Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 22

By Richard Leadbetter Published 2 November, 2009

Tekken 6, DiRT 2, NFS SHIFT, Brutal Legend, Il-2 Sturmovik, Operation Flashpoint.

Wow, so many games, so much to write about and so little time to cover absolutely everything. It's fair to say that the office is almost literally dripping with code, and there's simply not enough manpower to dissect it all while maintaining regular Digital Foundry duties. So, with this month's mammoth 22nd Face-Off, we're covering six of the best and the most interesting of the recent releases, with the aim being to take a look at the rest over a series of smaller-scale DF blog updates as and when time permits.

As usual, the words are backed up with a battery of comparison shots, and pristine quality h264 videos too - all derived losslessly from the HDMI ports of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. In a slight departure from the presentations of past, the cropped 632x500 vids are now history. They did the job admirably before Eurogamer TV transitioned to HD, but with full 720p at our disposal, the old-school videos seemed somewhat superfluous to requirements.

The full 720p presentations are now embedded into the article itself in a similar manner to the DF Bayonetta demo showdown: simply press the full-screen button in the player to get the full effect, or click through using the EGTV link to get a larger window.

Onto the games then, and the selection this time around offers plenty of great talking points:

All things being equal, you can expect Face-Off 23 with a fresh batch of "holiday season" games in December, but make no mistake: November's going to be a packed month. First up, there's some prestige triple-format coverage for Gearbox's recently-released Borderlands, before the focus shifts to SEGA's excellent Bayonetta. After that, all bets are off as the Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed II behemoths roll into town.

To be frank, it's gonna be epic. Be there.

Many thanks to Digital Foundry colleagues MazingerDUDE and Alex Goh for their inputs into this feature.

Il-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey

Even if you have little interest in the hardcore PC simulation from which it's derived, there's still much to enjoy in the console renditions of Il-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey, be it the truly impressive visuals, the vast variety of missions or the sheer attention to detail.

Curiously, the dogfighting element has much in common with Ubisoft's much-maligned but curiously entertaining Blazing Angels series, with a button-press camera that centres on your opponent and allows you to bank towards him relatively easily. It's a great mechanism that Ubisoft bizarrely left behind when the Angels development team moved onto HAWX.

Conversion-wise there have been some interesting decisions taken with the regards the two versions. Developer Gaijin Games appears to have been hell-bent on achieving platform parity in terms of the games' looks, and you can see how successful it's been in this video:

Gaijin Games deserve some kudos for the level of detail it has achieved on both platforms.

Il-2 crams in a hell of a lot of detail. Indeed, the primary focus of the developer seems to have been on maintaining the highest possible image quality at all times, while at the same time ensuring that the two versions look almost completely identical. Both games run at native 720p, but once again there are different approaches taken in terms of edge-smoothing: the usual 2x MSAA on 360 and the almost as ubiquitous quincunx on PS3.

So, bearing in mind that the latter technique often leads to a reduction in texture detail, how come the two versions look almost completely identical? It appears to be the case that once the MSAA is resolved on the Xbox 360 version, a subtle blur filter is added that seeks to emulate the look of the QAA on PS3. In this case, the game is so detail-rich that there doesn't appear to be any deficit in overall image quality - it's a great looking release.

However, there are some differences elsewhere that are notable. The lighting scheme on 360 features a bloom effect when you point towards the sun that is curiously absent, or at the very least significantly dialled back, on PS3. Perhaps more relevant in terms of a purchasing decision is the performance level. That focus on the very best image quality possible has some serious ramifications for the frame-rate. Both versions can drop frames badly, and both tear too.

In terms of the overall amount of frames pumped out, measurements seem to drop as low as 14FPS (!) on both systems when things get really, really busy - i.e. just when you need the visual and controller feedback the most. The Xbox 360 game appears to be capped at 30FPS max, while the PS3 version is completely unlimited - our "personal best" was close to 50FPS. However, this comes at a cost of some absolutely horrific tearing (over 50 per cent of the PS3's output consists of torn frames). It's also present to a far lower degree on 360, but barely noticeable, so that would be the version I'd choose personally.

Tekken 6

Quite often we talk about sub-HD resolutions during these face-offs, and usually when one version is running with fewer pixels than the other it is an obviously noticeable bad thing. Tekken 6 is the exception to the rule, and one of the most intriguing cross-format games we've studied in depth for quite some time. On the Xbox 360 at least, you can choose between sub-HD (1024x576) and a native rendering resolution of 1365x768. All you need to do is choose whether you want motion blur active or not.

The PlayStation 3 version of Tekken 6 on the other hand is sub-HD regardless, although you do get bonus anti-aliasing added if you forego the blur, and you don't get that on 360. The full ins and outs of this bizarre situation can be found in this earlier DF blog post, but suffice to say, Tekken 6 goes to show that in very, very rare cases, image quality isn't always just about the resolution. Tekken's additional texture filtering actually gives the sub-HD look on both platforms the edge over the 360 version when it's running in excess of 720p.

For the purposes of the face-off, we'll be sticking to the game's default graphical modes. That means it's motion blur all the way for the comparison video.

Gameplay comparison of Tekken 6, including both one-on-one fighting and Campaign Scenario mode.

While the actual graphics and game content are basically identical across both platforms, Namco does deserve credit for acknowledging and making use of the additional storage offered by the Blu-ray disc format. A lot of the multi-platform releases we cover in the Face-Offs usually fit quite nicely onto a dual-layer DVD. Not so with Tekken 6: the game is a whopping great 20GB up against the more usual 6.7GB of the Xbox 360 dual-layer DVD. So, with an additional 13 gigs used up, where has it gone?

The answer is fairly obvious: Namco has provided two different encodings for its video content depending on the platform. The DVD gets less bandwidth for the video, and a correspondingly lower quality. More than that, on some of the videos (for example the Tekken timeline recap at the beginning of Scenario Mode), frame-rate has been upped from 30FPS on 360 up to 60FPS on PS3.

Probably the most noticeable difference between the two games comes down to the handling of the pre-rendered movies which make use of the Blu-ray's extra storage space.

It's really nice to see some kind of acknowledgement for the storage capabilities of the Blu-ray disc, but it should be stressed that the differences are not hugely significant in the greater scheme of things. Increasing bandwidth on video encoding introduces a law of diminishing returns: doubling the bitrate doesn't double the quality. But regardless, having seen so many games appear in these features with inexplicably lower video quality on the PS3, seeing Namco take the time to make its impressive CG all that it can be is a refreshing change.

There's also another nice touch: similar to Namco's Soul Calibur IV and Ridge Racer 7, PS3 owners get the ability to install the crucial game data to hard disk to speed up loading times. Around 3GB of space is required, and while the install is optional, it's highly recommended because the loading times on both Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are something of a drag.

Gameplay-wise, as someone whose gaming career has encompassed every single Tekken released game to date, I have to admit that it's difficult to find much enthusiasm for what Namco has handed in here. Don't get me wrong - there's very little to choose between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, they're effectively as good as one another, but the palpable lack of innovation is beginning to grind.

The Tekken series used to be an accessible, special-effects fuelled alternative to the more po-faced, ultra-hardcore Virtua Fighter series, and for that we loved it. However, from Tekken 3 onwards the game's focus appears to have narrowed and narrowed - each sequel effectively a revised version of the last with very little in the way of progression, and new features that only the ultra-committed enthusiast is going to get excited about. The refinements and new elements are great for the series' long-time fans, but the actual gameplay itself hasn't really moved on that much. It feels old and moribund, even with the graphical facelift.

Soul Calibur IV managed to get away with the same approach with the inclusion of a powerful, fun character-generation system, but Tekken doesn't even have that, with a customisation system that is pretty limited in comparison. Instead, Tekken's approach has been to pave the way for cheap comeback KOs via the new Rage system. It's also "borrowed" the multi-level stages from Dead of Alive and, um, let you bounce your opponents off the floor for further juggle combos that you can do nothing about if you find yourself on the wrong end of them.

All of this, combined with the clumsy-to-play and graphically quite ugly Tekken Force element (aka Scenario mode) makes this something of a disappointing release. However, if you like the old-school Tekken approach to the fighting game, it's difficult to argue that you won't "get your kicks" from this one - it looks better, the additional fighters are actually new and interesting, all the characters are unlocked from the beginning, and in a genre so bereft of support from the major publishers, Tekken's arrival does feel oddly comforting.

Colin McRae DiRT 2

Codemasters' reputation for quality racing games certainly hasn't been diminished with the release of Colin McRae DiRT 2. Long-term fans of the series' hardcore rallying routes won't be too chuffed with the mainstream direction DiRT has been taking of late, but I tend to see Codemasters' progression more of a case of expanding the possibilities of the game while taking advantage of the sheer processing and graphical power available to them. Maybe it's an approach the Tekken team should consider.

At a cursory glance, there is little to tell the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions apart, aside from what you might describe as a 'hazier' look to the PS3 code (more on that later). The actual gameplay experience is pretty much exactly like-for-like, and the all-important handling model that Codies has honed to this level across three console generations is just as good on both machines.

Minor image quality advantages and less tearing give the 360 version the edge, but away from the technical differences, the overall look and feel is very close indeed.

The overall achievement is made all the more impressive bearing in mind that there are a few technical and performance-related differences, as I talked about in-depth on the Digital Foundry blog when the demo was first released. In every way these differences favour the Microsoft console, perhaps most noticeable when it comes to the issue of screen-tearing. Both games make a good fist of sustaining 30FPS, but the PS3 code is far more prone to tearing.

The original blog post discussed how the tearing was there in the level chosen for the demo and easily identified with our tools, but in the process of actually playing the game the impact was mostly negligible. Tear location and (by and large) the lack of lateral movement worked nicely in combination to make the issue almost go away in many cases. So how does the full game measure up? Pretty well, actually, with only the tightest of circuits seeing a breakdown in image consistency. The London and Japan tracks in particular can tear pretty badly, but it is interesting to note that even the Xbox 360 version is affected in the many of the same places, albeit to a lesser extent.

As with the previous EGO engine game, Race Driver: GRID, there is also a different approach taken to edge-smoothing on the two versions. In the case of DiRT 2, the Xbox 360 version gets full-on 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) whereas the PS3 version uses a 2x quincunx solution. Regular readers will know that the AA solution here is a close match in terms of edge smoothing up against 4x MSAA, but will also know that the downside of this is that the entire texture has detail blurred.

It can look good, but it can look pretty atrocious. With regards DiRT 2, it actually works pretty well and this is mostly down to the artistic style and the way in which the EGO engine's effects are deployed. There's an emphasis on realism here with a fine use of use of motion blur to make the game feel smoother than 30FPS. Combine that with a colour palette that naturally dampens the worst effects of edge-aliasing and the QAA solution employed here actually works pretty well.

Overall then, DiRT 2 is highly recommended on both platforms. There is still a performance advantage in playing on Xbox 360, but in the case of this game, the technical measurements aren't hugely relevant. As the same tech is almost certainly likely to power the forthcoming official Formula 1 title from Codemasters, hopefully we can look forward to an equally good game there too.

Need for Speed: SHIFT

PlayStation 3 owners haven't been particularly well-served with Electronic Arts' efforts in bringing the Black Box-originated Need for Speed titles across to their platform, and last year's NFS Undercover offering was one of the most unfortunate conversions I'd seen for quite some time. It was effectively a textbook example of how not to convert to PS3, factoring in its pared-back scenery and crippled frame-rate.

Black Box got the boot and it appears that the core NFS titles are being developed on a rotating basis within EA. Burnout legend Criterion is hotly tipped to be handling the 2010 game (so no worries for PS3 owners there) while debut studio Slightly Mad Studios is on development duties for this year's more Gotham-lite SHIFT. It's been described as the best NFS title since 2005's excellent - if technically flawed - Most Wanted, and the good news is that the welcome quality boost extends to the level of care and attention afforded to the PlayStation code.

The PS3 game's bonus bloom doesn't really compensate for the unwelcome blur, and higher degree of frame tearing.

It's interesting to note that there is much in common here with DiRT 2 in terms of the quality of the conversion. Xbox 360 commands a noticeable lead in terms of the overall image: just like the McRae game, it is rendered with full-on 4x MSAA, whereas the PS3 game uses a slightly rougher 2x MSAA solution. Where things get slightly odd is that Slighty Mad has sought to address the deficit but introducing a blur to the PS3 game to provide additional edge-smoothing. It's very rare that these work out, and SHIFT's image quality suffers a touch as a result. It's curious that the developer didn't use the more typical quincunx AA solution which would have still invoked blur, but would've at least given a more pleasing form of anti-aliasing.

Otherwise, it's a very sound conversion with just a few oddities that separate the pair. First up there's the rather exaggerated bloom that has been added to the PS3 version. Quite why this has been dialled up is any one's guess; it doesn't really add anything to the game. It certainly doesn't disguise the fact that the PS3 game tears more, and drops to lower frame-rates than its 360 equivalent when the engine is under load. Finally, the Sony platform undeniably enjoys a significant loading advantage over the non-NXE installed Xbox 360 version, but this is mostly down to the 15-minute 3GB mandatory install.

This is probably one of the most annoying installs of recent times, mostly down to the fact that the progress indicator seems to be based on the some kind of arbitrary calculation that has nothing in common with the amount of time you can expect to be waiting for the file copying to be complete. All looks good until you get to the 90 per cent mark, then progress slows to a crawl as you wait for it to finish. It's at times like this that having the option to install becomes far more valuable.

Brutal Legend

One of the most consistently entertaining games released recently, Brutal Legend's game environments and basic concepts are so far out there that it practically demands a strong engine to realise them all effectively. The good news is that the tech is more than up to the challenge, and aside from a number of small performance differences, the game more than holds its own on both HD console platforms.

Take a look at the comparison video, and it's fairly evident that any superficial differences are effectively a non-issue.

There's clearly a very cleverly designed engine in play here, with Double Fine's solution capable of producing excellent visuals in both a streaming linear fashion as well as in an open-world environment. The fact that this is the team's first game, and that the conversion work between the two console formats is so good, is another excellent sign of things to come.

Only a handful of minor graphical and performance differences separate the two versions, though the 360 game is the more solid performer.

Yes, there are differences, but they are slight on a technical level. To the human eye, performance between the two versions is very, very close indeed. First up is resolution: both versions run at detail levels slightly below 720p. My Digital Foundry colleagues peg the Xbox 360 version at 1200x720, while the PS3 game is slightly lower at 1152x720. The reduction in horizontal resolution does serve to amplify the jagginess and both versions seek to lessen this somewhat by applying a very selective blur. Essentially the edges only are targeted, leaving texture detail levels intact. It's definitely a superior solution to the more frequent technique of simply blurring the whole frame-buffer, but it's still no match for proper MSAA.

Otherwise, in terms of performance, the two games operate very closely indeed. Both aspire to run at 30FPS, but both will drop v-sync in order to do so. The tearing is noticeable and more likely to occur on PS3, but the percentages are low enough that overall image quality is not unduly impacted. Frame drops under 30FPS are possible, and again, the PS3 will drop lower, but it's not a deal breaker. Other than that, aside from minor, almost indistinguishable differences in terms of texture filtering, shadowing and reflections, there's nothing to tell these two games apart, aside from the PS3's 1.5GB mandatory installation, which yields little, if any, advantage in terms of shorter loading times.

Overall then, this is accomplished work from the Double Fine team.

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

While purists will bemoan the mainstream approach taken with Il-2 Sturmovik, the self-same champions of hardcore PC gaming are unlikely to find much to fault with in this particular first-person shooter [oh I wouldn't be too sure about that chap - Ed]. Even in the default, "regular" difficulty setting, Operating Flashpoint: Dragon Rising is as hard as nails. Flashpoint is true to its roots: brutal and uncompromising.

It's just a shame that the same level of zero compromise has not been extended to the quality of the PlayStation 3 version of the game, which is undoubtedly one of the worst I've looked at this year:

Dragon Rising isn't exactly a graphical star on 360, but the PS3 game is undoubtedly inferior in comparison.

Things don't look so bad on Xbox 360. It's hardly a game rich in diverse detail, but the graphics do their job well enough - it's native 720p, the 2x MSAA works nicely, and there's no real sense that you're being visually short-changed in any way: it's solid. PS3 on the other hand is a world apart from what is seen in the Xbox game. Environmental foliage is significantly pared back, texture quality likewise. The result is a release that looks significantly sparser on PlayStation 3. This wouldn't be so much of an issue were it not for the other indignities the graphics have had visited upon them for their trip across to the PS3.

In many senses, the game looks sub-HD on the Sony platform, but actually it isn't - it is indeed "proper" 720p based on our measurements. Quincunx anti-aliasing combined with lower-quality textures explains why the visuals are significantly blurrier, but only up to the point. Weirdly, and astonishingly, it appears that an additional, subtle blur filter has been added on top. Texture filtering has been downgraded too, resulting in a very ugly look on ground textures in particular.

The final insult concerns the level of screen tear visited upon the PS3 version. Yes, it's there on Xbox 360 but once again it is barely there at all, and difficult to detect by the human eye even when it does manifest. On PS3 it is effectively your constant companion; however, it's impact is offset by the relative slow pace of the game. Fast motion makes tearing much more evident perceptually, but there isn't much of this in Flashpoint, so in that sense the game feels a bit more solid that it actually is.

Regardless, factoring in all the compromises and downgrades, this is one to avoid for PS3 owners.

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 (129) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Retroid #1 2 years ago

    Marquess of Queensberry rules, please, people.

    :)

  • CaptainScarlet #2 2 years ago

    Yawwwwwn! what a complete waste of time these articles are.

  • Physically_Insane #3 2 years ago

    This shit dick measuring article still going? FFS.

  • klem578 #4 2 years ago

    @ Captain scarlet : So, remind us why you're here exactly?
    Don't like 'em ? Don't read 'em , simple as that mate...

    For multi-platform owners these articles are pretty nice and informative regarding on which version you're going to spend your moolah.

  • gilroyneil #5 2 years ago

    So non PS3 exclusives suck? Who knew? ;-)

  • mingster #6 2 years ago

    We want faceoffs for Dragon Age Origins and MW2 including PC version as it will probably be the winner.

  • Hypercube #7 2 years ago

    @klem578 - I find there's two types of people who read these face-off articles. Those who want to read about platform differences and perhaps use the information to make a choice, and then there's the other type where it's all about making themselves look big (and, mostly, a bit stupid) on the internet.

    It's usually self-evident which ones are which! ;)

  • Physically_Insane #8 2 years ago

    /looks at horses hoofs

  • Shinetop #9 2 years ago

    So, Brütal Legend is Double Fine's first game? I wonder who made Psychonauts, then.

  • Moonprince #10 2 years ago

    Would be an idea to get pc in these too as given the choice between 360 and pc I'd like some reference...

  • siro #11 2 years ago

    Moonprince: That doesn't make much sense, as on PC, it depends on the hardware provided and in game settings. Also, it will always look much better with the right hardware.

  • bad09 #12 2 years ago

    I'm with Moonprince, now PC is my first choice on Multiplatform I'd really like to see how it shapes up against the console versions.

    Although I suspect that might be difficult as there are so many different hardware options and varying performance results for PC.

    Edit - Siro beat me to it!
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 13:53

  • Geordiemp #13 2 years ago

    Only Brutal Legend is of any interest here for me, so toss a coin for xbox or ps3..

    Nothing really AAA or interesting....

    Note if GT can do 1080 P and 2 x MSAA at 60 FPS using SPU's, then its obvious the 2 other racing games here are optimised for PC. You would think EA and codemasters would be optimising for Xbox and Ps3 by now...
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 14:09

  • scorpius45 #14 2 years ago

    They should bring sound quality into these comparisons.

  • cianchristopher #15 2 years ago

    Very nice DF, very nice. Keep up the good work!

    I've got OF:DR on PC, and I'll be buying most of my multiplatform games on PC from now on.

    Looking forward to the Borderlands triple-face-off (hopefully Modern Warfare 2 will get one too!)

  • sparkymark75 #16 2 years ago

    Bit weird why they would lower the quality of the 360 image on Il-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey to match the PS3.

  • Whizzo #17 2 years ago

    the self-same champions of hardcore PC gaming are unlikely to find much to fault with in this particular first-person shooter

    /splutters in amazement

    Flashpoint is true to its roots

    Ok now you're taking the piss, you are joking I assume?

  • HermitArcader #18 2 years ago

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

  • Gazza_UK #19 2 years ago

    Really annoying as a ps3 (only) owner, when developers just don’t cut it when porting. I know the 360 will always have a slight advantage on the best of ports, but OP is just stupid, similar to the Orange Box a while back I guess.

    Plus, you guys, who either take the piss, or overly protect the ps3, are just embarrassing. Everyone knows what ps3 exclusive titles can do, enjoy them rather than bitch about them.

  • GamerG #20 2 years ago

    Once again proving if you want to see the best on multiplatform releases generally you need to go with the 360

    Well done to MS for coming out with a console a whole year ahead of Sony and still matching it and even bettering it in terms of performance

  • Dave52 #21 2 years ago

    So, kinda same old same old... I can't tell the difference between any of them with the exception of OF-DR. Conclusions to draw: PS3 is a bitch to code, but most developers are getting better at it.

  • SeesThroughAll #22 2 years ago

    It's also "borrowed" the multi-level stages from Dead or Alive

    While I agree that Tekken is not famous for innovation, this is factually wrong. Multi-level stages actually are coming back from Tekken 4. Nothing to do with Dead or Alive.

  • GamerG #23 2 years ago

    @Dr_Strange

    yer, if you dont want to put up with the hassle that is PC gaming

  • rare_uk #24 2 years ago

    Was that Michael Jackson in Tekken? Looked like him

  • Moonprince #25 2 years ago

    siro - Yeah, crossed my mind as I wrote it but having said that, majority people have a PC in some form and it wouldn't take much effort for Eurogamer to fix up a comparable PC to PS3 / 360 (surely the average cheap PC from shops meet / exceed that standard)??

    Not that big a deal for me really, just a passing comment as given the choice, I usually go PC.

  • JackyB #26 2 years ago

    shit

  • Geordiemp #27 2 years ago

    "Most developers do not have the budget"

    Chicken and egg, maybe if they put more effort into the titles, they would get more wolrd wide sales, and hence a bigger budget

  • jimboton #28 2 years ago

    I agree with posters above, this face offs should really be 360 vs PS3 vs Pc whenever possible.

    Also, it would be great if you started taking input lag into account, that article DF did a while back on the subject was very promising..

  • muscleblade #29 2 years ago

    Tekken 6 and Brutal Legend isnt even availaible for PC.

    I wouldnt dream of playing them on one even if they was.



  • GamerG #30 2 years ago

    @Dr_Strange

    No I am not, I'm talking about keeping on top of the latest hardware and having to play around with settings to get thrings running at a decent clip.

    I have a dual core PC with a 4850 graphics card and I expected the performance to be in excess of my 3 year old 360 which i'm not entirley sure it is because games stutter and I see more screen tearing than I do on my 360. I reckon if he played around with the huge amount of settings on the games i'm sure I can make it better but I always end up powering the 360.

  • j-bo #31 2 years ago

    Geeez, what a dull and uninspiring bunch of games - it's amazing how given all the top notch games I am excited about, not even one of em featured here.

  • chessboxer #32 2 years ago

    @ GamerG

    Maybe the problem you're having is to do with Catalyst drivers rather than an actual hardware problem. Catalyst drivers are notoriously shit.

  • GamerG #33 2 years ago

    @Dr_Strange

    I'm not lying at all, I have 2gb of Ram and am running windows 7 RC, I think my problem is my processor which is a Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 2GHz because it only cost me £40

    I even notice screen tearing on Company of heroes during the cut scenes

    If anyone has any free advice i'm all ears as i'm buying left for dead 2 on PC as none of my mates bought the last one on 360!

  • gorf #34 2 years ago

    and now we have the nO22ps3 v 360 face off comparing the minute graphical differiences between two essentially same pieces of hardware.
    a.what moron writes these articles?
    and
    b.what morons read them?

    C'mon Eurogamer this is lazy, sloppy and more importantly tired journalism. 1/10 for effort.
    Surely there must be something more interesting to fill the pages with...pleeeeaaaaase!

    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 15:33

  • GreyBeard #35 2 years ago

    You guys do realize that developers couldn't give a toss about making two version of a title identical. There's no justification whatsoever to do so.

    Parity in terms of feature-set and gross performance, yes. But the kind of microscopic detail that's DF's stock-in-trade... forget it!

    It doesn't matter which platform you buy, 360, PS3 or PC... they still get paid.

    And as to the accusations of the PS3 "holding back" the 360? That's just daft, I'm sorry.

  • cianchristopher #36 2 years ago

    @GamerG:

    WTF? Why don't you just turn on vsync if you notice screen tearing all the time? Jesus, it's a PC you've got there buddy, the keyword being Personal (Computer).....

  • Machetazo #37 2 years ago

    I am SO glad I didn't decide to get OFP:DR after all, having seen that. In fact, having seen the difference, I think the publisher has a real cheek to be charging PS3 owners the same as 360 players. Though, as I didn't buy it I personally can't get too cross. If I do get Dragon Rising, it'll be some time in the future, at a price befitting the workmanship, AND almost certainly on 360!
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 15:40

  • NGCes26294BIV #38 2 years ago

    Why are PC gamers trolling this comment board? Slow news day?

    We all know that a decent spec PC will outgun a console for graphics, but what's that got to do with a 360/PS3 face off?

  • drumbaby #39 2 years ago

    Love the twisty turning avoidance of naming Tekken 6 slightly better on Ps3 by giving the review again but in miniature. Classic EG :0)

  • schnide #40 2 years ago

    Can we see a Face Off with Modern Warfare when it comes out on Wii?

    Oh go on, purleeeease!

  • Hypercube #41 2 years ago

    No I am not, I'm talking about keeping on top of the latest hardware and having to play around with settings to get thrings running at a decent clip.

    Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 2GHz

    See, that's your problem. You're not on the latest hardware - not even close. I bought an E6600 when Halflife 2 came out, and it's been great from then until now.

    It's your CPU that is holding you back. That's not the PC platform's fault, that's your specific hardware. Upgrade that to a Core2 CPU and you'll be laughing. And that's nowhere near 'latest hardware'.

    Edit: Yes, I know that this has nothing to do with the article! Just replying to another comment, if you feel strongly about it I expect I'll be marked down accordingly ;)
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 15:51

  • cianchristopher #42 2 years ago

    Take it easy Donnie, once you get into PC gaming it's really quite enjoyable! And, unless your game/computer is borked, it doesn't really involve the classic "fucking around with drivers for 5 hours to get it running" that we hear about!

    Mouse-and-keyboard really is an improvement, not to mention the ease at which you can pick up classic older games and have them all on one system! And the mods, they can really add to a game!

    Crysis was an experiment that failed financially, as targetting your game towards computers from 2 years in the future isn't really a wise business move! It won't happen again!

    Plus, the PC is the only place you'll be able to play Starcraft II and Diablo III. They'll be pretty good, I expect!

  • JonFE #43 2 years ago

    @donnie:

    I would edit/correct that "about 20gb ram" if I were you; there's no way your PC has that amount of RAM.

  • Moonprince #44 2 years ago

    lol donnie... lol... smh

  • rotmm #45 2 years ago

    @360_RROD,

    And considering how many times the game crashed at the EG Expo, neither do David Cage's engine programmers ;)


    Oh, and donnie.... shut the fuck up.

  • cianchristopher #46 2 years ago

    Donnie, dunno 20gb sounds like a lot! I think you meant to type 2gb.

    You'd be best off getting someone else to build it for you all right, and if you're serious about it then you should build a whole new system (salvage what you can from your current one, though, like that 2gb RAM, dvd drive, PSU if it's powerful enough, etc.)

    I can't comment on price, but if I had to i'd say you'd need to spend £300-400 to make it really worth your while...

  • NGCes26294BIV #47 2 years ago

    "If you make a real PS3 engine, then you can have really fantastic performances. If you try to port from another platform, then it becomes difficult"

    That's completely true. Totally. However...

    You've failed to grasp the concept that the cost of building an engine on PS3 from the ground up can rarely be justified (financially) for non-AAA titles, due to the limited ROI. The simple fact is that the userbase and attach rate are far smaller on the PS3 - It really doesn't help that it's difficult to port to. That's why so many devs use existing engines like Unreal.

    Think about it - only two weeks after its release Uncharted 2 has already slipped to fourth on the PS3 sales chart, and that's one of the best games of this generation, period. What chance does that give mid-level developers with a limited marketing budget?
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 16:12

  • bad09 #48 2 years ago

    "Tekken 6 and Brutal Legend isnt even availaible for PC.

    I wouldnt dream of playing them on one even if they was. "

    Well OP: F, Shift and Dirt 2 are all on PC as are a lot of the titles in these articles. We all know that with the right hardware PC will always come top graphically, but sometimes games run much better on PC and sometimes PC versions are crap ports, it would be nice to see the differences (like I and a few have said epsecially as PC is our preferable choice of the 3). It would make these articles more than the fanboy fodder they normally sink into.

    Out of interest why would you not think of playing Tekken on a PC? Have you played PC SF4?

  • the_dudefather #49 2 years ago

    egads! the boxer on the front page hit the other boxer so hard it caused blood to splatter all over the flash ads on the page!

  • Darren #50 2 years ago

    Great article as always! It was interesting to read that Tekken 6 makes use of the PS3's BD storage for better-quality videos; that's something I wasn't aware of.

    As for the PS3, it still amazes me hows there's such a big difference between multiformat and exclusive games on the platform, with the former typically looking that bit worse than the 360 versions but the latter often looking more impressive technically (even if it is impossible to fairly compare such games directly for obvious reasons). Take Uncharted 2; it's one of the most impressive console games I've seen this generation and looks far better than anything similar I've seen to date on the Xbox 360. IMO... clearly. ;)

  • Darren #51 2 years ago

    P.S. It would be nice if Richard Leadbetter could bring the PC versions into these face-offs where there's one available. For example, Need for Speed SHIFT and Operation Flashpoint obviously benefit from the scaleability of PC hardware with the former especially looking very impressive at 1920x1200 with 8xAA running at 60 fps.

  • jimboton #52 2 years ago

    Why are PC gamers trolling this comment board? Slow news day?

    We all know that a decent spec PC will outgun a console for graphics, but what's that got to do with a 360/PS3 face off?

    Why are console only gamers so absort in their fanboy console race as to miss the point so entirely?

    This articles are not so you can count how many games run better on your machine vs that other machine.

    Yes, of course most games will run better on the pc. It's still worth seeing if some interesting technologies like Physx or nvidia 3d vision are being used, if they have any impact in the game, see the differences for yourself. what's the matter you don't ever play on the pc so you'd rather not know?

    This is still a multiplatform site.

  • Darren #53 2 years ago

    @GamerG - "I even notice screen tearing on Company of heroes during the cut scenes."

    Screen tearing is a choice on the PC! ;)

    You can easily get rid of it by forcing v-sync on via the graphics driver control panel (game profile or whatnot) or using something like D3DOverrider. While it doesn't excuse games not having v-sync options in the first place, at least you don't have to endure tearing like you do on the consoles. Not one of my PC games has tearing. :p

    The abundance of tearing in console games is the main reason I switched over to the PC for multiformat games. Sucks that PC gamers often have to wait for such games and that sometimes they're barebones ports but in 9 times out of 10 cases they're the best versions even if it's just being able to run them at 1080p without tearing and jaggies!

  • layleeloo #54 2 years ago

    Dr Strange "That's such a cliche reply, PC gaming has never been easier to set up. Your referring to the old 486 PC DOS days!"


    That is such utter nonsense!! I have all consoles and luckily I also have a state of the art £3.5K gaming PC too but im sorry - no matter what you say you can not argue the point that PC gaming is a total pain in the arse bar none. I love my consoles for the exclusives, and I got a PC for its exclusives - Crysis etc. Consoles are great and simple and sometimes I really dont care if a console version is sub par in view of plug and play. I will always buy games on all three platforms on the 360, unless the PC version is so good it makes the other two look like last gen games. But that hardly ever happens. PC gaming-you still need cosntant refinements, driver updates etc. parts upgrades to keep up etc. Its a pain in the arse. However worth it PC's are for its exclusives like Crysis etc then yes true, PC's can NOT be beat or come close too - but you can not compare and even say PC gaming nowardays is "easy". It may be easier than a few years ago but no way would I class it as easy and ive been pc gaming for 25 years. it never has been and never will be. That is why some of us have consoles aswell, to make non exclusive gaming 'easy' becasue as much as I would love PC gaming to be easy, due to the constant tech chasing, upgrades and the link it hasnt been for years, and never will be again.
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/09 @ 16:58

  • IneptPercy #55 2 years ago

    I'm not lying at all, I have 2gb of Ram and am running windows 7 RC, I think my problem is my processor which is a Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 2GHz because it only cost me £40

    My brothers PC is the same,4850, 2gm and a e2160 (1.8Ghz), but we got a better cooler and overclocked the cpu to 3ghz and it runs games at 1360x768 better than the 360/PS3... So get overclocking!

    I do agree PC could be worth mentioning, in my case its almost certain it will run better, but sometimes a conversion can be really bad or controller support can be lacking etc.

    As for the 360 vs PS3 thing, its not much use to me as I don't own a PS3 and don't really use my 360 much anymore but they make an interestin read to me and some people do actually use them to decided which version to buy.

  • layleeloo #56 2 years ago

    Dr Strange

    hahahaha. Fool - more like a PC fanboy who cant see the woods for the trees in view of his keyboard stuffed down his pants. Open your eyes mate - dont be a usual trolling fanboy. I would love you to find ONE person who can make a valid argument as to PC gaming being simple and easy. Just ONE, go ahead, we would all love to hear it.

  • Hypercube #57 2 years ago

    state of the art £3.5K gaming PC

    What? How could possibly spend three and half thousand pounds on a gaming PC? Seriously?

    My second question is why would you spend three and half thousand pounds on a gaming PC? The shop must have some big windows, because they sure saw you coming!

    Three and a half thousand pounds... Oh deary me, I'm still laughing.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:06

  • layleeloo #58 2 years ago

    Hypercube. Surely you live on earth? Then you do know that you can spend £10K on a PC if you want. £3.5 is not a lot. However that included my 32" monitor and everything else - machine itself was 2.5. As for WHY I would spend it, to have the Pinnacle of gaming and if you were a true gamer and you had the money to burn, then so would you my friend. Some games are worth the hastle of PC gaming which is why I and others do it - but Dr Strange's comments of PC gaming being easy these days is just laughable
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:07

  • IneptPercy #59 2 years ago

    "That is such utter shite!! I have all consoles and luckily I also have a state of the art £3.5K gaming PC too but im sorry - no matter what you say you can not argue the point that PC gaming is a total pain in the arse bar none. I love my consoles for the exclusives, and I got a PC for its exclusives - Crysis etc. Consoles are great and simple and sometimes I really dont care a sub par version in view of plug and play. PC however you need cosntant refinements, updates, driver updates etc. Its a pain in the arse. However, worth it for its exclusives true - but you can not compare and even say PC gaming nowardays is "simple". Becasue it isnt "

    You own a £3.5k PC and don't ssem to have any idea.

    Driver updates are monthly at most but I tend to update mine every couple of months and then its a quickly downalod then a double click and some next clicking.

    As for other updates, there is a thing called automatic updates.

    Patches don't always have to be used, yes if you have a problem you may have to hunt it down, but if you use steam as an example it auto patches.

    It is so simple anybody with a basic PC knowledge can do it and with that its not exactly hard work.

    On a side note, how the hell did you manage to spend £3.5k? you didn't go to alienware did you?

  • layleeloo #60 2 years ago

    hahaha DR Strange.

    YOU fail to provide ONE example of modern PC Gaming being EASY. So you can take your claims and shove em with the rest of the fanboy brigade. All formats have their advantages, but PC's being easy - hahahaha its the best joke on this site this year. Ignorance is bliss for you I know.

  • layleeloo #61 2 years ago

    Dr Strange

    Jealousy will get you nowhere my friend. So play your SF4 with the rest of the kiddie brigade

  • Hypercube #62 2 years ago

    if you were a true gamer and you had the money to burn, then so would you my friend.

    Two years ago I built my own PC from all top line components, with the exception of the CPU (no need for quad core with the 8800GTX GPU). Brand new mobo, RAM, SATA RAID, case, modular PSU.

    Total cost? About £800. OK, a 32" monitor would set you back quite a few hundred, but if you've got a £2.5K gaming PC, I'm Pope Splendiferous the First. Seriously, you're bluffing the wrong website.

    Edit: Crikey, my spelling is getting worse by the minute!

    Edit the second: Well, I see that Alienware do indeed sell a 'gaming PC' for £2,899. Having seen the spec however, I really can't see any advantage to spending that much other than having a really tiny penis.
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/09 @ 17:16

  • layleeloo #63 2 years ago

    Fanboy ignorance is bliss is it not? I shall retire in the comfort of "Easy" pc gaming set up hahahhaha. Oh fuck it, I'll use my console instead, I need some sleep tonight. I bet you hated it when they lost trackballs out if mice - you all lost somewhere to shove your dicks into. Open your eyes fuckwits.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:11

  • bad09 #64 2 years ago

    @ layleeloo

    PC gaming is in no way a pain in the arse anymore! Sure older games yes but new games? Most games set themselves up now, hell Batman even told me to update my drivers! In fact I remember in the Batman face-off Richard called PC "the 4th Console" and he's right.

    You could even say it's less of a pain in the arse then the consoles. I can buy a new retail game right now and download it and then and move it from the TV back to the monitor at the press of a mouse button when the Mrs wants the telly! :)
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:13

  • chessboxer #65 2 years ago

    What? How could possibly spend three and half thousand pounds on a gaming PC? Seriously?

    It's very easy. I have a Core i7 975 and 2 GTX 295's. That right there is over £1500. Add in the best X58 motherboard money can buy, a powerfull PSU, large monitor, high end X-Fi sound card, 6GB (or more) of Dominator GT 2000MHz RAM, a Lian Li server tower and a few other bits and the price soon adds up.

  • chessboxer #66 2 years ago

    Some do, I didn't. My TV was purchased soley for the PS3 and it cost a lot more than the CPU and GPU's in my PC.

    I have a 20" 4:3 monitor for my PC which cost me a fair amount when I bought it 4 yrs ago and it doesn't need replacing.

    @ Tyrell

    Crysis demands it. I want this PC to last a couple of years so I got the best hardware, which is what I did with my previous PC which lasted around 5-6yrs (P4c Northwood 3.4GHz).
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:29

  • Hypercube #67 2 years ago

    It's very easy. I have a Core i7 975 and 2 GTX 295's. That right there is over £1500. Add in the best X58 motherboard money can buy, a powerfull PSU, large monitor, high end X-Fi sound card, 6GB (or more) of Dominator GT 2000MHz RAM, a Lian Li server tower and a few other bits and the price soon adds up.

    Well, I stand corrected. But seriously, is the difference that much? Anyway, I'm going home to play on my ancient, single GPU dual-core PC and think about all the money I saved!

  • kendoji #68 2 years ago

    I'm still tempted to get a PS3 for the blu-ray and exclusives, but it's a shame the hardware isn't shining the way most people thought it would by now.

    edit: lol how is this comment neg-worthy??
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 21:16

  • bioreit #69 2 years ago

    Just to wade in on the consoles vs PC argument, seeing as my current gaming credentials are thus:

    3 * Xbox 360s (1 Elite, 1 60GB Pro, 1 20GB Premium);
    1 * 80GB PS3 Phat
    1 * Wii
    4 * PCs (1 'major' gaming rig, 1 HTPC with minor gaming capability, 1 HTPC nettop and 1 netbook)

    Gaming PC specs are:

    Windows 7 Enterprise (thank you Microsoft Volume Licensing); Q6600 - stock cooler and stock speed; 4GB Crucial RAM, 74GB Seagate Cheetah (15k RPM) HDD for OS; Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB HDD for installs; Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 1GB.

    At 1440*900, I get maybe 25-30 FPS average on Company of Heroes DirectX 10 and maybe 20 fps on Crysis - at maximum settings (High and Very High on Crysis). For the cash outlay of that machine when I bought it two years ago (not including the Cheetah in that, seeing as it was a prize at a conference a few months back and the GPU was bought 4 months back), I could have bought, at the time, a perfectly capable dual core, 2 GB Vista desktop, plus an Elite 360 with 12 months Live sub and a couple of games.

    Its gaming performance is undeniably better than that of my 360(s), but I would be hard pushed to say it's been worth roughly triple what I paid for my Elite. And installing and playing games on the PC is still an absolute pain in the arse, especially if you're going down the Steam route, seeing as they're servers seem to drop more often than the FTSE 100.

    For sheer ease of use and convenience, I love the 360 - I work with PCs all day and often only get an hour at most in the evenings to play games. I don't want to spend even 'just' 10 minutes tinkering with anything or heading off to the 'net for a patch or an update to get it working - my 360 updates itself nice and quickly and even new games are being played at most 2 minutes after being popped in the tray.

    PCs have come a long way since I first started gaming on them (Wolfenstein 3D and Dune 2 were the first games for me), but it's still nowhere near as easy and thought-free as console gaming is - although the PS3 does seem to be leaning more towards the PC territory these days...

    My PS3 gathers one hell of a lot dust right now, simply because the last few times I've tried to play games I've had to sit through a console update, then a mandatory game install and then a game update that's all taken anything up to an hour before now!

  • bioreit #70 2 years ago

    @ svd_grasshopper

    Good point reincluding the price of the HDTV when comparing consoles and PC values, but I think people could successfully argue that *most* HDTVs are not bought purely for gaming. Yes, the deciding factor in the new TV is the shiny console, but people watch TV and DVDs on them too, so they get more use than *just* gaming, unlike PCs which tend to be single-user-experience-at-a-time jobbies, least in their traditional form of being on a computer desk.

  • chessboxer #71 2 years ago

    @ Tyrell

    Are you sure about that? Crysis max settings on DX10 and you reckon 60+fps on a single card?

    No chance. You need two cards to do that I'm afraid, especially if you want a minimum of 60fps.

  • Calgon #72 2 years ago

    I dont see that much for PS3 fanboys to feel sore about these days, most of the devs are putting the effort in, its just that some cant(if you dont have the expertise on your team then you're going to have to take more time to learn it =$$$ or you're going to have hire it from elsewhere = $$$)

    Oh and btw for those thinking the "they should build from the ground up for PS3 and it will win" excuse still works, have you forgotten what the ego engine is?

    "Ego is a modified version of the Neon game engine that was used in Colin McRae: Dirt and was developed by Codemasters and Sony Computer Entertainment using Sony Computer Entertainment's PhyreEngine cross-platform graphics engine."

    Now I've said it before but if any console has an "unfair"(not saying thats how I see it I find that attitude ridiculous after all this time) advantage there its the PS3.

    P.S - I love it when PS3 fanboys turn PC fanboy. :D
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/09 @ 18:36

  • des #73 2 years ago

    PS3 loses again...what else is new
    But leave personal opinions outside,nobody cares what you like,just give a decent tech articles,numbers are most important,everything else is just shit.

  • Whizzo #74 2 years ago

    I'd suggest anyone that has SLIed two 295s has either far too much money or is mental.

    Considering Crysis really isn't that great a game throwing 4 GPUs at it is rather daft.

  • bad09 #75 2 years ago

    The thing is all the arguments of PC vs consoles and ease of use etc. are pointless anyway in terms of these articles.

    Many 360/PS3 owners find these articles useful to pick a platform for a particular game (I've done it myself). Whether some of you like it or not the fact is most games are released over all the three platforms and quite a few buy on PC. It would be nice to know the differences (as an example ME on PC does not support a controller if I did not find that out I was going to buy it).

    Whatever your view on PC gaming one side of the multiplatform comparison is ignored here. Which says to me these articles are more about fanboy MS vs Sony willy waving than actual useful consumer information about the best version of a game.

  • Calgon #76 2 years ago

    As for the PC debate, I dunno really if performance was all you really cared about then yeah PC wins and we'd all be PC gamers, there wouldnt be a need for consoles at all. It doesnt work like that for alot of us though.

    I dont think they need to add PC to these articles... it should always be the best version if it isnt you need to upgrade, maybe a seperate PC review of multiformat games is what you are after, theres not much point in adding them to the faceoffs though from what I can see.

    Im about to order a 360 soon and the thought did cross my mind that I could build (or upgrade) a PC that beats 360 easily for the same money and plays better versions of those multiplatform titles, free online too... but:

    a) There are still some exclusive gems that you dont find on the PC; plus MS seem to have realised now there are lots of PC snobs they are missing out on... all they have to do is skip the PC version, they are their exclusives to decide on and without worrying about a PC conversion, better performance can be extracted from the 360(I think most of their early exclusives have been built on engines suited to both platforms).

    b) Free doesnt mean better, Live is as much about the community than anything else.

    c) Some people just prefer the console experience rather than the PC one... deal with it, it has nothing to do with performance on that mark(its the console vs PC experience). You can use a 360 controller sure, but no matter how hard you try and fool yourself, you havent built yourself a super powerfull 360/PS3, its a PC and always will be(i.e a different platform and a different experience).
    Edited by 3 at 02/11/09 @ 18:30

  • chessboxer #77 2 years ago

    @ Tyrell

    That's the card I have (x2) however what they're testing isn't Crysis on max settings.

    When I built this PC, I had one card. Crysis is set to Very High (for everything) and I run it at 1600x1200 with 16xQAA which is much more stressfull than any of the tests shown in the link.

    The framerate on a single card was bad in many of the larger areas of the game and it would pause for a few seconds when I zoomed in using a scoped weapon so I purchased a 2nd card. That made a big difference to how Crysis plays and I don't need to worry about upgrading for a long time so for me it's money well spent.

  • Machiavellian #78 2 years ago

    Chicken and egg, maybe if they put more effort into the titles, they would get more wolrd wide sales, and hence a bigger budget

    I am sorry for how I am going to come off on statement like this but if you do not develop code then you should just be quite. It has nothing to do with effort because developers put in a ton of effort and time to produce games. Everything is depended on Time and money. There is just so much time and so much money that any one developer has and decisions have to be made correctly or they find themselves out of business. As a gamer, the only thing you can conceptulize is that a piece of code is not up to the same level as another. You talk about Uncharted and Killzone 2, GT etc. But look at the development time spent on those games. 3 years for the Uncharted developer to develop their PS3 engine alone. What 3rd party developer has that amount of time unless they are funded to go that extra mile.

    No matter how great a game concept is, if you do not have the funding to workout a new piece of hardware than you have to do what you can. 3rd party developers have tight timelines and schedules. There is only so much time in the day to work effectually and its not like Sony was that much help during most games coming out today. How many times have you heard how weak the development tools, resources and documentation are from Sony. This is really where the big problem is and where you should be putting your blame. Sony has a better attitude today then they had when they first released the PS3 but remember that before today, big time developers like Epic had to have the team of IBM engineers help them to code for the PS3. You even have Japanese developers talk about the tools, resource, documentation and help that MS provides while Sony is missing in a lot of these areas.

    The concept of we build it and they will come doesn't always happen especially when the one platform is last place. You want to put the blame on the developer but the real blame goes to Sony. It was their philosophy to build the hardware but make the developer sweat to learn how to code for it. You want to know why developers are leading on the 360, its probably because they get the tools, resources, documentation and help from MS that helps them shorten their development time, get their game to market faster and help their bottom line. You have another OEM who wants you to figure everything out on your own, forgetting that time is money and tapping their system should be tough just for their 10 year timeline.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 20:33

  • davisorle #79 2 years ago

    So things just dont change. Exce[t Tekken with better quality Vids and like alwyas a use of BR to just also install their games for a worst version... Irony huh.

    @Colossus80 and the rest.
    You need to stop being arrogants. Naughty Dog is a great developer for the fact they created such a great game. I have no reason to deny it, right? You need to understand though that Naughty Dog was working only on the PS3 exclusivly which gives them the advantage to optimize for only a specific platform. If Naughty Dog had started working on making the Uncharted multiplatform they would need way too much time or many extra working force to achieve what they did on the PS3 , which again doesnt mean that the same dedication on the other console wouldnt bring the same results or better/worst.

    @Machiavellian
    At least you are informed and not naive. The man stands correct on the explanation. At least by a 90%

  • Geordiemp #80 2 years ago

    @ Mach,

    Or you could say MS were fortunate enough to put 10 MB EDRAM into the GPU so the effort is done by the GPU, while Sony have gone down the multi-parrallel processing route....By now its not just about the tools...

    Who was right ? Well, both really, I buy the better convsersions on Xbox, and enjoy superior efforts on Sony first party stuff...If sony wanted more commission on multiplats you think they would share some of their engines.....and MS if they were smarter they would do a bit more first party.....

  • ronuds #81 2 years ago

    Machavellian speaks the truth, and you should all listen to him! Even if I just destroyed the spelling of his name. :p

    I'm fairly certain that just about any developer can make a "perfect" game, but doing so would simply be too much money and time. There is a money and time budget for every game made (except Polyphony games :D) and the developer can only do so much with those resources. The "lazy developer" excuse was getting old 2 years ago, but now it's just tired. And if the developers were "lazy" with the PS3 version, I'd think that would be more a reflection of where the PS3 is in terms of importance.

  • mr_goop #82 2 years ago

    Love the irony of a comment about PC gaming being too much hassle leading to two pages of PC gamers arguing over CPUs and graphics cards and drivers and settings and Direct X ...

  • HardCoreGamer999 #83 2 years ago

    For multi-platform owners these articles are pretty nice and informative regarding on which version you're going to spend your moolah.

    ...for me it's not a decisive factor
    gamerpoints , good multiplayer functionality (most of my mates are on XBLive) are.
    I choose only the 1st party games on my ps3.

  • ManicDrunkMonk #84 2 years ago

    "Love the irony of a comment about PC gaming being too much hassle leading to two pages of PC gamers arguing over CPUs and graphics cards and drivers and settings and Direct X ... "

    ^This.

    The PC is a decent platform, but there is no doubt consoles provide a faster more effective way to experience games. It's true that getting a high end PC means you will see the cutting edge in graphics. But I would argue that the best games on consoles tend to come out at the end of their lifecycles, when developers are limited in terms of tech, and have to concentrate on other aspects of a game. This is a period this generation will probably reach in the next year or so.

  • lagorta #85 2 years ago

    Hi,

    I don't understand one thing from Richard Leadbetter. He faced off some Guitar Hero. What about Rock Band ??? Especially the Beatles one ???

    I can't wait.

    Cheers.

  • Machiavellian #86 2 years ago

    I love my PS3, I have two and both were worth the money but what I do not like is the attitude that Sony had when the PS3 was released. I thank MS for showing Sony that you need to provide the tools, resources, documentation and help developers need in order to harness the power of their hardware. I hope that Sony has learned that you cannot put everything on the developer but instead help them. Competition does shape a company and I must say that Sony has responded but Just because some developers are still struggling with the PS3 doesn't make them lazy, stupid or inept, it just means that those developers are still being challenged by the decisions Sony made in the pass that effect the games those developers were able to release now.


  • Loghorn #87 2 years ago

    LOL. I love PS3 fanboys.

    "But, but, but...teh cell! Look at Uncharted 2 & Killzone 2! They look a lot better than any of them 360 multiplats out there!"

    "They must be paid by MS to say that it's better!"

    "MS must've paid off those 3rd party devs to make sure that PS3 versions of games get downgraded!"

    "Eurogamer/Digital Foundry is biased! They're 360 fanboys!"

    I agree with Machiavellian. PS3 fanboys just need to give it up & accept reality that most multiplats will never be better on PS3 & that developers aren't going to be spending a lot of dough & waste a lot of time just to try to get PS3 versions on par with 360 versions, especially when it's still being stuck in 3rd place & that PS3 versions of games really doesn't even sell well compared to 360 versions.

    Heck, I'm surprised that Tekken 6 manages to get good graphics on the PS3 version, considering that they have been working on it for a very long time on PS3. But Namco-Bandai managed to pull off the same amount of graphics on the 360 in less development time & money, despite it being more difficult to program for the 360.

    Better luck next gen, Sony. Your exclusives are awesome, but when it comes to multiplats, it's a no-brainer when it's due to making your console a lot difficult on purpose for 3rd party devs to pull out decent graphics. Don't make your next console incredibly difficult, & you won't have this problem.

    Plus PC has absolutely nothing to do with the 360/PS3 multiplat showdown at all. Not to mention that Eurogamer is not biased, as they check up on every little detail of each game in the book, & more than just resolutions.

  • Loghorn #88 2 years ago

    Oh, look who's here to join in the party!

    Dumbot statement of the year. Between the 3 console fanboy groups honestly 360 fanboys are the dumbest fks around. Guess it makes sense with them buying defective hardware and all...

    I am not saying the ps3 multiplats will be better but damn stop being so illogical with your statements.

    To be honest, Namco-Bandai were the ones who said that it was difficult to work on the 360 version. Don't believe me? Google it up or read articles like this here. Plus stop calling me a 360 fanboy. If you were to read my last post, you would see that I happen to like the PS3 for their exclusives. Not to mention that the newer 360 models are more reliable & that they included a 3-year warranty on both the RROD & the E74 errors.

    Seriously, grow up.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 01:28

  • Badassbab #89 2 years ago

    Semitope can't handle the fact that a game designed on hardware very similar to the PS3 can be higher res on 360 and look just as good. That's gotta hurt if your a fanboy which he very, very cleary is.

  • Badassbab #90 2 years ago

    Of course you don't care. That's why your in here making comments....

  • smoothn00dle #91 2 years ago

    I want MJ in Tekken7.. Love u MJ

    back to the main point, I didn't like this 360vsPS3 at the beginning because it was more like judging the hardware(ps3) but now as it turn out is judging the developer instead... some developers just suck at making multi plat game!

  • Zappa #92 2 years ago

    Sturmovik and Dirt on PS3 has screenshot feature thus is better.

  • Murton #93 2 years ago

    A lot of bashing on the PS3 going here, not unexpected as this happens in all of the "Face Off" articles which are not that informative really, as gamers, true gamers that is, care more for gameplay and whether the game is actually any good rather than its resolution and what kind of AA solution it is using.


    In terms of the PS3 vs 360 debate. It's simply a matter of effort, nothing else. Games are always better when they're tailor made for the platform of release and worse when they're simply ported across, we've seen a lot of really shit ports to PS3 this gen, Fallout 3, Resi 5, Floperation Gashpoint to name 3. We've also seen a couple decent ports in Force Unleashed, Arkham Asylum and Dirt2 but all of these are blown away by the proper, ground up creations like Uncharted, Killzone and Heavy Rain and by the looks of things every racing game on the market will pale in comparison to the much awaited GT5. One could argue it's more about time and money than effort, but I say this, stop churning out sub-par sequels every year and you'd have a little more time to build a decent core engine and secondly you gotta spend money to make money.

    It time for developers to wake up to the only way to create truly great games that actually work on all of the platforms they wish to release on. The 360 is undoubtedly the path of least resistance when it comes to full scale game development, but you only get out of what you put in and currently, very few developers are putting in all that they could be. It is truly a matter of effort and sadly, not every developer truly has the passion for games that they claim to have, this is all too evident in the bad ports we see each and every month and the differences we just saw in the above article.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 08:44

  • Geordiemp #94 2 years ago

    Exactly, Have 2 Ps3 and 2 Xbox 360 (like coop) and 2 gold accounts which I will not renew (2 free games a year), so buying decisions is :

    Better multiplat conversion in framerate / tears - Xbox (read DF and Lens Truth)
    System link option - Xbox (lag free) (not many PS3 LAN game options)
    First party game - Ps3
    On-line game - PS3 (especially if it has dedictade servers, hate P2P crap)

    I Critisise certain things as it would be nice if Xbox AND PS3 improved in certain areas, better GAMING !


  • funkateer #95 2 years ago

    I think it would be interesting to see an in-depth interview with an actual multi-platform developer about the technical difficulties and their considerations during the process.

    "You need to understand though that Naughty Dog was working only on the PS3 exclusivly which gives them the advantage to optimize for only a specific platform."

    You seem to forget that ND also have the disadvantage of only selling on one platform.
    Multi-platform developers have the advantage that game content is shared between different versions and that their market is potentially a lot bigger.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 09:56

  • M_of_the_sys #96 2 years ago

    I'd just like to add that those who comment on fanboys of one type of platform without realising that there are fanboys on all platforms are fanboys themselves.

    I have nothing relevant to say about the article.

  • septimus #97 2 years ago

    Where are all these torn frames on the PS3 version of IL-2 and Dirt2?

    Seriously? I haven't seen them. Half this stuff DF posts about NO ONE notices when you actually play, even switching between the versions as I did with both demos of the above games. Bought the PS3 versions for the friends list, but otherwise there was no discernible difference to the human eye.

  • dominalien #98 2 years ago

    Here's another take on this whole face-off thing:

    As a one-console gamer (mostly because I'm swamped already and I don't need more games to play) I'm interested to know whether a game will be unplayable on my console due to the poor quality of the conversion.

    Small differences in looks and/or framerate will not be important unless there's someone else sitting next to me playing the game on a rival console/pc and I get to look at their screen all the time and feel shafted.

    That said, it's interesting to read how different developers deal with different architectures and their respective challenges to achieve a comparable (or sometimes not at all) result.

  • laudy #99 2 years ago

    @ septimus

    I was going to ask the same question, but then I realised that I don't have the battery of comparison shots, or the pristine quality h264 videos to hand at home...

    If DF say that they tear, then hey, they tear, but the naked eye has a much harder time spotting these things...

  • darren1976 #100 2 years ago

    Interesting comments as usual, shame you have to read so much fanboy stuff to find the informative comments.

    I do not have a PS3 yet as I own a 360 and am ingrained into xbox live. Of course it pleases me to read these articles because for 90% of cross PS3/360 games it is MS console that performs best and clearly the PS3 was overhyped by Sony to a ridiculous extent. However it would appear that a couple of the newer PS3 exclusives are very very good, Unchartered certainly has me interested in a PS3 for Xmas, along with Wipeout HD and to a lesser extent Killzone2.

    What other exclusives supposedly push the PS3 beyond what the 360 can do (for those genuine multi console gamers out there which PS3 games seem to be beyond the 360 and what exactly is perceived to be superior; graphical fidelity, physics, volume of content etc).

    Re perhaps one of the most reknowned PS3 exclusives, as someone said earlier GT5 will be great in the looks department, no doubt at all. But what about the AI and handling? The most important thing in racing games is the actual racing/handling, not the graphics or number of cars. Looking forward to seeing what PD have done in the last few years, surely they have fixed all the problems! FM3 is excellent apart from lack custom public lobbies which is awful omission so GT5 is under a bit of pressure now to produce.

    As for including PC versions in these Face-offs, why not?

  • Machiavellian #101 2 years ago

    It time for developers to wake up to the only way to create truly great games that actually work on all of the platforms they wish to release on. The 360 is undoubtedly the path of least resistance when it comes to full scale game development, but you only get out of what you put in and currently, very few developers are putting in all that they could be. It is truly a matter of effort and sadly, not every developer truly has the passion for games that they claim to have, this is all too evident in the bad ports we see each and every month and the differences we just saw in the above article.

    Statement like this kinda riles me up. I am a developer so I do understand the process. I do not create games but development is development. Probably my biggest gripes to arguments like this is the effort part. I can tell you have never developed because effort is never the case. Its always time and resources. How much expertise you have on a piece of hardware and how much support, tools, resources from the OEM you get. Developers do not have a shortage of effort when it comes to code, they have a shortage of Time. Its a pain in the but when you hear people who have never coded before talk about effort. Who have no understanding that everything is not equal from one developer to the next.

    Its interesting that people use games like Batman AA. This is a game that already have a well fleshed out engine and pretty good support from the OEM on cross platform development. Then people use dirt 2 but forget that Sony Help development on Codemaster engine using their Pryengine. Think about it people, the games you see as being equal usually are based on the direct help from Sony. No all developers receive this special gift and on some of these projects you can tell there was lack of support for those games so they came out the best the developer could complete within their timeframe.

    The easy to code for 360 is easy because MS makes it easy. Its not that the hardware is any less complex then even the PS3 and its cell chips, its the fact that MS thought about the software part to coding to their hardware just as much as they thought about creating the hardware.

  • BartonFink #102 2 years ago

    So judging from the comments it's 22/0 then I guess.

  • GreyBeard #103 2 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    The 360's hardware *is* less complex than PS3's though. The way memory is divided up on PS3 is a huge headache, especially as the machine only really shines when the SPE's are heavily integrated into the rasterization chain.

    The whole problem is that the techniques and methodologies needed to produce optimal results on PS3 have absolutely no equivalent on 360 due to fundamental architectural differences. And because of this are almost never applicable to multi-platform development.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #104 2 years ago

    I agree with the article and all the comments in this article thread.

    Right! I'm off to the lunatic asylum, see you later on.

  • Calgon #105 2 years ago

    GreyBeard please you are making alot of uneducated assumptions about the way the 360 hardware was designed, the only thing thats unique or different about the PS3 is the CPU(which is more complex on the whole yes but thats not to say getting the best performance out of the 360s CPU would be easy compared to the PS3 far from it from the information Ive read... acceptable performance is a far cry from most optimal... alot of you PS3 enthusiasts seem incapable of grasping this concept), the sperated memory is pretty normal for consoles, infact the same thing happens with main ram and video memory on the PC.

    As for the CPU and GPU they've had less lowlevel optimisation, they have features that have thus far gone unused or underutilised for lack of a major investment in a propriatory/exclusive 360 engine built from the ground up to exploit them. So lets not think you can make baseless claims that 360 wouldnt benifit from the same treatment(regarding the "but look at teh exlusives mang!" arguement) because you'd be completely talking out of your arse my friend.
    Edited by 2 at 03/11/09 @ 13:17

  • funkateer #106 2 years ago

    @darren1976
    "What other exclusives supposedly push the PS3 beyond what the 360 can do"

    I think it's probably more important what the PS3 actually does and what the 360 actually doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if Uncharted 2 can be pulled off on a 360 with enough effort, but at the end of the day it simply isn't. Same with MGS4 or any PS3 exclusive.
    So just check the exclusives and pick whatever piques your interest most.
    If you like Uncharted 2, also make sure you don't miss the first Uncharted, it's still fantastic and it had the reputation of being the best looking console game before it had to hand over that title to Uncharted 2.

    "Re perhaps one of the most reknowned PS3 exclusives, as someone said earlier GT5 will be great in the looks department, no doubt at all. But what about the AI and handling?"

    The handling in GT5:p is great, provided that you turn off driving aides (they make things feel weird and detached instead of actually making it easier). Forget about the A.I., race online! No A.I. can compare with racing against actual humans.
    You won't find me online there for a while though as I'm now thoroughly addicted to Forza 3 (bought a 360 for it :-)

  • BobsUncle #107 2 years ago

    "As for including PC versions in these Face-offs, why not? "

    Unless you compare to PC hardware available when the 360 and PS3 were first released, I feel including the PC in these comparisons is kind of pointless.

    The Xbox hardware is somthing like an ATI X1900 with 512MB RAM, which seems hardly fair to compare to a PC running 4GB RAM and a 5870.

  • darren1976 #108 2 years ago

    @funkateer

    Yes, I will definately pick up the first unchartered if I get a PS3. Thus far the exclusives that appeal to me are UC, Killzone, Wipeout HD and possible the recent RPG game, Demon Souls I think it was called but I may be mistaken.

    FM3 is great, but at the moment I do not like the matchmaking online because you cannot select the lower classes of car although I believe this will be added in time. I always drive with all aids off and manual gears, if you fancy some online races PM me your Gamertag. Your right, online is generally where it is at but I do like to offline to build up credits and tinker with my cars before I go online.


    @BobsUncle

    I get what you are saying as the article is a 'FACE OFF' and modern spec PC will more often than not better the consoles, perhaps they could just mention any additional PC functionality in the articles for the benefit of PC gamers (unfortunately my PC is about 10 years old :( )

  • funkateer #109 2 years ago

    @Calgon
    "GreyBeard please you are making alot of uneducated assumptions about...
    ...talking out of your arse my friend."

    You *really* need to stop talking down to people like that with that stressed out and insulting tone, dude.
    It seems you are making a lot of uneducated assumptions about people and prematurely judge them as morons anyway.

    "the sperated memory is pretty normal for consoles, infact the same thing happens with main ram and video memory on the PC. "
    True, but as a wise man once said: Everything is relative. The unified memory architecture makes things easier on 360, hence more difficult on PS3. After all, we *are* talking about multiplatform PS3/360 titles where every advantage of the 360 is a disadvantage of the PS3 and vice versa, see?

  • BobsUncle #110 2 years ago

    @darren1976

    Yeah, a mention of extra features and price (which is always lower on PC) might be nice. But comparing performance would be like comparing Apples to Oranges.

    Unless they used your PC for the test!

  • danodynamo #111 2 years ago

    Not too fond of this "PS3 is better, XBOX 360 is better" shite. Both machines are bang on! Some games will be better on the 360 others on the PS3. Who cares? Microsoft and Sony are only after your money! simple as that. All the fanboys on these sites are thick cunts who deserve to have the piss taken out of theM!

    You can probably tell I'm in a bad mood, my 360 finally gave up the ghost, it was a launch one! Last time I let my brother lend it too his mate!

    Peace out - Sony & Ms should join together for the next console, Microsoft for the software, Sony the hardware. MY GOD MAN, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 14:18

  • Calgon #112 2 years ago

    @funkateer

    Hmmm I not sure where I called him a moron(in his case I'd say misguided), but the attitude he has shown from the few times I have seen him comment on the 360(i.e. "the 360 is easy to develop for/"PC like" so theres not a strong enough reason to develop from the ground up like the PS3 has" it is innaccurate), is making claims without actually knowing if what he says is true(which it isn't... 360 is just as much of a console as PS3 if not moreso in some areas).

    Also it doesnt quite work like, every advantage for one is a disadvantage to the other, they do share alot of fundimental similarities too aswell as the many differences. What would be more accurate is they have different strengths and ideally multiplatform devs should make full use of them but the truth is, its rarely the case on either platform.

    It's not my intention of talking down to people unless they are being pretentious or pedantic(or a know it all who doesnt have his facts straight "semitope" being one of the biggest perpetrators recently), its just expressing my annoyance as it just gets annoying seeing the same discussion over and over again.

    I wonder where some of them get their ideas such as "360 is just like a PC anyway" and "360 has already been fully exploited/maxed out" because nobody has said this who's actually worth listening to(i.e. a respected dev or member of the Xbox/XNA team). I suppose some people would rather beleive what they want to beleive than know the facts... which is fine(everyone is entitled to their own opinion) but keep it to yourself perhaps and dont try and misslead others.
    Edited by 4 at 03/11/09 @ 14:37

  • BobsUncle #113 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    At a hardware level, the 360 is very different to a PC, but at the slightly higher level of software it is closer to the PC than the PS3 is. Plus, Sony are famous for giving shit SDK's out with thier consoles, whereas the Xbox comes with the XDK which is very much like the DirectX SDK which anyone can download and tinker with on the PC.

    [edit]
    I think one of the Crytek devs said the 360 was maxed out, although I could max out the 360 by writing infinite loops in 6 threads. Context is the key to that statement.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 14:43

  • Calgon #114 2 years ago

    BobsUncle oh without a doubt the tools, the API ect were all made to feel familiar to devs(also the compiler makes the conversion much easier for devs too but I'm not sure how much of that is attributed to the XNA team or IBM as both have worked on it from what I've read), this should be applauded. As I said though theres a big difference between acceptable --which is what you'll get from high-level programming and the use of the standard features the hardware provides-- and most optimal/efficient which would require a different approach, more hard work and patience(time).

    edit: Yes he said the same thing of PS3 too IIRC, although Id give Crytech more credit than I would the EA suit that claimed the same thing, I very much doubt a multiplatform engine would max out either console in the way I suggested it. I'd still like to hear more about that engine, what custom features/code ect is in there from a tech standpoint for each console. They probably wont share much of that though, it seems first party is where you are most likely to hear about that.
    Edited by 2 at 03/11/09 @ 14:59

  • funkateer #115 2 years ago

    @Calgon
    "I wonder where some of them get their ideas such as "360 is just like a PC anyway""

    Well, it can be argued that in some (superficial) ways it is.
    Now before you get all stressed, call me an incompetent moron and write 3-page essays to prove me wrong, please bear with me (just kidding ;-)

    You're right that at the hardware level the 360 is VERY different from a PC, but from the average dev's pov many of the 360 dev tools and API's are largely the same as on PC. So if you're coming from a PC background being all accustomed to VS and DX, going to 360 is likely to be a far easier and more comfortable path than going to PS3. Also parallelism/multithreading (which is becoming more and more an issue) is more similar between Xenon/x86 as Cell/x86.

    HOWEVER if you really dig down and go low-level, tools and API's become superficial things, and it becomes apparent that you're correct and the 360 is actually quite far from a PC and you need very specific skills to squeeze all performance out of it. Just like on PS3.
    But there's only a small percentage of any dev team that actually have to go down to that level.

    EDIT: I see I gave almost the same argument as BobsUncle ;-) Oh well...
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 15:42

  • HokutoNoKen #116 2 years ago

    According to EDGE magazine, Xbox 360 was supposed to have a total of 256MB of RAM in the beginning but EPIC Games told MS to aim for 512MB instead. Therefore MS went with a 512MB of unified memory as it would have been too expensive to have the memory split in a 256MB/256Mb way. In other words it was an economical decision to choose this kind of setup.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 18:20

  • man.the.king #117 2 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    "I am a developer so I do understand the process. I do not create games but development is development...."

    I am a Software Engineer too, and I get what you are saying about Time/Resources. But I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction. My understanding of this whole sorry fiasco is, when people say Devs are lazy, they don't mean the actual designers/developers working in the trenches, but rather, the decision-makers. These are the ones who decide (possibly based on input from the Leads/PMs) that it will be easier going for the 360 version (the path of least resistance) first, and then use what little remaining time they have for the port to the PS3.

    Unfortunately (IMO), the porting team would have even tighter turnaround times than the development team (thickheaded management will argue that since a version of the game already exists, it shouldn't be too much trouble translating it to the PS3 - if you are really a Developer, you will understand what I mean :) ), so in more cases than most, they don't try hard to have a specific version for the PS3 (like the development team did with the 360). Which is why we end up with poorer PS3 versions (most of the time).

    It's not just all Sony's fault, you know :)
    Edited by 4 at 03/11/09 @ 20:55

  • TRUTH #118 2 years ago

    Virtua Fighetr 5, Virtua Tennis, Mercenaries 2, Assassin Creed, Sega Rally (+ more) ...were original exclusives 1st starting on PS3 (remember Sony's boast that 360 can't handle the detail and fluidity for VF 5 to the same extent as PS 3 - and guess who goth the better version)...at the end who ended up with the better versions, after PS3 had 1st commitment to them - it was the 360.

  • cloudskipa #119 2 years ago

    The only people whining and moaning about these comparisons are Sony PS3 exclusive owners who can't deal with the truth. FACT.

    For the rest of us multi-console owners, these face-offs are a great source of information in helping us decide which version of a game is best to get. In the case of Operation Flashpoint 2 you can see just how valuable this is, as there is no demo for us to compare.

  • des #120 2 years ago

    Why would anyone compare PC to consoles?Normal people have realized long time ago that PC>>>>consoles,it would be totally pointless to compare it.
    As for Uncharted 2,there are games on both consoles that have better looking characters,textures,more polys,real-time cutscenes,hdr,etc,etc...
    The one thing it has,it is consistent...
    Lots of games have problems with it,one area looks amazing,second one looks like somebody pulled it from some PS2 game and so on.

  • des #121 2 years ago

    Just one example,
    "Which game has more polys than uncharted and why is that so significant?"
    Dead Rising,2006 360 game...
    It is significant if tech is discussed.
    Looking better involves art style and artists(the most important people in game dev industry)-relatively subjective territory.



















  • Badassbab #122 2 years ago

    Hotoken 169

    And it turned out to be the better reason as all programmers will attest to.

  • Sunyavadin #123 2 years ago

    Hats off to double fine there.

  • Gecks #124 2 years ago

    @semitope
    ""Heck, I'm surprised that Tekken 6 manages to get good graphics on the PS3 version, considering that they have been working on it for a very long time on PS3. But Namco-Bandai managed to pull off the same amount of graphics on the 360 in less development time & money, despite it being more difficult to program for the 360."

    Dumbot statement of the year. Between the 3 console fanboy groups honestly 360 fanboys are the dumbest fks around."

    you do realise that tekken 6 arcade was released for the system 257 board back in 2007, right? the one based on PS3, right? ergo a PS3 version was basically just adding the extra content, so the conversion job to the 360 should have been more involved.

  • Gecks #125 2 years ago

    i'm assuming he wasn't talking generally, as this situation is rather unique. it doesn't matter if it was "programmed as a PS3 exclusive" or not. it was programmed for the arcade board some 2 years before the PS3 release, and this board is based on PS3 tech, much like the naomi board was DC tech, and the system 11 board based on PS1 tech, etc, etc. it is about as trivial a conversion as you can make bringing a system 257 game to the PS3, where as to get it to the xbox requires a full conversion, which IS MORE DIFFICULT!!!

    admittedly this is one of the few situations where the xbox conversion is more tricky, as a lot of today's multiplats have it or the PC as the lead format, but there you go.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 14:59

  • canIdoyabombsforya #126 2 years ago

    Well done again Eurogamer. Perhaps Sony will think twice next time they try to overstate the capabilities of their new hardware. The day that happens these comparisons won't be needed. Don't bother with PC comparisons, as we've always been honestly informed in that market.

  • flanker22 #127 2 years ago

    Every single game favored the 360 except tekken 6 is pretty much even.

  • mgillespie #128 2 years ago

    After playing so many awesome PS3 exclusives, doesn't this just demonstrate that the 360 is holding the PS3 back?

  • SaberEdge #129 2 years ago

    I came here to find out if a comparison had been done for Assassin's Creed 2 since I am about to pre-order it and I need to figure out which console to buy it for. It seems the 360 still performs better on the vast majority of multiplatform games, which makes me think that Assassin's Creed 2 will probably be the same as the first one in terms of it looking and running better on the 360.

    It's really too bad. I love both consoles, but I am always looking for opportunities to buy more multiplatform games for my PS3 since my PS3 tends to get mostly exclusives. It looks like that probably won't be changing any time soon.

    When enough time, effort and money is invested the PS3 is clearly capable of some stunning graphics. Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are the two best-looking console games that I have played this generation. Whether that has more to do with the talent and budget behind the games or the power of the console itself is largely irrelevant. Those games are here and they look amazing.

    The question is, though, how many developers can crank out graphics like that on the PS3? The two aforementioned games leave not only most multi-platform and 360 games in the dust, but they also levave most other PS3 exclusives in the dust as well. I honestly don't think most of the PS3's exclusives are really anything beyond the ordinary, and definitely not anything beyond the kinds of graphics that we see in many Xbox 360 games. In fact, multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed, Dead Space and Bioshock all look better to me than the vast majority of PS3 exclusives (such as War Hawk,, Demon's Souls, Ratchet & Clank, inFamous, Resistance, etc.). So, it really isn't a matter of PS3 exclusives VS multiplatform games or VS 360 exclusives, because most PS3 exclusives aren't nearly on the same level as Uncharted or Killzone 2 either.

    I think Sony made a mistake in terms of their hardware design. It might pay off for a select few titles, but if hundreds of other titles have to suffer because of that decision it doesn't seem to be a worthwhile trade-off.

    Having said all that, I still enjoy both consoles tremendously. The PS3 provides me with some amazing exclusives, free online, a few multi-platform games, Blu-ray movie playback, internet browsing and a few other nice features. The 360 is my go-to console for multi-platform games, has some of its own nice exclusives (although not quite as many good ones as the PS3 so far), and has an outstanding online service (altough I'm getting tired of paying for it.)

    I recently bought Uncharted 2 for my PS3 and it looks like I will now be getting Assassin's Creed 2 for my 360. I would like to say thank you to Eurogamer, Digital Foundry and Richard Leadbetter for these detailed comparisons. They certainly help out guys like me. Sometimes I wish you could get the comparisons out before the games are released, but I know that would be very difficult and I greatly appreciate them in any case.