Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Four

By Richard Leadbetter Published 4 October, 2007

The good, the bad and the fugly.

Page 1 of 3

Once more Eurogamer returns to the front-lines of the next-gen console war, as we present our latest batch of cross-platform games available on both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and put them to the test. Which titles are better on which console? More importantly, where there are differences, is there a fundamental effect on the gameplay?

As is the norm, there's a range of comparison screenshots accompanying each game, acquired digitally and losslessly at full 24-bit precision from the HDMI ports of the Xbox 360 Elite and the PlayStation 3 respectively, courtesy of a Digital Foundry HD high-definition capture box. Not too much we can add here other than to say that every pixel of each console's video RAM can be extracted, meaning there's no better way to judge the graphical capabilities of each game on each console - short of mailing you all a disc.

So, onto the roster of software up for discussion then - another gaming mixture that once again encompasses the good, the bad and the fugly of cross-platform development.

There's still a mountain of software sitting about here awaiting inspection, so expect comment and criticism on the likes of Transformers: The Game, Medal of Honor: Airborne, Stranglehold, and a slew of others soon.

The Darkness

I know that this game has its flaws. As Kristan points out in the Xbox 360 review, the AI is a little weak and there's very little in there that's fundamentally new. But what can I say? I love this game, I adore its style and the way its bespoke engine makes it look and to a certain extent feel quite unlike any other game on next-gen platforms. In fact, aside from the disappointing online mode, my only real criticism of it is the fact that your in-game character, Jackie Estacado, walks as though he has two-ton anvils strapped to his feet. If ever there was a game that would've benefited from a 'run' button, it's The Darkness.

Loading up the PlayStation 3 version, I was instantly immersed back into the magic. First impressions generally seem to back up the overall opinion of 'the internet' that it's a match for the Xbox 360 rendition, albeit with better quality videos streaming onto the many in-game TV screens dotted throughout the maps, such is the undoubted storage POWER of the Blu-ray disc.

However, the reality of the situation is that while gameplay is virtually identical, it appears that Starbreeze Studios has compromised the PlayStation 3 version in a number of respects. The one thing that is immediately apparent is the omission of motion blur as you pan around - not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion (I disliked it in Perfect Dark Zero) but Starbreeze's implementation of it on The Darkness was pretty good; it certainly makes a difference in the game's opening car chase sequence and makes a good fist of papering over frame-rate inconsistencies. Over and above that, there's a signature lack of anti-aliasing (more on this later) and a definite reduction in texture detail. The occasional lighting effect here and there has also been changed and where they have been, they look less impressive on PlayStation 3.

'Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round Four' Screenshot dark

The comparison gallery highlights pretty well both similarities and differences, but what it can't show is that the frame-rate also suffers a little in comparison to its 360 twin, which itself tends to struggle with the game's more complex environments. Loading times are a few seconds longer too. The 360 version's Achievements are perfectly replicated on PS3 in the form of 'Accomplishments', but obviously there's no running points total on your PSN profile to attach them to, and as yet, no PlayStation Home to show them off in trophy form. This opens up an entirely new discussion on how powerful Achievements are in extending replay value on a game, but I think that's best left to you guys to mull over in the comments section.

The Darkness on PS3 also takes a stab at supporting 1080p too, whereas the 360 version leaves all the scaling work to the ATI GPU. And this is where the lack of anti-aliasing really does make a big impact. I've never really been one to moan too much about 'jaggies' but in this case, the effect appears to be somewhat emphasised by the scaling method Starbreeze has employed, and the lower resolution textures are also far more noticeable. My recommendation - if indeed you have a 1080p HDTV - would be to adjust the XMB to 720p and let your display have a stab at the scaling. Chances are it'll look better. The Xbox 360 scaler, on the other hand, always performs well when presented with an anti-aliased image to work with. Once again, I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

OK, so it's lost a little of its graphical sheen, but regardless of the format you choose to play it on, The Darkness is still one of the best games I've played this year, and that's 100 per cent to do with the atmosphere, the design and the action it offers, so I'd still highly recommend it on either platform regardless of the visual differences.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (197) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • zuljin #1 4 years ago

    "...meaning there's no better way to judge the graphical capabilities of each game on each console - short of mailing you all a disc."

    So whens my disc coming?

  • dadrester #2 4 years ago

    what about skate?! i need to know!

  • IAmBatman #3 4 years ago

    PS3 version of the Godfather has red shirts instead of white ones?

  • Garulon #4 4 years ago

    I love these things. Eurogamer get loads of clickthroughs and the chance to revist classics, 360 owners get to laugh at the poor mugs buying a more expensive console to play slightly worse games. Everyone wins!

  • bdc #5 4 years ago

    PS3 owned... again

  • speedjack #6 4 years ago

    I'm not trolling (honest), but this seems to re-inforce that only justification for buying a PS3 at present is as a cheap blue-ray player.

    (Until the AAA exclusives start to appear at any rate).

  • dominalien #7 4 years ago

    sucks for me. I'm not buying a second console.

  • dolphan #8 4 years ago

    Eurogamer are clearly in the thrall of the great Microsoft conspiracy. They're in your house, smashing your PS3s. 'Nuff said.

  • Crea #9 4 years ago

    Buyer's remorse and the power of cognitive dissonance will draw PS3 owners to this thread, like moths to a flame.

  • siro #10 4 years ago

    roflcops3ter

  • BM #11 4 years ago

    I've got a 360, but really there's not that much difference at all to be honest. If I was a PS3 owner I wouldn't feel that duped on the games covered

  • speedjack #12 4 years ago

    NatAttack

    I used to agree with you - but if you look at the Darkness shots the jaggies are plainly visisble... and Godfather, Spiderman etc you'd have to be blind not to spot the missing/removed items.

  • Rash' #13 4 years ago

    I look forward to the next round when Burnout and Colin McRae will start the turning of the tide (or at least balance it out).

  • Dizzy #14 4 years ago

    >They're in your house, smashing your PS3s. 'Nuff said.

    We don't have PS3s ;)

  • jaxon58 #15 4 years ago

    Why on earth is Eurogamer doing articles like this? I always thought it was a bit more mature about it's game journalism. Well, more mature than most sites.

  • Rash' #16 4 years ago

    "Why on earth is Eurogamer doing articles like this? I always thought it was a bit more mature about it's game journalism. Well, more mature than most sites."

    Nah. They've always been tabloid material. Can't argue with their news coverage , though.

  • Moz #17 4 years ago

    "Why on earth is Eurogamer doing articles like this? I always thought it was a bit more mature about it's game journalism. Well, more mature than most sites."

    I don't I quiet like these articles and are very good for those of us with boths systems as it's help to decide which version of a game to buy.

    As to all the PS3 hate, please grow up. All the time there are people online playing Resistance the PS3 is worth having.

    EDIT:/ "If Sonyhad the benefit of hindsight, would they have delayed the launch till this november instead? "

    Nah that would have been way too late. The PS3 has a solid possition and with the right exclusives will sell plenty of units, it's just not going to be the white wash of last gen which is a good thing as next gen will the companies on a more level footing which will force them all to push to make the best system they possibly can.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 12:19

  • krudster #18 4 years ago

    Gosh, how tabloid of us to dare to point out which version of a game is running better. How very immature.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #19 4 years ago

    jaxon, if this was a camera website it'd compare models of camera by the quality of pictures it takes, if it was a MP3 website it'd compare players by the quality of playback, so why shouldn't they compare the performance of games across formats?

  • monkie_king #20 4 years ago

    Hey, don't begrudge EG the occasional bout of fanboy-baiting, guy.

    It's the comment shitstorm superthreads (like this one will probably become) that bring in the page impressions that sell the advertising that pays for some of the better videogame coverage you'll find (especially for free). Would you rather be reading IGN's drivel?

    Plus, it's funny to watch PS3 owners squirm as they try to defend their cherished beliefs against incontrovertible visual evidence (Kidding! Ps3 am r0xxor).

  • Bigglesworth #21 4 years ago

    All that these articles really highlight are those developers taking the easier and arguably cheaper route of coding games for the lowest common denominator platform. Obviously code written for a single, powerful processor isn't going to perform as well when running on only one element of a multi-processor archtecture. What's sad is that Sony didn't seem to see this was coming =/

  • HarryB #22 4 years ago

    nice, I didnt know the PS3 still had problems like this...good evidence for my mates who are still unsure of which ship to jump on

  • afghan_jones #23 4 years ago

    WHo the fuck cares????

    half the time you cant tell the difference unless youve gone and captured a bunch of high def screenies anyway.

    The real 'face-off' isnt anything to do with which platform multiformats look better on (especially as the vast differences in people's tellys make it all irrelevant). The real 'face-off' comes down to some very simple questions.

    Do I want to play Halo or Killzone?
    Do I want to play GT or PGR?
    Do I want to play Buzz or Scene It?
    How much do I like acheivements?

    etc etc.

    In the end, which console to buy boils down mainly to what exclusives it has. Other things like acheivements, online support, Blu-ray etc are factors but at the end of the day the games line up is what makes or breaks a console.

  • Bonus #24 4 years ago

    The biggest difference to me was the missing bushes in Spiderman. Why?

    On the darkness screenshots of the girl's you can clearly see the difference between the soft edged shadows and the hard edges shadows in the shots. That's a bit graphical difference technically but it doesn't make any difference to the game and most people probably wouldn't notice it.

    This is a good opportunity for 360 owners to shout at the PS3 owners for a little while but having been a developer on the PS3 Oblivion port I know all too well that the general gaming community don't really know what they are talking about when it comes to this sort of thing. Just like I wouldn't be able to make a qualified judgement on the platform differences being experienced by other developers.

  • WiseNail #25 4 years ago

    I own both systems and find this type of article helpful. Comparisons of Stranglehold, Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Assassins Creed and Army of Two would be helpful in the next couple of months.

    There again, the way things are going I might as well buy the 360 version and be done with it.

  • Rash' #26 4 years ago

    "nice, I didnt know the PS3 still had problems like this...good evidence for my mates who are still unsure of which ship to jump on"

    Don't you mean "jump in"! Sorry... Any way, I would still say PS3. It doesn't look so rosey now, but just like the PS2, the PS3 will get better over time and it isn't as notoriously difficult to get to grips with as the PS2 was. Wait for Burnout and Drake's Fortune.
    Edited by 2 at 04/10/07 @ 12:39

  • L42yB #27 4 years ago

    I think that this result was predictable. Devs are making the games for the 360 and then porting to the PS3, which means the PS3 will suffer.

    The only reason to buy a PS3 is for the exclusives and for blu-ray... which is why i don't own one (yet - will see how the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray war pans out first)

  • FlamingCarrot #28 4 years ago

    I own both and do find these articles of use. Right now i am regretting buying a PS3 so soon and the 360 is excellent - bar the noise.

  • captainrentboy #29 4 years ago

    Did anyone else get a stirring in their loins when Jackie's girlfriend made a move on the couch? I was hoping for at least a lil BJ action, she was one hot bitch.
    Annnnyway, I can't really see much of a difference betwen the shots to be honest, although the 360 ones always look a lil too dark, they're never that dark looking on my TV :/
    30 and 60fps differences are kind of bad though, well for some people anyway, I'm one of those that can hardly feel the difference.

  • BillyBrush #30 4 years ago

    All of these would have been made before devs got their head round the Cell (or certainly a way into development before they did)

    but still, all that 'extra' power (was it about 1/3rd at E3) would cover those cracks, if there really was that much more oomph

    I realise developing games is rather more complicated than that, but if you were to beleive the Sony liegraph at E3 you would've thought the thing had enough oomph to emulate 360 games whilst still having enough grill power left for a burger or two

  • Xerx3s #31 4 years ago

    afghan_jones: +1.

  • jlaakso #32 4 years ago

    Having both consoles in the house and also in many cases a copy of both console's version of a given game (review copies), it's really a matter of which console happens to be plugged in. Yeah, there are differences, but exceptions aside (30 fps vs 60 fps - ouch), it's nothing you're going to notice unless comparing side by side. If I want some more gamerpoints, I'm on the 360, if I'm sick of the jet engine whirr, I'm on the PS3. No big deal, really.

  • L42yB #33 4 years ago

    "whilst still having enough grill power left for a burger or two "

    lol :) The George Forman PS3 Grill :D

  • Bonus #34 4 years ago

    "but if you were to beleive the Sony liegraph at E3 you would've thought the thing had enough oomph to emulate 360 games whilst still having enough grill power left for a burger or two"

    Are people really forgetting already that the graphics on screen are created by the GPUs in the system and not the CPUs?

    The 360 has a better GPU than the PS3, much better, so the games will always look better. It also has a more flexible approach to texture memory so developers can have higher res textures on the 360.

    The CELL is a processor so the PS3 should technically be able to do better AI, physics etc. than the 360 but almost never look better graphically.

  • Rash' #35 4 years ago

    Bonus, I've read a lot of crap online about the technical understanding of how these things work. One theory is that because Cell is a vector unit it can assist the GPU with graphical tasks...

  • philw #36 4 years ago

    The biggest difference to me was the missing bushes in Spiderman. Why?

    Heh I thought the same, they weren't exacty crisply defined examples of next-gen HD grooviness, more like bushes from Road Rash on the Megadrive.

    /goes into nostlagia mode about Road Rash and fires up emulator...

  • gelf #37 4 years ago

    Just looking at the difference in those screenshots makes me wonder why the heck I should care.

  • monkie_king #38 4 years ago

    @afghan: so to summarise, "how much do you want to play games that are actually out?" ;)

    Plus, the 30/60fps isn't just cosmetic, and isn't the kind of thing you can see in a screenshot, and is definitely the sort of thing you want to know if you're deciding which platform to buy a game for.

  • BillyBrush #39 4 years ago

    @Bonus

    Erm yes i did forget that...

    Just having a sly dig as you do

    What will happen is Fumito Ueda will make something that might be better than any 360 game in it's entire lifespan

    And then the ship will need to be jumped, with 299 laid down and some rumble to boot, Afgan is of course correct

    until Fumito fronts up though or Kojima gets his shit together....he he he, eggy faces for those giving up huge wads of cash for 'massive damage' (you damaged your wallet to the tune of £126extra + a new pad)

  • miiiguel #40 4 years ago

    what he said (Bonus). At lunch time I play CS here at work with this massive 4x dual core 1.8Ghz Itanium, and my mate over there with his 1K Euro worth laptop outperforms me... :(

    Shitty GPU.

  • urban #41 4 years ago

    lame360fanboys

  • Rash' #42 4 years ago

    BillyBrush, It's eggy faces because your view point is relative to your experiences... Believe, I have no egg on my face. ;)

  • rotmm #43 4 years ago

    A concise and well thought out argument, urban

  • Stormflood #44 4 years ago

    Multiformat still sucks on PS3, but first party it shines.

    After playing Halo 3, I thought I'd have a quick go on Warhawk. The beautifully smooth anti-aliasing, framerates and overall rendering and effects of Warhawk really put the 360's flagship title to shame. Same goes for Motorstorm and Resistance (though not anywhere new as good as Halo 3 as a game) - both smooth as a baby's bum with hints of graphical power that will undoubtedly slip past 360, even in the multiformat titles.

  • Triggerhappytel #45 4 years ago

    So, bascially this article says the 360 has 100% graphical and technical supremacy with these games - not including The Godfather since there's not much of a comparison really.

  • teabagger #46 4 years ago

    Oh dear, this is retarded on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.

    Multi platform games: Generally developed for the lowest common denominator, often developed for a primary platform then ported (so I should think 360 first given it's been around for longer), resulting in final comparable game quality that has fuck all to do with the merits of one machine over the other. These screen comparisons tell us nothing useful, they're just more troll feed. Again. Honestly is it a slow news fortnight or something?

  • Darren #47 4 years ago

    I own both consoles but because the PS3 versions of multiformat games are generally visually weaker (lacking in anti-aliasing and/or a poorer framerate) plus it lacks rumble support, I've been buying all such games on the Xbox 360. Until PS3 games are at least as good as their Xbox 360 counterparts in *every* aspect, including rumble support, then I can't see that changing. I have bought Oblivion for the PS3 though and that does run better than the 360 version but against that it lacks AA (but it isn't particularly noticeable most of the time).

    I have pre-ordered PES 2008 for the PS3, not because I believe it'll look or run better than the 360 version but purely because it'll be (presumably) easier to copy the edited Options file (with the correct teams and player names, etc.) over from my PC, where I'll download it, onto the PS3 via a memory stick. I doubt it'll be that straight forward on the Xbox 360.

  • Rash' #48 4 years ago

    "After playing Halo 3, I thought I'd have a quick go on Warhawk. The beautifully smooth anti-aliasing, framerates and overall rendering and effects of Warhawk really put the 360's flagship title to shame. Same goes for Motorstorm and Resistance (though not anywhere new as good as Halo 3 as a game) - both smooth as a baby's bum with hints of graphical power that will undoubtedly slip past 360, even in the multiformat titles."

    No sure about Resistance, but Warhawk does indeed look the business and Motorstorm is still untouchable for sheer technical scale.

  • SBfistfun #49 4 years ago

    Nonesense, what about the power of teh cell??!!

  • Bigglesworth #50 4 years ago

    Bonus:
    Are people really forgetting already that the graphics on screen are created by the GPUs in the system and not the CPUs?

    Of course you're correct, but its naive to assume this is the only aspect that matters.

    The 360 has a better GPU than the PS3, much better, so the games will always look better.

    Then how do we account for the games that look exactly the same, and some cases better, on the PS3? Oblivion springs to mind, for example.

  • stormuk #51 4 years ago

    Microsoft must be doing something right - Ive only ever had a sega or sony console's prior to the 360, Ive had 5 ROD's in my 20 months of ownership - yet Im still not interested in the PS3

    Maybe Ive grown tired of Sony's lies (psp still waiting for GTP) ignorance (PS3 sales were a supply problem not demand) and actions (likSang amongst others)

  • Darren #52 4 years ago

    Why does everyone think MotorStorm is technically impressive? I mean the environments are fairly featureless and empty, it lacks anti-aliasing, runs at 30 fps with occasional tearing, the grass is made up of 2D sprites (that rotate with the camera!!!) and the terrain deformation feature isn't anywhere near as impressive or obvious as the one SEGA Rally uses. It looks nice, yes, but it's certainly not the most visually alluring racer I've ever seen as it clearly suffers from being rushed to meet a launch deadline. I suspect the sequel will be the game to really impress though...

  • HarryB #53 4 years ago

    the people saying it hardly matters...
    framerates and better textures matter to me.. maybe not you... but this kind of article is useful!

  • Darren #54 4 years ago

    @Bigglesworth - Oblivion might run smoother on the PS3 but as I mentioned earlier it lacks anti-aliasing, a common issue with many multiformat PS3 games, which means it doesn't look quite as slick as the 360 version. In my opinion.

  • bad #55 4 years ago

    More importantly, Motorstorm was tedious in the extreme. The best game on the PS3 so far is definitely Super Stardust HD.

    It makes a fantastic blu-ray player though.

  • BillyBrush #56 4 years ago

    BillyBrush, It's eggy faces because your view point is relative to your experiences... Believe, I have no egg on my face. ;)


    That's true, I was being a touch harsh..

    When you have one but not the other like me you just like to see yer decision validated, i am sure in reality most people would probably find these titles the same whatever their platform they play it on

    I just think it's natural to have a dig, i have had plenty of people wish my Xbox 3 red rings (yourself for example, and pleenty of others saying it would die and i wouldn't be able to play Halo :o( (It's Ok tho i am happy to report it is still kicking on) so it's just nice to sit on my throne and throw dogturds at the Sony mad masses.....you'd do the same, in fact you do the same despite Sony beating nobody for sales, games, or anything for some time

    So y'know, admitting being a bastard and all that....is PS3 shite - No absolutely not Is the 360 a time bomb waiting to break - No absolutely not

    Horses for courses ups n downs and all that no malice intended

  • Rash' #57 4 years ago

    Darren, Motorstorm has tremendous A.I., physics, and expansive environments that are dynamic. Can you tell me a game that matchs that? Even Sega Rally runs at 30fps and that's pretty much a corridor racer.

  • Negotiator #58 4 years ago

    I am getting fed up with people excusing Sony for releasing a machine a year later than MS and it being a huge pile of shit. Back in 2005 Sony made all these bullshit claims about the PS3 and the "cell" being twice as powerful as 360, give me a mother fucking break. Please stop with the 360 ports that everyone thinks is going on, it ain't, the hardware of these two machines is so different its impossible to do a straight port of the 360 version to the PS3 or vice versa. 360 is the better machine and thats the bottom line.

  • mash the x button #59 4 years ago

    What teabagger said.
    Lame article.
    Enjoy your games :-)

  • Rash' #60 4 years ago

    bad, Superstar Dust is definately, one of the early defining moments on PS3, but Motorstorm tedious? That's definitely a matter of opinion.

  • Darren #61 4 years ago

    @farticusmaximus - Well I don't think it is and if was ever going to look good it would surely do so on my Sony Bravia HDTV running as it does at 720p through HDMI. ;)

    As I said it looks nice... at first glance... but examine the graphics closely and the cracks I mentioned above show and it looks less impressive with no bump/normal mapping, jaggy edges and 2D sprites for grass! SEGA Rally looks better to me; the environments are more interesting (and varied!) and the terrain deformation DOES make a difference to the game. Finally, MotorStorm certainly doesn't look anywhere near as good as that E3 05 trailer suggested it would...

  • Rash' #62 4 years ago

    Negotiator: "360 is the better machine and thats the bottom line."

    Relative to what and with what facts???

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #63 4 years ago


    Multi platform games: Generally developed for the lowest common denominator, often developed for a primary platform then ported (so I should think 360 first given it's been around for longer), resulting in final comparable game quality that has fuck all to do with the merits of one machine over the other.

    But it has everything to do with the quality of multi-platform games which is what this article is about! And if you are buying a console for those titles, then this makes it obvious that the 360 is the way to go.

  • foamy #64 4 years ago

    Right now, to me, it all comes down to the platform that'll play the standard HD format, be it HD-DVD or Bluray. Just decide quickly please.

  • Rash' #65 4 years ago

    Darren: "SEGA Rally looks better to me; the environments are more interesting (and varied!) and the terrain deformation DOES make a difference to the game."

    I'll say it again; the game's just a corridor racer. Of the two games, Motorstorm is more ambitous imo and better for it. There's a difference between graphical and technical greatness. Motorstorm fits into the latter camp and very few titles imo match it. I agree though the sequel will take it to another level.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 13:23

  • El_MUERkO #66 4 years ago

    I've got NHL 08 for the PS3 :(

    I want 60fps you stoopid EA!

  • mrbandersnatch #67 4 years ago

    "Wii is a freak console and Nintendo have pissed all over the people who've got them where they are by releasing non stop casual shit."

    Yup, Ive been disappointed with the Wii this year but this Winters line up looks great.

    Anyways, Ive been on the fence for a long time wanting a reason to buy a PS3...and it just isn't happening. In the meantime the 360 has enough titles that I want to play that I finally want to take the plunge and articles such as this just confirm what I had suspected i.e. That the PS3 is too much hype and not enough silicon.

    Now I just have to convince the kids that they want one for Christmas :)

  • Rash' #68 4 years ago

    I want 60fps you stoopid EA!

    +1

  • Trane #69 4 years ago

    This is living.

    News just in too, PS3 is better for BBQs: http://ja sonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com/...

  • presbyterrorion #70 4 years ago

    People, don't get suckered into responding to idiotic troll comments.

    For instance, I can say that the majority of 360's out there today will die with in a year. That would be a retarded comment to make, but it would be more likely to get the kind of responses I would be looking for if I were a troll. Saying something more accurate and reasonable, like saying a large number of 360's will die within a year, will just get passed over and ignored. The only way the troll can get the attention he wants is to make extreme statements like "PS3 is a pile of shit", or "all 360's die within a year". Don't reply to these type of comments, people. Don't let the trolls win!
    Edited by 2 at 04/10/07 @ 13:32

  • jaxon58 #71 4 years ago

    @ Pacman

    Because cameras ONLY take pictures. MP3s ONLY provide music. Games don't ONLY provide graphics do they?

  • BillyBrush #72 4 years ago

    Crysis looks better than any game on 360 or PS3, by a country mile, and then some..

    Get in here PC fans!! l to the ol

    P.S. Can someone explain to me why having opinions makes you a fanboy...there are clearly lots of people pro one thing anti another, but in other circles that just makes you someone with an opinion, whereas in gaming discussion, you know, how actual games look and play on the various platforms we buy is a terrible terrible thing

    For a man to cry fanboy, that is the true shame, that is the true coward, he who would silence his brothers, not to have their say....that man is the one who stifles dreams, who makes you work 5 out of 7, the one who covered up Diana's murder, the one who stifles uprisings, he is no better a man than PSPLUVVA07 :oP

  • Rash' #73 4 years ago

    headbog, I'm don't want to get into a long thing about this. Expansive environments refers to draw distance as well as multiple routes through the race. The game regularly throws large number of A.I. routines to contend with, all (whether on screen or not) dynmically affect the environment. Whether the stages are varied in their design is a matter of opinion. I believe, considering the theme of the game, Evolution did a good jod in achieving variety in their level design. Rumble with Dualshock 3 and software update.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 13:33

  • Lawlost #74 4 years ago

    @ mrbandersnatch I've been feeling the same way and am sorely tempted to go for a 360, just the nagging doubts about their current reliability and rumours of 'falcon'? chipsets coming out in the UK next year make me think I'll wait. Also £60 to go wireless + £40 a year for online play grate a little.

  • lambtron #75 4 years ago

    "Motorstorm has tremendous A.I."

    !!!!

    No. It has cheating AI a la Mariokart on the SNES. While I am quite fond of Motorstorm and think it is a good game, I would not under any circumstances describe the AI as "tremendous".

  • BillyBrush #76 4 years ago

    'For instance, I can say that the majority of 360's out there today will die with in a year. That would be a retarded comment to make, but it would be more likely to get the kind of responses I would be looking for if I were a troll. Saying something more accurate and reasonable, like saying a large number of 360's will die within a year, will just get passed over and ignored'


    Oh i am having so much fun todaay....that sir is one of the greatest posts ever to grace t'internet...

    Webby is in the post

    'Saying something more accurate and reasonable, like saying a large number of 360's will die within a year' GENIUS...PURE UNADULTERATED GENIUS

    Thread is going to turn into a classic, they won't visit the UKR but they will not be leaving here today. Rabbits in headlights with v signs and grenades,,,ohh it's going to be a tricky journey, but that won't stop it being fun...

  • Rash' #77 4 years ago

    "@ mrbandersnatch I've been feeling the same way and am sorely tempted to go for a 360, just the nagging doubts about their current reliability and rumours of 'falcon'? chipsets coming out in the UK next year make me think I'll wait. Also £60 to go wireless + £40 a year for online play grate a little. "

    Whole heartedly agree. I want Halo 3, badly, but Microsoft's hardware strategy clouds a lot of the necessary features I need which aren't included in the package. After free online play with PS3, it has to be said paying for online is a deal breaker.

  • Rash' #78 4 years ago

    lambtron, I didn't say the A.I. doesn't cheat (particularly during the closing stages), but when I say "tremendous", I refer to the sheer sense of the chaotic battle that each race envelops the gamer in through those A.I. routines. When there are 15 racers on track infront of you going hell for leather destroying the environments through the games physics engine in an environment as expansive an adventure game "tremendous" is a term that regularly comes to mind.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 13:52

  • Bonus #79 4 years ago

    @Rash'

    That's true to some extent and the SPEs can be used for transform and lighting calculations but there's also much more to the 360 GPU with it's unified shader system, automatic load balancing and on board memory.

    There's also the overhead needed to run the SPEs and all of the setup code to get the SPEs to calculate something and get it back into a usable format for the GPU to use in vector shaders.

    It's a very, very complicated topic and one which has many, many approaches.

    I'm sure that by the end of the PS3s lifecycle someone will have it nailed but then people are obviously still struggling to get the PS3 to even perform as well as the 360.

  • Lov3 #80 4 years ago

    This article should be renamed "Xbox 360 vs. PS3: Super Fanboy Baiting Extravaganza!"

    Seriously, enjoy your extra advertisement revenue or whatever.

  • Rash' #81 4 years ago

    " ...but then people are obviously still struggling to get the PS3 to even perform as well as the 360."

    But isn't that because they're converting 360 code to an architecture that isn't best suited to it, usually without the necessary resources???

  • SteveB #82 4 years ago

    "After free online play with PS3, it has to be said paying for online is a deal breaker".

    You get 1 month free when buying the console and Play.com are doing £34.99 for 13 months at the moment.

    That works out for the 1st 14 months at £2.50 a month or 8p a day !

  • FlamingCarrot #83 4 years ago

    All we are saying is give PS3 a chance.

    In a singalong kindaway...

  • Bonus #84 4 years ago

    @Bigglesworth

    I worked on thePS3 port of Oblivion as a coder, you'll find my name in the credits. I wont get into why it runs better because I doubt I'm allowed.

    It's not because the PS3 is a better machine, take my words for it.

  • Sebo #85 4 years ago

    @NickM

    "Wii is a freak console and Nintendo have pissed all over the people who've got them where they are by releasing non stop casual shit. 360 is unreliable and PS3 is still in the starting blocks unable to move."

    Forget your happy pills today?

    I think all three consoles are great machines. Both Sony and Microsoft have made mistakes, Sony ofcourse more so.

    But as is the nature of the industry, gaming has more to offer now than ever before.

    And I'm a Nintendo fan from the NES and don't feel pissed on at all. Games were casual before the hardcore arrived. I'd say the SNES was casual.

  • Bonus #86 4 years ago

    Exactly.

    You can do a lot in a year, like optimising textures, the renderer, memory management, shaders and on and on.

    Obviously I can't do specifics :).

  • Rash' #87 4 years ago

    headbog, Well we clearly disagree with this one. I have a fine enough grasp of english to know how appropriate my definitions are. I know what A.I. is thanks very much and when terrain deformation isn't even mentioned in Edge's review of Sega Rally, it tells me a lot about how influencial it is to the game. I didn't find Motorstorm samey one bit and I'm sure I would find Sega Rally no less entertaining. But we disagree, I'm fine with that.

  • TRUTH #88 4 years ago

    Skate (Much better then any Tony Hawk game!) & Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six all have better framerates + graphics on 360. The PS3 also has fixed 256mb compared to 360 flexible 512mb ram available for running games - this can also effect games on: graphics, textures, framerate, size of game area...etc. The GPU on 360 is custom built for gaming, which is better suited for games then Sony's cell processor.


    Also Sony's dev kits were ready and available to developers a year and a half (+) before the console. The PS3 was delayed as it was unable to manufacture enough BR parts...This causing the delay of the console. So the fact is the PS3 is the same age as 360: but the PS3 dev kits were more ready then 360's when being they were being distributed to game developers.

    Remember Unreal III, Motor Storm, the awful Resistance being shown in 2005. All developed on PS3's ready dev kits.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 14:21

  • CouldntResist #89 4 years ago

    You know what guys, i don't have a PS3, an XBOX360, or a Wii, and i hardly play PC games anymore. I just like to come to in here and watch; to be honest this thread has been a great disappointment. Where's the rampant irrationality and extremist jingoism of the Halo 3 review comments thread?

    For shame.

  • Rash' #90 4 years ago

    "you are creating extensive additional cost simply to make a game work as well as another platform already does, that has 2-3x the user base."

    Rushed out consoles have a habit of paying some dividends... The point I guess I'm making is when the tables are turn how differently will the climate be? I look forward with great interest, as I'm sure most devs are, to Rockstar's PS3 exclusive.

  • FlamingCarrot #91 4 years ago

    But surely the best really is to come on the PS3. Its still in its infancy just hobbled by arrogance from Sony, killer price and an appalling launch.
    I still have faith but i really love the 360 faults and all. I have never had, touch wood, a RROD but the noise really is poor.

  • Bonus #92 4 years ago

    The 360 dev tools blow the PS3s away.

    You'd expect that from a software company like MS though. There's more to the easy to develop for 360 than just the architecture design.

  • Sebo #93 4 years ago

    The PS3 is in a total catch 22 though isn't it.

    It's in exactly the same position as the original xbox was in comparison to the PS2.

    Developers will go for the easiest system, so the power of the more powerful system is never really utilised.

    I also wondering if games development is even at a point that it needs something as powerful as the PS3.

  • monkie_king #94 4 years ago

    @Rash: none of that changes the fact that the 360 is objectively the better console *right now*, in terms of the only factor that really matters: playing host to a slew of great titles.

    PS2 eventually annihalated Dreamcast in the marketplace, but that doesn't change the fact that if you didn't own a DC you missed out on some amazing stuff.

    360 is too successful already to be the next DC, but even if PS3 does *eventually* prove to be superior, surely it's better to get a 360 now, enjoy the games that are already out, then pick up a PS3 when some killer exclusive games actually come out (by which time the PS3 will be much cheaper anyways).

    I get sick of hearing how good MGS4, GT5, Killzone 2, Home are *going* to be. As I recall, Heavenly Sword and Lair were *going* to be pretty spectacular too ...

    (edited for spazzing up the markup)
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 14:35

  • SteveB #95 4 years ago

    @monkie_king

    Totally agree. I cannot see why at this moment in time anyone would choose a PS3 over the 360 for playing games.

  • Rash' #96 4 years ago

    headbog: I'm done with Motorstorm discussion so make whatever opinion you want about that. It's good A.I. and I know enough about gamings evolution to know that so please don't patronize me, or I won't even do you the courtesy of responding.

    With regards to McRae comparison, you're better off posting Darren as he has much stronger opinions about the two versions, of which he considers the PS3 to be superior.

  • Darren #97 4 years ago

    The slight visual downgrade in PS3 DiRT allowed for less tearing and a smoother framerate than the 360 version from my play of both games. Likewise, Ghost Recon AW 2 looks visually inferior on the PS3 - no AA, subdued HDR lighting, fewer effects, etc. - but that version doesn't have any tearing whatsoever. I believe the Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Rainbow Six Vegas PS3 ports were the same as well, less graphically impressive than the 360 versions but without any tearing. Now personally I'd rather have less detail if it means a tear-free framerate but that's probably just me that thinks that as there's nothing that ruins the immersion more for me than bad v-sync issues.

  • rob76 #98 4 years ago

    So when is the PS3 coming of age then? It's been out nearly a year already. Would have expected it to start kicking 360 arse by now given all the synergetical processing hype bullshit that's been thrown about for the past 4 years or so.

  • Rash' #99 4 years ago

    monkie_king, I get sick of posters implying there's nothing to look forward to on PS3. 360 is nothing like DC. Dc relied heavily on first party games to get it through its lifespan, in contrast 360 relies more on third party support. Alot of the content is shared between the two consoles so the 360 isn't likely to burnout like DC. There's plenty to look forward to on both platform. To imply the 360 is superior is understandable at this stage, what with the early start, dev support and install base. But as you demostrate through your own awareness it's early days for PS3. By contrast it's we're heading into the 360's third year... There are great games to get on 360, but the hardware doesn't justify the expense at this stage. For me it's as simple as that.

  • SteveB #100 4 years ago

    @headbog

    Again totally agree (saving a lot of ink here !).

    Once the PS3 has a decent set of exclusives (only Motorstorm and Resistance at the moment for me) and a pad with rumble I will be straight down the shop to get one.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #101 4 years ago

    @jaxon

    Because cameras ONLY take pictures. MP3s ONLY provide music. Games don't ONLY provide graphics do they?

    What are you talking about?

    They are talking about the games and the comparative quality thereof. The graphics are a key part of the gameplay experience and appears the differential between the two systems. These reviews also talk about gameplay and content, but graphics seem to be the thing that differs most between the two systems so therefore gets the most coverage.

    To go back to the previous example of MP3 reviews. When comparing players you'd look at the build quality, interface and sound quality. If the build quality and interface were similar/identical you'd focus more on the differing sound quality.

    So, if you had a choice between two versions of the same game which played the same yet one with better graphics, which would you choose?
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 14:57

  • Rash' #102 4 years ago

    headbog, Your points are subjective as they are after opinions. They're all very one-sided, which is why I refuse to engage with them. Sorry, nothing personnally, but I want an open discussion, not a directed one.

  • Darren #103 4 years ago

    I think people expect the PS3 to be capable of producing better graphics than the Xbox 360 simply because it came out a year later. Traditionally consoles that come later have better graphics but based on my experience of both the PS3 and 360 (as an owner), it seems that the PS3 actually isn't as graphically capable as the 360, particularly when it comes to anti-aliasing and framerates.

    Look at Lair, for example, that game was made for the PS3 and although it looks good, it's not doing anything that the 360 couldn't do, yet the framerate is mostly poor even at 720p. Could it have looked and ran better on the 360?

    Now I accept I might be wrong here but it seems to me that if developers want to use HDR lighting on the PS3, which seems to be this generation's "lens flare" (i.e. every game has to have it!), then AA has to be sacrificed on the PS3 hence there isn't any AA in games like Oblivion, MotorStorm, GRAW 2, DiRT or The Darkness. Or is the lack of AA simply because the PS3 lacks a 10 MB framebuffer like the 360, i.e. it doesn't have enough memory to do AA?

  • BootLace #104 4 years ago

    "P.S. Can someone explain to me why having opinions makes you a fanboy..."

    It's a lot easier to discard someones statement through a derogatory label than it is to articulate a well thought out argument.

  • Rash' #105 4 years ago

    headbog, "I'm glad you've found a way to justify owning a PS3 now."

    This is why I didn't want to engage with you. Talk about fucking immature.

  • zuljin #106 4 years ago

    @headbog
    Shame on you, don't know where you got those Warhawk pics (definately the 2nd looks like its from the original Warhawk on PS1), but the actual game looks much better, especially the clouds look fab.

    Try this:
    [link url=http://www.eurogamer .net/view_screenshot.php?image=assets/articles//a/8/2/4/1/0/ war1.jpg.jpg
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/view_screenshot...[/link]

    Or have a look here:
    [link url=ht tp://www.1up.com/do/media?cId=3140598&sec=IMAGES
    ]http://ww w.1up.com/do/media?cId=3140598&...[/link]

    Please note: Didn't say it looked better or played better than a certain third installment of a trilogy, just that those pics do not do it justice.

  • Rash' #107 4 years ago

    headbog, I need wifi, I will obviously want rechargable battery and online play and I want the Elite because it's got the 120 HDD. All that comes to a price near to that of a PS3. That price for a console that isn't isn't guaranteed to die on me within a year, sounds like a conveyor belt and doesn't have HD disc format. Do the math, mate.

  • Darren #108 4 years ago

    @Headbog - Krudster said that he hasn't seen any tearing in DiRT on the 360 either; that's on a 50" plasma TV I believe.

    Now in my experience, tearing is as noticeable on a CRT TV as it is on an LCD TV but not having had any experience of Plasma, I can't say whether it's the same on those. However, my understanding of v-sync tearing is that it's caused by the TV and game not being synchronised hence parts of one image are displayed over parts of another during the same screen refresh and this is what causes the tearing effect.

    So how does a Plasma avoid this? Surely the only way to eliminate tearing is for the TV to wait until it has displayed a frame completely before accepting the next, which is what v-sync does but it has to be coded into the game to work. Many games don't use v-sync or they disable it if the framerate drops (e.g. Gears of War, SEGA Rally, etc.) so if you've never noticed v-sync tearing, isn't it just simply a case of you just not seeing it rather than it not being there at all because you have a "superior" HDTV? :?

    Can anyone else with a Plasma TV and who has seen v-sync tearing comment on this? I'm genuinely interested because Krudster's comment isn't the first time I've heard someone claim that v-sync tearing isn't noticeable on Plasma TVs.

  • Rash' #109 4 years ago

    headbog, It's my parogative to discuss what want. I did say have whatever opinion you want about that so I guess that's your parogative. I stand by mine: I find your your views one-sided.

  • monkie_king #110 4 years ago

    @Bootlace: that's true, but there are definitely people who take this stuff far too seriously. I think you become a fanboy when you start to identify with Sony or MS as if they are your favourite football team, and start to take everything that happens to them personally. These consoles are just disposable bits of electronics - I'm glad people don't get this worked up about Tefal vs Morphy Richards in the next-gen rapid-boil kettle war.

    PS3 and 360 are ridiculously close in abilities anyway, this is hair-splitting stuff. It's not like the good old days when the C64 was utterly pwning the Speccy.

  • squeakyg #111 4 years ago

    Question for Eurogamer: If you have a "Digital Foundry HD high-definition capture box" for taking screenshots, how come you never take original screenshots for your 360 and PS3 reviews?

    I have asked before why you always use promotional screenshots from publishers (that are never taken from the in-game player perspective and are therefore pointless), and I have been given the answer that you don't have the means to take your own shots. Well... you have a capture box. Please use it for reviews!

  • Darren #112 4 years ago

    @monkie_king - Except that the Spectrum was more capable of doing isometric 3D games than the C64. I remember when Fairlight was released on the C64 - hey, so what, I'm THAT old! - and it ran far slower than the Spectrum version but it was a revelation at the time as 3D games, like those made by Ultimate, were rare (no pun intended) at that time. I remember as a C64 owner being deeply jealous of games like Knightlore on the Spectrum.

  • DjFlex52 #113 4 years ago

    Headbog's views are no more one sided than when the PS2 dominated the Xbox and PS2 fans ran roughshod all over on Xbox fans.

  • monkie_king #114 4 years ago

    @Rash': you're trying very hard there to price up the 360. Why do you need 120GB HD exactly? Why do you need a high-def optical format? Why can't you use a regular battery charger? And don't forget you'll be shelling out 60 quid for a couple of rumbling controllers next year for PS3. Plus, you completely omit any mention of the raison d'etre of consoles - the games.

    As for the Live cost, that's a valid point. My experience with Live is limited to Xbox1, but I found it well worth the money vs. the woeful PS2 online effort. Has anyone here used PSN enough to say whether it competes with Live?

  • Arwin #115 4 years ago

    I got a cheap 360 that someone won, so now I can compare both consoles, and I must say, overall I still way prefer the PS3. It just has more interesting games. This may sound strange, but the 360's games almost invariably offer experiences that I've had in some form or other before on previous gen. This is much less the case for PS3.

    PS3 also has surprisingly good online play, from the 40 player Resistance, 32 player Warhawk, down to the 12 player Motorstorm. It all works great, and it is free. I actually have had a Live membership for my original Xbox for years, and some of those years I never played my Xbox even once. But I still payed, because I didn't cancel in time and then having paid for another year. It racks up for sure, 60 euros a year ... that's 300 euro in 5 years. Enough money for whole extra console ...

    The best thing about the 360 so far within a mile are the achievements and gamercards. I love those. Of course games like Resistance and Warhawk have very nice ribbons and other stuff as well, and they're not key to the gameplay experience, but they are great fun.

    But I now way prefer motion control over rumble, that's for sure. Flying warhawks wouldn't be the same without motion controls. Playing Motorstorm wouldn't be the same without Motion Controls (works great for my my non-gaming friends too). And thanks to BBC.Planet Earth, I don't have to argue much about the value of BluRay. Not to mention that I'm also starting to see some other values of BluRay for games already, Heavenly Sword's and Resistance's language options for instance. If you get Halo 3 in Germany, you can only play in German language. No space on the DVD for other languages.

    The PS3 hasn't been out yet for a full year even, but you'd easily forget that if you weren't paying close attention and comparing framerates between EA games on 360 and PS3. ;)

    However, it's good that they both exist (and Wii), so that they can keep each other on their toes and work for their money.

    In the meantime, I hope most multi-platform programmers will learn the value of designing for SPU first, as that kind of programming works better on both consoles. This will be in the best interest of both platforms, so I hope they'll do it. I'm hearing voices here and there on developer's forums and such that this is probably what will happen, but right now it's still a lot of porting from 360 to PS3 to the detriment of the PS3's version's code.

  • Rash' #116 4 years ago

    "Headbog's views are no more one sided than when the PS2 dominated the Xbox and PS2 fans ran roughshod all over on Xbox fans."

    If by that you mean intensely one-side and confrontationally than I agree, but that has nothing to do with me.

  • rotmm #117 4 years ago

    "In the meantime, I hope most multi-platform programmers will learn the value of designing for SPU first, as that kind of programming works better on both consoles."

    How so Arwin? Because Sony told you so?

    Don't believe a word of it.

  • monkie_king #118 4 years ago

    /can't believe he managed to start an 8-bit slanging match ...

    @Arwin: that's actually the most sane and well-reasoned argument for PS3 I've yet seen. Could you say a bit more about what you mean by different experiences? Gameplay-wise this generation has been very incremental so far, but I'm not really sure what there is to challenge that on PS3?

  • Rash' #119 4 years ago

    @Rash': you're trying very hard there to price up the 360. Why do you need 120GB HD exactly? Why do you need a high-def optical format? Why can't you use a regular battery charger? And don't forget you'll be shelling out 60 quid for a couple of rumbling controllers next year for PS3. Plus, you completely omit any mention of the raison d'etre of consoles - the games.

    As for the Live cost, that's a valid point. My experience with Live is limited to Xbox1, but I found it well worth the money vs. the woeful PS2 online effort. Has anyone here used PSN enough to say whether it competes with Live?

    The 120 HDD for the long run, HD format for the HD movies as well as gaming content and regular or not the expensive is there for rechargable battery. Rumble is a valid point but I can get that as when i chose. As for games: well... Half of the games you would care to mention on 360 are more than likely on PS3 along with Wipeout HD, Echochrome and Everyday Shooter; all PSN titles...

    PSN can't compete with Live yet, but it's considerably better than the experience on PS2 and still at nil cost to the consumer.

  • monkie_king #120 4 years ago

    @Rash: ah, more games that aren't out yet. Go have a look at Metacritic or EG review scores for 360 and PS3. You know, for games that are actually out. See those 10s for Bioshock, Halo3? See all those 9's?

    Seriously, if I go and buy a PS3 tonight, what killer titles could I actually sit down and play? Warhawk, sure. Then a bit of SSHD. Then, erm ... Super Rub-a-Dub?

  • Rash' #121 4 years ago

    PS3 at Shopto.com for £350 with extra official controller, as we're now looking for deals...

  • mash the x button #122 4 years ago

    More people in the employ of Microsoft and Sony posting crap here.

  • Rash' #123 4 years ago

    monkie_king, More intense attempts at seeking validation for ones opinion. 360 has Bioshock, Halo 3, Orange Box, Assassin's Creed, Pro Evo, Mass Effect... Are you going to buy all those games??? I know i want Orange Box and Pro Evo... If I have some cash and time left then maybe Warhawk too. The point is you can have all the game you want, doesn't mean you'll play them all.

  • Rash' #124 4 years ago

    mash the x button, Agreed. A lot of trolling and I should really know better by now.

  • zuljin #125 4 years ago

    headbog
    "I the second link, it pretty much proves my point. The textures look muddy and there is not that much detail in the geometry comparatively speaking."

    It proves absolutely nothing. Looking at it closer, and having spent a fair few hours on it so far, I do not recognise that geometry from any level. Not too mention it is a dark scene, and all current levels are bright.

    And loking at this:
    [link url=http://homepage.mac.com/kevinmacleod/warhawk /hd_8_27/hd827image7.jpg
    ]http://ho mepage.mac.com/kevinmacleod/war...[/link]
    Definately not from the PS3 released version.

  • zuljin #126 4 years ago

    @headbog
    "The newer machines are not so noisy..."
    Oh so wrong. Although the HDMI port is a nice extra...

  • Bonus #127 4 years ago

    Developers chose to use this in any way they chose to provide some sort of motion blurring (PGR games, PD0) or anti-aliasing (Oblivion). That's a technical benefit of the console and one which is a requirement from Microsoft, it is not a requirement from Sony so devs don't have to use it.

    It's definately true that the PS3 does not have enough VRAM to do this for a lot of games. It has 256Mb VRAM which must be used for all rendering. Models, textures, fram buffer, depth buffer and on and on.

    The 360 can have those issues as well, it's all about design choice. Look at Halo 3, it uses 2 640 high buffers, one for LDR lighting and one for HDR lighting which are combined for the final image. The lighting looks amazing but it still gets caned for "not looking very good".

    People need to accept that it's the developers who make the games look the way they are not the respective consoles. Bad design choices in software will lead to poor looking games. Some titles which have time to fix their design before the next platform release comes out will improve ( i.e. Oblivion ), those which ship simultaneously will suffer on one platform.

    People are leading on the 360 just now so it is coming out on top.

    It's graphics chip is still better and the PS3s CPU is still better but they can't compensate for unoptimised software design. No system can.

  • Twincoil #128 4 years ago

    In other news: my cock's bigger than yours, but they're both big enough to fill a pram.

  • mash the x button #129 4 years ago

    "So how do you get a job getting paid to post fanboy comments on these sites"?

    Work for MS OR Sony :p

    Baddaboom tish!

  • Rash' #130 4 years ago

    Twincoil: "In other news: my cock's bigger than yours, but they're both big enough to fill a pram."

    LOL! I'm off guys. Thanks for the banter.

  • miiiguel #131 4 years ago

    monkie_king, More intense attempts at seeking validation for ones opinion. 360 has Bioshock, Halo 3, Orange Box, Assassin's Creed, Pro Evo, Mass Effect... Are you going to buy all those games???

    1st time I see this new argument why PS3 is a better option, it has very few games, so one has more time for the family, and spends less money. Kudos!

    "The point is that nobody is 'desperate' to get a 360 now."
    My 13 years old nephew is..., and yes blame Halo for that. My sister, who never heard the Halo word before, was cursing "damned Halo" yesterday at the phone with me.
    Edited by 4 at 04/10/07 @ 16:07

  • mash the x button #132 4 years ago

    In all seriousness, surely its all down to pricing? Sony messed up big time with that ridiculous launch figure. Any news on Xmas packages?

  • old_skool #133 4 years ago

    sooooo........when do we get a 360/Wii comparison ?

  • miiiguel #134 4 years ago

    "The 120 HDD for the long run, HD format for the HD movies as well as gaming content and regular or not the expensive is there for rechargable battery. Rumble is a valid point but I can get that as when i chose. As for games: well... Half of the games you would care to mention on 360 are more than likely on PS3 along with Wipeout HD, Echochrome and Everyday Shooter; all PSN titles... "

    So 120HD for when I might need, and rumble..., well I can look into that later.
    Thank you Mr. Sony; thank you. I love you very much Mr. Sony (just put some butter, or it hurts too much)...
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 16:25

  • old_skool #135 4 years ago

    soooooo..... how about a gameplay comparison between the 360 and the Wii ?

    -_-

  • miiiguel #136 4 years ago

    It's funny how nowdays everyone who throws a punch line @ 360 is a "360 and PS3 owner, so don't call me a fanboy, or else..."

    The reason PS3 games underperform because of lazy devs also justifies it..., it's like, it's ok I buy it, it's not Sony fault, so it's ok... .
    Edited by 2 at 04/10/07 @ 16:31

  • old_skool #137 4 years ago

    hey Eurogamer, since you're doing all these comparisons, why don't you compare ps3 sixaxis with the wiimote while you're at it. Nice thing to do while getting through the day.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 16:31

  • SAH1977 #138 4 years ago

    Surely you buy a console based on it's exclusive's, titles which tend to show you what a machine is really capable of.

    3rd party games are influenced by too many external issues, not least experience.

    If the 360 offers Gran Turismo, MGS and Blu-ray playback in the future I'll consider it.

    3rd party shooters and sports games are very low on my list of priorities.

  • Rash' #139 4 years ago

    "So 120HD for when I might need, and rumble..., well I can look into that later.
    Thank you Mr. Sony; thank you. I love you very much Mr. Sony (just put some butter, or it hurts too much)... "

    Couldn't leave without a quick look: 120 HDD is cheaper in the long run with Elite than it is on it's own. :p
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 16:37

  • monkie_king #140 4 years ago

    SAH1977: that's a *really* weak argument. I might consider a PS3 in the future too, *when* MGS and GT5 actually come out, and if they're any good.

    But for now, watching Michael Bay movies in HD, and a complete dearth of AAA games is pretty low on my list of priorities ...

  • miiiguel #141 4 years ago

    Rash' , oh man, don't take me wrong..., I really, honestly, think that any video-game enthusiast who misses the oppurtunity to play with a 360 right now is hurting himself based on some esoteric bullshit, really.
    If PS3 happens to be great in mid-late 08, no one will stop me from getting one. But I wont force myself to not play the best platform later on when I get home, for the sake of that possibility.
    No one touches my white box, I'll bite!

  • monkie_king #142 4 years ago

    miiiguel, it's weird isn't it, how defensive people get? I think there's a fear that they've bought the wrong thing, and they want to deny that possibility for their own peace of mind.

    Personally, I've never regretted owning any of the consoles I've had (and that includes the DC and the NeoGeo Pocket Color), because even the ones that failed in the market gave me a lot of great gaming experiences.

    Just buy on the strength of the games that are out, you can't really go wrong.

  • finty13 #143 4 years ago

    The general opinion around here is that the PS3 will get better and eventually beat the 360. But I ask you, will the 360 not be getting better also? Is it incapable of this? Some of you think that the 360 will just stand still and let the PS3 catch up but it aint gonna be that simple IMO.

  • Zappa #144 4 years ago

    so basicly PS3 a year younger is just as good + all those were ports.

  • Rash' #145 4 years ago

    miiiguel, don't get it twisted. I've nothing against 360. As I said I wanted one for Halo 3. But I can wait. I have a PS3 and Wii after all.
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 17:24

  • sharpfish #146 4 years ago

    LMAO - Are there ANY PS3 Owners still left hiding behind the belief that 'their' system is technically superior just because Sony said it was.

    Egg On Face over and over again. The only time you are going to see the PS3 do amazing things is when Sony does it themselves (GT5, Wipeout etc).

    Sorry guys but for over 2 years now, those of us who picked up Xbox360's only to be told it 'wasn't teh real next gen' or that 'PS3 will kick it's ass', knew all along the lies that Sony were spouting, the technical specs of both consoles speak for themselves, they can't magically match the output of the 360 while they have less ram and inferior GPU it's just plain scientific fact!

    What's that? Cell? BluRay? Yeah, great if you want to watch films or do Folding@home, what about games. (massive roll of eyes here and frankly you ps3fanboys deserve it)

  • Twincoil #147 4 years ago

    "LMAO - Are there ANY PS3 Owners still left hiding behind the belief that 'their' system is technically superior just because Sony said it was"

    LMAO - Are there ANY 360 owners still getting teenage thrills out of the fact that their system has a better graphics card just because EG said it was?

    Oh. There are you say?

  • sharpfish #148 4 years ago

    Hey NickM40A3 > I agree man, that's the sorriest part in this tale. Just LOOK at how much the ps3 owners have to pay to get FAR worse games, Far worse performance and Far less 'must have' titles.

    I pity them I really do, and I bet most of them regret buying one over a 360 now, just look at all the massive titles that have come out/are coming out for the Box!

  • sharpfish #149 4 years ago

    Twincoil > i'm 33, and it's not cos EG said it it's because WE said from day one (once we knew the specs of the PS3). It's only now that EG have to do such petty comparisons to shut you fanboys the hell up.

    We were happy enjoying Dead Rising, Gears, PGR etc and the PS3 Fanboys (even before they had the console) told us we were 'wrong' to buy Xbox.

    It's laughable how it's very much the reverse, it just takes EG's comparisons to ram the point home to those that can't work out the technical differences from the known specs themselves (again - rolls eyes)

  • Bonus #150 4 years ago

    @Twincoil

    I've worked on a published PS3 game, Oblivion.

    The 360 has a better GPU.

  • Twincoil #151 4 years ago

    @sharpfish

    I didn't buy either console because of what anyone said or because of their 'power'. I bought both consoles (that should have at least a 5+ year life span each) because I know, at some point or other, there'll be games out on one that I can't get on the other.

    Get the fuck over it or, at the very least, be a good little boy and wank over your tech sheets and cross-referenced press releases in private now, would you kindly?
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 17:47

  • Bonus #152 4 years ago

    Someone knows how to post something just to start a fight :-).

  • mash the x button #153 4 years ago

    What are you on foxhound? Everyone knows that halo 3 is the mutts knuts, look at all those 10/10 scores!
    The editors at EG must be having a quiet chuckle to themselves methinks
    :-)
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 17:59

  • Katsumoto #154 4 years ago

    just spend 100 quid more and get a decent pc. that has more games than all 3 "next gen" systems combined, and prettier graphics! Everybody wins. It can even do stuff other than play games.

    p.s., just testing if there is such a thing as a "pc fanboy". You know. I don't know which corporation i'm gonna be accused of getting paid by though!
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 18:04

  • deaner #155 4 years ago

    The fundamental problem with this type of comparison is that cross-platform code always looks crappy, and will favour the platform with the most generic hardware.

    Why bother?

    Look at two flagship FPS titles when Haze comes out. And see how Halo 3 looks remarkably lo-res!

  • monkie_king #156 4 years ago

    is Haze not going to be cross-platform anymore?

  • sharpfish #157 4 years ago

    I've got a fast pc too (8800gtx) but that does't 'solve' the problem when only certain games go to certain systems. In an ideal world we'd own all systems.

    It's not even about how bad HALO3 may or may not look (next to great PC games or whatever) it's about the specific advantages afforded to the 360 thanks to it's technical specifications. PS3 fanboys didn't believe us when we told them that Sony were lying to them, and when EG publishes what can only be actual, every day, in front of your face 'proof' they so don't want to accept that they either call EG biased or say we are all 'gloating' for no reason.

    I too don't buy a system based purely on specs, if the 360 were only strongest in it's GPU and RAM then I wouldn't bother with it, it's ALL ABOUT THE GAMES and sadly the PS3 can't begin to compete there yet either.

    The overpriced and trojan horsed (BluRay) system is poorly conceived for a games oriented device. THe performance you are ACTUALLY getting out of it for 'general' gaming (i.e multiformat bread and butter titles that are in these comparisions) is not worth the money you pay, that's what I personaly object to. It should be priced somewhere between the WII and the 360 if judged on it's ability to deliver games of a certain technical standard. The fact its' now over twice as much as a 'superior gaming console' is just a joke.

    Knock yourselves out on BluRay and bragging about 'Cell' as if it makes a difference.
    :)


    @Twincoil > grow up or at least stick to the topic instead of acting like a big kid because the results are not to you liking, if the comparision results were the other way around the PS3 Fanboys would be having a field day with it and you know that! :)

  • Bonus #158 4 years ago

    I'm quite confident people saying Halo 3 doesn't look good don't really know what they are talking about.

    It might not do all things better than all games but it definately has the best lighting of any game on either console.

  • bonker #159 4 years ago

    "Don't you mean "jump in"! Sorry... Any way, I would still say PS3. It doesn't look so rosey now, but just like the PS2, the PS3 will get better over time and it isn't as notoriously difficult to get to grips with as the PS2 was. Wait for Burnout and Drake's Fortune. "

    But why wait? Why spend more money? Why choose inferior games?

    Why? Why? Why?

    etc.

  • cyber_nicco #160 4 years ago

    @BillyBrush

    "Thread is going to turn into a classic, they won't visit the UKR but they will not be leaving here today. Rabbits in headlights with v signs and grenades,,,ohh it's going to be a tricky journey, but that won't stop it being fun... "

    ROFL. Very funny stuff.

  • OpiumZA #161 4 years ago

    Cool. Personally i don't care about these things, but i'm glad both consoles seem 2 be similar.. and we can have stiff compeition on the software front, with no console holding the other back

  • Darren #162 4 years ago

    @Bonus - While Halo 3 has nice HDR lighting, to me it looks no better than that of Oblivion or PGR 3, and I'd rather have had anti-aliasing and texture filtering as I feel they're more noticeable by their absense, particularly on the Xbox 360 as we're used to seeing high-quality 720p rendered games with 2X AA.

    At times, Halo 3 can look absolutely magnificent but that's the disappointment for me, it should have looked magnificent all the time, especially being as it is a major release for Microsoft's platform and an advert for what it can do technically. And it isn't a very good advert for the 360 if its flagship title isn't even proper HD and doesn't use AA either, two of the very things Microsoft were telling everyone ALL Xbox 360 games would have back at E3 2005! LOL

  • Negotiator #163 4 years ago

    10/10 was WAY over the top LOL Everyone in other forums have had a good chuckle at EG's review LOL I give it a 8/10, that's more realistic.

    And this topic is about graphics. And YES Halo 3's graphics are mediocre at best!

    First off shit head Edge gave Halo 3 10/10 only the 6th ever, so EG's review was spot on. Graphics mediocre, your eyes must be covered in that shit your talking. From a total quality perspective they are very good, but when you take into account the scale of the environments and size of battles its jaw dropping.

  • septimus #164 4 years ago

    EG really picks some shite games to compare... makes sense because most multi-platform games suck.

    These comparisons do nothing to aid comparison between the 2 machines, just makes comment fodder. GS do it as well and it's just as pointless.

  • Kill_Crazy #165 4 years ago

    Well done on Eurogamer for picking the crappest games around for a head to head. Wait for some decent games and not just upgraded EA shite, last gen games and fucked-since-the-first-game (possibly 2nd) Spiderman. IMO.

    EDIT: Should of read above post first ;) +1
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/07 @ 20:07

  • JavaJawaUK #166 4 years ago

    "It seems the year advantage of XBOX 360 is paying off."

    Even a year's advantage shouldn't mean that some PS3 games have just half the frame-rate of their 360 counterparts. That's a combination of sloppy development [probably EA's fault - everything is] and a hard[er]-to-use SDK, but even then . . . a lowly 30fps for a console that Sony touted as being 2x as powerful as the 360?

    My god . . .

  • Scimarad #167 4 years ago

    Those are some shite games (apart from The Darkness) but these are valid articles. As an owner of both machines I always check which is best for multiformat stuff and, tbh, there is usually bugger all in it. So far it has generally been in the 360s favour but with stuff the Sega Rally it's much harder to decide - Unless you are one of those strange people who can't live without rumble or achievements...

  • TWIGishere #168 4 years ago

    And the 360 wins again! :D

  • Bonus #169 4 years ago

    @ Darren:

    MS did claim that every game would be in HD, that's what happen when you let the marketting dept. talk their talk, Sony's claimed every game would run in 1080p as well (which MS also did for Halo3).

    I personally am not a big fan of AA, I think it muddies images too much. Oblivion on the 360 is a perfect example, the PS3 version looks much crisper because it doesn't use AA, in my opinion anyway. That sems to be the general consensus as well where people feel it has higher res textures than the 360, despite it having less VRAM to play with than the 360.

    There are a fair few 360 games which render at lower resolutions than 720p, I'm sure PGR3 does this as well.

    I'm not sure where the "proper" HD arguement holds up, I'm with Bungie when they say there isn't all that much of a difference betwen their 640 high resolution and the 720 high res. It works out to be a loss of around 11% of the on screen pixels, which come from around the edge of the screen and in FPS's you are usually focussed right in the middle where the crosshair is. The debate would then come in to whether they would keep the same viewing frustum, increasing scene deatil, or whether they would have increased it so you could see more, meaning there would be no detail benefits.

    There really is much more to all of these discussions than people give credit for. I personally can't see anything wrong with the graphics of Halo when playing the game. It's a great technical feat considering the number of enemies on screen at some points with absolutely no slow down and no loading pauses during levels.

    Quoted games like Oblivion slow down when streaming data and PGR3 has low res textures until the higher res textures are streamed. These are all different ways to address different problems and in my opinion at least Bungie have nailed it technically.

    I really do think people would be hard pushed to find five better looking games on either the PS3 or the 360 which also pull off the same level of technical achievment i.e. 60fps with no slow-down, high numbers of on screen characters (by characters I mean, high detailed, animated and very intelligent AI routines), no streaming pauses and no visible high res texture pop-ins.

  • SwedBear #170 4 years ago

    Impressive. We had almost 200 posts before someone had to start arguing about the Halo 3 review :).

    As an owner of all three Next-Gen consoles I find these articles great as they help deciding which version to get. Right now I can't help to be dissapointed how the PS3 is fairing. It's not just the fact that most multi-ports are the same or worse, it's the fact that they still seem to come out much later than the 360 version. I tend to pick up games I want pretty quick when they are released and so far (here in Sweden) almost always multi-port games come out much later on the PS3.

    While it is getting a bit tiresome, Sony and Sony fanboys are themselves to blame that 360 fanboys now take every advantage to mock the PS3. We got fed all sort of bullshit before the release of the PS3 of how much better everything would be due to the Cell, the Blueray, the free PSN yada yada yada. Heck, I was at E3 2005 and saw the "Killzone 2" footage at the pressconference and the claim that the PS3 would be able to drive two separate 1080p displayes at once and all sorts of other bullshit. And now we see games that cannot display the same framerate as the 360 or have to be degraded a bit to run the same? No wonder 360 fanboys are having a field day.

    Still - it's not nice to kick on someone who is lying on the ground and in the end, despite Sony's bullshit the PS3 is a nice console (albeit overpriced) and as soon as they get some good games out they can start gaining ground again.

    Someone in the thread said he got a different kind of games on the PS3 which is why he liked it more. I'm curious about what games that is? Except for that Loco Roco spinoff I cannot see any big difference in the types of games on the PS3 and 360 (except the 360 has more of course right now). Just curious.

    To me the 360 wins hand down with much nicer game library and far superior (IMHO of course) online support. Not to mention Achievements and rumble (yeah, I really miss that on the PS3). Unfortuantely neither Lair or Heavenly Sword impressed me but I do like Warhawk a lot so with more good games (and better release schedule) the PS3 finally should be able to come to age. Look at the PSP. It might be behind the DS but after a slow start it has gotten a nice selection of games and with the Slim PSP finally gotten the sales it deserves.

    In the end though the PS3 never will be able to "win" as the PS2 did last gen. Regardless if it finally overtakes the 360 or not both the 360 and the Wii has suceeded enough in this gen to be able to improve their market share comapred to last time. That's how I also like it. I want a even 3-way race (4 if we count in the PC).

  • SwedBear #171 4 years ago

    evilfoxhound; Jeez, cool down. Why the anger? What's your Live GT?

  • zooms #172 4 years ago

    I'm bemused that nearly a year after its launched many people still think the PS3 is vastly more powerful than the X360 and the only thing that is stopping it outshining the X360 is developer's incompetence.

    Time and time again I'm told to wait for "this" or "that" title which will truly show me the power of the PS3. Yet, the only empirical evidence we have would suggest the PS3 is slightly less powerful than the X360.

    Are these incompetent developers also not making the most of the X360? or are they just selectively rubbish at developing for the PS3.

    The only way Sony could possible justify choosing an architecture which requires so much extra work to realise the PS3's power is if the machine turns out to be at least twice as powerful as the X360.

    Which it looks like is not going to be the case. Otherwise they are just screwing developers. Work harder for the same result. Thanks Sony.

  • Negotiator #173 4 years ago

    I just don't like being called names over a silly console argument, that's all. Gets my blood up.

    Guess that you won't like be calling you, never mind let's agree to disagree ok houndy.

  • J.C #174 4 years ago

    Its about time sony got a good kicking. all that shit about teh cell! PS3 is the real next gen, 100FPS 2 HDMI ports amazing realtime killzone trailer, yeh whatever sony fuck off!

    Lying bastards.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/07 @ 00:02

  • RAAMRUUTER #175 4 years ago

    So 4-0...... must be an amazing super computer to be beat by console half its value...(I own a 360, ps3, and had a wii for month then sold because of its childlike games)

    Oh well maybe next time Sony...

  • SAH1977 #176 4 years ago

    I think some guys need a reality check, many people are only just upgrading to the next gen and/or are also into PC gaming.

    Personally I look forward to 2-3 games a year, were's the rush, who can afford a game every other week, who cares when every other game is a racer or shooter.

    A consoles a long term investment, something which Sony delivers on.

  • Machiavellian #177 4 years ago

    I have a PS3 and I only have a few negatives concerning the system but on the whole it is a quality console but I also continue to wonder where people continue to believe the PS3 will suddenly double in performance and blow away the 360. The problem with the PS3 is that it can only be as strong as it's weakest part. Even if the Cell is all powerful, the Nvidia GPU isn't. There is a cost with using the Cell to do graphics functions. Hell, there is a cost for the Cell to do AI as well. The memory structure of the PS3 also doesn't help. Even though the GPU can access 512mb of memory getting to the 256mb segmented for the system comes at a cost. Another weak point for the PS3 is the OS Footprint which also hampers things. Everyone that believes the PS3 will suddenly jump in performance from what we are seeing today continue to forget all of the other components other then the Cell that comprise the PS3 and also help to create a game. There are to many weakness to the PS3 platform that probably will prevent the system from Reaching a state where it will blow away the 360. If anything it will probably end up being about even. The complexity of the PS3 only adds to the problem. The complexity of the PS3 only means that it will probably not lead with a lot of development studios and thus end up regulated to sloppy seconds like the Xbox received from the PS2


    I bought the PS3 because of the games I know that will be coming out for the system that will not make it to the 360, not because I was led into believing that it would be this all powerful console. Personally I wish I did wait until next year when the price would be much cheaper because getting a PS3 even for Blueray at this point in time was a waste of money.

    I do not know about anyone else but when I play a Blueray movie in 720P or 1080i it really doesn't look that much better and in most cases not at all to an upscaled DVD at those same resolutions. Personally, I believe unless you have a 1080P set, Blueray is a waste. In 1080P, there is no contest but in the other resolutions, I find it hard to justify the purchase of a Blueray player over a good upscale DVD player.

  • wayn3h #178 4 years ago

    You poor deluded fools. With your misguided allegiances to multinational companies who want nothing more than your money.

    So sad.

    Just shut up and play tbh.

  • Darren #179 4 years ago

    @Headbog - There's absolutely nothing wrong with my HDTV... the previous Samsung LE-26R41BD one I owned or the current Sony KDL-32D3000 I currently own. If there was then I'd be complaining about jaggies and tearing in EVERY game and that simply isn't the case. I have my HDTV set up properly and Sharpness is on Min (0). Halo 3 is an absolute jagfest on ANY HDTV, possibly the 360's worst since Spider-Man 3 and before that PGR 3. Yes, I've learnt to ignore them for the most part but then I come across a section of the game with straight edges and they're suddenly in my face again. SEGA Rally on the hand looks gorgeous with barely any jaggies whatsoever. Ditto for NBA Live 08, FIFA 08, NHL 08, Blue Dragon and most of the six billion other Xbox 360 games I own! :p

    I'm only glad I play Halo 3 on a 32" HDTV, I'd hate to play it on a 40"+ HDTV... eurgh! Personally I think Halo 3 looks better running on a 32" widescreen CRT TV where the low resolution and lack of AA is masked by the scanline technology. And it saddens me to say that! ;)

    It's very easy to blame a game's visual shortcomings on the quality (or lack thereof) of someone's HDTV but, more often than not, it's simply a case of one person being more observant than someone else. I have very good eyesight and I notice things, not intentionally - I don't go out of my way to find these flaws - I just happen to notice them. ;)

    P.S. I've seen PGR 4 running on my HDTV and the improved 720p rendering resolution plus 2X AA makes a huge difference to the visual quality over PGR 3's 600p plus 2X AA as the jaggies have now almost all been eliminated. They'll always be some jaggies but PGR now looks next-gen standard in terms of visual fidelity IMO. ;)

  • Negotiator #180 4 years ago

    Darren I own Halo 3 and the jaggies you speak of are hardly noticeable, my guess is you have set your sharpness to high on your set which will result in fuzzy outlines, turn it almost all the way down, I thank you.

  • Bonus #181 4 years ago

    I'm bemused by the jagfest comment too.

    Halo 3 is no more jaggy than Oblivion was on the PS3.

  • Darren #182 4 years ago

    @Bonus - Oblivion runs at 720p with no AA on the PS3 (unless you're telling me different?) and Halo 3 runs at 640p with no AA so the former is definitely less jaggy (as you'd logically expect) but still jaggy nevertheless. Oblivion obviously isn't on the Xbox 360 though as it runs at 720p with 2X AA and that's why I think the 360 version is better graphically but the PS3 version runs better overall (smoother framerate, less hitching and faster loading times). ;)

    However, Oblivion gets away with it on the PS3, partly because it runs at 720p, but also because the environments don't rely on straight edges for the most part. Halo 3 looks best when you're not in an artificial environment like the buildings and interiors. For example, the railings toward the end of level five (the Flood one) are horrendously jaggy and very obvious to me but the jungle level at the start of the first level looks fantastic. Halo 3 is barely running above standard definition and if you upscale any 576p Xbox game without any AA it is obviously going to look very jaggy on an HDTV with a native resolution of 1366x768 or 1920x1200, that's why the 360 emulator adds AA to both Halo and Halo 2 so that the upscaling isn't so jarring!

    And, no, Headbog, I do NOT look for these things. As I clearly explained in my earlier post, I just notice them because I have very good eyesight. Obviously you just aren't as observant as I am or you're more tolerant of flaws, I dunno. I do notice things in real-life too that other people don't, often to their amusement - I'm sharp-eyed if you like - so that's either a gift or a curse depending on your point of view. ;)

  • Bonus #183 4 years ago

    You have conclusive proof that Oblivion runs at 720p on the 360? I'd like to see that ;-).

    Like I said in an earlier post, this is starting to come down to personal preference. I personally prefer the slightly jaggy, unblended look of no AA over the blurred look of AA.

    There's no doubt that Halo 3 doesn't have the sharpest graphics of any game out there but it makes up for it in other areas. The jagfest description does strike me as being somewhat of an exaggeration though and it's not something I have noticed to distraction while playing the game.

  • Darren #184 4 years ago

    headbog - Really, anyone who thinks the 'jaggies' are a problem needs to step back a little and remember what SD looks like. Try it."

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're referring to SD TVs, i.e. CRT ones then a game's lower resolution and lack of AA is minimised by the scanline technology, that's why 480/576p Wii games look uglier and jaggier when played through component video on an HDTV rather than RGB SCART on a CRT TV. Jaggies are still noticeable but nowhere near as much as on ultra-sharp LCD TVs. HDTVs are designed to display hi-def sources, anything less and the image quality suffers. Halo 3 is not hi-def, it doesn't meet the 720 lines minimum requirement.

    If you're referring to the SD resolutions then, again, I'd like to remind you that Halo 3 is running at 640p which is only slightly higher than 576p (SD) anyway. Had the game used 2X AA then the lower rendering resolution would have been less noticeable to anyone, including me, but it doesn't. HDTVs don't magically add AA when they upscale you know (unless your TV allows you to set the Sharpness BELOW 0 that is to make the image blurrier) and the 360 certainly doesn't add any for Halo 3! As I said earlier, I tried Halo 3 on my old 32" widescreen CRT TV and it surprisingly looked better than on my HDTV of the same size, likely because the game runs at barely above SD anyway and the TV's scanlines and blurrier resolution do the rest. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/07 @ 10:41

  • Darren #185 4 years ago

    @Bonus - I don't need proof that Oblivion is running at 720p, it's irrelevant. I don't care if it turns out to be another upscaled 600/640p game, the fact is that I can see that it LOOKS good and the jaggies are at an absolute minimum. Yes, there are some, no amount of AA'ing can eliminate them all but they aren't as "in yer face" as Halo 3. You can tell the 360 version of Oblivion uses AA just by comparing the edges of chests and straight objects with that of the PS3 version. I own the game on both formats and have played both extensively for well over 100 hours (the 360 version some 350 hours) and jaggies/resolution has never been a problem in the 360 version. And it's less of a problem on the PS3 as well for the reasons I explained above.

    I have a tolerance threshold for jaggies I guess and find them bearable in PS3 Oblivion but far less so in 360 Halo 3, it's as simple as that. Had Halo 3 ran natively at 720p without AA maybe I wouldn't even be having this "conversation". ;)

  • Bonus #186 4 years ago

    I'm not trying to argue with you, I said in my last post too that it's a personal preference of mine to prefer the jagged look over AA blur and you've said you prefer AA over jaggies.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/07 @ 11:02

  • Darren #187 4 years ago

    As I've said I do not, I repeat, DO NOT look for these issues, I *notice* them. Clearly I and gamesTM are far more observant than you are because, taken from their review of Halo 3 in issue 62, they said this:

    "Resolution is surprisingly low, with most edges featuring jaggies and low detail on textures. Presumably it's to compensate for Halo 3's immense scope, but expect to hear dissenting noises from graphics whores."

    I completely agree with that and kudos to gamesTM for being one of the few reviews to point that fact out. Most of the other reviews have simply said that the graphics aren't as impressive as you'd expect/underwhelming, or words to that affect, without explaining exactly why they aren't.

    At times, Halo 3 can look terrific but there are too many times when it just doesn't in my opinion, looking more like an upscaled Xbox game than a premier 360 title. I guess by gamesTM's definition, I'm a graphics whore but generally I find most Xbox 360 games meet my expectations for what a current-gen game should like in terms of image quality (framerate, resolution and anti-aliasing). I accept that I'm in a minority of people who expected better but then I bought an expensive HDTV to play HD games on 'cos Microsoft said it would make them look good! ;)

    It doesn't change the fact that I love this game though... it's a case of nice game, shame about the slightly disappointing graphics! :)

  • Darren #188 4 years ago

    Fair comments. I guess people just have different opinions about what makes good graphics good in their eyes. Games like SEGA Rally and Oblivion, for example, get the balance just right without compromising any area of the visuals noticeably whereas Halo 3 has clearly compromised resolution and AA for that fancy LDR/HDR lighting and a larger scope.

    One last thing that irks me about Halo 3 is that when you take a screenshot the still is rendered at 720p with 4X AA and texture filtering, which you see for a few seconds, before the game drops back to the unrefined rougher looking ingame visuals. Yes, PGR 3 also did this and it's kind of jarring and just reminds me of what the game could have looked like running on better hardware! Damn those Photo modes! LOL

    Oh well... there's always the PC version in a couple of years time... mmmmm, running at 1920x1200 with 8X AA and 16 X AF... dreamy... shame the actual graphics will look dated by then! LOL

  • Bonus #189 4 years ago

    @headbog

    That's what some AA algorithms do as well. They render 2 (2x) or 4 (4x) the number of pixels for each screen pixel and down sample them to get the resulting pixel.

    The blurriness of some games with these effects is something I personally don't like, comparing the PS3 and 360 Oblivion's is the best example I could give.

  • rebe #190 4 years ago

    It's easy to fault halo3 graphics, but yesterday I watched halo3 and resistance running side by-side on the same tvs and halo 3 looked a lot better than resistance. I did not think the difference would be that great. Resistance looked very flat and unnatural by comparison.

  • Moz #191 4 years ago

    "It's easy to fault halo3 graphics, but yesterday I watched halo3 and resistance running side by-side on the same tvs and halo 3 looked a lot better than resistance. I did not think the difference would be that great. Resistance looked very flat and unnatural by comparison."

    The problem with compairing different games if that they generally have different styles. And the above case your compairing a launch game to a game 2 years after launch.

    Now go and compair Halo 3 to PDZ

  • Martin #192 4 years ago

    I think I'll follow Billy Idol's advice:

    "So let's sink another drink, 'cos it'll give me time to think.

    If I had the chance, as I wanna dance, then I'll be dancing with myself."

    Cheers!

  • Azazel #193 4 years ago

    Buyer's remorse and the power of cognitive dissonance will draw PS3 owners to this thread, like moths to a flame.

    SI*

    *(smirking inwardly)

  • anonim1979 #194 4 years ago

    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540
    The Datrkness on PS3 runs in 960x540

    So 1080p is SOFTWARE SCALER x2 !!!!!
    NOT NATIVE!

    540p - The Darkness (960x540)

    CONFIRMED by the same guy who tested Halo 3

    more info (pages 12 and up )
    http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...

  • anonim1979 #195 4 years ago

    The Darkness isn't 1080p on PS3 - the game runs 960x540.
    Software scaler.
    the same as NG Sigma - 1280x720 software scaled to 1080.

  • Stu #196 4 years ago

    The PS3 version of Godfather has a red light on the traffic lights rather than a green one. Hmmm....

  • Luna-C #197 4 years ago

    Woopy do, xbox360 looks better on some extremely mediocre pos games (apart from the darkness which is pretty good, and runs fine on ps3)

    When im playing FF13, metal gear, ratchet clank, UT3, GTurismo and Uncharted I wont be giving two sh*ts about this article lol

    BTW if you want to play FPS games, buy a PC not an xbox.