Face-Off: Resident Evil 5

By Richard Leadbetter Published 10 March, 2009

Not quite black and white.

Page 1 of 2

Resident Evil 5 might not be quite the gaming masterpiece we were hoping for, but there are still plenty of reasons you should consider adding it to your gaming arsenal: excellent visuals, Resi 4-esque gunplay love, and a hugely enjoyable online co-op mode. The good news is that both Xbox 360 and PS3 games are worth serious consideration, but only one version will emerge triumphant from the uncompromising scrutiny of the Eurogamer Thunderdome. [I don't remember sanctioning a Thunderdome. - Ed]

The technology behind Resident Evil 5 is Capcom's very own Framework MT engine, which debuted on Xbox 360 as the workhorse behind Dead Rising. However, its earliest origins go back further to the Onimusha 3 era on PlayStation 2. Due to a series of presentations made at CEDEC 2006, reported in depth by the Japanese press and translated on the invaluable Beyond3D forum, we actually know quite a lot about this technology. For example, the MT stands for Multi-Target, Meta Tools and Multi-Threaded. And, amazingly, fewer than ten developers at Capcom's Japanese HQ created it.

Game development work starts on PC, and from there the code is easily ported to either the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, where platform-specific optimisations are coded in. The advantage of Framework MT is that although the focus is on console, Capcom also gets a PC version effectively for 'free'. This is a barebones version though, used for reference, and requires quite a lot of additional work before being ready for release as a commercial product - which may explain, in part, why we have to wait a while yet until Resident Evil 5 hits PC.

From official figures released at CEDEC by the developer, we also know a fair amount about the performance of the engine too. Each frame is comprised of between three and four million polygons, meaning a peak throughput of an astonishing 120m polygons per second. What's more, those stats date back to 2006, meaning there's every chance that Capcom has since improved and refined upon the technology. It's also worthwhile noting that the PS3 version of the engine only began development around a year after the 360 version was up and running.

Its cross-platform performance has been somewhat variable. Devil May Cry 4 scaled back a lot of Framework MT's effects in order to make 60fps viable (the technology is designed primarily for 30fps games) and it's one of the closest conversions we've seen. However, Lost Planet suffered pretty badly on PS3, exhibiting poorer visual quality and a decidedly lower frame-rate - despite arriving a year after its 360 sibling.

Capcom has clearly learned a lot of lessons since then, as initial impressions of Resident Evil 5 aren't bad at all, as you can see in the video below. As usual, the action's been slowed down to retain detail, and cropped so that one pixel in the Eurogamer player equates to one pixel on your HDTV. In addition, as is the norm with the Eurogamer face-off coverage, there are full range 24-bit RGB grabs purloined from the HDMI ports of both consoles. Go check them out in our Resident Evil 5 comparison gallery. There's also more video love at the Digital Foundry blog.

Right off the bat, it's worth saying that Resident Evil 5 on PS3 is a much more impressive conversion than Lost Planet, but it does still share some of its shortcomings: the frame-rate is lower on stressful scenes, there are a few missing special effects, and in common with all the previous games based on the same platform, it requires a big install. In this case, a whopper 4.8GB of your hard drive, taking ten minutes to transfer from the Blu-ray disc, up against the optional 6.7GB of the NXE installed 360 version.

Smoothing off the Edges

Capcom's Framework MT engine uses some very useful tricks in maintaining image quality. It runs at native 720p, and employs the use of full-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360, while using the 2x Quincunx technique on PS3. On a like-for-like basis, this means that the 360 has clearer visuals (2x QAA blurs every texture) but edge-smoothing is very similar. The cleverness kicks in when the engine is stressed. Rather than drop frames, the engine tones down the anti-aliasing instead. According to Capcom's own figures, this can result in a 20 per cent performance boost when the game needs it. The idea here is that the gameplay is sufficiently intense that you won't notice a momentary reduction in edge-smoothing. So on Xbox 360, it's reduced from 4x down to 2x, before being removed completely. On PS3, however, the Quincunx effect is either on, or off.

As it happens, Killzone 2 uses exactly the same technique. However, things are slightly odd on the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 in that the anti-aliasing can turn on and off again at any given point, seemingly when the engine seemingly isn't being stressed at all. In fact, it happens right at the beginning of the game, as the next video demonstrates. First you'll see the gameplay in typical 1:1 pixel mode, then we'll zoom in 200 per cent. Look at the rooftop and the palm tree in particular and witness the AA turn on and off in quick succession on what is a relatively painless scene.

Resident Evil 5 pushes the engine far more than its cross-platform predecessors on the Framework MT platform, so while we expect an impact on performance, it's rather bizarre than such an obvious effect like this should have made its way into the final code. For its part, Xbox 360 behaves exactly as it should, although it is not without its own visual compromises, which we'll get to later.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (152) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Ninja_Tino #1 3 years ago

    PS3 is the suxxors. I joke, I joke!!!

  • muscleblade #2 3 years ago

    Predictable.

    "PS3 is the suxxors. I joke, I joke!!! "

    Whats the joke?

  • andijames #3 3 years ago

    To be honest the differences are so subtle is it really a problem? Good game (if not ground breaking) on whatever your chosen platform is.

  • gabsta69 #4 3 years ago

    I wonder how many RROD's we will see from the 360 because of this game?

  • des #5 3 years ago

    After this some Resident Evil racist article must emerge for the cycle to be finished.

  • rudedudejude #6 3 years ago

    game sucks on both consoles, is not RE.

    /end

  • Psychotext #7 3 years ago

    Jaggytastic.

    Also, game sucks.

  • robg #8 3 years ago

    /end

    So what...is that the end of the end? What comes next?

  • bad09 #9 3 years ago

    "game sucks on both consoles, is not RE.

    /end "

    This.

    Can we have a face off for Code Veronica? I played originally on DC and now playing CVx on PS2. Man it looks fugly!

  • stevetuck #10 3 years ago

    as good as 2hrs of tomb raider DLC... no sale for me

  • Wastelander #11 3 years ago

    First time I've even watched vids of RE5.
    It looks quite decent, shame the PC vers won't be out for ages.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #12 3 years ago

    As a certified PS3 owner and lover, I must admit that those slow-mo vids really show the difference between the 360 and the PS3, putting to shame the Sony hardware in several areas.

    Its a shame they seem to have crippled the graphical capabilities of the PS3 but equiped it with a workhorse of a CPU. What were they thinking.

    Still, I do love the machine and even though I don't get on with the game, will try to enjoy playing Resi5 on the PS3.

  • Haloboy #13 3 years ago

    I can wait a couple of more months for the PC version thanks all the same.

  • DFawkes #14 3 years ago

    Has it changed since the demo? The 360 one tears like a bitch to the point it's literally unplayable at point, and I never whine about tearing. That's having done all the suggested fixes, but I'm sure it has to be different in the full game. That's via VGA, fact fans.

    I'd have the PS3 version, but I have to HDD disc space to spare, or certainly not that much. Shame. Please listen Capcom (who aren't even reading this) - installs are not a way to get your game running on PS3. Burnout Paradise managed, even EA manage most of the time.

  • Darren #15 3 years ago

    I'm sad I know but I found that a fascinating read and it came out in good time for owners of both the PS3 and 360 to decide which version to go for, although you can see the differences for yourself from playing the two demos.

    I wondered why the PS3 version looked more aliased than the 360 despite it looking as if it had AA at times... now I know why. Both games dynamically switch between various levels of AA, including off. Clever really and it works especially well on the 360 as I never noticed much aliasing at all in the two demo levels. I didn't notice any tearing at 720p either so if it's there then it's minimal (1360x768 and 1080p are different matters though, the tearing is horrendous, but that wasn't covered in this article). The PS3 version had a lower framerate and felt a little more sluggish but that's fair compensation for having no tearing.

    Interesting that developers have different priorities for both machine though. The 360 drops v-sync and tears to prevent framerate drops but yet the PS3 version doesn't. I can't help wondering why the PS3 version doesn't also drop v-sync to prevent these framerate drops too. The same approach was used for Fallout 3 too, which has a better framerate with some tearing on the 360 versus a lower framerate and no tearing on the PS3. Ditto for 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand... tearing on the 360, lower framerate and no tearing on the PS3. Does anyone know?

    Finally, a question about the statement in the article that the 360 has v-sync permanently disabled: the 360 version surely has v-sync enabled most of the time and only disables it when the framerate is going to drop too low otherwise it would tear constantly a la Saints Row and Saints Row 2, right?

  • lcmnick #16 3 years ago

    It's time for Sony to license out their KZ2 engine, and maybe when it's done, the God of War 3 engine to 3rd party devs.

    I agree with eurogamer...it's Sony's titles that look graphically impressive and superior...but then that's not surprising...Sony have probably locked their first party devs in a room and beat them into submission to make sure that they make the best graphics possible and that they make sure to say the PS3 isn't difficult that to develop for (as guerrilla and polyphony have done)

    Sony needs to sort it out. It laughable yet ironic that PS3 owners pay more for their console yet get the graphically lesser games.

  • ryohazuki1983 #17 3 years ago

    I had the same problem as DFawkes (and no doubt many others!), screen tearing was awful (via HDMI).

    Edit: Was running in 1080p, sounds like I need to change to 720.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 14:36

  • TopKatt #18 3 years ago

    I really think Richard Leadbetter needs to get out more.

  • sharky_ob #19 3 years ago

    Yawn.

  • Widge #20 3 years ago

    Specular maps are back in Fallout 3 360, for people who like these things:

    http://www. digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=552

  • Darren #21 3 years ago

    @ryohazuki1983 - As long as you run the game at 720p through HDMI and not 1360x768 or 1080p then the tearing is minimal. Like Capcom's Dead Rising, Resident Evil 5 seems to only be optimised for 1280x720 or lower, anything higher than that introduces more and more screen tearing. It seems to be an engine limitation because Capcom haven't bothered to fix it.

  • ryohazuki1983 #22 3 years ago

    Cheers Darren.

  • Buztafen #23 3 years ago

    I agree with Darren here, noticed some gawd awful screen tear on the 360 version even when just turning around whilst the box was set to 1080, soon as 720 was set it was hardly noticeable (in gameplay sections anyway). Still after downloading the PS3 version im leaning towards a little tearing being better than 2x quincunx....it does more bad than good imo.

    /meant DFawkes but Darrens views are also relevant.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 14:42

  • captainrentboy #24 3 years ago

    Shocking result, I can't believe it. :)
    I'm surprised a PS3 fanboy hasn't yet uttered the new phrase ''It doesn't matter that hundreds and hundreds of games look and play better on the 360, because they haven't got a game that looks like Killzone 2...''

  • Widge #25 3 years ago

    Saints Row 2 has the worst tearing I've seen in a game on this gen. I'm not usually a tearing/AA whore, but on that... well its just NO.

    I watched the Farcry2 faceoff and even though the graph was pointing at frequent tearing, I didn't see any at all. Some games it seems to hit more than others

  • des #26 3 years ago

    Resident Evil 5 looks better than Kill..hmm...Hypezone 2

  • Beano #27 3 years ago

    @Darren : Set up you 360 to output 720p instead of 1080p, and tearing in RE5 is gone.

  • Beano #28 3 years ago

    @des: troll

  • DFawkes #29 3 years ago

    I forgot to say, I got the bad tearing at 720, that's VGA via a monitor that it obviously hadn't been optimised to.
    The PS3 is the better looking option for me personally, for the simple fact the PS3 is plugged into a bigger, nicer screen :) If I had to buy it, I'd get it for that. It's also a btter screen for co-op since it's about twice the size of my 360 monitor.

    I still reckon Gears 2 looks better than Killzone 2 though.

  • spookyzombie #30 3 years ago

    Thanks to Richard Leadbetter for getting this article out before the 13th of March.

  • ThePope #31 3 years ago

    It is exciting how good these games are beginning to look (even if the gameplay doesn't match up!) compare the visuals to state of the art 10 years ago. I remember seing Quake 3 for the first time nearly 10 years ago and wondering how it could look any better!

    It makes me wonder what another 10 years will bring?

  • RexRunti #32 3 years ago

    Doesn't Saits Row 2 give you the choice to turn V-sync on. I'm pretty sure I did after 2mins of play then never looked back.

  • uglygamer #33 3 years ago

    But but Sony has the graphics.

  • Canyarion #34 3 years ago

    @ stevetuck ("as good as 2hrs of tomb raider DLC... no sale for me";)

    They always consider the price when they grade a game. So implying that this game is about as good as a 2h DLC isn't right.

  • Widge #35 3 years ago

    Yeah someone has pointed out I should try turning the vlock on for SR2, but apparently the framerate goes to pot then!

  • DAN.E.B #36 3 years ago

    excellent visuals, Resi 4-esque gunplay love, and a hugely enjoyable online co-op mode. The good news is that both Xbox 360 and PS3 games are worth serious consideration excellent visuals, Resi 4-esque gunplay love, and a hugely enjoyable online co-op mode. The good news is that both Xbox 360 and PS3 games are worth serious consideration

    Thats why we gave it a crap score!!!!!!!!!!!

  • BillyBrush #37 3 years ago

    @Dfawkes / Hazuki

    switch to 720p, then it's not noticable in the demo

    must be something to do with upscaling...or something

  • septimus #38 3 years ago

    Game sucks on either platform. The trouble with MT is that the engine was developed for a very small amount of parallel processing. It will never shine on PS3. Ever.

    PS3 users know the machine can do better, a lot better has already been seen, but it takes too much time to do multi-platform right it seems. Shame. I am very fond of both my PS3 and 360 so no real loss with this game, will get it cheap on 360. The 360 fanboys I despise more than PS3 though, they are just so much more virulent (apart from a few special SDF people on here).

  • menage #39 3 years ago

    Based on the demo's I thought the PS3 version looked a lot greener.

  • Vanmunt #40 3 years ago

    Overall gameplay impressions back up what you see on the video. The Xbox 360 game has the odd bit of screen tear, but its impact on the image quality is not a big deal

    sorry but this pretty much sums up all of the head to head.... does any of the stuff highlighted make any difference to playing this game.

    For the record I was going to get this on the Xbox as the coop would be better, but now I can't be arsed to get it on either.

  • ps3owner #41 3 years ago

    I was just about to ask where Farticus was... speak of the devil ey

    but look at this The 360's screen-tear is at its most noticeable here, as you might expect from an engine that is being stressed to its limits

    so, is this the end of the road for the mighty Xbox? surely not...

    however let's be honest. it's performing better on the Xbox. not a problem, since I am personally not going to buy it anyway.

  • SteveB #42 3 years ago

    I played the demo on both the 360 and the PS3 and in isolation the difference was minimal. I'm just glad the PS3 version is good as the free on-line play and PS3 owning friends means that is the version I will buy.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 15:31

  • DFawkes #43 3 years ago

    @BillyBrush

    I was running it at 720, with no scaling to speak of (since it kindly sticks black lines on the screen to ensure it only displays the 720 lines) and it still tears constantly if you move anywhere, at any speed. Like I say, it's just the demo so I expect it'll be minimise in the full game, but it really is the worst case of tearing I've ever seen even. And I usually have a blind spot for it, I'm not fussy about minor screen tear.

    Though I probably won't have it on either system though, but I'd certainly not touch it on 360 without either a confirmation of the retail release being less tear-y, or once I have a new monitor. I'm planing on a new monitor anyway though.

    Though if anyone knows any other fixes apart from switching it to 720, I'd be grateful :)
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 15:36

  • Bagpuss #44 3 years ago

    "there is an assumption here that greater GPU power and memory in the next console generation should allow for this level of visual fidelity to be run in gameplay, probably at 1080p too. Now that's something to look forward to."

    Yeah right....and 4 years ago ALL Xbox 360 and PS3 games would be able to run at 720p and 1080p at a rock solid 60fps...and look whats happened, gimped non HD resolutions, flakey sub 30fps frame rates..No matter how poweful the hardware software developers will always expand to fill the available power, and make compromises on resolutions and frame rates....

    "Capcom has made extensive use of the 10MB of 'EDRAM' that is directly attached to the Xenos GPU in order to maximise its visual effects. With virtually unlimited bandwidth, effects can be processed enormously quickly"

    I've said it before and i will say it again, that EDRAM really has been the 360's 'get out of jail card for free'...really was the smartest move Microsoft/ATI made in including that in the hardware spec.

  • senso-ji #45 3 years ago

    Looking at those comparison videos, I don't understand what all the fuss is about - the difference in framerate was about 2-4 fps, hardly a slide show when comparing the two versions. The difference between 26 and 30 fps is not like a difference between 30 and 60fps. Also, I didn't notice the tearing on the 360 version videos too much, or maybe my eyesight doesn't pick these details up the same way as other's do (ditto for the AA comparison - you have to zoom in 200 percent in slow motion to notice? Come on!).

    The only major difference that gamers will give a shit about is that you have to wait 10mins to play the ps3 version because of the install, where as the 360 players will get going as soon as the disk goes in the machine.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 15:44

  • oreillymj #46 3 years ago

    I can accept that the PS3 will always be slightly less graphically capable then X360. But in the heat of battle, from 10 feet away, is it that noticeable? I can live with less anti aliased textures, so long as there's no slowdown. I've played some of the games that were mentioned in some these shootouts, and reading the text,you'd swear that every PS3 game was an unplayable mess. Maybe I'm missing something.

    Now I do find it amazing that MS, with little or no real experience in GPU design, could produce something as good as Xenon. I know ATI brought a solid design to the table, but the addition of the 10Mb on-die buffer has really paid dividends in terms of GFX power. I wonder what the yield on those chips are and how much they cost MS.

    Where Sony got it wrong. They've created yet another console with no hardware anti aliasing. Have they learnt nothing from the PS2 aliasing debacle . Smooth edges are obviously something Sony's engineers don't rate worthy of their design skillz.

    The RSX was apparently a late shoe in to replace a costly 2nd Cell chip as a GPU. I can only imagine what we'd be stuck with if they'd kept Cell and it's not good. So Sony were forced into a marriage of convenience with nVidia just as ATI began to kick their ass in the GFX market. nVidia seems to be a right mess at the moment.

    The comments at the end of the piece about differences between the PS3's architecture and the GFX synth in PS2 make it seem unlikely that we'll see a pure software PS2 emulator on PS3. That's something a lot of people would like to see and I'm sure it would make Sony's job of repairing/replacing consoles much simpler.
    Edited by 2 at 10/03/09 @ 16:36

  • mrmonkey1980 #47 3 years ago

    This kind of articles is pointless. If you have the kind of money to own both a PS3 and an Xbox 360 and are stuck with the choice of which console to buy any one game for, why would you be sat wasting your time reading this article when you could be indulging in some gold encrusted hookers and a sky diving machine? Just goes to show that rich people are stupid (which is probably why they bought a ps3 to begin with).

  • DFawkes #48 3 years ago

    I won my PS3. Eat that sir.

  • ps3owner #49 3 years ago

    @mrmonkey1980

    if you can't afford both consoles and claim that ppl who can are filthy rich then you must be piss poor. I feel sorry for ya matey

  • patchbox360 #50 3 years ago

    this game sucks - i've started to appreciate dead space 100 times more after playing the resi 5 demo

  • Kryon #51 3 years ago

    AAAhhhhh HAaaa haHA HAAhaha ha haa....Jokez blud, the PS3 gets totally pissed on as usual lulz motherSuckerz!

  • Darren #52 3 years ago

    I've been playing both RE5 demos (PS3 and 360) a lot in preparation for the game's release in a few days and apart from looking a little more jaggy here and there and having a slightly lower framerate, the PS3 version appears to be exactly the same as 360 version. I've only noticed the differences because I've been playing the demos so much. I doubt most people would know they even existed if it wasn't for articles like this. Whichever version you opt for, you're getting the same game in terms of content as the other.

  • StooMonster #53 3 years ago

    Wow, into second page and no "lazy devs" comment ... yet.

  • Darren #54 3 years ago

    Taken from the article:

    "However, things are slightly odd on the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 in that the anti-aliasing can turn on and off again at any given point, seemingly when the engine seemingly isn't being stressed at all.

    Is this a bug then? I've certainly noticed this myself while playing through the PS3 demo.

  • Kryon #55 3 years ago

    "hurray another article for me to click "ignore poster" a hundred times "

    Man, PS3 fanboys must have everyone on ignore if these articles upset them so much...LOLLASAURUS REX...lulz

  • Kryon #56 3 years ago

    Resident Jaggy 5

  • mattrix33 #57 3 years ago

    AMAZING ...!!!

    Screen Tear="not a problem"...

    You must be be kidding...screen tear is the second worse offence after "pop" up

    As the PS3 version does not have it=better version

  • Darren #58 3 years ago

    @designerheadache - Did someone hold you at gunpoint and force you to read this?

    No?

    Well why did you bother reading it then? It's pretty obvious what the article was about and from the tone of your post it seems to me that you had absolutely no interest in knowing which version was better anyway! A bit of common sense could have saved you wasting ten minutes of your life! ;)

  • Kryon #59 3 years ago

    Why did Kaz Hirai cross the road?










    Becuase he's a retard!....get it? A retard!!! lol

  • Calgon #60 3 years ago

    the 360 version surely has v-sync enabled most of the time and only disables it when the framerate is going to drop too low otherwise it would tear constantly

    Now what sort of reasoning is that? The 360 version has it disabled and doesnt tear often, the conclusion is the 360 handles the workload better otherwise they'd probably have took the hit on framerate with V-sync enabled ala PS3.

  • NotSoSlim #61 3 years ago

    At least EG highlighted at the end that the devs need to step up a bit. I know the PS3 is a bitch to get around due to memory issues but still....

    Anyway as longs as multi plats games aint totally broken and first party games are good..no complaints. Both consoles have pros n cons

  • mazzl #62 3 years ago

    I read most of these face off articles and personally i only own a Xbox 360, but i must say, that i could hardly tell the two games apart. they are pretty close.

  • rawburger #63 3 years ago

    @Kryon

    You need to chill a bit, not at all like your namesake kryon

  • BadBoyBonner #64 3 years ago

    the 360 version surely has v-sync enabled most of the time and only disables it when the framerate is going to drop too low otherwise it would tear constantly

    Now what sort of reasoning is that? The 360 version has it disabled and doesnt tear often, the conclusion is the 360 handles the workload better otherwise they'd probably have took the hit on framerate with V-sync enabled ala PS3.

    I think what he meant to say is not that it is V-locked as such - but in reality there is a frame cap i.e. 30 fps - which it manages most of the time - this would give the "illusion" of a V-sync that is switched on and off.

  • Calgon #65 3 years ago

    Yeah well thats pretty standard practise nowadays on any platform, since it never goes above 30fps you can assume there is a cap, I think most devs put a cap on simply because going too high would be noticable in the in less demanding scenes, a smooth framerate is a steady one.(indeed its probably a must with v-sync off too)
    Edited by 4 at 10/03/09 @ 16:45

  • GamesConnoisseur #66 3 years ago

    RE DFawkes screen tearings still happening loads at VGA 720p.

    I m confused, as I had god awful screen tearings and as its my biggest bugbear it was gonna be enough for me to get PS3 but when I set HDMI resolution to 720p via console setting.

    Tearings disappeared in a big puff of smokes! Now a dead cert to get on X360 due to control and more buddies and bonus of slight edge in visual with very rare tearings (based on demo).

    If you get it on PS3, then its still the same game and very little difference in actuality and you should only consider who you got most buddies to play the game AS it should be played... co op mode.

    RE5 is not the GOTY contender but still its an important game nonetheless. Sony's blag re true HD starts with them is fast disappearing and my PS3 owning mate last week who splashed out on X360 said he thought X360 looked a bit better and would be getting it on X360. However that is just andecotal and I also have other mates who will certainly be getting PS3 version.

    You will still enjoy RE5 on either platform!

  • DFawkes #67 3 years ago

    "I just played the demo at 1280x720p ojn VGA on 360 and guess wut... no tearing. Or at least, very very little. Set your res to the games native res and the problem virtually disappears.

    I'm really glad you no longer have a problem, since it shows mines is an isolated case (not sarcasm just in-case you think so SJH, I really am glad), but unfortunetly I don't have your monitor. That's a hint, give me your monitor please :)

    I'm stuck with my set-up for now, and despite having literally tried every resolution allowed (some made it look very strangely stretched indeed) it still tears like a bitch. Literally any movement is accompanied by a ton of tearing, and only in Resi 5 so it's not a console wide problem. I know it's my set-up, but if I bought the game that's the set-up I'll be playing on.

    I'll buy a nice new monitor first. I've been meaning to upgrade anyway.

  • Royal Fool #68 3 years ago

    These articles are great as they offer insight into the inner workings of the games and how they function. Great write-up.

  • Xerx3s #69 3 years ago

    "What is clear is that while first-party developers are pushing the Sony hardware to new graphical heights for this generation, third-party multi-format game-makers are still having issues replicating Xbox 360 performance. That we should see this from a developer as accomplished as Capcom, whose home market sales are so reliant on PS3, is both surprising and a touch disappointing."

    I like that kisup bit. Sure, it's the fault of the 3rd party developers then? Let's collectively forget that KZ2 took fucking ages to make.

  • Darren #70 3 years ago

    @Calgon - Gears of War was one of the first games this generation to use a hybrid v-sync method where v-sync is enabled until a frame takes longer than 30 ms to draw then it is temporarily disabled resulting in a tear. That's why Gears of War only has occasional tearing compared with, say, Saints Row, which had v-sync completely disabled prior to the patch and then forcing v-sync on was only an option.

    Games that don't use v-sync show almost constant tearing and that certainly isn't the case with Resident Evil 5 at 720p. It only tears horribly when you set the resolution to higher than 720p, e.g. 1360x768 and up, but that might be because v-sync is disabled to counteract the loss of framerate that the scaling introduces.

    I don't know for sure, I'm no expert, that's why I was asking in the first place.

  • GreyBeard #71 3 years ago

    Hmmm, it seems to me that that a major difference between the two machines is the fact that the PS3 is only double-buffering its graphics data whereas the 360 is triple-buffering. This would explain why the PS3 build is v-synced and the 360 isn't, I assume they are using the EDRAM as an additional frame-buffer to give themselves a little more wiggle-room when they overrun vblank.

    At 60fps this method becomes invalid explaining the closeness of the DMC builds, the differences there being purely the result of differing fillrate capability.

    Interesting technique, but it should have zero impact on actual gameplay as controller polling and game logic should be running on their own threads, completely separately to the rendering pipeline. All you are getting is fewer frame-drops at a cost of some screen tearing.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 17:09

  • Krelle #72 3 years ago

    "Sony needs to sort it out. It laughable yet ironic that PS3 owners pay more for their console yet get the graphically lesser games."

    I dont agree with you per se, but the above comment is just wrong in so many ways.

  • JHuxley #73 3 years ago

    @DFawkes

    I also noticed a decent amount of screen tear at 720p. And I'm not normally one to even pick up on these kinds of things.

    To be honest the 180 turn button doesn't help, though. It's like a screen tear detector :|

  • Buran #74 3 years ago

    The "120 million polygon coun per second" part must be a joke. Crysis and Warhead in gameplay looks as it has five times more polygons than RE5, and in the best mods -in wireframe complexity- that I have been seen the max polygon count showed by the console command was about 11 millions. Also, best graphic cards at the moment (GTX 295, 285 and HD 4870 X2) barely can hand -potentially- about 100 mps, so these numbers provided by Capcom are both ridiculous and absolutely pretentious.

  • polar #75 3 years ago

    Has the PS3 ever even won one of these comparisons?

  • Calgon #76 3 years ago

    @Darren Games that don't use v-sync show almost constant tearing and that certainly isn't the case with Resident Evil 5 at 720p.

    Im not sure that's an accurate statement, does it make tearing more prevalent? Yes obviously but games have been released on consoles before including the 360 without the hybrid v-sync(moto gp3 and saints row2 are just poor examples but not the rule) without constant tearing(obviously there will be some).

    GreyBeard thats a gross oversimplification on the differences between the two architectures, very apologetic towards the PS3 I might add.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 17:23

  • byron_hinson #77 3 years ago

    Really hope this comparison it right - the 360 demo had awful tearing throughout for me and I couldn't care less if the PS3 version was slightly less steller seeing that demo didn't have any. I just can't stand graphical tearing.

  • Stu #78 3 years ago

    Enough of these articles, please, they established a long time ago that the two machines are virtually identical in terms of graphics power.

  • onyxbox #79 3 years ago

    32" HDTV and sat on a couch at least 5ft away from it... seriously... no normal human being is going to notice the difference.

  • cyber_nicco #80 3 years ago

    @Darren

    "I didn't notice any tearing at 720p either so if it's there then it's minimal (1360x768 and 1080p are different matters though, the tearing is horrendous, but that wasn't covered in this article)."

    I don't understand how that's even possible, as the game renders at 720p regardless, then the scaler ups it to 1080p. Are you saying the scaler introduces screen tearing? I'm not trying to be snide, I just don't see how this would be the case.

    (We're talking about the 360 version here.)

  • Darren #81 3 years ago

    @Calgon - Games on the previous generation consoles displayed far more tearing than games like Gears of War though when they didn't use v-sync but most people won't have noticed it because they were playing on CRT TVs rather than the larger LCD HDTVs we have now. Certainly I tolerated tearing a lot more until I got my first HDTV and then it became really obvious and in-yer-face. It's not because LCD HDTVs are rubbish, far from it, the picture is that much better that they make the visual flaws like tearing more noticeable.

    Games that don't enable v-sync at all such as Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise, Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Saints Row on the 360 show far more tearing than games that use the hybrid method such as Gears of War, Mass Effect, Unreal Tournament III (all Unreal Engine 3 games) and Blue Dragon for example. The hybrid method was introduced this generation to minimise tearing without impacting the framerate which is what would happen in many if v-sync was on all the time. That's why Resident Evil 5 on the PS3 has more framerate drops for example, v-sync is on all the time.

    The consoles have limited memory so triple buffering cannot be used which is how you'd enable v-sync and have a high framerate on the PC for example.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 18:04

  • Calgon #82 3 years ago

    Darren I wasnt debating whether its a step forward Im saying just because it isnt there its not true to say it has been constant tearing before then like you suggested because it hasnt it required more work from the devs to minimize the spikes that caused the tearing, so your statement was a little hasty in part. The hybrid approach probably is employed but its hardly like they wouldnt also do it on the PS3 if they'd have the same result, its just a matter of fact that 360 handles this engines/games workload better.

    Also to the author snidely trying to blame the devs and yet again giving credence to Sony's CELL hyperbole, to say the XCPU isnt a match in raw power unless talking purely theoretical at this stage of each consoles life given the results is a little naive because even the IBM engineers reckon they are a good match overall(CELL does edge it but "no match" is suggesting something different). 360 can also benifit from a more multi-core/threaded/processor approach than has been seen from devs thus far and like CELLs SPUs it too has parts to it that will excell in a parralel processing enviroment focussed around vector maths, number crunching and the like which have had much less dev attention than CELLs SPUs. Im purely mentioning that because its like because the 360 is out perfoming the PS3 some are suggesting that means 360 is obviously running at max capacity/efficiency when in reality they both have a while to go yet.

    Also if we are debating Image Quality the GPUs and memory performance should get prime focus there, Cell can get more out of RSX maybe but XCPU can also get more out of Xenos... you are still limited by the GPUs though as far as graphics are concerned(and I firmly beleive Xenos can simply do more, maybe the best pair could have been CELL and Xenos... we'll never know for sure, theres not much point arguing about that).

    In the end though can we really keep saying "the devs are doing a poor job" just because they fell slightly short of parity on the PS3 version? Just accept things as they are rather than how you want them to be, aslong as both versions are good in their own rights.
    Edited by 8 at 10/03/09 @ 18:24

  • effinwooly #83 3 years ago

    there isnt much difference guys, so what the 360 version is slightly better

  • Chufty #84 3 years ago

    Dear Eurogamer,

    Please put these face-off articles in their own RSS feed, seperate from the rest of the 'Features', for those of us who use RSS but really, really, REALLY don't give a flying fuck about these face-offs.

    Kind regards,
    Chufty

  • Darren #85 3 years ago

    @Calgon - I don't pretend to be an expert, all I know is that games that use v-sync don't tear at all and games that use the hybrid method have significantly less tearing than those that don't use v-sync at all. Thankfully, most console games this generation seem to use v-sync all the time or the hybrid method which means that monstrosities like Saints Row (pre-patch) and Splinter Cell: Double Agent are the exception rather than the rule.

    And, yes, I realise that just because a game doesn't use v-sync it doesn't mean it tears all the time. On my PC for example I can usually play games without v-sync if the framerate is high on my 60 Hz LCD (e.g. 90+ fps). However, by not using v-sync it does mean that a game will tear *a lot*. It may only be slight or you may not even notice it in a racing game for example where you're travelling down a straight but it's there. A recent example is the ghastly Race Pro which EG reported had 46% of its outputted frames torn even though you'll only really see it when you're cornering. It doesn't use v-sync. Had it used the same hybrid v-sync technique that Race Driver GRID used for example then that torn figure would almost certainly have been a lot less as that game has very little tearing on the 360. That's down to good optimisation of the engine which ensures that each frame is generally drawn in less than 33 ms (1,000 ms/30 fps).

    Personally, I'd rather endure the odd framerate drop than have any screen tearing as I find it far less distracting but neither is better than the other, it's purely a matter of preference.

  • TRUTH #86 3 years ago

    Have you seen Losp Planet 2 - the graphics look awesome!...Not bothered with RE 5.

  • Darren #87 3 years ago

    @hammerhead666 - "Will a ps3 game ever come out on top in a head to head?"

    Quite possibly.

    Although only a demo at the moment and therefore unfinished, Wanted: Weapons of Fate runs and looks a bit better on the PS3 than it does on the 360. The PS3 version has specular highlights and uses v-sync for a tear-free framerate whereas the 360 lacks both and tears almost constantly.

    As I said that may change for the final game and it may just be that the PS3 version is at a more advanced stage of development.

    Also, despite lacking AA, the PS3 version of Oblivion runs at 720p and has faster loading times whereas the 360 version is 640p with 2X AA. Tomb Raider Underworld is also 720p on the PS3 and just 600p on the 360, although the latter has a smoother framerate with less drops.

    Even so, "coming out on top" makes it sound as if one version completely thrashes the other when the truth is that the 360 version is usually only *slightly* better and only direct comparisons such as these head-to-heads reveals those differences. Remember these are multiformat games made with both platforms in mind so you've never going to see a huge difference between them on the consoles anyway.

  • #88 3 years ago

    Not surprised at all the venom being vomited from the usual suspects in the thread. The ps3 hasn't won any of these comparisons, is shit at gfx compared to the 360 and costs twice as much yet is still selling strong without any price cuts.

  • peterfll #89 3 years ago

    "What is clear is that while first-party developers are pushing the Sony hardware to new graphical heights for this generation.....That we should see this from a developer as accomplished as Capcom, whose home market sales are so reliant on PS3, is both surprising and a touch disappointing."

    Can't really add anymore to that really IMO.

  • Wildsleven #90 3 years ago

    not suprised, third party game deleopers need to cop on!!

    getting this game for my xbox

  • Ryze #91 3 years ago

    'taking ten minutes to transfer from the Blu-ray disc...'

    Spectrum/Amstrad/C64/PS3

    LOL

  • Tiel #92 3 years ago

    Graphically the ps3 and 360 are much closer than in the last gen. Then the 360 felt half a gen in front.

    I have both, and generally buy cross platform games for the ps3 for the fact that I prefer the interface (no ads, quick to navigate), it runs at imperceptible sound (my early 360 blows), and I don't play online enough to justify gold, but I like the option if I ever want it.

    I got both for the exclusives, and as I am not a fanboy my affections for one machine are flexible. If Ms release a quiet 360, I'll buy it when mine dies. If they then made gold free I'd probably start buying for 360 despite the interface.

    Still, let's just rejoice in the fact that both machines are truly next gen. I also have a wii--the same cannot be said for that!

  • des #93 3 years ago

    Resident Evil 5 is probably the cleanest game game this game released on consoles,which is quite an achievement,its a very colorful game,high detail,lots of polys around,shadowing,self-shadowing is top notch .

    And what is last paragraph suppose to be EG?Damage control for Sony?

    Its old data summary from Lost Planet post-mortem,and that was from 2 YEARS ago,lol

    Things change,programmers find new more efficient ways to do something,learn from their mistakes,etc



    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 19:14

  • StrayBezza #94 3 years ago

    Sorry, but from watching the video "comparisons" I can't see how either version would be different in-game to most players. Yes, there are a few jagged edges, particuarly in the PS3 version but how often are they picked up by the naked eye in the heat of the action?

    I kind of liked the Resident Evil series on PS1 and 2, never played 4 mind..........not sure if I would particuarly like 5.

    HeyHo.

  • GreyBeard #95 3 years ago

    Call me old-fashioned but personally I find screen-tear completely unacceptable. I'm genuinely surprised that Capcom's engineers think its alright. Is there not even a vsync switch on the 360 version?

    My 360 is attached to a 22" TV/Monitor hybrid by VGA, so its currently set to 1680x1050 (native) and I'm seriously concerned that I'm going to have fiddle about to avoid Dead Rising level tearing (in the cut-scenes at least).

    Just that is enough to make me lean toward the PS3 version. Say what you like, but I don't believe that's a fanboy-ish reason for me to make a choice.

  • septimus #96 3 years ago

    mrmonkey = jobless chav?

    Retort will probably be something along the lines of his superior intelligence. Will never know. Ignored :)

  • TRUTH #97 3 years ago

    Darren

    The problem is Oblivion had a whole extra year+ development time(360 version was using the same dev kits as PC when released/developed), the framerates on PS3 TR Underworld suck!

  • TRUTH #98 3 years ago

    N@

    Fps always look more involving then 3rd perspective view (notice in driving games incar view always looks better)...But notice what is happening on GoW 2 compared to Killzone 2; you'll notice that it's throwing a lot more around with much more various graphical effects. More characters are onscreen and not respawning from hidden areas like KZ 2. The battles on Gow 2 have also more & larger enemy characters + variety of enemies to battle with then the same characters on KZ 2 on most battles.

    Now the ai on KZ 2 is very good, but again it's not the free thinking ai as seen in Halo 3 eg: ordering and commanding, troops + convent jumping in/out of vehicles & using them in battle making battle feel natural and enemies making mistakes like the enemy killing it's own troops by missing the grenade targets, running them down in vehicles to get to you or using vehicles / gun turrents when needed - not scripted as in KZ 2. Also KZ 2 enemy seem to re-spawn eg: If 10 are onscreen & 4 shot another 4 will respawn from hidden areas usually out of view. This happens in often in battles and only stop when reaching a certain point onscreen!...Also the games light and sort of flimsy control (also thanks to PS3 joypad) makes the game more clumsy in battles!

    Now on 9th level - so far I seriously can't see how this game is so great as many PS3 fans keep going on!!!!... It's go through corridor, into square room & shoot - though the ai puts a decent fight (though not perfect!) ...Why are PS3 fanboys claiming the graphics are beyond anything else!!!!...Far Cry 2(360/pc), Dead Space(360), Gears Of War 2, Cod 4 & 5 stii look as good if not better in places then KZ 2 (though some effects are better in places) - Where exactly does KZ 2 surpass games already out ?...Lets also remember compared to Gow 2 - KZ 2 does not have the texture detail in gameplay(not fmv) as GoW 2, also the action is more frantic & populated in GoW 2 with more chaos going o, not as in KZ 2 where it's more stop-start t-stop-start sort action of flow..The environments in GoW 2 are more organic and opened (compared to KZ) with different paths to take, also larger and more characters onscreen. KZ 2 is more streamlined with most areas being square boxs or corridors - with enemies seem to be limited to less then what appears on games like Halo 3, GoW 2, CoD 4 / 5... KZ also characters do respawn from hidden areas, when a certain amount have been killed... When compared like this KZ is fairly easily rendered (corridors / square rooms). Then consider what is happening onscreen: characters onscreen, explosions, what and how many charaters are animated, various texture etc etc - from a technical point of view and the point it took 4yrs to develop this -and all this equaled is a good fps, with good graphics that have not surpassed games already out there...It's a standard fps with a nice lick of paint, I also belive that the controls do effect the game and are killed more to this then the ai!
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 19:57

  • Stormflood #99 3 years ago

    Sure I would have bought this on the 360 (I won't becuase it's a shit RE) but, like most EG comparisions, the differences are just so fucking exaggerated. 200% zoom, slow motion? You are having a laugh. If anything it shows that either console owners will have the same experience as long as they don't sit 2 inches from the screen with a magnifying glass.

  • pac666 #100 3 years ago

    Getting PS3 version due to 360 demo version abundant tearing.

  • Ryze #101 3 years ago

    @TRUTH

    Blatant PS3 memory (and streaming) issues / difficulties on show there with the variety (lack of) and corridor to square room crap.

    I'll love picking this stuff apart when I grab a PS£ later in the year after the pricedrop.

    Hamstrung, computationally powerful console.

    /waits
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 20:20

  • TheWretched #102 3 years ago

    Man, Eurogamer...

    the difference is SO little, yet you make a HUGE deal out of it... Well, if it gives you hits, continue, but don't count on the readers, when the tides turn!

  • TRUTH #103 3 years ago

    Ryze

    I found the game KZ 2 often loads fairly frequently in places. Also the game is very liner-with most areas being liner paths...The ai is good but still belive Halo 3's is better and don't stop at certain safe areas until you reach there and move forward to clear the area of computer ai respwans , even F.E.A.R 2 ai is better with better use of the environments and no re-spawning tricks!...KZ 2 graphics are not ahead or surpassed everything, can't see why PS3 fanboys keep going on about this just like they did with Uncharted, MGS 4 - both had good graphics but nothing that surpassed games already out. Yes! KZ graphics are better then Halo 3's - but the battles aren't, or the ai, or the freedom of approach to battles, nor the scale of combat - vehicles, open areas, variety of approaches, weapons etc etc.

    I suppose if I just had a PS3 this would impress me - but I've got a 360 + a decent PC, and honestly have not really been blown away at all with KZ 2. The 10th level was probably the best level in KZ 2.

    The fact is RE is just that better on 360. I'm personally not bothered with RE games, as I always thought they were all a bit overrated!...Though if you have both systems (as I do - hate the Wii!!!!) go for the better version which is the 360 version, it's also slightly cheaper.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 21:09

  • JohnnyWashnGo #104 3 years ago

    'I guess you've never seen games like killzone2/lbp/resistance 2/ratchet and klank/wipeoutHD or drake's fortune on your system then. '

    Well I have LBP, WipeoutHD and DF and have enjoyed them all. But as the article mentioned, when looking at cross platform games developed on a PC, the 360 will most always have the edge due to its similarity to the 360 architecturally speaking and also due to the large on die RAM that the 360 has. That is not to say that all cross platform games will look better on the 360, just that up until now, most have.

    But my post was written in order to quell the rabid fanboyism that was going on and likely to get worse as the article got more attention. At the end of the day, the differences are so minute and more often than not, inperceptible, that it doesn't matter what system to play the game on, you will enjoy it.

    To be fair, I never got into the genitalia comparison games back when I had a Spectrum +2 and my buddies had a Commodore 64, nor when I had a SNES and my mates had a Megadrive so I have no intention of starting now.

  • Miths #105 3 years ago

    I was about to once again get started on a long and boring explanation of why I still prefer to buy virtually all new games for my PC (aside from the occasional interesting 360 exclusive), but I don't really think I can be bothered anymore :).

    Here are some estimated numbers of how many hours a month each system is in use in my home though:
    PS3 - 200+ (games, movies, downloaded TV series, music)
    360 - 0-15, depending on exclusive releases (it was probably around 15 hours total the entire last half of 2008)

  • byron_hinson #106 3 years ago

    Well after playing both versions this evening I'm going with the PS3 version, the tearing in the 360 is awful and I know some may say it's a silly thing to moan about - for me it spoils the whole game, I notice it all the time and it really detracts from the game when I play it. It is one reason I gave up with Dead Rising so quickly, such a shame as I would rather have slight slow down than have the game look awful. Even my girlfriend said she though the game console was going wrong when she saw it!

  • BillyBrush #107 3 years ago

    I can see this is going to get RROD like....pick a flaw, exaggerate the fuckery out of it....so readers despite the in depth technical analysis provided lets all just emphasise that the 360 ver has massive screen tearing (which it doesn't) and justify our choice while saying i'm not a fanboy for good measure..

    and that's the way it is.

    spoils the whole game Byron? colour me surprised, how did you get the whole game again?

  • BillyBrush #108 3 years ago

    ...Usually these things make shit all difference to how good or not a game is, and looking at the comments it certainly doesn't change someone's fave platform (surprise surprise), so can't the 360 just have an incy wincy bit better effect/aa here and there and that be accepted but not massively significant? course not, that would cause the world to collapse

  • byron_hinson #109 3 years ago

    @BillyBrush Where did I say I had the game - try reading..it isn't hard as you seem to be good enough at trying to talk down people. I'm also a games reviewer - so I could lie and say I have the game that way, which I don't! I played both versions round my friends tonight - he got both from Capcom as he reviews for our local paper. Thus I got the chance to try it - again it spoils the whole game for me - I base that on what I saw on two levels so far - I also base it on Dead Rising which suffers the EXACT same problem - it SPOILT the whole game for me. I'm not saying it would for everyone, but for me I can't stand it. I'm also a sodding Xbox Ambassador so I don't exactly have an agenda against the Xbox do I.

    I wasn't telling people to avoid it as some people either don't notice it or don't care, personally I do - that is personally I DO. Understand now? Groovy!
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 22:04

  • BillyBrush #110 3 years ago

    Byron

    not talking down (well, perhaps that's lying) but i'd consider (having only played demo myself mind) that you're probably exaggerating it a lot....and i seem to recall having a similar convo once before which ran along similar lines

    Personally i wasn't aware you were an Xbox 360 'ambassador', if so i'm not sure talking the 360 ver of Resi5 down is the greatest bit of work there...bit like pissing on the embassy carpet.

    To be frank, i'm calling shit on you here and saying you prefer your playstation, not that there's anything wrong with that of course, we all have our favourites

  • niteninja #111 3 years ago

    Or you could give res5 a miss and buy street fighter4 which is hands down one of the best games capcom have ever made.

  • byron_hinson #112 3 years ago

    Well look me up on Xbox Live - the forums etc where it shows I'm one. I didn't realize being one should mean you have rose tinted glasses for everything Xbox. Like your comment about RROD stating it was blown out of proportion, if anything thats more of a fanboy comment that anything anyone else has stated as it was fact it was a massive problem early on - thus why so many forum users were talking about it.

    Back to RE5 - believe all you want. It suffers for me the same way Dead Rising does - awful tearing when turning etc. It's a good game no matter what console you have, it looks better on the 360 and if you can forget or not notice tearing thats the best version. I'm lucky enough to have all the consoles and can pick and choose what versions to get, the one that suits me more is the PS3 version, simply due to me not liking Tearing and that I can live with the slightly lower detailed graphics.

  • konniehuqfan #113 3 years ago

    this 10 meg of edram seems like a masterstroke from microsoft.

    why didn't sony do it with the ps3, especially as they apparently did it with the ps2?

  • byron_hinson #114 3 years ago

    @niteninja - if only I could ever get into beat em ups!!

  • GreyBeard #115 3 years ago

    What bugs me has nothing whatsoever to do with the 360. Adding a vsync option is trivial. Give us a choice dammit.

  • byron_hinson #116 3 years ago

    Exactly - nothing to do with the 360 what so ever, even Saint's Row 1 & 2 both had the option and worked perfectly.

  • BillyBrush #117 3 years ago

    Sheesh....forgot the first rule...never have a go at a particular poster

    don't really want to argue, tis late, few things, and do bear in mind i openly admit to being quite cynical regarding PS, as opposed to completely impartial as you are

    - didn't state the scale of RROD (clearly big, possibly getting smaller?) merely that it gets exaggerated to fuckery on threads, which it does (when answering this please care to state you've had 9 break on you or something as there's no way of checking, it's a good un you know)

    - don't really care what an 'ambassador' in this sense is, sure i doubt it requires rose tinted glasses but i would have thought it'd involve being a bit positive about something, you don't seem to be to be

    - and i think stating that 'for you' it spoils the whole game, is in my oppinion, a good example of exaggerating again...but sure, it's just the case for you as an individual, oh and the Eurogamer community

    I think we both agree it probably makes piss all difference to the game or what system someone buys it for, so it's hardly worth the effort

  • byron_hinson #118 3 years ago

    Nah I'll just state I've got 5 360's and only the debug and elite have never gone wrong (Touch wood)! I'm fully positive on the 360 - its a great console. RE5 is about Capcom - not the Xbox.

    Agree completely, if the game is good it shouldn't matter what system anyone gets it on, I'm a game fan not a console fan.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/09 @ 22:45

  • local_celebrity #119 3 years ago

    I love these articles, even though I'm always blinded by the science bits. These are supposed to be tech pieces, but I've noticed that Leadbetter manages to sneakily review the game as well. I wish he write full-time for this site; his articles are always so witty.

    In other news, the PS3 fails. Again.

  • Pro_Gamer #120 3 years ago

    if you have a ps3, suck shit.

  • Gradius #121 3 years ago

    I'm another one who doesn't quite get the whole KZ2 thing, It's a good game, graphically it's certainly on par with the best of what the 360 has offered so far, but after playing through the game I'm left thinking it was good but nothing I haven't seen before, no fanboy intent, just my opinion.

  • rotmm #122 3 years ago

    +1 for not understanding all the hype over KZ2. SP was pretty ordinary overall, though I haven't played very much (2 games ;)) MP as I don't really have the time to devote to that gametype anymore.

    And graphically it looks good, but the low-res textures and overall blurriness just doesn't really do it for me.

  • Moz #123 3 years ago

    A bit late to the table I know but anyway .....

    @Dfawkes "Has it changed since the demo? The 360 one tears like a bitch to the point it's literally unplayable at point, and I never whine about tearing. That's having done all the suggested fixes, but I'm sure it has to be different in the full game. That's via VGA, fact fans. "

    Tearing can be better or worse on different TV's Tearing show's up really badly on my TV so will go for a V-Locked version of a game whenever I can. But it is also possible that they've tightened up the code since the demo.

    @Johnnywashngo "Its a shame they seem to have crippled the graphical capabilities of the PS3 but equiped it with a workhorse of a CPU. What were they thinking. "

    The original plan was that there wouldn't be a GPU in the PS3 with the CELL doing everything. Sadly the coding required to create the tool set that could do it was taking alot longer then planned so they had to squeeze the RSX in at the last mintue.

  • buiyo #124 3 years ago

    Frame Rate Measurement
    Part.1
    PS3:[link url=http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/59/
    ]http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/59/
    [/link]

    360:[link url=http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/57/
    ]http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/57/
    [/link]


    Part.2
    PS3:[link url=http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/60/
    ]http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/60/
    [/link]

    360:http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/58/

  • Moz #125 3 years ago

    @buiyo - i'm assuming the red bars are how may of the frames in the sample had tearing?

  • Rodchenko #126 3 years ago

    I'll love picking this stuff apart when I grab a PS£ later in the year after the pricedrop.

    I am sure we are all dying to hear your always informed and unbiased verdict. Maybe we should toss all together to get you a PS3 earlier?

  • funkyd #127 3 years ago

    " TopKatt
    10-Mar-09 14:33:08

    I really think Richard Leadbetter needs to get out more. "

    It's his job. Get over it.

  • kingofbergamo #128 3 years ago

    "...then we'll zoom in 200 per cent. Look at the rooftop and the palm tree in particular and witness the AA turn on and off in quick succession on what is a relatively painless scene."

    You people really need to get out more often!
    Seriously.


  • FmCUK #129 3 years ago

    Richard Leadbetter, I salute you. Your face-offs are amongst the most informative things I've seen on this gen. Good show.

  • TopKatt #130 3 years ago

    " funkyd
    11-Mar-09 10:46:15

    " TopKatt
    10-Mar-09 14:33:08

    I really think Richard Leadbetter needs to get out more. "

    It's his job. Get over it. "

    It's a one line comment in the comments section on this website. Get over it.
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/09 @ 14:39

  • local_celebrity #131 3 years ago

    @TopKatt

    Much as I love Leadbetter, your comment did make me laugh. This board needs to lighten up a little. There's far too many po-faced wankers on here.

  • buiyo #132 3 years ago

    @Moz

    Graph
    White Bar:Frame
    Red Bar:Tearing

    Character
    Yellow:Average
    Red:Tearing Rate
    Blue:Lowest

    DigitalFoundry
    Resident Evil 5 Frame Rate Analysis
    2:29 cut scenes
    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=K8nzv31uHLY
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=K8nzv31uHLY
    [/link]

    Comparison

    cut scenes
    360 [link url=http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/76/
    ]http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/76/
    [/link]
    PS3 [link url=http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/77/
    ]http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/77/
    [/link]

  • Rusty_M #133 3 years ago

    "However, things are slightly odd on the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 in that the anti-aliasing can turn on and off again at any given point, seemingly when the engine seemingly isn't being stressed at all."

    Is this a bug then? Someone's ability to use the english language appears somewhat jagged.

    Sorry to paraphrase Darren's comment from so early in the thread but the reviewer using "seemingly" twice in one sentence is simply painful to read.

  • local_celebrity #134 3 years ago

    @Rusty_M

    "Sorry to paraphrase Darren's comment from so early in the thread but the reviewer using "seemingly" twice in one sentence is simply painful to read."

    Respect to your proofing skills, but that's hardly an elegant sentence either, is it?




  • Rusty_M #135 3 years ago

    True. Serves me right for trying to be clever. Oh well.

  • xboxfan #136 3 years ago

    i don't know something doesn't seem right about this as if it was fixed to make the 360 look better. at this time im with out a system my 360 died rrod so im going to get the re5 bundle but on ps3 ive seen it on both systems and the ps3 version didnt look that bad nor did the 360 look that good here is a link to the 360s gameplay before this head 2 head thing that just so happens to pop up before the release of the game http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=hSrsk3sV4xQ i liked my 360 but it has been proven that blu ray is better in everyway. so it has been rumored. why the next xbox will use blu ray so either ps3 is head of its time or xbox is behind and this vid shows the 360s true graphics for this game not to piss off anyone but i dont want some dumb ass cook up some bs just to push me to buy their console or a game for it and i have a xbox so you cant tell me shit about how good it is or i did have one

  • Darren #137 3 years ago

    Stormflood - "Like most EG comparisions, the differences are just so fucking exaggerated. 200% zoom, slow motion? You are having a laugh. If anything it shows that either console owners will have the same experience as long as they don't sit 2 inches from the screen with a magnifying glass."

    Quoted for truth.

  • Darren #138 3 years ago

    GreyBeard - "What bugs me has nothing whatsoever to do with the 360. Adding a vsync option is trivial. Give us a choice dammit."

    It's strange realy, and I mentioned it earlier, how Capcom think it's fine to v-lock Resident Evil 5 on the PS3 and have a slightly lower framerate but it's OK to allow tearing on the 360 version. Why have two different priorities for the same game?

    Why is it acceptable to have a lower framerate on the PS3 when using the same method the 360 version uses would give a higher framerate? Why not v-lock the 360 version and have a lower framerate with no tearing like the PS3 version? Are 360 owners more fussy about framerate drops and less bothered about tearing than PS3 owners? :?

    As I also stated previously, this same approach has been used for 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, Fallout 3 and Devil May Cry 4, all of which are v-locked on the PS3 but show various levels of screen tearing on the 360.

  • woodyrulesok #139 3 years ago

    Watching the video makes you realise how rubbish the AI is.

  • daedaloz #140 3 years ago

    Honestly, who the fuck cares what looks better on what .. it's a CONSOLE GAME...

    hence.. it will NEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER EVER look even close to or near as good as the eventual PC version, given that capcom actually gives a fuck this time around to optimize the game to PC standards gfx wise and what not...


    WHEN IS IT COMING TO PC !!? is what I wannel know :p

    play ball

  • Darren #141 3 years ago

    @daedaloz - I actually have the PC version pre-ordered but I don't expect we'll see it until the summer at the earliest. GAME have it listed as April 2009 but I doubt it'll be out that early.

    Still it'll be worth the wait for the definitive version which, if Lost Planet and Devil May Cry 4 are anything to go by, will run at an uber-smooth 60 fps rather than the 30 fps of the capped console versions. You'll also be able to set high AA and AF, and run it at higher resolutions than the console versions without tearing too. Provided you have a reasonably powerful PC that is.

  • migasUK #142 3 years ago

    I was about to get a PS3 for KZ2 and in specially for little big planet... but then i couldn't see why spend over 300 pounds on a console which the rest of third party games is inferior than the cheapest console on market, better to stick with my 360...sure I will miss great games....

  • nraudigy2 #143 3 years ago

    I have the full version of the game for Xbox360. The screen tearing isn't an impact on gameplay at all just like the article says. You'll be annoy little on cutscenes but definitely not gameplay. But then I am using 1080p output, maybe I'll try 720p. Look at the first video, PS3 is really jaggy.
    Edited by 2 at 13/03/09 @ 04:46

  • Calgon #144 3 years ago

    @Darren: If you look at the PS3s framerate its all over the place dipping and rising constantly even in the none demanding sections... as I said the most likely explanation IS that the 360 handles it better, thus no V-sync hybrid or not would be worse than the framerate drops it has now. Why not use a bit of common sense here and assume that like most teams do they choose the best settings for each system on the results they see...

    What they could have seen is: 360's barely noticeable tearing that doesnt happen often. vs PS3 tearing all too freequently and too noticeably. In that situation you would then HAVE to chose a v-sync option and take a hit on the frame rate.

    I really think some are just looking for excuses for the PS3 still here after all this time.

    Im pretty sure Im right on this because Devs will ALWAYS aim for atleast 30fps(theyd never aim for any lower than that on an action game if they could help it), they saw could acheive a steady 30fps with only a slight amount of tearing which most people wont notice at all under the right settings(i.e dont bother putting it in 1080i or 1080p) and on the PS3 they chose not to do this? Whats the most likely explanation? The none PS3 fanboy explanation would be that the PS3s wouldnt have been able to match the 360, it probably would have been noticable enough to have an impact on the image quality, so you sacrifice the 30fps instead. Fillrate has perhaps the biggest baring out of all this(this is key resource of how things are drawn into every frame and how many frames will be able to be drawn), there have been devs that have said already that the GPU in 360 has a greater amount of useable fillrate in realworld circumstances, so it shouldnt be too hard too beleive that now after all this time.

    For a summary of comparison between the two versions....

    Most importantly they are pretty much the same for the most part there is no bad version as such between the two.

    360:
    The good
    -------------
    Much Smoother framerate(pretty much rock solid 30fps), best Anti Aliasing(clearer image, nicer edges).

    The bad
    ------------
    Slight amount of tearing that you have to really look for to find... if you are playing under the right settings.(if you are setting the res either higher than 720p or at some aspect ratio other than was intended you can get out of it)

    PS3:

    The good
    ------------
    V-sync enabled = no tearing(that makes the tearing comparison a little odd as theres no point in looking for it in the PS3 version, unlike the framerate comparison which isnt an off/on situation).

    The bad
    -----------
    Lower unsteady Framerate probably because of the v-sync, blurry Anti-Aliasing that hinders image quality as much as it helps, AA switches off completely in some instances so jaggies most noticeable in some of the more demanding parts of the game.

    Edited by 5 at 13/03/09 @ 16:10

  • makeamazing #145 3 years ago

    Most of these so called "Issues" are only a problem if you actually notice it in game. Normally I dont play games zoomed at slow speed, so I think unless a game is a real dog to start with, I dont think I will worry about it.

  • nraudigy2 #146 3 years ago

    For an update. I don't see screen tearing after using 720p or is it HDMI Source color space?

  • GamesConnoisseur #147 3 years ago

    Likewise I m adding just to say I havent noticed any hint of screen tearing so far in full retail release at 720p, though I did thought I saw a milli-sec tearing ..... that it after 3 hours of game playing!

    Both version is worth having... just that we need to take a pinch of salt with comments that fugly screen tearings is killing X360 version dead.

  • Rusty_M #148 3 years ago

    I can see where games connoiseur is coming from by saying that comments about screen tearing should be taken with a pinch of salt. However, the tearing was frequent and very noticeable when my 360 was set to 1080p. Cutting back to 720p really makes a huge difference where it goes from being really annoying to barely there.

  • GamesConnoisseur #149 3 years ago

    ^^ At any higher resolution than 720p the tearings is bad, I make it clear I would never want to take this version if tearings cannot be resolved.

    Would be a hassle but as repeated everywhere, just set your resolution to 720p. Heck even you would do the same for PS3 with some games, resetting it to 720p as running at a lower resolution if you only normally leave it at 1080p/1080i.

    Both X360 and PS3 doesnt really do true HD at all the times, it is only with the next gen of console, I expect we wll be able to take for granted 1080p at 30 frames a sec minimum without any tearings.

    Anyhow enjoying RE5 up to Chapter 3:3, so far better than I had expected!!

  • BillyBrush #150 3 years ago

    Been playing for a few days...at 720p on Xbox

    zero tearing (i'm sure if you're scanning hard you might see one every ohh 6 hours, but basically virtually zero)

    Some people just flat out lie about these things, fabricate them...sorry Byron but if your friends 360 was running it at 720p then you've just made that shit up completely

  • bigman77 #151 3 years ago

    Resident evil 5 on xbox 360 is sick! aspecially the online co op mode. I got my copy here and saved 11 quid! www.resident-evil-5 .co.uk
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/09 @ 10:37

  • Gay-Lord-Perry #152 3 years ago

    wow the 360 version looks sooo much better