Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: Round 26

By Richard Leadbetter Published 9 June, 2010

Split/Second, Lost Planet 2, Green Day: Rock Band, Prince of Persia and Backbreaker.

Page 1 of 4

Another month, another multi-game Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 Face-Off. Let's get the party started with all the stats, videos, comparison galleries and performance analyses you crave, derived from an eye-watering array of big names and quality wares.

Thankfully the mania of the release schedule diminishes as we enter summer, perhaps allowing us to do some catch-up coverage on other titles, but the immediate future is E3: Project Natal, Move, Nintendo 3DS, OnLive, Gaikai, and masses of AAA titles for us to preview. Woo! In the meantime, let's get this show on the road.

Split/Second: Velocity

Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.6GB 6.48GB
Install 6.6GB (optional) 3774MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM, Dolby Digital, DTS

We've been blessed recently with the release of two superb-looking racing games on the HD consoles.

Activision's Blur has already been covered in some depth, and now the focus shifts to Black Rock's unashamedly blockbuster-style driving game: Split/Second.

Whereas the Bizarre game focuses on power-ups and car-to-car battling, Split/Second makes the environment the weapon of choice, with its 'powerplays' causing scenery-destructing set-pieces of varying scale.

It's a tough call to get a game like this operating in a like-for-like manner on two completely different architectures, but it's fair to say that Black Rock has done some good work, as you can see in the requisite comparison movie:

Split/Second: Velocity on PS3 and Xbox 360. Use the full-screen button for full HD, or hit the link for a larger window.

Aside from a small resolution deficit on Xbox 360, the games are very similar, and both feature 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, although the effectiveness of the edge-smoothing seems to vary according to the effects in play, and indeed changes cross-platform. Tree foliage doesn't seem to get AA on PS3, for example.

We took at a look at demo performance on the two games a while back and concluded that they were very similar but with a small, noticeable performance boost for the Xbox 360 version.

So how does this translate into the full game? Here's a selection of action from the mid-point of the Split/Second "season".

Both games run capped at 30FPS but will drop v-sync under stress, with PS3 tearing more often and more noticeably.

Overall impressions are that not a huge amount has changed from the demo. Both games operate at a fairly solid 30 frames per second, but both are prone to screen-tear.

However, it's clear that the PS3 version has the most performance issues, and the tearing has more of an impact on the image quality.

Take a look at the graph again and notice the location of the tears - you'll see that the Xbox 360 game generally keeps them at the top of the screen unless something really big and crazy is going off, whereas the PS3 game will see far more noticeable cascades down the display.

For the most part the frame-rate remains constant at 30FPS, but the PS3 tearing cascade does give the impression of a less stable, "wobbling" image. Certain tracks and events see an even larger performance gap and there are some frame-rate drops, as you can see in these two shots taken from the analysis.

'Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: Round 26' Screenshot sstress1
'Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: Round 26' Screenshot sstress2

Engine stress can see tearing on 360 but very rarely do we see any kind of drop in overall frame-rate. PS3 has more tearing in similar scenarios and can be prone to dropping frames.

Other differences are less important but notable nonetheless. For example, the Xbox 360 version features a higher level of post-processing in environments at further distances compared to the PS3 game.

This sense of smoothing is probably a good thing bearing in mind that the native framebuffer resolution of the 360 game is 1280x672 (as confirmed in the DF tech interview), up against native 720p on PS3. "Cleaner" lines would show more upscaling artifacts.

The overall impression is that PS3 often looks sharper but with more apparent jaggies. However, this sensation is down to the post-processing effects on 360 being somewhat more refined or aggressive, depending on your perspective. Motion-blur blending certainly looks better on 360.

The particle buffer has also been cut down. Both versions have low-resolution smoke, but the PS3's alpha buffer seems to be running with a pared-down horizontal resolution, leading to the occasional odd-looking artefact you don't see on 360.

It's only really noticeable in still shots, but all of these factors combine to create a look that's smoother and more refined on 360, even with the drop in vertical resolution.

It's clear that Black Rock has achieved what it set out to do with Split/Second - dynamic, complex environment effects transposed into Burnout-style gameplay. It's wonderfully over-the-top and flashy, and the track-changing level-two powerplays offer lots of replay potential - just to see the many variations inherent in each track.

In this sense, it's clearly a case of mission accomplished for both versions, with the original Eurogamer review proving to be good criticism that encompasses Split/Second on both consoles.

However, it's 360 that gets the nod from Digital Foundry, simply down to the more consistent performance level in all areas of the game, along with the fact that the screen-tear is not as much of an issue as it is on the PS3 version.

The performance factor in terms of frame-rate does have a direct knock-on effect on gameplay, too - I found that maintaining power drifts was much more of a difficult task when the game framed out, and visual feedback was not consistent.

Split/Second's still a good game on both systems, and an interesting alternative to Bizarre Creations' Blur, but the cross-platform development work isn't quite to the same level.

Page 1 of 4

Comments (106) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • TheStatics #1 2 years ago

    Although I do enjoy reading these, have we perhaps reached the point where the differences are so small that they're essentially irrelevent (not trying to do the author out of a job obv)?

  • mumblyjoe #2 2 years ago

    probably cant fit 7.1 on the dvd

  • swisstony #3 2 years ago

    First time I've had a look at these comparison videos, I'm not a programmer or an artist. I cannot see v sync dropping or tearing on the PS3 on Split/Second, as I don't know what I'm looking for, and it looks pretty solid. Of course it's there, you guys are the experts. But I'm not, and I don't know what it is I'm not seeing :) How noticeable is it in the real world? That's not a facetious question, I genuinely am not sure. Or am I missing the point of this series of articles by asking? (Again, not a facetious question I hope.)

  • Dr.Mott #4 2 years ago

    Why is it that when the PS3 doesn't have a certain visual effect, it's a fault of the console, but when the Xbox 360 misses one, such as the Depth Of Field in Pop, it's a bug?

    OMG EG iz teh biased!!1!!1!2!1!

  • tossum #5 2 years ago

    We will have reached the point when faceoffs are no longer relevent when the comments section is empty. A small cross-platform difference to one person is a big deal to another- its all reletive, but thats what DF specialises in.

  • Vanmunt #6 2 years ago

    These face off are only relevant to people who only own a 360... and want to convince themselves a PS3 is rubbish.

  • tomacwhite #7 2 years ago

    FAIL. Skate 3 is NOT locked at 60fps. It drops all over the place.

  • berelain #8 2 years ago

    I still find these comparisons very interesting, although I do wish it was possible to do them before the games were released- though I completely understand why that isn't possible. But they do occasionally help inform some of my purchasing decisions, and satisfy my curiosity. Its good to know how Capcom's Framework engine is currently shaping up on PS3, for example, after its hiccups with Resident Evil 5.

    Its also good to see that developers *are* finally achieving some level of cross-platform parity. There's still a way to go, perhaps, but it seems that the days of always opting for the 360 version of a game because it'll run better might finally be behind me, and I might actually get to choose what console I buy it for based on nothing more than personal preference. Perish the thought!

  • Guitarnerd87 #9 2 years ago

    I don't like the way the resolution deficit on the 360 for split/second is just glossed over as unimportant but screen tear on the ps3 is made a big deal leading to a wobbly image. I didn't notice any on the ps3 demo, unless it was just not a very demanding level leading to lower stress on the engine. For me resolution is an important issue, it's whats held me back from getting RDR.

  • Retroid #10 2 years ago

    /Battens down the hatches

  • laudy #11 2 years ago

    "Battens down the hatches "

    why?

  • Arwin #12 2 years ago

    Small error: for Green Day: Rockband, it says 'shame that the PS3 version doesn't have 7.1 support', but in the panel above 7.1 is actually listed.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #13 2 years ago

    I enjoyed the comparisons at first because I'm very interested in the tech behind the consoles. However after so many comparisons I think they have become redundant. It's obvious that the PS3 can't hold up with the 360 in every single detail but the differences are so minimal these days that almost everyone won't notice unless they really compare the two versions frame by frame.

    The days of shoddy PS3 ports are over. While it's still the case that AA or some other niceties are missing most of the time it really doesn't make a difference.

    It would be nice to point out major differences in reviews though. If they aren't apparent without disecting the two versions then they probably aren't worth mentioning anyway.
    Edited by 2 at 09/06/10 @ 15:59

  • SalarymanDaishi #14 2 years ago

    Admittedly, the core audience of these rounds seems fairly limited, i.e. those who own both consoles, game on them pretty much evenly, and choose which version to buy solely on its tech prowess rather than common personal reasons such as controller, services, or friends.

    Just the same, by all means keep 'em coming! No harm done and those little differences can be interesting little tidbits on their own. If some use them to arouse their inner fanboy then that's just the way it goes but as said, that's probably not the aim of these face-offs.

  • Retroid #15 2 years ago

    Thankfully most of the titles covered here are pretty much on-par apart from one or two differences.

    Very nice to see and as others have said, hopefully this means the days of bad ports is (largely) at an end!

  • CaptainQuint #16 2 years ago

    Without reading this I bet a hundred quid the Xbox came out tops. Yawn.

  • FinalBurn #17 2 years ago

    I agree with berelain, I also find these comparisons pretty interesting...
    In my very own case tho - as an XBOX owner - it's more for information's sake and just out of curiosity, than to be proud/feel down if 'my' version is gonna be the best/the worst.

    For example, it's curious to read how the blurrier look of Split Second 360 is now a post process 'feature', whereas I'm kind of sure a very similar situation with another multi on PS3 has been claimed as a technical issue.
    As well as no one seems to have noticed how many choppers are missing on Lost Planet 2 PS3 during a (i guess pre-rendered?) cutscene...

    Funny stuff, anyway.

  • GamerG #18 2 years ago

    Well done PS3 got a couple of tie's this round!

  • CaptainQuint #19 2 years ago

    Since they first started doing these face-offs, the Xbox was the clear winner and the fact that it still is, years later - I think it's fair to say the PS3 is never gonna take the multiformat crown.

    So the question is: why even bother continuing on with 'em? Face-offs, I mean. It's pointless.

  • youhavenomail #20 2 years ago

    DF can give the nod to the 360 version of Split/Second all they like, I know which version my non-fanboy eyes are telling me looks superior in that comparison video.

  • Goodfella #21 2 years ago

    I think it's time the sony fanboys looked at themselves in the mirror and admitted they bought the wrong console.

    I think it's time twats like you stopped posting anything because nobody cares, except perhaps your moronic fanboy friends, if you have any.

    How have they bough the wrong console exactly? Like any other console it has it's good share of must have exclusives, games you'll clearly never get to experience. Your loss, our gain matey. I get the best of both worlds though having a 360 and a PS3.

  • DoctorFraud #22 2 years ago

    Another comfortable win for the 360, as expected.

    What amuses me is how PS3 devs have to work like dogs right down to the hardware layer just to get something approaching parity with the 360 (they very rarely manage it though), yet all 360 games run on top of a DirectX layer!

    If 360 devs were allowed to program to the metal and use the full power of the console then every PS3 exclusive would look like a ZX spectrum game in comparison.

  • Zerobob #23 2 years ago

    I still think these comparisons are necessary in some cases. Red Dead Redemption, for example, is sharper and has a greater draw distance on the 360, which literally does impact the game, as mentioned in the DF analysis.

    However, I think all the games mentioned in today's analysis are so close it doesn't matter which version you go for.

  • M4RV #24 2 years ago

    I miss the good old days when people actually cared about this kind of stuff... Or at least, when said games were actually worth the effort, unlike the ones in this face-off.

  • Machiavellian #25 2 years ago

    I don't like the way the resolution deficit on the 360 for split/second is just glossed over as unimportant but screen tear on the ps3 is made a big deal leading to a wobbly image. I didn't notice any on the ps3 demo, unless it was just not a very demanding level leading to lower stress on the engine. For me resolution is an important issue, it's whats held me back from getting RDR.

    It glossed over because it does not make a difference to the TOTAL image quality. This has happen to PS3 games where DF has glossed over the image deficit if it did not play a role in decreasing the total image quality. I always find that people get anal about this or that then totally not read or understand the full article. They concentrate on one thing and the next thing you know it's the whole bias thing again when in actuality it's the bias of the reader that is shone.

  • Guitarnerd87 #26 2 years ago

    #34

    Except what I was saying is that the resolution deficit is a big issue in terms of image quality for me :S
    IMHO Crisper Image >> Too many effects


    Obviously that opinion does suck when PS3 games are covered in quincux!

  • Machiavellian #27 2 years ago

    any such tearing is basically invisible to the human eye, but not to our tools"

    not trying to be picky but if i cant see the problem then surely it isnt really an issue in the decision making process of which format to buy.

    If we are going to talk about problems we cant see now then i think this type of article has run its course.

    I am sorry but did you just stop on that one line and did not read the rest of the article or is this one of those comprehension issues I see with a lot of readers. Here is the paragraph right after the one you referenced

    The soft v-sync plays havoc with performance analysis graphs, so we effectively crop the top 10 lines from the analysis to produce a readout more in line with what the human eye perceives.

    This is a classic case that I was talking about that people focus on one sentence then totally turn off their brain, don't read the rest of the article or just plain not care.

  • specular #28 2 years ago

    Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 reminds me of Playstation 1 vs. Sega Saturn. The Saturn had great hardware on paper but only a handful of programmers could make use of it. So when games came out on both systems, the Saturn would usually have some emulation effects, or sometimes none at all, when compared to the lush PS effects.

    The PS1 made it easier to make games and to me it looks like the PS3 seems to be todays Saturn: great fun, yet you can't help but feel there is raw untapped power not being put to use most of the time.

  • Machiavellian #29 2 years ago

    Except what I was saying is that the resolution deficit is a big issue in terms of image quality for me :S
    IMHO Crisper Image >> Too many effects

    That would only matter if the add resolution provided better image quality (crispiness) on the PS3 version. This was the case with GTA4 where the 360 had the higher resolution but the poor shadowing caused the overall image quality to look worst than the PS3 version. Another case in point I believe would be the Saboteur

  • davisorle #30 2 years ago

    @Vanmunt
    I own both systems and Im interested in these articles in the same manner I am into reading and posting about O.C. and benchmarking for my gaming PC at home. I actually think that for you stating that these articles are only usefull for the 360 owners yet you keep coming here and check the comments and leave stupid and pointless remarks is cause you are the one coming back for more, hoping that you prove yourself you didnt waste money on a PS3? Think about it. I own both consoles and thankfully I know that even before I buy a PS3, shit like that never came out of my mouth. Grow up please and next time read and article before you post. Gives your online life a meaning.

    @Dr.Mott
    You havent even got what the article says. Read that part again and then erase your post cause it stands incorrect.

    Its funny that PS3 owners in DF articles are found saying that they are feeding the 360 owners yet its just them bitching about and I dont even see any 360 owners laughing at PS3 owners or anything stupid like that. So for the love of God stop being so butthurt for owning a PS3 cause silly comments like those have a boomerang effect when others actually read them i.e. me!

    If you dont like the DF articles stop moaning and bitching like lil kiddos and just do NOT read them. And what's worst is that you dont read them and just come on the comment section right away ( most make sure of the result I bet though first ) and say what you think of those articles. Those guys are doing a fucking great job actually and i find DF the best bit of the whole site. If you are incapable of NOT clicking on the fucking article's title KNOWING that its a faceoff, which you so much hate, Im sorry to tell you but the articles nor Richard is the one playing stupid feeding any "trolls" of any console lover. You are just that stupid.

    Thank you Richard and keep up the good work. Love DF. Its the only serious and worth reason coming back to EG anymore for me :)

    Edit: Sorry for long post and if my English is bad -.-
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 17:26

  • Globalexpress #31 2 years ago

    I find these articles interesting. Firstly, when the PS3 first came out, there was already a difference in rendering performance between the two. Some argued that the PS3 needed to mature and we would see better graphics on this console. Its been a few years since the release and clearly this is not the case.

    It all comes down to the GPU on the Xbox. Even though the PS3 has a sophisticated and powerful processor (the cell), there's a bottleneck occurring at the GPU level. Its similar to a PC, powerful processor + 'poor' GPU = Bad graphic rendering performance.

    In the end I still think the performance differences are too small to use as a criteria when choosing a console.

    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 17:50

  • Calgon #32 2 years ago

    "I always find that people get anal about this or that then totally not read or understand the full article. They concentrate on one thing and the next thing you know it's the whole bias thing again when in actuality it's the bias of the reader that is shone."

    +1

    If anything is a waste of time about it, it's the comments because of the amount of whining aimed at DF or Richard, there's no better way to describe it than childish tantrum throwing.
    Edited by 2 at 09/06/10 @ 18:02

  • makeamazing #33 2 years ago

    I am still shocked people like the Atari ST over the Amiga, because it had a better sound chip... disgraceful!!!! Fanboys have been around for ages, i guess its just more irritating to me these days...must be my age. :D

  • sfp_noodle #34 2 years ago

    I plan to pick up Split Second and The Forgotten Sands at some point. Good to know both the versions are almost exactly the same. The only variable that will influence my purchasing decision is which version I find cheaper. To be honest though, that's the only variable I've ever taken into account when purchasing a game. Apart from Bayonetta, which nobody can deny was a shocking port, no other game has really stood out in a negative way that would make a PS3 owner feel short changed.


    Honestly, I bet if there was a way to play PS3 games with a 360 controller and you didn't tell the person they were playing a PS3 game with a 360 pad, NOBODY would be able to notice the supposed differences between the versions. They'd be happy knowing they were playing it on 360, and to be honest, that's the only additional pleasure they would get outside of enjoying the actual game. I mean, would their view on the game suddenly change after they found out? Would they suddenly start noticing things that weren't there? I strongly doubt it.

  • Calgon #35 2 years ago

    "They'd be happy knowing they were playing it on 360, and to be honest, that's the only additional pleasure they would get outside of enjoying the actual game."

    Except the people making the most noise about the differences to the point of berating the developers, DF, Richard and anyone who prefers another platform to the PS3 are a select bunch of PS3 owners.

    They must have some sort of inferiority complex where they beleive theres 360 fanboys everywhere making a big deal of this and mocking them or some other madness, when if they'd actually read the thread --aside from some obvious windup comments(which is no different to the obligitory RROD gag that some haven't got bored of yet)-- its not like that at all(especially when the differences are so minimal).
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 18:18

  • miiiguel #36 2 years ago

    Stop this please, it's not even funny anymore. It's been 4 years, it doesn't matter anymore. It was all lies, PS3 was never the "real next gen, until we say so" it's the same (eventually...). What the heck did they do in that one year?! A marketing stunt ?

  • Retroid #37 2 years ago

    makeamazing: "I am still shocked people like the Atari ST over the Amiga, because it had a better sound chip... disgraceful!!!! Fanboys have been around for ages, i guess its just more irritating to me these days...must be my age. :D"

    The ST had MIDI capability built-in and the Amiga didn't, it certainly DID NOT have a better sound chip than the Amiga!

  • RKOwned #38 2 years ago

    I really dont get why PS3 versions of games are still ending up worse. Its clear that there something speacil underneath the hood of the PS3 because the PS3 has the best looking Exclusives. IS it that Multiplatform devs are just not taking the time to ooptimize for it? are they lazy? And does this somehow make the PS3 a worse console then the 360 since 80 percent of games this gen are multiplatform?

  • SG79 #39 2 years ago

    I don't quite get this. The features are clearly getting better as Richard's knowledge increases (just compare them to the first face-offs), and more importantly, they're concluding that the games have been getting closer since mid 2008 with the occasional dud like Bayonetta.

    If you don't like the opinions stated in the articles, then just look at the stated facts. Split/Second for example is an even game when you consider the pros and cons of each version (higher res, more audio options vs less tearing and less artifacts). Likewise for Lost Planet 2; it's tearing vs. a variable frame rate. Look at the whole picture. Going back to Blur, I'm sure some of you glossed the fact that the games are identical and picked on the fact that the AA solutions are different.

    As far as parity in general, it's not a secret that with a larger western user base and developer friendly environment, the 360 has had the edge. Still does with some developers who have a larger audience on the console. Why would they concentrate on getting better performance out of a console with an exotic design and a lower user base? (as far as the west goes, there is a 8-9 million lead on the 360). You want the best the PS3 can offer performance wise? Look at the exclusives and call it day.

    Even then, most differences nowadays are noticeable using analysis tools. Unless you have them and use them as you play, just enjoy the games. If you're taking them too seriously, you're not having fun.

  • MizzouGaming #40 2 years ago

    At this point Im not even sure my PS3 even plays multiplatform games.

  • RKOwned #41 2 years ago

    @Mizzougaming: LOL WUT?

  • TRUTH #42 2 years ago

    Red Dead Redemption has the most gorgeous graphics so far - yet still looks, plays better on 360!

    I think personally that 5yrs now of 360/PS3, no one is really gonna make that huge leap in graphics on a pacific console, with Enslaved, Rage, Crysis 2, Dead Space 2 all looking ahead of any exclusives already.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 20:47

  • TRUTH #43 2 years ago

    Lost Planet 2 did actually have some amazing action and effects - probably the best explosions so-far!...Yet if this was an exclusive people be raving about the graphics for there console.

  • TRUTH #44 2 years ago

    These games for PS3 were especially coded for PS3, with huge funding (GOW 45million), the best Sony tools and programmers from Sony. But what sense have they surpassed!...they look great but you can say though UC II looked gorgeous; did it have the scale and complexity, the characters onscreen with more sophisticated AI, bigger battles, sandbox, open world nature of AC II or RDR - NO!..Yet both these games look and play better then PS3 versions.

    Yet games like LP 2, RE 5, Dirt 2, AC II, GTA, RDR have some great graphics & effects that still ahead of any exclusives yet don't get praised as there not exclusives, yet are more complex games then UC 2 or corridor games like KZ2; and also run/look better on 360... Also 360 is system that has always used middleware software, rather then software specially developed for the console as PS3...The only game to really start to use the 360 is Halo Reach - not just lookind snazzy graphically, but the scale of battles, the AI, the opponents onsreen, the physics, the open world sandbox fighting etc etc...Not corridor, set pieces and few spawning characters with set AI routes in corridor-boxed environments.
    Edited by 2 at 09/06/10 @ 22:28

  • SG79 #45 2 years ago

    Classic. Killzone 2 is a corridor shooter apparently, and Reach is open world? You really know the games and technology if you believe that.

  • ronuds #46 2 years ago

    It's sad that so many people feel the need to grace the comments section with yet another comment about how these articles are a waste of time.

    Why'd you read it and comment on it then?!?!?

  • ronuds #47 2 years ago

    @ Masterflaw

    What are you talking about? The PS3 and 360 each have exclusive sandbox games - with more on the way!
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 21:53

  • flanker22 #48 2 years ago

    split second though I would easily give it to the higher resolution game but its weird that the 360 version because of the lower resolution exhibits less shimmer.

  • TRUTH #49 2 years ago

    I meant open (not world) structure fighting sandbox

  • flanker22 #50 2 years ago

    @RKOwned

    the reason is development time. given 1 year for the xbox version it would take 2x times the period to match it, and 3x-4x to exceed it. thats basically how it goes, considering that the xbox versions of these games sell more why spend more effort on the ps3 version? sony fanboys have a problem with entitlement you have to look at it from the big picture these multiplatform developers are their own company and dont owe anything to sony, they just want the easier development platform. as for ppl who say lazy, please just stfu how about you try to code something even which seems as simple as tetris.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 22:32

  • skyrend #51 2 years ago

    Great, comparisons on five games I wouldn't be buying anyway from Richard "eDRAM" Leadbetter.

  • SG79 #52 2 years ago

    I meant open (not world) structure fighting sandbox

    And you're still off since Killzone 2 is no more a corridor shooter than Reach. Which is to say, neither compare to old school closed corridor shooters.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 23:58

  • Lunastra78 #53 2 years ago

    TRUTH: "I think personally that 5yrs now of 360/PS3, no one is really gonna make that huge leap in graphics on a pacific console, with Enslaved, Rage, Crysis 2, Dead Space 2 all looking ahead of any exclusives already."

    Well mr.T, I would like to point of pacifically to you that you have you have no pacific proof to back up the pacifics of what you just stated there.

  • MrsPacMan #54 2 years ago

    @Vanmunt

    'These face off are only relevant to people who only own a 360... and want to convince themselves a PS3 is rubbish. '

    Why do you still read these article/posts... because one day you hope your PS3 will catch up. lol

  • bluetoothion #55 2 years ago

    Most people ask why keep reading Face-offs

    My story is sth like this

    1. started out as interest
    2. turn out to curiousity if my ps3 will catch up
    3 frustrated that i thought ps3 couldn't haddle SNES games
    4. then came Richards defense on FFXIII
    4.5 saw other exclusives
    5 i vowed to follow DF ever since to see what the hell is he gonna come up with to make ps3 look ALWAYS slightly worse

    didn't grow tired yet

  • skyrend #56 2 years ago

    I think the real question is, will DF ever get anyone who knows anything about the PS3 architecture to write about this stuff rather than eDRAM expert Leadbetter?

  • brod #57 2 years ago

    I don't care if the differences do become so small as to be irrelevant - these articles will still be interesting to read :)

  • HokutoNoKen #58 2 years ago

    The RAM bandwidth of Xbox 360 GPU is almost equal to RADEON X1600 XT and shared with the CPU by UMA. The reason to use UMA is to cut down costs according to EDGE magazine, its the very same reason why they use it in laptops.

    eDRAM is implemented to mitigate the impact of the low memory bandwidth.
    Tile rendering has many performance demerits.
    - In games with many polygons the cost of overlapped geometry grows large, and the penelty gets larger with the more tiles that are used.
    - Lens effect, refraction, HDR effects such as bloom and glare, and other frame buffer filtering cause overlapped drawing near tile boundaries.
    The use of Sub-HD to avoid tiling is one solution to overcome some of these problems.

    / Ken

  • zorik4 #59 2 years ago

    skyrend
    I think DF already know much more about xbox & ps3 hardware than trolls&kids here ;)
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 07:57

  • 3william56 #60 2 years ago

    "something we'll throw out to the pixel counters out there"

    /irony buffer overloads
    /reality frame tear

  • IkariW #61 2 years ago

    So, having read yet another load of quite pointless comparisons... the conclusion seems to be, The PS3 and 360 are the same with no noticable advantage either way, or, the 360 is technically better. So which is the more powerful console again? haha (Flame)

    Seriously though, both machines are out standing pieces of kit, both have strengths and weaknesses.
    Having a good knowledge of both technically, and how they can be programmed on, I can safely say, you'll probably NEVER have a case of a game being done on one that couldn't technically be done on another, it'd just be done in different ways.

    And before the PS3 fan boys start harping on about massive games on Blue Ray blah blah, I mean, the technical aspects, the guts of the machines, not a storage devices. Obviously bigger games would take up more DVDs on a 360.

    So can we just get over it all please....

    To be honest, I'm already getting bored of both, 360 has been around 5 years, I'm ready for another system now.
    Preferably with no moving parts in it, no drives at all, solid state memory, USB games or download preferably both!....
    Less noise, less heat, smaller, that will be the way it all goes.

    Hopefully soon....
    Ikari



  • skyrend #62 2 years ago

    zorik4

    I'm not so sure. We see Leadbetter chide SE for not making great use of eDRAM, but nothing specific in order to address Rockstar's shortcomings on the noticeably worse PS3 version of RDR. This indicates to me that he's much more familiar with the 360 hardware than the PS3 hardware.

  • berryl227 #63 2 years ago

    @ ikari

    yep think you might have the next gen nailed. Not sure Sony will go without blue ray though. I hope the next gen isn't too soon coming having bought a ps3 on launch (£500 ouch) and a slim this year I'm hoping there's at least 12-18 months before the next consoles

  • Vic #64 2 years ago

    360 has the better looking multiplatinum games, PS3 has the better looking exclusives.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 11:28

  • Vic #65 2 years ago

    Yes Killzone is very cutscene heavy isn't it?!!. FFS 360 fanboys will come out with anything to make themselves feel better, and wont accept that when pushed the PS3 generally out-performs the 360. This doesn't happen with multiplatform games where developers rarely make the most of its exotic architecture.

    Gears of War is very linear, but is still probably the best looking game on the 360. On the PS3 it would only just make the top ten.

  • Badassbab #66 2 years ago

    Vic,

    I agree the PS3 exclusives look better than anything on the 360 but if you think Gears is the best looking game on the 360 and would only just make the top ten (say ten for arguments sake) what other 9 games on the PS3 would you say looks better?

  • Vic #67 2 years ago

    God of War 3, MGS 4, GT Prologue, Uncharted 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy (looks better on PS3 because it was originally an exclusive).

    Heavenly Sword and Motorstorm both look amazing for launch games too (compare them with their 360 equivalents).

    I think Gears of War 2 would just make the top ten on PS3. On 360 it positively waltzes in.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 12:39

  • DoctorFraud #68 2 years ago

    @Vic

    LOL! Get some glasses, your eyesight sucks!

  • Vic #69 2 years ago

    When I saw EG's screenshots of Alan Wake I was thinking the same thing...

  • HokutoNoKen #70 2 years ago

    According to some people exclusive games such as God of War 3, MGS 4, GT Prologue, Uncharted 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy (this one is a multplatform) only look good because they are linear, closed environment, crap AI, invested by Sony's big pockets, Sony has grabbed all the best developers etc etc...

    ...and according to the very same people the Xbox 360 has a far superior GPU and twice as much memory which makes it even more confusing that the Xbox 360 can't reproduce the same quality on similar small type of games. Why would 360 "struggle" on small games but not on big open sand-box games such as GTA4, RDR and vice versa...

    ...if 360 is more powerful it should be superior in all type of games as it has a more powerful GPU and more memory...

    ...or could it be as simple that the reason that games such as GTA4, RDR or other multplatform games looks/performs better on 360 is because and only because the gfx-engine (maybe middleware) wasn't created with PS3:s orthodox architecture is mind, in other words, the engines is more suited for the 360 and PC:s hardware. PS3 also has the problem that it was released 1 year later so the developer libraries has to catch up...

    (inFamous gfx-engine is a multiplatform engine - this was revealed in an interview with the developer so at the moment we haven't seen any exclusivly made PS3 engine for sand-box type of games)

    / Ken
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/10 @ 17:38

  • Badassbab #71 2 years ago

    Vic-

    I own both consoles and Alan Wake too and I think Alan Wake looks better than all of them bar Uncharted 1&2 and GOWIII.

    Edit- Actually maybe Prologue and KZ2 should be added to that list.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 14:04

  • Vic #72 2 years ago

    Alan Wake has a lot of flaws imo, both technical and in terms of gameplay. Shame they didn't release it on PC - it could have been the game it was intended to be.

    EDIT: Surely Remedy would have been funded by MS for Alan Wake? I imagine MS would have covered the advertising for the game, but I don't see why they would go exclusive just for that??
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/10 @ 14:43

  • Badassbab #73 2 years ago

    Vic-

    Not sure what you mean. I mean technically it would've been better on the PC but gameplay wise surely it wouldn't have made much difference apart from say 60fps gameplay.

  • Vic #74 2 years ago

    How many people do you think worked on Halo, Gears and Project Gotham??

  • Vic #75 2 years ago

    Alan Wake is 960x540, and has some tearing. The PC version could have been 1080p with 8xAA.

  • IronCladChicken #76 2 years ago

    @Vic
    Why would the PC version be limited to 1080p?
    It's been a long time since PC gamers were limited to such a low res.

  • BuckEntropy #77 2 years ago

    @GoodGodOWhitey - "The ATI GPU in the 360 is actually just a Radeon X850 with an eDRAM module added, its only the eDRAM that gives the GPU the edge.... take away the eDRAM and a Nvidia 6800 GT will absolutely destroy the X850 Fact!!
    So think the only thing that gives the 360 this superior architecture is a small but fantastic Ram module.
    Take away that piece of eDRAM out of the 360 & PS3 would destroy it with the superior 7800 GT architecture!!
    It's all about the eDRAM people!!"

    That really is a false equivalent, in general Xenos represents more of a prototype for subsequent ATI cards, but the implementation was influenced by 360 priorities from the start, MS even contributed design technology of their own. And aside from the daughter die Xenos has a few custom functions (not just interface changes) that are not on any PC cards. Compared to RSX which is about as customized as the NV2A, (and recall no one had any problem calling the XBOX "off-the-shelf";) and is truly just a retrofit of an already finalized architecture - and most differences in performance from the closest PC card seem to fall on the side of subtractions actually. But aside from that comparing the performance of specific card packages is just a lousy pretense for analogy.

    As for the other assertion, it's become a pet peeve for me: indeed it's about the eDRAM, but far from "all about". It's an appropriate and cost effective design for the console, but it's no more magical than the PS3's SPUs are. For instance the bandwidth doesn't magically change the shader fillrate - it may not even apply to that at all - and yet in practice 360 has demonstrated the edge there all around. I don't think there's any games that demonstrate any higher performance level than Capcom with their MT-Framework showpieces (yes, even including those PS3 exclusives) so far, and they consistently deal with additional sub-pixel overhead for MSAA on 360 and even still manage to deliver a performance edge.

    There's any number of possible contributing factors, including bottlenecks in feeding RSX the assets, but that becomes a case in point where even if 360 has better bandwidth flow, it can have little to do with the eDRAM bandwidth. Cell can unquestionably help PS3 pull off some cool, unique tricks, and even compensate greatly for the RSX in many areas. But just concerning the GPUs this whole notion that it's only the eDRAM that gives Xenos the edge over RSX is a clear fallacy.

    -

    Since I've noticed a certain line of thought echoed several times in this thread, guess I'll offer up my own overriding reason for interest in these articles. Before either 360 or PS3 were even available, I'd looked at some of the early tech articles and got the impression Cell was the only X factor for PS3. And even though everyone seemed to be going out of their way to give benefit of the doubt to that theoretical power, those SPUs basically had everything to prove, because the rest wasn't particularly impressive. So yes I admit, verification and validation of my own point of view is a factor. But it's not because I'm against Sony or the PS3, far from it I don't want anyone to dominate the console market. I'm just a person who's always tried to be realistic about hype, and it's impossible not to develop certain animosities when one is literally told - BY A SALES REP I'M TRYING TO BUY A CONSOLE FROM - that I "don't want a 360", no in fact I "want to wait for PS3" because, you know, it's going to be like FIVE TIMES MORE POWERFUL!. Yet I go ahead and buy my 360 on the assumption that this guy is completely full of shit...

    Then sure, I honestly get a kick out of finding out just how right I've been all along. This has all been such a sad replay of the same basic narrative about PS2, and I even grew to like that console quite a lot, as PS3 is also growing on me. But while I will obviously have a bias for one console over another at any given time, my only real negative biases, are just against blind, detrimental hype and BS.

    I greatly agree with Thought-Criminal, though in a more general way. The focus on such an arbitrary standard of technical level and production, and even content, has only diminished and even homogenized gaming. But there is a single player, in the console market at least, that has done more than any other to frame things deliberately so.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 18:33

  • TRUTH #78 2 years ago

    Actually Metro 2033 looks just as good as KZ2, and in fact some of the particle & lighting effects in Metro 2033 are the best seen on a console...RDR is one of the finest looking games at present - massive open world, sandbox, physics, Ai, draw distance, physics, ambiance etc etc...better frame rate, better draw distance, better sharper textures then the PS3!...this was also using middleware, not pacifically tooled for 360. Bayonneta action, effects, characters, fluidity, fighting with many more animated moves, mass over load onscreen all surpass GOW 3; GOW 3 only looked better, but nothing compared with the madness onscreen (esp later levels) of Bayonetta - and I believe the PS3 version suffered!

    GOW 2 is now a fairly old game, with an aged middleware software/tooling system. It's still a fine looking game (large characters, loads of action onscreen, big explosions, weighty physics and well textures and detailed for todays standards). So to use this as an excuse to against UC 2, GOW 3 is a little unfair...The games that are using the 360, specially designed for the 360 and programmed just for the 360 is actually only Halo Reach, and with GoW III using an improved Unreal Engine.

    Some of the best multiformat games graphically Boarderlands, RE 5, LP 2, RDR, Dirt 2, AC II, GTA, Fight Night 4, SSF IV, Split Second; can still compete against UC 2, GoW 3 - are you really saying that there is really that mush difference - I have both consoles and say in fact some of the games listed can hold up against the exclusives.

    Yet all these games ended up looking better, ran better on 360.
    Edited by 4 at 10/06/10 @ 21:03

  • Vic #79 2 years ago

    "Actually Metro 2033 looks just as good as KZ2" - LOL.

    GOW2 is fairly old...and still the best looking 360 game out there.

  • TRUTH #80 2 years ago

    Yhea a game 2years old still holds up, not bad for a game that uses middleware and not written from scratch!.. No - RDR is probably the best looking game right now and also more complex (not a simple shooter/hack and slash etc); and it's the 360 that's better then the PS3 version in several areas.

    Metro 2033 considering it was made on a tight low budget (unlike KZ2 millions), made a by very small team (unlike KZ2 huge funding, engineers, programmers), started originally on PC (then covertered to 360 in very small time frame - unlike KZ2 2yr+ development using tools esp created for PS3)...yet Metro 2033 does hold up well against KZ2 (I'm mainly talking about the the particle effects and lighting, ambiance and certain graphical areas/effects)...I've played KZ 2 and can't understand the over praise it gets with it's graphics. The only reason I've kept KZ 2 is to occasionally play online, not because it's a great fps.
    Edited by 3 at 10/06/10 @ 21:02

  • TRUTH #81 2 years ago

    And it's 5yrs on now!

  • RKOwned #82 2 years ago

    @ Flanker

    But does the fact that PS3 gets the worse version make it the worse console? and should I feel stupid for wanting to get them on PS3?

  • TRUTH #83 2 years ago



    So you played Forza 3 and found it to arcady ?...you have not even touched it!...you can set the game up to preference on how simulation or arcade you want.

    Alan Wake did have some great graphics (though at lower resolution just like RDR & Bayonneta on PS3 had lower res), yet you don't realize the trouble the game went through to ge it on 360 (cost, funding, PC then PC & 360, small team, had to change the game several times due to time/cost/small production team, delays.. etc etc) ...not because the 360 can't handle it, yet you think the PS3 can handle it better - see most multiformat PS3 games, and you answer your own question!

  • DoctorFraud #84 2 years ago

    @staryj

    Pure fail. You have not played Forza, that much is obvious. And if you think the GT series is anything approaching simulation then I'd say you probably haven't spent much time in a car, and you definitely have never driven on track.

  • DoctorFraud #85 2 years ago

    Even at lower resolution Alan Wake still looks better than anything onthe PS3.

    PS3 simply would not be able to handle the lighting engine, especially in the nighttime scenes.

  • DoctorFraud #86 2 years ago

    @staryj

    Alan wake > any PS3 game.
    Mass Effect 2 > any PS3 game.
    Gears 1+2 > any PS3 game.

    You obviously know nothing about racing games. Nothing.

  • HokutoNoKen #87 2 years ago

    Maybe we all shall chill out and take a break and watch this instead:

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=VK2Amr_V1Fg
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=VK2Amr_V1Fg
    [/link]

    Far superior then anything else...

    / Ken

  • Loghorn #88 2 years ago

    Yes Killzone is very cutscene heavy isn't it?!!. FFS 360 fanboys will come out with anything to make themselves feel better, and wont accept that when pushed the PS3 generally out-performs the 360. This doesn't happen with multiplatform games where developers rarely make the most of its exotic architecture.

    The ONLY reason why PS3 exclusives looks much better than any 360 game out there is because that Sony pushes their developers hard with time & money on their games, while Microsoft doesn't do it within their developers. The 360 is just as capable of pushing out great graphics. Plus 3rd party developers aren't going to waste more of their development time & money just to make their multiplat games just about the same as the 360 or even better than the 360.

    Besides, PC games like Crysis 1 beats out every PS3 exclusive in the book in terms of graphics. And very soon, Crysis 2 will take over. And most of people play multiplats rather than exclusives.

    I think it's time the sony fanboys looked at themselves in the mirror and admitted they bought the wrong console.

    Totally agree. I wound up buying myself a 360 & wound up using it for the majority of multiplats, because most of them happen to run, look, & play better on it. My PS3 only winds up getting played for exclusives & Blu-Ray.

  • Vic #89 2 years ago

    @ Masterflaw

    Absolutely, GOW3 is a beast. Santa Monica did a great job there.

    360 is a good machine, but really I'm not too bothered about multiplatform games as they generally nearly the same on both machines. It's the exclusives that draw me to a machine, and the PS3 has more top exclusives imo.

  • Retroid #90 2 years ago

    HokutoNoKen: "...and according to the very same people the Xbox 360 has a far superior GPU and twice as much memory"

    Uhhhh..... no. The 360 can use as much or as little of the 512mb RAM it has for the GPU, whereas the PS3 has 256mb reserved solely for GPU and the same amount for system RAM.

    I don't think I've ever seen *anyone* say that the 360 has "twice as much memory".

  • HokutoNoKen #91 2 years ago

    @Retroid
    "Uhhhh..... no. The 360 can use as much or as little of the 512mb RAM it has for the GPU, whereas the PS3 has 256mb reserved solely for GPU and the same amount for system RAM."

    Thx, I already know that. It's not me who says that so tell that to them.

    "I don't think I've ever seen *anyone* say that the 360 has "twice as much memory".

    You maybe haven't seen that but I have, cheers!

    / Ken

  • BuckEntropy #92 2 years ago

    UC2: Lighting yes, it's excellent; Physics, seemed nice enough when it even mattered; But AI?!?

    Very few games have done anything new with AI in years, but UC2 seemed very average in that area. A pretty standard turkey shoot. Since you mentioned physics, it reminded me of another good example: I already know 9 out of 10 people could never get past the difference in style no matter what, but at least Rare's delivered something on the same technical level as UC2, with Banjo-Kazooie: N&B. Just about any discrete element, be it texture quality, lighting, detail, scope, shader effects etc... I don't think it could be found lacking. Though I may give an IQ edge to UC2, but hard to say since I still have an older 360 with no HDMI. And the physics are a lot more... meaningful at least. Lots more possibilities to actually show them off.

    360 has it's examples, just none that get the same kind of hype.

  • Badassbab #93 2 years ago

    Thing is though Halo doesn't look like shit. I played ODST the other day on my TV which is 32inch, 1080p, 100hz and it doesn't look too bad. I forgot how big the levels were, the scale is quite impressive on a big tv.

  • BuckEntropy #94 2 years ago

    Wow Masterflaw, since "people" also say KZ2 looks like shit does that make it a good argument? And the marketing budget for Halo 3 has no bearing on the sort of hype I'm talking about, especially as MS' marketing has never centered on framing 360 games as being on some untouchable technical level. Only Sony does that lately, at least that's what the ads in the states have all been like.

    I might characterize Halo 3 as looking somewhat 'quaint' but it's still got a lot going for it, and some distinct technical characteristics. Personally it's only a plus that it doesn't look so homogeneous with the vogue.

  • Loghorn #95 2 years ago

    @GoodGodOWhitey:

    It's the truth, it's not bashing. I'm trying to get it out of the PS3 fanboys heads that the PS3 is the most powerful in the world.

  • geordiek #96 2 years ago

    Teh 360 pwns da ps3, er no teh ps3 owns da 360.
    Or some such bollocks.

  • geordiek #97 2 years ago

    Teh 360 pwns da ps3, er no teh ps3 owns da 360.
    Or some such bollocks.
    I'm not really down with this new fangled kid's speech.

  • TRUTH #98 2 years ago

    Infamous 1 was a poor mans Crackdown

    Resistance 1 & 2 was poor mans fps

    Socom 1,2 & 3 have all been shit!

    And these sort of games that make PS3 fanboys go crazy!...I'll wait for Haze 2, because it's so great for an exclusive.
    Edited by 1 at 12/06/10 @ 23:46

  • Loghorn #99 2 years ago

    DF can give the nod to the 360 version of Split/Second all they like, I know which version my non-fanboy eyes are telling me looks superior in that comparison video.

    I say that DF got it right. As for your comment, I'll take better performance over slightly better graphics.

  • TRUTH #100 2 years ago

    Have even played MAG - have seen it's Metric score, how basic it really is to have all those player on!...same with all the others.

  • TRUTH #101 2 years ago

    Yhea at the sacrifice of almost everything else - it's so bland, physics are naff, explosions are crap, ai is shit, graphics are worse then \ps2, to many players it's all confusing and no one follows the rules, small same looking areas, very boxey etc etc etc...all just to put more players onscreen, it has sacrificed everything else!

  • DoctorFraud #102 2 years ago

    "Sony has Infamous 2, GT 5, resistance 3, last gaurdian, socom 4, motorstorm apocolypes, agent, the agency and KZ 3"

    Shit, never being released, legacy of shit, interesting, ubershit, copycat with bad handling, meh, worst FPS series ever created.

    Yep, Sony has the full range of shit, but all those titles are irrelevant. Fable 3, Reach, GoW3 are the good upcoming games. These are the games that will sell.

  • Josh128 #103 2 years ago

    I'm getting tired of these articles as well. As a tech enthusiast, I thought they were awesome at first, but at this point (~4 years in) it really seems like beating a dead horse. The basis of these articles seemed to be to truly discover which console could produce the best graphics / was the most powerful. With the multiplat / exclusive arguments, it seems there really may never be a definitive answer.

    It was fun debating console specs over the years when you could really see and hear a difference (16 and 32 bit eras), but really, since the PS2, GC, Xbox era the differences were getting trivial, and they are really trivial with this generation (with only one or two really notable exceptions). Case in point, Microsofts 360 performance (even for being a year older console) seemed to have caught Sony by surprise, and the PS3 (despite being perhaps the most hyped console of all time along with N64) in the end only acheived parity. PARITY-- the in game differences being argued in these articles essentially boils down to splitting hairs now. We all know what each console can do by now and I think its safe to assume we probably wont be shocked by any future title on either this generation.

    Im starting to agree with Nintendo that graphics have pretty much reached a point of diminishing returns (although it took real balls to say that point was at the Wii level!). While in the past we always could point to weaknesses and see room for real improvement in console generations, I struggle to think how the next gen can possibly wow us again in terms of polys/sec, fillrates, etc. Though they surely can still improve, I really dont think that will do much in terms of translating into drastically better looking graphics than we have at this moment. Think about it- in game images have pretty much approached photographic/ videographic realism-- how can it get drastically better?

    Like arcades have done in recent years, as unsexy as it may sound, I predict future consoles to basically be consolidated PC hardware. Handhelds, like the upcoming Nintendo 3DS may continue the trend of different architecture due to their size/nature though. We'll see. I think we're all too jaded by now on all this stuff. Kind of sad really.

  • TRUTH #104 2 years ago

    KZ2 graphics are not that amazing honestly. It seems only PS3 fanboys jump on this; Explosions were shit, everything was a set piece, vehicles were a joke, liner point A to B on very narrow paths (very MOH), texture were actually sub standard, the game repeats itself untill you reach a point (then you can just sit back and watch, as nothing again happens untill you push forward - look at the first bridge section (don't bow it up!)), similar enemy most of the game...GOW 2 had greater action & bigger (much) explosions with more characters onscreen / liner but more opern areas / more variety enemies / better textures - yet this is an old game almost 2yrs and used middleware software tools, also it was in production as evolution of previous engine GOW - which came a year b4; not built up from scratch that took almost 3+ys to build and produced with 30million+ cost, with Sony best working especially for PS3 KZ and all it's illusions of great graphics ...GoW still looks great, but, may not be cutting edge now ... But if you played Metro 2033 you see that actually surpassed in some areas in graphical effects too KZ 2, esp the particle effects and lighting. This game did not have the production values, or the people (only 45+ actually), or the MS help and yet the game looks as good as KZ2! ...KZ2 does look good, but, it's not the greatest - just dam good, not the leap PS3 fans keep saying. When I first played this I thought it be the game that Sony promised with graphics way ahead of xb360 - but honestly the hype did not prove anything Sony were saying, in graphics (very nice; not the leap PS3 fans claim) or gameplay(which was just an average fps).
    Edited by 2 at 14/06/10 @ 21:07

  • RKOwned #105 2 years ago

    @Android123

    I feel sorry for you.

  • SaberEdge #106 2 years ago

    I own and love both consoles quite a lot. However, I really don't see this gulf in the graphical quality between the exclusives of each console that some people talk about.

    To my eyes Alan Wake, Metro 2033, Gears of War 2 and Mass Effect 2 for all intents and purposes look right on par with the best looking games I own on the PS3 like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God of War 2. Really to me they all simply look different and I can't accurately say which ones look better. The all have their own approach to art design and their own graphical strengths and weaknesses.

    I also recently watched some footage of Gears of War 3 and I was surprised to see that they added in a real-time lighting engine, among other improvements, and it all looks absolutely fantastic. I would definitely say Gears of War 3 looks as good or better than anything I have played on the PS3.

    Oh and have you guys seen Rage? I watched them demo the 360 version on IGN and G4TV and it honestly is probably the best looking game I have seen running on any console.