Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 21

By Richard Leadbetter Published 14 September, 2009

Wolf, BF1943, Virtua Tennis, Juarez, GI Joe, Fight Night, UFC, Overlord II.

The cross-platform console games having been gradually piling up over the summer, and it's about time the decks were cleared to best ready ourselves for the upcoming Q4 gaming tsunami. On this particular occasion, eight recent titles are put to the test, including our very first multi-format PSN/XBLA face-off.

As is the norm, the analyses are backed up with a comprehensive range of assets: full 24-bit RGB framebuffer dumps of each game (including 1080p shots where supported on PS3), embedded comparison videos using the very best in h264 compression, along with new high-definition clickthroughs in order to get the full picture. These Eurogamer Face-Off features have been gradually evolving over time, and once more the range of available data has increased: discrete frame-rate and v-sync readings have been added to the HD videos.

Onto the gaming line-up then:

Already the next roundup is taking shape, but next week, Batman: Arkham Asylum takes centre-stage with the definitive triple-format face-off.

Wolfenstein

In a console generation that has been dominated by the Unreal Engine, it's something of a novelty to see a third-party, first-person shooter that doesn't use Epic's almost ubiquitous middleware. Few games have utilised the aged idTech 4. Prior to Wolfenstein, I'm fairly sure that the only other cross-platform project we've seen using it has been Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. In the case of that particular game, two entirely different developers were deployed for each console version, resulting in two very different looking end-products.

In the case of Wolfenstein, Raven is in charge for both formats using base-level id technology that dates back to 2005, albeit spruced up significantly to take advantage of the multi-core set-ups of the current generation consoles in concert with the much stronger GPUs found in both machines. So, how does the game look?

Amid internet stories of the challenges id software has faced in bringing its new idTech 5 engine to the PlayStation 3, it is interesting to note that Raven's work with its predecessor appears to have translated fairly well to the Sony platform.

In terms of performance and image quality, there are both pros and cons. First up, the game has a better overall image consistency than the Xbox 360 version: the game is v-synced with not a torn frame in sight, in stark contrast to the 360 build. On the minus side, however, Wolfenstein on PS3 is slightly blurrier than its 360 counterpart - I doubt it's to do with texture quality, probably more to do with the pixel format employed for the framebuffer itself. It's hardly an issue compared to the frame-rate situation though. The performance is considerably jerkier and less responsive on PS3 than Xbox 360 and this is entirely down to the decisions made by the developer.

Xbox 360 aims to maintain 30FPS no matter what and where the PS3 build drops a frame when the rendering situation is challenging, the 360 game tears it instead. Lag on 360 is therefore palpably lower than it is on PS3, but at the expense of image integrity which suffers time and time again through excessive tearing. You can get an idea of just how bad it gets at times by looking at the Digital Foundry performance analysis of the game running on the Microsoft platform. However, clearly our notion in that piece that idTech 4 has had its day is erroneous: Bethesda's Brink uses an enhanced idTech 4 and it was one of the best-looking games at this year's gamescom.

With Wolfenstein, however, what we have is an average game with an average performance level on both consoles, with a small amount of pluses and minuses unique to each platform. Which one gets the nod is essentially down to personal preference: frame-rate and response versus overall image integrity.

Battlefield 1943

DICE's debut outing for its proprietary Frostbyte engine in Battlefield: Bad Company looked pretty promising. The visuals looked new, distinct and different and performance cross-platform was very close indeed, give or take the odd environment map. Where the game appeared limited was in its destruction model: while it worked fairly well in offering up an environment that could be almost totally blown apart, scenery seemed to break down into recognisable and predictable patterns which did spoil the illusion somewhat.

Battlefield 1943 appears to have solved this particular issue, and as far as 10-quid downloadable games go, it's an extremely strong title, even if both console versions fail to match the stupendously large 64-player melees that characterised the original PC games. It's also another decent example of what Frostbyte is capable of, even if the difference in performance between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions is still rather noticeable.

While the overall look is similar, there is a clear advantage to the Xbox 360 code, specifically in the use of normal maps which add an extra layer of depth to the environments and which appear to be absent on the PS3 version of the game. The sixth shot in the comparison gallery is probably the best still we have to show the difference, and reveals how rather flat the environmental details can be. There's also a smattering of lower-resolution textures too, found only in the PS3 build. Both games run at native 720p but lack any form of anti-aliasing, and in a bright, colourful game such as this, the jaggies are hard to miss.

Both games run well though, and performance rarely deviates from the target 30FPS. When maintaining the frame-rate is an issue, Battlefield 1943 drops v-sync in order to maintain smoothness both in the way the game moves, and in the controls. In a game like this where every session is different, A-versus-B performance is almost impossible to accurately measure, but it did seem as though the 360 game was prone to more tearing.

Probably the most impactful element concerns the issues people are having in the online connection. On the PS3 version especially there have been many complaints about sudden disconnections. I spent a decent amount of time playing both versions, and each of them performed impeccably, but the comments on the forums and on Twitter speak for themselves.

So long as DICE sorts out this issue, Battlefield is going to be one of those games where performance differences are not as important as opposed to where you do the majority of your online gaming, and where your friends list is strongest. Certainly in terms of the all-important playability, these games are like-for-like.

Virtua Tennis 2009

Based on the original Eurogamer review, some might argue that the real Face-Off here ought to be between this new 2009 edition and its immediate predecessor, the seminal Virtua Tennis 3. Kristan made a good fist of stacking up the strengths and weaknesses of the new game up against its immediate predecessor, but omitted to mention that while Virtua Tennis 3 achieved native 1080p visuals on both platforms, the new game is restricted to 720p only.

While the lack of 'full HD' graphics may be initially puzzling, the decision was perhaps inevitable. The technological underpinnings of VT2009 have much in common with SEGA Superstars Tennis, and just like the mascot-driven homage, both PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game were developed by Sheffield-based Sumo Digital. In SST, Sumo opted to up detail levels and eschew 1080p, and the same decision has been made here... it's just that the visual boost isn't quite so obvious.

For the record though, the polygon budget has been expended on a full 3D audience as opposed to the entirely flat audience members seen in the last game. The tennis courts themselves also feature a visual upgrade: the grass is no longer an entirely flat surface, and has some 3D depth to it. It's an interesting trade-off, but it certainly looks to me as though the player models are not quite so attractive as they were in the last game, and maybe it's the downgrade from 1080p to standard HD that is the principle culprit. Alternatively, it may be the seemingly randomised camera angles, which rarely seem to offer the most flattering view of the players.

As you might expect from a tennis game, there isn't a huge amount to tell the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions apart, although there was more than I expected. If you're spotting frame-rate differences in the movie above, it's well worth checking out the HD clickthrough for the overlaid FPS counters. There is quite a bit of difference between the two versions (usually, but not always in favour of PS3), although thankfully the variance calms down after the pre-game warm-up sequences and is fairly steady at 60FPS on both games.

You'll notice that the bloom effects found in the Xbox 360 game (which sometimes appear a touch overdone) are completely absent on PS3 - a curious state of affairs since it was the other way around in Virtua Tennis 3. Shadows seem to be resolved more pleasingly on PS3, it's just that there are fewer of them! PS3 also makes use of Quincunx anti-aliasing, which blurs some of the fine detail. Again, a similar system was in play during SEGA Superstars Tennis, but the bright, more cartoon-esque presentation ensured that it was less of an issue there.

In all though, the conversion work here isn't bad, and once again, Sumo Digital proves that it knows SEGA and it knows Virtua Tennis... even if the ongoing direction of the franchise appears to be somewhat less clear.

Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood

Techland's latest outing for its proprietary Chrome engine certainly is intriguing from a pure performance perspective. In common with the PC enthusiast mentality which seeks to eke out as many frames-per-second no matter what the cost, this new Call of Juarez prequel has the distinction of being the game with the most impactful screen-tearing I think I've seen since the Xbox 360 launch period.

On console at least, the vast majority of games that lack v-sync are at least capped at 30FPS. This means that every torn frame will be followed by a non-torn one. Image quality is impacted but at least a torn frame is only seen on screen for around 16 milliseconds before it is replaced by a whole one. Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, on the other hand tries its hardest to coax out as many frames as possible, and if the game tears as a consequence, Techland doesn't really care. That being the case, you can see raw frame-rates above 30FPS, but you can get many torn frames in a row, making for a very inconsistent-looking game.

There are a lot of very odd differences between the two versions of the game. Probably the most obvious one you'll see in the HD comparison video is that the Xbox 360 version runs in a letterbox, yielding an effective 1280x672 resolution. Why there is a 48-line deficit isn't exactly clear, but as you'll see from the composite elements of the video, the 360 game is also being squeezed vertically meaning it's quite running at the same aspect ratio. The PS3 build lacks the squeeze-o-vision letterboxing but sees native resolution drop significantly to 1152x648, resulting in an overall more blurry experience. Screen tear is lessened though, but this is purely down to a significantly lower frame-rate, as opposed to any technical wizardry from Techland.

What makes Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood again quite interesting is the anti-aliasing technique it uses to smooth off its edges. It's custom-built for the Chrome engine; we've not seen it anywhere else and it works pretty well. On Xbox 360 a 4x2 pixel smoothing solution is employed but this is pared down on the PS3 to 2x2, which combined with the upscaling blur isn't so attractive.

G.I. Joe

Dan Pearson wasn't particularly enthralled by this ball-achingly bad movie tie-in when he wrote the Eurogamer review, and indeed, one journalist I barely know took it upon himself to contact me telling me that it is the one of the worst games he's played in the last 20 years (a claim that fell on deaf ears here, having played Dark Castle on Mega Drive and Road Fighter on NES).

Regardless, the absolutely awful nature of the game was enough to intrigue me and sure enough, G.I. Joe manages to be live up (or down) to expectations in terms of its worth as a cross-platform console project. While there have been worse PS3 conversions dotted throughout the previous score of Face-Off features, there haven't been that many of them, and certainly not many of them in the reasonably recent past.

It's another situation where the HD clickthrough video does a better job at highlighting the differences, but for the record, the PS3 work done here is of an exceptionally low quality. While the developer has managed to retain 720p resolution, it has done so at the expense of texture quality and more v-sync drop-outs. The paring-back of textures is profoundly impactful to the image (even the character textures are pared back), and when combined with the Quincunx anti-aliasing it results in a game that looks significantly backward up against its 360 sibling.

I won't dwell on this one, as I'm sure the people that have played it won't thank me for reminding them of it, but suffice to say that while G.I. Joe conforms exactly to the perception of the quality of the average movie tie-in, it's surprising to see a company like Electronic Arts pump out this kind of dross these days.

Fight Night Round 4

From the ridiculous to the sublime. EA's abject failure with G.I. Joe is in stark contrast with the majority of its latter-day output, where the company has raised the bar both in terms of the quality of its games and also in the proficiency of its conversion work.

Fight Night Round 4 doesn't disappoint in just about any way, and that situation holds true whether you own an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Yes, on a purely analytical level there are technical advantages to playing the game on the Microsoft console, but there's really nothing in it that favours one version over the other in terms of the actual gameplay experience. The similarities and, indeed, the subtleties of the differences can be seen in the videos, particularly the HD clickthrough.

The crucial factors in the success of the conversion work have been covered in Digital Foundry's prior assessments of the Xbox demo and its PS3 counterpart. During the actual gameplay, frame-rate is locked to a v-synced 60FPS, and in that regard there is no difference whatsoever between the two games.

Over and above that, the quality of the artwork in the game is like-for-like. The only real difference comes from the anti-aliasing techniques deployed in each version and in this area, Xbox 360 commands a marginal advantage with its top-of-the-line (for console) 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. Similar to EA's last fighting game, PS3 employs 2x quincunx AA. This gives very close edge smoothing to the Xbox solution with the minus point that the entire texture is blurred. The difference is noticeable, but it's not a massive issue bearing in mind the sheer intricacy of the base visuals.

Any other performance advantages the Xbox 360 version has are limited to superior frame-rates in the sequences outside of the core action: a solid 30FPS on the Microsoft console with mild fluctuations under that on PS3 (still retaining v-sync). Hardly monumental stuff, and where it matters - in the gameplay - nobody is likely to be disappointed.

UFC 2009: Undisputed

There's not a lot of love for UFC/WWE developer Yukes in the Digital Foundry lair. There has always been a sense that both gameplay and technology in the SmackDown vs. Raw games haven't really progressed since the PS2 era, and for a long while the PS3 entrants in the series have boasted pretty awful visuals. Yukes combine two 640x720 anti-aliasing buffers in an attempt to simulate proper 720p, and the result doesn't work, being both blocky and blurry in equal measure while Xbox 360 owners get the real deal. Hardly the sign of impressive conversion work.

So, plenty to prove then with UFC 2009: Undisputed, and the good news is that the technology behind the game is hugely, massively improved over what we've seen from previous Yukes efforts. Similar to Fight Night Round 4, the game is v-locked at 60FPS, with no sign of any drops in frame-rate at all. While the quality of the fighters isn't quite in the same league as EA's efforts, the UFC brawlers still look fantastic, with the close-ups in particular possessing uncanny levels of detail.

The differences, as they are, are fairly minute, but notable nonetheless. Xbox 360 benefits from a custom anti-aliasing solution throughout (something similar to Call of Juarez, where two mid-colour pixels are applied to the edges), whereas the PS3 version is somewhat different. There's no anti-aliasing at all in action during gameplay, while the impressive cinematics that top and tail the bouts see the introduction of smooth 4x multisampling anti-aliasing, producing an extremely clean presentation.

On both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the cinematics follow a similar formula to that used by Fight Night: Round 4. The frame-rate drops to 30FPS in order to accommodate what are presumably higher-resolution models. There's no difference in performance here - both are rock solid. Over and above that, it's a case of very minor plus and minus points for each platform. It's obvious that the background and ring decals are of a much lower resolution on the PlayStation 3, but for its part the Xbox 360 version appears to have lower-quality texture filtering.

So, overall then, it's effectively a score draw with perhaps a slither-like advantage for 360 with its smoother image and higher-resolution background textures, but the big relief here is that Yukes has seemingly overcome its cross-platform deficiencies on PS3 while at the same time addressing the somewhat ancient elements of its existing SmackDown engine. Fingers crossed we'll see this particular tech deployed in the developers' future WWE games.

Overlord II

In a market dominated by shooters, fighting games and sports sims, Codemasters' Overlord was a breath of fresh air: an intriguing action-strategy title that combined innovative concepts with a great script and wonderful artistic direction. Many of the minor gameplay annoyances in the original Xbox 360 release were sorted out with the subsequent Raising Hell edition on PS3, which also added new levels at the expense of a slightly lower performance level up against its pre-existing sibling.

Overlord's sequel is a true cross-platform project, with both Xbox 360 and PS3 versions developed and released simultaneously, and similar to the original game there are performance issues with both renditions of Triumph Studios' work. However, crucially, they don't seem quite so important in this particular style of game: smoother movement and crisper responses from the controls would be nice, but the lack of them doesn't get in the way of you having a great time.

For the developer, it is clear that the integrity of the image is of more importance than the frame-rate. Bearing in mind the phenomenal amount of work that has gone into the artistic style of the game, the team has opted to engage v-sync and take the hit in frame-rate. However, the result of this is that on both Xbox 360 and PS3 performance essentially switches between 20FPS and 30FPS at any given point, according to load. As you can see on the HD clickthrough above, both can suffer badly, with the PS3 version more prone to locking down to the lower frame-rate with a jerkier update and consequently less responsive controls.

Otherwise the differences are slight and once again come down to edge-smoothing. Overlord II on the Xbox 360 appears to be using a custom anti-aliasing solution similar, but not quite as refined as that in Call of Juarez. Just as in the Techland game, the outer edges only are targeted for smoothing, but instead using an MSAA-style smoothing method, a subtle blur is used instead on the edges alone. On the PS3 there is no such evidence of any kind of AA at all.

In all, this is a recommended release for both platforms, simply because the sense that you're playing something fresh, new and appealing is still there, despite the fact that it's a sequel. That intrinsic appeal is essentially the same on both versions to the point where the technical differences are an irrelevance.

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 (143) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Bigglesworth #1 2 years ago

    Aaaaaaargh!

  • Widge #2 2 years ago

    Impending donnie supanova!

  • Mnia786 #3 2 years ago

    More biased commentary for the Faceoff as usual... stop doing these bloody things as you just cement your favouritism for one console...

  • JohnnyWashnGo #4 2 years ago

    Oh dear god...

  • insincere_dave #5 2 years ago

    It's almost as if Sony were lying to us about the PS3 blowing away the 360 graphically once developers had got the hang of developing for the PS3...

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #6 2 years ago

    Hello! We're having tech issues so some links aren't working. We're working on it. Apologies!

  • layleeloo #7 2 years ago

    More one sided views again. Does Microsoft pay for this site? haha. And yes I do own a 360 before I get called a fanboy!!

  • TopKatt #8 2 years ago

    Interesting read actually. What differences there are seem to neglible really.

  • layleeloo #9 2 years ago

    Spot the fanboys rating all the posts down against the 360 bias! haha. So predicable.

  • Darren #10 2 years ago

    I'm a self-confessed geek so I enjoy reading these Face Offs. I find it interesting knowing what design decisions developers have made to get their games running on the PS3 and Xbox 360. :)

    Shame that G.I. Joe was covered, it would have been a decent selection of good to excellent games without it. I'm sure not many people are that interested knowing which format the game ran best on since it's a game that would have been better off not running on ANY format. ;)

    Also it's a pity that DiRT 2 and Batman Arkham Asylum weren't included for completion's sake since Richard Leadbetter has already covered the performance in the demos. I guess we'll have to wait for Face-Off Round 22 for those.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 14:29

  • layleeloo #11 2 years ago

    @ Darren. Have to agree with the inclusion of GI Joe. Considering the amount of people who buy crap like that why would anyone be bothered about the tech of it. As you say, would have been decent without it but could have put the effort into a different, half decent title.

  • dpb135 #12 2 years ago

    If people dont like these then dont read them.

    I own both consoles & I find it interesting, though bit out of date for some of the games I already own

  • Dave52 #13 2 years ago

    I could not see the difference, as usual...
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 14:28

  • Dizzy #14 2 years ago

    "Spot the fanboys rating all the posts down against the 360 bias! haha. So predicable. "

    So wait. Are you saying that EG *and* the whole Internet are 360 fanboys??

  • Bilbo_bobbins #15 2 years ago

    faceoff number 216, year 2013......they still look very similar.

    For crying out loud, pack it in. These comparisons are rubbish.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 14:32

  • Widge #16 2 years ago

    i think finally this are showing SONY up this gen at last for finally beasting on they're laurels while MICROSFOT is now fully servicing the proper professionals gamer and WII is just for the elderly in they're care home so cannot be considered a competiotr to proper console. how are SONY now matching MICROSOFT even with the XMB adverisitng I don't know perhaps calculator

  • Widge #17 2 years ago

    I do jest, I'm not that HORRID

  • El-Dev #18 2 years ago

    @Widge, very good.

  • HermitArcader #19 2 years ago

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

  • Mark1412 #20 2 years ago

    @Bilbo_bobbins

    Don't read them then? Like Darren intelligently said, some people enjoy the tech side even if it is a similar story each time. I don't think you need to be any kind of clever to stay away from something you don't like.

  • cianchristopher #21 2 years ago

    There's a very simple rule to follow this generation if you own both consoles, and it is.....

    Buy all your cross-platform games for the Xbox 360 and use your PS3 only for exclusives. Simple as that, really!

  • davisorle #22 2 years ago

    SO its been like 3-4 years and yet the PS3 is proved to not be graphically even equal capable worthy o.O Didnt expect this to be for so long but then again all the roumors for the GPU of a PS console its not the first time that they get stretched way more than the flexibility and capabilities its got. so its like 21-0 rounds average?

  • dsmx #23 2 years ago

    Correction buy the ps3 exclusives and all the multiplatform games for the PC.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 14:46

  • b00n #24 2 years ago

    I always love reading those, and it's interesting to see what the differences are. If not that, it's just good that at least one site in the world has the balls to put the PR spin of both console makers to the test and has a thorugh look at the cold, hard facts. Good job EG!

  • chubster2010 #25 2 years ago

    In the words of the Tasmanian Devil's father - Blah blah blah yackity smackity....

  • Dazzyman #26 2 years ago

    Why is it you never mention loading times or that PS3 version has 7.1 audio over 5.1 on practically every game out their on the games in comparisons? UFC loads quicker for example on PS3 over 360 (own both versions). You also fail to mention on comparisons how the pads react if theirs any lag in either version or if PS3 version supports tilt (like latest Batman Arkham). As someone that owns both machines and double dips a fair bit (Batman latest) theirs nothing in em in general but favouring one over the other when you ommit things like the above shows biased. If you want to do that remember PS3 you can use a G25 wheel on both a PC and a PS3 for Dirt and NFS Shift on your next one and not the pathetic MS wheel ;)

  • Bazfrag #27 2 years ago

    So its V-sync vs tearing, and quincunx vs x4msaa, in a brief nutshell. Gameplay roughly the same etc etc.

  • swissorc #28 2 years ago

    I agree buy all you multi platform games on 360 (PC if you have the extra cash and a comfy car for you to game in). But I still really do believe eventually PS3 will catch up and eventually superceed to XBOX 360 if the tech is to be believed I've said it before I'll say it again 2011 will be there that ps3 really hits its stride

  • BillyBrush #29 2 years ago

    Why do people such as Layleeloo just assume bias right off the bat.

    This guy explains pretty clearly what tools he's using, and what he's analysing.

    He goes tbh over the top in being pretty kind to each platform holder & not blaming their tech choices but the developers (i wonder why he does this? pressure from a certain audience perhaps).

    And provides pictures and videos to demonstrate what he's talking about, so if you have working eyes, you can see too.

    And yet, people still scream bias like a bunch of 5yr olds..

  • patchbox360 #30 2 years ago

    uncharted 2, killzone 2, gran turismo 5

  • _LarZen_ #31 2 years ago

    As a owner of both PS3 and X360 and PS3 beeing my main gaming console im now at the point where I wil only buy exclusive games for the PS3. The X360 just delivers better gfx and as a gamer I want the best....X360 is now my main console.

  • ps3owner #32 2 years ago

    triple-format face-off

    what's the point?

    1. PC
    2. Xbox/PS3

  • JahB #33 2 years ago

    I'll say it again 2011 will be there that ps3 really hits its stride

    Deja vu. I could swear i heard this last year and the year before

  • udat #34 2 years ago

    What does the tilt do in Batman? I finished it on the 360 and the only thing I can see it being used for would be the remote control batarang... not really a major gameplay element. I only used them about two times, and one of those was to get an achievement!

  • Red_Bool #35 2 years ago

    Do we really need to know which console displays something like GI f*cking Joe the best ?!?!?!?!

  • spudsbuckley #36 2 years ago

    These articles are silly. I own both consoles and there's little or no different between most multiplatform games. PC hammers both anyway.

    The only difference i see between the machines is that i'm on my second 360 but i'm still using my launch 20gb Jap PS3.

  • Calgon #37 2 years ago

    I really can't see how anyone who isn't a PS3 fanboy, can say these articles have ever been biased at any point, since they were introduced to the site.

    He just reports the findings(the facts!) and gives his analysis and opinion based on those, he seems increasingly apologetic to the PS3(he seems to blame the devs more than the hardware even at this late point in the generation) and he does seem to have a soft spot for Sony exclusives(I bet you these same people don't complain when he's praising something on the PS3).

    It's not the articles you dont like... because if that were true, you would just ignore them and stick to the articles that *do* grab your attention, it's the *facts* and final verdicts you don't want to hear or perhaps for some of the more hardcore fanboys, *anyone else* to hear unless it's good news.

    It's amazing how often I read the people getting so worked up about these articles saying; "None of this matters! It's pointless", well then pay no attention if thats how you really feel, instead of getting all angry and calling everyone else 360 fanboys, you hypocrites.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 15:18

  • spudsbuckley #38 2 years ago

    The 360 is definitely better in most cases but it's by so little that it just doesn't matter.

  • M_of_the_sys #39 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    Sounds like fanboy talk to me. :p

  • Calgon #40 2 years ago

    Haha very good. ;)

    Seriously though I really get the feeling Richard is a PS3 fan more than anything sometimes and I can't see how anyone can say these articles have ever been biased.

    If you think it's unnecessary then that's more understandable but if it's not important to you don't read it, is it really worth the high blood pressure over something thats apparently not important?

  • Rodchenko #41 2 years ago

    The only one who is writing entire novels about it is you, Calgon. Pretty much everyone else is rather relaxed.

  • Calgon #42 2 years ago

    Hahaha yeah sorry mr cool... errm, I mean Rodchenko!

    Yeah! :D I didnt see it before, this thread is like soooooo laid back man, I can feel the good vibes now, thanks for setting me straight man! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 15:33

  • Beek4257 #43 2 years ago

    @lord: the wrestling image is a little on the fruity side

    That video almost looks ... erm ... romantic?

  • GamerG #44 2 years ago

    Excellent article, its good to see that the PS3 is catching up to the 360 although I guess we will never see 360 level quality of AA.

  • Gaol #45 2 years ago

    I never had any issues disconnecting with Battlefield on PS3.. did anyone else? Seems a bit anecdotal, I remember hearing more complaints on 360 at launch.

  • spudsbuckley #46 2 years ago

    i had the exact opposite problem with BF1943. I couldn't get it to connect at all on the PS3 no matter what i did but it connected first time on the 360 version.

  • Bilbo_bobbins #47 2 years ago

    @ Gaol,

    Yes I get disconnected every 27mins. I time it and it happens everytime. Told EA and DICE, and they both ignore the problem.

    @ Mark1412 #20

    I don't read them, I go straight to the comment page to give my opinion on the fact there is no techno talk in this, it's just comparing pictures. The only difference in every video is the contrast, plus the PS3 has better shadows/light physics. Role on number 1 million and it wont be any different.

  • themorganator #48 2 years ago

    I do really enjoy these reviews but the gap does seem to be closing. Certainly the 360 has shown a clear advantage over the course of the reports (albeit a slight advantage in some cases), but I do feel limiting these reports to the graphics only is selling them a little short. If people have both consoles and want to know which version to get, these reports should also review other elements such as, for example, their online features.

    That will highlight the major differences between the consoles and show a clear choice for perspective purchasers.

  • fizzyfish #49 2 years ago

    Contrast and colour saturation seems generally a bit higher in the 360 vids (especially noticed that in the Assassins Creed II video earlier this week), making them a bit clearer and Sega-sky-blue friendly (see Battlefield video). Does it usually differ between platforms like that?

  • muscleblade #50 2 years ago

    So its 21-0 for the 360.

  • Atropos #51 2 years ago

    The 360 will always have an advantage on multiplatform titles, since it's easier to program for and therefore it's the only economically viable console to use as a "base". Fair play though, Microsoft have MADE the 360 easier to program for. Still, I have played Uncharted 2 and I very much doubt anything on the 360 will ever, ever match it.

  • ronuds #52 2 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound

    What a surprise for you to say the PS3 version worked better for you! :p

  • GreyBeard #53 2 years ago

    The main thing that stands out to me in all these face-offs is that the better the game is, usually the closer in quality the port.
    Its the stuff that isn't particularly good on the 360 (*cough* G.I. Joe) that tends to stink on the PS3.

  • Retroid #54 2 years ago

    @evilfoxhound: Any connection issues with BF1943 weren't to do with Live as the game uses EA's own servers.

  • onyxbox #55 2 years ago

    I don't doubt the 360 for the most part out performes the PS3 on these multiplatform games... but it's good to see that Developers have closed the gap to just a slight bit of extra AA here and a bit less tearing there. There was a time where PS3 owners really got shafted in Multiplatform titles... now the differences are hardly noticable.

    If articles like this help badger the industry/developers into reaching parity on multiplatform titles then good on 'em.

    :-D

  • bing #56 2 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound

    I would rather listen to these 'experts' than someone who's every post has some kind of anti MS/360 comment.

  • messiahtj #57 2 years ago

    So, this useless shit at the end means: Multiplatform games 360 > PS3; exclusives PS3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;>>>360???? I already know that!!!
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 17:37

  • Lord_Gremlin #58 2 years ago

    So sick of this M$ fanboism on this site... Compare exclusives, everybody knows that the best-looking version of multiplatform game is a PC one.

  • ziggymon_g #59 2 years ago

    Personally as long as there isn't a serious problem concerning either console version, such as for example the poor port of Lost Planet on the PS3 or issues that can affect the game playability on either console Id rather just enjoy the game on whatever version released and leave these comparisons in detail to Digital foundry articles looking at individual titles. Such as the Ridge Racer 7 1080p article.

  • Oceans1999 #60 2 years ago

    If the idea of this is to help people make an informed decision as to which multi platform version to get, I wish they would give simple verdicts like:- Too close to call, buy it on the 360 or Hands down winner, etc to each one.

    The way this is presented seems to suggest a flaw that one console has over another when we know exclusive software designers from both platforms make better looking and technically superior products than the diluted and processed multi platform titles that are cut, snipped and tidied on minimal budgets to get the product out the door and earn it's keep.


    Which of the two platforms works in the most similar way to the PC using the least amount of work to get running well? 21 rounds tell that tale.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 17:42

  • onyxbox #61 2 years ago

    Which of the two platforms works in the most similar way to the PC using the least amount of work to get running well? 21 rounds tell that tale.

    In a nutshell, that's it.

  • Retroid #62 2 years ago

    I really have to agree with that post;

    Single-format owners have always missed out.

  • Calgon #63 2 years ago

    Oceans1999 after 21 rounds do you think that excuse still holds up? 360 is a pure console, it shares alot of similarities with the PS3 too... which is why sometimes even when the PS3 is the lead platform 360 has come out on top. Both benifit from a parellel processing approach, thats streamlined and well managed.

    I do agree though, that perhaps multiplatform titles should have parity when the consoles are so evenly matched, but to blame devs for absolutely every shortcoming than admit the hardware does have its disadvantages too is just naive. Also perhaps Sony should learn from this gen and finally listen to what the devs have been telling them, rather than making excuses up for themselves or blame the devs. In the end there was no reason it had to be so difficult to program for when you put both consoles up against each other.

    Coding for the Xbox360 without the PC approach(i.e. not making design and coding decisions that are based on making as much of it as recyclable as possible to save time, rather than making it as optimal as possible) should be the way to go on that platform, to get the best performance too. So while its easier to get good performance out of the Xbox360, that doesn't mean they've been getting the most out of it either, I doubt you'll get that on a multi-platform engine for either console.
    Edited by 5 at 15/09/09 @ 12:37

  • Spekingur #64 2 years ago

    @Lord_Gremlin: Wait what? Compare exclusives on each console? So something on the lines of "Yes, Uncharted 2 looks superior on the PS3 than on the X360. That's is largely due to the fact that it's only coming out for PS3 and thus not playable on the X360" - hmm?

  • Calgon #65 2 years ago

    Retroid aye there's wisdom in it, it's just a shame it's come from a PS3 troll with absolutely no integrity to speak of, no doubt heard it from someone else and deffinately not in a position to talk about biases.

  • byron_hinson #66 2 years ago

    Thought the disconnection problems on BF1942 were actually on the Xbox and i've certainly never had any problems on the PS3 version and I got the game on launch day.

  • spudsbuckley #67 2 years ago

    I really have to agree with that post;

    Single-format owners have always missed out.

    Consoles are so cheap now it's purely idiotic fanboyism that stops people from enjoying everything on offer.

    If you're the least bit serious about gaming as a hobby you can't be a single-console gamer.

  • bing #68 2 years ago

    @EFH
    Just because someone owns different consoles dosent mean that they are the voice of reason and can't be biased towards one over the other.

    Regardless if you may or may not own a 360, doesn't change the fact that the only time you mention MS/360 is to say something negative. Give it a break, it's boring.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 18:29

  • Alkeno #69 2 years ago

    Nice to see that most decent PS3 multiplatform games are getting a good job done. Until now the rule might have been play multis on the 360 'cause they look better. Now there is a good chance many people will just get all multis on PS3 'cause the less you heat up your 360, the better ;-)

    The bad part of this multiplatform equality is that face-offs are getting less interesting to read as there is little to be said.

    The good is that Richard can now do fewer VS articles and more technical analysis and developer interviews (much more interesting to me, and usually end up with good threads from which we all learn).

  • Calgon #70 2 years ago

    Thats what I don't get, this Face-Off was pretty much good news for PS3 fans, reading the article suggests devs are more consistently acheiving parity(or there abouts) on multi-platform games and there are still people crying and claiming bias.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 18:28

  • zazamak #71 2 years ago

    @ incencere_Dave who said

    "It's almost as if Sony were lying to us about the PS3 blowing away the 360 graphically once developers had got the hang of developing for the PS3..."

    Lets make one thing clear. Sony are not liars. They aren't responsible for the quality of multi platformed titles!
    This is only down to the game dev team and the fact that the development is marginally different for developing ps3 titles

  • Lemming81 #72 2 years ago

    After reading several of these I've come to the conclusion that EG just don't like the way PS3 handles its textures. I could understand if they really did make a difference, but it really doesn't.

    This is purely subjective stuff for the most part (the odd game, like The Orange Box or Ghostbusters, clearly are a different matter), and I don't see the point in bothering with a face-off at all if they are always going to go 'well, Xbox has the slight edge cos you know..the PS3 method of smoothing we don't like'.

    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 18:39

  • BillyBrush #73 2 years ago

    You miss out a lot not having all the consoles, this is very true (currently i don't own one of the three home consoles, that being the PS3)

    but owning them does not suddenly make you impartial, it does not make your views correct, and in your case Mr Foxhound it does not make you any less of a Sony blinded retard

    That to me, is one of the most annoying things that people looove to spout, that because they own both of these their views are correct & impartial...i've owned plenty of consoles in my time, from BBC micros to Amigas, Dreamcasts, PSones and Twos, and i know...know, that the Xbox i own is a bloody good games console...so...i won't rip into the PS3 (it's probably fantastic), but if someone wants to talk complete and utter bollocks about how bad they think the 360 is, and they think they're correct because they managed the amazing feat of spending their income on both...well...let's just say that doesn't go that far with myself..

    DF's analysis does go a bit further, because he's using some you know, actual kit, that he's bought/EG have bought, to do some actual analysis, where his favourite toy discussion is pretty much kept out because...he actually has something analysed...to talk about.


  • wez_316 #74 2 years ago

    Why is it apparently to be assumed that the PC version will always win in a 3 way comparison?

    There are some games that are worse on PC than consoles believe it or not. Quite a few actually. Obviously a game that is built using a PC based engine such as Unreal or id4 is going to be better on PC.

    A game built from the ground up on consoles and ported over to PC with a slapdash attitude will perform worse on PC no matter how hard it is for some people to comprehend that. It's already happened time and time again. Have any of you ever played FIFA on PC recently? Clearly not.

  • BillyBrush #75 2 years ago

    Trust me foxhound, whatever choice of consoles i make does not dictate my actions.

    If i had no consoles i would still look at your posts and think you were a cock

  • EuroStalker #76 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    You a 360 fanboy then!?!

  • BillyBrush #77 2 years ago

    @Foxhound

    What i'd suggest, is in future, just come along to articles and say

    'Personally i like playing on my PS3 the best, it's my favourite, regardles of little technical differences here & there'

    Because, that's what you really mean, and no one's going to have a problem with that...we ALL have our favourites. At the moment i'd say 0 people have not worked that out already (or maybe the one, being yourself).

    ...Imo you're not going to get that far by 'testing' both versions yourself and thinking anyone's going to rate that above DF's stuff...but hey well done buying BF1943 twice, i'm sure EA are happy with that.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 18:58

  • Calgon #78 2 years ago

    @EuroStalker Nah Im a troll hater mate. ;) I do prefer the Xbox in general(everyone will in general favour one over the other) and tend to stay in the relevant sections more often than not. Take a look at his post history, he's holding up false values, he doesnt have much objectivity at all... even less so than alot of single console owners, now thats the real irony.
    Edited by 4 at 14/09/09 @ 20:27

  • Loghorn #79 2 years ago

    Calgon has a point in his #39 comment. If people can't take the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen!

    Facts are the 360 graphics, hardware, & multiplats are much better than the PS3's, & it has been proven time & time again. It's funny how the PS3 fanboys keep talking about things like "Eurogamer must be 360 fanboys;" "They must be paid by Microsoft;" "There's no point to these articles;" "They're very biased", etc., & all of this other rubbish when things don't go their way. Should FFXIII somehow comes out running & looking better on the 360, they will cower in fear & go back to their usual nonsense rants.

    "But, but, but...teh cell!"

    LOL.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 19:03

  • El-Dev #80 2 years ago

    "Facts are the 360 graphics & hardware is much better than the PS3's"

    Really?

    You must only read the face offs from DF, or is this the "non-existant" MSDF or AFXG(according to donnie) coming out in force.

  • TopKatt #81 2 years ago

    Heeere's donnie!

  • Calgon #82 2 years ago

    @ Loghorn

    I think you missed the point of that post, it wasn't to goad PS3 fanboys it was just to say stop bloody moaning about the articles being pointless(i.e. not interested? don't read it) and claiming bias where there hasn't been any(unless they think the equipment is lying to him).
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 19:10

  • BillyBrush #83 2 years ago

    @Log & El dev

    none of us can prove which machine has better hardware...teh cell is clearly a more powerful CPU, and the Xb may well just pip the RSX in the GPU dept. (who cares if they both have shedloads of good games which they do)

    But either way, 99% of us with a heartbeat have our 'favourite'...mine is the 360 over my Wii and i can't really comment on the one i don't own.

    ...to me though, anyone shouting bias for no reason, and anyone thinking they 'know best' because they own 2 consoles and a shitload less kit than Richard Leadbetter, can take a long walk off a short peir

  • Calgon #84 2 years ago

    Evilfoxhound you lying b@st you were in the F3 article trolling like nobodies business just the other day(and that was full on trolling) and it's not the only example Im sure of it. As I said no integrity, I'll gladly take that back if I see you practice what you preach.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 19:14

  • Calgon #85 2 years ago

    No you were full on trolling it was a 360 article(nothing to do with PS3 or GT) and thats a poor excuse, not to mention talking absolute bollocks in some instances, you went beyond just stating you weren't impressed with the video.

    You ARE a fanboy! Dont delude yourself into thinking you can convince anyone you aren't, you lose.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 19:18

  • Loghorn #86 2 years ago

    Really?

    Yes, seriously. It has been proven for about nearly 3 years ever since the PS3 first arrived. If the cell was truly more powerful, then why doesn't it show it in the majority of multiplats, besides exclusives? Plus most of the multiplats on PS3 (& some on PSN) happens to suffer from one or more of these things below.

    1.) Games running in 30Hz instead of 60Hz.
    2.) Laggy Online.
    3.) Screen tearing.
    4.) Framerate Drops.
    5.) Awful texturing, shadowing, or lighting.

    I can go on & on. Plus any exclusive that the PS3 has, the 360 can do them as well, as well as push out the same kind of graphics (or even better) in less development time & money.

    You must only read the face offs from DF, or is this the "non-existant" MSDF or AFXG (according to donnie) coming out in force.

    I don't just read face-offs from DF, but for all others (except for IGN). Lens Of Truth was being pretty biased in giving out the vote to the PS3 version of Batman: Arkham Asylum, because they forgot that the 360 version has AA, better shadowing, less jaggies, etc., & they probably did it because of the Joker exclusive content & that they felt sorry for the PS3 version of the game being gimped.

    [link url=http://misterslimm.wor dpress.com/360-vs-ps3/xbox-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off- results/
    ]http://mi sterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-...[/link]

    Just scroll down.

    No one is coming out in force here.
    Edited by 4 at 15/09/09 @ 23:10

  • BillyBrush #87 2 years ago

    @Fox

    ''Just because I prefer PS3 games and don't like many 360 exclusives, does not make me a fanboy. It's just personal taste. ''

    Now you're getting somewhere...we can work with this...

    It's Ok to have favourites, as stated...we all do, the only peice of the puzzle is...just be upfront about it...see myself, i clearly like my 360, and i do not mind anyone knowing at all, or indeed labelling me as such...and if i have a go at their playstations, then they are pretty well entitled to put me straight

    ..Soo...less trying to play 'mr impartial' whilst making biased posts (because 'impartial' and 'bias' make bad bedfellowes), and from now on, you can hopefully happily be letterboxed as....someone who likes his PS3 the bestest.

    Then, everyone's happy

    How you ever thought anyone would take you as a down the middle commenter whilst using the mantle 'foxhound' is beyond me though...it's there in big bold letters, statement of intent...and finally, after all these posts, all these years, all these arguments, admittance of having favourites...liberating stuff.


    *i am just ripping the piss now kiddo, you will of course have spotted the heavy dose of irony delivered above*

  • Calgon #88 2 years ago

    Oh it was all a joke... "it was just a joke see that wasn't real trolling, just false trolling for a laugh"

    :/ Yeah sure. Im far from worked up, I'm pretty sure everyone else has you down as a PS3 fanboy too, so it's amusing seeing you carrying this out like it will get you anywhere.

    Listen the point is, the concept of owning both consoles means you get the best of both world is right(if you have the time and what not)... what isn't right is that owning more than one console means that you're any less biased than someone that owns just a single console. This is flawed logic, thats what people are telling you, there was absolutely no irony in it because it was true. You can still be mad about Sony and own a 360, you can still have anti-xbox/ms sentiment if you own a 360 too and vice versa for the PS3... you are just playing games on it you aren't sleeping with it. I hope! ;)

    Bias can be seen without even knowing which consoles a person owns more often than not(if it's strong enough), its all in your behaviour, not what you own.
    Edited by 3 at 14/09/09 @ 20:29

  • GreyBeard #89 2 years ago

    @Loghorn

    The problem with your position is that there are several exclusive titles that clearly stand out as performing significantly better graphically than any multi-platform title on the PS3.

    If the PS3's hardware is so lack-luster, explain the fancy stuff that Killzone2 or Uncharted2 does ?

    The best PS3 titles graphically hold their own against the best 360 titles. The situation isn't that black and white.



    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 19:26

  • Goodfella #90 2 years ago

    Fuck me, we have another contender for cock of the year in Calgon. You repeatedly spout off at others for being so called fanboys when you're clearly guilty of being far worse.

  • GamesConnoisseur #91 2 years ago

    Colour me GREEN!

    I m multi platform owner but have always been more favourable of green than blue, I dont pretends to be full on rainbow! I did love purple but it gone by the wayside and orange was great but killed far too early in its infancy by the upstart blue!

    Red is more for kids but loving the Ms Aran's epic trilogy at present!

    Green is a good colour and its speak to you of Earthness and Blue try to drown the world in the rising tide of Blueness but it doesnt compare to living on the Good Green Earth!

    Rainbow pretenders...... you may deny.. but you are sometimes seen by others to be more visibly blue, green or red, dont hide it but flaunt your favourite! Instead just try to convince people why one colour is more fun than other but respect them for their choice all the same!

    UP the Forza 3 its the game that makes me drolls more than GT5 BUT having said that I m getting so wet thinking about PSP GT!

  • Calgon #92 2 years ago

    @BillyBrush

    We've been had... it was all a trick to show us we're wrong and he's right. Wow what a great guy this fox fella is for showing us mere "xbots" the way.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 19:55

  • Calgon #93 2 years ago

    Goodfella you've been doing alot of that yourself... fella! ;) Infact Im getting deja vu you're always one to pop up and put the xbots in their place arent you?... noble sir.

    Glass houses eh?

    Listen the "EG has 360 bias" "these articles are shit" milarky is what is getting old, much more so than the articles themselves and Evilfox really doesnt have any place speaking on bias. I really am sick of PS3 trolls showing up in 360 threads so thats why I comment on "fanboys" so much, it is sadly part of the whole gaming scene and it will probably always be something that you have to put up with on gaming sites such as this.

    You dont have to like it though and you can point them out for the trolls they are to shut them up momentarily(till the next time). If thats being guilty of far worse fanboyism then you have some strange values IMO. I've no problems at all with most PS3 fans who just enjoy their gaming and the site and let others do the same.
    Edited by 2 at 14/09/09 @ 19:54

  • BillyBrush #94 2 years ago

    Rainbow pretender...i like

    This stuff...is basically akin to saying 'i'm not a fan of anyone, but Chelsea are much better than Arsenal'

    Any football fan would tell you, that's a rather girly state of affairs.

    What we should do...is arrange a big meeting via text and email...let's say outside CEX rathbone street, and conduct a massive PS3 Vs 360 running battle in the street..

    Think how much fun that'd be...now that's living

  • Goodfella #95 2 years ago

    @ Calgon

    Just post any pathetic, over-zealous pro PS3 or anti 360 comments I've ever made and I'll be on my way. If you can find any.

    You're being a collosal, defensive cock, plain and simple and I'm merely pointing it out, not that it needs pointing out mind.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 20:07

  • Calgon #96 2 years ago

    Goodfella bollocks you defend people who are clearly trolling 360 threads and you're defensive of the PS3 yourself.

    edit: A quick glance at your post history(I'm not going to spend too much time on it) and I can see a few examples of you arguing with what you'd deem to be 360 trolls on PS3 topics, so you agree trolls are annoying fools but only when they are trolling the PS3 threads? Interesting!

    Also in closing all of this has been a waste of time really because it can be summed as:

    * The articles arent biased nor are EG(anyone saying that has bias themselves IMO).
    * If they aren't interesting or important to you don't read them.
    * Evilfoxhound is far from impartial, owning both consoles doesn't mean there's no bias.
    Edited by 5 at 14/09/09 @ 20:23

  • ronuds #97 2 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound
    "What would I gain from lying? Christ, the paranoia of the users here is sad."

    Yes, I'm paranoid that it might be true someone had more issue with a 360 version of a game, over the PS3 version. Because I'm 12 years old.

    No, my point was that you almost never have anything even moderately good to say about the 360 or its games, so to see you -- of all people -- claim they had more problems with a 360 version of a game (when it's hard to believe you even own one), is something I'm sure all of us could have guessed would have happened. It's likely the reason why almost all of your comments have some sort of negative rating.

  • BillyBrush #98 2 years ago

    @Goodfella

    Don't be so hard on him, he's admitting he likes one the most, and that's the most important step to true enlightenment, not as the misguided fox beleived, merely owning more things..

    Oh & MGS coming to 360 story...Mc evidence

    Goodfella
    14/05/09 @ 10:01
    ignore poster | #31
    0
    ^^ MGS4 came out last June, where did you get 2 years from?

    Anyway, about time there was a decent game on the 360, if it's true. ;)


    ...anyways, nothing wrong with that really, you like you're PS3 the bestest...and 360 got in on the MGS action going forward...bonus all round!

  • Calgon #99 2 years ago

    lol Donnie please stay off my side, Im not in the business for trolling or any of that business if I can help it.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 20:35

  • EmiliasHorse #100 2 years ago

    Interesting article. Like it says there is very little difference which version you buy, so for multi platform owners it is a simple choice of which company most deserves the royalties.

    As for the comments thread, disappointing. Lots of willy waving fanboy ranting without any funny moments. 3/10

  • eiocreative #101 2 years ago

    People who think these articles are a waste of time and then bother to express so are tools! Why shouldn't they be compared? The 360 and PS3 compete for the same buyers and it's important to know how you can expect the MAJORITY of games to perform on the system you choose.

    Should we not compare the performance of cameras because they are both 12MP or anything else for that matter?

    It's clear the PS3 often has issues with cross platform games. Without articles like this I would have no idea and therefore couldn't pass that information on to friends who are considering one console or the other.

  • ronuds #102 2 years ago

    "Multiplat games can't be used to compare hardware quality"

    I also believe this is rubbish. 3rd party games make up probably around 95% of the software available on consoles. Why would I use the 1 or 2 offshoots to determine the overall quality of a piece of hardware? "Oh, it's "capable" of something better, but rarely delivers on that." That's going to do me a lot of good.

    Besides, it's not like the 1st party games are head and shoulders above the competition. Some "arguably" look a "little" better, and that's about the extent of it.

  • Cider-X #103 2 years ago

    /presses ignore button several times

  • IneptPercy #104 2 years ago

    It all comes down to what you want to play, if most of the games you want to play are multi platform the 360 is probably the better option, if you really want to play the PS3 exclusives buy a PS3, if you really want the 360 exclusives buy a 360.

    It really is debatable if killzone/uncharted etc could be done on the 360, with enough time and money put in you could get very similar results, likewise I am sure you couldn't get gears 2 works on a PS3. Basically in both consoles exclusives play to that platforms strengths and it would be hard for the other console.

    Lets just face it, neither console is going to leave the other in the dust they are pretty much the same, most things past that come down to personal opinions which will vary, if they didn't life would be dull.

  • darc #105 2 years ago

    "everybody knows that the best-looking version of multiplatform game is a PC one."

    Yes, but if you want that to be true for more than a few months at a time, you'll spend so much on video cards that you can own both a PS3 and an XBox 360. PC gaming is for masochists - I know this because I am one. But I'm in recovery right now.

    That said, Overlord II on the 360 was just about unplayable IMO. I can't believe how the reviews completely glossed over the lurching framerate.

  • Beek4257 #106 2 years ago

    I love Sony for telling me backwards compatability is sooo 2007 and UMD is no longer the future.
    I love Microsoft for fixing my 360 at no charge .EVERY.SINGLE.F'ING.TIME. it RROD's on me.
    I love Nintendo for all the cool devices I've got stashed ... somewhere.
    I love face-offs for the inevitable console-lovefest in the comments sections.

    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 22:38

  • TRUTH #107 2 years ago

    What was so great about Killzone 2 ?...VERY VERY LINER!...the explosions sucked, the AI did nothing compared to Halo's or even F.E.A.R; they don't free think as Halo's, they don't change method of attack when a commander is killed or attacked, they don't switch weapons in real time as in Halo or opt to shoot from gun turrents by making there own individual decisions (it's all scripted in KZ 2). They don't use vehicles unless it's scripted in KZ - and that sucked!!! They don't make mistakes in mis-throwing grenades or attacking there own in heated battles, hardly any environmental real-time damage in KZ - unless it's scripted, only approx 9 at most characters onscreen at once in KZ (give the illusion of more by respawning out of sights when characters die)...Halo had a hell of alot more with better and less predictable AI, also more effects as in gunfire + bigger explosions with more realtime damage, with larger playing area; unlike KZ liner follow the path. Also the vehicles that battle along side the fights in Halo that are not scripted and 100 times better then the silly vehicles in KZ2. And please explain where exactly does KZ2 graphics and gameplay surpass any games out there ? Far Cry 2 looked better on 360, Halo 3 was doing a hell alot more then what KZ2 was throwing around on screen, GoW 2 still does more then KZ 2, CoD 4 on 360 looks better too...Also if you play the game (example 1st section in the trench before the bridge explods) KZ2, you'll notice pre-scripted events only happen when you reach certain points on the map. You can pass them and then go back - and nothing happens; it just keeps respawning characters untill you start to move forward - this happens alot.

    GT 5 - no proper damage, the Ai still seems to suck, and now almost 5+ years in developement - this is the best PS3 can do!...Also Uncharted - again what is so special in the graphics ? ... It's a decent game, but not the way PS3 owners keep blowing there own trumpet about it (I bought this hoping to surpass anything 360 could do - I was fairly disappointed about the fact that the graphics were nothing beyond already ou there (on 360 Assassin creed looks better) and also that it was fairly liner with hardly much exploration. The game sagged towards the end to - a good game, but again over hyped by Sony.
    Edited by 3 at 14/09/09 @ 22:05

  • EuroStalker #108 2 years ago

    It's all well and good the Xbox 360 having better multiplatform games but most of them are rubbish to play. The irony is that people saying the games on Xbox 360 are better would never buy the average calibre of games any way. And vice versa for PS3 owners.

    What matters are the big games like GTAs, CODs, Tomb Raiders, FIFAs etc. Going by those, the PS3 more than holds its own. Add in games like LBP, Killzone, Uncharted, GT5, Ratchet & Clank, Wipeout etc. the PS3 clearly has enough quality and variety to easily match the Xbox 360 even though it was released an year later.

    What's the point of caring about how great Madden looks if you're never going to play it. It's like watching someone else in a threesome and then banging on about how amazing it was.

  • TRUTH #109 2 years ago

    Uncharted, GOW, Wipeout HD, KZ 2...So what so special about these games that 360 can't handle ?...Got all 3 (GOW not out yet), and not single game has displayed anything that the 360 can't do - or i believe surpass. You seem to simply call games that you simply think look good and are exclusive to PS3. The fact is they are good looking games, but, nothing ahead in any way...I have both consoles and can confirm that.

  • ronuds #110 2 years ago

    "I always say "when someone can show me a game as good looking as killzone 2, uncharted, resistance, infamous, mgs4 on the 360 then we can talk"

    You should probably stop saying that. :p

    Infamous and Resistance? Seriously? I can see how you may think the others are great looking, but I don't think you've ever seen a 360 game if you honestly believe it has no games as good looking as Resistance and Infamous.

    And looks really aren't everything, nor do they mean much towards the quality of a piece of hardware. It's really a very shallow way of trying to determine quality. Where there are good looks, other corners were probably cut - such as in Uncharted you have a limited FoV or the fact that some of the textures are very blurry. No game is perfect top to bottom and it's in Sony's interests -- with all the talking they did -- to make their games look as good as possible, so my guess would be that they'd ask their developers to focus on looks moreso than MS might do with their devs. If the PS3 were really and truly more powerful than the 360, I would think 3rd parties would be exploiting that power by now, like they did with the original xbox over the PS2. The "PS3 is hard to code for" excuse just isn't going to fly for much longer. It's been 3 years already.

  • TRUTH #111 2 years ago

    360 has better online gaming, exclusives, exclusives game add-ons, and exclusive XBlive games Trials HD, Shadow Complex, Gta Lost & The Damned, Portal, Rez HD, Ikugurka etc etc...Best multiformat games, better controller, and hasn't got that dreadful HOME - soooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooow - that's probably why!

  • EuroStalker #112 2 years ago

    Well, guess what. That's your opinion. I've a 360 also and Gears and Halo weren't any thing special that I hadn't seen on the PC or even for that matter on PS3.

    By the way, I did not mention GOW. But imagining things can always happen to those who want to jizz over their games console. However, you did miss LBP. There is definitely nothing like that on Xbox 360. That I know.

  • ronuds #113 2 years ago

    We can argue over which has better exclusives until next gen...

  • monkeywithnoeyes #114 2 years ago

    3yrs on and the weaker hardwared 360 is still edging the ps3 in every multiplatform game. A real noticable difference in Call of Juarez too

  • drinkability #115 2 years ago

    Tip - set your PS3 to output to 720p only when playing FN4.

    The default software scaling from 720 to 1080p blurs everything badly.

    At 720p, everything looks much crisper even when your TV scales it back to 1080p

  • Ka-blamo #116 2 years ago

    Racecar backwards is Racecar

  • SAH1977 #117 2 years ago

    So after all this time the definitive conclusion is-

    A/ Poor multi platform games generally look far better on the 360.

    B/ Good multi platform games generally look similar on both consoles.

    C/ Exclusive games generally look better on the PS3, i.e GT5 vs Forza 3.

  • electrolite #118 2 years ago

    So after all this time the conclusion is what a lot of us could have told you 3 years ago-very few people give a fuck about high-def gaming. Gaming lost its mind in 2005 thinking it could drive hi-def take up. Fucking idiots and their even more idiotic geek supporters have given the industry back to the simplistic minds at Nintendo. Well done you nerds.

  • electrolite #119 2 years ago

    Rule 1 of buying a console - plug into my TV


    I'm scared that a lot of people who purport to have some insight on the industry don't understand this most
    basic of concepts

  • Spekingur #120 2 years ago

    Again, how are you going to compare games that are exclusive to one console to an exclusive game on the other console? No true comparison can be made.

    And semitope, your opinion remains your opinion. There is no sense in trying to beat your own opinion into the (mostly unwilling) masses of the internet. Might as well go teach a cow how to talk Old English. Probably be faster too.

  • r4z0rbl4d3 #121 2 years ago

    Multi-platform games always compromise. Time, money and size of staff affect the games much more than dedicated titles, where focus is on one of the platforms. The only purpose these Face-off's serve are really what the different teams/developers had to work towards. Xbox 360 and PS3 are very different platforms, demanding much knowledge and man-hours to develop on. To make the games so similar despite of this is an achievement in it self. I own both consoles (as well as my dust collecting Wii) and they are really different in every aspect.

  • JahB #122 2 years ago

    360 has better online gaming, exclusives, exclusives game add-ons, and exclusive XBlive games Trials HD, Shadow Complex, Gta Lost & The Damned, Portal, Rez HD, Ikugurkab

    lolwut?

  • Beek4257 #123 2 years ago

    ^^It's an XBOX exclusive Egyptian meat-dish. Tasty.

  • M_of_the_sys #124 2 years ago

    There's nothing like a 360 vs PS3 face-off to bring all the fanboys out from under their rocks.

  • cianchristopher #125 2 years ago

    This semitope guy has it half-right and half-wrong.

    First of all, Resistance is not a graphically good-looking series of games. It's fuctional at best! And considerably worse looking than Gears of War.

    Killzone 2, though, *is* the best looking shooter on consoles to date. That is true. Gears of War 2 comes close, but Killzone does edge it.

    MGS4 is absolutely not one of the best looking games on either platform. It's not even at a HD resolution, 1024x768 upscaled is what it is. That means its not as good looking as a game which runs well and looks great at 1280x720 (like Killzone 2 or Gears of War 2).

    The best looking PS3 exclusives are Killzone 2, Uncharted, WipEout HD and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. They all look great!

    The best looking 360 exclusives are Gears of War 2, (erm) Gears of War 1 and (I dunno, uh) PGR4?

    I guess the bottom line is.... yes the PS3 does exclusives better. But, the fact is the 99 out of 100 multi-platform games look and perform better on Xbox 360. That's not just shit games like GI Joe, but quality ones like:

    GTA 4
    GRID
    BioShock
    Orange Box
    Street Fighter IV
    Fallout 3
    Dead Space
    Skate
    Resident Evil 5
    Assassin's Creed
    The Darkness
    even simple games like Guitar Hero fer chrissakes

    Even today, 3 years after it's launch, PS3 owners are still a bit worried that their versions are cut down compared to the 360 versions. Over in the forums, the thread marked Need for Speed SHIFT, you see people asking questions like "any word on how this runs on PS3?" etc.

    This wouldn't happen the other way around. It just wouldn't happen. You won't see people on the Modern Warfare 2 thread asking "how does this run on Xbox 360?"..."is it as good as the PS3 version?" etc.

    One last thing, I gotta say fair play to the guys at Criterion for Burnout Paradise. The game looks stunning on both platforms (with the very slightest edge to PS3) and it runs at a full 1280x720 with anti-aliasing at 60FPS. An astonishing achievement and hands-down the greatest example of cross-platform parity I've ever seen.

  • IneptPercy #126 2 years ago

    ""everybody knows that the best-looking version of multiplatform game is a PC one."

    Yes, but if you want that to be true for more than a few months at a time, you'll spend so much on video cards that you can own both a PS3 and an XBox 360. PC gaming is for masochists - I know this because I am one. But I'm in recovery right now. "

    As I pointed out to a mate who wanted 1080p gaming but wasn't sure due to this same arguement.

    In basic terms if you build a PC which is better than the 360/PS3 now it will remain better, you don't have to keep upgrading or buy top end parts. The thing is if you are playing games on very high now it might be high a year from now and medium 2 years from now, but with that that game running on medium will still be better than the 360/PS3 just not as good as a top end PC.

    For the budget of both consoles you can easily build one which is better than them both, another arguement is how much did the non-gaming PC your are sitting at cost? basically instead of a basic PC and console(s) you can have a very good PC.

  • Darren #127 2 years ago

    @IneptPercy - The focus on console games means that there is now far less need to constantly upgrade your PC these days as even a modest £400 dual-core PC with a mid-range graphics card is capable of giving the current console a run for their money with practically every multiformat game out there. Sure, there's the odd demanding games like GTA IV (poorly optimised anyway), ArmA II or Crysis but those are far outnumbered by stuff like The Sims 3 and other console ports which run well on a broader range of hardware.

    Personally I think it's a good thing. Console games don't exactly look ugly anyway but they do suffer from irritating (IMO) issues like sub-HD resolutions, screen tearing, weak anti-aliasing, poor texture filtering and low framerates (depending on the game) so it's nice to have the extra breathing room on the PC to make up for those deficiencies.

  • SeesThroughAll #128 2 years ago

    Took a quick look at the article... It yielded the results anyone who's been paying attention for the last 3 years would have expected. After 22 "rounds", perhaps it would be a better idea to make a detailed article that talks about the distinct and common features and hardware designs of both consoles. Someone who was voted down already mentioned that some games only support 7.1 surround on the PS3, and this kind of often forgotten information is relevant for some people (not most, I agree, but still). Personally, I would like to read to read such an article.

    Took a quick look at the comments... Just as predictable. Carry on, gentlemen.

    Edited by 1 at 15/09/09 @ 12:17

  • Spekingur #129 2 years ago

    @semitope: But then you are comparing games, not consoles. That's not the same thing. It's basically comparing Super Mario on SNES with Sonic on Sega. You'd only get the correct results by comparing Super Mario on SNES and Sega to see if there are diffirences between consoles. Comparing exclusive games reveals nothing other than that the diffirences between game developers.

  • Spekingur #130 2 years ago

    @semitope: Yes, you are. You are comparing game and choices of diffirent game developers - even if you don't want to recognise it. It's not the same thing as comparing the same game on diffirent consoles and seeing what choices the same developer made between each console for the same game. So comparing Killzone 2 with Gears of War 2 will never give you any accurate console comparison because those aren't the same damn game.

  • TRUTH #131 2 years ago

    donnie080208

    Assassins Creed - though a average (spoilt by game samey gameplay) on PS3/360; it did look a lot better then Uncharted (very Liner and with poor close up textures). Even the animation in AC was better, with the world being alot more open and cluttered with things. This esp shown on the 360 version: better coloring depth - distance draw - textures - framerate - all looking better on 360, and the game graphics are better then Uncharted. Even Ghost Recon II on 360 (PS3 played and looked worse) looks ahead then Uncharted.

    Also PS3 go on about GT5 - by playing GT Prolong (I downloaded it!) - Dirt 2, NFS Shift (from what I've seen), Forza 3; seem to look just as good if not better then GT5 - also doing alot more onscreeb too (Physics, car AI, car model damage, game content etc); and these games did not take 5yrs to develop - imagine if they did!!!!

    Some of the best games: Bioshock, Half Life 2, CoD 4(I hated this personally!), Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 5, GTA, Dead Space, Fallout 3 (after the graphics upgrade free patch on 360), Fight Night 4 (I playing right now - PS3 version borrowed), UFC...etc etc all look and play better then PS3. And even though they are multiformat, they do surpass PS3 exclusives, such as the way overrarted graphically and very basic fps Killzone 2 (read my previous comment why this game is an trick on the eye). And with Assassins Creed II, Bioshock II, the new Ghost Recon all pusing graphical capabilities further - if PS3 surpass 360, then I'll admit PS3 has a better graphical capability - so far nothing has proved this.
    Edited by 2 at 15/09/09 @ 18:39

  • monkeywithnoeyes #132 2 years ago

    comparing killzone 2 to gears 2 is foolish. How can you acurately compare games that are in two different genres? you may as well compare GT5 with Halo 3 in an attempt to prove some sort of valid point.
    Gears 2 isnt even the best looking 3rd person game on the 360..let alone the best looking game out full stop. Resident Evil 5 is a visually more impressive game than Gears 2 in my opinion.. especially on the 360 which once again holds the sharper version at a more rock solid frame rate.

  • TRUTH #133 2 years ago

    RE 5 - Better textures and lighting too!

  • Spekingur #134 2 years ago

    You can compare certain aspects of how a game is progammed and how a developer has decided to go with something like bloom effect, AA effects, details of textures, etc. - but you will never be able to actually compare the consoles through a single-console exclusive. That just means you are comparing the wrong things and comparing developers rather than the consoles.
    These Face-Offs are also just comparing developer programming decisions with each console - so they aren't really comparing the consoles, much rather comparing the tools the multiplatform developers had/have within their grasp or knowledge.
    And that's the purpose of the Face-Offs, to see the diffirences of the same game on each console. The purpose of comparing mutually exclusive titles is therefore void.

  • Spekingur #135 2 years ago

    So, wait. You much rather want the Face-Offs to have mutually exclusive games so the PS3 will "come out better"?

  • TRUTH #136 2 years ago

    But multiformat games are infact some of the best games out there -exclusives on each console doesn't mean there fantastic games (Killzone 2 - perfect example), and are usually over hyped by fanboys on showing the best graohics on taht console (again Killzone for example - read comments on 101-150).

  • TRUTH #137 2 years ago

    YES I do have killzone 2 - I play online occasionally. If you read my comments on page 101-150 on why KZ 2 is nothing special - you may agree is simply a very basic fps with a fresh coat of paint and almost (remember 1st being showed at E3 early 2005) 4yrs(+) development time!...You can even play me online, when I bother with it (deepchord - I'm usually on Teken 5)...So I can confirm my point that PS3 is nothing above 360, which, I also have & do believe is a better gaming system.

    KZ2 was sooooo scripted, had shitty explosions, no more then a few characters onscreen (re-spawn only when one dies), Ai was nothing compared to Halo's & even FEAR's free tactical thinking, vehicles were just crap and silly minigames sections, it was simply follow the path/corridor into next square room, AI if you play only really hide or retreat - no risk taking, jumping over things to get to higher points, or individual thinking/panicking/weapon changing/forming attack/jumping in-out of vehicles out choices made by Ai decision making (it's mainly all scripted in KZ)...and when you consider that event only happen when you reach certain points & are a scripted set piece (the bridge blowing up in 1st level, the 8th or 9th on corridior on left etc etc)with hardly interaction, you see how most of the game is an illusion and looks good, but, is not as advanced as PS3 fans make it out...It's a very liner box/corridor game with a nice lick of paint. After playing GoW 2, CoD 4(360 version lokked better), Halo 3 (may not have better graphics - but is throwing around alot more onscreen, in realtime, with more damage, vehicles and characters onscreen + effects, not forgetting bigger battles etc); plus others - KZ 2 is nothing special.
    Edited by 3 at 16/09/09 @ 15:59

  • M_of_the_sys #138 2 years ago

    Wah wah wah.

  • Godhather08 #139 2 years ago

    Multiplatform games look similar on PS3 and X360. PS3 exclusives clearly outshine anything on console today.

    Even Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looks better than anything released on X360 so far. Games like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Gran Turismo 5, God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 look better than anything on X360. Yeah, X360 often has better AA, but AA doesn't make a game, it's all the other stuff with physics, lighting, praticles, the amount of stuff going on on the screen, and last but not least the gameplay the make a great game.

    AA only helps make the game look a bit smoother, but the SPU's and the Cell allow for more gameplay enhancing features, and effects that involve the player more. Just look at Killzone 2, no console game comes even close, except for Uncharted 2.

  • Spekingur #140 2 years ago

    Sure, buddy.
    You might actually be featured on Penn and Teller's show, you know. Especially when listing unreleased games.

  • gorf #141 2 years ago

    oh dear not another ps3 /x-box power comparison. soon as u get into double figures of anything its time to give up. once was interesting but now incredibly yawnsome. come on eurogamer time to move on. I bet the guy thats doing this is dying to write about something else by know. whats he done to really piss of the editor
    Edited by 1 at 17/09/09 @ 12:24

  • TRUTH #142 2 years ago

    KZ 2 (graphically and gameplay both overrated) probably look better on 360. Also I remember Sony/PS3 fanboys saying Virtua Fighter 5, Assassins Creed (both were originally PS3 exclusives)..could not be done on 360. Sony boasted about this - and guess what on both games the 360 surpassed them (graphically, framerate,drawing field etc)...Assassins Creed surpasses Uncharted fairly easily in graphics esp on 360 (though the game is samey). MGS 4 - it's gameplay graphics are not that special at all.
    Edited by 1 at 17/09/09 @ 19:51

  • Loghorn #143 2 years ago

    AC was a PS3 exclusive at first.

    Nothing on the 360 comes close to killzone 2 graphics (even exclusives) so I am inclined to believe him.

    Whatever you say there, pal. Plus about MGS 4 not optimizing the Blu-Ray's space, I think that it did for umcompressed sound. Not to mention that MGS 4 isn’t even ran in Real HD, it was only ran in 1024 x 768 (with temporal 2xAA).

    [link url=http ://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
    ]http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...[/link]

    There are also many multiplats that are in Native 720p on the 360 much more than the PS3.

    Edited by 1 at 18/09/09 @ 09:01