Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 18

By Richard Leadbetter Published 4 March, 2009

Skate 2, Silent Hill, EndWar, NFS, Sonic, Argonauts.

Page 1 of 4

It's that time again. If the recent F.E.A.R. 2 and Street Fighter IV features did not sate your face-off needs adequately, we're back with the more traditional roundup format, boasting a six-strong set of releases that collectively sum up both the good and the bad of multiformat development as it stands right now. And this month's assortment adds a new meaning to the term 'cross-platform', as we get to see what PS2-era assets look like in a brand new PS3/360 game!

As per the norm, we've worked hard in bringing you the best-possible assets to show you how the games compare on both platforms: that'll be digitally lossless 24-bit full-range RGB grabs freshly and brutally culled from the HDMI ports of our PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 Elite, and accompanying h264-encoded videos from the same sources. You all know the score by now - streaming video actually becomes relevant for the purpose here, by slowing down the video and zooming in on a section of the screen, with one pixel in the excellent Eurogamer video player equating to one pixel on your HDTV.

So, bearing in mind the additional title-specific coverage you've been enjoying of late, there's a somewhat pared-down roster this time, combining some of the most recent 2009 releases with a bunch of high-profile 2008 tail-enders that worked hard in avoiding our radar.

Coming next: Resident Evil 5. Has Capcom equalled or surpassed the cross-platform majesty of Devil May Cry 4, or do we have another Lost Planet on our hands? Or perhaps, maybe, the truth is somewhere in-between. Regardless, expect our report soon.

Previous Face-Offs:

Page 1 of 4

Comments (123) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • b00n #1 3 years ago

    Thanks for that!

  • Eurolamer #2 3 years ago

    The best thing about these features (aside from the fan-boy baiting that ensues here) are the pictures on the homepage. Boxing mice...

  • Thunderbolt #3 3 years ago

    Indeed, but remember that 2009 is the year of the Playstation! ;)

    So things can only get better from here

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #4 3 years ago

    Wheni rented sonic on PS3 I couldnt beleive the awful drops in frames especially when playing as warehog. Somewhat relieved to hear that if i had rented the 360 version instead it wouldnt of been any better.

  • Tiger_Walts #5 3 years ago

    But hey, the PS3 is hard to code for, Kaz says so. It means that at the end of the 10 year lifespan the games will look awesome and engine coders will have less hair.

  • andywilkie35 #6 3 years ago

    @Eurolamer - was literally about to say the same thing, Boxing Mice!

    Also enjoyed the analysis of Argonauts and Sonic - basically said "doesn't particularly matter which one runs them best, they're terrible games so who cares!"

  • peterfll #7 3 years ago

    About 12 months ago I thought we were going to see an almost total parity between the two platforms, as back then there were a good number of titles that were alreay achieving it. Now it seem that's not the case still. Perhaps it will never be?

    Hence, the continued need for these articles?

    Yeh!

  • CannonAnBall #8 3 years ago

    I'm happy knowing I own none of these shit games :)

  • muscleblade #9 3 years ago

    At least Killzone 2 look good on the PS3. It would have looked even better on the 360 i guess. Oh well.

  • Widge #10 3 years ago

    dirty baiter!

  • Widge #11 3 years ago

    Hawx
    AfroSamurai

    demo analysis here

    [link url=http://www.digita lfoundry.org/blog/
    ]http://www.digita lfoundry.org/blog/
    [/link]

    and Killzone 2 analysis

    For people who want more more more.

  • seasidebaz #12 3 years ago

    Well, yet another face-off full of dire games that shouldn't be bought on either format...

    That's what now, 18-0 in terms of shit game roundups -> good ones?

  • CannonAnBall #13 3 years ago

    It's proof that the 360 does shit games better.

  • Wastelander #14 3 years ago

    These things are worth it for the bitter tears alone.

  • udat #15 3 years ago

    At least a generation ahead? I was playing Killzone 2 last night and it just looks like another pretty game from this generation. The animation is a particular highpoint. It's not exactly setting a new benchmark though - I didn't try many levels, so I am not sure if this holds true for the entire game, but the colour palette was a bit limited - very grey.

  • Xerx3s #16 3 years ago

    Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off's PROMOTE ANIMAL CRUELTY! ;)

  • JohnnyWashnGo #17 3 years ago

    Its annoying to see the PS3 not doing too well against the Xbox. Sony need to start realising that making something hard to develop for is not a good strategy for creating and maintaining good working relationships with developers or for ensuring people will buy your hardware.

  • Xerx3s #18 3 years ago

    Nick779: HAHA! Stupidity like that make this thread worth every penny.

  • Darren #19 3 years ago

    I find these articles utterly fascinating to read not just because they highlight the differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of games but more because they show that despite Microsoft's promise of 720p and 2X AA minimum for all HD games and Sony's claim that 1080p is where it's at this generation, the fact is that developers struggle with both consoles to achieve even 720p minimum nevermind that, AA and a smooth framerate without *spits* screen tearing. Clearly their claims were mostly hot air. ;)

    It does shock me that so many games still don't run at, by PC standards, such a low-resolution as 720p but are upscaled on the consoles. Seems to be a bigger problem on the PS3, perhaps because of its fixed video RAM but even on the 360 compromises tend to have to be made in many third-party and even some first-party games (remember Halo 3's decidedly un-high-def resolution for example?).

    Take Silent Hill Homecoming for example, it's a pretty decent game but the graphics really aren't a huge step up from the PS2 version of Silent Hill 2 bar the higher resolution and addition of AA. There's tons of fog around and the textures aren't particularly high resolution nor is there ever much going on on-screen yet the framerate fluctuates constantly between smooth and chuggy. With the power of the PS3 and 360 this game should run with ease at 720p, surely. So why doesn't it?

    As for the upcoming Resident Evil 5 comparison... it would be useful to have that info *before* the game's release next week for us multiplatform owners but based on the two demos I've tried the PS3 version seems to come off worst with a weaker framerate and absolutely no AA whatsoever. It's the reason I've decided on the 360 version even though it tears above 720p but it would be nice to know if either version has been improved since then. I bought Devil May Cry 4 for the PS3 because I preferred the controls but having completed it twice I never saw any screen tearing in it unlike the 360 version which I've since tried. I was wondering if that was true of Resident Evil 5 too?

    That said, the PC version will probably be the best version anyway if only for the fact that you have have as high a framerate and resolution plus as much AA as your system can muster. On the consoles you don't get that choice.

  • penhalion #20 3 years ago

    Damn that last homecoming shot had me laughing. Are they even the same game. A whole frikkin light just gone!

  • Mortey #21 3 years ago

    I have both Xbox and PS3 and all I want is the boxing mice!

  • Wastelander #22 3 years ago

    Are they mice or squirrels?

  • Arwin #23 3 years ago

    If this will be the year of the Playstation 3, then it'll be thanks to its exclusives, not multi-platform games. Even if the ratio may change continually, tThere will always be games developed first on PC or 360, and those will never be as good on the PS3. And while knowledge of the PS3 continues to improve with developers, as PCs pull away again from consoles in terms of specifications it will become ever more attractive to use it as the lead development platform and downscale from there. Only when the PC starts to work more like the PS3 (lots of cores and such, lots of source data on BluRay discs) is there a chance that the resulting console ports will look better on PS3.

    But the PS3 exclusives, now that's a different story. ;) In terms of the tech they sport, they are just really outstanding and way beyond what the 360 offers, even if the latter may be as much due to lower ambitions as due to potential or necessecity on the PS3. Also, very much contrary to popular opinion, I expect Home to become a thing of significance this year, with stuff like game-launching available at launch for Resident Evil 5 from Home being an important step forward. I think Gran Turismo will surprise us with (among others) some big Home integration as well this year, probably on or before E3. Street Fighter IV is getting it soon, and I'm sure Killzone 2 won't be long to follow either.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/09 @ 14:53

  • Gormless #24 3 years ago

    Fuck me Betty, my PS3 would have been more useful as a bread bin after all.

  • shotgun44 #25 3 years ago

    To be fair, if you want to play all of the best games this generation you're going to need both systems. End of.

  • IISargeII #26 3 years ago

    "But the PS3 exclusives, now that's a different story. ;) In terms of the tech they sport, they are just really outstanding and way beyond what the 360 offers..."

    Oh dear, I own both consoles, and that my friend, is simply not true. Funny though. :)

  • GordonCaladan #27 3 years ago

    facepalm.gif

  • Tonka #28 3 years ago

    These are my favourite EG articles by far.

  • seasidebaz #29 3 years ago

    I always feel that these roundups are like cockfighting for simpletons...

  • Buztafen #30 3 years ago

    Ah Nick779, he's new bless him....he doesnt understand yet.....

    also

    PS3lol, teh Cell!!!!! FTW

    mehxbox360, M$ etc etc etc

  • Moonprince #31 3 years ago

    .gif jokes don't work on a forum that doesn't do gif's...

    Good try though...

  • Darren #32 3 years ago

    @Arwin - You're right, most consoles are remembered for their exclusive games as they tend to push the system and are usually of a higher quality than most multiformat titles (note: I said usually). We don't buy new consoles specifically for the multiformat games even though they usually far outnumber the exclusives.

    If you're a single format owners with either a 360 or PS3 then these comparisons are really not going to be of much interest to you and I doubt anyone would rush out to buy the other console just because a multiformat game was better even if it was Resident Evil 5 or Street Fighter IV, you'd stick with the one you have and make do. It's gameplay that matters, right?

    In a way these comparisons are a bit unfair. For one, which ever system is oldest tends to not be the lead version so some multiformat games suffer on that platform. In the case of the PS3 its made worst by the fact that hardware is awkward to code for anyway. For another, it's that you cannot reasonably compare exclusives between systems yet despite generally having the weaker multiformat games, the PS3 has many wonderful exclusive games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, Ratchet & Clank: ToD, LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and MotorStorm: Pacific Rift that show what the system is really capable of and easily match the best the 360 has to offer visually.

  • stepneg #33 3 years ago

    @Nick779

    'Killzone 2 is all the proof needed that PS3 is at least a generation ahead of 360 in terms of visuals, not even Gears of war 2 comes close.'

    LOL, I own both consoles and yes Killzone 2 is a cracking looking game but by no means does Gears 2 not come close, if you really believe that you're an idiot. The PS3 is not a generation ahead the gap is very close which is the problem, if Sony hadn't come out with the whole 4D, HD starts when we say so, people will get two jobs crap they wouldn't have this problem. Sony and their associated die hards have egg on their faces because the fabled cell super computer just turned out to be as good as the 360 and in some cases worse.

    Edited by 1 at 04/03/09 @ 15:18

  • seasidebaz #34 3 years ago

    If you're a single format owners with either a 360 or PS3 then these comparisons are really not going to be of much interest to you

    I own both consoles and these articles are STILL not of much interest.

    I wouldn't touch these shitty games on either console.

  • Dizzy #35 3 years ago

    " Only when the PC starts to work more like the PS3 (lots of cores and such, lots of source data on BluRay discs) is there a chance that the resulting console ports will look better on PS3. "

    Multi Core PCs have nothing in common with PS3 "technology".

  • SilentScream #36 3 years ago

    What I always notice from these articles, is that the differences are so insignificant and pointless, that you only notice them when they get brought up in this "Face-Off".

    From the earlier Face-Offs there were more comments, but they've been getting less and less, because I'm pretty sure, nobodies bothered.

  • sneetch #37 3 years ago

    @Xerx3s
    Nick779: HAHA! Stupidity like that make this thread worth every penny.

    /throws clipboard to the floor

    Dammit! You've ruined my experiment: I was hoping to measure just how much more ridiculous his assertions would become as people continued to ignore his baiting.

    Your interference in this matter has set back the field of fanboy studies by at least three minutes! ;(

  • mazzl #38 3 years ago

    @EG why spend time on these old and mostly rubbish games,
    i mean sonic... come on... don't waste my time!

    @Nick779 dude, you are funny.
    sony made some big mistakes with the ps3, it will never surpass the xbox360 by much, if it ever will. the two systems are almost identical.

    a do agree with most here, that a console is made by it's exclusives, in that regards, sony seems to be doing better this year, but it's about time isn't it.

  • Rodster #39 3 years ago

    So I take it the one on the backfoot is the PS3? :-D

    I guess this is the part where i'm suppose to say I own both a 360 and PS3. :p

  • TopKatt #40 3 years ago

    So, to sum up this face off:

    Don't buy any of these games, on any platform, they're all pretty dire.

    Is that about right?

  • jonsaan #41 3 years ago

    According to 1up waaay back NFS was a slideshow on 360 too. But it looked alright in your little vid!

  • El-Dev #42 3 years ago

    Pretty happy that the PS3 exclusives are better and more varied than the 360's, or else I'd maybe have to buy some of the shite the third party developers put out.

  • mazzl #43 3 years ago

    Topkat wins the cake!

  • chessboxer #44 3 years ago

    @ hammerhead666

    MS disagree with you. They are relying on their next wave of exclusive games to look better than Killzone 2 (as said in their recent statement). If they thought it looked better then they would have said so, but they didn't, because it doesn't (although it looks better than the first). I can't compare how well Gears 2 plays against Killzone 2 but I'm pretty sure Gears 2 doesn't have 7.1 surround or uncompressed audio either.

  • Retroid #45 3 years ago

    That frontpage pic is great! :D

  • jonthepymm #46 3 years ago

    "So, to sum up this face off:

    Don't buy any of these games, on any platform, they're all pretty dire.

    Is that about right? "


    Um... no. Skate 2 is actually quite good.

  • FladgeMangle #47 3 years ago

    I see some people still believe the hype, the overselling and the downright cringe-worthy arrogance of Sony over the PS3. Don't get me wrong, I own one and I'm more than happy with it. However, I'm under no delusions about it's performance.

    If Sony had actually shipped the PS3 they originally designed (three cell chips, no GFX card) then everything they said would have been true. As it stands, a single cell processor is competing on a almost level playing field with three dual core IMB chips. Unfortunately for us they nerfed the spec at the last minute, presumably because of the astronomical costs invovled.

    It still wins the "which console can surf the net and be used to watch the BBC iPlayer" face-off :o)

  • Xerx3s #48 3 years ago

    El-Dev: yessss.... sure.

  • Dan234 #49 3 years ago

    @Arwin:

    Only when the PC starts to work more like the PS3 (lots of cores and such, lots of source data on BluRay discs) is there a chance that the resulting console ports will look better on PS3.

    So currently ports from the PC look worse on the PS3, but when the PC is more powerful than it is now, ports from the PC will look better on the PS3. That's an interesting point of view.
    Edited by 2 at 04/03/09 @ 16:04

  • El-Dev #50 3 years ago

    Oh yeah Xerx3s, I forgot you got to walk a dog in fable 2.

  • TheNinkyNonk #51 3 years ago

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU
    [/link]

    All the evidence you need. PS3>360 if properly developed for. End of.

    Any situation where it isn't properly developed for either means a shit game or one I buy for 360.

    Get over it fanboys.

  • mingster #52 3 years ago

    I'm pretty sure they are boxing squirrels

  • ps3owner #53 3 years ago

    @TheNinkyNonk

    I've just watched the vid. KZ2 does look much better. However I have to admit it... I think they've used the same cast. I think the GOW2 space marines were cast for the KZ2 game as well... they probably thought "hey, those guys are really good actors, maybe we should cast them for KZ2 as well?!"...

    regarding the faceoff, I haven't read it... can't be bothered. Comments are much better

    +1 to the mice fight though. love it.

  • Calgon #54 3 years ago

    I cant beleive some of the bullshit in this thread from Sony fanboys... they are simply fooling themselves into beleiving they are getting something better... the reality is they really arent!.

    The only thing Killzone2 and Uncharted proves is Sony fanboys are the most ill informed "tech buffs" around.

  • Dan234 #55 3 years ago

    @TheNinkyNonk:

    ... volumetric smoke interacting with the drop ship's turbine engines. Do you hear that. That, sir, is the sound of the bar being raised.

    Oooh you saucy minx.

  • MaxiSleep #56 3 years ago

    Killzone II looks nice but to argue it could not be done on the 360 frankly is ludicrous

  • Dark_Stranger #57 3 years ago

    They look like stuffed lesser common Red squirrels with their tails cut off,

    http://grza.net /GIS/Mice%20Boxing.jpg

  • VicViper #58 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    Could you give a few examples? I mean ok fair enough the helgast are space nazis but what where the othere ones? the convenant, the locust horde do they count. Does the Geth count?

    Space Nazi shooters or SNS needs to be a genre clearly.

  • Widge #59 3 years ago

    "The proof is already out there. The two consoles are basically as powerful as each other, it's just that one is harder to code for.

    Gears 2 is every bit as technically competant as Killzone 2. The only decider is what gameplay style/art style you prefer.

    Shall I just repeat that for the retards that think the PS3 is somehow NOT an almost identical machine to the 360:

    THEY ARE TECHNICALLY AS COMPETANT AS EACH OTHER. THERE WILL BE NO PLATFORM DISPARITY THIS GENERATION. "

    Now I'd go with this actually.

  • Darren #60 3 years ago

    Hey Silent Hill 2, EndWars and Skate 2 are hardly crap games but, yeah, EG shouldn't bother comparing dross like Sonic the Hedgehog and Rise of the Argonauts, basically anything they give 5/10 or less to really. I don't think anyone is really interested in knowing which platform has the best version of a crap game on. I know I'm not.

  • StooMonster #61 3 years ago

    15 posts to get "lazy developers" this time.

  • Buztafen #62 3 years ago

    I personally (important word there) think the 360's ATI GPU is much more competent than the PS3's Nvidia RSX...though teh cell does seem to have alot more processing power than the 360's, even though its harder to work with.

    Is this the part where i need to say i own both plus an Nvidia GPU?

  • smelly #63 3 years ago

    ZzzZZZZZZzzzZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • smelly #64 3 years ago

    Although : @Stoomaster - that was quite funny :-)

  • VicViper #65 3 years ago

    Lazy third party conversions of multiplatform games prove nothing.

    I've always wondered what people think when they say this, games development is hard regardless of the platform.
    Do you think they just go 'you know what we've got our money I can't be bothered to really make it any good'

    Give the developer the benefit of the doubt, some games are just bad others games maybe they had a hard time optimizing for the platform but rather then miss getting the game out at the same time the upper management what their bottom line to look goodso you get one lead plaform and another just had to be out on time.

  • bluebird #66 3 years ago

    Judging by the video, I would actually prefer the PS3 version of Silent Hill. The Xbox version seems horribly aliased and that seems to distract me more than the somewhat lower resolution of the PS3. Also as said in the article, the framerate is better on the PS3, which makes the PS3 seem more... believable.

    Of course it's still pretty disgracing that the PS3 is so graphically underpowered to what what was supposed to be an inferior machine...

  • aphexstwin #67 3 years ago

    im not going to read the previous 75 comments of 360 is teh rocks ors, because im fed up with the flaming on this here 'euroflamer'.

    but im more equally fed up with devs inability or lack of lust to make equal games on the ps3.

    i just wish they didnt bother, because the ps3 will never have a really outstanding cross platform game that outperforms the 360. its almost like they dont want ps3 sales. because, as we all know, the ps3 is capable of great looking and playing games. and thats a shame because i do like playing on my ps3, just as much as i like the 360 (its microsoft themselves i abhorr but thats for a different day)

  • Entity #68 3 years ago

    "Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off's PROMOTE ANIMAL CRUELTY! ;) "

    I kicked a puppy and I liked it!

  • Mumid #69 3 years ago

    The PS3's biggest problem is that its architecture is nothing like anything else and that Sony made the mistake of using really underpowered graphics chips and memory, thinking that it could just rely on the cell processer. Multi threaded games are VERY difficult to develop and even PC games rarely use more than two cores for this very reason. I think it will be a very long time until a game developer can make proper use of the Cell processer, simply because I dont think most would have the inclination to do so.

    Both consoles are largely underpowered for devices claiming to be full HD! When the next generation of consoles is out and 1080p TV's are the norm it will be amazing to think how much extra detail there could be in games. Of course, PC's can do this now but in most cases, games are not being created that take advantage of this! I think the next console generation will be stunning though.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/09 @ 17:47

  • tancredo #70 3 years ago

    Two years of reading: "Lazy third party multiplatform games". How much longer?

    I expect PS3 to improve over the 360 in about 3-4 years and some fanboy will start crying in joy.

    Of course by then, this generation of consoles will be over and they will have to start all over again.
    ************
    Also, some PS3 fanboys should realize they do not need to list all their exclusives, every time, in every comment section, and not try to argue their console is best each time they write. I am sure there are a number of good games on the PS3 and you probably feel great with yourself while going over the list, but it is clearly not needed and 99% of the time, not even related to the topics.

  • StooMonster #71 3 years ago

    @Mumid: they seem to cope with the six threads on Xbox 360 okay.

    A few PC games have supported two threads for a while, e.g. Doom 3 / Unreal3 engine, but more recently we are seeing likes of Left4Dead utilise four cores or more; and the emergence of PC games that do not work on single core/thread systems.

    This PC multi-thread development is probably driven by dual-development with Xbox 360 games more than anything.

  • TRUTH #72 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 is very liner and static. I'm now on the train level and haven't once been convinced that all this game is, is a COD game with a different lick of paint. GoW 2 is throwing alot more action, explosions, blood effects, textures, particle effects, and characters onscreen then anything so-far on Killzone 2.

    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 alot more around with much more effects. More characters are onscreen and not respawning from hidden areas like KZ 2. The battles on Gow 2 have also more and larger in size + variety of enemies to battle with then mainly the same on KZ 2.

    I'm now on the seventh level (The Train Section) on KZ2...I do think the graphics are quality, but, nothing above already out there!... esp compared when what a game is throwing around onscreen. 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 batlle making batlles feel natural and enemies making mistakes like the enemy killing it's own troops by missing the grenade targets, rumming 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 respawn 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!

    By the way using the melee attacks in KZ 2 are to effective!
    Edited by 3 at 04/03/09 @ 20:40

  • GamesConnoisseur #73 3 years ago

    Not due to the joypad the control issues of KZ2, actually due to the stupidity of GG to program it so, not having the same factor of accerleration as programmed for other FPS games on PS3 (multi platform). GG have stated they will look into the issue and consider adding options.

    However I m not really that far wowed with KZ2 compared with GoW2 in some levels, no disagreement that the game is very visually nice especially loved the lightening implementation. Really good show of PS3's power.

    Those who declare it a generation ahead or better than anything else often are the ones who havent got both systems or played all AAA rated games on both rival platforms. I loved PS3 and X360, hated MS and Sony equally! Both did serviced the loyal followers.

    Enjoy the game on your platform, thinking your console is great is good but saying another stinks and a turds is very childish and sad! I mean that what kiddies do at primary school playground and we know Gears of War 2 and Killzone 2 is worth owning if you are keen on these genres. Just that different people are keen on different things so if you dislike 3rd person or the style then there is another that suits you.

  • drumbaby #74 3 years ago

    Xbox 360 advantages ftw, PS3 advantages ftl? Yes, we've got that, thanks EG....

  • mazzl #75 3 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur well spoken like you're name

  • #76 3 years ago

    Farti...

    i dont get it mate, how can Gears be as techically as good as KZ2? In mutiplayer you get 32 players with no dumbing down of the gfx yet all gears can manage is 5v5 or is that 4v4? Perhaps the programmers talents are a factor.

    o?

  • Popup #77 3 years ago

    I have yet to buy one multi platform game this gen yet.

  • DjFlex52 #78 3 years ago

    I wonder why people keep suggesting it is all the lazy developers' fault for lackluster ports of PS3 games. Sony already stated that it made the PS3 hard to develop for on purpose. So who's fault is it really?

    It took 4 years or 2 Gears games for GG to pull off a technically better product. I will take 2 Gears of War over 1 Killzone 2. Why spend 4 years making one great game when you can make 2 great games in the same timeframe? For less profit but more prestige?

  • Darren #79 3 years ago

    @bluebird - "Judging by the video, I would actually prefer the PS3 version of Silent Hill. The Xbox version seems horribly aliased and that seems to distract me more than the somewhat lower resolution of the PS3."

    Besides the fact that those videos are not even 720p anyway, Silent Hill Homecoming on the Xbox 360 has AA though unlike the PS3 version which presumably blurs the entire screen to make up for the fact that it has NO AA. The game is very dark 95% of the time so if there any jaggies you won't notice them and I haven't, certainly no more than most other Xbox 360 games that use AA. However, I'm glad I didn't buy the PS3 version because in a game as dark as Silent Hill you want to see the detail not lose it in a blurred out mess. ;)

  • smelly #80 3 years ago

    seriously do you sad bastards REALLY care about one or two pixels looking slightly different?

    *sigh*.. I remember when people used to play games for fun...

  • GreyBeard #81 3 years ago

    Why do you guys keep bringing the CELL into this? Its all about the GPU's and to a lesser extent memory utilization!

    These tests are all about the graphics, and as (I assume) all of you are also PC owners/users what do you do on that if you want to improve your graphics performance? Do you upgrade from a dual core to quad core, or do you replace your old 7800gtx with an 8800?

    You want a higher res and more texture detail, you upgrade your GPU not your CPU! Everybody knows that! Really, banging on about CPU performance in this context just demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how these machines work.

    The thing about Killzone2 is that it demonstrates how the CELL can be used effectively to supplement the GPU,but for obvious reasons thats just not a viable approach for titles developed with a cross-platform strategy.

    It really is that simple. Laziness doesn't enter into it. In 99.9% of cases its just not practical to maintain two different engines when the whole point is that otherwise assets can be shared freely between the two platforms.

    But anyway, carry on with the pointless negativity chaps :-)

  • canIdoyabombsforya #82 3 years ago

    The best 3 games on the PS3 are, Nobby Nobby Boy, LBP and Flower and should have been there at launch. The rest don't excite me at all.
    These face offs are just to expose Sony as the Gordon Brown of the console world.



  • smelly #83 3 years ago

    >But anyway, carry on with the pointless negativity chaps :-)

    I would've just said "carry on talking about the how good/bad certain chips are/arent which you have had no experience using or coding with to know whether or not siad chip is good/bad or not" (actually my way is longer *lol*)

    .. it's almost as funny as the bloke who wrote this article going on about how technically advanced a game is/isnt without actually knowing what's going on "under the hood"

  • Yaz #84 3 years ago

    "What would be the point of that. GoW2 isn't in the same league as Killzone 2 (nothing on console is)."

    More comedy gold from this thread. Thanks. ;)

  • Scimarad #85 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    Judging from the video link just up the page, that looks fairly accurate from a technical perspective.

  • seasidebaz #86 3 years ago

    Judging from the video link just up the page, that looks fairly accurate from a technical perspective.

    Yep. Two words:

    Displacement. Mapping.

  • des #87 3 years ago

    Nothing new,360 wins,etc etc

    Resi 5 comparison is going to be interesting,oh and Sonic lol

  • Dizzy #88 3 years ago

    I like the picture of the 360 squirrel punching the PS3 squirrel in the gut ;0

  • BartonFink #89 3 years ago

    So 18-0 then man this is getting boring now.

  • GreyBeard #90 3 years ago

    @smelly

    I just mean that from my point of view -which is one that isn't especially concerned about minor graphic details or slight fluctuations in frame rate- who wins and who loses isn't especially important. Having the bragging-rights for the shiniest version really doesn't interest me, unless there's something truly game-play breaking about it.

    Whether I buy a PS3 or 360 version of a multi-format title is really down to what type of game it is, and how well suited it is (I feel) to the controller. Because that's the thing that's going to be important every second I spend playing the game.

  • onyxbox #91 3 years ago

    I have both systems, I use the PS3 more than 360 but I have nothing against 360.

    After playing lots of games on both systems I've concluded that they're about the same, give or take some tiny differences (Gears has nice textures, Killzone has more going on, both are pretty good games but neither are mind blowing IMO).

  • Mortey #92 3 years ago

    mingster " I'm pretty sure they are boxing squirrels"

    Yes I think your right, do you think most of the people commenting on this are also Squirrels that have taken a few too many punches in the head?

  • Rash' #93 3 years ago

    A few choice quotes from the Killzone 2 analyse on Digital Foundry:

    "I described Killzone 2 as “perhaps the most magnificent technical achievement I’ve seen on the current generation of consoles”, and I think I stand by that assessment - although I still think Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune runs it close..."

    Killzone 2 does "very little that’s new and surprising in what it does, but in terms of the look, feel and execution, it’s easily the best shooter available on console."

    Now if only these third party devs would pull up their socks...

    ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/09 @ 13:05

  • IneptPercy #94 3 years ago

    To me it comes down to price, £130 or £300.

    So the PS3 should be 130% better than the 360 for games... on no... maybe not...

    I call for a KZ2 vs GOW2 vs Crysis Warhead face off...

  • seasidebaz #95 3 years ago

    Mascot Faceoff! That would show us who's best!

    Mario

    VS

    Ratchet & Clank

    VS

    ....... ummmm...... Blinx?

  • Rash' #96 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, By what pecentage should the PC be better then? Yes I'm aware the PC does more but then so does the PS3 compared to 360... It certainly has a better range of exclusives now and on the horizon.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/09 @ 13:25

  • seasidebaz #97 3 years ago

    @Rash'

    Quite true. It's got Visual Studio 2010, Excel 2010, Word 2010... The list goes on...

  • Rash' #98 3 years ago

    seasidebaz, Exactly! Like Bluray and expenses free online gaming... As a percentages advantage on price it levels itself out.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/09 @ 13:54

  • Yaz #99 3 years ago

    @Scimarad who wrote: "Judging from the video link just up the page, that looks fairly accurate from a technical perspective. "

    And judging from my experiences with both (well KZ2 demo and videos), it's not. There are merits to both games, and some will no doubt argue the merits of one over the other, however even if you feel KZ2 is graphically better than Gears 2, it is not in a different league as suggested (but nice exaggeration :)).

  • Gecks #100 3 years ago

    @GreyBeard
    so why did sony spend all those years developing custom fabs to make EEs and the newer CELL chip? because they decided it would be more economically viable and future-proof to create a spiffy core, then put some arbitrary off-the-shelf GPU in there as a glorified frame-buffer.

    ok, that's not entirely accurate - the GPU does a lot of the work, but the CELL and EE before it are floating-point beasts designed entirely around chucking geometry data around - they are not like PC CPUs at all.

    the downsides to this approach are obvious, but it worked with the PS2 (arguably because it came out the gates as the lead system, RIP dreamcast) so it probably seemed like the Thing To Do.
    Edited by 1 at 05/03/09 @ 17:57

  • smelly #101 3 years ago

    @greybeard.. i was agreeing with you...

    while laughing at the sad twats who are going on about how processor x is better than processor y despite having no experience developing for either.

  • TRUTH #102 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 is very liner and static. I'm now on the train level and haven't once been convinced that is isn't a COD game with a different lick of paint. GoW 2 is throwing alot more action, explosions, blood effects, textures, particle effects, and characters onscreen then anything so-far on Killzone 2, inc different paths to take!

    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.

    I'm now on the seventh level (The Train Section) on KZ2...I do think the graphics are quality, but, nothing above already out there!... esp compared when what a game is throwing around onscreen. 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!

    By the way using the melee attacks in KZ 2 are to effective!...actually better then most weapons!!!
    Edited by 2 at 05/03/09 @ 21:11

  • seasidebaz #103 3 years ago

    while laughing at the sad twats who are going on about how processor x is better than processor y despite having no experience developing for either.

    Quite clearly the G5 is better than any Intel processor, though.

  • GreyBeard #104 3 years ago

    @Gecks

    What I was getting at was that in most cases the difference in performance between the PS3 and 360 versions of the games in this series of articles can be tied to a single factor - fillrate.

    Antialiasing requires no processor intervention.

    Similarly, rendering the same scene at 720p or 1080p is all about how fast the GPU can push pixels.

    Throwing geometry data at a GPU is one thing, rasterizing that data is another. The "system" will only move at the speed of its slowest part.

    As to Sony's track record on hardware; the Emotion Engine unfortunately was a victim of a misunderstanding on what Kutaragi meant. If you go way back to when the first technical presentations were made you'll see that the idea was that the whole "ecosystem" of EE+Vu0+Vu1+GS was the Emotion engine. However people kind of fixated on the unremarkable EE core and the GS because that was the closest analog to the standard Wintel architecture. Despite the fact that without the vector units being employed, it was literally impossible to feed the GS geometry data fast enough to process it.

    As a result, ho-hum quick ports like Ridge Racer 5 were taken to be indicative of the console's ability and a general feeling of disillusion and disappointment set in. By the time GOW was released PS2 was already dominant and so few people really took it as the vindication of Ken Kutaragi's design philosophy it actually was. With the CELL (a multi-core ecosystem on a single chip) I can see history repeating itself.

    So, I wouldn't rush to making any judgement about the worthiness of the PS3's architecture just yet. I see Killzone 2 as the start of a generation, not the climax.

  • Yaz #105 3 years ago

    @seasidebaz who wrote: "Quite clearly the G5 is better than any Intel processor, though"

    Which is why Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel.... oh wait. ;)

  • seasidebaz #106 3 years ago

    @Yaz:

    Yeah...

    That's also why MS decided to bung a G5 in the 360 :D

  • Yaz #107 3 years ago

    "That's also why MS decided to bung a G5 in the 360 :D"

    Nice try :)

    Except it isn't a G5, it's a modified PowerPC processor (3 PPC cores and a significantly enhanced arithmetic unit in each core), just like Cell is a modified PowerPC (1 PPC core, 8 powerful SPU cores for arithmetic processing).

    Yes they're PowerPC based, like G5, but the choice of those processors for the consoles is due to the enhancements, especially those for increasing arithmetic performance, which is great for games consoles, however neither the 360 CPU (Xenon) nor Cell would make good desktop processors, since the PPC core just isn't powerful enough compared to Intel processors (99% of applications benefit more from increased general performance than increased arithmetic performance).

    For desktop machines, Intel had surpassed the PowerPC years before Apple switched, beating the G3/4/5 in all independant benchmark tests with the exception of Photoshop and (I believe) one other image processing app (which were optimised for Altivec instructions in PPC processors), leading Apple to become frustrated at the lack of progress for PowerPC processors, since they were being left behind. Hence the move to Intel.

    But hey, who cares (?) ;)

  • seasidebaz #108 3 years ago

    @Yaz:

    Not me, s'long as my Xbox has great games, my PS3 has great games, and my IDE compiles against whatever chipset I tell it to.

    Couldn't care less about the inner workings of the hardware anymore. Software needs to start evolving at the rate hardware is if we want to progress now.

  • TRUTH #109 3 years ago

    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 2 at 06/03/09 @ 22:24

  • Sulphur #110 3 years ago

    Wow, good technical breakdown, uh, TRUTH. I think. Beyond the fact that you've got some sort of axe to grind because people think KZ2 looks better than GoW 2, I couldn't parse your post beyond the first sentence.

    Stream-of-consciousness much? (Hint: LINEBREAKS)

  • youhavenomail #111 3 years ago

    Is this latest 360 propaganda from the same hack who told us Fallout 3 was superior on 360 when in fact the 360 version has just been patched to make it look ALMOST as good as the PS3 version?

    [link url=http://www. digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=552
    ]http://www. digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=552
    [/link]

    SFIV is also prettier on PS3 (not to the naked eye during gameplay where there's no noticeable difference), has a better pad and free online play, and yet still he concluded that the 360 version was the one to go for. He's making fanboys of us all with this continued nonsense backed up by cherry picked details. Either do it objectively or don't do it at all.

  • TRUTH #112 3 years ago

    The framerate is pretty jerky in places in Fallout 3 for PS3!.

  • Kryon #113 3 years ago

    @youhavenomail

    Eh? What are you on about? The link you provided does not in any way indicate that the 360 version of Fallout 3 looked inferior to the PS3 port in general. The 360 version had a smoother frame-rate and 4xMSAA, the PS3 had specular maps (a cheap way of faking shininess basically) and slightly nicer textures in a few places when viewed close up. A constant frame-rate and no jaggies are more important attributes and now the 360 version has been patched to include the specular mapping. So I really don't get what you're trying to say here with that link? You have a go at others for 'cherry picking' and then go on to do the exact same thing.

    As for SFIV, it clearly looks better on the 360, the PS3 version doesn't even have self shadowing characters among other flaws.

    You have KZ2, it looks almost as good as a 360 game from last year, just be happy with that, the untapped power was a lie, get over it.

  • TRUTH #114 3 years ago

    Seriously I thought Killzone 2 will be the game that will put other fps to shame - but the graphics simply do not surpass games already out there...Where exactly in the game does KZ surpass anything ?...I may only be on the 9th level, but, all I've seen is corridors & square rooms, with approx at maximum of 10 (if that!) that inc your dumb re-spawning ai along your side!...The tank level is just a joke, the robot droid (the section I'm on now!) is just a sillyfollow the narrow liner path and simply shoot at the tiny targets from A to B. The best explosions are set pieces that happen in realtime but don't involve you as you can't go that area eg: the lift section when the Hellgiest break in on section 7 or 8 of the game.

    The ai is nowhere as good as Halo or F.E.A.R 2 (which i'm playing now too on Ps3)...as in Halo they do so much more then just hide & run around/cover/peak over usually boxes/pillers and shoot... Do they get into vehicles ? Do they run vehicles into you or jump on to drag you off - as you can ? Do they command and coordinate attack differently if the commander/leader is killed ? Do they change weapons or take to gun turrents when needed (not scriped as in KZ)? can they run scared ? ..etc etc...The answer for KZ 2 is 'NO'...The may have good ai, but nothing that hasn't been seen before. F.E.A.R 2 actually is more convincing and more flexible to fit in to use the environment.

    This so-far (I'm sure the last few levels won't change my mind!) has just been a fairly liner fps, with the main highlights being the set pieces. The enemy ai game characters so far (upto 9th level) have only seen 4 different types: The flying robots (just aim and shoot,not much of a threat), the fat minigun hellgiest (shoot at heat then back - not difficult to kill, but the controls feel to light clumsy, making it actually more luck then skill on occasions to aim right!), the 2 main Helligest the gunner and knife fella - generally they the only ones to put any ai in battles).

    For PS3 a 4yrs development (remember it was 1st shown in early 2005 as showcase for the potential of the cell), all this game is a very liner fps it does not surpass anything. It may be very polished, but not like many PS23 fanboys are claiming. Oh! haven't played online yet ? but I'm sure that will be better then the single player.
    Edited by 3 at 07/03/09 @ 22:32

  • Sulphur #115 3 years ago

    Erm, Kryon? Specular mapping is a 'cheap way of faking shininess'? Really? What's the 'expensive' way, then? And why can none of us afford it? Are we so low in the social strata that developers decided we're not worth it? And most importantly, can it phong my gouraud?

    Also, good comparison of SFIV. Indeed, the game has one more shadow on the X360 that I wouldn't even have noticed had I not paused the game, so of course I WILL DEFEND X360 SUPERIARITY TO TEH LAST BREAHT!!! GRAWWR!!!

    Good show, sir, good show!

    Truth, thank you for a more comprehensible post. It's too bad you're disappointed. Maybe you'd actually enjoy the game if you stopped obsessing over how many corridors it has. Fact: it's got open areas. It's more than capable of doing large-scale conflicts when it needs to. It has metric fuck-tons of geometry. It has sex with your eyes when it has COMBAT happening around those metric fuck-tons of geometry. Deal with it.

    I'm having a blast with KZ2 and it looks and plays a lot better than Fear 2 for me... which, by the way, has AI that does mostly the same things except for the flip-table-over-for-cover mechanic.

    The AI's slightly gimped in Fear 2, by the way - they don't seem to flank as much as they did in the original Fear and are easier to put down. Play that on the PC if you want a game with better AI.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/09 @ 06:22

  • Kryon #116 3 years ago

    @Sulphur

    specular mapping is a way to fake light reflections onto objects by placing a highlight in the position that said object would be reflecting the virtual light. If the word 'cheap' upsets you, I will just refer to it as 'fake lighting' instead, happy? I'd also rather not hear about your phong, cheers.

    As for your views on SFIV, who cares if you did or didn't notice the differences in versions until you paused it? What's that actually got to do with the price of fish? I didn't want to list all the inferiority's of the PS3 version of the game as there is an article right here on EG which already does that quite proficiently. Perhaps you would have noticed it if you stopped letting KZ2 'have sex with your eyes', it seems to have blinded you slightly...

  • Sulphur #117 3 years ago

    Kryon: That was entertaining. Thankee very much. But you misread my point.

    You don't seem to understand what specular highlights are, or, for that matter, reflection maps. It's commonly used in all facets of CGI, and the only way to not use a 'cheap' version of it is to simulate light rays a la raytracing and photon mapping. Which would take AEONS to render a single frame with on the X360 or the PS3 or any comparable PC.

    Your usage of it being 'cheap' as an aside because it was somehow deemed an advantage for the PS3 irks me, because your typical "oh if it's not on my box of choice it must be shite" attitude is something we could all do without.

    Also, I don't give a flying piranha fuck about inconsequential differences if they're well-nigh unnoticeable between both systems. I'll buy one version or the other. Doesn't affect me, and shouldn't affect you unless you're an anal-retentive flag-waver who's got nothing better to do than count the number of dynamically lit self-shadowed nostril hairs your system of choice can render.

  • Kryon #118 3 years ago


    "You don't seem to understand what specular highlights are, or, for that matter, reflection maps. It's commonly used in all facets of CGI, and the only way to not use a 'cheap' version of it is to simulate light rays a la raytracing and photon mapping. Which would take AEONS to render a single frame with on the X360 or the PS3 or any comparable PC. "

    I assure you I have a working knowledge of specular mapping, reflection maps, Gouraud shading, phong shading and any other jargon you wish to throw around, but you have just answered your first question as to why I used the word 'cheap' right there. The word cheap wasn't used to downplay the PS3 version of Fallout 3, the 360 version uses the exact same 'cheap' effect (now it's been patched) so I don't see how you came to such a conclusion, perhaps you're a little touchy on the subject, or perhaps you've had a quick go on Cinema4D and wished to 'wow' others with your (I'm sure) outstanding knowledge on the subject, either way, it's not working ;P

  • Sulphur #119 3 years ago

    Yep, and I suppose the fact that it's apparently still done better on the PS3 didn't have any effect on your anal-retentive opinion either. ;)

    If you didn't actually phrase it the way you did to downplay the PS3, what, pray, was the intent? To say that the overall effect wasn't worth it anyhow because it was 'cheap'? I congratulate you, sir, on your graphics expertise in dismissing what has been a studio-level CGI standard for years.

    Clearly, you are an idiot. But at least you know how to use the wiki. Don't bother replying, because I have nothing more to say to you. Happy internetting, I hope you win something on it someday.

    Until then, cheers.

  • Kryon #120 3 years ago

    Hmm, I can see why you wouldn't want me to reply, as my previous responses to your comments have already made you look a bit of a cretin. I tend not to ignore pricks on here, they usually amuse me to some extent, unfortunately you're not in the least amusing, just some jumped up little boy who had a go on a modelling program (probably a free one as I doubt your pocket money would stretch to 3dsMax) and now believes he's a master of all things three dimensional and no one else in the universe has even an inkling of his amazing fountain of knowledge. Funny you mentioned Wiki, is that where you got your little explanation of specular mapping from then, Tiddles?

    Anyway, I'll go ahead and ignore you, bye.

  • seasidebaz #121 3 years ago

    XSI ModTool is awesome. And free.

    Self-shadowing FTW.

    Gouraud shading is shit.

    Reflection mapping is overrated.

  • gudnikristinn #122 3 years ago

    So...Retro gaming has become cool again and the Wii is sexier then an ipod.
    But yeah the important thing is that PS3 can do a shadow or two more then the 360 because that makes all the difference when, eh shooting...aliens i guess.
    Anyway more importantly, this just in: girls HAVE vagina's.

  • buiyo #123 3 years ago

    Sonic Demo
    Frame Rate Measurement
    http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/13/