Face-Off: Just Cause 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 7 April, 2010

Panau you know.

Page 1 of 3

A first generation game on Xbox 360, Avalanche Studios' 2006 vintage Just Cause exhibited impressive open world technology let down by somewhat repetitive gameplay. Fast forward three-and-a-half years and the sequel is with us, improved in all areas, bursting with "content" and simply joyous to play. On top of that, it's no longer console exclusive on Xbox 360. There's a PlayStation 3 rendition too, complete with its own unique features.

In the rush before GDC we had just enough time to take a quick look at the Xbox 360 and PS3 demos, but a longer, deeper look at the full retail versions of both games reveals a range of differences between the two versions, which we'll examine in greater depth in this piece. Lest we forget, there's also a PC version too, with Avalanche keen to show that they're taking the platform seriously with an implementation of the new Just Cause engine that scales impressively to accommodate base-level gaming rigs all the way up to i7-powered multi-GPU monstrosities.

First things first: it's time to wheel out the usual range of comparison assets. That would be a very nice triple-format comparison gallery (with PC version on max settings, naturally), along with a series of head-to-head vids. Here's the first, featuring Xbox 360 up against the PlayStation 3. Note that there may be small lighting and cloud-cover variations owing to the time-of-day system the game employs.

Just Cause 2: Xbox 360 up against PlayStation 3. The video's as good a start as any in highlighting the differences. Use the full screen button for full HD, or use the EGTV link for a larger window.

These comparison videos along rarely throw up much in the way of easily noticeable differences, but right away here you can see that the Xbox 360 version of the game tears while the PS3 rendition doesn't. However, its frame-rate is clearly lower in some cases. And what's with that missing TV in one of the cut-scenes? A very minor bug I assume.

Other more easily apparent differences come down to installation and loading. Just Cause 2 on PS3 has a mandatory 1.1GB hard disk install, while the optional NXE install on Xbox 360 weighs in at a reasonably lightweight 4.1GB. By way of comparison, a full-on Steam install on PC is a similarly slight 4.8GB. Loading times on PS3 are clearly faster than the standard 360 game (not that loading itself is much of an issue per se), with the NXE install more than evening the odds.

There appears to be little in the way of improvement in terms of pop-in should you install the game though. Avalanche's streaming system works pretty well on both consoles and the only time it seems to make any kind of impact is in the cut-scenes where dramatic camera angles and quick-cuts can see some draw-in. In these situations, the standard 360 version appears swifter, but perhaps not surprisingly the PC version blitzes both. It's an interesting comparison, but not hugely relevant to the gameplay where the strength of the engine is in maintaining a coherent game world with huge draw distances: something it achieves with distinction on all versions.

Performance then, and time to update some of the observations from our quick look at the demo. Not much has changed about our thoughts on the Xbox 360 version of the game. It still looks very much like it's a standard double-buffered set-up, capped at 30FPS throughout, with tearing being introduced when frame-rate dips. In the demo piece we said that the frame-rate on the PlayStation 3 version of Just Cause 2 is unlocked. Now we're not quite so sure as the performance is almost always very close to 30FPS, just with the odd "bonus" frame or two increasing the average - almost as if some kind of custom frame-buffering system were in use.

Here's the analysis on a range of clips taken from the same areas within the game. Xbox 360 runs smoother but can tear noticeably and distractingly, whereas PS3 has more performance issues but absolutely no noticeable tearing whatsoever.

Performance analysis reveals that both Xbox 360 and PS3 versions have their own unique strengths and weaknesses

It's interesting to note that the PS3 version does lose frames badly during the cut-scenes. Quite why the performance is so low is a bit of a mystery - perhaps it's down to some kind of lighting effect or skin shader that proves to be particularly onerous for the RSX to handle? It is important to point out that the performance differential in the cut-scenes is in no way representative of the gameplay experience, and that's fairly obvious bearing in mind the rest of the clips.

There's also something rather strange about the PS3 renderer for Just Cause 2 that we can't quite get our heads around which does have an impact on overall image quality. The Xbox 360 version has a camera-based motion blur effect engaged by default, and similar to the PC rendition it can be disabled in the options menu. On PS3 there is no such option, suggesting no motion blur, but there is a strange artifact instead that does seem to be tied into motion.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (77) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • cozeny #1 2 years ago

    Can we get some DF Retro analyses? Perhaps a face-off between SNES and MD Aladdin to start off?

  • mcmonkeyplc #2 2 years ago

    I might actually get this on the PS3 WOW!

  • huckan #3 2 years ago

    @cozeny - completely different games, the MD was far superior! :D

  • absolutezero #4 2 years ago

    The PC version of Just Cause 2 has plenty of Achievements thank you very much. The game is bundled with Steamworks and has all the console trophies in place as Steam Achievements.

  • DrDamn #5 2 years ago

    If you are trying to make the decision yourself then download both demos and have a play around. I found I didn't notice the blur difference on the PS3 or in fact very much tearing on the 360. The key difference for me came down to controls and the video capture. The sticks on the 360 I prefer for precision aim, though this is mitigated by the very generous auto aim. On the PS3 I preferred setting fire/grenade on L1 and R1 and grapple on R2 to the 360 pad options as I don't want to use the LB/RB buttons as frequently as necessary in this game - a more configurable control set-up would have helped.

    So with evened out control and video the clincher was the video capture - nice to see it incorporated in a big title.

  • NickDude #6 2 years ago

    I have Just Cause 2 for the PS3, and its a lot of fun. Getting a helicopter with miniguns and rockets and shootin' shizzle up is a lot of fun, and the grappling hook is awesome.

  • Murton #7 2 years ago

    "perhaps it's down to some kind of lighting effect or skin shader that proves to be particularly onerous for the RSX to handle?"

    This question gets asked all the time in these comments threads so on the off chance that someone could pass this to Rich for an answer. Why is it when the PS3 "loses" it's blamed on the hardware but when the roles are reversed it's purely the developers fault? (see Final Fantasy face off) I'm not saying that there's an overt bias, but this pattern emerged quite some time ago and is continuing, just curious.

    On the topic of Just Cause, not got it yet but I'll be grabbing the PS3 version rather than the PC one. No particular reason, I just prefer my PS3 setup over my PC so that's what I buy most of my games for when the option is presented, unless of course the PC has some sort of exclusive "must have" feature that I want.

  • TheHammerite #8 2 years ago

    God these articles are boring

  • neems #9 2 years ago

    Well the pc version is moddable, and it makes quite a difference, particularly if you're going to concentrate on the 'running around being an idiot' aspect of the game (which is its best part).

    Even if you just use the aforementioned BOLOpatch, this can give you multiple grapples that are unbreakable - essential for those all important 'tying buses to airliners' moments.

  • Miths #10 2 years ago

    I've clocked in around 35 hours on the PS3 version and outside of cut scenes, visible framerate issues have been very rare.

    Oddly enough cut scenes were also where I had the biggest performance issues when I tried the PC demo. During that indoor scene where you meet Bolo, FRAPS showed my framerate being a massive ~50% lower than most of the time during actual gameplay. That percentage was pretty much the same both when I initially tried the game maxed out (didn't go well at all on my quad core PC with 8 GB RAM and a Geforce GTX 260 core 192, with framerates often in the mid twenties or lower) as well as when I finally found some suitable compromises (turning of the CUDA water effects giving the biggest boost if I recall correctly) and managed around 45-70+ fps during gameplay - yet still barely hitting 30 fps during that cut scene.
    Perhaps the cut scenes were completed before final optimizations of the engine? Although that obviously doesn't explain why I've been having the same issues on two platforms, while they supposedly run smoothly on the 360.

    As a side note, I don't know if it's directly related to the distance I'm sitting to the screen, but in most PC games - this one (the demo) included - I really need a framerate of at least around 40 for my eyes to perceive it as smooth, while I rarely have any problems with console games running at only a steady 30 fps (once they start dipping into the mid 20s it's usually another matter though).

  • Rubarack #11 2 years ago

    It's somewhat generous to congratulate the developers on the scalability of the game when it needs Win7, an enthusiast level GPU, 4 gigs of RAM and a new dual core or Quad core to match the 360 version. Other developers may take their time, but at least they run well on hardware that's a couple of years old.

  • sfp_noodle #12 2 years ago

    ps3 version for me. played both versions at HMV and saw no difference, and my local HMV use massive 37 inch screens. the youtube feature is the selling point for me. i remember doing so much funny and cool shit in the original crackdown on 360 and wish i cud have saved the vids and shown them to other people. just cause 2 has made tht a reality at last :D

  • Halo.Jones #13 2 years ago

    I've clocked up nearly 63 hours and sitting at 53% completion on the PS3 version. As for it being blurry, I've not noticed it. Too busy having fun.

    Quite surprised that there was no mention of the rotating trees when you look down on them when you fly over them, do they rotate on the PC/360?

  • BootLace #14 2 years ago

    Why is it when the PS3 "loses" it's blamed on the hardware but when the roles are reversed it's purely the developers fault?
    I imagine it's because the X360 GPU is typically considered more powerful, so for anything GPU bound, you'd expect the 360 to at least match the PS3, anything less would be indicative of a poorer implementation (e.g. bad coding). As for the PS3 failing to match the 360 in a GPU bound case, then that would be expected, although could also just be a poor implementation.

  • cianchristopher #15 2 years ago

    This game murders my PC (Core2Quad, 4GB RAM, 1GB 4870)...

    Was getting 15-25fps at 1680x1050 with everything turned on to the max (I always start like this then drop things down til it's smooth) - I found that turning off AA altogether somewhat alleviated it, also turned Very High down to High (on whatever settings had that option) and turned off SSAO and some other stuff.

    It still only gets about 30fps, which is fine (and playable) but a bit weird for a console port... Especially when Resident Evil 5 gives non-stop 60fps with everything banged up to the max; as does CoD4, 5 & 6; Batman AA; DiRT 2; etc.

    Only this and GTA 4 seem to chug on the PC, even though they run quite well on console (albeit with a lower resolution, but on a machine with half the power (or even less))... Must be the open-world aspect, I guess...

  • el_pollo_diablo #16 2 years ago

    I don't get why people feel the need to comment about how DF articles are either boring, or pointless, or both. Just don't read them, or at least don't comment. It's just rude to the person who spent time and effort capping the video and writing it up.

  • el_pollo_diablo #17 2 years ago

    Can anyone tell me if this works on an imported PS3? The demo had X / O button issues.

  • dr_shambles #18 2 years ago

    Don't understand the flak these columns get. They're cool. Please keep running them.

  • tiny_Eggy #19 2 years ago

    The best thing about the PC version: it takes less than 15 seconds from running the executable to being ingame. Compare that to another open world/sandbox game like GTA 4 (which takes up to a minute and a half) you can consider it quite an achievement. Things do look kinda ugly op close though, there are very few high res textures which might explain the loading tme.

  • youhavenomail #20 2 years ago

    "Objectively it's a tie. Subjectively, in my own time post Face-Off, I've found myself playing the game more intensely on PS3..."

    Spoken like a true 360 fa... oh.

    Keep up the good work, PS3 fanboys, he's turning!

  • jaywalker3010 Verified Mastering Manager, Square Enix #21 2 years ago

    @ #19

    This was fixed in a titleupdate on PS3

  • Murton #22 2 years ago

    "I imagine it's because the X360 GPU is typically considered more powerful, so for anything GPU bound, you'd expect the 360 to at least match the PS3, anything less would be indicative of a poorer implementation (e.g. bad coding). As for the PS3 failing to match the 360 in a GPU bound case, then that would be expected, although could also just be a poor implementation."

    Maybe, but implementation is all that's mentioned when the 360 fails to match and never mentioned when the PS3 fails to match. I just find the pattern of blame interesting.

  • MrWonderstuff #23 2 years ago

    I did a side by side comparison on my PS3 and 360 and 360 looks a whole lot better in terms of texture resolution and generally looks sharper. If you had both systems I'd plump for the 360 if graphics were your thing. No fanboy just saying how it is.

  • el_pollo_diablo #24 2 years ago

    @jaywalker3010

    Really? Hooray! I take it that's in the most recent update (the linux killing one)? Is that right?

    edit: thanks, by the way :)
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/10 @ 12:45

  • tiny_Eggy #25 2 years ago

    @ Bloodkult : you sure that is high? Water looks much better on my PC.

    [link url=http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=justcause2_g ame2010-04geyg.jpg
    ]http://ww w.abload.de/image.php?img=justc...[/link]

    Btw. do you use GPU acceleration for water?
    Edited by 2 at 07/04/10 @ 12:49

  • djed #26 2 years ago

    The PC version does not support Windows XP.

  • Luckyjim #27 2 years ago

    As far as the article's concerned, I'm less interested in which version is marginally better than the other but more interested in the techniques game designers and programmers cleverly utilise to get the most out of each console. It's just a nice reminder of how difficult and clever a profession it is.

  • Retro_ #28 2 years ago

    Nice to see Avalanche making a decent effort with this great game. I've got the PS3 version and it looks just great.

    With regards to the PS3's RSX, don't forget the 'jaw dropping' games on PS3 are likely to have had an SPU or two recruited to help out in the post processing effects department. I now wonder if Sony regret killing off one of the SPU's when the Initial PS3 spec was drawn up, the extra power would make quite a difference now.
    Edited by 2 at 07/04/10 @ 13:05

  • PearOfAnguish #29 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher
    Try disabling vsync, makes a big difference.

  • jaywalker3010 Verified Mastering Manager, Square Enix #30 2 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo was actually a ps3 update to the game itself.. Version 01.01.. Went live on day of release in US and day before in EU.. Asian territories would usually get US code so as long as you are connected to PSN when launching the game you will get it

  • apoc_reg #31 2 years ago

    "There are no Achievements either"

    Wrong, PC version has steam achievements and steam cloud saving. Surely you should be mentioning that?

    With an xbox pad on a 46" tv CUDA on the PC version is way out ahead... a bit like Messi!!

  • tiny_Eggy #32 2 years ago

    Now that you mention it yeah might be the cloudy weather. And I take CUDA is the GPU acceleration for the water.

    With GPU water simulation.

    [link url=http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=justcause2_g ame2010-043gad.jpg
    ]http://ww w.abload.de/image.php?img=justc...[/link]

    Without GPU water simulation.

    [link url=http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=justcause2_g ame2010-04oh2v.jpg
    ]http://ww w.abload.de/image.php?img=justc...[/link]

    Guess it's cuda that makes the difference. I get about 20 FPS less when using it though. Fairly stable 60 fps without, 40 fps with.
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/10 @ 13:05

  • Collymilad #33 2 years ago

    @retrend

    DON'T READ IT THEN.

  • Luckyjim #34 2 years ago

    @ Collymilad

    Retrend's just a troll. His comments all seem to be loaded and unsupported statements of a negative nature.

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #35 2 years ago

    I got the PS3 version for the YouTube upload option..

    This is my game of the year so far... 38 hours in and only 25% complete.

    I have visited all 368 locations and now in the process of destroying the lot!

    Would like to see what the modding community do with the PC version.

  • Beano #36 2 years ago

    Guess it will be the PS3 version for me then... but only when the game is available in the bargain bin ;)

  • Miths #37 2 years ago

    I just tried the PC demo again. Core 2 Quad Q9400, 8 GB RAM, Geforce GTX 260 (core 192). Just upgraded to the latest official Nvidia drivers today (that Mass Effect 2 anti-aliasing override was worth the hassle, otherwise I tend to be a bit slow on the trigger with driver upgrades).

    1920x1200, 2xAA, 8xAF, all settings on/maxed, v-sync off.
    Moving around in the small settlement with water access in the corner of the demo area, FRAPS shows around 18-26 fps depending on in which direction I'm looking and whether I'm moving.

    Same area, same graphics settings except enhanced water (CUDA) turned off. ~26-34 fps (though still not feeling nearly as smooth as the console version - but as mentioned in my last post, I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that I'm sitting a lot closer to my PC monitor than my HDTV?).

    I didn't try combat this time around, but based on my previous experiences with the demo, I would expect framerates to drop below 20 when there's a lot going on.

    Or in other words, I think I probably saved myself some headaches when I chose to get the PS3 version instead :).
    It seems like you need a seriously beefy system to run the PC version maxed at persistently acceptable framerates - and the last time I played the demo I spent almost as much time adjusting settings back and forth as I did actually playing, as there would be huge fps fluctuations depending on what was going on, so I always felt I could push the settings just a tad higher. Only to drop to unplayable framerates in heavy combat.

    Well, nevermind - it's a great game and a great looking game on any platform.

  • UncleLou #38 2 years ago

    Judging by the demo, I found the game to scale really, really well. Bit unfair to complain that it lacks optimization (as some posters seem to do) just because they give you lots of settings for the latest hardware as well. The game was unplayable on the highest settings for me, but ran smooth and looked terrific with a few of the overkill options toned down.

  • BlackSentoki #39 2 years ago

    Same here - I have an almost identical set up and it's silky smooth at all times, with 4xAA and 16xAF. Only difference is that I turned off SSAO.

  • Syrette #40 2 years ago

    If you find these articles boring or uninteresting, then why on earth are you reading them?

    Are you just, you know, stupid?

    Or do you get off on criticising others for putting in some work that a lot of people appreciate?

  • cianchristopher #41 2 years ago

    I'll see about disabling vsync, see if that makes a difference...

    I'd like to have at least 2xAA runnung, as no AA at all is a (tiny bit) jagged...

    Hopefully, there's a way of syncing it in ATI CCC, so that the game doesn't tear with vsync off, cos I hate looking at tearing...

    I don't have any of the fancy "stuff" enabled, just high on textures, waters, shadows, etc. with 8xAnisotropic, and vsync on...

  • neems #42 2 years ago

    Iif you turn off CUDA, high res shadows, soft particles and SSAO it still pretty much looks the same, but will run twice as fast.

  • karooo #43 2 years ago

    One guy actually took retrend seriously here.

    Successful troll is Successful

  • Miths #44 2 years ago

    Yep, some of the settings do seem to have a very substantial impact on framerate. Last time I played the demo I was able to get a framerate that generally stayed above 40 (topping out at 70+ in some situations) - and I could have gotten it higher, but I already felt like I was having to settle for a few too many trade offs.

    Apparently some people are having an easier time running it than others though, even on PCs that are so more or less within the same performance range. Not sure what's going on with my system in the JC2 demo, as I generally feel it performs as I would expect in most games.

    That Bolo cut scene in the demo is also still a major framerate killer on my PC (compared to gameplay) - just as cut scenes on the PS3 - even though it's an indoor scene with seemingly relatively little in sight that could account for the low fps.

  • BigE0n #45 2 years ago

    Ok the bit I dont get is about the Video Capture not being viable on XBOX because LIVE is a closed system....


    If this is true how come in FIFA 09 you can take a replay and then get this uploaded onto the EA website for your profile
    The same is true for Gears of War 2 you could take a picture and upload that to the Gears Website (Theres even an acheivement for this!).
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/10 @ 14:36

  • GamesConnoisseur #46 2 years ago

    MS could consider allowing devs to add features that works to an extent on Halo3 via Bungie and as others said photos uploads.

    As for head to head, after a long battle, PS3 in the recent months had comes across far better in my view and now clearly have distinct advantages instead of being steamrolled for most of times.

    The advantages would probably be more spilt fairly from now on and downs to individual preferences. I got X360 version as most online buddies are on XBL and there is couple of mates I m competing against for the best thrills but have to say missed the youtube feature quite sorely.

    Tearings noted but not seen much so far, I m about 25 hours in.

  • tiny_Eggy #47 2 years ago

    Still think it isn't a particularly good looking game but it's more fun than I expected after playing the demo for half an hour. I'm not sure I would have bought it if it wasn't gifted to me though. A SP game should have a good story imo.

  • phAge #48 2 years ago

    "Subjectively, in my own time post Face-Off, I've found myself playing the game more intensely on PS3..."
    What? WHAT?!" But Leadbetter is teh 360 fanboi?!? WHAT IS THIS!?!

  • TheJuriel #49 2 years ago

    360 not having the video sharing (or even video recording) option, while PS3 does have the feature, was what unsold me on the game when I first heard of it.

  • Ranger101 #50 2 years ago

    "Objectively it's a tie. Subjectively, in my own time post Face-Off, I've found myself playing the game more intensely on PS3...


    FUCKDUDE THAT DIGITALFOUNDARY GUYS IS SUCH A MICRO$OFT FANBOY XBOT SEE HOW HE RATES THE XBOX3^) VERSION OVER THE PS£££ Versio...

    Oh wait.

  • Ranger101 #51 2 years ago

    @BIGEon - that's a closed system. EA and Epic have had to create their own proprietory code and servers to enable replays/screenshots. Same with Street Fighter 4.

    Youtube connectivity is probably a license that Microsoft would rather not pay, considering they have their own propietory Bing-related video service.

  • TRUTH #52 2 years ago

    I played this on XB360 (I thought the game is too simplistic and very repetitive)...Didn't really notice much-if any tearing in the game. I suppose a free patch will be released - as tearing was apparent on Darksiders (XB360), but was sorted after a DL patch.

    Great graphics - probably the best to display what this gen of consoles can do!...use this graphics engine to make a better game next time!
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/10 @ 18:05

  • IneptPercy #53 2 years ago

    The one thing I have noticed is the PC demo is that if I turn V-sync on it stays at 60fps and if it can't do it it drops to 30fps.. nothing inbetween

    Runs fine for me with everything set to the very top at 1080p on a 5850.

  • Philip45 #54 2 years ago

    I have both consoles, and usually i just go with the X360 version, because in most cases(say 90%), the 360 version vs PS3 is always the same output, were the 360 edges the PS3 version, mainly because of the PS3's use of quincunx, which just gives a moe blurry image quality.

    Having said that, because there was no top site like Eurogamer or Gamespot giving a h2h comparision, i opted to go with the PS3 version, mainly because of it's video capture..and the first part of the demo, looked a bit better on the PS3..which shocked me.

    I had a gut feeling the 360 version would get the edge in terms of crisper textures and overall IQ, so i did'nt open the PS3 version yet..thankfully. (so i'll return it for the 360 version)

    What has been constant in these H2H's, for open world games(ie..Fallout 3, GTA:IV and now JC2), the 360 version is almost a sure bet to have the better texture quality/longer draw distances/and crisper output.

    About the video capture mode..now that is a great feature, but i won't use it much..if at all, so i don't need it. I believe there will be a patch to implement this somehow on the 360 version, or at least for the 360 to have a feature simular to this. Because, if Sony can get this to be the norm, they will have an edge MS simply cannot compete with.

    To the guys at Eurogamer, thank you!, for you guys have been the first to post up a good comparision for JC2, that explains everything from graphics to tearing to features.

    Phil

  • prettyboytim #55 2 years ago

    Re: Video recording on the PS3:

    I'm a developer currently working on a PS3 title and as it happens I was reading the SDK docs on video capture recently. The current PS3 SDK has a video capture library and you've got various format and resolution options depending on how much memory and how many SPUs you can spare for it. None of the options match the kind of quality you'd get from a HD capture card but then you have to remember that all the encoding has to be done on-the-fly at the same time as simulating and rendering the rest of the game world.

    The nice thing is that it's actually really easy to add to a PS3 title, and the memory requirements aren't that onerous. It's a shame there aren't more games that make use of it; the only other one I know of is EyePet. I imagine there either isn't something equivalent in the XBOX SDK or it requires a bit too much power and/or memory for it to have been feasible for this title.

    On a related note, the current PS3 SDK also supports a screenshot mode from the XMB - you literally just have to bring up the XMB, navigate over to the picture menu and select 'Save Screenshot'. The problem is that the title has to have the option enabled in the code and I'm not sure many developers know about it. I recently enabled it on our game; it's about five lines of code and costs something like 12KB of memory to link in the screenshot library.

    As for the PS3 vs 360 version of JC2, like most crossplatform games I went for the PS3 version just because the console is a lot quieter when it's running... :p

  • Zappa #56 2 years ago

    PS3 version is where its at, just look at all the videos on youtube since it launched.

    @prettyboytim- yeah, lots of games use it already, in fact you can try it with the MLB Show demo.
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/10 @ 21:00

  • Philip45 #57 2 years ago

    prettyboytim:

    Since you have the PS3 SDK, do you have any knowedge of the X360's SDK, because i'm hearing a rumors that MS will annouce that Youtube will be available on the 360. in a major Fall 2010' update. (this may co-incide with the release of Halo:Reach)

    Also, you mentioned your PS3 runs quiter. Did you install JC2 or other games on your X360? Because after playing GTA:IV(i have both versions) on both the other week, there was no difference, in console-sound wise. The odd thing was that the PS3(slim 250 gig version) gets hotter then my X360(jasper chipset), which is the opposite of what was happening in 06' and 07'.

  • Erebu #58 2 years ago

    Screen Tearing? Bah doesn't matter, it's the XBox Version dammit, it wins by default!

  • Dizzy #59 2 years ago

    >because i'm hearing a rumors that MS will annouce that Youtube will be available on the 360

    Chance of that happening 1%. YouTube is Google. Nuff said.

    YouTube support is good for one or two clips and then never to be used again. Barely see the use of this in this kind of game. In an RTS or multiplayer game I can understand some kind of replay support (but *real* playback then) to figure our new tactics and check what went wrong. Ingame playback surely is the superior option.
    Edited by 2 at 07/04/10 @ 23:14

  • prettyboytim #60 2 years ago

    Sorry Philip45, I've never seen the XBox SDK.

    As for installing games onto the 360, I have done that with some games, but even without the DVD drive running the console makes a helluva racket.
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/10 @ 00:13

  • man.the.king #61 2 years ago

    @Ranger101

    "FUCKDUDE THAT DIGITALFOUNDARY GUYS IS SUCH A MICRO$OFT FANBOY XBOT SEE HOW HE RATES THE XBOX3^) VERSION OVER THE PS£££ Versio...
    Oh wait."

    Or, maybe this is a reaction to the allegations of partisanship?
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/10 @ 00:19

  • 3william56 #62 2 years ago

    And yea, so it was foretold, that the beginning of the end times would see the acolyte turning his face away from his false god, casting aside his prejudice, and raising his eyes to the light of the truth, the balance, and the way.

    Leadbetter in "prefers PS3 version" shockalypse. Hold on to the ground, sinners, the rapture's a-comin'.

  • technotica #63 2 years ago

    Hmm I get 90fps on average when CUDA is turned off, and 40 FPS average when its turned on... I am thinking about playing the game without GPU water... but with CUDA the water looks sooo good! :(

  • brod #64 2 years ago

    Why are the comparison screenshots displayed at 720p? Surely a more accurate comparison would be to show the console versions upscaled to 1080p, and the PC version rendered at 1080p.

    Viewing 720p screenshots in 1:1 on my 1080p capable monitor doesn't accurately highlight the difference between the PC and console versions.

  • Ravage27 #65 2 years ago

    'perhaps it's down to some kind of lighting effect or skin shader that proves to be particularly onerous for the RSX to handle?'

    Or maybe it was poor optimisation on the dev's part??? You know, like how you guys defended the shoddy 360 port of ff13?

    From what i've seen in UC2 and GOW3, the PS3 has NO problems rendering technically gorgeous CUTSCENES. Maybe the PS3 has something that helps out with graphical tasks? *hint* SPUs *hint*

    Put a stop to the double standards.

  • Zerobob #66 2 years ago

    After watching the X360 vs PC video is it just me or is there barely any difference between the two apart from the frame rate?....and even this is fairly marginal as far as I can see.

    However, watching the PS3 vs PC video the frame rate is extremely choppy on PS3 in comparison. This would drive me nuts, and as I'm convinced frame rate is directly linked to playability I definitely choose the X360 version over the PS3 version, video capture mode or not.

    To maybe give my argument a bit of tangibility, God of War on PS2, for example. It ran at 60fps for the majority of the time, although the game had fairly massive tearing in places. However, did I notice the tearing while beating the crap out of people and solving puzzles while taking in the gorgeous levels? No. No I didn't. Barely at all. However, at 30fps the lightning fast attacking would have felt horrible and choppy. It would have felt like a different game.

  • Miths #67 2 years ago

    @Zerobob

    I haven't checked out the video you mentioned, but through my 35+ hours with the PS3 version it's been smooth as butter (well, 30 fps butter :), supposedly similar to the 360 version) outside of cut scenes and rare gameplay cases where a ton of stuff is blowing up around you at the same time.

  • Philip45 #68 2 years ago


    Tab_Lloyd:

    First off, i have been pc gaming since the 8088 and 'home' pc gaming since the Timex 2K, and the cost of pc gaming always dwafed the console(s) cost. Heck i would pout over 1K each yr. into new GPU's and better ps's, and that's with every 2 years to custom make my own rigs, that did cost almost 2K in just the parts.(for the ultra-hidh end pc at the time)

    Second, you need to get your facts correct. If your looking for speeds of 3.6Ghz for your cpu, you need to overclock an I7 975 cpu..as you cannot do that with the I7 920, it's impossible.
    Also, if say an average 'joe' was to go buy an Alienware with that I7 975..overclocked to 3.6GHhz, with dual ATI 5870 GPU's..and a 875w PS, your looking at $4000.
    Even if i was to buy the parts to customize that pc rig, it would run me $3000..easily.

    But let's just say the average 'joe' buys that pc rig for $4000, of course frame rates will be hovering 5-6X the consoles, but your paying from 13X(Elite)-20X(core) the cost of say(for example) an Xbox 360.

    Even if custom built that pc rig, it would run me 10X more then an Elite, so i BETTER get 5-6X the frame rates as the Xbox 360.

    But forget frame rates, because the graphical difference is alot smaller, as sure you'll get higher texture qaulity and better rendering effects(w DX10/ DX11), but it's surely not worth the jump from $300 to $3000(custom built).

    Add in exclusives like Halo:Reach, Heavy Rain, Gears of War 3, God of War 3, Fable 3, Killzone 2, and earlier versions of cross platforms games(ie GTA:IV and it's DLC's), and why would anyone(who is not a pc geek with money to waste) go buy a top rig, when there are only a handfull of decent pc exclusives and even less that are AAA one's. Without Wow, the pc gaming industry would be a almost non-existant, and each generation the pc gaming industry keeps shrinking more and more.

    And i love pc gaming..as i grew up on it, but with a family now, it's just not worth the extra money..i'm sorry, it just is not, as this is not say 1998, where you can only run Unreal1/HL1..ect on a pc only.

    And please don't give me the argument that a pc does more, because i can find a decent laptop/desktop for under $400 that would do everything but gaming, for many yrs.

    Oh and one more thing to chew on. No small pc monitor will come close to the quality of a good quality $1200 50" Plasma and noware near a $2000 54" LED, and please don't tell me you can use your pc on a big screen, because while possible, it's very inconvenient to do so, gaming wise.

    For me, i was going to go with a pc rig a yr back, but instead got a damn sweet $1200 1080P 50" Panasonic G20, a new 250 Gig Xbox360 and 250Gig slim-PS3..and a wii for my son,top quality 7.1 s. sound speakers, 7.1 headphones..and all for cheaper then that high end pc rig, that cannot even play so many X360 and PS3 exclusives.

    Like i said, i love pc gaming, but i'm not buring more then $1200(with only 1 more GPU added for the future) into a 'decent' custom pc rig, and that rig better last me 3-4 yrs, and play all games at 30fps..with average+ quality graphics.

  • Retroid #69 2 years ago

    The video recording would've been great - if it recorded all the action as data and you could replay the sequence from any camera position and upload that. There's frequently other cool stuff you'd miss because the camera is focused on your character rather than the action.

  • Retroid #70 2 years ago

    @Ravage27: "'perhaps it's down to some kind of lighting effect or skin shader that proves to be particularly onerous for the RSX to handle?'

    Or maybe it was poor optimisation on the dev's part??? You know, like how you guys defended the shoddy 360 port of ff13?"

    Or, perhaps, it's down to some kind of lighting effect or skin shader which the RSX doesn't support in the same way as other GPUs? Y'know, like he said?

    That's not saying it *isn't* something the devs could've fixed or replaced. It's just speculation.

    Also, "defended" the shoddy port of FF13? Panned it and said the PS3 version won in pretty much every respect, you mean?

  • Retroid #71 2 years ago

    Also meant to say that I've tried the demo on both machines and they both looked fantastic, so either way it's FTW.

    I've sank a surprising amount of time into the game (over 16 hours) and am only halfway through the 'core' missions. Pity the voice acting is some of the worst I've heard in a game for the last ten years!

  • smurphs #72 2 years ago

    Will get this on the ps3 then. Mainly because PS3 games tend to get cheaper quicker down my neck of the woods. Strange but true. I also HATE TEARING, and would rather have more blur than suffer tearing.

  • Retroid #73 2 years ago

    Only seen bad tearing in cutscenes and on the map screen (!!!) on 360 here. Only played the PS3 demo but they seemed to perform pretty much identically in most respects; which is as it should be on cross-platform stuff this gen!

  • Enkeixpress #74 2 years ago

    It seems as though the PS3 version is superior..

    But Why does the PS3 version increase to 32fps at certain parts of the analysis..? Wierd.

    At one point in the video, It reached 34fps.. which is nice, I guess.

  • man.the.king #75 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Also, "defended" the shoddy port of FF13? Panned it and said the PS3 version won in pretty much every respect, you mean?"

    I don't think that's what Ravage27 meant, but then I think you probably already know that, if you remember our discussion during FFXIII face-off. The issue was about consistency in face-offs (or rather, the lack of it previously as far as different platforms were concerned), i.e. how, according to Rich Leadbetter, a poor PS3 port was always an issue with the PS3 architecture while a poor 360 port was the dev's fault.

    Whenever anybody raises this point, you seem to come up with empty pedantic arguments to counter them. Sorry to ask this again, but what's your angle? Or is it that you really think "poor PS3 port is PS3's fault, poor 360 port is dev's fault" is a logical argument?
    Edited by 2 at 12/04/10 @ 08:01

  • thesombrerokid #76 2 years ago

    i run it on max everything except 4x AA 4xAF and no vsync.

    core2Quad Q6600 2gb ram Ati 4870.

    EDIT: 1920x1200 res
    Edited by 1 at 12/04/10 @ 12:55

  • moles4000 #77 2 years ago

    Tab_Lloyd how much was your pc and why are you the comparing it to the 360 version.

    Of course the pc version is going to be better,considering how much it cost to build the pc and the price of a 360.

    Gee,how many pc nerds are their on this website

    Lets get microsoft to build a 3 thousand pound console,and then compare the differences between the two ,of course who in their right mind would pay that for a console ,plenty of nerds ready to spend that on a pc though,good luck to them.
    Edited by 1 at 12/04/10 @ 14:17