Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: Round 25

By Richard Leadbetter Published 10 May, 2010

Episodes from Liberty City, SSFIV, SEGA All-Stars Racing, Superstars V8, Dead to Rights and AVP.

Page 1 of 5

As we reach the quarter-century of cross-platform Face-Off features, we thought it was time to do a little spring-cleaning on the format itself. The idea was to supplement the already vast range of video and screenshot assets with additional analysis and data.

The reasoning was that while we love telling you what we think, the more information you have, the more informed your purchasing decisions will be and the more discussion points there are for the inevitable post-article comments pile-up.

So what's new? We've ignored the superior range of surround sound options possessed by the PS3 for too long, so for those of you who have their consoles hooked up to a decent amplifier capable of multiple audio decoding options, now you can see where PS3 employs less compression or additional sound channels. While Xbox 360 games are standardised at max quality 640kbps Dolby Digital 5.1, PlayStation 3 supports the same format and also 5.1 lossless PCM, 7.1 lossless PCM, plus fan-favourite DTS. This is now highlighted for each game.

More precise installation data is also included in an easy-to-find manner - potentially useful if your hard drives are filling up. The actual amount of data the game uses on the optical disc is also included.

Here's where things might get a bit confusing. The Xbox 360's NXE hard disk install function works by stripping out the entire game data partition on the DVD, compiling it into the equivalent of an ISO file and copying it to the hard drive. So install size will always be identical to the storage space used. On PS3, installs - if any - are pretty much always a selected copy from the main disc.

So why include disc space at all here? Well, it better informs us as to how developers are utilising the superior storage options offered by the Blu-ray disc. Check out how Capcom has made use of the extra space for Super Street Fighter IV for example.

So, let's check out the wares we have lined up for the Face-Off quarter-century.

It's been a while since we've published a full-on multi-game Face-Off, so let's get on with it. Coming up soon in Round 26: Lost Planet 2, Skate 3 and many more...

Grand Theft Auto IV: Episodes from Liberty City

  Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.6GB 8.05GB
Install 6.6GB (optional) 2.75GB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM

With Microsoft's $50m exclusivity deal done and dusted, Rockstar recently released its two GTA IV DLC episodes on PSN and also as a retail release for both PS3 and the PC. The differences between the two download and physical SKUs are significant. Download the Episodes from PSN and you're required to own the original copy of GTA IV, while the retail release is a completely standalone affair: useful to know if you've sold or traded in your original copy.

The chance to revisit Liberty City is significant, as it also allows us to cast a retrospective glance over our original, somewhat mammoth GTA IV Face-Off, to validate our initial findings and also to see whether any of the deficiencies we found in both versions of the game have been put right for the DLC extensions.

Let's kick off with a comparison of the first episode, The Lost and Damned.

The Lost and Damned on PS3 and Xbox 360. Use the full-screen button for full HD, or hit the link for a larger window.

This initial episode shows something we didn't see in the original game: a film-like grain filter, which can be turned off from within the options screens. Otherwise, aside from a somewhat-muted colour scheme in the initial missions, it's GTA as we know it and business as usual.

That being the case, our initial findings seem to tie-in closely with what we've seen before in the original release: the Xbox 360 version renders at native 720p with clear implementation of 2x multisampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 remains sub-HD: 1152x640 to be precise, but with one correction to our original findings. The PS3 version does feature AA - specifically the blur-inducing 2x Quincunx technique. It's difficult to see, and doesn't seem to be evenly applied to say the least, but when you switch to the internal view while inside a car, the edges on the bonnet give the game away.

Performance-wise, the basics of the two engines remain the same. Xbox 360 operates with an uncapped frame-rate, meaning that we can see anything from sub-20FPS in some areas to frame-rates in excess of 40FPS in others, with a very small, barely noticeable amount of screen-tear. PS3 on the other hand is resolutely v-synced, and capped at 30FPS.

However, it is definitely fair to say that performance appears to be much more like-for-like than it was in the original GTA. This selection of cut-scene and in-game action from The Lost and Damned should illustrate that nicely.

Performance analysis of cut-scenes and in-game action: best described as 'variable' on both systems.

So, what do we find with the second episode in the pack, The Ballad of Gay Tony? Rockstar really went all out to make this episode more vibrant, fun, and colourful than its predecessor. It's also more vertical too thanks to its crazy base-jumping scenes - one of several new concepts that eke out more from the established GTA engine.

Once again, there are no real surprises in the direct comparison footage.

Direct comparison scenes from The Ballad of Gay Tony. Use the full-screen button for full HD, or hit the link for a larger window.

Interestingly though, across the range of our performance analysis clips we do see a marked increase in frame-rate compared to The Lost and Damned - for Xbox 360 owners at least. In this case though, the initial intro scenes (which beautifully demonstrate how Rockstar has achieved the "living, breathing city" dream) account for most of the skew towards the Microsoft console, thanks mostly to its uncapped frame-rate. In-game, once again we see that things are far more similar between the two SKUs.

Here's how Gay Tony looks via the wonder of frame-rate analysis.

While revisiting the original GTA IV on PS3 to re-evaluate the anti-aliasing situation, it's apparent that the episodes do appear to run smoother than the original game. While performance is still very uneven in places (and probably always will be owing to the sheer scope of what this engine is doing), there is the sense of improvement on PS3 while things seem much the same as they always were on 360.

Page 1 of 5

Comments (109) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • feistycheese #1 2 years ago

    Cue fanboy wars Round 25 . . . .

  • muscleblade #2 2 years ago

    Whats the score now?

    25-0 to the 360?

  • Widge #3 2 years ago

    Interesting about the PS3 GTA4 pack, if they can boost the performance in the add ons, surely they could patch in the same performance upgrade to the vanilla game? Or am I over simplifying the effort here?

  • Big-Swiss #4 2 years ago

    meh

    predictable and not interesting and not really worth the whole hassle.
    more a click collection action then a consumer information.

  • cianchristopher #5 2 years ago

    Yeah, ban this sick filth now!

  • El-Dev #6 2 years ago

    This will cheer certain sections of the forum up after they had a tough week or so on here.

    The ports are getting quite close now which is good.

  • vegard #7 2 years ago

    Pretty sure Prototype on the 360 supports dts?

  • sfp_noodle #8 2 years ago

    Quite possibly the most balanced round of Face-Offs Richard has ever covered. This is the first time he has been genuinely sincere without adding his own comments of 'The 360 version is the one to go for,' when the actual advantages are negligible. Whilst Xbox 360 'wins' overall Richard has done a good job of balancing out the arguements for both consoles. Hopefully, that will remain for any other face-off in the future.

  • miiiguel #9 2 years ago

    25 - 1, there's that FF13 one.
    And than there's that thing yesterday where you managed to read all kind of BS, like there's no game runing at 720p on the 360 and all. Anyway, that AW DF article comment section was so sad, not in a tech point of view, but to realise some ppl realy look at this stuff like a football club or something. Awfull, awfull, depressing historical coments thread.

  • Widge #10 2 years ago

    and you post a football type score.

    (Chelsea score)

  • DrR0b3rts #11 2 years ago

    You could have the SSFIV intro videos in 264529p but they'd still be utterly horrendous.

  • Mnia786 #12 2 years ago

    FFS! These things always cue fanboy wars but people are NEVER happy with what they have got. I bought a PS3, alot of my mates have a PS3, we play online and jobs a good'n. If more of my mates had a 360, chances are I would have got one of them (at the time most were still on 6th gen plats). At the end of the day, it plays the games I want and my PC can play the MS "exclusives" so I get the best of both worlds. MOST games' difference is that fucking negligible no-one would notice the difference between plats (for example in the game booths at HMV where they havbe PS3/360 versions of the same game running, people don't queue behind the 360 now do they?). The PS3 and 360 do what they are supposed to quite well(with each one with its pros and cons) and people hate to accept the fact and are forced to pull shit out of their arse to claim theirs is superior in every way and always will be.

    NB: Baynotta for ps3 was a load of balls though :p
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 12:03

  • Big-Swiss #13 2 years ago

    "FF13"

    and also Batman AA

  • kimchibaka #14 2 years ago

    So they're getting closer (not that I could tell from the SSF4 vids, I thought they were identical).

    About bloody time!

  • edhe #15 2 years ago

    MM, science, tasty science.

  • Eraserhead #16 2 years ago

    Can't agree with the remarks about GTA IV: on the PC it looks way, WAY better than the console versions. I'm running it at 1920x1200, high res textures, more than adequate draw distance, great shadows, and my PC is hardly a beast: Core 2 at 3.6GHz overclocked, with a relatively ancient 9800GTX+ card and 4GB RAM. No, it doesn't run at 60fps, but it's easily fast enough. I'd much rather have the looks anyway.

  • Alcock #17 2 years ago

    This article didn't mention the loading times for SSFIV, which apparently are greatly improved at least for the PS3.

  • Goodfella #18 2 years ago

    Who in their right mind would choose a ps3 over the 360 these days?

    Oh I don't know, the ones who want to play Uncharted 1 and 2, God of War III, Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls, Little Big Planet, Wipeout, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance etc?

  • dllord #19 2 years ago

    @Goodfella +1

  • sfp_noodle #20 2 years ago

    @ Goodfella

    You forgot Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 :p

    Rather stupid comment from android123. Both consoles have some amazing exclusives now and for the first time in near 2 decades of gaming I feel having 2 consoles is worth it.

  • cen4pgb #21 2 years ago

    I'm baffled by the PC remarks on GTA IV, it's basically said to be worse than the console efforts because its not miles better.

    Looks better than both console versions on mine, I can maintain a better than 30 FPS rate in 3D with a Geforce 260 (I will admit to a quad core processor). In all ways mine is better, especially if i plug in a controller for the driving sections.

    Yes by PC standards for its standard of looks requires abit much ummph, but comparing it to consoles and then saying its the worst not because it fails to beat them, but it fails to live up to its own platform is daft.

  • dsmx #22 2 years ago

    I chose a PS3 over an xbox 360 because I have a PC and every game I'm actually interesed in on the xbox 360 comes to the PC eventually anyway. I can't understand why people would get an xbox 360 to be honest if you have a PC from the last 4 years it will run any xbox 360 game that comes out.

  • andijames #23 2 years ago

    It's pretty negligible these days the difference between both platforms so i think it's completely down to what games you prefer on which system. Personally i kept my PS3 and got rid of my 360 but each to their own. Nice to know no matter what system you have you'll pretty much all be getting identical versions nowadays

  • sfp_noodle #24 2 years ago

    @ dsmx

    Actually, a lot of 360 exclusives have not come to the PC. Crackdown, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST and most recently Alan Wake but to name a few. A 360 is well worth having, more so than a gaming PC IMO.

    @ daninthemix

    That will most likely only be the standard once next gen consoles hit

  • Geordiemp #25 2 years ago

    As usual, well programmed games (Good games) even if not first party standard should be similar - Liberty City, Sega racing is a good laugh and SSFIV.

    The Poor games hear and cheap coding show up themselves more on Ps3, but they are usually crap anyway would not buy them for either of our consoles.

    Out of that lot all we bought was SEGA racing as my son loves it (and so do I secretly). Glad they removed V sync in the patch to maintain framerate.
    Edited by 2 at 10/05/10 @ 15:05

  • SleepyMagpie #26 2 years ago

    As a gamer, not a fanboy, I still feel the balance is still quite a bit in the 360's favor. But it's getting better.

    Heavy Rain is the Emperor's new clothes and not a good game, Uncharted is just pretty, sunday matinee set-pieces with hammy acting, Little Big Planet is WAAAY overrated, and Killzone and the rest suck.

    Valkyria Chronicles was brilliant, Wipeout is great, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 was great, and FFXIII is had best on the PS3 as well, but not really that good a game, just incredible production values to gawk at. -As a media server the PS3 also performs really well.

    These are my subjective opinions of course, but if you want, your heads can explode now.^^

  • Retro_ #27 2 years ago

    I love these face offs. I also love my PS3 slim, it's a great machine and runs oh so quietly and that alone is worth several points in my book boys and girls.

  • VandelayIndustries #28 2 years ago

    Love the new format Richard!

    vegard: "Pretty sure Prototype on the 360 supports dts?"
    I believe it used some custom form of 7.1 matrix support, or some such.

  • StooMonster #29 2 years ago

    Like the new format DL. :)

    Also, interesting to see that PS3 multiformat titles have come a long way to closing the gap with Xbox 360 ones when compared to the early rounds of DF analysis.

    GTA:IV on PC? I agree with cen4pgb, it's the version I prefer ... I still get 60fps+ with most settings maxed out at 2560x1600, and it looks great.

  • dsmx #30 2 years ago

    Exactly in your opinion noodle, I'm not interested in any xbox 360 exclusives. I have a PC and a PS3 and that covers everything I'm ever likely to want to play.

  • sfp_noodle #31 2 years ago

    @ SleepyMagpie

    I was going to stop reading when you said

    "Uncharted is just pretty, sunday matinee set-pieces with hammy acting"

    But I had to read a little more didn't I?

    "Little Big Planet is WAAAY overrated, and Killzone and the rest suck."

    That comment screams fanboy, whichever way you look at it. LBP is the most original, innovative and quite possibly the happiest game created this gen. It turned gamers into creators and made it seem like the easiest most fun job in the world. What other game, minus Modnation Racers actually exists that offers what it does?

    As for your Killzone and the rest suck comment, well, I think fellow Eurogamers can judge you on that.

  • cozeny #32 2 years ago

    The new format would only be good if you actually went on to mention the benefits of PS3's sound in the actual text and factored it into your decisions about format superiority. As it stands, with the small differences between e.g. PS3 and 360 SSFIV the superior option is actually on PS3 due to its 5.1LPCM sound, which will give a much bigger benefit to the experience than a couple of missing background artifacts.
    Edited by 2 at 10/05/10 @ 12:57

  • cianchristopher #33 2 years ago

    @StooMonster?

    What? How on earth do you get GTA IV to run like that? What kind of PC do you have?

  • ignatiusjreilly #34 2 years ago

    Thought with the revamp you might stop numbering the rounds? Now we're up to 25, it seems a bit unecessary to keep counting the articles.

  • sfp_noodle #35 2 years ago

    "PS3 and 360 SSFIV the superior option is actually on PS3 due to its 5.1LPCM sound."

    I have a 5.1 surround soud system hooked up to my consoles, and in all honesty, I can't tell too much difference between DTS and standard PCM. I chose SSFIV on PS3 simply because it meant not investing in a new controller for the 360 that would let me play it. The D-Pad is far more suited to fighting games and I've never been able to play a figher with a stick or analogue.

  • cozeny #36 2 years ago

    The point still stands... Ticking off the box to let you know the PS3 has these options and then not using it as a criterion when forced to split hairs is a bit specious. We all cry when the visuals are sub-HD, why not when the sound is sub-'HD'?
    Edited by 2 at 10/05/10 @ 13:09

  • sfp_noodle #37 2 years ago

    Made a new account just to post that? EG is edging ever closer to IGN with the number of idiots it attracts

    Edit - Looks like the mods got onto him quickly this time. Good Job guys.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 13:44

  • funkateer #38 2 years ago

    Good to see that the audio differences are at least mentioned now.

  • Darren #39 2 years ago

    I usually enjoy these articles but I found this one dull, perhaps because all of the games bar one are average/rubbish and the one that isn't, SSFIV, is of absolutely no interest to me as I didn't enjoy the original (sorry but beat 'em ups are just plain dull IMO).

    I disagree with the comment about PC GTA IV though... at 1920x1200 and everything maxed except the view distance (to prevent stutter) the game looks great and far less jaggy than either of the console builds, particularly as there's a fairly effective blur filter you can turn on. On my machine the game runs at 40 to 60 fps with v-sync on so it also feels smoother. The 360 version is still superb though considering the hardware it runs on.

    As for SEGA All-Star Racing, I bought it for the PS3 to play online but I was a bit disappointed at the erratic framerate. I even more shocked to see the patched version introduce tearing and promptly sold it on. Would it really have been so difficult to have added triple buffering to this game considering how simplistic the visuals are or the consoles really starting to show their age these days? That the game can't even manage 60 fps is bad enough but 30 fps and tearing... sheesh!

  • frostcircus #40 2 years ago

    Thanks for this article; I was wondering whether or not the new GTA4 episodes still had that god-awful screen effect. It was such a nasty surprise in the original - the game looked really muted and natural on my shitty old CRT, and I was excited to see how it would look on a nice new screen. When I finally got one, I found myself staring at a horrible depthless pixel-swimmy mess that looked like someone'd just discovered the 'filters' menu in Photoshop. It's surreal, and very frustrating to know that PS3 owners don't have to put up with it.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 13:26

  • Retroid #41 2 years ago

    My first reaction

  • vegard #42 2 years ago

    @VandelayIndustries
    You're right! i checked and found this:

    "The first game due out the gate with DTS Neural Surround is the Xbox 360 version of Activision's Prototype due in stores this June. "

    I would love the "beefed-up" sound from a PS3, but as of right now i can only afford having one console:(

  • StooMonster #43 2 years ago

    @ cianchristopher: fast quad-core is minimum requirement, but SLI helps get those numbers up. :)

    I have to really crank up the FSAAs to drop below 60fps, but 4xAA at 2560x1600 is pretty acceptable for silky smooth.

  • GamesConnoisseur #44 2 years ago

    Good to update the methods of comparing platforms and certainly much fairer to include sounds and storage into the equations.

    Personally sound is never a factor for me as am Deaf, but quite important for those who appreicates surround sound system or clear uncompressed data.

    The head to head is more about how multi platform games performs on respective system, but why the HELL do we always in every head to head article see platform exclusives thrown in the arguments?!

    Of course you love your particular system, but here its more about multi platform's games and people's not gonna suddenly go out and buy rival platform by EG's head to head's 25th articles if havent done so before!

  • GuyNoir #45 2 years ago

    Yawn.

  • Retroid #46 2 years ago

    Any blatant troll accounts like "PS3isShit" will be banned in future. Just so people know not to bother.

  • VandelayIndustries #47 2 years ago

    ^^ Good idea. I find sound design fascinating. It's a much under appreciated discipline and in recent years has come a long way in video games.

  • ant72 #48 2 years ago

    "...the decision on which version to buy effectively comes down to controller preference and whether you wish to pit your online battling skills up against your PSN or XBL friends list."

    Listen.

    Repeat.

    Understand.

  • T3TSUO #49 2 years ago

    Don't believe a word these guys print.
    Not once was the extra sound quality of the PS3 brought into the equation.
    Not once was the vastly superior controller mentioned in the SSF4 review or that it's an arcade port and there for more accurate.
    It's supposed to measure which game is best to buy "if" you own both consoles (yeah right) It just proves one thing that you're more interested in promoting the 360's graphical capabilities over the PS3 because A, you've either been paid todo so or B, realize by winding up a fraction of you're audience produces far more traffic on you're site.
    All this talk of more screen tear or a little less AA when this lot went crazy over their FF13 analysis. If you're fine with Alan Wake running at a Wii matching 540p then these Face Off's are mute and pointless.

  • Widge #50 2 years ago

    I'd scrub Naruto off that as you can get it (or a version of it) on the PS3 and the upcoming sequel is on both PS3 and 360.

  • cen4pgb #51 2 years ago

    I suspect the sound not being taken to much into account is down to a number off issues.

    1. HD AMPS are a rareity even compared to HD TVs
    2. 6.1/7.1 systems are vastly outnumbered by 5.1 systems
    3. The big advantage of HD sound codecs is that they are uncompressed (and where they are its minimal and uses lossless methods), if you're sound isnt that grat a sample size then its not going to matter that much is it, and I'm not convinced that most games are producing stuff that would suffer much from the compression. (To put rough numbers to this a dvd uses a bandwidth of about 5 to 6 mb/s for video AND up to 6.1 sound, a bluray can use over 7mb/s for at the moment just for 7.2 sound (yes thats stero subs) and a CD uses just over 0.5mb/s for stereo. Note DTS's top HD codec used on Bluray can support over 14 speaker channels, which is just silly.
    4. Alot of music proves that most people will prefer with a medeicre singer if he/she looks the part, over a great singerwho doesn't, I suspect the sames true of games.

  • Guitarnerd87 #52 2 years ago

    "We get full-on 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing while PS3 gets a dialled-back 2x implementation."

    And people say DF is biased.

  • Geordiemp #53 2 years ago

    ^^

    I got both consoles, So have DF, I never say we like I have a default console. Well spotted, it is a little biut biased, probably due to the fact they have seen 360 better for so many years on multiplats.

  • miiiguel #54 2 years ago

    @ Guitarnerd87 : I thought you said you use a SD TV.
    And now it's the HD-Sound; 6.1/7.1; PCM multi-channel BS?!!! Sometimes these arguments seems like ppl arguing over what's better a Ferrari or a Porsche, only to catch a bus and go back home.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 15:29

  • BBIAJ #55 2 years ago

    @ Widge:

    The Naruto game coming to PS3 is nothing to do with the UbiSoft series of Naruto games.


    @ Darren:

    Wait... What!? You bought Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing to play online, something that you never, ever do!? What gives!?

  • Geordiemp #56 2 years ago

    I got 2 copies of Sega racing so me and son can race together online (private race, prefer 2 full screens lol).

    Its actually pretty good, especially for younger ones as they got the all star and can catch up when they are behind.

    Pefer it to mario. Sega is not a serious racer, but its fun.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 15:58

  • Guitarnerd87 #57 2 years ago

    @miiiguel


    ummmmm wat?

  • Markitron #58 2 years ago

    Its about time they factored in the sound. I have a releativly high-end amp and theres a noticeable difference between ps3 and 360 in that department. I played thru force unleashed on both platforms and the audio in the ps3 version really added to the game

  • thecapsaicinkid #59 2 years ago

    Regarding uncompressed LPCM output on the PS3, is the actual sound data stored uncompressed on the disc?

  • BitmapBrother #60 2 years ago

    Leadbetter should just break down which platform title is superior in specific categories. Such as:

    GRAPHICS
    -Native Screen Resolution
    -FPS
    -Screen Tearing
    -Anti-Aliasing
    -Effects

    SOUND
    -Sound formats
    -Loseless or lossy

    OTHER
    -Loading times
    -Install information
    -Networking performance
    -Input Lag

  • onyxbox #61 2 years ago

    Cross platform games are generally slightly better on 360.

    The quality of PS3 version varies on the amount of time/effort (cost) the developer/publisher want to invest in the conversion and is not a reflection of the machine's ability IMO.

    Ask yourself: would you want Sony to produce hardware more in-line with PC/360 architecture so that the ports can be as good or would you prefer Sony to do their own thing, which has so far proven to be the most capable machine by setting the benchmark (on console) for graphics and sound on a number of occasions this generation?

    Personally I'm glad they did their own thing.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 16:46

  • des #62 2 years ago

    Stopped reading at $50 mill deal...that is just some internet rumor and it has no place in some tech article
    DF has really gone to shit...tabloid journalism yay

  • youhavenomail #63 2 years ago

    What about the loading times for SSFIV? Other comparisons have mentioned that the PS3 has turned things around and that its version has become the quicker of the two. I have to say, from my experience there's barely any wait for loading at all on PS3 anymore.

  • RKOwned #64 2 years ago

    I disagree about the sub HD close ups for SSF4. They still happen. I had the game for 4 days, so I know it happens.

  • RKOwned #65 2 years ago

    android 123, could you be any more fail? seriously, now a days Differences are pretty mute. and judging by this article, where most of the games he compared he even said hardly had any differences or where hard to pick a winner for, it sounds like he agrees with me.

  • miiiguel #66 2 years ago

    Guitarnerd87 09/05/10 @ 14:05
    ignore poster | #130 +2 You buried this comment Comment below viewing threshold Show
    @sfp_noodle

    Well said, for someone to just say "oh you mustn't manage your money well enough" if you can't afford multiple consoles, pc, games and hdtv is incredibly ignorant and arrogant. It annoys me the more I read that comment. I run a ps3 I got through a phone contract through a 21" sdtv, only getting 2nd hand games through trade ins. I have more important things to spend my money on than a 360, namely eating and paying bills.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 17:16

  • Koborover #67 2 years ago

    "While it's difficult to argue with many of the points in Dan Whitehead's original review, there's something you can't avoid with Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing - it's simply great fun to play"

    Actually it's not that hard to argue with that shallow one-page 6/10.

  • Guitarnerd87 #68 2 years ago

    @miiiguel

    Yeah I get I have an sdtv, my only comment was about DF referring to the 360 as WE and then referring to the ps3. My point was that it shows a little inherent bias that DF considers the 360 as it's console and the ps3 as the other, as if they approach the comparisons as "lets see how the ps3 compares to our xbox version." I don't have a clue how that affects me having an sdtv??

  • miiiguel #69 2 years ago

    Well, for once I bet you wont notice much of a diference between a Wii and a PS3 or 360 if you use a 21" sdtv (let alone 2xMS or 4xMS) to care about what DF articles say. Even more when it comes from someone who (sic.) has more important things to spend the money on.
    And if it's only an "emotional" thing, I fail to understand even more. Then again, this remark is purely antropological. Don't take me wrong.

  • Guitarnerd87 #70 2 years ago

    @miiiguel

    Well yes you do see the difference, resolution only accounts for so much. Since I've done a CS degree as my undergrad I find these articles interesting if you're really that interested. And yes the AA matters as you still get jaggies on an SD tv. I don't really see the problem you have though?

  • miiiguel #71 2 years ago

    Well yes you do see the difference, resolution only accounts for so much.

    It did count a lot, yesterday on Alan Wake's article. Not going to quote you on that, enough is enough. I find this curious, that's all.
    off-topic tip: get a proper tv.

  • Guitarnerd87 #72 2 years ago

    @miiiguel

    Well what I said was that I notice the drop in resolution, not that it made it look ugly.

    But whatever I should just ignore someone so obviously on a wind-up.

  • Markitron #73 2 years ago

    PM each other, nobody cares

  • caligari #74 2 years ago

    Hah hah - Miiiguel calling a console flame-war 'awful'.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Aren't you one of the biggest comment's trolls here? :D

  • miiiguel #75 2 years ago

    You must have mistaken me for someone else, feel free to check my posts

    And at least I have big HDTV. :)

  • ziggy_played_guitar #76 2 years ago

    What the fuck is a "flame-war" ? It is hard to keep up with these nerdish terms. N00b; l33t; flame-war; xbot..., it can't get any more depressing.

  • Miths #77 2 years ago

    I'll agree with those who are a bit puzzled about the comments regarding the PC version of GTAIV.
    I've played the the PS3 and PC versions (been several months since I last loaded up either version, but I quite clearly remember my reaction when I bought the PC version a month or two after having played it on PS3), and this is definitely one of those games where the PC version has the potential to look a hell of a lot better than the console versions.
    Aside from the higher resolution (I was running it at 1680x1050 at the time, haven't played it on my new 1920x1200 monitor), textures were significantly sharper, draw distances farther and the number of cars and pedestrians quite a lot higher if you crank up the settings.

    Granted, I was running it on Core 2 Quad PC, but my Geforce GTX 260 is not exactly state of the art these days - or even back when the game was released. I can't recall my framerates, but I do know that if I had had any remotely regular drops into the 20s (and there are many PC games I don't find smooth at any less than 35-40+ fps, can't remember if this is one of them) I would have turned some settings down.

  • DoctorFouad #78 2 years ago

    interesting for the sound details, thanks richard !
    for us folks with 7.1 sound systems it is very important for us to know if a ps3 game does or doesent support 7.1 lpcm sound !
    (I was disappointed that heavy rain sound was only 5.1) same thing for MGS4...
    but well, the best 7.1 sound I ever heard in my life (in a movie ou a game) was killzone2 !!!! that was incredible could locate enemies very easily thanks to the incredible 7.1 sound they created !!!!!!!! I hope other games polish their 7.1 sound (instead of just muxing up) I was also disappointed with the 7.1 sound of GT5 prologue (difficult to locate cars behind you)I hope they will improve the sound in GT5

  • MrsPacMan #79 2 years ago

    @ miiiguel

    Ferrari everyday

    @Miths
    'this is definitely ONE of those games where the PC version has the POTENTIAL to look a hell of a lot better than the console versions.'

    What's your real name? Homer Simpson? Doh - Fuckwit

    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 21:44

  • MrsPacMan #80 2 years ago

    @Umbriel

    What time do the bars open in your country?

    Bloody early it seems

  • Quixz #81 2 years ago

    Bad games..

  • bad09 #82 2 years ago

    I'll join the baffled GTA4 PC people.

    Q8400 and a 9800gt (1GB) here, not exactly cutting edge, plays/looks much better than the console versions, so much so that not long after I picked up Episodes on 360 I traded it as it looked so rough compared to the PC GTA4 I was playing.

  • freakzilla #83 2 years ago

    I would have preferred to see some more graphically awesome games compared. They're just more interesting because the devs make use of some more exotic and interesting effects.

  • Murton #84 2 years ago

    Looks like someone has been passing the feedback here onto Rich, I don't think I've ever seen the words "engine" or "version" used so many times in a face off. For far too long the emphasis has been on hardware while attempting to compare software

    I'm liking this new and objective approach Rich, follow this formula in future comparison articles.

  • tickleygonad #85 2 years ago

    Right, I'm going really wind everyone up now!...

    I'm lucky enough to own every one of the latest consoles and my in my humble opinion there are great exclusive titles on each (including wii). There's no point bitching about which is better, there's always going to be a game on the 'oppositions' machine that you may claim no to care about but will really want to play (deep down you know it's true, you can feel it in your plums).

    360 lovers you can get over the awful controller (seriously Sony, you didn't realise erganomics improved in the decade since the ps2?!!) and the fact NO-ONE communicates online (just add a headset as standard, it's not difficult Sony) and even the BORING online interface (updated quarterly apparently)... ITS WORTH IT for Demonsouls alone, no experience like it! Then there's also Uncharted, trust me it's fantastic full-stop!

    PS3 boys you can get over having to send your console back every time a big release comes out and you need it most (but never forgive, Microsoft, NEVER), you can get used to the sound of an aircraft trying to take off when you turn it on (playing games with the volume whacked up is a necessity rather than an option) I've even begun to forgive the fact that I'm forever playing annoying yank 12year olds (why oh why isn't there an option to only play against UK players as a preference, surely it's not that difficult?!!!!). Again ITS WORTH IT to play the most complete FPS experience ever in Halo (no better co-op fun to be had, period), then Mass Effect is probably the best RPG of it's kind ever too! Fanboys get over yourselves, you cant call yourself a hardcore gamer and miss out on titles like those!!! Start saving, you need all consoles in your lives!!!

  • edhe #86 2 years ago

    I don't care much for audi.. well i do but i don't get the chacne. Despite having a z-5500 setup and x41s i do most of my gaming these days beside my fiancée who quite appreciates human interaction. So i just go with low telly sound and subtitles for the most part.

    Bit of a shame, i'll need to convince her that i need to have the x41s on for the end of me2 and for the whole of bioshock 2.

  • The-Jack-Burton #87 2 years ago

    Wow, games built on the 360 then ported to the PS3 run slightly better on the 360

    Let the Flame wars begin! Morons

    My friends and I, seven of us that own both consoles, used to make fun of the poor souls that bought a PS3 instead of a 360. I was the first to make the switch in 2009, now every single one of us uses the PS3 as our primary system.

    I am a gamer first and foremost and never felt that I owe an allegiance to a console manufacturer or a game developer. The fact that my 360 sits and gathers dust is due to the fact that my PS3 has better games and is better to game on. All of my friends have come to this same conclusion.

    If you want to limit yourself, actually deny yourself some of the best games ever created then thats your prerogative, but you cant really sit there and tell people how much better the 360 is, its basically the same as George Bush telling everyone that Iraq had WMDs . . . and because of that your really not a true gamer, your simply a moron

  • himmelsturmerIX #88 2 years ago

    I would love Steam style of distribution system available for consoles.
    Imagine you buy a multiplatform title such as Street Fighter IV that you buy once and then can play on whatever system you owned.
    So if you xbox rrod you still can play your game on your ps3 without buying the game again.

    BTW do you know you can get PORTAL for free on STEAM? Until 24 May only. Hurry up and get one if you don't already have it.

  • bluetoothion #89 2 years ago

    Well maybe i m just blinded by my urge to forgive everything to Sony and i m a fooking sony fan.....but i think i will get some white hair on my head before i hear a solid good thing for my PS3 games from DF.

  • Retroid #90 2 years ago

    @bluetoothion:

    There are a number of games where DF has said the PS3 versions were better. Bionic Commando, Burnout Paradise, Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix, and Wanted: Weapons of Fate to name a few.

  • bluetoothion #91 2 years ago

    do you have any other choice than to name a few?.... few is all there is for DF. anyway i was being sarcastic about when rather than if i ll hear something good enough because even on ps3 exclusives the site isn't jumping with the same joy or forgives as much in the same mistakes of games on the the xbox 360. Good games exist on both platforms can't or won't deny that.i m just tired of having 1 % of torn frames giving someone the opportunity to say ''you got the wrong console man'' and yes i ll will say the same if DF wakes up one day and starts praising the opposite side with the same inexplicable zeal.
    Edited by 1 at 16/05/10 @ 08:46

  • Retroid #92 2 years ago

    There did a several page article about how awesome Naughty Dog and their work on Uncharted 2, and two features on God of War 2 which basically boil down to how impressive it looks.

    Those are two right there.

    The PS3 has repeatedly proven that when a conversion is handled properly it can be nigh-indistinguishable from a 360 version. They're different hardware but quite similar in power (read the Split/Second interview for some info there) and the state of development was slow in taking the differences into account. Now, thankfully, we're seeing fewer and fewer crap conversions.

    Don't shoot the messenger, blame the lack of care given to the conversion process.

  • Retroid #93 2 years ago

    EG doesn't convert the games so EG (along with other comparison sites) *is* the messenger.

    Also, if you want PSN info in EG's user profiles then have a word with Sony - they simply don't provide the 'backend access' to profile information that MS do, THAT is the reason Live info is in the EG profiles and PSN info isn't. There is an official PSN 'gamercard' link provided by Sony themselves but I have to login there and click a button to tell it to update the image, it doesn't do it automatically. I'd love PSN info in profiles too but Sony just don't provide the info.

    As for anything else, as I've said before: I'm not staff. I'm not employed by EG.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 09:37

  • Retroid #94 2 years ago

    Oh, and I also struggle to think of a bigger multiplatform game in recent years than Final Fantasy XIII which has also been given such short shrift on one format.

  • bluetoothion #95 2 years ago

    Ubriel indeed we need not shoot the messenger...no matter who you think that is. But Retroid there are already so many posts comments and opinions of where DF really stands.... would anyone take them seriously if they bashed games such as GoW3 and UC2 of course not...and of course you can't say they are objective just because they can't deny that certain games are so well made.

    also another mistake if i may is that you say, blame the lack of care given to conversion process..... well usually DF focuses or states differences as inability of PS3 to do things XBOX360 can...it rarelly blames the lack of anything... EXCEPT FFXIII.
    reaching Round 25 of face offs i trust you won't find any game having such strong defence line between two versions....i felt like it ached the fingers of the one writing the freaking face off to write the slightest of differences that made ps3 version superior even if little.

    i repeat i m just stating that i see a different point of view of the same things on 360 n ps3 and thats not good....i would say the same things if it were vice versa.

  • Retroid #96 2 years ago

    I think one of the best ways I can answer your points is by quoting one of the Split/Second developers DF interviewed. When asked about how they coped with the GPU / CPU differences between the two formats:

    "David Jefferies: I think the key in dealing with the differences between Xbox360 and PS3 is having a deep understanding of the hardware for both. If you really want to push both consoles to their limits then you need specialised code paths for each platform.

    On the Xbox 360 it's all about leveraging the powerful GPU and on the PS3 it's all about SPU utilisation - these are fundamentally different technologies that require very specific code paths. On Split/Second, the final image for each platform is nearly identical but how the pixels get into the image is very different indeed.    "

    Bayonetta was aimed at the 360 with no consideration about how to get it to get the same results in different ways on the PS3. That's what DF was saying.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 01:26

  • bluetoothion #97 2 years ago

    oh come on..... for crying out loud you re making an argument that is posted two days ago with 25 rounds of face-off and your source is someone who needs to be balanced between platforms and get the most out of the potential target marget.... you can not expect me to be so naive it almost insulting.... and even some questions were cleverly guided so that as to keep in track the fact that xbox 360 isnt aged just different to ps3. ofcourse if i ask a MS guy he ll say 360 rocks same with PS3 but if i ask an multiplatform dev he ll say ...the game rocks

  • Retroid #98 2 years ago

    I was responding to Umbriel with that post, actually.

    Giving reasons by stating hardware differences between the machine most of the games have been primarily developed for (360, but this is changing) and the machine the games are being ported to (PS3) is *not* the same as 'blaming' the hardware or even insulting it, as some people seem to read it as.

  • lockload #99 2 years ago

    12 months after the 360 version and still non HD lol

  • BuckEntropy #100 2 years ago

    "In brief Leadbetter argues xbox360 can do the same job as ps3 in FF XIII but ps3 cant do bayonetta look similar as xbox360 version."

    Just so many things wrong with the manner of your arguments... the FFXIII articles were focused on the 360 version being worse than it should have been, but at no point did RL state 360 can do "the same job" as PS3. For that matter no one ever expected 360 could compete with the Blu-Ray's 1080p video, but the fact they left 2.5 gigs of unused space across the 3 discs is all the proof needed that Squeenix had no real interest in even trying. At any rate that's some horribly bad faith paraphrasing Umbriel.

    And Bayonetta on PS3 already looks "similar" to the 360, but one of it's performance characteristics is a serious challenge for PS3. I think I'll just quote myself till I get an answer on this:

    "Bayonetta set out to exploit the bandwidth of the 360's eDRAM to it's utmost limits... and beyond actually, it still chugs down to like 20fps in at least one spot. The game dispenses with any and all considerations that stand between it and that one pristine exploitation, such as MSAA. And it's not sophisticated or even subtle about it, it just does one main thing over and over... and over and over...

    So if anyone can come up with a clear and verifiable explanation for how a machine with 1/5th the render target bandwidth - a bandwidth that Bayonetta is already taxing to the breaking point - should still have 'no problem' replicating that performance...

    Well then, and ONLY THEN, you may have a case against the DF face-off. As things stand, it really is just fact vs fiction."

    I'm perhaps over protective when it comes to Bayonetta, because it's probably my favorite looking game so far this gen. But while you all can read whatever 'insinuations' you like out of these articles, and nothing anyone says can either prove or disprove the truth of it... what you cannot do is accuse the Bayonetta article of being anything less than objective about that main issue.

    EDIT: BTW, I even know of a flaw in my challenge there, so if anyone can call me on it then at least you you'll prove you know *something*.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 22:27

  • Retroid #101 2 years ago

    "Avoided"? I don't particularly like that. I'm not accusing you of anything untoward and I'd appreciate it if you returned the favour.

    I'll state again: I'm not EG staff.

    As for you noticing an Xbox Live advert and seeming to assume that meant MS have 'bought'an editorial angle on EG, I presume you missed the many previous occasions when big Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, PSN, etc. adverts / sponsorship have been peppered allover the site at various points? That would seem to fly in the face of that idea, wouldn't it?

    Take a look in your profile - you can choose Ratchet & Clank, Metroid Prime 3 and a few other platform exclusives as themes. Not MS exclusive.

    EG is a site which survives on advertising - like almost all games coverage websites. They're multiformat so they'll take adverts from anyone. Sometimes that means they'll have MS-themed advertising, sometimes Sony, sometimes Nintendo, sometimes multiformat.

    Then there's their Alan Wake review (advertising for which has covered the site's front page recently) and the fact that they're one of the lowest marks on metacritic for that game. Something else which seems to fly in the face of MS buying 'favours' from them.

    Of course, it's all up to us readers at the end of the day, isn't it?

    We can read articles from allover the web and take note that most of the time, observations like those in Digital Foundry articles are generally agreed upon when other sites offer comparisons.

    Some people seem to like the idea that there's a big conspiracy against the PS3. There isn't.

    The PS3 is not a terrible machine or a failure, and if I believed it was I wouldn't own two of them.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 23:56

  • Retroid #102 2 years ago

    Thankyou for the compliment :)

    The thing is, it's known that the strength of the PS3 is in the SPUs (Uncharted 2, Gran Turismo & God of War 3 use them extensively) rather than the GPU - as is the case on the 360 so far as I'm aware. After all, Sony had been talking about shipping the PS3 with two CELL CPUs and to miss out a GPU entirely but changed their minds, presumably because of the cost.

    If devs don't use the SPUs in the CELL properly and rely on the GPU for effects, it's not going to measure up that well against the 360. That's what Richard Leadbetter is talking about when he mentions the PS3's limitations, and many devs will say that if you treat the PS3 like a PC or a 360 you're ignoring most of the power and flexibility - that's why so many of the early conversions were so bad in comparison.

    It's more than capable, but the time and care has to be taken when converting games.

    Also meant to say: Live is a product which Microsoft sell, like anything else. So they'll want to advertise it.
    Edited by 1 at 19/05/10 @ 22:10

  • BuckEntropy #103 2 years ago

    I took Retroid's comment to heart, and checked out the Lens of Truth articles for both games... it was rather illuminating.

    It's clear that DF is just TMI for the Sony subjects. Since obviously they'll resent actual explanations for why a game is not up to the same performance level, and as we've seen right here, the only response they can come up with is"'it must be a lie!" lol

    But it's kinda funny how FFXIII comes across a lot worse in DF's article, for the same reason, this site goes more in depth. Conversely, all they did is call Bayonetta a horrible port and left it at that, laying all the blame on Sega and the conversion team. Which again brings us to the heart of this controversy: the only way these 'interested parties' can lets say *prove* bias, is to prove the article didn't present an objective assessment. Or to put it in the nomenclature you all seem to prefer... prove that RL "lied".

    @Umbrage... er, I mean Umbriel - "If ps3 has 1/5th the render target bandwidth the question is how Bayonetta (xbox360 version) looks so common (i was going to write"crap" but how is your favourite game this gen..) compared with God of War3? (i dont need even use Uncharted2) That statment obviously is false. That or ps3 software developers make miracles that hurdle the hardware limitations of ps3, like a wise man said. Lets call the Pope and ask him."

    In the first place that statement - bandwidth of Xenos' eDRAM being 5 times what the RSX has to it's render target memory - is just a fact. A concept you seemingly have little familiarity with. If PS3 has it's Blu-Ray and it's Teh TERAFLOPS! Then 360 has it's RAM advantage and it's eDRAM, so just deal with it, cause them's the facts man!

    And I didn't say Bayonetta is my fave game, far from it, just my fave looking. But since you decided to take it there... Bayonetta's just fine, thanks for asking. It's not an even shallower rehash of a well worn series with more impressive spooling cinematics but a less responsive system and major downgrade in framerate... but to each their own I say. On the actual topic of tech and performance, I've already been through this nonsense with one person, but again you are only revealing your lack of understanding about the pertinent issues by bringing up GoW3. The main issue is alpha-blending, and the excessive overdraw / bandwidth usage involved in copying from and to the render target, in Bayonetta's case often over and over again. I wont get into it all again here, but you can just go to the end of the FFXIII: Endgame thread and if you see anything you can argue with I'll happily respond.

    But the God of War 3 comparison is even more specious than that, it reminds me of the earliest days of trying to explain to people why Resident Evil's graphics don't directly represent the power of the Playstation. That's an exaggerated parallel, but comparing a game that's always viewed from fixed camera points, to one with full 3D viewing, is just more bad faith / bad form / bad argument misdirection. If you always have control over the (apparent) draw distance of a given scene; control over what set-piece elements are visible at any given time; control over hiding assets being streamed in and out; and massive storage for the assets to make the most of that control... it affords great advantage in being able to slather on the details to dramatic effect. Perhaps the closest comparison in that respect is actually Ninja Blade, and of course it'll get slaughtered by GoW3, but by all means beat up on it as much as you like, at least it'd make a little more sense than with Bayonetta.

    All that said, I was a little underwhelmed by GoW3, there's almost too much detail for the overall IQ, and it all gets lost in the shuffle. Barring the phenomenal large scale set-pieces - the connecting action arenas are all kinda muddy, beyond merely irrelevant the focus on detail that will look great in closeups makes it look less appealing further away. Only my opinion of course. But mostly I was disappointed by the framerate, especially given the nature of the game, it's fixed views seem almost more of a wasted opportunity if the framerate is still variable.

    60 fps is a part of the 'look' of Bayonetta, and beyond the insane mystical pyrotechnics, the level of hard detail is far from "common". And while shaders are used with more discretion than say GoW3, the results are certainly high quality. It's not the most impressive imaging out there by a long shot, but I'm getting very sick of the whole "it's nothing special" rhetoric, because for the standards of this console gen, yeah it's actually pretty damn special.

    -

    I seem to have one more general axe to grind on this whole subject of the two big 'controversial' Face-offs. On one level the circumstances aren't actually that comparable: Starting with the evidence of better optimization for the earliest areas of FFXIII, it's clear enough they had room for improvement and at least initial intent to use it. But everything else paints an equally clear picture of shoddiness. Either they never planned for full optimization, or even worse they just couldn't be bothered with any re-coding to allow for the tiling to run at full res, (or they could have just dropped AA like Bayonetta, probably would have looked worse to most people though) and so the obvious (lazy) choice of dropping res instead. And as the article mentions, the resident asset issue takes care of itself, if it fits in PS3 it will fit in 360, so no work there. If they don't require an HHD install then the streaming causes no headaches either... and so then we're back to the crap performance of the majority of the game, despite running in a lower resolution already. Assuming the assessments are all accurate, this truly comes across as not much more than a straight port of the code and game assets; a quick and dirty transfer of the vids; bug testing; a gold stamp and a kick out the door.

    Where Bayonetta needed lots of asset adjustments and at least minor re-coding for the alpha-target operations, and that just to get it playable. So just from a logistical standpoint the Bayonetta conversion wasn't as lazy as the FFXIII job. But perhaps the only reason I started thinking about this is because of the people (and sites) dogging the PS3 team so hard, since that's a far less objective attitude than what the DF article presents. Did it ever occur to anyone that it could be the other sites that are biased?

    I'm not saying they are... it just always fascinates me, the people who are most concerned about bias always seem to be the most controlled by it.

  • BuckEntropy #104 2 years ago

    Mea Culpa, that last post was ungraciously long, though the section that was actually a reply to you is no longer than some of your own posts Umbriel so... *shrug*

    But yes, a list of sub-HD 360 exclusives, how trite. PS3 has it's fair share of less-than-720p games, though for sure very few are exclusives, mainly because Sony made it a big point and so they have a lot more to lose. It's all just a matter of compromise, if the game doesn't compromise on res, it'll have some relative compromises elsewhere. You are sort of right about the eDRAM size being part of 360's problem, but here's the thing: it causes it's own additional reason (or temptation) for lowering the res, because rendering in tiles is more complicated. You know how all those lazy PS3 devs just aren't coding it the way it should be? Well, as it so happens, the "laziness" excuse isn't the exclusive domain of PS3 games, because everyone's just trying to deliver the best game they can for the time and resources they have.

    MS represented tiling as the standard for 360 from the very beginning, and indeed there's no real justification for the full eDRAM bandwidth if it's not being used. Capcom certainly shows it's not a problem at all when the effort is put in; with games running full 720p and up to 4x MSAA, and Reach is apparently full res, and it's still delivering visuals as rich as anything. But again it's always about compromises, especially on consoles. So I'll give you something to think about... lowering the res will obviously lower the base performance demands, that's a given, and that will always be a part of the equation. But on 360 convenience is often a part of that equation as well. But PS3 gets just as many sub-HD games as 360, and what excuse does it have? The only reason a PS3 game can have for going sub-HD is direct performance savings, so figure that one out.

  • Retroid #105 2 years ago

    Yes.

    It's all the 360's fault.

    /Straight face

  • BuckEntropy #106 2 years ago

    I believe you're confusing Bayonetta with RE5 there Umbriel, but of course the PS3 version using dynamic AA as well has nothing to do with it's limitations? The 360 must still the culprit, somehow...

    But OK, you're right, in some cases it probably is the 360 games forcing the PS3 versions to run sub-HD... including a couple big ones coming up. Though not necessarily in the way you want to believe. ;)

  • twilight72 #107 2 years ago

    Most multi-platform games look better on Xbox360 because most developers don't take the time needed to make the Ps3 game perform equally as well as the Xbox360 version.

  • Retroid #108 2 years ago

    But back in those days there was generally quite a gulf between different machines if they didn't use the exact same hardware, and while the MSX only sold well in Japan and small parts of Europe, the Spectrum (and its clones) were massively popular allover Europe. So yes, the MSX was mostly cursed by Spectrum ports of European games but then so were other (less popular) machines like the Enterprise because the games market was far, far smaller and there was far, far less money in it.

    This is what I don't understand - the HD consoles this generation are the closest in capability we've had in years - certainly closer than SNES / Megadrive, PS1 / Saturn, PS2 / Xbox, and yet some people seem to think the differences are even greater than they've been previously. In some areas there's a difference, but in most they're really not.

  • BuckEntropy #109 2 years ago

    "The next generation doesn't start until we say it does"

    I think that's all you need to understand Retroid, the people who remain entrenched in this attitude have been there since well before the system was even out.