You may also like...
-
Glorious Technicolor 49
-
GeForce GRID: Can Cloud Gaming Match Console Performance? 41
-
Day Z: The Best Zombie Game Ever Made? 132
-
Game of the Week: Ghost Recon Future Soldier 24
-
App of the Day: Penny Time 9
-
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Review 132
-
Gravity Rush Review 69
-
Dragon's Dogma Review 140
-
New Star Wars franchise to be unveiled next week 122
-
Diablo 3 Review 245
-
Rockstar to push Max Payne 3 "to its limits" on high-end PCs 63
-
Sony patents method to interrupt your gaming with an ad 171
-
Wii U Aliens: Colonial Marines is best-looking version because of console's "more modern tech" 117
-
How The Elder Scrolls Online hopes to avoid repeating Skyrim bug fiasco 39
-
Dirt Showdown Review 89
Comments (18) Latest comment 5 years ago
Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
very strange. see the rendering difference on the veins of the hands for instance.
quite obvious, no ?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And I'm HONESTLY telling you I can't see any fucking difference (Can't see any fucking jaggies either, for that matter,) other than the fact that somebody decided to turn the brightness up before taking the PS3 screens.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
When it's running on a TV at 60fps... the question is, does any of this AA and jaggies and inverse buffering shit really fucking matter? When it's running full-pace and you're reeling off the commands and trying to beat your opponent, are you really - honestly now - going to notice any of the shit you would in a still or two?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And I'm HONESTLY telling you I can't see any fucking difference (Can't see any fucking jaggies either, for that matter,)
Well then you either have not enlarged the pictures or you are some kind of mutant mole person with severely impaired sight. Have a look <a href=http://i16.tinypic.com/86422dj.jpg>here</a>, now if you still can't see the difference then you must have a serious problem.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
very strange. see the rendering difference on the veins of the hands for instance.
quite obvious, no ?
Yup, weird.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll just reiterate my earlier statement.
Nob.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Like your ass being kicked to shit?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
At least I'm not a blind nob, the difference is totally obvious to anyone who isn't an utter retard. If you have to squint to see it, then you should visit an optician (being serious)...
@Kami
So you're saying graphics don't matter as long as it's still fun. I say graphics do matter as long as it's not at the expense of the gameplay (and in this case it's not, the game and visuals are better on 360). It's fine if things like AA don't matter to you, but the point of this screenshot comparison item is..er.. surely to compare them?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
To get something running at a solid 60fps means optimising for the hardware. Yes, I see some jaggies but you have to be looking REEEEALLLY hard to notice them, and if you're looking for them mid-game then it's probably time to take a break from gaming altogether.
I'm just saying that it's very pretty on both systems and the diferences that are there aren't really anything we haven't come to expect from the industry. 360 and PS3 have their strengths and weaknesses - the Akira shot is a great example of the differences. You can see texturing is better on the PS3 but 360 is smoother on the edges. This is what we've had since the PS1/Saturn/N64, and until the day comes we have a unified console with the same hardware and drivers across the board, you have to accept this is the reality of gaming.
All the comparison shots here do is emphasise some slight hardware differences between the two systems - I don't think that's anything to do with the game itself, and as such I think comparisons of this kind are a bit meaningless, especially in stills. Running at 60fps, such details aren't going to cripple enjoyment of the game, if they're noticable at all.
That's just my take. I don't see why it's anything to be worried about, and as I said, running in-game these little details (and I think they are little details) aren't going to spoil what is regarded as an excellent fighter.
It's not that grahics don't matter - if they didn't we'd still be playing text adventures. It's just subtle differences because of the hardware they're running on really shouldn't matter.
And no, I don't really get the whole comparison thing myself. It's pretty both ways, we still win at the end of the day, why complain?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show