Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 16

By Richard Leadbetter Published 24 November, 2008

Mirror's Edge, Brothers in Arms, Fracture, Guitar Hero, Baja, FIFA, Quantum of Solace.

Page 1 of 4

The latest bloody skirmish begins here. Seven more cross-platform releases are appraised for your feverish attentions across the next few pages, backed - as usual - by the best range of comparison assets on the internet. That'll be full 720p and 1080p HDMI 24-bit RGB screengrabs, and h.264-powered 1:1 precision videos.

Before we begin proper, let's kick off with a bit of good news. 2K has just updated BioShock with a brand new patch for the disappointing PlayStation 3 conversion of the game. The numerous promised bug-fixes have all materialised, but better than that, the vastly annoying blur effect has been substantially reduced. What blur there is now appears to be down to the reduced sub-720p resolution and, alas, this combined with the wildly variable frame-rate remain. More details on the befores and afters at the author's blog.

Getting back to the present, there's an intriguing selection of seven games in the line-up, including one of my personal favourite games of the year: DICE's innovative Mirror's Edge.

The videos in this feature have come out pretty well, but if you feel the need to watch extended, downloadable versions running at the full 720p 60fps, check the Digital Foundry Blog in the next day or so.

Coming next: we're taking a return trip to Face-Off Bonus Round territory with an in-depth special on Ubisoft's Far Cry 2, featuring Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and of course, PC versions of the game. Expect a detail-rich critique of the engine itself, the gameplay and the map editor - hopefully this Friday. After that, we'll be taking a little break before returning in a few weeks with a roundup of the rest of the major Q4 releases.

Previous Face-Offs:

Baja: Edge of Control

We did have plans to bring you a series of face-off roundups for this edition, one of which would've been aimed at taking a look at the state of cross-platform development at the low-rent end of the gaming market. Unfortunately, looming deadlines and the sheer amount of work involved meant that we'll have to save that for next month's potentially epic comparison clean-up. Baja: Edge of Control did manage to sneak into contention though, and it manages to be quite an extraordinary release: astonishing in that a game that is so fundamentally bereft of appeal manages to be even worse on the PlayStation 3.

Collapsing frame-rates (even on the vehicle-selection screen - that must have taken some work), zero anti-aliasing, pared-down lighting and missing environmental detail... were it not for the fact that Baja: Edge of Control does indeed run at 720p on PS3, we'd pretty much have the full house of cross-platform calamities. The solitary act of redemption is the inclusion of upscaled 1080i/1080p support.

The real problem both versions of the game have is that the competition is staggeringly superior compared to this lame effort. MotorStorm and its sequel effortlessly wipe the floor with it, while both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 owners can enjoy Black Rock's brilliant Pure. Neither game has the openworld environment that Edge of Control proffers, but who actually wants or needs sandbox gameplay when it's bereft of fun?

Page 1 of 4

Comments (100) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Skooch #1 3 years ago

    Can I just say I like these articles...screw everyone who just moans about them!

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #2 3 years ago

    I would of prefered you had written a SOCOM review article instead of wasting time on this again

  • stephenb #3 3 years ago

    Haven't read this article. Don't care. Enough allready Eurogamer!

  • LetsGo #4 3 years ago

    The more of these the closer the PS3 gets tech. wise...

    Maybe it's true that publishers are now leading on the PS3?

  • Monkey_Puncher #5 3 years ago

    OMGZ WII AM TEH WINNAR!

    *yawn*

  • Skooch #6 3 years ago

    The 360 advantage over PS3 seems more marginal now that previous face-offs. Seems devs are putting more time into PS3 code, or just understanding it more. So much for the power of the cell, though, not much use having 'potential' without the necessary knowledge or inclination to use it fully.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 15:57

  • aldo_14 #7 3 years ago

    As someone who was considering a PS3 (until I realised my PC could pretty much handle the best games from either 360 or PS3, so I didn't need either), I'm consistently shocked at the PS3 still lagging behind after so long.

  • DFawkes #8 3 years ago

    Only played 1 on both, article is wrong on that one (GH:WT). That is all.

  • Miths #9 3 years ago

    I think the PS3 might actually have a chance of winning a round in the next face-off article. I just saw a comparison video of Tombraider Underworld on another site, and dynamic shadows were entirely absent in the 360 version, while they seemed to add a lot to the atmosphere in numerous locations in the PS3 version.
    It actually looked a bit like a developer somewhere simply forgot to turn it on in the 360 version :) - it really didn't look like the type of graphical detail that would usually be sacrificed in a port/version.

  • GamerG #10 3 years ago

    The £129.99 console wins again!

  • ronuds #11 3 years ago

    Obligatory "these articles suck and EG is the worst site ever, but I come in the comments section anyway just to say that" comment.

    I actually like the articles!

  • canIdoyabombsforya #12 3 years ago

    "As someone who was considering a PS3 (until I realised my PC could pretty much handle the best games from either 360 or PS3, so I didn't need either)"

    Wow, you realised that 4 and 3 year old tech wasn't as good as the latest tech?

  • canIdoyabombsforya #13 3 years ago

    "Gamers are ready for Real change"
    Kaz Hirai 2006

  • schnide #14 3 years ago

    I'm going to see if I can be someone to write something in here without looking like a die-hard fanboy one way or the other.

    I don't like Microsoft very much at all, but I do like games. I really wanted to love the PS3, I do believe it's far superior hardware and I gave it plenty of chances. I even think eventually Sony will get it's act together and overtake what the 360 has managed to achieve in it's head start despite numerous setbacks on both sides.

    But Sony has just pissed away too much of the advantage here, so I caved last week and bought myself a 360. Games look pretty good on it to me and I can get a wide range of them (more than Sony and then some - oh, and can also play backwardly-compatible games. Who knew modern consoles could still do that eh Sony?). Finally, I can take advantage of what Live offers without just getting killed instantly by redneck Americans in downloading free games demos to my hard drive.

    All that for £169? Ta very much. So I can't play Bluray, I get that, but at least I have a much cheaper and well-faring console to keep me busy until the relatively overpriced PS3 comes down.

    Microsoft Live Points are very overpriced, though.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 16:14

  • ronuds #15 3 years ago

    @ shnide

    It's not MS Points that are overpriced, but what you're supposed to use those points for.

  • Miths #16 3 years ago

    @aldo_14
    "As someone who was considering a PS3 (until I realised my PC could pretty much handle the best games from either 360 or PS3, so I didn't need either), I'm consistently shocked at the PS3 still lagging behind after so long."

    I suspect that will continue to be the case in most multi-platform titles. The thing is though, unless you're actually doing side by side comparisons, more often than not you aren't going to actually think "damn this is ugly" (well, probably with that Baja game :p) when you're playing the PS3 version of a game. Especially now that the gap really is getting rather insignificant on many titles.

    I bought the PS3 version of Fallout 3 (and I own both consoles), already knowing full well that there would be jagged edges and occasional framerate drops - I've clocked in around 50 hours in the game so far, and the amount of time where I've actually paid notice to those minor issues can probably almost be counted in seconds rather than minutes. I just think it looks fantastic most of the time (well, the world design anyway, Bethesda seemingly still doesn't have a single decent character animator on the payroll).
    The same goes for pretty much all the other multi-platform games where I've chosen the PS3 over the 360 version, as I prefer the former console (I did however just try my very first 360 harddisk install today though, Gears of War 2, and since that eliminated my biggest complaint - the insanely loud DVD drive noise - I might start using that console regularly again. Well, aside from the fact that I'm almost out of disk space after that one game install and I really can't see myself paying almost three times as much for that 120 GB 360 disk as I did for the 250 GB disk I put in my PS3 a few months back).

  • NotSoSlim #17 3 years ago

    Fuel fo the pathetic fanboys...lol

    I swear Almost all sites have stopped this crap, so goes to show how EG is surviving these days. Have a 360 n PS3 but use my PS3 more..

    Fifa 09 on 360 has noticeable slowdown after the keeper takes a goal kick on some stadiums even with the install. Both machines have limitations
    Edited by 2 at 24/11/08 @ 16:24

  • kingdumpalot #18 3 years ago

    Which was the game where you could have Bugs bunny vs Homer Simpson? I feel as though I've been mis-sold this article!

  • Dizzy #19 3 years ago

    Isn't the PS3 already knock-out on the floor? No need to fight more rounds of this. We get it.

    Next time post a list of games, add "The 360 wins!" and be done with it.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 16:29

  • the_dudefather #20 3 years ago

    wonder what it would be like if they threw in the Wii and PC for comparison

    (actually the PC comparisons would be nice EG, keep getting conflicted reports on Dead space on PC for example)

  • MaxiSleep #21 3 years ago

    The only reason for buying most games on Ps3 was the noise factor on 360. Which is now solved with install to hard disk.

  • reddevil93 #22 3 years ago

    PS3 FIFA has better(longer) replays too. You can rewind through the whole match in fact.

  • mikew1985 #23 3 years ago

    @ Evilfoxhound

    +1 sir

    Now I know which console to get ME on.
    PS3 will suit me fine as the jaggies won't bother me and with all the shoulder button use i prefer the dual shock.

  • The_Surreal #24 3 years ago

    So...

    -Baja looks better on the 360, but I am frankly SHOCKED that it's such a bad looking game in general.

    -Mirror's Edge looks better on the PS3, as I expected seeing as it was designed for the PS3

    -Brothers in Arms looks better on the PS3, mainly because the colours are deeper

    -Fracture looks better on 360, just because of clarity really

    -I didn't really look at Guitar Hero and FIFA

    -Quantum of Solace looks pretty much exactly the same on both consoles

    That being said, I think all this is completely pointless.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 16:38

  • gilroyneil #25 3 years ago

    A few people on here have commented that the 360 is now much better as you can install games to disk. Whilst its true, the average 360 user probably has a 20Gb disk with 13GB usable. Thats 2 games at best that can be installed to the disk.
    Mind you, I would never buy a non PS3 exclusive.

  • Bagpuss #26 3 years ago

    FFS.....when is Eurogamer gonna sort out your shitty servers.

    This is the only site where i have to view videos in stutter-vision.

    INCREASE YOUR SERVERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Aretak #27 3 years ago

    Meh... FIFA 09 is the only game I care about there, and it seems that's pretty much identical. Go EA.

  • the_dudefather #28 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    more like:

    PC Owner: who cares, I can download it for free anyway and it will play the best on my machine (if its up to spec anyway)

    360 Owner: YEAH FUCK THE PS3, CONSOLE WARS 4 LYFE

    Wii owner: it isn't even worth commenting that the game is worst on my console

    PS3 owner has hung themselves

  • KayJay #29 3 years ago

    Copied my comment from the last face off.. And it still stands...
    If you want to cont every pixel every frame then go ahead whilst I go ahead and enjoy actually playing the game... :-)

    """I am just oddly confused about the real reason for PS3 games being such toss."

    They arent. All the games above (if you really wanted to actually play them (Most you just wouldn't)) will be perfectly fine and enjoyable. These tests drill down to every pixel, every shadow and some things your naked eye wont be able to pick up.

    These test are almost to efficient.
    Trust me if you popped down to Game picked up a copy of FaceBraker, Hulk, KungFu Panda or wot eva you will have an equal amount of fun if you picked up the 360 version or the PS3 version.

    The only two games that come close to being A are SoulCalibur IV & Tigger 09 and they cant be split anyway.""

  • oupe #30 3 years ago

    Are you sure you didn't show the ps2 version of GH:WT? No trolling intended but i mean... aww c'mon!

    /shuts down laptop in disbelief

    @KJ22######
    They arent. All the games above (if you really wanted to actually play them (Most you just wouldn't)) will be perfectly fine and enjoyable. These tests drill down to every pixel, every shadow and some things your naked eye wont be able to pick up.

    let me yell this at you: HAVE YOU SEEN THE DIFFERENCE IN GH:WT???
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 17:04

  • rudedudejude #31 3 years ago

    Another comparison of the ability of programmers to port software across consoles and not an actual measure of hardware performance at all?

  • b00n #32 3 years ago

    I still like these articles. At least you know which version to get when you have both (or all) consoles, although most of the times the combo Achievements-Online does it for me anyway.

  • IneptPercy #33 3 years ago

    I have a few angles to look at these from as I own, Wii, PC and 360.

    I do believe the PS3 has missed the boat for me, as somebody else mentioned I too have a PC which makes both consoles look poor, It may not be fair to compare new and old tech in some ways but it all comes down to timing.

    360 Released - To me it was a case of spend a small fortune on a PC to run games like that or buy a 360, at £279.99 I bought one.
    Wii Released - Something different, its only £179.99 and my other half might play on it.
    PS3 Released - £425, bit expensive not many games will stick with 360.
    PS3 Price Drop -£299, more like it but I can already play blu-ray and still not too many amazing games, wait a bit longer.
    PC Hardware prices come down - Hmmm nice new graphics card.
    PS3 review - PC is better need it cheaper with some amazing exclusives.

    Now that is my thinking and where I am up to, I will admit the only reason my 360 is still around is because the resale value isn't very high so I keep it for a few of the none-pc 360 exclusives. Pesonally its nothing to do with loyality and its all timing, if the PS3 was first I would have bought that first and it would be the 360's job to impress me.

    Basically for gaming my 360 set a benchmark which the PS3 never beat and now that benchmark has been set higher due to PC parts getting cheaper.

  • MaxiSleep #34 3 years ago

    Adam_T
    24-Nov-08 17:13:36

    Another comparison of the ability of programmers to port software across consoles and not an actual measure of hardware performance at all?

    It does seam clear that the initial view that the Ps3 7800 GT based video subsystem was inferior to the ATI custom jobby in the 360 has been born out by the relative incidence of Anti Aliasing in titles as a whole.

  • samthingz #35 3 years ago

    As i said before i really don't trust these comparisons, read on ign and gamespot they both say mirrors edge is graphically better on the ps3 and this one still says xbox 360, i own both consoles but still prefer the ps3 because i been buying the PlayStation brand from the beginning, i think ign's head to head is more reliable,

  • cyber_nicco #36 3 years ago

    I like these articles, but I am a little sick of the "Well, the Xbox (or, less often, the PS3) version is a little better but this games sucks so bad it doesn't matter" content.

    For Christ's sake, if you are going to include a game in the comparison, just compare the versions - don't excuse the loser because YOU think the game is bad. Be objective, stick to your (apparent) goal of comparing the versions, and be done with it.

  • Weezer #37 3 years ago

    Possibly the most alarming thing about these regular PS3 kick-fests, is how developers are simply not bothered about a) designing a game within theirs or the host machine's limitations, and b) doing any fucking optimisation.

    For example: generic FPS x runs badly with a poor frame rate and screen tear. Here's an idea - how about stripping back some of the assets until it runs smoothly? Y'know... just an idea. I mean, at what stage in development do you say - "Fuck me that's juddery - let's just leave it and hope the problem goes away."?


  • seasidebaz #38 3 years ago

    The image with GH:WT on it (the video clickthrough one on Page 3) is taken from the Wii version of the game. No wonder it runs at a reduced resolution.

    Well done, Eurogamer.

  • BartonFink #39 3 years ago

    And there we have it 16 - 0

  • el_pollo_diablo #40 3 years ago

    I can barely tell the difference between any of them to be honest.

  • TRUTH #41 3 years ago

    360 wins again, again and again...PS3 has had enough time yet still has not surpassed 360. Just been playing GOW 2 - I think this would hardly run with all the detail if converted to PS3.

  • seasidebaz #42 3 years ago

    360 wins again, again and again...PS3 has had enough time yet still has not surpassed 360. Just been playing GOW 2 - I think this would hardly run with all the detail if converted to PS3.

    First off, 90% of the games compared are complete and utter tripe. I wouldn't buy them on either console, to be honest. They truly are awful pieces of "work".

    Second off, GoW2 could run quite well. The detail comes from all the parallax occlusion mapping on everything, not from an amazingly high polygon count.

  • captainrentboy #43 3 years ago

    Baring in mind I've asked for Blu Ray movies for Chrimbo (Just to force my hand in to buying an actual player asap... Sad I know), it's annoying to see the PS3 still losing out in these face offs, even if it could offer up third party software that runs exactly the same as the 360 it would be something, but because it doesn't I have a slight dilemma, spend the extra £160 on a PS3 which will eventually have some exclusive titles I want, or just get a stand alone BR player and bollocks to the PS3 :/
    Decisions decisions.

  • coastal #44 3 years ago

    I'm not making my mind up until they aggregate the scores up to round 20. That seems the only reasonable action to take for the discerning gamer.

  • AOFanboi #45 3 years ago

    <em>I'm consistently shocked at the PS3 still lagging behind after so long.</em>

    If a drunk driver careens off the road, do you blame the asphalt? It's not the PS3 that is lagging it is developers. Stop drinking the fluids flowing from Redmond!

    Anyway: Winner of the console wars is IBM which either delivers the processors or (in the Cell case) collects royalties for all three.

  • coastal #46 3 years ago

    Remember The Edge betting on the PC being the console of the future. I think they'll be provide right.

  • citizenHUNTER #47 3 years ago

    @ Captainrentboy... Just get a standalone player :p

    To be honest, not sure about the PS3 specs when it comes to Bluray playback, but won't it be a bit behind technically compared to brand new Bluray players or are these all things that firmware updates can fix? Does PS3 do things like 24p playback etc? Anyone know?


    For the record I want a PS3, mainly for WipEoutHD and GT when it eventually comes out, but besides those I'm not overly fussed, and Little Big Planet disappointed me quite a bit considering the hype for it when I played at a friends (and I'm not into Metal Gear). The PS3 is just way overpriced for me at the moment and offers nothing to me besides BluRay playback but being a bit of a cinephile I'd rather get a dedicated player for that in the end than rely on PS3 (HDDVD on Xbox is alright but console is still way too noisy for it). Right now the Xbox suits me absolutely fine, I quite love my console. Got issues with needing a Gold Live account to make the most of some online stuff, and even with the installs it's still a wee bit noisy with the fans, and I definitely need to buy a 120 or 60GB HDD soon, but still, I love the console, rather loving the NXE and the games suit me fine. I couldn't live without a nightly 10 minute blast on Geometry Wars 2. It's all down to you and what games you really want to play, but having said that I'm just not interested in most of what the PS3 has to offer, yet see so much I want on 360.... Wii's not really on my radar cos despite wanting to love it I think it is a bit too novelty, and the novelty wears off and usually you're left with bland, over-simplified games... I'll stop now before I get lynched by any number of potentials.

  • AOFanboi #48 3 years ago

    <em>Remember The Edge betting on the PC being the console of the future.</em>

    Why should an Irish guitarist have knowledge of such things?

  • Xerx3s #49 3 years ago

    "If a drunk driver careens off the road, do you blame the asphalt? It's not the PS3 that is lagging it is developers. Stop drinking the fluids flowing from Redmond! "

    And the winner of the stupidity award is...

  • Widge #50 3 years ago

    Yes PS3 does 24p

  • Chufty #51 3 years ago

    These fucking face-offs are so competely anal in their examination of every singled damned pixel. All it does is feed Eurogamers younger audience with more reasons to get worked up about nothing. Both sets of fanboys are just as bad as each other.

    A few frames here and there makes no difference. Tearing depends on how good your TV is. Games that V-sync are less responsive, a point never made in these comparisons. Each console has its individual advantages and disadvantages. Almost all multiformat games are best on the PC anyway, but that has disadvantages too, such as cost.

    No, I'm not a PS3 fanboy. I'm a fan of games, and I want all games platforms to do well to keep this industry driving forward. EG are just stoking a fire that needn't exist with this bullshit.

    /rant

  • SharkOfDesecration #52 3 years ago

    I absolutely need a wallpaper size pic of that Homer and Bugs boxing match.

  • smelly #53 3 years ago

    Do people REALLY give a shit about this kinda stuff?

    "oh look, 1 pixel is different on one console to the other one.. it's not better or worse.. just different"

  • smelly #54 3 years ago

    I mean.. Who gives a flying FUCK if GUITAR HERO (of all games) looks better on one machine to another?

  • IneptPercy #55 3 years ago

    I like when people say its pointless, yes it maybe 1.5fps or a bit of AA here and there. On the other side of it if you have the choice you may as well get the better version as marginal as it is.

    Very much the same problem the xbox had with the PS2, unlike the PS3 vs 360 hardware debate there is no questions about the xbox and PS2 (mainly due to a massively later release for the xbox). In that case the underpowered PS2 was the lead console so most of the time games where the same or slightly worse on the xbox.

    This time around the power of the 2 consoles is still up for debate, but as it is most games lead platform is the 360 which will generally mean it will have the edge better hardware or not.

  • darkphoenix #56 3 years ago

    Ineptpercy, clearly you never owned a xbox.
    Games were far better on it than on PS2.

  • Ryze #57 3 years ago

    I love these articles!

    They're the best guide as to when to bother getting a P$£.

  • Law07 #58 3 years ago

    The PS3 is hardly lagging...bar a few "jaggies" which I don't give a rats ass about.

    And I saw comparison videos on other sites and FIFA 09 looked way sharper on the PS3. And Mirror's Edge on other sources have said to be better on PS3.

  • Widge #59 3 years ago

    isn't that when they add a second analogue? OH NO. Thats the OTHER ONE you keep on spouting.

  • bonker #60 3 years ago

    "firstly because it's DICE - Battlefield: "

    *shudder*

  • bonker #61 3 years ago

    "The more of these the closer the PS3 gets tech. wise...

    Maybe it's true that publishers are now leading on the PS3? "

    It's only going to get closer as time goes by.

    Yes, partly because devs are getting to grips with the horror that is coding for the PS3 but primarily because the 360 has nowhere to go - it's the most powerful and best realised console out there and it's chasing nothing ...

  • TRUTH #62 3 years ago

    Fact is games look better, have better framerates, usually extra content, better online, and the games are usually cheaper too!...Was not Sony who sais the PS3 is 4x more powerful then 360!!!!.

  • BartonFink #63 3 years ago

    Yup all that power and they screw up the architecture go figure.

  • miiiguel #64 3 years ago

    ^That's the thing. Nowdays there are fellow gamers who say "it's just a little worse, doesn't really matter..., it's not Sony's fault...". But truth is, that before PS3 came out, and judging by their rehtoric ("next-gen starts when we say so";), *everybody* (me included!";) thought thaqt PS3 would be realy, realy something, That 360 would look like a pocket calculator.

    Now it's 2008 going on 2009.


    "It's only going to get closer as time goes by."
    Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 22:42

  • VandelayIndustries #65 3 years ago

    'Jaggies' are to video games what grain is to film, part of the medium and not worth that much discussion. After all, the 360 is not totally without them and it never seems to bother that many people.

    What is a concern however, is that most developers seem to feel it's perfectly okay to deliver two versions of the same product. One optimised and one not, what with frame rate problems, lower resolutions, screen tear and other such issues and then charge the same money for both, thereby treating a good portion of their customers with contempt, unworthy of going the extra mile for (if that is what is needed).

    The whole 'PS3's hardware is lacking' argument no longer holds water since Sony's own developers and a select few third party developers (Criterion and IW among them) have proved the hardware more than capable.

    It's a shame then that the reputation of the PS3 at the moment rests on the shoulders of those who can't be bothered and are totally at ease with ripping some of their customers off with crap workmanship.

    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 23:05

  • miiiguel #66 3 years ago

    "'Jaggies' are to video games what grain is to film, part of the medium and not worth that much discussion. After all, the 360 is not totally without them and it never seems to bother that many people."
    Agree, but, and I speak for myself only, when I read Sony's (and ultra fans) talking about PS3 before it came out, I thought it would be perfectbly noticeable to see how much better PS3 games would be. Like without even the need to count pixels. Not only is not that, but in some cases it's the opposite. And I'm not sure if I want to worry about who *fault* is, devs or achicteture. I just know what it is.

    Before PS3 came out I though "ooh now... let's see what's *next-gen* is all about".
    It felt like a cold shower.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/08 @ 23:10

  • VandelayIndustries #67 3 years ago

    @ miiguel

    That's the trouble with hype (and why I suspect GTA IV Halo 3 and Fable 2 have left me cold, because i believed the bullshit) but in regards to the consoles and their respective hype machines, most of that came from the corporate drones mouthing off (as they do) easy stuff to ignore.

    For me, I bought both the 360 and the PS3 for the same reason I bought the PS2 and the original XBOX, which is that I love games and I wanted the great and the good from each platform. While I can always pick up the multi format games on 360 I still feel that if a developer is going to release a multi format game then it's up to them to learn the ins and outs of their chosen platforms, if not and if the PS3 is really that hard to work on then don't bother.

  • Pasco #68 3 years ago

    Mr. Eurogamer,

    if the PS3 version is on par with the Xbox 360 it does not automatically mean that the PS3 code does a good job. It's more probable that the developer didn't use the free room he might have on the Xbox 360. That's the easiest way to achieve parity and avoid the bad press. Noone will ever really know anyway.

  • warbo #69 3 years ago

    On Mirrors Edge:

    I can see the selective AA for 360, which gives it slightly better image quality but there are also a few missing shadows on the PS3 side. It doesn't look like a big issue though.
    Edited by 1 at 25/11/08 @ 00:06

  • mgoode #70 3 years ago

    It's all about the Motorola Krave! Its got a full touch screen display and 2 megapixel camera. (motorola.com/krave) I've been a big fan of this thing ever since I started working with Motorola.

  • Calgon #71 3 years ago

    if the PS3 version is on par with the Xbox 360 it does not automatically mean that the PS3 code does a good job. It's more probable that the developer didn't use the free room he might have on the Xbox 360. That's the easiest way to achieve parity and avoid the bad press. Noone will ever really know anyway.

    +1

    Really tired of the ignorrant arguements from the SDF... like they've acheived maximum efficiency with the 360 version, which could do no more with the extra time they spend on getting the PS3 version even at parity with the 360 version?

    Nothing new though, there will always be excuses and the next hyped up game from a PS3 dev whos been dishing out PR soundbites to ease the SDF anxieties, it probably is a smart sales tactic now I think of it... sometimes you dont even have to deliver good gameplay, just pour everything into graphics and engine tech, hype it up to shit and think about the gameplay later(not just PS3 its happened throughout video game history, its just Sony and their devs seem to be masters of getting people to beleive every claim they make, whether its pre-renders or spiced up tech-specs or 4D ect ect... and for me they've rarely delivered).

    Evilfoxhound wrote: What happened? Well, they let me down once too often. I jumped ship and don't regret it at all.

    Im still not sure you're the same evilfoxhound, infact I thought it was a duplicate account or someone got your login... so you realised half this gen is almost over and Sony are always saying "wait! next year look what we have" and said to yourself "F*** it, I will enjoy whats infront of me here and now instead, something physical, instead of promises" well good for you and that was a decision you made yourself too.

    Why must we all(everyone who favours one platform over the rest whether they own the rest or not) think those that dont hold the same opinion are just the unconverted/dont know, for some people wii is the best, for some 360 is the best(me) and for some yes even the PS3( :p ) is the best... there really is enough room for 3, stop bullshitting(Les Im looking at you) and prophecizing every little blip as the end for any of them. I remember when gaming was about having fun :/
    Edited by 2 at 25/11/08 @ 04:02

  • ochinembiri #72 3 years ago

    I think people are still missing the point here. These comparisons are about the games not the consoles. If a console comparison is to be made it will have to be either a straight feature for feature comparison or each corner brings its own title to show case the capabilities of their console e.g. GOW 1/2 versus Resistance 1/2, Lips versus Singstar, PGR4 versus GT 5 Prologue. Both consoles are great and if pushed right now I might have to say the 360 but in a couple of months I think the PS3 will have overtaken it. The NXE is great but compared the upcoming home it will annihilated if home is as portrayed in trailers.

  • Vanmunt #73 3 years ago

    On IGN they have face-off that include crazy things like, which console the game actually plays better on and not 'v sync, screen tear, lock my balls as they swing too much' and losd of other crap that a majority of things most are not interested in.... as these games start too look pretty much the same, I want to know things like the online experience, which controller suits the game better things like that.

    No fanboy prefference, just the facts maam'

  • thomas_fogh #74 3 years ago

    I find it a little odd that there's only reviews of the Xbox version of the compared games...

  • The_Surreal #75 3 years ago

    I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW MANY COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOTS HERE INSIST ON THINKING THAT THE 360 WINS EVERY WEEK WHEN IT QUITE CLEARLY DOESN'T. I THINK ITS PROPOGANDA!! THE FUCKING XBOX FANBOYS THINK THAT IF THEY SAY THISS PILE OF SHIT ENOUGH, PEOPLE MAY START TO BELIEVE IT!! CUNTS!

  • muscleblade #76 3 years ago

    360:16

    PS3: 0

    How much more proof do the PS3 fanboys need?

  • Vanmunt #77 3 years ago

    @Fartimaxtalkingbollox

    ummm......... upon re- reading my post I cannot see any referenence to which console I actually own... don't just bait and troll because your life is so sad it make you some big man on the internet.

    muppet.

  • muscleblade #78 3 years ago

    @The_Surreal

    As a former owner of both systems these articles are way to kind to the PS3 imo.

  • StooMonster #79 3 years ago

    41 posts to get to "Lazy Developers" this time, an increase over the 21 posts it took in Face-Off: Round 15.

    I like these articles because they are analytical, and not simply opinion; its interesting to see the technical performance breakdown of games. Personally I would like to see similar articles on stand alone titles, such as resolution and fps of Gears Of War 2 or Little Big Planet; not to benchmark against each other, but to give some context against these face-offs and simply out of curiosity.

    There are some good technical articles on the author's blog, such as how did Sony and Polyphony Digital use four PS3 to render Gran Turismo at 1080p240fps, how Gears of War 2 is 29.7fps, how WipEout HD maintains a 1080p resolution by dynamically changing horizontal resolution from 1920x1080, 1728×1080, 1645×1080, 1600×1080, 1500x1080, 1440×1080 to 1280x1080 depending on the framerate. All good stuff.

  • captainrentboy #80 3 years ago

    ''@ Captainrentboy... Just get a standalone player :p ''

    Bugger it, I just bought one on Amazon, Sony S350 I believe, it was £160 and is getting praise for its features and picture from pretty much everywhere. Looks qute sexy too, small as fook for a Blu Ray player and you get two free movies after registering with Sony online, can't fault it.
    Sorry PS3, you'll have to wait until GOW3 :)

  • Darren #81 3 years ago

    @The_Surreal - Personally I thought Mirror's Edge looked bloody ugly on the PS3 based on the demos... horrid aliasing and noticeable screen tearing.... yuck! Granted the 360 version is no looker either but at least the image quality was better. It amazes me when I read people say the PS3 version looks better to be honest... I just don't see that at all. Like most multiformat games, they tend to look best on the PC then the 360 then the PS3 last. IMO.

  • Darren #82 3 years ago

    MaxiSleep - "It does seam clear that the initial view that the PS3 7800 GT based video subsystem was inferior to the ATI custom jobby in the 360 has been born out by the relative incidence of Anti Aliasing in titles as a whole."

    I couldn't agree more.

    I've just got rid of my old GeForce 7800 GS+ graphics card in my PC and replaced it with a RADEON HD 3850, effectively like swapping the PS3's GPU for a higher spec Xbox 360 GPU, and it is so nice to be able to have HDR lighting *and* AA in most games at last. I can imagine getting AA to work with the PS3's limited GPU must be a real heartache, particularly with third-party releases which seem to suffer more from a complete lack of AA in many cases. It makes the PS3 look more dated then it needed to be IMO...

  • Calgon #83 3 years ago

    retibra: Maybe that extra 140 notes is too much for what he needs right now.

    Maybe he has considered power consumption(often overlooked) and space under his TV?(they just look better in the living room too)
    Maybe the standalone has a better picture?
    Maybe he has a PC that he can use for a media server?(wireless connection too)

    I agree the PS3 can make a good media centre for your living room but dont assume thats new to everyone or anything that wasnt around way before the PS3, to some looking for those features the PS3 may be a good choice and good value too, but:

    a) Some arent looking for those extra features(or couldnt really make use of them), maybe they just want to play Blu-Ray disks and want a cheap entry point into doing just that.

    b) Some people already have all those extras so why pay another 140?... IF the PS3 isnt that appealing to you as a games console that is.

    Theres alot of people not even fussed about Blu-Ray at all yet, too many infact, some are waiting for it to take off properly too and as time goes by the standalones are only going to get cheaper.
    Edited by 1 at 25/11/08 @ 12:37

  • captainrentboy #84 3 years ago

    ''I just don't get the rationale of spending £160 on a standalone BD player when you can get a PS3 for less than £140 more.''

    Believe me, it's a choice I've been 'umming and ahhing' about for a couple of months now. But at the end of the day £140+ (would want some games and an extra controller too) is quite a bit extra, especially at this moment in time.
    I have a 360 already, which takes care of all my media streaming and gaming needs. And also, rather surprisingly, my GF didn't want me to get a PS3 because she thought it was a big and ugly piece of kit (Her words, not mine, don't go wild SDF:)
    The particular player I went for is supposedly the most compact on the market, and as my Audio&Visual stand is exploding with various gadgets as it is, this seemed quite ideal.

    All I'd like the PS3 for at the moment is Resistance 2, Killzone 2 and GOW3 will no doubt be awesome too, but that's literally it. So after muchos thinking I went for the money saving option :)

  • dom6918 #85 3 years ago

    I have both consoles...bought Fifa for both consoles but took it back on the PS3 (because it looks blurry and rubbish compared to the 360 version!)

  • glaeken #86 3 years ago

    I love these guys that still think it is only a matter of time before the power of the Cell is unleashed. As time goes on with this generation it's the joke that never stops giving. It's not even like we have not gone through this before with the Emotion engine.

  • danodynamo #87 3 years ago

    Can I just say, anyone who buys into this "power of the cell" being spewed by Sony is a nob. C'mon it's just a processor like the "emotion" engiine in the PS2. Sony = marketing genius. Only out for your money. It's the same with Microsoft. They don't give a rats about anything other than your money. Xbox 360 = better for games (at the moment to date) Ps3 = kick ass blu-ray player with some greatgames ( want one-anyone want to give me theirs?). Be thankful, you own either one (both?) of these systems and not the shit Wii? ... I mean how many times can you package crappy tennis, bowling, basebal games?

  • danodynamo #88 3 years ago

    Also. Can I just say anyone counting pixels while they are playing a game is a complete nob !.

  • Calgon #89 3 years ago

    retibra: every console can offer that though, you spend enough time on the games, you can optimise them to shit for the hardware... and what do you know, theres your untapped potential.

    In other words, they make out its some exclusive but its not, God Of War wasn't doing anything that developers hadn't already got their heads around, it was just a well optimised proprietary engine, with care and attention taken to artwork and assets.

    Sony's invention of the term "untapped potential" is one of the biggest jokes the games industry has seen(also note it cropped up at the time people were starting to notice the Xbox was clearly more capable)... do you see Nvidia, ATI or any CPU vendor pulling that excuse out of the bag when they try something a little different and people are asking what happened?(loads of chips have had performance improving features that devs never really fully supported)

    "Untapped potential innit! Dont blame us, you devs are all too stupid, you should work harder for our platform if you are unhappy with the performance, untap that pontential bitches"

  • Calgon #90 3 years ago

    retibra

    So the claim of "untapped potential" can be both true, and at the same time quite misleading.

    You could have just skipped to that part and said you agree you know. ;)

    I wasnt trying to compare consoles performance to the PC... but often graphics cards(and CPUs) of the same generation are put up against each other in benchmarks for example/or judged on performance in games, so to some extent it does apply here... I was just pointing out its a term made up by Sony and something only Sony could get away with(their PR dept can be stupid at times but they are good at that game, and hype in general... or they were atleast. Id just like to see more people taking that kind of talk with a pinch of salt, especially when it's Sony, well atleast this gen is an improvement over last in that respect).
    Edited by 2 at 25/11/08 @ 17:28

  • Yaz #91 3 years ago

    retibra wrote: "However the way it interfaced with the VU, IOP, and GS co-processors allowed it to sit at the heart of a system that exceeded what initially seemed possible."

    I question that statement retibra. I was immersed within the gaming world back then, and remember all the hype surrounding the PS2, and the expectations of what the PS2 will deliver are far below what was actually delivered.

    As pointed out early, this was a console said to be 50 times more powerful than the DC (based upon invalid polygon comparisons).

    Here's one of Sony press releases from the time;

    [link url= http://arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/playstation2-pr.html
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/cpu/1q99/playstat...[/link]

    "Imagine walking into the screen and experiencing a movie in real-time…this is the world we are about to enter."

    Remember that statement? So, you believe they reached...no exceeded...that level with the PS2? ;). That line was also to be found on the PS2 page on Sony's website back then. And how about the following from that same press release;

    "This powerful combination allows for new types of computer entertainment to be created. For example, the hair and clothing of a character can be effected by a digital wind calculated and processed in real-time. Other examples include the dynamic simulation of real-world physical attributes such as gravity, friction, mass and the accurate simulation of different materials such as water, wood, metal and gas. This will change the future of computer entertainment forever.

    This concept is called "Emotion SynthesisÔ " which allows the system to simulate not just how the images look, but how the characters and objects in a game think, act and behave. This concept requires a computer system with a massive floating-point mathematical calculation capability far beyond the current state-of-the-art workstations and approaches the performance of large-scale super computers used for scientific simulation."

    And this was the message put out by Sony over and over again at the time.

    With specs suggesting 66/75 million polygons per second, talk of 50 times Dreamcast power, Toy Story graphics (yes, I know what some will say about that), and (at the time) amazing demos, the hype and expectation of what the PS2 was capable of was WELL above what was actually delivered.

    And whilst some may say "Oh... but those PS2 demos have since been matched and even surpassed in games", well at the time, Sony gave the impression that those demos were merely the tip of the iceberg, put together in a short period of time and only using a fraction of the PS2's power, and hence represented what PS2 games would be like from the START. The reality was, they were not the tip of the iceberg, they were MOST of the iceberg, and it would take years for devs to reach those levels in game. Claim back then, before the PS2 launched, that the PS2 wouldn't reach the quality of the demos for years, and all the Sony fanboys would rip you apart. :)

    PS3 technically imo is history repeating itself (most complicated hardware, claims of untapped potential, claims of lazy devs, claims of CPU supercomputing performance, etc). That said, I do feel the PS3 is a 'beautiful' piece of hardware, but at the time of it's release, it really should have been a bit better (i.e. more powerful), and it should have been easier for game development too (which hopefully will be a lesson learned with the PS4).

    Edit: Spelling, spelling and more spelling.
    Edited by 4 at 25/11/08 @ 18:43

  • StooMonster #92 3 years ago

    @retibra

    You put forward an interesting case, however, the PS3's RSX chip was essentially an off-the-shelf bog-standard NVIDIA G70 architectured DirectX9 compatible GPU; whereas the Xbox 360's custom ATi Xenos GPU was a custom designed chip that used elements of the then unreleased DirectX10 roadmap, it's unified shader architecture hadn't been seen before.

    So for GPU it's the PS3 hardware that developers were far more familiar with than Xbox 360.

    And to talk of Wintel familiarity, especially games related, as being an advantage for Xbox 360 that PS3 lacked isn't particularly true either, as even today most PC games are developed as single threaded code that runs on an Intel CPU whereas in the Xbox 360 games are developed to run on with six PowerPC threads (3x cores 2x threads each) simultaneously. Parallel processing was/is still new to most developers and takes a radical rethink of the whole engine pipeline.

    Accepted the Cell with it's two PowerPC threads (1x core 2x thread) and six SPE are going to be different again to Wintel development; but Xbox 360 is pretty darn different to PCs too, although companies like Valve are now starting to multi-thread their PC games (e.g. Left4Dead).

    What is different is the development environments, where Microsoft have DirectX on the Xbox 360 (it did get it's name from DirectX after all) and the PS3 has OpenGL as the main graphics library, then there's the other SDKs and libraries that Sony and Microsoft have offered up.

  • TRUTH #93 3 years ago

    ...Hallf Life 2, Bioshock, Far Cry 2, Dead Space, Fallout 3, GTA IV etc etc...some of the best games released this year (earlier on 360) run, look and and are cheaper than PS3 games. That's the point!
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/08 @ 19:36

  • SliderNL #94 3 years ago

    Without promoting one system over the other it is clear that third party developers are better in making games run on a 360

    It makes sense because they had more time with the 360, so experience and tools are more developed
    The problem game makers face is that the architecture of both consoles is so different it's quite hard to make a game work en run identical (or better) on the PS3. It doesn't help that they have to cope with a slow Blu-Ray-drive (what's the point in having a huge storage medium if you can't read it fast enough).

  • TRUTH #95 3 years ago

    But even PS3 exclusive games are still below par then 360 games!!!!

  • SaberEdge #96 3 years ago

    A certain number of people out there are fond of saying that "developers just haven't learned how to use the PS3", but how long can we go on saying that? I mean, it has been over two years now that the PS3 has been in developer's hands and we still see over and over multiplatform games that look and perform better on the 360. It isn't that developers don't understand the PS3, they do. It's just that it is very difficult to get performance out of the PS3 equal to that of the 360.

    People often point to a few of the PS3 exclusives as proof of the PS3's supposedly superior performance capabilities, but there are several problems with that idea. First of all, people overexaggerate the graphical quality of games like Uncharted and MGS4. I own both of them and while they are certainly very nice looking games...they are not doing anything that hasn't been done on the 360. I recently got Gears 2 and I think it looks better than either of those games. It seems to me that many people are not very good at separating technical aspects from art aspects...MGS4, for example, is not doing anything exceptional from a technical standpoint and much of what makes it look good are the talented artists and designers that combined great attention to detail with great art and character designs. From a technical standpoint, though, it isn't doing anything that hasn't been done on the 360. It has a nice real-time lighting engine, great post-processing effects like motion blur and depth of field, HDR lighting effects, some pretty nice character models, and some pretty good animation. However, the textures are nothing special (in fact, many of them are kind of flat), there are conspicuous jaggies (especially on shadows) and the whole game runs at a sub-HD resolution that makes things look blurrier and slightly less detailed. Even a game like Assassin's Creed beats MGS4 from a technical standpoint. Assassin's Creed has all of the same positives--real-time lighting, DOF, motion blur, HDR lighting, nice character models, great animation and decent textures--but it is actually superior to MGS4 in the areas of animation, anti-aliasing, and resolution (around 30% more resolution). The point is, the games that people often use as 'proof' of the PS3's power are really not as exceptional as they might think.

    Moreover, even to the degree that these games are among the better looking games available at the moment, that has more to do with the talent of the developers and the time and budgets that these games were afforded as exclusives. MGS4 had a longer than average development cycle and the same is true of the upcoming Killzone 2. The time, budget and talent poured into a game have more to do with the quality of the final product than the performance capabilities of the console it is designed for. In other words, the PS3 could be 5 or 10% less powerful than the 360 and with enough time, money and developer talent games could be produced that would equal or surpass that which is available on the 360. So, we obviously shouldn't use that as a gauge of the relative performance of each console.

    Gears 2 looks better than any other console game out there at the moment and it had a fairly short development time. Third party developers are also able to get their games performing better on the 360 in most cases. Both of these things are quite good indicators that the 360 is indeed more powerful in the real world.
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/08 @ 20:05

  • TRUTH #97 3 years ago

    Yep as above I totally agree...I was hoping to see a great advantage when getting my PS3; now after 2yrs waiting to see the cell power being used to something beyond the 360 has now fallen flat. Just been playing an imported Resistance 2 (which is just good, but nothing special fps), and yes I am disappointed with the graphics, esp the explosions and seems nothing that has really moved on from R1 in graphics, except for some cleaning up...This also goes for MotorStorm 2, nothing that has really made that huge improvement over the 1st. Uncharted did not really impress me at all with it's graphics, after all the hype from my Sony friends...It seems if you have a PS3 - the games you see may look great, but!!!!, if you have a 360 too than start to compare the games - the 360 is better console for gaming and still for graphics.

  • lagorta #98 3 years ago

    I love these articles because they are the only ones on the net to really criticize the conversions of the same game on both 360 and PS3...

    But now, with the list of all the tested games which grows bigger and bigger, it could be a good idea for Richard Leadbetter to make a table with ticks to clearly demonstrate what platform has the best conversion, even if there are only one or two games which are better on PS3 (I just remember Colin Mc Rae Dirt just now... but that's maybe all...). Thus, the visibility will be clearer and we could see in one sight what games conversions are the best on 360 and PS3.

    I really would like to see that to make those face offs perfect.

    Thanks a lot if you can do that.

  • SaberEdge #99 3 years ago

    @ lagorta

    I agree. I think that would be a great idea to implement. Being able to see at a glance which version of a game looks or performs better would be a very nice feature to have. I know that most multiplatform games look better on the 360, but there are occasional games that look equal or slightly better on the PS3. Since I own both consoles I would really find a list like that very useful.

  • michaelius #100 3 years ago

    Don't really care. If the title is multiplatform chanses are huge there's also pc port.
    And even ps3 together with x360 can't match up to my radeon 4850 :D

  • Kryon #101 3 years ago

    ^^^ I agree, it doesn't matter that the PS3 is shit because you can get a PC graphics card that costs the same as a whole 360 and if you combine that card with a motherboard, ram, CPU, power supply, HDD, soundcard, PC case, DVD drive, etc, it's actually more powerfull than a 360. Who'd have thunk it ;)