Xbox 360 vs PS3 Face-Off: Round 19

By Richard Leadbetter Published 1 May, 2009

HAWX, Fiddy, Wheelman, Wanted, Red Alert 3, Godfather II, Battle Fantasia.

While our most recent Chronicles of Riddick face-off once again saw Xbox 360 emerge victorious in our ongoing comparison features, this more comprehensive roundup of recent releases suggests that maybe, just maybe, the balance of quality is starting to shift three years into the lifespan of the current-generation consoles. Taken as a whole, neither machine can claim victory over the other in this collection of games, probably the first time this has happened since our coverage began over two years ago. A sign of things to come, or just a factor of the specific games chosen? Only time will tell.

As is the norm, for the more interesting games you'll find embedded comparison videos. The combination of insane-level h264 encoding combined with slowing the video down to 50 per cent speed all but eliminates macroblocking, making for streaming vids that do actually show the difference. Couple that with our usual 24-bit RGB screenshot comparison galleries and you're all set with the very best possible assets to back up the critical comment.

Onto the line-up then, a seven-strong collection featuring the best of the most recent cross-platform releases.

Special thanks to my Digital Foundry collaborators MazingerDUDE and Alex Goh for their observations in putting this feature together.

Previous Face-Offs:

Tom Clancy's HAWX (4.9GB)

After writing the original Eurogamer review, and quite enjoying it, it was great to come back to HAWX to give it a second viewing on PlayStation 3. Ubisoft has worked hard on its recent cross-platform efforts, and while HAWX isn't quite up to the quality of the excellent Prince of Persia conversion, it does show that the company is continuing to make efforts in getting good performance from both systems.

As you might expect, game content on both systems is identical (even the DLC updates are like for like) and the only real differences are in terms of frame-rate and graphical bling.

We'll go out on a limb here and say that the difference is plane.

Both versions of the game aspire to 60fps gameplay, both dropping frames significantly in the heat of the action. Based on like-for-like clips, the 360 game appears to have a small advantage, but when the engine is really tested during gameplay - where no direct like-for-like comparison is possible - the sense is that similar to Prince of Persia, the games have been optimised so that certain scenes will be rendered faster according to the strengths of the host hardware. One thing that I did notice in playing the demos, and which has made its way into the full game, is that the cockpit view on 360 introduces a substantial performance hit. It's unlikely that you're actually going to be using this in-game because it's hard to see anything, so not an issue, but a curiosity nonetheless.

In terms of the direct measurable stuff, the PS3 code has a longer view distance, resolving more scenery, but it's at the expense of 'pop in', whereas the Xbox 360 game gradually fades in the new environmental details. Other differences come down to lighting and anti-aliasing. The 360 release looks ultra-crisp, thanks to utilisation of its top-end 4x multisampling AA, whereas the PS3 game invokes a horizontal blur. It's a bit ropey really and does very little to actually smooth off the edges. Additionally, the impressive bloom effects on the 360 game are also significantly dialled back on the Sony console.

In all though, it's just graphical effects that separates the two games - and while 360 looks better, in terms of playability it's a score draw, and if I were reviewing the PS3 build today, it would still earn the same 6/10 score. It's a fun game, particularly online where you really do get the sense you're a small player in a massive warzone. However, the overall lack of depth remains somewhat at odds with the core values of a great Clancy game.

Battle Fantasia

This is probably the smallest current-generation console game I've yet to look at, in terms of its actual use of disc space. Dumping Battle Fantasia to my debug 360's hard disk reveals that the game occupies a mere 1.25GB of space, while the PS3 game uses up a whole 1.4GB of the 25GB single-layer Blu-ray disc it occupies. You can't help but feel that it would've been a perfect candidate for digital delivery as opposed to the traditional physical disc.

While limited in terms of assets, it's clear that Battle Fantasia is a whole lot of fun if you're into your fighting games, and while it's likely to be completely ignored in favour of the lovely Street Fighter IV, there's still much to like here, especially if you're into your Japanica. Wacky, far-out, crazy but attractive and enjoyable, the bright 'n' cheerful visuals are in stark contrast to the technical adept, mature fighting game action.

Technically speaking, there's little here to challenge either console. Both run at full 720p, and maintain a solid 60fps refresh rate. The only immediate difference concerns a blur filter that is on by default on 360, and off on PS3. Sort out that tweakable (as we have in the screenshot gallery) and aside from a small difference in the colour balance, the games are completely interchangeable. If there's any kind of style that would gain something from a blur it's the anime look, but even here I thought it looked a bit rough and rather unnecessary. Aside from that, the only noticeable difference I could locate was a background music selector for Versus Mode on PS3, which is curiously absent in the 360 version.

50 Cent: Blood on the Sand

It was difficult to see how the 'franchise' could come back in the wake of the absurd 50 Cent: Bulletproof, but Blood on the Sand is a bloody good effort, adapting elements of Gears of War 2 and The Club into an unspectacular, but solid shooter, complete with unintentional hilarity via the OTT profanity of Fiddy's motherf***in' voice acting. It's also another example of how the cross-format development game has moved on, and how nature of these face-off outcomes is becoming increasingly more difficult to predict.

Pretty much fiddy/fiddy here.

The most obvious difference here is the inclusion of v-lock. We're seeing a small number of cross-platform games these days where it is in evidence on the PS3 version, but turned off on 360, and this is the most striking example since Resident Evil 5. While Capcom's game wasn't unduly impacted by the screen tear during gameplay, its inclusion here is blatant and seriously bad news for the overall image quality. Meanwhile, the PS3 game is v-locked and rock solid, albeit at the cost of slightly less responsive controls.

The only other difference here concerns the introduction of a blur filter, which appears to be a recurring theme in this face-off. Just like Tom Clancy's HAWX, it has been added to the PS3 code, muddying picture quality in comparison to the blur-free 360 game. Now usually, the introduction of blur serves to compensate for a lack of anti-aliasing (as seen in the case of HAWX). But not here, where the Vaseline-free 360 game also omits AA and clearly resolves more detail, particularly on the background. So, curiously, for some reason we can't fathom, the developers decided to waste CPU cycles by effectively making the PS3 game look worse.

Other than that, we're looking at platform parity, aside from some incidental and relatively minor lighting differences, along with a mandatory PS3 installation of around 2GB. Blood in the Sand remains a strong release, and while it's definitely not a must-buy, it's a worthy enough 7/10 which might prove irresistible once the price drops. For owners of both consoles considering which to buy, it really comes down to where you're likely to pick up a co-op partner: PSN or Live? Failing that: blur or tearing, it's your choice.

Wheelman

While Unreal Engine tends to earn its keep via first- or third-person shooters, there have been some interesting attempts at using the technology within other genres. Unfortunately, in most cases, when his happens, a mediocre game and/or a technical disappointment is the result - check out Undertow or Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe for a couple of examples. However, to the best of my knowledge, Wheelman is the first out-and-out racing game to make use of UE3 and the engine acquits itself fairly well.

Vin-dicated?

As you would expect with middleware as accomplished as Unreal Engine 3, Wheelman does a pretty job of extracting like-for-like performance from the respective consoles. The usual racing game gotchas (blatant changes in LODs, pop-in) aren't really an issue, and any difference between the outputs of the two consoles comes down to the more predictable issues of screen-tear and anti-aliasing. The Xbox 360 version is clearly the more refined, better-looking game - edges are smoothed off with 2x multi-sampling AA, which is completely omitted on PS3, resulting in a jaggier picture with more shimmering on the textures.

Both games run at 30fps, but neither version is v-synced, resulting in some pretty ugly tearing. By looking at the like-for-like clips, we can see that the PS3 version of the game tears much more often, impacting its visual consistency more than the 360 release. However, in truth, the game's visual deficiencies aren't wholly the fault of the engine - the art direction here simply isn't that fantastic. The video tells its own story about the quality of the cityscape (never any better than 'OK') but check out the cut-scenes in particular - the 3D work on the characters gave me nightmarish reminders of the Core Design Lara Croft era (specifically the horrific 'Young Lara' episode) and bearing in mind that Tigon Studios presumably has intimate access to the head of Vin Diesel, he looks like a poor-quality waxwork facsimile in comparison to Starbreeze Studios' model, as seen in The Chronicles of Riddick.

Combining this lack of artistic merit with all the gameplay issues Tom experienced in his original review, it's really difficult to recommend this as anything other than a rental or as a heavily discounted bargain bucket special, regardless of the console you might happen to own. Just be prepared for a 15-minute 4.7GB installation when you first boot the PS3 game.

The Godfather II

It's interesting to note that the conversion work for The Godfather II is a pretty close match to the quality of review the game has earned across the board, ranging from poor to not bad to quite good. EA's PlayStation 3 performance has been much improved in the last 12 months, but there's a very real sense that this particular developer has reverted to previous form.

As per the norm, actual game content is identical cross-platform, and while there are many technical differences that give the Xbox 360 version a tangible advantage, it has to be said that the pacing and style of the game is such that the PS3 version's shortcomings do not have a massive impact on the game experience - only in fast action sequences do you really notice the difference. However, the detriments to the Sony code are at the same time predictable but also rather odd.

First up is image clarity. The good news is that both versions are v-synced, but native resolution is strange. It's the standard 720p on Xbox 360, with no anti-aliasing. On PS3 however, there is a very slight reduction in resolution: what looks to be a 1200x720 resolution, resulting in a subtle blur and the occasional upscaling artefact.

Of far more impact is the frame-rate. The Xbox 360 is more consistent in achieving the target 30fps, while performance on PS3 is somewhat more variable. The game's initial escape from Cuba level, with its combination of indoor and outdoor settings, is as good a test as any to see how performance fluctuates on PS3, while by and large, the 360 version is solid.

Technically speaking, both games are actually pretty sound compared to some of the competition. Saints Row 2 is a technical disaster in comparison to what EA has achieved here. On both platforms, graphical quality is consistent, and often pleasing, if rather lacklustre compared to the standards-setting technical achievements of GTAIV. So it all comes down to the gameplay then. Kristan's review essentially wrote off this release, but I saw it as quite a decent progression of what was achieved in the previous game, if not anything like an essential buy.

Wanted: Weapons of Fate

We've heard a lot from game-makers and PRs about development 'leading' on PS3, with little in the way of actual evidence in the end product, but here's a game that clearly does show a bit of love for the Sony platform, being clearly and demonstrably the better release on PlayStation 3.

Make no mistake though, Weapons of Fate isn't exactly a technical showcase. It's running at sub-HD resolutions on both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 - 1120x640 to be precise, and with no anti-aliasing to smooth off the edges, combined with a rather dark and icky colour palette, things can look rather rough in places.

Which version is more aptly titled?

The usual gamma differences aside (few developers seem willing to calibrate the output of their games to be like-for-like), there are other ways to tell these games apart. Just like 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, the PS3 game is v-locked, whereas the 360 code has an often alarming amount of screen-tear. The other major difference is the inclusion of more apparent specular maps on the PS3 version, giving a polished sheen to surfaces that isn't present in the 360 game.

So, mandatory 1.9GB install aside, it's a clear technical advantage to the Sony console here - it's literally shinier, has more coherent image quality and unlike 50 Cent, this doesn't seem to be any less responsive on PS3 than it is on the Microsoft box. Which is kind of ironic in a way, because response really is this game's biggest issue.

People complain about the analogue 'dead zone' in the control scheme of Killzone 2, but that's akin to keyboard and mouse levels of precision compared to what's going on here. It takes an absolute age to build up momentum in movement, and then suddenly it becomes ultra-fast. You can adjust the joypad sensitivity to compensate - but only to a certain extent, the change in momentum is still jarring. Even after extensive tweaking, the control system on both versions of the game just doesn't feel right. All things being equal, for a game of this ilk, I'd sooner replay Dark Sector on either platform.

Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3

EA went very public in claiming that PS3 owners would get something special from the enforced wait for their version of Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, but at first glance this 'Ultimate Edition' doesn't seem to be hugely different from its 360 predecessor. Indeed, it's pretty clear from the synchronised video feeds that the differences are basically skin-deep: a wholly unnecessary blur filter has been removed from the 360 version, colour balance has been brightened up a touch, and shadows are slightly better defined on PS3.

Bear witness.

Claims that the PS3 code would take advantage of 1080p prove to be somewhat off the mark. The actual in-game visuals don't benefit at all from switching your PS3 to full HD mode. Indeed, bearing in mind the level of screen-tear here (also in 360), frame-rate would most likely be completely crippled if the detail level was more than doubled. However, the game does produce an upscaled 1080p video output, and it kicks in even if 720p is enabled on your XMB - something of a rarity these days and proof that the developers would rather you play in this mode. So is there any tangible benefit at all to doing so?

While gameplay can be handicapped by opting for native 1080p, there's no reason why the video sequences couldn't have been remastered for the Ultimate Edition. In producing these features I'm constantly amazed at how generally poor video sequences tend to be on PS3, bearing in mind the machine's incredible storage potential and the fact that it is the one of the best Blu-ray players money can buy. Often, they're only just as good - sometimes worse - than they are on 360, but very rarely do you actually see the gigabytes of spare space on the BD being used for superior-quality video.

1080p resolution video then? It doesn't look like it. In like-for-like tests, PS3 actually ends up looking slightly worse - edge detail is smooth on 360, but rougher on PS3. It's especially obvious where the characters have been blue-screened onto the backgrounds. Compression artefacting is again equally obvious on both versions, though colour balance looks marginally nicer and brighter on PS3. If the video sequences are 1080p, a bloody awful job has been done in gaining any extra detail from the increased resolution. A closer look at the picture quality reveals that the same distinctive upscaling algorithm as used in-game is being used on the video sequences. It does the job, but Xenos' scaler does it better on 360.

Mitigating this disappointment somewhat is an embarrassment of riches added for PS3 owners in terms of additional content - videos of the girlie photoshoots, behind-the-scenes featurettes, trailers, 'bloopers', tactics and strategy videos, tons of artwork and even the original soundtrack. Obviously good stuff, but still not quite enough to justify 'Ultimate Edition' billing, especially when, in terms of actual game content, there's barely anything here of value that wasn't in the original release. It's basically exactly the same, barring the addition of a handful of new multiplayer maps. Even the bizarre limitation of only playing co-op with people on your friends list has made it into the PS3 code, despite everyone complaining about it the first time around.

EA deserves some kudos for actually making use of the Blu-ray space by at least tossing together a goodly amount of extras (though the 3.7GB mandatory install isn't quite so welcome), but calling the PS3 version 'Ultimate' in any respect is stretching credibility when game performance is basically identical.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • stepneg #1 3 years ago

    Makes a change from reading how poor the PS3 is doing all the time in these comparisons.

  • uglygamer #2 3 years ago

    Second

  • swede #3 3 years ago

    Regardless of the mediocre reviews, I am drawn to Hawx. Anyone got the PC version?

    Somebody, please talk me out of it!

  • Moonprince #4 3 years ago

    Eurogamer: 'maybe, just maybe, the balance of quality is starting to shift...'

    Reeves: '...for the loser now will be later to win, for the times they are a changin'

  • uglygamer #5 3 years ago

    These face offs are now just boring. Time for next generation.

  • Petulant_Radish #6 3 years ago

    Star Trek?

  • doragor #7 3 years ago

    ugly gamer... 'second'... 'just boring'
    you're quite a cretin

  • sizusizu #8 3 years ago

    I would be interested in knowing why EG continuously put out these comparison articles.

    Lowest form of videogame journalism. I would imagine that the majority of the adult readers of the site own multiple formats, yet the site continues to create content for the insecure teen fanboy out there.

    Not interested.

  • swede #9 3 years ago

    sizusizu - I think you're missing the point. It is aimed at gamers with multiple platforms. That's the point! It gives them an idea of which version would be the one to choose, OR to reassure them that it does not matter which one to choose.

    It is a sad side-effect that it incites rampant fan-boyism on these threads.
    Edited by 2 at 01/05/09 @ 15:20

  • Windypops #10 3 years ago

    Hmm. Must say I always skip the article and cut straight to the comments so that I can spend even more of my life despairing about mankind and cultivating my nascent stomach ulcer. That can't be good, can it?

  • Collymilad #11 3 years ago

    Sorry am I tripping here?

    Reading through this, it's pretty obvious the 360 versions were the best?

  • swede #12 3 years ago

    Yes, I dont know what the point of comparing ultra-crap games is TBH.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #13 3 years ago

    @ sizusizu

    I'd be interested why there are people that feel the need to complain about these comparisons when we're on the 19th iteration of them. Surely you know to avoid them? And if not, surely you must realise that EG get lots of clicks on these articles (meaning more ad revenue) hence their continued presence?

  • M_of_the_sys #14 3 years ago

    Dog poo +1

  • Widge #15 3 years ago

    RA3 had possibly some of the most horrific tearing I've ever seen when I downloaded the demo off US PSN. Quite glad I cancelled my pre-order. Controls were cack anyway, something I'd rather play on a PC.

    /succumbs to consolertslol cliche

  • miufs #16 3 years ago

    Cat poo +1

    It´s gonna be a close call!

  • M_of_the_sys #17 3 years ago

    Cat poo fan boy! You must feel really insecure about your pet platform to come into a dog poo forum mouthing off about cat poo!

  • Darren #18 3 years ago

    Not the greatest selection of games there so the article doesn't make for very interesting reading this time round.

    How come some multiformat games such as Resident Evil 5, 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand and Wanted: Weapons of Fate run without screen tearing on the PS3 but not the Xbox 360? I always assumed that the Xbox 360 had the stronger GPU so why is v-sync often left off in its games? I bought 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand on the PS3 and not the 360 because I knew it didn't tear. I'd be interested to hear why that is from a multiformat developer, if any read these articles.

    Oh and good point about the poor quality of video footage on the PS3 in some games, there's really no excuse for it when the disc has 25 GB of usuable space.

  • DFawkes #19 3 years ago

    I always check, hoping it's not still Richard Leadbetter doing them. It is though.

  • TriggerHippie #20 3 years ago

    If EG wanted to inform gamers which version of a given game was the better in order to help the gamer make a more informed choice, they'd include the information in the review. Instead we get to read about it months after release in these bloody face off articles where they serve little practical purpose at all.

  • migasUK #21 3 years ago

    @TriggerHippie

    then buy 360 games, cuz since the beginning of this face-offs multi-plat on ps3 sucks!
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 15:44

  • Xerx3s #22 3 years ago

    "sizusizu - I think you're missing the point. It is aimed at gamers with multiple platforms. That's the point! It gives them an idea of which version would be the one to choose, OR to reassure them that it does not matter which one to choose. "

    Surely, if you own both systems, you would be showering yourself in all the awesome exclusives and not waste money on the shite games that are in this comparison?

  • Widge #23 3 years ago

    more like PS3 blurry, 360 teary, game content mediocre-y

  • Vanmunt #24 3 years ago

    white dog poo, ahh happy days.

  • Widge #25 3 years ago

    What a dire Friday. Not even a Face-Off is raising effort from anyone!

  • George-Roper #26 3 years ago

    Well, for those who have all platforms (inc PC) these articles are absolutely worthwhile.

    If anything, I wish they'd do them for each and every multi-platform release, alongside the review itself, so I can be sure i'm buying the very best version of the game I want.

  • Darren #27 3 years ago

    @swede - The PC version of H.A.W.X. looks a bit nicer than the console versions as it has better lighting in the form of ambient occlusion and DX10 effects otherwise it appears to be exactly the same in terms of contents and graphics from the demos I tried of all three versions. There is a PC demo you can download though so you check it out for yourself.

  • peterfll #28 3 years ago

    I still like this articles. What was more depressing was the dire lack of decent mulit-platform releases over the past couple of months, as evidenced by the article.

  • BillyBrush #29 3 years ago

    4.7 gigs on your harddrive to play wheelman?

    if you have a massive hard drive wapped in your machine i'm sure this is fine, but i've gone through about 200 games on a 20gig 360....unbeleivable stuff but at this point i guess people are just used to it.

  • Darren #30 3 years ago

    Mandatory installs on the PS3 should be abolished IMO so people have the *option* of playing them straight from the disc with slightly longer loading times. Killzone 2 and Uncharted are two of the best games on the PS3 yet neither require an HDD install so, on that basis, neither should any other game. Forcing them on people who only have small capacity HDDs like 40 GB and 60 GB is just downright stupid IMO but then it's not the only stupid thing Sony have done this generation.

  • Widge #31 3 years ago

    Valkyria is also optional.

  • El-Dev #32 3 years ago

    I can see these articles being important if the only content this year for your console of choice was multi-platform titles, fortunately I have a PS3 so won't be buying any of this tripe.

  • Xerx3s #33 3 years ago

    Darren: It's very crude to assume just because Killzone 2 can do something, others must be able to do it as well. It just doesn't work like that. For one, most dev's won't be able to tweak their game for 5 years with a custom engine that was build from the ground up with sony tech support deeply integrated. There are just so many reasons why a game could need an install. The 360 cheats it's way out of it because it has some technical advantages but that's about it.

  • sizusizu #34 3 years ago

    @pacman

    I see your point, but the reason I posted was becoming tired and jaded with these comparisons.

    I always like to think that EG targets the more mature gamer, but these articles are hoovered up by the fanboys out there. Not to aid in making a purchase but to satisfy their need to justify their system and take uneducated pops at alternative formats.

    I am sure that the collective brains behind EG could come up with something of more value to the site than lazy comparisons of medicore games. They even have included Battle Fantasia. Scraping the barrel time.

    Some original and interesting content would do a fine job at increasing clicks and their ad-revenue.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 16:59

  • George-Roper #35 3 years ago

    You might be tired of them but I am not.

    I find them informative and useful when making decisions on which version of a game to buy, if I don't make a day 1 purchase.

    As Pac says, if you don't like them and the ensuing comments, just don't read them. Leave them to people like me who get some benefit out of the analysis.

  • Chalee #36 3 years ago

    Dinosaur poo...err....POOS all over your puny cat and dog poos

    Effin' emo kids with their arty farty cat and dog poo love.

  • TheBrow #37 3 years ago

    Windypops: I do this too. To be fair though the current thread is quite civil, as these things go.

    Obviously everyone's on their best behaviour when discussing pet poo.

  • MightyMouse #38 3 years ago

    Has a decent game ever popped up on one of these?

  • Malek86 #39 3 years ago

    1.2Gbs for Battle Fantasia? I thought no 360 game was under 3.4Gbs. Unless someone tells me that duping to a debug 360 takes less space than dumping the ISO to a normal 360, in which case it means MS is screwing us once again.

  • GamesConnoisseur #40 3 years ago

    Wheelman: "Both games run at 30fps, but neither version is v-synced, resulting in some pretty ugly tearing. By looking at the like-for-like clips, we can see that the PS3 version of the game tears much more often, impacting its visual consistency more than the 360 release"

    So how come X360 more often have v-sync off? Are the devs playing to the lowest common denominator ie 720p as the perceived ceiling of most gamers and 1080p being in a minority and thus screen tearings issues ignored? But then why PS3 nearly always employs v-sync?

    This is why I always leave consoles set at 720p as much preferable to view games with as little tearings as possible thank you!

    Agree that we ll wait until next gen for a more realsitic 1080p 30 fs, no tearings and with neat AA as a standard.

  • Chufty #41 3 years ago

    These face offs aren't for people who own multiple plaform, stop kidding yourselves. They're here because they generate hits.

    Otherwise, they would pit GOOD games against each other, ie those that people reading this site will actually buy.

  • Windypops #42 3 years ago

    TheBrow: I know! Civility be damned! Basically, when even the trolls don't bother to turn up, it's time to stop.

    And having been steeped in dog poo over the past few weeks, I'd say it knocks cat poo into a cocked litter tray. Cat poo is consistent. With dog poo, you have to expect the unexpected. Now, if we were comparing sick, then it's cats, no contest.

  • makeamazing #43 3 years ago

    As usual i didnt see any difference in the videos... must be my age and my eyesight. Seems like fanbait, smells like fanbait, is fanbait!

  • dominalien #44 3 years ago

    @sizusizu
    I always like to think that EG targets the more mature gamer(...)

    Funny, when I started reading EG I liked its casual approach to articles and reviews (as opposed to the serious and professional Gamespot, which I used to read exclusively at the time), where writers are not afraid to make (sometimes crude) jokes, give hugely subjective opinions and speak in very colloquial terms. Clearly, a site with a young demographic in mind.

    @GamesConnoisseur
    So how come X360 more often have v-sync off?

    Perhaps because the devs compare the tearing on both consoles and decide that the X360 one is still acceptable, whereas it's so bad on PS3 that they absolutely have to enable v-lock?

  • StooMonster #45 3 years ago

    sizusizu: personally I find the technical comparisons interesting, quantitative analysis is much better than subjective "it just looks better" commentary one gets elsewhere.

  • Rodchenko #46 3 years ago

    I wish there was an 'ignore article' function which would allow me to make these features disappear from the EG home page while at the same time signal Leadbetter and his crew to stick these face-offs were they belong.

  • swede #47 3 years ago

    /ignored thanks for reminding me

  • septimus #48 3 years ago

    Does anyone care when the games are this shit?

    Edit - okay I'll take back the shit bit for HAWX... it is quite good, especially online.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 19:33

  • ronuds #49 3 years ago

    I have entered this comments section merely to state that I don't like these articles. However, I read it anyway and chose to comment just to say that I think it's pointless. Now, I could have just as easily ignored the article and comments sections altogether, but I felt my voice had to be heard. I felt you all needed to see that there is someone out there who finds these articles pointless. Because I know nobody has said so in the past. Certainly no more than a billion times, at least.

    :p
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 19:44

  • #50 3 years ago

    Has anyone noticed. Less and less people comment on these features now. Before there was rage and zazillions of posts. I get the feeling no one gives feck anymore ( except Leadbetter and EG).

  • IneptPercy #51 3 years ago

    I do find it good to know that there is less difference now, the early face-offs very much one sided where now the difference can go both ways but more importantly are very small.

    I will defend Hawx, but I am playing it at 1080p on my PC.

  • rotmm #52 3 years ago

    @Rodchenko, "I wish there was an 'ignore article' function which would allow me to make these features disappear from the EG home page while at the same time signal Leadbetter and his crew to stick these face-offs were they belong."

    You may wish for that. However, I tend to enjoy reading such articles and therefore wish for them to continue.

    If I were you, what I would wish for is the ability to visit web sites and not be forced through weakness of will to just have to click on articles that you have no desire in reading, and also the strength of character to not jave to post your opinion in a thread linked to said article that you originally had no desire to read.

    Failing that, maybe just grow up a little.

  • Fuser #53 3 years ago

    Round 19? Seriously?
    Maybe you should think of something new to do fellas.....

  • Darren #54 3 years ago

    @rotmm +1

    I cannot understand why people who have no interest in these articles, take the time to complain about them in the Comments section. If I see an article that doesn't interest me then I just don't read it! I'm not going to waste my time bad-mouthing it and saying I wish it didn't exist because, you know, I'm intelligent enough to realise that EG don't just write for ME!!! It's really as simple as that.

  • M_of_the_sys #55 3 years ago

    @Darren +1 and I guess that subsequently means @rotmm +1

    I must admit, it was a poor choice of games.
    I just wish I had the ability to ignore people's comments on how these games fair against the PC versions.

    Dog poo +1

  • o_ci2007 #56 3 years ago

    Yet another RSX versus Xenos comparison. All cross platform games will come down to the graphics card, except exclusive games such as Killzone 2 which the developers are willing to spend time and lots of money to encode the CPU to do some of the graphics work. PC will always win because the RSX is based on a nvidia 7 series chip which is like 5 years old technology and the newer PC's have graphics card using ddr5, Direct X 10.1, 900Mhz compared to ddr3, Direct X 9 and 500/550 Mhz on the Xenos and RSX. As it is all cross platform games will have subtle differences on the xbox and ps3 with PC way ahead. Bring on ps4 and xbox 720 then these articles might yield different results.

  • seasidebaz #57 3 years ago

    How come some multiformat games such as Resident Evil 5, 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand and Wanted: Weapons of Fate run without screen tearing on the PS3 but not the Xbox 360? I always assumed that the Xbox 360 had the stronger GPU so why is v-sync often left off in its games?

    There's only a tiny framebuffer in the Xbox360.

    Microsoft decided to only put that 10Mb framebuffer in due to them "not needing 1080p", but it can cause tiling when outputting the image to screen. That tiling = screen tear.

  • toy_brain #58 3 years ago

    I don't mind these features.
    If nothing else, they provide a nice selection of new, high-def screenshots of recent games for me to ponder over.
    Now that I've been reminded of it, I'm thinking of picking up Battle Fantasia as I saw it cheap a few days ago.

  • TRUTH #59 3 years ago

    The 360 now 2yrs+ and still wins 19 out of 19!...PS3 over hyped - Yes!

  • #60 3 years ago

    and Truth that makes your cock hard yeah?

  • MrsPacMan #61 3 years ago

    @Darren

    You are a really boring person

    @EvilFoxhound

    Let's see you name 10
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/09 @ 19:56

  • Grayvern #62 3 years ago

    The thing is these features are useful because I try to maximise my ps3 multiplatform purchases because i have an old 360 and im scared of it dying.

    but in all seriousness killzone 2 proves what can be achieved on ps3 it a profit margins and the more people owning 360's that mean some multiplatform games are noticeably worse on PS3. The AA's annoying but the funny thing is in games like killzone 2 you dont notice it and even in Valkyrie chronicles you eventually tune it out.

  • rotmm #63 3 years ago

    @Grayvern, "The AA's annoying but the funny thing is in games like killzone 2 you dont notice it....

    To be fair, one of the reasons you don't notice it in Killzone 2 is because they are using Quincunx AA which does a pretty good job of smoothing the edges, although unforunately blurring the textures too. However, that's not such a bad thing with KZ2 as the textures aren't exactly high-res to begin with. Add on to that the other post-process filters adding further layers of standard blur, DoF and motion blur, edge aliasing is the one thing that we don't have to worry about.

    That said, it's the only game I've played (as far as I can recall) that actually hurts my eyes after a time. It's just all so, for want of a better word, "indistinct", kind of like playing a game while looking at it through the bottom of a pint glass. That's an exaggeration I know, but it's somewhat in the right ballpark.

  • anonim1979 #64 3 years ago

    You lost the info about MANDATORY 21 MINUTES installation of HAWX on PS3

    At least some not sh1tty port on PS3!

  • TRUTH #65 3 years ago

    The thing is some of the best games in gameplay, graphics, atmosphere are all better on 360 which usually includes the graphics, framerates, dlc, textures etc etc...Half Life 2 (aka The Orange Box), Bioshock, Dead Space, Resident Evil 5, Fallout 3 (the new graphics upgrade + DLC content), Street Fighter IV etc, there also cheaper on the 360!

  • Darren #66 3 years ago

    @TRUTH - And all of those games are/will be better on a decent PC too. And cheaper. :p

    Consoles suck! Mwahahahaha! ;)

  • TRUTH #67 3 years ago

    I've gat a quality PC - but I simply don't enjoy messing around with PC's or enjoy playing games on them. I can go online, play games simply without worrying about configuration and settinngs, crashes or small screens. Can gather people around and enjoy playing on 50" screen, without hassle. Games like SF VI, Virtua Fighter 5, Burnout, GoW, etc etc - play better due to comfort of simplicity playing on consoles. Dead Space looks best on PC, but I enjoyed the experience more on the console.

  • TopZed #68 3 years ago

    @ farticusmaximus - "The truth is as TRUTH states, PC gaming is a messy, buggy, expensive and time-consuming business. (...)"

    We could say the same about consoles. Anyway console gaming is becoming more like pc gaming. Hard Drive, patches, online play, even mmorpg's are being target to console market. Throw in a mouse and a keyboard into a console and what you get? If you think console is more enjoyable, I can say that pc is more enjoyable, it just about what each one likes.
    Edited by 1 at 06/05/09 @ 11:23

  • TRUTH #69 3 years ago

    ...but not the extent to pc's. Also a console (360) is just £129 pounds (cheaper if you look around), plug and play, can take to friends house, plug into any tv, online is simple to use, . The variety of different games are still wider on consoles everything from rpg,s, arcade, adventure, music games, family games etc - and again are better suited on tv's rather then monitors.

  • TopZed #70 3 years ago

    @ TRUTH

    I must agree on the price! Indeed the 360 is cheaper than a decent pc. However about the variety of games being wider in consoles than in pc it's not entirely true, most of the 360 games are on the pc too, or in the worst scenario will be. Now if they adapt better to console rather than the pc, i think that once again it comes down to what I or you may like.

    Hell we could just plug a tv and a pad into the pc and the experience would be about the same i guess (although consoles are better fit to tv no discussion there). The mobility issue could be resolved with a laptop, and you could say laptop's are not meant to play games and I would agree but times are changing.

    The line between console and pc is very slim, the services that are provided with and to a pc are becoming standard in current and future generation console, but the truth is that consoles will always be on the lower side when comparing technologically with a pc at least in the current days, but as i said times are changing...

    So no, i do not think pc is as bad as you would put it... nor do i think console is as good as you put it... it just comes down to how much effort you put in what you like. Bug's, Crashes, systems lock will always happen... if they didn't patching and upgrading wouldn't be necessary.

    (Sorry for long post)

  • m0thr4 #71 3 years ago

    Sorry am I tripping here?

    Reading through this, it's pretty obvious the 360 versions were the best?

    Then you are tripping I'm afraid. A couple of the games were better on PS3. Read the article again when you've sobered up.