Face-Off: The Chronicles of Riddick

By Richard Leadbetter Published 21 April, 2009

PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. PC.

Page 1 of 3

We've not had much out of Starbreeze Studios since the release of The Darkness back in June 2007, and that's a real shame. The Darkness may well have had its issues (like Jackie's complete inability to get around with anything other than a leaden shuffle) but it was a superb shooter, with plenty of original touches, a good storyline and one of the most astonishing game engines seen in that time period. It was the first Xbox 360 game I played that didn't look like an Xbox 360 game. It looked better, a generation beyond. In terms of lighting, post-processing effects, characters, motion blur... nothing could touch it, and even now in a market saturated with Unreal Engine 3 shooters, it has a look that is all its own.

The PlayStation 3 code on the other hand wasn't quite as decent. The same gameplay, the same geometry, but just about everything else was tangibly cut-down compared to the original. The first casualty was the resolution - down from native 720p to a teeth-clenchingly unimpressive 960x540. Anti-aliasing? Gone. Lighting effects? Pared down. Textures? Lower resolution, in many places. In short, an unimpressive port, but at least the coolness of the game remained intact and it remained an enjoyable adventure.

So here we are getting on for two years later with Starbreeze's latest effort: a retooling of its 2004 technology-defying Xbox release, The Chronicles of Riddick. The Darkness engine is back in full effect, powering an HD version of the original Escape From Butcher Bay, along with a brand new single-player campaign, Assault on Dark Athena. Online multiplayer modes are also bundled into the package.

First impressions confirm that The Darkness engine is still hugely impressive, even if it hasn't moved on that much since its HD debut back in 2007. But it was a piece of code ahead of its time, just like original Xbox version. Back in 2004, Riddick ran with a dynamic framebuffer, switching resolutions during gameplay to sustain frame-rate - four years on, WipEout HD does exactly the same to maintain its illusion of a full HD 1080p60 refresh rate.

What is clear, however, is that the 2004 vintage gameplay is Riddick's most limiting factor and that remains the case whether you're playing this game on PC, 360 or PS3. The fetch-quests, the sometimes-laborious and inconsistent platforming elements - it's here where even the best technology in the world can't cover up what feels like antique gameplay. Also irritating is the paring-down of adventure elements in Dark Athena, making it arguably inferior than its five-year-old sibling.

So what about the conversion then? Here's a video, and be sure to check out the triple-format screenshot comparison gallery.

Although massively improved since The Darkness on PS3, Starbreeze's engine still favours Xbox 360.

The good news is that Starbreeze has clearly made great efforts to improve its PlayStation 3 engine since The Darkness two years ago. The pretty savage cutbacks seen in its last game have given way to a new set of compromises that are nowhere near as impactful to the image quality, and bring performance much closer to the platform parity games publishers are increasingly demanding.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (75) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • jaluuk #1 3 years ago

    This is a very useful article and the PS3 sucks.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 11:43

  • Aretak #2 3 years ago

    Shame they've fucked the PC port. They should have asked for some tips from Criterion.

  • captainrentboy #3 3 years ago

    It doesn't matter how many hundreds of games look and play better on the 360, because at the end of the day the PS3 has Killzone 2, and the 360 just isn't advanced enough to replicate that shade of Brown. So PS3 wins, right?...

  • Rayn #4 3 years ago

    Let's hope there'll be a performance boosting patch for the PC version.

  • Sunyavadin #5 3 years ago

    Yeah, the PS3's pallette has some pretty epic shades of brown, murky brown, muddy brown, all rendered with that genuine "vaseline -on-my-contacts" overlay the 360 and PC just can't match up to.

  • Quint2020 #6 3 years ago

    I was going to get it on the 360 anyway, all good.

    To be fair the Director's Cut of the original that was released on the PC suffered from some slow down but they got a patch out which sorted it all out fairly soon after release, hopefully a similar situation with this one,

  • DrDamn #7 3 years ago

    A 3 page face-off article for a game which got 7/10 and a 2 page review. Crazy idea ... how about some *interesting* articles about games?

    This stuff can be useful, just stick it in a box out at the bottom of the review. You really don't need more than a paragraph and certainly not more than you spent reviewing the game in the first place. Priorities?

  • Ranger101 #8 3 years ago

    Best looking water eva!

  • Buztafen #9 3 years ago

    Ive heard the PS3 version of this game melts babies.....

  • Darren #10 3 years ago

    Well my PC is far more up to date (Quad-core Core i7 920 @ 3.2 GHz, 6 GB RAM, 1GB GTX 280 graphics) than Richard Leadbetter's so I'm pretty confident that I'll have no problems running the game at 1680x1050 with lots of AA. The original Riddick: Butcher Bay looks and runs smoothly at 60 fps on my setup even with Shader 2.0+ enabled and 16X AA. While this game has switched from OpenGL to DirectX, it still doesn't look like it's much of a graphical upgrade over the original PC version bar the addition of depth of field effects and motion-blurring. I'm only buying the game for the Dark Athena content and at £18 it's worth buying IMO.

  • Darren #11 3 years ago

    Richard Leadbetter - "Checking in with our friends at Eurogamer Germany, they claimed decent performance with a 3.0GHz dual-core CPU and an ATI HD 4850 at 1680x1050 resolution, but saw large gains in refresh rate by turning off anti-aliasing."

    Refresh rate is not the same thing as framerate which is what I presume you meant here?

  • septimus #12 3 years ago

    Shitty port. The engine is ancient yet they still fucked it up. Getting the 360 version anyway, but will all 360 fanboys please fuck off?

  • Garulon #13 3 years ago

    " but will all 360 fanboys please fuck off?"

    Only if all PS3 fanbois finally admit the PS3 is technically worse :)

  • chessboxer #14 3 years ago

    Can we have a face-off of Hannah Montana: The Movie?

  • ianegg #15 3 years ago

    Shame about the PC port. Not worth paying for if it runs so poorly.

  • NotSoSlim #16 3 years ago

    Pointless article..if you have both machines you buy the 360 version if you have one or the other you buy it on your chosen machine.

  • StooMonster #17 3 years ago

    Well written and analytically driven article by Richard Leadbetter, great stuff explaining how different aspects of graphics engines operate on different platforms.

    But the bottom line for me is PC or 360 version.

    My PC has plenty of GPU power and I reckon I could run it at 2560x1600 with no AA, and might even get away with some. PC should have better keyboard+mouse controls too. But the PC version isn't Games For Windows Live or Steam achievement enabled, and I quite like them (sad though I am).

  • stepneg #18 3 years ago

    Has the PC been added to this face off so the PS3 wouldn't be the worst version for a change.

  • skillian #19 3 years ago

    Priorities?

    Page views. These articles gets tons of hits.

  • Darren #20 3 years ago

    I'm not 100% sure but I believe the PC version of Dark Athena supports Ambient Occlusion lighting as an in-game option from what I've read on US forums and this can kill the framerate on older graphics hardware. It isn't compatible with AA either. It's unclear whether it was enabled during Richard Leadbetter's testing. If it was then it would perhaps explain the relatively poor performance. The console versions do not have Ambient Occlusion.

  • drumbaby #21 3 years ago

    Does the Blu-Ray version break the PS3 like the DVD will inevitably break the 360?

  • TheVoice #22 3 years ago

    Only if all PS3 fanbois finally admit the PS3 is technically worse :)

    False confessions serve no real purpose.

  • dpb135 #23 3 years ago

    Oh well, and my 360 library gets bigger while my PS3 one stays with exclusives

  • spiny #24 3 years ago

    I hate these articles, pure fanboi bait

  • Dizzy #25 3 years ago

    >I hate these articles, pure fanboi bait

    It should be illegal to compare products!

  • GreyBeard #26 3 years ago

    Sounds like Starbreeze's render-paths favor ATI hardware. If its struggling on an 8800GT no wonder they needed to scale down on PS3.

  • Dizzy #27 3 years ago

    "Sounds like Starbreeze's render-paths favor ATI hardware. If its struggling on an 8800GT no wonder they needed to scale down on PS3. "

    Are you accusing a piece of software of bias?

    How does that work?

    if (_hardware == Hardware.ATI)
    {
    SetFrameRate(30);
    }
    else
    {
    SetFrameRate(_random.Next(30));
    }

    Something like that?

  • Bitkari #28 3 years ago

    Must be all of that DRM slowing things down, eh?

    /gets trollskin coat

  • schnide #29 3 years ago

    As much as I don't want to ignite this debate if it hasn't already started, this is why I prefer a console to a PC, and also in this case, a 360 to a PS3. No Fanboyism in it, it's just practicality.

  • moggsy #30 3 years ago

    Looking at the screenshot comparisons the PS3 version really is blur-o-vision. Not good.

  • Rodchenko #31 3 years ago

    Only if all PS3 fanbois finally admit the PS3 is technically worse :)

    The PS3 is technically worse. Now fuck off.

  • Garulon #32 3 years ago

    "The PS3 is technically worse. Now fuck off. "

    Awesome, well done. But oh dear, someone's not getting the memo:

    "False confessions serve no real purpose."

    1) It's not a confession, it's an admission.
    2) It's not false. Do you think it's an accident that a £130 console regularly beats a £300 console in these things?

    "Having played RE5 on both platforms I really didn't see any differences so these articles don't really mean shit to me anymore."

    Ah, fanboy glasses. Where can I buy a pair?

  • glaeken #33 3 years ago

    What the hell is with all the praise for the Darkness engine? Were there multiple versions for the 360 or something as the version I played looked fairly shonky. It certainly did not stand out as better than any other engine around at the time so I really wonder what an earth the article is babbling on about.

  • Dizzy #34 3 years ago

    >It certainly did not stand out as better than any other engine around at the time

    Hmmm.. I dunno I remember I was quite impressed with the engine. It did a few things with lights that other games were not really doing at the time.Nothing uber spectacular though. But yeah... I guess a lot of the special stuff was on a low level technical level that only software people look at ;)

  • Darren #35 3 years ago

    @glaeken - It's called "personal opinion", dear boy! ;)

    I agree with Richard Leadbetter, I thought The Darkness looked stunning on the Xbox 360 and a lot more like a current generation game than most other stuff that was doing the rounds back then: 4x AA, native 720p resolution, detailed textures and models, decent lighting effects and a mostly solid 30 fps framerate with no tearing, it impressed me as much as Riddick did back in 2004 on the original Xbox. Shame about the fish-eye perspectives Starbreeze seem to favour though...
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 13:54

  • El-Dev #36 3 years ago

    Massive victory, shame you all need to wait 3 days for your replacement console to come before you can play games.

  • creepylizard #37 3 years ago

    I don't know why anyone bothers with these articles at all. just fan baiting all round. Just a quick sentence in the game review mentioning which version is technically best, for those that care about such things, and move the fuck on...

  • glaeken #38 3 years ago

    @Darren & Dizzy

    I just don't see it. Of course its personal opinion but the impressision the game left with me was that it was technically crude and could have done with a few more months polish before release. It certainly would never have been an engine that I would think people would be praising 2 years down the line.

  • teabagger #39 3 years ago

    Using games as a method of comparing hardware is pointless. Arguing about it even more so.

    I don't think anyone can really deny that they fucked up with the graphics hardware on PS3, fortunately the rest of it is good enough that they can almost get away with it.

    Unless a PS3 version is really dire, I'd choose it over the 360 because it provides a nicer end-user experience.

    At the end of the day, neither console is perfect.

  • Darren #40 3 years ago

    @Coin-Op - Killzone 2 looks TEN generations ahead of anything on the Xbox 360? Really?!? :o

    I. Don't. Think. So. That's a gross exaggeration if ever there was one!

    It's a very good looking game admittedly and a brilliant example of what the PS3 can do when developers are given enough time and money but there are plenty of exclusive games on the Xbox 360 that are arguably just as impressive technically: Gears of War 2 for example.

    But comparing exclusive games is utterly pointless anyway because being single format they cannot be done so directly or fairly. Who's to say that Killzone 2 wouldn't look and run as well on the 360 if that had been the platform it was developed for? Ditto for Gears of War 2 on the PS3.

    I remember when Virtua Fighter 5 exclusively came out on the PS3 back at launch, long before it was announced for the Xbox 360, and some people claimed it would never look as good on the rival platform. Well a year later it *did* arrive on the 360 with online gameplay and better graphics, thanks to the addition of AA which the PS3 version lacked, so that certainly wasn't true.

  • Dizzy #41 3 years ago

    "Unless a PS3 version is really dire, I'd choose it over the 360 because it provides a nicer end-user experience. "

    ROFL.

    "Killzone 2 looks TEN generations ahead of anything on the Xbox 360?"

    How cute. 10 generations? So it is a game from 2050?

    Let it go dude. KZ2 looks exactly like this generation. better in some parts, worse in others. Does that make it a good/bad game? Nope... that is all about the gameplay.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 13:57

  • Martin85 #42 3 years ago

    Nice to see the PS3 getting closer to the 360 as time goes on. I wouldn't have a problem playing the PS3 version. Which is elementary, since I won't be getting this game, anyway.

  • HuggyAtHome #43 3 years ago

    Does Riddick have the horrible pauses whilst it loads levels and checkpoints on the PS3 that Killzone 2 has?

    I really enjoyed KZ2 single player and will happily buy a decent PS3 exclusive but crappy performance like those 'freezes' mid level will always lead me to buy the 360 version of a multi-platform title.

    Moot point though - Riddick doesn't sound good enough to buy on either console to be honest.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 14:09

  • captainrentboy #44 3 years ago

    I've played Killzone 2 for a couple of hours (I got to a part where my team were attempting to cross a bridge and we had to go underneath it, and then I got stuck because of a guy on a turret gun) and it's a very nice looking game and I thought it played really well, solid controls with a weighty feel to it all. BUT, from what I saw of it I really can't understand why some folk insist it couldn't be done (graphically) on a 360. After the ''Ohhh look at that those dust clouds'' and ''Ohh, pretty lightning'' first impressions wore off, it all looked quite familiar, infact some of it reminded me of FEAR 2 :/ It's certainly not perfection, there were shoddy textures galore on various walls and items, and the enemies were pretty bloody dull to look at.
    Good game, but certainly not the be all and end all of FPS titles PS3 owners make it out to be.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 14:35

  • mrgibby #45 3 years ago

    Another take on this subject: [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.co m
    ]http://www.lensoftruth.co m
    [/link]

  • Darren #46 3 years ago

    @El-Dev - "Massive victory, shame you all need to wait 3 days for your replacement console to come before you can play games."

    Three days? Don't you mean a week?

    But tell me about it, my Xbox 360 is coming back from the repair centre in Germany tomorrow after a week long absence, but I decided a while back that from now on I'll be buying as many multiformat games as I can for my PC rather the 360 because, quite frankly, I'm sick of the bloody thing breaking down.

  • JahB #47 3 years ago

    my god can't you bunch of whining fanboys get over it?

    multiplat games look better on 360. that's not news, it's just the way it is.

  • Darren #48 3 years ago

    @JahB - "multiplat games look better on 360. that's not news, it's just the way it is."

    Not quite true. Best looking console version maybe but if there's a PC version and you have the required kit then that version tends to be the winner, especially as they tend to be more customisable in terms of image quality and graphical settings, etc. PC games are also cheaper too which helps offset the hardware costs a little.

  • teabagger #49 3 years ago

    @Dizzy:

    No need to ROFL like I'm picking sides here.... my 360 is an early one and it sounds like a hoover after it's been on 5 mins. You might think I'm being picky but it sufficiently intrusive that I'd rather play it on PS3 given the choice. I like my 360 very much, the controller for one and it's certainly better value for money if it came down to a choice between the two. Sadly it's let down by some cost-based design decisions, that's all.

  • Jonelo #50 3 years ago


    Perfomance in game in the benchs of Pcgames Hardware , no bad for the 8800 GT - 30 fps at 1650 x 1080 with 4XAA , 50 for the 4850

    [link url=http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/R iddick_AoDA_1680.png
    ]http://i4 .photobucket.com/albums/y117/jo...[/link]

    http://ww w.pcgameshardware.com/aid,67796...

  • mega7ech #51 3 years ago

    360 wins again huh? Oh Sony....

  • JasonB81 #52 3 years ago

    i checked out lens of truth, and i should have known better. The guy doesn't even know that the PS3 version is sub hd, and he gives it the win.... Eurogamer is much better and more fair, because they have the equipment to back up their conclusions. Not just someone talking out of their a$$. Please don't bring up Lensoftruth in here ever again. what a waste of my time. Also they compared Gears 2 to Killzone 2, and that my friend equals failure.

  • Buran #53 3 years ago

    Another game in that PC version in low specs rig destroys the consoles version. Not a new.

  • DjFlex52 #54 3 years ago

    Are GG holding some kind of secret code that unlocks the PS3 hardware potential?

    @evilfoxhound

    yep...it's called 4 years of dev time and lots of Sony funding. Most devs can't afford to spend more than 2 years, especially with sequels.

    edit: 2 Gears of War games were released in the same time frame of 1 Killzone game. Just think if Epic had 4 years to develop Gears 2. It would look pretty impressive but at the cost of losing revenue.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 20:42

  • TRUTH #55 3 years ago

    (above)...and still it's nothing above + seen it all before gameplay, graphics are nothing to the hype and very liner, also many of the best bits in KZ2 are set pieces. The vehicle sections are a joke, can't see what the hell all the fuss was about esp the one Sony made.
    Edited by 1 at 21/04/09 @ 21:43

  • YourMessageHere #56 3 years ago

    EG, thanks for including the PC in this, even if it didn't come off so well. However, please write for your audience slightly more and don't use console-specific terminology to talk about PC resolutions - not being into consoles, I have no clue what 720p or 1080i60 mean in actual meaningful width x height terms, as this terminology simply isn't used on PCs (to my knowledge at least).

  • Katsumoto #57 3 years ago

    +1 to that, references to actual PC resolutions would surely be a lot more useful? I don't have a clue if my monitor is 1080p or 720i or whatever

  • muscleblade #58 3 years ago

    @Coin-Op

    That is utter bullshit. You havent played many 360 games have you? Killzone 2 looks good but there are games on the 360 that looks better and plays much better too. Uncharted dosent look that good tbh. But it plays better than Killzone 2 imo. The best games on the PS3 imo is RE5, SFIV and Dead Space and they all look and play better on the 360.

    Nothing on the PS3 comes close to Gears 2s looks and Halo 3s gameplay.

  • HermitArcader #59 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • JahB #60 3 years ago

    Not quite true. Best looking console version maybe but if there's a PC version and you have the required kit then that version tends to be the winner, especially as they tend to be more customisable in terms of image quality and graphical settings, etc. PC games are also cheaper too which helps offset the hardware costs a little.

    yes, fair and square, the PC is techincally always the best choice, but it comes with a problem - the price tag. the fact that PC games are cheaper doesn't factor in here, because saving 5 quid on a game doesn't really compensate for having to spend 1500 quid to get the high-end system that will have a significant (or in other words, visible) advantage over the consoles.

  • HermitArcader #61 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Katsumoto #62 3 years ago

    £1500? Try £500. The PC costs more than a console argument is fair enough I suppose, but this isnt the 1990s and PC prices have come down dramatically. Sure you can spend £1500 if you really want to but a £500 system will play anything you can throw at it better than a console could.

  • obscured021 #63 3 years ago

    i have the pc version, and it runs fine for me at max settings at 1080p i get around 70-85fps thats on my tv, and at 2500x1900 on my monitor i get about 45-50 fps,

  • menschenfracht #64 3 years ago

    Xbox360 "wins" again, yes.

    But my wiener is even bigger - it is rendered in a finer resolution and has native AA support.

  • Zero Beat #65 3 years ago

    Compared to the original, a pretty average, often even ugly game for 2009. Chunky self-shadowing, posterisation of lighting effects, low-poly everything, cabbage-faced characters, over-used depth of field.

    Uncharted is still console graphics king for me.
    Edited by 1 at 22/04/09 @ 18:49

  • TRUTH #66 3 years ago

    evilfoxhound

    No it doesn't KZ2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay over hyped!...Where exactly does it it surpass anything ?...i have both consoles too!. It is nothing special, very liner, crappy vehicle sections., hardly a variation in enemies, kill a enemy and another spawns tricking you there's alot of characters onscreen (hardly 10 infact!), the ai has not surpassed Halo's free thinking enemies eg: do they independently use vehicles, gun turrents, scram when there leader is killed, mis throw grenades, swap weapons, make mistakes in attacks etc etc...In KZ 'NO!' - infact all tney really do is play hide and peak shoot!!!...Even F.E.A.R holds a better use of environments.

    So please explain to me where the hell does KZ surpass any other game. The controls where the main reason I died - not being witted by the ai on KZ 2. By the way hide in a small corner & just fire and that should usually work to beat the final boss at the end.

    Even Uncharted is nothing special!...esp the way Sony fans keep convincing themselves.
    Edited by 1 at 22/04/09 @ 19:07

  • SniperZoz #67 3 years ago

    April 2009 and PS3 is still playing the catch up game ... pft!

  • TRUTH #68 3 years ago

    PC's great but need to continue to update fairly often, bugs and load errors, crashing is common, can't really play on large tv's. Setting up/configuring pc's to play different games or to play old then new games (vice versa) is a headache.

  • anss123 #69 3 years ago

    I was hoping for a comparison with the original. From what little I've seen the new version isn't all that much better looking.

  • obscured021 #70 3 years ago

    If you are going to test a game use the latest hardware not a pc thats over a year old, as i stated in a previuos post if you have up to date hardware it runs and looks better than the 360 version, i downloaded the 360 demo last night, and then ran the game on my tv in 720p on my pc , then 1080p and then on my monitor at 2500*1900 the 360 had a slight edge in frame rate when the pc went up to 2500*1900, but the pc version look way better, even at 1080p it was doing 70-85 fps. and 45-50 at 2500*1900

  • des #71 3 years ago

    Ah poor Sony...
    No wonder that their top executives got fired...

  • tnt_2008 #72 3 years ago

    i got ps3 version and euro gamer should be banned fromthe net .the gamelooks miles better than the comparsion shown here ,honstely it is not a blurred out mess and framerate is smooth eurogamer or should i say 360 gamer because this article is fullof shit

  • YourMessageHere #73 3 years ago

    If you are going to test a game use the latest hardware not a pc thats over a year old, as i stated in a previuos post if you have up to date hardware it runs and looks better than the 360 version, i downloaded the 360 demo last night, and then ran the game on my tv in 720p on my pc , then 1080p and then on my monitor at 2500*1900 the 360 had a slight edge in frame rate when the pc went up to 2500*1900, but the pc version look way better, even at 1080p it was doing 70-85 fps. and 45-50 at 2500*1900

    Ideally EG should test it on both a cutting-edge PC and a clunkier older one; it's not as if everyone (in fact, I'd guess very few) can afford to upgrade their PCs every week. I upgrade very infrequently due to not having much money, and simply make do with lesser resolutions, as graphics are apparently less important to me than to many others; nonetheless I'd like to get some idea of how a PC game will scale for different systems.

    EDIT: I did some research. For those like me wondering what the hell 720p actually means:

    SD resolutions:

    480i/p = 720x480 (4:3) (NTSC standard)
    576i/p = 720x576 (4:3) (PAL and SECAM standard)

    HD resolutions:

    720p = 1280x720 native progressive scan (16:9)
    (according to Wikipedia, 720p also includes XGA = 1024x768 and WXGA = 1366x768. Not sure how or why.)

    1080i = 1280x1080 stretched (interlaced) to 1920x1080 (16:9)

    1080p = 1920x1808 native progressive scan (16:9) (Bluray native res)


    Optionally, lower case number after letter = Refresh rate in Hz

    THUS: Number-lowercase letter-number (e.g. 1080p60)
    MEANS: vertical resolution-display type-refresh rate
    (1080 pixels high, progressive, 60 frames/sec)
    Edited by 1 at 26/04/09 @ 09:01

  • dnd #74 3 years ago

    @Darren waay up there

    yes ambient occlusion totally kills the framerate on the pc. if that was turned on then it would explain why it felt so laggy, because that was immediately noticeable to me as well (and the game leaves it on by default i believe). i run an 8800gtx which isn't much ahead of the 8800gt (20% at best?) and framerate with ambient occ on high at 1680x1050 was 40s at best and felt like about 15 - ridiculously laggy. turn it off completely and i think framerate went well above 60, 70-90 if i remember rightly, and the lag was gone.

  • m0thr4 #75 3 years ago

    Looking at the screenshot comparisons the PS3 version really is blur-o-vision. Not good.

    Actually looking at the game running on a Sony Bravia 40" HD TV.. the PS3 version looks and plays fucking fantastic... as is usually the case.

    EDIT: In fact, looking at that comparison video again and then playing it again on my PS3 on the above mentioned telly... well, they just don't look like the same game at all. It doesn't look anywhere near as blurry... what's going on EG?

    Let's remember that the PS3 is only inferior to the Xbox 360 when it comes to 3D graphics in games that were also designed for the XBox 360 and PC. In most other aspects the PS3 pisses all over the Xbox 360 from a great height. You've got nice quiet and reliable hardware, a decent web browser, a Blu-ray player that easily matches (and often exceeds) similarly priced standalone players, the ability to upgrade the hard drive to 350GB for only £50, the ability to upload your own HD videosto the hard drive, the ability to install an additional operating system and turn it into an under-the-telly PC, and an online store that actually tells you clearly how much money you're spending and only requires you to top up your account with what is needed to complete a transaction, rather than requiring you to bulk-buy bundles of arbitrary "points".
    Edited by 2 at 18/05/09 @ 19:42