment.

  • DanForinton #108 2 years ago

    What the fuck do people want from this article?

    The only questions here are: does the 360 version hold up to the PS3 version? If you own both consoles, which version should you get? Even a sub-literate moron can figure out quite quickly from the article that the 360 version is the inferior one.

    Since the PS3 was the base development platform, with the 360 version being a port, we're not here to assess the successes and shortcomings of the PS3 version but whether the 360 port holds a candle to the PS3 version. Does the article sing the praises of the PS3? No. Does the article decry the technical shortcomings of the 360? No. That's because it's not supposed to and if that disappoints some people, well tough titty.

    Actually, it's a fair question: What did people want to see from this article that it doesn't deliver?

  • NightAntilli #109 2 years ago

    Sadly the PS3 fanboys will be using this article to point out how crap the X360 console is.. The X360 version was done in a single year, while the PS3 version has been in development for a much longer time. This IS SE's fault, and not directly the fault of the hardware. Maybe they didn't wanna use much resources on the X360 version because they don't think it'll do as well as on the PS3... Dunno.

    Edit: yeah, of course I'll be rated down.. PS3 fanboys are everywhere -.-
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 11:44

  • creepylizard #110 2 years ago

    But is it actually worth getting the game if you only have a 360? I just don't know, anymore...

  • Bigglesworth #111 2 years ago

    @DanForinton
    I didn't want to see this article at all.

  • Murton #112 2 years ago

    Since the PS3 was the base development platform, with the 360 version being a port, we're not here to assess the successes and shortcomings of the PS3 version but whether the 360 port holds a candle to the PS3 version. Does the article sing the praises of the PS3? No. Does the article decry the technical shortcomings of the 360?

    In stark contrast to other Face Offs where the difference in quality isn't because of quick or lazy port from 360 to PS3 but the PS3 hardware or its coding techniques. From some of the comments above it's clear that I'm not the only one who has noticed that or finds it interesting.

  • onyxbox #113 2 years ago

    You know, I have to agree with a lot of people here.

    This Face off does read like a damage limitation article for the 360 version. :-/

  • Bigglesworth #114 2 years ago

    Sadly the PS3 fanboys will be using this article to point out how crap the X360 console is.. The X360 version was done in a single year, while the PS3 version has been in development for a much longer time. This IS SE's fault, and not directly the fault of the hardware.

    IRONY OVERLOAD

  • japstersam #115 2 years ago

    super mario bros ran at about 273917204 fps

  • Sn@ke #116 2 years ago

    This game was dev for Ps3 for 4.5 years. they started porting the game on Xbox 360 on april 2009. so What do you expect to see? I think for just one year of dev on xbox 360 this game is better than ps3 version :) :). ....... this is only Devs fault so f**ck there lazy asses!!!

  • NightAntilli #117 2 years ago

    IRONY OVERLOAD

    What irony? Search for my comments and see if you find any bias. You people love to rub everything in when something goes bad with the X360 version of a game, but when it's the case like Ghostbusters, it suddenly is the fault of the developer. Why can't people say the same for the X360 version? Nooooo it suddenly is because the X360 sux -.- They didn't even fill all the discs for cryin out loud. And they clearly didn't have time for any optimization of the engine.

  • Sn@ke #118 2 years ago

    NightAntilli good one!!!!

  • martin1841 #119 2 years ago

    Dear Digitalfoundry FF 13 on 360 look worst but only then if watchin the game 40 cm from the tv screen. When you are playing the game like normal player 2-3 meters from tv games looks the same. Are you playing the game 40 cm from tv? Yeah who cares about eyes i can still get new ones

  • karooo #120 2 years ago

    This game should never have been on the xbox360, waste of time for everyone and the game got delayed. also nerfed. they obiviously made the game linear to accomodate the 360. SE didnt think this game would sell decent enough on the PS3 and made it multiplatform.

    the japan sales must have shocked them, hope versus remains exclusive now, I WANT MY TOWNS damnit !

  • karooo #121 2 years ago

    "Dear Digitalfoundry FF 13 on 360 look worst but only then if watchin the game 40 cm from the tv screen. When you are playing the game like normal player 2-3 meters from tv games looks the same. Are you playing the game 40 cm from tv? Yeah who cares about eyes i can still get new ones"

    *claps slowly*

  • creepylizard #122 2 years ago

    Am I only person who couldn't see a great deal of difference between the two versions in the videos and stills? Sure, theres some differences in definition but beyond that? Maybe me old peepers are just going....

  • karooo #123 2 years ago

    @nightantilli.

    GTA 4 was 8gb on blu ray
    DMC 4 was 8gb on blu ray

    why didnt they use the blu ray space?

    as sharkextreme cleverly pointed out as well.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 12:06

  • Retroid #124 2 years ago

    Murton: "In stark contrast to other Face Offs where the difference in quality isn't because of quick or lazy port from 360 to PS3 but the PS3 hardware or its coding techniques."

    Apart from when that's specifically said, like for Bayonetta.

    If I read an article about something not working as well I don't think "He hates the hardware, he's blaming that!", I think "Why wasn't it done another way?" DF will explain why some techniques don't work as well on one console or another - that's not a 'fault' of the consoles themselves, it's the devs not adapting what they're doing to the hardware they're working on.

  • Bigglesworth #125 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli
    I took up your challenge, and found in the first comment I looked at that you (rightly) dismissed a Sony Veep for arrogance - unfortunately, you did it whilst holding up MS's Aaron Greenberg as a model of restraint and respect. I didn't check further.

    Aside from that, I'm not part of the console war, I simply found it incredibly ironic that, if you swapped the words 'PS3' and 'X360' in your comment, you would have a word-for-word copy of a thousand comments posted by those that you'd undoubtably call biased PS3 fanboys.

  • martin1841 #126 2 years ago

    FF 13 port on 360 is much better port than Bayogirl on ps3. FF 13 looks worst on 360 not because the power of the console but DVD space, compression etc.

  • Quixz #127 2 years ago

    Mass Effect is still a better RPG by a few light years :D

  • GamesConnoisseur #128 2 years ago

    Karoo: "This game should never have been on the xbox360, waste of time for everyone and the game got delayed. also nerfed. they obiviously made the game linear to accomodate the 360. SE didnt think this game would sell decent enough on the PS3 and made it multiplatform.

    the japan sales must have shocked them, hope versus remains exclusive now, I WANT MY TOWNS damnit !"

    You sir are an idiot!

    X360 port job started as others said, only at a very late stage, last year June 2009 or thereabout, PS3 was in development for good few more years!

    SO how is X360 or MS at fault?! You are not a true FF fan if you didnt know that!!

    PS3 is a superior version yes, and mainly due to the advantages of being primary platform and yes BD gave it an advantage, but 6 gb actual game data hello?!

    I would love to see Mass Effect trilogy go multi platform as I think that game is well deserving OF more gamers appreicating it as I hope true FF lovers would want the game go to as wide an audience as possible.

    Square Enix is not doing this for loyalty to the Playstation TM brand but as a business trying to get sizeable returns from their franchise and for anyone ...multi platform is the way to maximise the returns!

  • Clover4ever #129 2 years ago

    The load times seem to take longer on the 360 version according to some reviewers. How come such information is missing from the article ? Do we have to rely to Lens of Truth for now on ? :/

  • TonyHarrison #130 2 years ago

    As a fan of neither console, this comments section amuses me...

  • Bigglesworth #131 2 years ago

    Thread continues to deliver.

  • sayonara89 #132 2 years ago

    martin1841: Disk space =/= game resolution

    Game was annauncment at E3 2008, they have lot of time to do the port, much more than Sega...

    And I don't care what SE said when they start porting the game, they lied so many times: http://ww w.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62386
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 12:27

  • martin1841 #133 2 years ago

    @sayonara89
    I am not tech guy but
    I think bigger resolution = bigger textures or something = more space needed but i dont know for sure.
    I wonder why square did not used 4 dvds.

  • Retroid #134 2 years ago

    SHARXTREME: "I wouldn't call FFXIII RPG in traditional sense, as I wouldn't call ME2 RPG in traditional sense.
    But i love SCI-FI and ME2 is more SCI-FI then FFXIII, but I am also admirer of good artistic effort and FFXIII has it's ground(roots) there."

    ME2 and FFXIII aren't really comparable, I agree there. The whole definition of what a videogame RPG is has become a lot more nebulous in the last decade or so.

    And yeah, I don't think many people can compete with Square for their artistic approach.

  • Buztafen #135 2 years ago

    A good read, its the only time ive come away from one of these face-off's with purchasing the PS3 version of a cross-platform game in mind. Cheers.

  • BartonFink #136 2 years ago

    Sounds like Square really did do a very sloppy job of the port. Pity really for people with only a 360. Anyhew PS3 version for me it is then. Was kinda hoping for the normal better performance on the 360 would make a difference but it seems that it's a hamfisted effort from Square.

    \o/ PS3 finally has a face-off under it's belt.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 12:49

  • stevetuck #137 2 years ago

    bleh to all this 360 vs ps3 stuff on here.... surely its square enix who is to blame for the crappy port?

  • BartonFink #138 2 years ago

    Yup reading the article this is definitely the case.

  • BabyJesus #139 2 years ago

    "Quick and nasty conversion is quick and nasty conversion. The answers to the following questions are not provided by this article;

    a) Which console is ultimately more powerful overall

    b) Which religion is correct

    c) What is the meaning of life

    d) Where does the pope shit

    News at 11."

    a) Amiga

    b) Jedi

    c) Satanism

    d) Anywhere he wants, he just 'popes' it out.

    / gets coat

  • barkertron #140 2 years ago

    I think the Megadrive is much better than the SNES. I just prefer the controller and the SNES exclusives don't do it for me. All you SNES fanboys can shut the funk up.

    Sorry, dozed off for a minute there. What year is this? Who are we arguing about now?

  • FladgeMangle #141 2 years ago

    I think the EG comments section needs a comments section.

  • amipal #142 2 years ago

    I'm not one to rock the boat. But I've noticed that as one of a handful of Digital Foundry articles where the PS3 version of a game is clearly superior, this particular developer is reprimanded. This isn't usually the case when the role is reversed, where the lower frame-rates and texture resolutions of a port to the PS3 are merely labelled "lazy", with limited explanation behind how said developer could improve the PS3 port.

    Also, "disk space" is followed by "disc".... ;)

  • NightAntilli #143 2 years ago

    @Bigglesworth
    I'm against the whole fanboy war thing as much as you are. Or maybe even more. However, what I stated with Greenberg and that other Sony guy was simply how it was. Sony is usually more aggressive towards MS than the other way around. Sony comes off as very arrogant. MS too, but, they are more in "disguise" if you wanna put it that way. Or mild. When they address Sony, they usually address them with respect and don't blow them off. The other way around, not so much. To you, it might seem as if I'm biased, but seriously, I'm not. I simply tell it how it is. If a game looks better on the PS3, I'll be the first to admit it. However, I can't stand the crap that people start blabbing stuff like "The *put console here* is doomed, the *put console here* has no games, the *put console here* sux" etc. And these articles, even though they are meant to instruct people who have both consoles to which version is the best, they often turn out to be a source for fanboys to brag about their own console. And now, simply because I stated that it's SE's fault and not directly the fault of the hardware I'm biased? Seriously, what's wrong with you people?

    The PS3 version has been in development at least 3 times as long as the X360 version, the whole game was built around the strengths of the PS3, and if they try to port it in a short amount of time, it's only logical that the X360 version will suffer. Same story as Bayonetta, but the other way around. Especially since both consoles have different strengths and weaknesses. They needed more time for more optimization of the X360 version, but clearly didn't have it. I mean if there's a GB of space on a disc, they could've at least increased the quality of the FMVs, and that's not even THAT much of a hassle compared to porting a game.

    I never stated in here that the X360 version is better, because it's not. Simple as that. However, there is a difference between a game being in development for both consoles for the same amount of time, and a "late" port to the other console in much less time. Late ports will almost always result in a worse quality game on the other console. If there's anything that this proves, is that the whole "the X360 is easy to develop for and no optimization is needed because it's just like a pc and therefore is already maxed out" rumor/statement is false.

    Yeah fanboys. Rate me down. The more you do it, the more I know I'm right.
    Edited by 2 at 05/03/10 @ 13:15

  • Psiloc #144 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli
    You're trying too hard my man. You're one step away from mentioning Hitler.

  • laudy #145 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli

    "the X360 is easy to develop for"

    That should read "easier" to develop for, 360 being "maxed out" is nonsense. You're "right" in your own head, to everyone else you are just offering your opinion...

    Also, I've just given you +1 to see if you start doubting yourself
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 13:26

  • Murton #146 2 years ago

    DF will explain why some techniques don't work as well on one console or another - that's not a 'fault' of the consoles themselves, it's the devs not adapting what they're doing to the hardware they're working on.

    That's not the impression I get the majority of the time when the PS3 "loses" Invariably in that scenario DF makes references to hardware or to PS3 specific coding techniques whereas here, an instance there the 360 has "lost" the emphasis is on the fact that it was ported quickly/poorly by the developer.

    I'm not saying that there is a clear bias within the Foundry but that a pattern has emerged where the PS3 is at fault when its version is poor and it's the developers fault if the 360 version fails to compare. From some of the comments here it's clear that I'm not the only one to have noticed this.

  • NightAntilli #147 2 years ago

    @Psiloc: You're right. I don't even know why I bother.

    @laudy: Yeah.. It's my "opinion", just like Digital Foundry is now beaten into the ground because of their "opinion", because they said they didn't take advantage of the X360 instead of saying the PS3 is the most powerful machine -.-

  • MrWonderstuff #148 2 years ago

    I cant tell the difference.

  • markymark22 #149 2 years ago

    Dont blame square. Dont blame the 360. Microsoft obviously paid money to have their version released alongside the ps3 over here. It makes good business sense but was never going to work 100%. Thankfully the ps3 version wasn delayed because of this!

  • ocmerius #150 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus

    The answer to question c would be 42

  • spatss #151 2 years ago

    So it's an inferior port, how unexpected. :)

  • Zerobob #152 2 years ago

    I'm not planning on playing this game as none of the other games in the series have ever taken my interest; endlessley getting into identical battles to increase stats isn't my idea of fun, original gameplay concept, or involving gaming, and by the sounds of it this isn't the best game in the series by any means.

    I've read the digital foundry analysis anyway, and by the sounds of it the obvious has happened. A PORT of a game doesn't run as well on hardware other than that it was developed for...stop the press.

    If this had been developed primarily for the X360 then ported to the PS3 the development cycle would have been shorter and the differences between versions minimal. Unfortunately it has happened the other way around, pretty much confirming for me how much games have to be developed differently on the PS3 compared to the X360 and PC, juding by the obvious problems Square E have had porting it to the X360 successfully.

    I think the recent Bad Company 2 Digi Foundry analysis confirms this, as the X360 and PC versions of the game are similar, with the PS3 having differences. By the sounds of the BC2 analysis the PS3 version of the game was given the primary development focus here too.

  • AtariV8 #153 2 years ago

    Isn't there another forum where fanboys can fight over their beloved console? I own both PS3 and 360 and come here to see which platform was the lead development platform for a game and which version has better features. The conclusion from this article is clearly buy the PS3 version...what's the issue here? If you own only one console and these articles bunch your panties, don't come back, it's bad for your heart.

  • Lord_Gremlin #154 2 years ago

    I'm having a strange feeling that the article's written by a 360 fanboy... Look at Bayonetta face-off.

  • aceri #155 2 years ago

    I Can't take something like this serious when it's so obviously written by a fan-boy, only advise I can give him is, get a life, perhaps a girlfriend, and get your first kiss, it might help you see the light!

  • ParanoidZombie #156 2 years ago

    As a xbox only owner, i'm actually kind of relieved: no frame-rate issues, no excessive loading times, sensible disk swapping, the port has the same content as the ps3 version... Ok, the game doesn't look as good as the ps3 version, but why should I care?
    I mean, IMO, "shitty port" means that the inferior version suffers from gameplay-altering issues... Doesn't seem to be the case here.

  • Bigglesworth #157 2 years ago

    @AtariV8

    This is the forum where fanboys can fight over their beloved console. You're in the wrong place =)

  • laudy #158 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli

    Yes, that's right, it is your opinion, no need for the speech marks.

    DF are not offering opinion, they are using the technical skills and equipment at their disposal to highlight differences between console versions of various games. If, however, DF simply said: "We're going to play these games on both consoles, we'll tell you what we reckon when we're finished" then they would be offering opinion.

    Why does it bother you which is the most powerful machine? In case you missed it, this article was about comparing a game, you can find plenty of websites that compare the performance of each console. It certainly doesn't bother DF, they just comment on the quality of ports between consoles. On this rare occasion, PS3 is the lead platform and this has been the result.

  • FullSPecWarrior #159 2 years ago

    Why does Richard keep talking about "720p mode" when showing differences in cut-scene quality? Does this mean that there is, in fact a 1080p mode for the cut-scenes? If there is then why aren't we comparing the 2 versions in that mode?
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 15:19

  • Diomedes #160 2 years ago


    Spuzzell

    Yeah ,we get Richie has said the PS3 version is far superior ,and the text makes no doubt about that.

    Even having in count that ,he has tried his really best to downplay the PS3 version (a game most people are saying sports the best console visuals to date) ,he forgot a lot of things (auto-shadowing ,lighting ,textures ,uncompressed sound ) and he looked oh so hard to find two spots in the the cutscenes of the PS3 code that dropped to 20fps to categorically say the 360 code at least runs better.He even continued his blabber about 32Gb of FMV videos when thats categorically false.

    Finally ,he put all the blame on SE for not giving the game on the 360 the polish needed when in his opinion the 360 could have handled this way better.

    He has been doing this since the game was announced for the 360 ,trying desperately to give hints to developers (as if developers did read him lol) at how to do things ,what was important and what wasnt etc.He just cant accept that just as the Unreal Engine has some advantages for the 360 (no AA support etc) a game specifically coded to take advantage of the PS3 strenghts (fillrate and HDR,some work diverted to the SPUs,code optimized to stream from the BD,potentially use of the HDD as cache,the BD space put for good use in the assets) will have a hard time on the 360.

    If you are not clever enough to see the usual Richie manipulation here ,even with the circumstances turned ,then its me the one awed at your idiocy..

  • AtariV8 #161 2 years ago

    @Bigglesworth

    As every article passes it becomes more and more true. I'll just have to dig through the muck to find the tech talk and true challenges to Richard's conclusions and try to skip the [console] SUX!!! comments. Why try to reason with the brainless beast in heat which is the internet forum...it's bad for my heart.

  • ParanoidZombie #162 2 years ago

    Diomedes wrote: "If you are not clever enough to see the usual Richie manipulation here ,even with the circumstances turned ,then its me the one awed at your idiocy"

    Let me put this straight: you need to see a psychiatrist, you are obviously deranged.

  • crazy_jb #163 2 years ago

    I am being happy to play this game in the next weeks on my 360.

  • old_skool #164 2 years ago

    I look forward to the next Face Off, with the conclusion being reached that the PS3 version is inferior. When the alien architecture is to blame,how developers has to struggle with it, how Cell is so difficult to program for, or that it doesn't have shared memory, or that it's GPU is so inferior, or that it has no EDRAM, or that or Sony's tools are so inferior.

  • sayonara89 #165 2 years ago

    old skool: Or Kaz has ugly face etc. :D

  • ocmerius #166 2 years ago

    wow, you guys take this waaaaaaay to personally.
    Do you guys actually sleep with your console or something?
    I mean, look at the reactions. It's like Richard offended your mothers or something.
    It's just a game, and not even a very good one at that.

    /runs for cover

  • Diomedes #167 2 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie



    Thats just your deranged opinion.

  • M_of_the_sys #168 2 years ago

    Unfortunately, this will be the first FF I don't buy straight away :(

    Edit: Oops. Meant to put this in the review section.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 16:29

  • intpleeus #169 2 years ago

    Final Fantasy XIII was always going to be inferior on the Xbox 360; the outstanding question was: how much inferior? I am disappointed with Square-Enix, but the port seems good enough. Compromises were made on the Playstation 3 due to its particular weaknesses; other types of compromises were needed on the Xbox 360. However, the Xbox 360 appears to have inherited the compromises of the Playstation 3 version in addition to its own. This is evidence of a cheap port. Although disappointing, it isn't any less than I expected.

  • karooo #170 2 years ago

    "\o/ PS3 finally has a face-off under it's belt."

    ya this time its a game that ACTUALLY matters.

  • karooo #171 2 years ago

    Diomedes is right ! i support him.

  • Widge #172 2 years ago

    People seem to forget the unadulterated praise that RL heaped upon Uncharted 2's technical abilities.

  • NightAntilli #173 2 years ago

    @laudy: You clearly missed the whole point of my points. I don't freaking care about which console war. I do care about the fact that people are addressing Digital Foundry as fanboys because they didn't say what the PS3 fanboys want to here. Learn to read -.-

    I guess people are now rating me down because they see my name instead of reading what I see. Suit yourself. Whatever makes you happy.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 17:06

  • man.the.king #174 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Whereas fanboys will always manage to read things in such a way to satisfy their shouts of BIAS, even if the articles come to the only conclusion possible. "

    Did it? The only thing I was able to take from the article (other than the rather obvious conclusion that the PS3 version was better) was the endless number of times Richard Leadbetter kept on and on and on and on about how the 360 version could have done this, how SE could have done that to make the 360 version better, etcetera.

    I'm really sorry to say this, but if you really could not see that in the article, you might have to go no farther than the mirror to find the next fanboy.

  • man.the.king #175 2 years ago

    @DanForinton

    "Since the PS3 was the base development platform, with the 360 version being a port, we're not here to assess the successes and shortcomings of the PS3 version but whether the 360 port holds a candle to the PS3 version. Does the article sing the praises of the PS3? No. Does the article decry the technical shortcomings of the 360? No. That's because it's not supposed to and if that disappoints some people, well tough titty."

    Yes, and most of the time the reverse is the case. Yet if you go through previous face-offs, you will find that they (a) sang the praises of the 360, and (b) decry the technical shortcomings of the PS3, e.g. PS3 lacking this RAM, not able to do this, less able to do that. Over a period of more than 20 face-offs, only once (and maybe in passing) had Rich implied that the developer may be to blame for the quality of a PS3 port rather than the hardware. Now we get three pages worth of speculation where Rich goes on and on about what SE could have done to make the 360 version better.

    "Actually, it's a fair question: What did people want to see from this article that it doesn't deliver?"

    How about a fair comparison rather than moaning about poor SE processes? How about "turnabout is fair play"?

  • Darren #176 2 years ago

    @E2K - The Xbox 360 has a GPU and memory system that is more flexible and easy to code for than the PS3; that's why multiformat games tend to look better on Microsoft's platform and why many of those games have AA when the PS3 version does not. Granted, PS3 exclusive games tend to look amazing (arguably better than most 360 games IMO) but that's because the developers have had lots of time to learn the system and off-load a lot of graphical work from the PS3's relatively weak GPU, to the Cell processor. That's why games like Uncharted 2 and God of War III look incredible.

    However, it's not practical or financially viable for all developers to do that for *all* PS3 games and that's why the difference in quality between the worst multiformat and best exclusive games is so huge (on the 360 it's more consistent between the two). You can blame Sony for that though as they made the PS3 hardware overcomplex and hard to code for. The PS2 was also criticised for the same thing. Still doesn't stop great games with beautiful graphics coming out for it, it just takes more hard work that's all.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 17:33

  • Darren #177 2 years ago

    To be fair to Square-Enix, FFXIII was written with the PS3 in mind and the BD format allowed them to create lush 1080p FMV cutscenes. The fact that the game is not being released on the 360 in Japan, the place where the series is immensely popular, probably explains why the developers didn't put as much effort into the "port" as they could have. Also it didn't help that Microsoft seem to have limited developers to three discs, perhaps if there had been no limit on discs Square-Enix could have included all 32 GB worth of movies in 1080p? A normal DVD holds 9 GB so it's daft that the 360 only has access to just over two-thirds of that due to the protection it uses.

    At the end of the day though, Xbox 360 owners *can* play Final Fantasy XIII (well those of them not living in Japan!) so an inferior version is better in that respect than no version at al... it's the exact same game otherwisel, right? I don't think the in-game sequences look too bad on the 360 and the framerate is supposedly better so that's a bonus. Still, I ordered the game on the PS3 simply for the convenience of having it one disc, the 1080p FMV and 720p resolution are just bonuses as far as I'm concerned.

  • telboy007 #178 2 years ago

    At the end of the day I'd rather be able to play it on my 360 than have to fork out a shedload of money to buy the PS3 and the game. I'll just squint a bit when the CGI rolls. :)

  • laudy #179 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli

    If we're being pedantic:

    "...what the PS3 fanboys want to here."

    That doesn't make sense. Learn to write.

    Also, what you wrote doesn't address any of the points I raised. Why, for instance, mention Console war? I didn't say anything about a console war so you not caring about it is pure irrelevance. Learn to interpret.

    Good evening. Please do not throw insults around, especially infantile ones. Learn to respect.

  • Retroid #180 2 years ago

    man.the.king: "Did it? The only thing I was able to take from the article (other than the rather obvious conclusion that the PS3 version was better) was the endless number of times Richard Leadbetter kept on and on and on and on about how the 360 version could have done this, how SE could have done that to make the 360 version better, etcetera.

    I'm really sorry to say this, but if you really could not see that in the article, you might have to go no farther than the mirror to find the next fanboy."

    Saying how something could've been better - and pointing out the silly lazyness, for example one-size-fits-all video encoding - is a problem? How, precisely?

    Christ.

    There's no way I'm touching the 360 version of this after reading this article. 1080p cutscenes and one disk had already pretty sold me on the PS3 version, but hearing how the 360 has been palmed off with a can't-be-arsed-will-this-do edition seals it completely.

    Really, my mind truly boggles at times like this. I've not been a single-format owner since I had to accept that the Amiga market was dying on its arse and all the publishers had moved over to PCs.

  • Stompy #181 2 years ago

    I have no interest in mainstream FF games (I like Chocobo's Dungeon and Crystal Chronicles, though).
    I have little interest in JRPGs in general.
    I have no interest in 360 vs. PS3, although I will probably get a PS3 eventually for bluray. Or maybe not. I don't care much.

    Because of these facts, I have read very little of these comments. I feel that having skipped >100 of such comments is an unqualified success and would like to award myself with an award.

  • NightAntilli #182 2 years ago

    @laudy: Fine. Whatever. And it's called a typo. To explain it to you, You asked me this:

    "Why does it bother you which is the most powerful machine?"

    And I answered this:

    "I don't freaking care about which console war. I do care about the fact that people are addressing Digital Foundry as fanboys because they didn't say what the PS3 fanboys want to here."

    What's so wrong with that?

    And if everything I write is so wrong, why don't you clearly show me where my statements are wrong and show me how it should be? All you said is that they're my opinion, but you never told me why my "opinion" is not based on truth or reality. Go ahead. Explain it to me. And, one more thing, addressing someone without explaining why, is lack of respect as well. You are constantly giving me the notion that I'm wrong, but you never address any of my arguments but simply leave it at that. So don't talk to me about me being disrespectful. Though you are one of the most humble people I've come across here, that does not make you right.

  • Gaol #183 2 years ago

    Meh, I must be getting old. I don't think the 360 version looks that bad.. tiny bit blurier but I wouldn't be losing sleep on it if I had a 360.

  • IneptPercy #184 2 years ago

    To me on the value front the 360 still wins. On the price its 360 game vs PS3 game + PS3.

    Any rumbling of a PC version? 1080p all the time would work best for me.

    As for the fanboy wars I have 2 arguements:
    PS3 fanboy = The PS3 version is better
    360 fanboy = Sony have just lost a massive exclusive.

    With that the average joe public won't be reading this article and how many 360 only owners out there would have bought a Ps3 just to play this? I do think Sony have lost out massively here.

    For me this might be in the bargain bin by the time I get to the end of lost odyssey!

  • sayonara89 #185 2 years ago

    hammerhead666_ : 360 version drops to 24 too, watch the video.

  • captainrentboy #186 2 years ago

    I played it for an hour today, it consisted of me walking straight along what appeared to be a never ending bridge, getting into a couple of scraps here and there and then pressing 'X' a lot to win them, I then switched to another character and did the same again from a slightly different perspective.......
    Yeah, I still don't like Final Fantasy games. :/

  • mgillespie #187 2 years ago

    Gimped beyond belief. Lets see if Microsoft can market their way out of this one. (if they can, it re-enforces the fact that Xbox owners are clueless idiots that believe everything Microsoft tell them).

  • sayonara89 #188 2 years ago

    SHARXTREME: Hahaha.

  • IneptPercy #189 2 years ago

    "Is this the text-book example of denial and "self-ownage" all in one post?
    Hilarious "

    I am genuinely confused now, I am more of a PC gamer myself which mullers both consoles so can look at this quite objectively, I can honestly say I think this would have been a system seller if exclusive, is this wrong? I know I can't prove it but surely its a logical thought?

  • Diomedes #190 2 years ago

    And now to debunk this stupid "FFXIII has 32Gb of FMVs" crap...

    What the hell are you talking about ?The evidencies on this are as slim as some fabled archives directory someone saw somewhere ...

    This doesnt make any sense.What DF is pretending is that the GAME would fit in one 6.8 Gb DVD if not for the FMVs.

    And thats absolutely stupid.First ,we arent taking in count the SOUND ,wich is ingame as much as you want to despise it.

    Second ,the PS3 game runs at native 720p.That means each and every asset in the game has at least 30% more resolution in that version and that applies for textures etc.Even being the same exact game the PS3 version would still consume more Gb of data in assets because of the higher resolution.

    Add the higher resolution assets (wich weight more ,amazingly uh?) and the uncompressed sound and you have the current GAME weighting more on the PS3 regardless of the FMV.So are you really saying the PS3 game is 6.8 Gb and the 360 version with compressed sound and lower resolution is about 4.5 Gb?Do you really think this would fit a single-layer DVD of the PS2 for example?

    But I think at the end Richie managed his not-so-subtle objetive .....all around the world the xbox fanboys are making a creed of "FFXIII Ps3 runs at 20fpsLOL" right now,guess his hard work looking for ONE place where the game dipped there has finally its reward.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 18:30

  • TRUTH #191 2 years ago

    I lost interest in this since the this is not the AAA Final Fantasy next gen game I hoped (Metacritic 82/100 - more lower scores coming inn)...This sort of rpg is getting rather boring especially compared to: Fallout 3, Oblivion, Demon's Souls, Fable, Mass Effect, Valkyrie Chronicles etc etc.

    FF rpg is just to much of the same, it's just a big franchise that had a head start to get established ...Oblivion, Fallout etc... so much better games!

  • man.the.king #192 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Saying how something could've been better - and pointing out the silly lazyness, for example one-size-fits-all video encoding - is a problem? How, precisely?"

    That is not the problem, and you know it and are yet ignoring it, or are unable to see it. What I am saying is:
    (1) 99.9% of the time, Rich Leadbetter failed to make similar arguments for poor PS3 ports, choosing instead to blame PS3 oddball architecture, or other things lacking in its hardware for the port quality, while evangelizing 360 hardware in those same articles.
    (2) The time 360 had a worse port, Rich started to go into speculation as to limited time for the port, shoddy practices at SE, what SE could have done better.
    So what I am arguing is, where was all this speculation when the PS3 had worse ports? The only time he even remotely conceded that it might be the developer's fault was with Bayonetta, and even that was in passing rather than the three page why-the-poor-360-port-is-squarely-Square's-fault article here.

    Christ, indeed.

    "Really, my mind truly boggles at times like this. I've not been a single-format owner since I had to accept that the Amiga market was dying on its arse and all the publishers had moved over to PCs."

    I'm not a single-format owner either. That does not mean I don't have preferences. As I'm sure you do, as well.

  • IneptPercy #193 2 years ago

    "@IneptPercy
    Sorry, too late mate,
    You swallowed your own bait,
    And while you're lying on a plate,
    You can blame me,
    Or blame the fate.

    /bad poetry will be patched at a later date. "

    Even more confused... maybe I am trying to hard to understand... maybe there is nothing to understand... there is no spoon...

  • progearspec #194 2 years ago

    So I get a slightly worse port if I decide to buy. Okay then.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 18:55

  • zippie151 #195 2 years ago

    well hopefully this can shut everyone up on both sides for the most part! This proves that either console can look noticeable different/worse than the other. And in actual fact does lend some strength to the argument that most multi-plat games are rushed or poor ports on the PS3 (when designed for 360 initially that is).
    Ironically though what happened to the 360 being easier to design for?

  • sfp_noodle #196 2 years ago

    jus read this article and MY GOD richard is doing his best defend the 360 version whilst trying his level best to downplay all the merits of the base ps3 code. even the battlefield face off demonstrated remarkable platform parity yet richard tried ever so hard to downplay the more noticeable ps3 merits. becoming a pattern with these face offs now *yawn*

    also, to those pointing out the uncharted 2 DF article - tht game was such a technical feat tht i dnt think ANYONE cud have found fault with it. thts probably the only reason it wasn't criticised or downplayed. oh, n tht was an exclusive, not multiplatform :)
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 19:21

  • kuddles #197 2 years ago

    I always love these articles, and then the comments afterwards. Just a bunch of non-stop ranting about bias and technical leet-speak combined with a plethora of videos and pictures that pretty make both versions look identical to everyone but the nitpicky supernerds. Hair stands aren't rendered as clearly when you zoom in on them = WHO GIVES A FUCK.

    I was going to get the PS3 version but I'ld rather just get the 360 for the hard drive installation option.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 19:47

  • T3TSUO #198 2 years ago

    Got to agree with sfp_noodle here, Eurogamer article sounds like a bitter fanboy rant at it's very worst. PS3 has had to tolerate some pretty shoddy ports when I think everyone knows now thanks to some staggering exclusives it deserves better than quick port cash ins.
    Fact is a shift has started and it's shifting towards the PS3. Sorry to say but it's more future proof than the ageing 360 and its misgivings really are evident with FF13.
    Bioshock 2 was better on PS3 (regardless of borderline ridiculous EG comments on screen tear on 360 gives better controller feel) Darksiders was the same as Bioshock 2. Battlefield BC2 better on PS3 now FF13 again better on PS3. This trend will continue all year I'm afraid.
    Sure somebody will quote Bayonetta. That title could have easily matched the 360 in all areas if not for the quick port for a failing Japanese market. The same cannot be argued for FF13 and the US market as FF13 was clearly never ever going to match the PS3 due to media limitations and an engine built to take advantage of PS3 hardware.
    Bad month for 360, scratch the bad year. With only Halo Reach to look forward to I wonder how many will sell up and swap over to PS3 now.
    Do yourself a favour and get a PS3. Give it and it's amazing exclusives a whirl for a while. 360 doesn't really have many exclusives to speak of. Most of it's games can be played on ageing PCs if you want to match the 360's resolution and framerates. Mass Effect 2 a 360 exclusive? Heck I'm playing it on PC at 1080p with AA at v-synced 60 frames.
    The future is looking grim for 360 owners.

  • 43n1m4 #199 2 years ago

    There are a lot of these "the playstation 3 has had worse ports for such a long time - now we can have our revenge" posts here. Whether the author of the article sounds bitter or not, the end result seems like this to me:

    If you have a PS3 - get that version, because it is the best one
    If you don't have a PS3 but an Xbox360, you'll get a game very similar to the PS3 version.

    For the layman, the differences will be very hard to spot. To me, the big problem with this game has nothing to do with the technical aspects, but rather with the somewhat convoluted. linear (even more so than previous FF games) gameplay, that most reviews seem to criticize.

  • septimus #200 2 years ago

    Love the tone of this article.. If it had been the other way around, the tone would have been gloating.

  • Badassbab #201 2 years ago

    What a crap port, now 360 owners know how PS3 owners feel when crappy ports like Bayonetta come along. Still not sure if this game is doing more harm than good being released on 360 though I doubt casual players will be reading this H2H.

  • TRUTH #202 2 years ago

    Urm - no Bioshock 2 was actually better on XB360 as on PS3 had lower resolution textures / shaders on the ps3 side/ less richer colour and the odd framerate issue, Darsiders was the same once XB360 got it's patch to cure the v-sync, BFII there are advantages on the 360 as well as advantages on the PS3 !



    Edited by 2 at 05/03/10 @ 21:16

  • TRUTH #203 2 years ago

    Just read the Edge review (5/10) - even on Metacritic this game is not the best FF or the best Jrpg, just plain good to average game!

  • GreyBeard #204 2 years ago

    I'm just wondering how long its going to be before these incessant complaints of partisanship get addressed.

    I really don't think you can make a blanket assumption that anyone complaining is an idiot SDF type, and if you do, what does that say about you, thinking in such absolutist terms?

    It needs addressing.

  • Retroid #205 2 years ago

    There's only been a few specific-to-one-game face-offs and they've usually been pretty close, actually.

    Devs are on record as saying the PS3 is quite different in some ways to standard PC / 360 development. That's a known quantity. No-one can deny that. Which is why it's mentioned in articles as possible reasons why some games turn out worse - they're reasons, not FAULTS. The fault will always lay entirely at the feet of the devs who, either from lack of time / effort / cash / skill don't take advantage of the hardware.

    The point here is that there's no good reason why the 360 port of FFXIII should fall so short. That's what the article is covering. It's simple lack of arsedness - like the Bayonetta port to PS3.

    As I've said before, these complaints might have merit if other comparison articles elsewhere reached radically different conclusions. But they don't. Now people are complaining about the *tone* of articles even though they reach conclusions which don't favour the platform the bias is supposed to be towards.

    In closing: DF says black is black and white is white, but the tone of his articles CLEARLY means he wants black to be white.

  • man.the.king #206 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "There's only been a few specific-to-one-game face-offs and they've usually been pretty close, actually. Devs are on record as saying the PS3 is quite different in some ways to standard PC / 360 development. That's a known quantity. No-one can deny that. Which is why it's mentioned in articles as possible reasons why some games turn out worse - they're reasons, not FAULTS. The fault will always lay entirely at the feet of the devs who, either from lack of time / effort / cash / skill don't take advantage of the hardware."

    Agreed. So let me re-iterate: Why does Rich Leadbetter keep on stating in the overwhelming majority of his face-offs that any perceived problem in a PS3 port is a problem with the PS3 hardware? In over 23 face-offs, spanning more than a 100 games, maybe only once has he devoted one or two sentences pointing to the developers for the poor quality of a PS3 port. Note that I'm referring to face-offs here, not articles dealing with a specific port. And, for a poor 360 port to a much-anticipated game, Rich appears to have gone ballistic, slamming SE throughout the article. In my opinion, the article is one-part face-off and three parts a criticism of Square Enix, while upholding the "endless" capabilities of the 360.

    "The point here is that there's no good reason why the 360 port of FFXIII should fall so short. That's what the article is covering. It's simple lack of arsedness - like the Bayonetta port to PS3."

    No. If the article is to stay true to the format of the 23-24 or so face-offs that have gone on for the past 3 years, then it should not be dedicated to speculation on why the 360 version is falling short. It should have focused on the differences between the two versions, and that is all it should have limited itself to. If he really wanted to go into a rant about the port quality, he could have made a separate article. God knows there is no shortage of separate articles dealing with a single subject on EG. For example, show me where in the Bayonetta face-off, he goes into any significant detail as to the developers' failings (or the timeframe given them, which afaik, was much, much shorter than what was accorded to the 360 port for FFXIII). I notice that you avoided my previous questions in this post here, instead focusing on more-or-less neutral points of view that have little to do with the face-offs that have gone before or this one in particular.

    "As I've said before, these complaints might have merit if other comparison articles elsewhere reached radically different conclusions. But they don't. Now people are complaining about the *tone* of articles even though they reach conclusions which don't favour the platform the bias is supposed to be towards."

    I note, with some dismay, that rather than approaching people's complaints with an open mind, you have chosen instead to assume that these are people with overwhelming loyalty to a particular platform.

    To me, that's quite revealing.
    Edited by 4 at 05/03/10 @ 22:33

  • Retroid #207 2 years ago

    I've re-read the article and have picked out the only bits where I can presume people have managed to read bias into it.

    1) Alpha-to-coverage interlace. Where he says the effect could've been done differently on 360 - because the GPUs are a known quantity. People took issue with this on the demo analysis too. It's arguable that it's a matter of opinion.

    2) Better framerate in some scenes. But as stated, the 360 is rendering around a third less detail onscreen *and* relying on hardware upscaling. Smoother but blurier versus much sharper but occasional frame drops? I'd take the latter.

    3) The mention of the VC1 codec in the 360 XDK. Again, this is just a fact: if hobbyists can use these codecs to get better results in less space, why didn't Square?

  • NightAntilli #208 2 years ago

    Even Retroid is being thumbed down in here.. It's sad..

  • Darren #209 2 years ago

    @SHARXTREME - When I meant those developers of exclusive PS3 games are given lots of time, I mean that Sony has let them take as long as they need to create the game and they aren't at the mercy of a third-party publisher who might want the game out sooner rather than later. And, yes, sometimes it's a pain having to wait for these PS3 games, Gran Turismo 5 is a perfect example of a game literally years and years in the making (and still nowhere near to being released), but usually the end result is worth it because these developers can push the machine further and produce games that wouldn't be possible given the PS3 hardware's complexity. I've been genuinely impressed by PS3 exclusives in the last two years especially as I was convinced that the hardware was inferior to the 360 in every way except for storage capacity. I'm glad I was proven wrong!

    Of couse Developers will continue to get better at making games for the PS3 as they discover more efficient ways to code for it, you only have to look at the quality of PS2 games which came out five years after the machine launched like Shadow of Colossus and God of War for example. Also, IMO, there's a tangible sense that the GPU plus Cell combo and BD storage may offer the PS3 a slight advantage over the 360 in its twilight years. Final Fantasy XIII is a good example of how Microsoft's strict three disc max. policy has led to a slightly inferior quality game on the system and Square-Enix aren't entirely to blame for that. I doubt the next Xbox will be using DVD either (nor will it be digital download only!).

    One thing that surprisingly isn't mentioned in this Face-Off is audio quality so are we to assume that both versions are identical or does the extra space on the BD offer higher-quality audio on the PS3?

  • Retroid #210 2 years ago

    man.the.king: "I notice that you avoided my previous questions in this post here, instead focusing on more-or-less neutral points of view that have little to do with the face-offs that have gone before or this one in particular."

    I covered it by pointing out that there have only been a few game-specific face-offs. Most face-offs have been round-ups of games, not specifically about one in particular. Hence they're far less detailed and more about covering what's wrong, if anything. Ask Richard, I'm not him.

    "I note, with some dismay, that rather than approaching people's complaints with an open mind, you have chosen instead to assume that these are people with overwhelming loyalty to a particular platform."

    I've said that some people are like that. I've not said everyone is. And there are always some people who will just troll, and I've warned a few people not to do that. These comments can be enough of a mess by themselves without regulars doing it "for the lolz".

    Oh, and "quite revealing"?

    Far less so than you might want to think.

  • man.the.king #211 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli

    "Even Retroid is being thumbed down in here.. It's sad"

    The mere fact that he is a moderator does not exempt him from being judged by other people's logic and emotions. He has preferences just like any other human being, and although, to be fair, he does try hard to remain objective, at times his preferences seem to dictate his observations and actions (imo).

  • Yaz #212 2 years ago

    @man.the.king and @SHARXTREME

    Since I've discussed FFXIII with you both before (in the past and recently) I therefore feel it's only right to say I was wrong on my assumption that (except for video) the 360 port would be up to the PS3 version, I did expect more from SE in this respect (despite it being a relatively quick port), hence it's disappointing to find the 360's resolution is only 576p as previously stated.

    Not that the 360 version is bad of course, it's still excellent, therefore 360 only gamers should be happy with the game, but it's still inferior just the same.

    One thing is clear however, back when SE annonced they were going to make both versions the same, many gamers (and especially the fanboys) went on and on claiming the 360 and MS are causing the PS3 version to be downgraded, whilst other gamers were of the opinion that if any version would be compromised in some way, it will be the 360 version, not the PS3 version. Seems the later were right!

    @Diomedes who wrote "And now to debunk this stupid "FFXIII has 32Gb of FMVs" crap... "

    Except you haven't debunked it. The PS3 version *does* have 32GB of video (you can see the separate movie files on the Blu-ray disk), the remaining 6.8GB is the game data, which consists of game code, graphics AND sound. This was shown by those who analysed the JP version upon release, and DF simply confirmed it.

  • man.the.king #213 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "I covered it by pointing out that there have only been a few game-specific face-offs. Most face-offs have been round-ups of games, not specifically about one in particular. Hence they're far less detailed and more about covering what's wrong, if anything."

    Okay. So which game-specific face-off covers why a PS3 port may be poor, and in such extravagant detail, as this one? I'm not asking for parity in detail, but even one paragraph would be something. Did Richard elaborate on Bayonetta's porting times, and what could SEGA have done to make the PS3 port better? I believe I have read almost all of the face-offs here, and have yet to encounter such an apologetic rant for a poor PS3 port. RL may be posting his findings on a major website here, but his tastes clearly leech through in his words.

    "Ask Richard, I'm not him."

    No you are clearly not. Yet you seem to be trying quite hard to negate people whose point-of-view is that RL is not speaking from the most balanced of perspectives. You are quite welcome to enter into debate, of course, as long as opposing points-of-view from people with lesser privileges are not muzzled.

  • Darren #214 2 years ago

    @Diomedes - You've made a few good points there, particularly about the textures, audio and game code apparently only using 6.8 GB on the PS3. If that's true then it's feasible that the texture quality is the same on both versions because the differences in image quality would occur because the resolution is lower in one than the other (less pixels on screen). Of course, they may have been reduced to fit the entire game on to three discs for the 360 but there's no proof of that.

    Also the audio is not mentioned at all in this feature so I can only surmise that means it is identical on both formats (or that Richard Leadbetter never tested it?). Personally I'd find that strange given that the PS3 has tons more space for higher-quality audio (plus can output DTS and 7.1 formats) and the 360 version's is likely heavily compressed. There would be no need at all to compress the audio to the same extent for the PS3 version as it comes on a 50 GB that still has some 12 GB free!

  • man.the.king #215 2 years ago

    @Yaz

    "Since I've discussed FFXIII with you both before (in the past and recently) I therefore feel it's only right to say I was wrong on my assumption that (except for video) the 360 port would be up to the PS3 version, I did expect more from SE in this respect (despite it being a relatively quick port), hence it's disappointing to find the 360's resolution is only 576p as previously stated."

    Yes, and I find no comfort in the fact that the 360 version is so poor. To me, it just re-iterates what should have been elaborated upon by Leadbetter from day one, and what he has failed to do until this particular facade of a face-off - mainly, that quick-and-nasty ports, whatever the platform, suck, and are attributable more to the developer rather than the console.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 23:13

  • Loghorn #216 2 years ago

    @T3TSUO:

    PS3 fanboys like you kill me. The thing is, a lot of people like me don't have the kind of money to keep upgrading their PC's every few years, etc. 360 aging? Give me a break.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 23:13

  • Retroid #217 2 years ago

    man.the.king: "The mere fact that he is a moderator does not exempt him from being judged by other people's logic and emotions. He has preferences just like any other human being, and although, to be fair, he does try hard to remain objective, at times his preferences seem to dictate his observations and actions (imo)."

    Cheers, that is actually appreciated. And I agree: just because I have those letters after my name doesn't mean I'm exempt from anything. I can only speak from my own opinion and experience, after all.

    I'd love to read a detailed article from DF about the common problems faced by devs porting to the PS3, but such an article would inevitably be seen by some as an attack on the format. That seems to be the way the internet works: people looking for bias will see it. :(

  • seanthejackal #218 2 years ago

    @Retroid you and Rich Leadbetter are in league with microsoft aren't you? T3TSUO makes a very good point, also the sooner 360 owners move to PS3 the sooner we can get the next generation graphics and gameplay really going.

  • Darren #219 2 years ago

    @Gaol - "Meh, I must be getting old. I don't think the 360 version looks that bad.. tiny bit blurier but I wouldn't be losing sleep on it if I had a 360."

    I'm pretty sure most 360 owners will just be grateful they can play this game and if I only owned a 360 then I'm pretty sure I would be. If I didn't know the 360 version was better then I'm not going to be bothered by a sub-720p resolution or lower-quality cutscenes really. That will be true of most 360 owners who buy this game.

    These Face Offs are intended really for people who own both consoles and want to buy the best version (thankfully this one arrived *before* the game's release so is *actually* useful!) or for people might only own one only platform but may be interested in knowing what differences, if any, there are. If someone is the kind of person that gets 'upset' at the suggestion that a game might be inferior on their beloved system of choice then really they shouldn't be reading these articles at all. ;)

  • Shabbaranks #220 2 years ago

    There is a ginger in this game, am definitely not buying it now.

  • man.the.king #221 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "I'd love to read a detailed article from DF about the common problems faced by devs porting to the PS3, but such an article would inevitably be seen by some as an attack on the format. That seems to be the way the internet works: people looking for bias will see it."

    Since when have EG shied away from controversy, or from flame-bait articles? In my opinion, when people shy away from something (in this case the folks over at DF, one in particular), it is because approaching it with an open mind may not align with their world-view.

    "That seems to be the way the internet works: people looking for bias will see it. :( "

    And people willfully ignoring it will never notice it :)
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/10 @ 23:26

  • Darren #222 2 years ago

    @man.the.king - The 360 is slightly inferior to the PS3 version but in what way exactly is it "poor"?

    The game content is identical in both, the framerate is reputedly better on the 360 offset by a lower resolution that most console owners should be used to by now anyway (say hello, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Tekken 6 and Halo 3 ODST). The cutscenes are what suffer the most quality wise but they're still watchable and comparable to cutscenes in other 360 games (show me a game on the 360 that has hours of high-quality 1080p FMV anyway?). Basically this game is only disappointing when set against the PS3 version but it's still a good game in its own right. I really don't see why people are saying its poor personally. :?

  • man.the.king #223 2 years ago

    @Darren

    Poor...inferior. These are words used in a comparative context, used to imply "poorer" and/or "inferior". Personally I think it's splitting hairs, but if you want, it's inferior, not poor, okay? :)

    Even Rich seems to think "it's a lot worse than it should have been" :)

  • EuroStalker #224 2 years ago

    Final Fantasy XIII clearly proves that the Xbox 360 is not as powerful as PS3. Or you could argue that Square Enix did a poor (rushed?) job of converting the PS3 stuff to Xbox 360. But this arguement does not apply when 3rd parties develop poor conversions of PS3 games when the lead platform is Xbox 360. So we come back to the first point - Xbox 360 is ageing hardware and not as powerful as PS3.

    Final Fantasy XIII also shows how right Sony were to go with BluRay. No disc swapping.

  • Loghorn #225 2 years ago

    @EuroStalker:

    The only reason why FFXIII turned out to be superior on the PS3 is because it has been developed on that platform for YEARS, while it's only been developed on the 360 for like, a year or less. If the 360 version were to be having much more development time, then both versions would've been the EXACT same.

    Plus the hardware in the 360 is NOT aging.
    Edited by 2 at 06/03/10 @ 00:00

  • EuroStalker #226 2 years ago

    ^ But ofcourse it's the devs fault.

  • Loghorn #227 2 years ago

    It is Square's fault. They couldn't even have Star Ocean 4 in Real HD throughout both versions. Every other developer can have most 720p games on the 360, so why can't they?

    So don't give me that bull.

  • EuroStalker #228 2 years ago

    ^ No. It's Xbox 360's fault. Stupid machine can't even handle PS3 conversions.

  • Loghorn #229 2 years ago

    Have you looked at earlier PS3 titles like Assassin's Creed & Virtua Fighter 5?

  • Mr.DNA #230 2 years ago

    I've just had the misfortune of watching an advert for the game on the telly, featuring that insult to humanity, the atrocious Leona Lewis song. Square removed the classic "fanfare" tune after battles and added a Lewis track. What the FUCK where they thinking? In who's fucked-up mind is that progress? Everything that I've seen and heard relating to FF XIIImakes me feel physically sick.
    Edited by 1 at 06/03/10 @ 00:15

  • MaxiSleep #231 2 years ago


    @EuroStalker

    Final Fantasy XIII clearly proves that the Xbox 360 is not as powerful as PS3.

    One swallow does not make a summer. And hey maybe you can find 1 more example. Go on go on go on go on go on.

  • GamesConnoisseur #232 2 years ago

    FFXIII clearly proves 2010 belongs to PS3 and X360 is finished and we must pray silence for a moment to mark it passing.

    Or if you rather trambles underfoot the dangerous and evil consoles that had been corrupting people from getting PS3 and now finally everyone can bask in the warm glow of all embracing Sony's PS3!!!

    Seriously all this for just one person's opinion and afterall just about a videogame innit?!

  • Diomedes #233 2 years ago

    The UE2 was designed with the PC and 360 in mind.Its better optimised for general purpose hardware ,it is better suited for the DirectX libraries etc.

    Most western developers develop firstly for the PC-360 arquitecture ,they use the eDram of the 360 and the big memory of the PC ,and the unified shaders to leverage the graphics cards potential.THey distribute the data on the disc according to the DVD geography(the data they need to access the faster in the outer rings that are way faster to read etc).

    When porting to the PS3 they have managed a very good level lately but theres sometimes some problems,the UE2 doesnt support AA out from the box on the PS3 and the developer must seek a solution,they have to look in the OpenGl libraries for comparable graphic effects or create those (and sometimes they wont put as much time if they can get something close enough quite easily),it doesnt have that useful eDram (doesnt need it if coded properly) the original code counts on,and so on.

    Leadbetter has always pointed to these things as proof of the PS3 hardware "faults" against the 360.

    But as this game and others show ,but specially this game,this is not the true state of the question.Evidently if you code for the 360 strenghts the PS3 port will suffer to keep up.But the PS3 has its own advantages:lots of graphical effects can be sent to the SPUs who are very efficient at lots of things,the cache memory is bigger ,it has a Blu Ray player that you can stuff with HD assets and 7.1 sound if you need it (tell this to Lost Planet 2 developers) and can stream data better as is a more modern tech ,it has a built in HDD that developers can use as cache if they really want ,it seems to work better with HDR at high resolutions ,the pixel and texel fillrates of the RSX are superior and so on.

    If you code specifically for the PS3 ,as most western games are coded primarily for the PC-360 standard ,then the 360 faces a true hell to reproduce the game.

    So it has never been about the hardware capabilities.This has been show now.If more and more games were coded for the PS3 from the word go to leverage its power and then ported the 360 would really suffer to keep pace.But Richie keeps neglecting reality,and his damage control for this has started a lot of time ago,this article isnt but the most evident proof.He can be happy ,because most projects will still be developed first on PC-360 and then ported and he can continue his nonsensical comparisions.But for one day ,at least he knows what would happen more often that not if the games were designed with the PS3 in mind (Cell,Rsx,faster memory,HDD,BD drive) and then ported to the 360.

  • Retroid #234 2 years ago

    SHARXTREME: "@man.the.king
    Don't argue with Retroid, he'll ban you and edit your posts like he did ban me for the very same reason.
    He defends Richard and his articles with passion."

    /Joey

    That's not why you got in trouble and you know it.
    Edited by 1 at 06/03/10 @ 08:02

  • Nikanoru #235 2 years ago

    "Xbox 360 is ageing hardware and not as powerful as PS3."


    Oh god lol, aging hardware? Did you even read how the 360 version has a better framerate than the one on ps3? Pretty good for some aging hardware, despite this being a hastily done port.

    Idiot.

  • Kestana #236 2 years ago

    ""Xbox 360 is ageing hardware and not as powerful as PS3."


    Oh god lol, aging hardware? Did you even read how the 360 version has a better framerate than the one on ps3? Pretty good for some aging hardware, despite this being a hastily done port.

    Idiot."

    At least the Xbox 360 runs at more or less the same framerate as the PS3 version. Bayonetta on the PS3 runs at 30 FPS. D= The horror! They could've lowered the graphics even more to get 60 FPS to maintain parity in gameplay. IMO, it's a poor choice for a compromise to prioritize graphics for a game such as Bayonetta.

    @ EuroStalker

    "No. It's Xbox 360's fault. Stupid machine can't even handle PS3 conversions."

    (No. It's PS3's fault. Stupid machine can't even handle Xbox 360 conversions.) x 100 as exemplified by DF's face-offs.

    /s

    But seriously. The problem right now I believe is that Final Fantasy XIII is somewhat an isolated case in a sea of face-offs where the PS3 version is usually trounced. It's just natural for a person to narrow down whose fault it was for this anomaly. We know the trend is that Xbox 360 multiplats come out on top. Surely, all developers are equal in track record and resources. No. But surely, all Xbox 360s are equal. So too are all PS3s. Yes. So it's more logical to blame the PS3 itself for its shortcomings, right? Most likely. So here we have a game that breaks the convention -- it opposes the empirical evidence of Xbox 360 multiplat superiority. This is why I think the article's author attempts to (IMO, in very poor taste) find what this certain developer has done to come up with this unexpected result (though I'd have to say, it's expected as this game was ported late in development).

    EDIT:

    Downrank me some more please! Even my defense of the author has been met with the rage of oblivious Playstation fanboys.


    Edited by 2 at 07/03/10 @ 14:09

  • orionpk #237 2 years ago

    @Kestana , um do i have to recall rrod's? and over heating, i mean really.. the xbox literally just got an hdmi port, on top of that still uses 3core and dvd9 format, of course the hardware it's ageing , and of course final fantasy 13 will run a lil smooth on xbox because it's rendered down to 1024x576 and looks crappy as hell lol.. well actually most games on xbox are not even pre-hd resolutions like mwf2 that runs also on 1024x576 ,

    the day any xbox exclusives looks better than any native ps3 game ,,.. hell ill shut the f up, i read stupid comments on this site , people argue a lot about how crappy looks xbox version "because it was rushed" yeah i guess 1 year and half working on the xbox port is crappy hmmm, more like trying to fit 38gbs of blueray space into crappy dvd9's , of course you will get crap, because the 360 it's a limited crap with no wifi

  • PoundHound #238 2 years ago

    I watched my wife play this last night on the 360 for a couple of hours. I haven't checked the comparisons, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 360 version. If the PS3 version is better, then good for it, but on the 360 it still looks lovely and plays (from the HDD) very smoothly. Judging by the comments on here I was expecting something totally disasterous. Simply put, it isn't.

  • funkateer #239 2 years ago

    "We know the trend is that Xbox 360 multiplats come out on top."

    We also know that they usually came out on top if you take audio quality completely out of the equation and just focus on pixels alone.

    You might not be aware, but audio is more responsible for the overall emotional impact than visuals are, so you can't really just leave that aspect out and still recommend one version over the other. At least DF should acknowledge that these face-offs are limited in scope in that way.

    A few months ago I got my 360 for Forza and the 360 got a lot of my playtime, but I have to say, the difference in sound quality between the 360 and PS3 is often quite noticable (and if favour of PS3) if you have a half-decent setup and that can really make the difference in the overal experience (at least to me).
    A few more pixels is nice, but often hardly even noticable (just as long as it doesn't doesn't get too obvious like Bayonetta).

    Maybe I'm just a nutter for these things, but I really wish that aspects of sound quality would be considered in these face-offs.

  • Retroid #240 2 years ago

    @PoundHound: It seems the framerate is still good on it, to a lot of people that'd probably be more noticeable than the lower resolution and artefacting video.

  • sjw3000 #241 2 years ago

    Well... I'm sorry to say, it's hard to have any sympathy for 360 owners when us PS3 owners get screwed time and time again when it comes to sub-par ports.

    For once, it's nice to know that the version I'll be buying WILL NOT be the crappier version! But 360'ers, do not worry.. I'm sure it's nothing but an anomaly.

  • Retroid #242 2 years ago

    Bad ports are bad ports regardless of what they're on.

    /Still annoyed about the rubbish C64 conversion of Chase HQ

  • Bangaioh #243 2 years ago

    I think EG should simply fook off with these face offs... get a life you tards and stop trainspotting.

  • StooMonster #244 2 years ago

    Diomedes: Most western developers develop firstly for the PC-360 arquitecture

    PC's (most commonly) have two cores Intel x68/x64 CPU but might have 1 core or 4; and the Xbox 360's has 6-threaded (3-core, 2 threads each) PowerPC CPU architecture.

    PCs support a wide range of graphics GPUs and DirectX from 8 through 11 (maybe 7 too); and the Xbox 3600 supports one GPU on DirectX.

    Yeah, that PC-360 architecture ... oh wait!

  • mgillespie #245 2 years ago

    Ouch. Wii resolutions for Xbox owners.... That console is now starting to show it's age, the PS3 keeps in thundering ahead...

    Support that "easy to develop for" is a double edge sword, as it means the Xbox is maxed out quicker... As lets be honest nothing on Xbox has moved forward graphically for 2 years now...

  • Praetorianer #246 2 years ago

    Uh...I am late to this...should I read all the comments for an interesting discussion, or is it just the usual fanboi-flamewar going on?

  • Sunyavadin #247 2 years ago

    So wait, it took them that long to do such a lazy conversion?

    Shame on you Squenix, shame on you...

  • B0MBJ4CK #248 2 years ago

    Hmmm....Can't say I've actually sat that close enough to a screen to be bothered about these kind of things.

    As long as it does'nt look like Roland in the Caves, I counld'nt give a monkeys

  • EuroStalker #249 2 years ago

    How easy is it to wind up these Xbox 360 owners. The last few posts prove who the Xbots are. You lot completely missed the point in your rage over FF XIII being a poor conversion. FF XIII IS a poor conversion to the 360 just like all those 3rd party games which are developed for the 360 and then hacked to fit PS3's completely different architecture and library of tools.

    Anyway, one of the biggest games of the year is rubbish on the Xbox 360.

    /ducks

  • IneptPercy #250 2 years ago

    the way I see it is frame rates and v-sync take priority, same with a PC game I will turn down the resolution to maintain them if needed.

    So yes the 360 has lost a level of detail but the game plays perfectly and is far from a broken mess.

    Yes if you own both consoles then its an easy choice, but if you don't its not enough of a deal breaker to buy another console. Same goes with the video compression, it will look great on the PS3 with a 1080p screen but how many have full 1080p screens? Yes the PS3 videos downscaled will still look slightly better, but still not enough to worry about.

  • fever #251 2 years ago

    360 version looks more than fine to me.

  • Alkeno #252 2 years ago

    The issue as always, I see. It goes like this:

    1.- Richard analyzes both games. Brings up some points from what he knows and leaves out other points. One version comes on top for whatever reason. Richard tries to explain why he thinks things have gone that way.
    2.- The comments sections goes bananas no matter the outcome of Richard's analysis: 360 supporters say the article is fine, PS3 supporters say DF is biased.
    3.- SHARXTREME and Retroid keep arguing with each other. They just love their Saturday DF love letters :-P

    So is Richard biased? No, I don't think he is biased in the fanboy sense, he doesn't trick his articles into making people think what it's not, he does not have any interest on defending any console over the other. But, does he like the 360 more? Of course he does. The 360 is the understandable console, the PS3 is the beast that forces devs to use the CPU as the GPU-assistant (and forces him to understand such awkward things and explain them back to us). So yeah, I pretty much understand why when he speaks good of something it sound like it's the 360's merit and when something goes wrong it's the PS3's fault.

    So... you believed that? Don't be fools! He knows perfectly what he is doing. He walks a perfectly defined line between being accurate and bothering the hell out of fanboys. And he must be doing very well because Digital Foundry grows in Eurogamer and forums boil with angry comments :-D

    And, speaking of games, Final Fantasy XIII turned out to be a 576p game with Bink Video on the 360. Well, it could have been better, but as somebody said before: It has the resolution of Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2, runs very smooth and uses the standard video compressor on most games, so it is not a bad port, it's just not as polished as the PS3 version. So no, this is not the new Bayonetta.

  • intpleeus #253 2 years ago

    If Square-Enix had wanted to do a better Xbox 360 port, then it would have been possible. The question is, given the high degree of Playstation 3 optimisation, could an Xbox 360 port be just as good? Probably yes. Would both the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 versions be identical? Probably no. Compromises that were made on the Playstation 3 were not necessary on the Xbox 360, and vice versa, but while the Xbox 360 inherited all of the Playstation 3's compromises, the Playstation 3 inherited none of the Xbox 360's compromises. The simple reason is that Square-Enix did not optimise Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox 360 very well--good enough was enough.

  • man.the.king #254 2 years ago

    @Alkeno

    "The 360 is the understandable console, the PS3 is the beast that forces devs to use the CPU as the GPU-assistant"

    That still doesn't justify his statements and implications of poor PS3 ports being the PS3's fault, while a poor 360 port is the developer's fault. Only fanboys do that.

    "he does not have any interest on defending any console over the other"

    Everybody has likes and dislikes, favorites and not-so-favorites. Professionals manage to suppress such prejudices when presenting their points to the public. He does not seem to be that capable (or maybe not just professional enough). Technical proficiency does not suddenly turn somebody into a paragon of objectivity.

    "He walks a perfectly defined line between being accurate and bothering the hell out of fanboys."

    In my opinion, he stumbles more often in a particular direction when walking that imaginary line of yours.

    All in all, some nice points from you. However, the level of outrage shown by RL in this particular rant-masquerading-as-a-faceoff argues otherwise. If he was truly professional, he would have managed to keep that annoyed tone of his out of the article, and as in all previous face-offs of his where the 360 comes out better, just concentrate on the differences.
    Edited by 5 at 06/03/10 @ 21:27

  • TRUTH #255 2 years ago

    This game is just average if you look on Metacritic - it's not praised very well, esp the 1st half.

    Egde scored it 5/10

    Better,much better games Rpg's are available!

  • RobotRocker #256 2 years ago

    I noticed in the article about the PS3 having a lower minimal frame rate and the character models looking a bit better close upon the 360 that few have brought up in the comments.

    I think its not really the 360 being up to par but more the Crystal Tools Engine being not to to snuff in general. It is Squares first game to use it and it looks like both versions have issues of their own. Square are a good developer but a lot of first runs with their internal engines on each platform tend to be very messy. FFVII was a bit of an ugly mess in game, even at the time (But the atmosphere and gameplay was so dazzling we tended to forgive it), FFX had an absolute disaster of a PAL conversion and had tearing and bugs all over the place. When you add in the pressure of developing for two widely different platforms, there is bound to be some sacrifices and aggravation on both sides.

    So generally, I would give Square the benefit of the doubt in this case since they tend to take a couple of runs at each engine before they hit perfection e.g. FFVII giving way to FFIX and Chrono Cross and FFX giving way to FFXII. Plus, they have the learning curve of developing it further for two systems. Chalk it up to a couple of practice misfires and whatever next may see a massive improvement as they get a hold on the engine.

    I don't think people will be disappointed in whatever version they wish to buy anyway. But if you want to fling poop at each other, by all means.

  • Retroid #257 2 years ago

    Sorry if it confuses you.

    Posting with an alt would be dishonest, I've been a regular poster on here for years.
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/10 @ 00:17

  • womble #258 2 years ago

    @ SHARKEXTREME

    "Don't argue with Retroid, he'll ban you and edit your posts like he did ban me for the very same reason."

    No, you got banned because you're a trolling arsehole. You attack DF in every single post you make.

  • Ravage27 #259 2 years ago

    jeez the amount of damage control is staggering.

    We want a true comparison..not an apologetic piece about how SE fails the 360 fans. This is coming from the same people who hails Baynetta as a technical 'masterpiece' that leverages on the 'unique' 360 architecture...what's up with the double standards? I certainly don't see you guys complaining about how Platinum Games choose not to employ superior ps3-specific tech used in GOW3,UC2 and KZ2.

    The lengths you guys go to downplay the advantages of the blu-ray....face it, dvd is an outdated format there's no way to spin that. You know it is bad when i get more information about the loss of self-shadowing and poor textures in the 360 version from non-comparison sites like neogaf.

    Lastly, you guys are free to believe anything SE says, but i don't buy it. SE has constantly lied about everything this gen, they even said the 360 version of FF13 would begin development only after the PS3 version was completed. Pure BS, the 360 version was showcased in last year's E3. So no, the 360 port clearly started before the '08 announcement. The Crystal Tools was tweaked to rely less on the SPUs and ff13 was obviously going multiplat the moment they announced Crystal Tools to be a multiplat engine.

    Edited by 1 at 07/03/10 @ 14:41

  • cjit26 #260 2 years ago

    Its me or the whole article was made in the idea 2 defend the x360 what i mean is all what that dude tried 2 do is downplay the ps3 version n try 2 make the 360 version looks better i mean cmon y just dont accept that x360 cant get the ps3 level easy like that no1 will stop playing the 360 just cuz that n is well knows that ps3 is around 20 30% powerful than 360 n y this dude keep saying was the creators fault because the game was made in 1st step 4 ps3? it really dont matter actualy 90% of games r made in 1st step in x360 n after they r ported 2 ps3 n theres games that looks better in ps3 than 360 and nobody says nothing but i 4got most of the "professional" stuff in this website r xbox fanboys -____- y no1 can do a true review without preferences or sumthing like that.

  • cjit26 #261 2 years ago

    Oh god lol, aging hardware? Did you even read how the 360 version has a better framerate than the one on ps3? Pretty good for some aging hardware, despite this being a hastily done port.

    Idiot.

    LOL u called him idiont n ur who doesnt know how ps3 really works n ik hes talking about hardware n cboc works differently 2 ps3 but cmon stop being such a fanboy n accept it this time ps3 own 360 idk if u knew but actually every game that runs in xbox can ported 2 ps3 that becuz creators know that ps3 is powerfull n they dont want 2 remake the whole engine just 2 port it in 360 is like say if a slower pc run a game its surely other faster pc will but if faster pc run well the game isnt sure that slower will just saying dude go learn sumthing about the consoles structure before talking about it huh? ;)

  • cjit26 #262 2 years ago

    "264" But seriously. The problem right now I believe is that Final Fantasy XIII is somewhat an isolated case in a sea of face-offs where the PS3 version is usually trounced. It's just natural for a person to narrow down whose fault it was for this anomaly. We know the trend is that Xbox 360 multiplats come out on top. Surely, all developers are equal in track record and resources. No. But surely, all Xbox 360s are equal. So too are all PS3s. Yes. So it's more logical to blame the PS3 itself for its shortcomings, right? Most likely. So here we have a game that breaks the convention -- it opposes the empirical evidence of Xbox 360 multiplat superiority. This is why I think the article's author attempts to (IMO, in very poor taste) find what this certain developer has done to come up with this unexpected result (though I'd have to say, it's expected as this game was ported late in development).

    so what most of games r l8t ported 2 ps3 n sum games looks better in ps3 than xbox -__-" lol actualy u know sum creators tried 2 make the kz2 engine with modificarions 2 make it run in xbox 360 2 prove that 360 can with ps3 graphics actualy all they have is a 576p resolution with 75% of detail n o yea they didnt continue cuz the engine is so heavy that it would use almos 1 xbox360 disc 2 locate it.

  • Godhather08 #263 2 years ago

    Richard Leadbetter is now poven to be a moron.

    <a href="http://www.games onsmash.com/?p=15375
    ">http://www.games onsmash.com/?p=15375
    </a>

    Digital Foundry has lost all it's credibility.


    "Ever since the announcement at the E3 2008 Microsoft Press Conference by Square Enix's CEO Yoichi Wada of the former PlayStation 3 exclusive coming to Xbox 360, Richard Leadbetter of Eurogamer's Digital Foundry has been hell bent on proving that not only would the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII replicate the PS3 version but actually exceed it as well by using the Japanese PS3 exclusive demo (only available with the Japanese Blu Ray version of Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Limited Edition). He proceeded to give "examples" of how the game would be better on Xbox 360."
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/10 @ 08:17

  • Retroid #264 2 years ago

    Games journos and developers don't seem to think so.

  • Godhather08 #265 2 years ago

    Retroid, yeah, not before, but now they will, now that we understand how biased Richard Leadbetter is.

  • Praetorianer #266 2 years ago

    Ouch. Tough blow by gamesonsmash

  • EmiliasHorse #267 2 years ago

    You just cannot fit 32GB into 20GB of available disc space without losing something. Was there an option to use an extra two discs? 5 discs may sound crazy but why not?

    Cost. Oh well

  • Retroid #268 2 years ago

    That article was horrible.

    Because of course several paragraphs talking about different methods of encoding & different codecs which would've improved the video was, and I quote :

    "Basically he's hating on the Blu Ray. C'mon dude. Lavish CG sequences in Full HD 1080p is what the Blu Ray is made for in addition to providing developers with the canvas they need to make their game design and expansive vision a reality."

    Or: he was talking about how to get better quality, probably higher-resolution video encodes which would still fit in the space available. Something I've fiddled with myself in apps like VirtualDub.

  • Progguitarist #269 2 years ago

    I don't think Richard's articles are biased, nor do I think he is he a fanboy but damn, when he was editor of the Official Saturn Mag the guy was a frothing anti Sony nutbar in most of his articles.

  • Praetorianer #270 2 years ago

    Yes, obviously. But I think he has a point there...it's pretty clear that Mr. Leadbetter is better at pointing out the strengths of the XBox 360 than the powers of the PS3.

    I am not a fanboy of any console/system at all, me and my brother own pretty much every system made since the NES, except for the rare (Virtual Boy) or overexpensive stuff (Neo-Geo), so I don't understand the whole point of this discussion. Obviously, the conversion of FFXIII is not as good as it possibly could have been, agreed. But, on the other hand, who doubts that the PS3 is the most powerful system out there? If a developer is able to fully utilise every single amount of power on both consoles , there is no doubt, that the PS3 will be able to reach regions, where the XBox360 just won't be able to go, period. That's nothing to debate about...it's fact.

    So, all this fanboism about which console is (in theory) more powerful is redundant...it's the PS3. Whether or not a developer is able to make good use of the abilities each console has, how many percent of them he is able to use (and, that's a fact, too - it's easier to program for the 360), has no influence on the maximum capabilities of either the PS3 or 360.

    But that's what fanboism is all about, no? Blank out the facts, rely mostly/solely on irrationality. It could be debated if Leadbetter is a fanboy himself, and I think it's possible to see that in his DF articles, but that's not what should be discussed here. The point is:

    - FFXIII on PS3 looks way better than on XBox360
    - The conversion could have been done better
    - The PS3 is more powerful than the 360
    - everything else can be related to fanboism/bias

  • des #271 2 years ago

    Sony fanboys having internet meltdowns,what a surprise!...lolz

  • RobotRocker #272 2 years ago

    That gamesonsmash article seems like it was penned by a petulant Sony fanboy screaming about how DF wont slam the 360 enough.

    Plus, Mikami was not involved in Bayonetta at all, he was/is working on Vanquish with another internal Platinum team. Kamiya made the call for to go 360 only internally and Sega utilised an external team to port it to the PS3. So it also fails at basic research since he could have opened Wikipedia at any time and figured that out. The use of pigin Japanese and screaming about not having a dual language mode also reeks of entitled anime fanboy too.

    tl;dr version. Whole lot of noise, very little substance.

  • Retroid #273 2 years ago

    Praetorianer: "So, all this fanboism about which console is (in theory) more powerful is redundant...it's the PS3. Whether or not a developer is able to make good use of the abilities each console has, how many percent of them he is able to use (and, that's a fact, too - it's easier to program for the 360), has no influence on the maximum capabilities of either the PS3 or 360.

    - FFXIII on PS3 looks way better than on XBox360
    - The conversion could have been done better
    - The PS3 is more powerful than the 360
    - everything else can be related to fanboism/bias"

    Well, quite.

  • EmiliasHorse #274 2 years ago

    The PS3 has power like you wouldn't believe, it oozes the stuff and you can get quite wet just imagining the awesomeness.

    Or

    You cannot squeeze 32GB of data into 20GB without loss. Stop harping on about power and ageing tech, both are well out of date in 2010 but neither company feels the need to replace for a while.

  • RobotRocker #275 2 years ago

    when he was editor of the Official Saturn Mag the guy was a frothing anti Sony nutbar in most of his articles.

    Most of that was done for fun and to appeal to an audience. Plus, the average reader age was young teenagers so they tended to get a kick out of it too. It was one of the tricks they used to get people to keep buying every month and looking back at it, it tended to border on parody an awful lot. Granted, a lot of those old mags have a lot to answer for regarding encouraging the cult of fanboyism but there never was really any malicious intent in them.

    Most of Future's Staff working on official or single platform titles did articles and reviews for their multi-platform titles like C&VG, Edge and Arcade including Playstation and N64 games and I am pretty sure Rich was a contributor as well so I doubt he has a major bias in the first place too.

  • Ravage27 #276 2 years ago

    @Godhather08
    that was totally uncalled for. But in any case, for the sake of consistency, are you guys going to do these 'what-if' thingy for every single comparison from now on? It's only fair to point out the developer's error when they mishandle ps3 ports, we do appreciate knowing what multiplats should have done to look like UC2 or GOW3.

  • GreyBeard #277 2 years ago

    That gamesonsmash (or whatever) article was embarrassing.

    There are real issues of tone and consistency of treatment based on platform in the DF articles, but they are subtle by and large and in most cases arguably inadvertent. Acting like Richard is conducting some sort of vendetta is plain idiotic.

    The problem is that the "slant", "reviewers tilt", or whatever (its ALWAYS going to be there when a human is writing stuff, because we all carry a certain amount of opinion "baggage";), is lopsidedly in favour of the 360, which is fine if you are a 360 fan but less useful if you prefer PS3.

    So, what's wrong with the FFXIII face-off?

    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    However, it is one of the rare cases where despite the facts coming down decisively in favour of the PS3 build as being the "superior" one (whatever that means), Richard goes out of his way to say that the 360 version is still worth a punt.

    This is a courtesy even more rarely extended to PS3 conversions -closer qualitatively speaking to the 360 version- which tend to get fobbed off with a blunt, "360 version is better". Or in the case of Bayonetta encouragement to buy the 360 version even if the PS3 build isn't totally broken because: "once you've been spoiled with the superior version, you can never go back."

    Common sense dictates you can't do this without rubbing people up the wrong way!

  • RobotRocker #278 2 years ago

    Common sense dictates you can't do this without rubbing people up the wrong way!

    The biggest troll you can pull is the truth.

  • GamerG #279 2 years ago

    WHat the PS3 version wins and the SDF still have meltdowns??

    Mentalists the lot of them

  • GreyBeard #280 2 years ago

    I think its more to do with it being "the exception that proves the rule". :p

  • Godhather08 #281 2 years ago

    Uk and US media give the PS3 a much harder time than elsewhere in the world, it's just something about putting down the PS3 for some reason. Why is it this way? It's not even close to being like this in the rest of europe, they don't have this "agenda" that US and UK media have.

    Edit 2:

    @SHARXTREME below.
    Thanks for the answer, that actually makes sense.



    Edit;

    @Ravage27

    Why, it shines through that Richard does everything in his power to make the xbox version sound as good as possible and balming the developer for all the faults. When did he blame the developer when a PS3 game was inferior? Everyhing he writes just drips of 360 favoritism.
    Edited by 3 at 07/03/10 @ 19:00

  • Godhather08 #282 2 years ago

    I believe DF has double standards, 'cause:
    DF --> Bayonetta --> PS3 can't handle it.
    DF --> FFXIII --> Bad programing from SE.

    Edit:
    In short Digital Foundry's case is that Final Fantasy XIII is inferior on Xbox 360 because of Square Enix and not the hardware. However Bayonetta is superior on Xbox 360 not because of PlatinumGames but the "superiority" of the hardware.

    Isn't it what they're saying?
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/10 @ 19:12

  • Retroid #283 2 years ago

    Godhather08: "In short Digital Foundry's case is that Final Fantasy XIII is inferior on Xbox 360 because of Square Enix and not the hardware. However Bayonetta is superior on Xbox 360 not because of PlatinumGames but the "superiority" of the hardware.

    Isn't it what they're saying?"

    No, infact the article says:

    "The crux of the matter is that the PlatinumGames team has created a game engine that targets all the things that the Xbox 360 architecture does well, to the point where it's almost as if the core development was on similar lines to a first-party exclusive. Indeed, Bayonetta is technically more ambitious than many of Microsoft's own titles this year.

    ...

    it's the sort of thing that you shouldn't really be making central to the game experience in a multi-platform release, because the PS3 hardware just doesn't compete in this regard. Short of completely rewriting the game in the way that Tecmo did for the PS3 rendition of Ninja Gaiden 2, Bayonetta is always going to have problems."

    In other words: the engine was designed with the 360's strengths in mind with little thought to how the PS3 can do pretty much the same things but they have to be done differently. It doesn't say they're not possible. Infact, it references the Ninja Gaiden 2 conversion and (IIRC) mentions that *THAT* was the best way to convert a platform-specific engine - like NG2's and Bayonetta's.

  • Retroid #284 2 years ago

    The NPDs are far from perfect (the 360 and PS3 are far closer in Europe than in the US for example) but sales figures are hard to get for Europe and NPDs are generally accepted as pretty good - for the US market.

    Must say I've never seen them used to represent anything other than US sales, though.

    The Japanese sales figures are also readily available but their games and console markets have turned out so differently to the western markets that it's difficult to infer anything from them - apart from that Densha Da Go DS should sell far better over here and the PSP should be selling much better than it (currently, sadly) is in the EU and US.

  • Jazzy_Geoff #285 2 years ago

    Retroid: you must be pretty stuffed now after all those bites.

  • TRUTH #286 2 years ago

    Read Edge review for this game - a lot of reviews haven't really praised it as a great game!

    http://ww w.edge-online.com/magazine/revi...

  • RobotRocker #287 2 years ago

    Imagine if Amiga Power or Digitiser was still around in some form, fanboy heads would implode since those two used the entire length and breadth of the score system. Final Fantasy getting 56% or something would probably cause the end of the world or at least some suicides.

  • TRUTH #288 2 years ago

    Quiet a few have reviews have not really taken it as great FF game; just a good to average game (story is weak, very liner, repetition esp to level up, graphics while very nice are infact very liner and static also mainly backgrounds )...after playing the beautiful looking but also interactive and much more open Mass Effect 2, the freedom and adventure of worlds of Fallout 3 & Oblivion, and even Borderlands; FF has been let me down for me after reading several reviews which made me cancel my pre-order...I hate personally the idea of lifeless static and liner backgrounds - to me this is more of a step back by Square Enix' especially after Mass Effect 2, Fallout, Oblivion, and even Demon's Souls - FF XIII is to much on production making the FMV look beautiful, but killing the the gameplay with a near non open world adventure with very static environments that look beautiful but are just backgrounds that are there to look nice, nothing more!

    Also the thought if 60hrs with 25hrs spent on a liner path to level up, plus the several hours of to much nonsense FMV about the usual crap that doesn't relate to the main story, and a not so great story - is another reason FF XII is losing it's must have appeal.

    I think the next rpg to really to excite me is End of Eternity (aka Resonance of Fate) which has been getting rave reviews with it's gameplay (PS3 and I think it's coming to 360)...also Fallout Vegas, Protocol Alpha, Deus Ex (I hope Square Enix don't f**k this up with FMV domination!)...These games seem to donig more for Rpg then the now over fat FF franchise!
    Edited by 2 at 07/03/10 @ 22:24

  • Godz_Mercenary #289 2 years ago

    You know it really is only a video game. Nothing more, nothing less. Chill peeps. Just buy it and play it. Forget silly stuff that there's one less tree or half a shadow missing in one version or something and you will find inner peace my friends.

  • madmax2069 #290 2 years ago

    A bit dated but a good read.
    http://ww w.overclock.net/video-games-gen...

    I own a 360 but i am not a fanboy. the PS3 is a nice peice of kit, but it didn't offer what i wanted to play, and since all of my friends own a 360 there was no way i could play with them online if i got a PS3.

    Both consoles have have had their fare share of bad ports. it seems to me that some devs need to get with the program when they design a game thats going to be multi platform. some are ment to be exclusive later turn into a multi platform, when that happens they need to do something like SE did with the engine for the 360's port, but not slap it together and rush it out the door.

    Most fanboys to me are idiots because they think that opinion is facts. They cant see past their fanboyish ways nor do any sort of research. but not all fanboys are this way.

    This article was a good read and was informative about the game.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 03:02

  • Goodfella #291 2 years ago

    Oh boy, I wish well known raving 360 fanboy farticusmaximus would pop into this comments section to see a priceless quote I just found from himself. [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/art icles/final-fantasy-xiii-how-will-it-work-on-360-article
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/final-...[/link]

    As expected, the PS3 version of a multiformat game will be the worse looking version, nothing new or unexpected there.

    lolz

  • funkateer #292 2 years ago

    I think there's not that much wrong with this article per se. He's obviously disappointed with the 360 version, and why shouldn't he be?

    However, it's interesting to see how this article compares to his earlier highly speculative "Final Fantasy XIII: How Will It Work on 360?" article: [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/art icles/final-fantasy-xiii-how-will-it-work-on-360-article
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/final-...[/link]

    Some interesting quotes from that article:
    "Realistically we expect the 360 version to match the 720p and 2x multisampling anti-aliasing of the PS3 game, but at a cost – the HDR lighting in the PS3 game will most likely be pared down from high range to medium range dynamic rendering.
    (...)
    In the case of Final Fantasy XIII, the drop down to MDR simply makes more sense as opposed to savagely cutting down resolution or anti-aliasing. "
    Just speculating here, but it seems like Square Enix chose the alternative of savagely cutting down resolution? That makes sense because changing lighting from HDR to MDR is not as straightforward as it sounds without drastically changing the look.

    (about the difficulties in porting those GBs of 1080p videos to the 360)
    "Our guess? Such scenes will indeed be real-time on Xbox 360, saving gigabytes of data over the PS3 version with only minimal amounts of difference in the quality of the visuals."
    As I commented on that article earlier, this was *really* a silly speculation, hinting that the 360 won't break a sweat rendering all that stuff in real time.

    It would have been interesting if Richard Leadbetter would have stacked up that highly speculative article with the real outcome in this face-off.

    My take on the 360 version is that it was a port of a game that obviously had the PS3 in mind with all that 1080p FMV. While some things turned out worse than they could have been, cut-backs in quality was to be expected.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 08:52

  • Godhather08 #293 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    Well, I understand what you're saying.

    I think it's still not hard to see where Richard stands, he obviously favors the xbox, and it shines through in his articles.

    The Bayonetta article focuses on finding all the faults of the PS3 version and rubbing them inn.
    The FFXIII article focuses on defending the xbox and excusing an inferior game blaming the devs.

    Double standards anyway you look at it.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 10:58

  • Retroid #294 2 years ago

    I don't think he was 'rubbing it in' about the failure of the Bayonetta port in keeping parity, it was disapointment in their (Sega's) effort and giving some reasons why it was in the state it was in by pointing out that Platinum seemed to have coded it for the 360's strengths without much regard about how it was going to have to be reworked for different hardware.

    If you want to read something biased, look at the article you linked to on the previous page talking about the FFXIII face-off: paragraphs discussing better ways they could've encoded the video cutscenes were described as "hating on Blu Ray".

  • Zoink #295 2 years ago

    So, in conclusion, C64 is better than Spectrum, right?

  • Retroid #296 2 years ago

    Awww, SHARXTREME didn't have a floppy drive :)

    /Loads games in 9 seconds using Turbo cartidge

    edit: I can only presume the downvotes were from jealous C2N tapedeck users ;)
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/10 @ 01:47

  • Retroid #297 2 years ago

    Anyway. The important thing is that C64 & Spectrum owners could always unite in their hatred of the Amstrad CPC.

  • SilverFurore #298 2 years ago

    Read the article, then the comments and have to say it was good for a laugh. Please tell me that half of you were posting from work or whatever as this seems like a second home to some people and if you have a nextgen console and it really is as good as you're bitchin' it is, surely you would be getting entertained by it rather than seeming to need to justify your choice as the 'best console' so religously.

    Me, I own both and they both have their advantages/disadvantages. The PS3 has better exclusives (apart from RPGs which happens to be my favourite genre), supports better quality sound and can do a ton of other things non-game related, even if most I prefer to use a standalone device for. The 360 has more games (even if it has considerably more crappy filler titles), supports wireless N if you can be bothered paying for a dongle (wired connections are better anyway :p) and the controllers have better triggers that offer some resistance (I actually preferred the second shoulder buttons of the PSX/PS2 to the PS3 triggers in terms of how the controller felt).

    One thing I've noticed with both my lovely consoles is that they both tend to do certain things better than eachother. These articles that were mentioned in the comments seem to have a bit of insight behind them. There wasn't that much bias shown at all and considering they, just like every article were written by real people and not completely impartial machines, you should expect a little bias. Considering the writer's article supported the end result the people dissing his article would have wanted anyway, going on about it just makes you look obsessive.

    For the record, the SNES and Genesis are tied for greatest console to me and the gamecube controller was the greatest controller ever made as far as I'm concerned, so I figure I'm probably more impartial than people who only have either the PS3 or 360 and feel inclined to worship it as if it was the greatest thing since toasted cheese.

  • spookyzombie #299 2 years ago

    Does ecureuil win the prize for the most minus points ever on EG?

  • TyonLegend #300 2 years ago

    To celebrate the release of Final Fantasy XIII outside Japan, I have written a post in my blog about my all-time top 5 Final Fantasy games! Check it out at http://tyonlegend.blo gspot.com/ !!!

  • 43n1m4 #301 2 years ago

    I'll get it tomorrow for my Xbox360 (for the record I don't have a PS3) - if anything, this article and the reviews I've seen has convinced me the differences between the versions are so small, it's not really worth mentioning. Its still the same game, and the performance of the Xbox360 version seems to be great. All in all, if not exactly a perfect port, good enough to sell.
    I'll probably be more disappointed with the story, and the typical JRPG clichés - but I'm curious about how the game looks, if you don't hunt the pixels in a side-by-side comparison, and then I'll see if the game is worth finishing.

  • Badassbab #302 2 years ago

    Progguitarist Post 306-

    I remember the days of Richard Leadbetter as the editor of the Official Sega Saturn Magazine. It was so biased and fanboyish when I look back on it, it makes me chuckle. However I think that was his job to be like that and every other official console magazines were no different. They were the days of Sega and Nintendo and Sony were the new comers. Games were still seen as childish and you had to be a teenage fanboy back then.

  • womble #303 2 years ago

    Richard on twitter:

    "God of War IIII featurette going up tomorrow. Believe the hype - the game is brilliant, the tech sets new standards for this console gen."

    Yeah, he would say that, that 360 fanboy.

    Oh, wait a minute...

  • smudgedhorizon #304 2 years ago

    In all honesty the tech stuff means less than nothing to me. I read it, but didn't so much understand it.

    Based on the videos themselves, I honestly couldn't see much difference; I could tell they weren't quite identical, but I didn't think at any point 'oh, this one looks tons better' so really I'm pleased! Based on all the fuss being made I thought the 360 version was going to look like a bag of wank (if you excuse my french) but to me, it looks beautiful on both consoles!

    I was intending to finally stump up the cash for a PS3 for this game (I'm a huge FF fan and have played them all except XI, dating right back to the Nintendo era) so the 360 version has also saved me a tidy sum, so all in all I'm a very happy gamer today!

  • 43n1m4 #305 2 years ago

    So I bought the game for the Xbox360, and it looks and runs great. This is no Bayonetta - just buy the game if you're into JRPG and FF games. Whether or not the game itself is great, is too early to tell.
    Edited by 1 at 09/03/10 @ 17:41

  • gandhimaster #306 2 years ago

    its very sad that we all cant just get along.

    PS3 version is better. Hands down. No Excuses.

    The 360 version is excellent too. But inferior.

    the end.

  • gtcarro #307 2 years ago

    Final Fantasy XIII is technically the most demanding multiplatform game released to date, and is a true gauge of the graphic potential of the platforms.

    Its a pitty that xbox360 doesn’t have enough power to run properly FFXIII.

    This game has the standards of a PS3 exclusive, and like you all know PS3 exclusives are the top of the tops in graphic quality.

    xbox360 version of FFXIII is a sub-HD game that only runs at 576p with a blury image.

    If you want to play the true HD version of FFXIII, you have to play on PS3 where the graphics of this game are way better and truly amazing, and all this with the best performance (see LoT more detailed analisys ).

  • Retroid #308 2 years ago

    I thought we'd ran out of trolls for a moment there.

  • costa_k #309 2 years ago

    A game that looks better on the PS3,unlike pretty much all the others that look better on the 360.And?Even if it was a half decent game,it still wouldn't be worth all the fuss.

  • Saxo #310 2 years ago

    To me it looks like a bad port. And sounds like Square have made a rotten job porting it. It even sounds like they were sorta lazy with the ps3 version. 32gb og CG ?? You can download 720p movies at a 2 hour lenght at 1.5-2gb without any noticable loss in quality. Yet a big company like Square cant be aresed to even try, Result poor cgi, theres absolutely no excuse, they should have made a better job.

    Now im kinda stuck, dont own a PS3 the xbox port is bad, and i theres a 1% chance it will come to pc (properly in a horrible port, all jrpgs to pc are ported horribly). Well could wait for the game to hit the bargian bin..

  • Retroid #311 2 years ago

    It's a dodgy port, yes.

    Just do yourself a favour and buy a PS3 - there's more than enough to justify it.

  • xgen007 #312 2 years ago

    I think the details in LensofTruth's article can put you to shame, Digital Foundry.
    [link url=http://www.lensof truth.com/?p=18555
    ]http://www.lensof truth.com/?p=18555
    [/link]

  • Retroid #313 2 years ago

    Yeah, it's pretty damning how they agree that the PS3 version is better and that it's a bad conversion.

  • Badassbab #314 2 years ago

    I think Funakateer is right to bring Richard Leadbetter to task for speculating too much. E.g saying Bayonetta was never going to work well on PS3 due to that game using all of the 360's strengths. It was badly optimised and rushed as well.

    Digital Foundry should try and get developers opinions as well though not just rely on them for obvious reasons.

  • Amerigame #315 2 years ago

    Thanks for writing Richard. I'm sure some folks find the dry stuff boring but I'm part of the contingent that likes knowing how things work in a game.

    I agree w/you on the principle of playing vs. watching. I find MGS4 and Heavy Rain repellent b/c they're movies w/bad acting and stories. The current generation of designers grew up more w/movies than games so their ideas are formed in a cinema matrix. The designers who replace them will make games that're the crude living worlds they've always had potential to be.

    JRPGs in general suck. I dug The Secret of Mana, Xenogrears, and Chrono Trigger but that's before I discovered Morrowind, Planescape: Torment, and Knights of the Old Republic. Western RPGs are better in every way: story, graphics, characterization, atmosphere, etc. Reverse engineering the character of someone who prefers such products, I infer JRPG fans like to grind their ways through sappy manga stories. I even like some manga and anime (like FLCL, Soul Eater, and Ghost in the Shell) but the stories and characters in JRPGs aren't up to par.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/10 @ 19:14

  • iammrfrank #316 2 years ago

    A simple "PS3 is better looking" would suffice.
    I'd say any true FF Fanboy probably has a PS3, NOT an 360 anyway..

  • jetli #317 2 years ago

    360wned

  • adamjnet #318 2 years ago

    These fanboy accusations are, to a first time reader, hysterical. If you've got a problem with it compared to what Richard has written in the past about these ports, go and complain in the other comment sections, as this article is fine.

    I own both consoles, therefore this article is very relevant to my interests. It tells me the PS3 version is superior and that I should buy it over the 360 version. However, it also adds that this is not necessarily the case with all ports from PS3 -> 360 as the inferiority is due to developers taking shortcuts. It then backs up this assertion with evidence, showing what the developer could have done to improve the port.

    In short, this article does everything it needs to do to meet it's targeted audience (ie me)'s needs. Thanks.

  • Final_Rush #319 2 years ago

    The differences are insubstantial and unimportant.

    And I'm tired of all this fanboy talk.

    PS3 this, 360 that. WHICH IS BETTER?

    Neither is better. They both have things they are individually superior at, but neither one is better than the other.

    You see gents, I am a GAMER, not a fanboy. Fanboys are tools. Idiots. They are good for nothing.

    Gamers appreciate what all systems have to offer. Except the N-Gage. Impossible to appreciate that. But if it makes you feel better to point out EVERY SINGLE TINY FLAW, be my guest. Just know that you're an idiot.

  • man.the.king #320 2 years ago

    @adamjnet

    "These fanboy accusations are, to a first time reader, hysterical."

    The key being the term "first time reader". It might be an idea for you to read up on older face-offs, where (in summary), according to Richard, in those face-offs, the 360 wins and the PS3 loses "because of their respective hardware", while here, the PS3 wins and the 360 loses "because of the developers".

  • seanthejackal #321 2 years ago

    this is what happens when a game is developed on another console first, its that simple. it doesn't prove 360 is better than PS3 or PS3 is better than 360...Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 prove that :D

  • Syrette #322 2 years ago

    You're such a fanboy, man.the.king. It's embarrassing to read, quite frankly.

  • Gradius #323 2 years ago

    I'm also a gamer and don't consider myself to be a fanboy, I judge a consoles worth by its games, using that logic, which ever console has the better games is the better gaming system. This strategy didn't used to be much use in the olden days when systems didn't all have the same games on them, but now it's pretty simple. The PS3 & 360 have a majority of the same games, generally these games are better on the 360, hence the 360 is (in general) the better gaming system at present, simple logic. Of course fanboys can argue over which exclusives they prefer but personally I love both systems exclusives so couldn't choose one or the other in that regard.

    Anyway, in this case FFXIII is superior on the PS3 so I bought it for the PS3, it now sits on the shelf next to the rest of my very small PS3 games library.
    Edited by 3 at 14/03/10 @ 19:51

  • man.the.king #324 2 years ago

    @foreverafternothing

    "You're such a fanboy, man.the.king. It's embarrassing to read, quite frankly."

    Yes, Ryo, I can see the impartial perspective you are speaking from.

    And don't be embarrassed for me.

    Worry about yourself :)

  • Hughes. #325 2 years ago

    Hmm, last Digital Foundry article I read on this game was written without Richard having laid eyes on 360 code, yet declaring it would almost certainly be superior to the PS3 version. This based on ludicrous fantasy talk of Squenix completely ignoring all of the CGI work they'd done and getting the 360 to re-render every cut-scene in real time.

    RL- "Our guess? Such scenes will indeed be real-time on Xbox 360, saving gigabytes of data over the PS3 version with only minimal amounts of difference in the quality of the visuals."

    Welcome to reality.

    Square released FFVII with massive PAL borders, FFXII with cut-scenes crammed in tiny boxes to save DVD space, which demonstrates how much they care about the market outside Japan. What space-cakes would you have to be eating to think they'd re-engineer every cut-scene for a Western-only release on a console that wasn't even the lead platform?

  • Clover4ever #326 2 years ago

    Playing through the 360 version right now and I'm experiencing some SERIOUS performance issues in the later chapters.

    PS3 version didn't run perfectly either during those parts as far as I can remember but this is far worse...

    I can't believe nobody reported this.


    Edited by 2 at 21/03/10 @ 22:09

  • pinebear #327 2 years ago

    Article got another mention on the GiantBomb podcast, this time on the 03/23/2010 one from 1:02:05 onwards, specifically at 1:02:48.

    "I know I've been harping on this technical breakdown that Eurogamer did, but I started playing the Xbox version before I ever saw that article and noticed some stuff about it. You know, the video looks terrible. The in-game stuff looks fine until you see the PS3 one, and [the PS3 version] just looks better in every way basically. It's smoother, it's sharper, better looking video. You guys have rented Pixar movies on blu-ray before, right? That's how the FMV looks on the PS3 version. On the 360 it's all compressed to hell.."

  • coolbritannia #328 2 years ago

    As a 360 owner, I'm glad the 5/10 FFXIII was the weaker game on 360, and not the 10/10 Bayonetta....then I'd have been pissed.

  • skyrend #329 2 years ago

    I'm late to the fray, but comparisons of this to Bayonetta is absolute crap. Bayonetta, a frantic action game mind you, runs at HALF or less framerates with markedly worse visuals. Not to mention the ridiculous loading problems that were present before Sony stepped in to help Sega's clueless bunch.

    And for the author, why don't we see these outcries for the devs who got lazy with their PS3 ports?

  • Dead_Deadlington #330 2 years ago

    Anyone else find it funny that when the 360 version of a game is found to be inferior in a Face-Off article, the writer blames the developers for not bringing it up to snuff, whereas when the PS3 version of a game is inferior the writer's language approaches it as if the PS3 has simply failed to make the game look as good as the 360 did? How is it that when the PS3 pulls ahead it's because of a developer fault, yet when the 360 pulls ahead it's because the PS3 has failed us all?

  • tooladd #331 1 year ago

    moncler coats are a good way to keep your fashion feeling alive.christian louboutin well known in the world, there are many designers, many design examples of new women demands.

  • orangpelupa #332 1 year ago

    test

  • orangpelupa #333 1 year ago

    eurogamer, your COMMENT system is error in firefox. i cant see any comment. Just blank...

  • ashraa #334 7 months ago

    I see that any efforts and work that give any kind of help and useful informations to people anywhere must be thanked and respected efforts , if it is small or big , from one person or group , your informations also must be thanked nlppropertiesreal estateproperty

  • ashraa #335 4 months ago

    Kissimmee Balloon Rides
    Hot air balloon rides are extraordinary adventures.
    We fly daily, year round weather permitting.
    nlp