Xbox 360 vs. PS3: Multiformat Face-off

By Richard Leadbetter Published 23 March, 2007

We compare and contrast the PS3's 360 ports.

Page 1 of 5

The delayed European launch has left the PlayStation 3 with something of a problem - a sizeable proportion of its debut games are already available on the Xbox 360. Indeed, the likes of Fight Night Round 3 have been maturing on the shelves for over a year, while many of the others debuted on the 360 over four months ago. Internet gossip and many online reviews also point to several of these PS3 conversions suffering in comparison to the 360 'originals', an astonishing state of affairs considering that Sony's hardware is newer technology with a price tag that dwarfs that of Microsoft's console.

Of course, it's early days for the PlayStation 3 and any new piece of gaming technology takes time for game developers to get to grips with. That said, many studios (off the record of course) are not entirely happy with the SDK that Sony provides for PlayStation 3 development. The word is that Microsoft's programming environment gives better results more quickly. There's also the question of memory - Xbox 360 gives developers a full 512MB to do with as they will. PlayStation 3 on the other hand divides its internal RAM into two 256MB portions, with one section dedicated entirely to the NVIDIA-derived graphics technology. Up until recently, 64MB of the PS3's system memory was also sectioned off for OS use only, meaning that memory becomes far more of a precious commodity when developing on the Sony platform.

Clearly the PS3 is far from technically deficient up against the 360. While the 360's triple-core PowerPC CPU is an extreme piece of technology, Cell is no slouch in itself. It may only have a single core, but its satellite SPU processors are astonishingly powerful - just one of them can decode 300 MP3s simultaneously in real-time, and there are six of them available to be used in concert while the main CPU runs the core game logic.

But how much of an impact are all of these factors having on the launch titles? We decided to take a look by directly comparing 360 and PS3 versions of the same game, capturing full 24-bit RGB shots and video from each system's best-performing AV output: HDMI from the PS3, and VGA from 360. And this in itself gave the Sony console an immediate advantage. While the difference between analogue and digital on a typical consumer display is difficult to spot, our equipment showed that colour reproduction and basic definition of the image were superior thanks to the pure digital output of the Sony console. There was also zero interference to the signal - the 360's VGA output wasn't so pure, and performance degraded a little at the 1080p top-end. Isolating the video cable as much as we could helped to keep this to a minimum. You probably wouldn't be able to tell any difference at all on the average flatscreen, but we would have definitely liked to do these tests using the much-rumoured HDMI-equipped 360 supposedly due in May.

From there we compared graphical performance and combined those with gameplay impressions. The objectives were two-fold - firstly to provide additional PS3-specific comment in addition to existing Xbox 360 reviews for the same title on the Eurogamer database. Secondly, this was an interesting exercise in seeing how the Sony console's radically different hardware handles the cross-platform development that is becoming increasingly commonplace in the games industry.

To make things more interesting, we also threw in a couple of curveballs that should work to the PS3's advantage - covering a couple of 1080p titles (which common knowledge/Sony PR suggests the PS3 should handle with more aplomb) and putting Namco's Ridge Racer games on both platforms up against one another.

So here's the initial batch of comparison featurettes - the first in an ongoing series.

Nb: When you're poking around the comparison galleries, you can click "View Original" at the top of each for full-size images. Enjoy.

Page 1 of 5

Comments (123) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • simo #1 5 years ago

    EG in purposefully provoking fanboy flamebait thread shocker!

  • Mindstorm #2 5 years ago

    what a waste of time

  • Dizzy #3 5 years ago

    This is going to get nasty...

  • Xerx3s #4 5 years ago

    /puts the kettle on
    /kicks feet up

  • simo #5 5 years ago

    A record-breaking bazillion comments....

  • urban #6 5 years ago

    well the difference is obvious?

  • Introspectre #7 5 years ago

    OMG PS3 GAMEZ LOOK BRIGHTER DUE TO THE AWESOME POWER OF CELL!!!!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1! 1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1

  • pauleyc #8 5 years ago

    IB4L!

    Oh...

  • simo #9 5 years ago

    LOL!

  • Halo.Jones #10 5 years ago

    Guess this is what you call "lazy reporting!" :)

  • DUFFMAN5 #11 5 years ago

    My 360 games look great on my Samsung 50" plasma, but a lot more importantly they PLAY great and the rumble pad is brilliant. Long live the stunning 360!

  • BrokenSymmetry #12 5 years ago

    From the title I was expecting the definitive Eurogamer verdict on 360 v. PS3, but instead we got a pretty useless comparison of multi-platform titles.

  • jonchoo #13 5 years ago

    It was always obvious that the two would have similar graphics. The difference would probably be more subtle, in stuff like online integration (360 wins) and physics engine (PS3 wins).

    Regardless nice flamebait.

  • spongebob #14 5 years ago

    Very good article. Thank you EG!

  • AcidSnake #15 5 years ago

    Shouldn't the definitive verdict come at the end of their lifespans?
    (The consoles' lifespan)

  • krudster #16 5 years ago

    This "useless comparison" is for those people curious to know if there are any notable differences between the two versions of the numerous ports out there for the PS3. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming the PS3 versions will be better.
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 15:13

  • Xerx3s #17 5 years ago

    Introspectre: That's what I was thinking as well. I think that the darker shots give a better mood than those brighter shots. With VT3 it almost seems as if someone has the brightness up to high.

  • Steroyd #18 5 years ago

    ruh roh.

  • Merefield #19 5 years ago

    An article like this was EXACTLY what i was waiting for, thanks EG!!!

    (I don't own either)

  • Introspectre #20 5 years ago

    "Introspectre: That's what I was thinking as well. I think that the darker shots give a better mood than those brighter shots. With VT3 it almost seems as if someone has the brightness up to high."

    Being serious for a sec, the RSX is outclassed by the Xenon. PS3 games really don't have any business 'looking' better than the same game on 360. Of course the PS3 does have CELL (OMG). No escaping from cold hard specs init. Yea.

    /dies

  • strangeed #21 5 years ago

    Oh good. Why don't we let all the idiots into this thread, then lock it, throw away the key and live happily ever after?

    I think I'll be going elsewhere for a few days, it's likely to get nasty round here.

  • BrokenSymmetry #22 5 years ago

    OK, "useless comparison" may have been too harsh, it's just that this article doesn't help me decide, as an Xbox 360 owner, if I should buy a PS3 too....

  • Eraser #23 5 years ago

    the virtua tennis 3 link links to NBA homecourt

  • Stoatboy #24 5 years ago

    Unless I missed it there's no mention of Achievements. They'd swing any decision between two very similar versions of the same game around to the 360 version for me.

  • LOLLERS #25 5 years ago

    Not much difference in a lot of those is there...But most of those probably led on 360 because the hardware/devkits were available first and the 360 sales will be higher because of a higher installed base.

    inconclusive.

  • RexRunti #26 5 years ago

    OK after reading the full article it seems that games that came out a while ago on the 360 are slightly better on the PS3 and games that were released at the same time are slightly better on the 360. There's clearly no winner, not that will stop the fanboys on either side declaring one. Personally, in my own honest and humble opinion I would go 360 for price and online features (Fight Night will be dirt cheap on the 360 now), but I could understand someone going for the PS3 (unless they think it's "twice as powerful";).

    Edit: Just noticed there waas no real mention of achievements and rumble, and only a couple of references to the tilt in the sixaxis... surely these make more of a difference than some of the other comments?
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 15:10

  • nickthegun #27 5 years ago

    So, in summary, the only difference between the two consoles is a bit of online functionality and 150 quid?

  • Gurgeh #28 5 years ago

    Some games look different, some look better, some dont have online. Nothing there that looks worth a couple hundred Euros price difference.

  • Darren #29 5 years ago

    Great article, EG, you've gone into a pleasing amount of depth and have avoided showing any bias. Well done!

    I got my PS3 this morning and thought I'd check this site while I've got some downloads on the go (GT HD and Tekken DR). I played Ridge Racer 7 this morning and thought it looked very jaggy in 720p on my Samsung HDTV, far more than the 360 version in my opinion which I loved and played for weeks last year. I haven't noticed any HDR-lighting effects either in the PS3 version on the five or so tracks I've played and, in fact, don't recall any in the 360 version either... :?

    As for Virtua Tennis 3, I can see from the 1080p comparison shots that the bottom PS3 ones looks a tad more jaggy than the 360 version but maybe that's only obvious in a static screenshot and not on an HDTV.

    Which brings me onto that... most HDTVs do a certain amount of image processing to the picture before it's displayed, they rarely display them "raw" like on a PC monitor, so it's almost impossible to use a static screenshot grabbed from a framebuffer as a 100% accurate representation. And if you take photos of the game on the TVs then they're can be distorted by different angles and lighting.

  • JimJam #30 5 years ago

    What a shock. The same game with an extra year's development time looks a shade better.

  • Killerbee #31 5 years ago

    @everyone complaining about the article

    Don't you think you're being a bit harsh!? If you don't find it interesting, the please move along, but personally (as someone who is yet to buy either a PS3 or 360 - or a HDTV for that matter) it is definitely something I'm interested in, even if it won't necessarily dictate my eventual buying choices.

    Both Sony and MS have hyped up the hi-def capabilities of their respective machines and it's surely relevant to us gamers whether they've delivered on them. And given the multitude of cross-platform games, if eye-candy, online services and a tilt-sensitive controller is all that sets them apart, then I for one definitely welcome any analysis of this in the reviews I read.

    Well done EG.

  • CorporalSpank #32 5 years ago

    Haha...there's more people complaining about this article being flamebait here than flamers! C'mon guys, if you're interested in the article, then post a comment!

  • ecureuil #33 5 years ago

    Hmm.. so on some games the 360 version looks better, and on others the PS3 version looks better? Although the difference is SO minor, it doesn't really matter.

  • bunglebonce #34 5 years ago

    That was a very good read, thank you.

  • nickthegun #35 5 years ago

    I think the point is that this thread hasnt descended into a cockwaving competition because the article is fair, balanced and draws some pretty inescapable conclusions.

    PS3 fans can be happy that some games look better and 360 fans can go away pleased that year old games dont look much better on a new system.

    Only a complete retard could start an argument about this piece.

  • fawe3 #36 5 years ago

    This imo is pointless it's the same as compairing ati's and nvidias picture quallity.

  • Eighthours #37 5 years ago

    Hmmm... the original review of RR7 said that RR6 was better. Opinions, eh? ;)

  • Azazel #38 5 years ago

    Haha...there's more people complaining about this article being flamebait here than flamers!

    It's called 'self-ownage' heh

  • kdsh7 #39 5 years ago

    Leadbetter? From Mean Machines? I always knew that EG stands for old school british video games journalism at it's best!

  • Spydez #40 5 years ago

    Is this the first time in home console history that the new kid on the block has little to no advantage graphically over it's nearest rival?

    The Snes and the Megadrive were similar but the Snes had the mode 7 advantage.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #41 5 years ago

    Good article. I guess it will take a while until the PS3 will be able to produce much better visuals than the 360, until now the only thing noticeable in the comparison is that the anti-aliasing of the 360 works better, at least the screenshots suggest so. The edges seem smoother.

  • #42 5 years ago

    I don't get it, the article is fine and a perfectly interesting read.

    Surely folk want to know what differences (if any) there are.

    Tell you what, if someone says something looks nicer on the PS3 than your 360 (or vice versa), get over it. If you feel the need to whine about it, then you are a very insecure individual indeed.

  • Yossarian #43 5 years ago

    I think more than anything else the miniscule differences here serve only to highlight how misleading and off-base some of Sony's 'real next generation bazillion teraflop omg cell' rhetoric has been from the start

  • ecureuil #44 5 years ago

    Is this the first time in home console history that the new kid on the block has little to no advantage graphically over it's nearest rival?

    Wii

  • oldergamer #45 5 years ago

    Why not compare the Wii's graphics? That would be pointless, EG, wouldn't it?

  • Spydez #46 5 years ago

    Yeah, but we all know the Wii has taken a different approach to that of the PS3

  • #47 5 years ago

    oldergamer they are comparing ports.

    How many 360-wii-PS3 ports are you aware of?

  • Yossarian #48 5 years ago

    Call of Duty!

  • neonxaos #49 5 years ago

    Okay, so the two can produce similar-looking games. Looks like a good, old-fashioned war of original, exclusive titles then. If anything, this forces MS and Sony to differentiate their platforms from each other. Nothing like forced creativity to make us gamers happy - but I think this is good news for the industry. When the hardware performs so similarly (I'm generalizing here), it's all down to what you can do with it. That was certainly the case in the good old 16-bit days, regardless of Mode 7.

  • #50 5 years ago

    Thing is, you don't exactly need to do a comparison between 360 call of duty and the Wii version, a blind man on a cloudy night could see it ;)

    Still, you got me on that port, forgot about it :D

  • oldergamer #51 5 years ago

    Don't people choose MS or Sony for their best game franchises, which are usually exclusive?

  • tancredo #52 5 years ago

    So basically no difference in cross platform games.
    For me it is 360 based on:
    1. I do not need neither a new Blue Ray nor HDDVD, so it does not weight on my decission. In 4-5 years I will probably need one, but not now.
    2. Xbox live is a winner over the PS3 Home.
    3. The 360 is easy to hook up with a Vista/ Media Center computer and external memory drive. So I can manage all my audio /video from the 360 without having to use the memory drive or the DVD player on it. That is a winner for me, a fully integrated media hub I can easily manage. If I can get 360 support for DIVX in the near future I am all set.
    4. 360 is cheaper
    5. Cross platform games are looking very similar. I am aware each platform will have their own quality exclusive games. I have a blast playing Gears of War and some other players also will have fun playing Resistance. I am fine with it. Both systems have quality games and will continue doing so.

    Having said so, the 360 works out for me just fine.

    For different people with different needs, it may be the other way around
    Diversity is good to have.

  • optimusprym8 #53 5 years ago

    PS1 - a pain to code for; PS2 - a pain to code for; PS3 - a pain to code for... nothing like lesson's learned! :D

  • RexRunti #54 5 years ago

    @tancredo

    I use TVersity http://www.tversity.com< /a> This will work on all codecs you have on your PC and allow your media hub/360/PSP to view any files you set up.

    Problems are you can't fast forward or rewind and you need a fast PC if you don't want to pause it at the begining.

    If you have MCE XP or Vista (or Ultimate Vista) I think transcode 360 is better.

  • some1 #55 5 years ago

    ARTICLE: "Ridge Racer 7 is the world's first 1080p game to run (mostly) at 60 frames a second, and the crystal clear clarity this offers is simply sensational."

    Um, PC games?

  • ChocNut #56 5 years ago

    Informative article. Just as I expected really. PS3 is a ripoff for Europeans right now but I certainly don't want it to fail and I was glad when my local stores told me it pretty much sold out.

    As a gamer Im delighted to see mothers queueing up to pay 750 euro for the kids because it means the choice and variety and quality of games available for me increases.

    All things considered I think spending the money on 360 has been the smart choice for anybody during the last year or so and the PS3 will hopefully come into its own in a year or so.

    If you had neither I'd say its pretty equal footing for which to purchase right now. Wait 12 months and PS3 may become a slightly better choice.

  • stuarty_2003 #57 5 years ago

    The important thing that must be considered here is how the games play through a SCART connection, for it is the dogs bollocks connection wise.

    So EG, how do the play through SCART?

  • fawe3 #58 5 years ago

    Nothing there to convince me to join ether camp realy. Currently and in near future there is just nothing on ether system that I realy want to play. It seams its better to invest few hundred into dual core and be able to play stalker, new c&c, crysis, supreme commander, devil may cry... I'll just wait some years untill theres some price drops and something like Shadow of Collosus comes around. And maybe forces me to get one of them.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #59 5 years ago

    PS1 - a pain to code for

    Actually, PS1 was really nice to code for. It was just a CPU, a coprocessor for doing fixed-point matrix maths and a graphics trip that draws triangles. Much nicer than the early directsX/OpenGL/3DFX hardware mess that was the PC at the time, and legendarily much easier to program than the godawful (from a hardware perspective) Saturn.

    It's just with PS2 that they lost the plot. The simple processor-and-graphics-chip combo of PS1 was more similar to the way Xbox worked in my experience.

  • Garulon #60 5 years ago

    "The important thing that must be considered here is how the games play through a SCART connection, for it is the dogs bollocks connection wise. "

    Even RGB SCART does a maximum of 576i though. I played my 360 through an RGB SCART for six or so months until my telly broke, and it looks really really REALLY nice.

    HDTV is absolutely bloody amazing though.

    Really fair article EG. Recommended.

  • Razzajazz #61 5 years ago

    I'm going to display my stunning ignorance here.... Is VGA better than a Component cable? If so, I'm gonna go run down the shop now!

  • Alphamat #62 5 years ago

    Yeah Is VGA better than a Component cable? I run my 360 through a HD projector

  • jmctavish #63 5 years ago

    Could this exercise be any more pedantic? Honestly, what a waste of time.

    It must be painful trying to play games for a lot of folk. "Which cable should I use? How do I shield it? That pixel is the wrong shade of turquoise. This only runs at 53.5 frames per second"

    This whole technology willy waving nonsense is pathetic.

  • mike_mgoblue #64 5 years ago

    The comparisons of Ridge Racer 6 vs 7 seem to leave out the fact that there are waves under bridges that MOVE in the Xbox 360 version, while the waves don't move at all in the Playstation 3 version--they just remain still, like a cutout picture...and that SUCKS.

    Also, it is a MAJOR problem when there are sailboats MISSING from the Playstation 3 version, because the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second compared to 500,000,000 polygons per second for the Xbox 360. That is the whole reason why the Playstation 3 version does not have the ability to maintain a steady framerate at 60 frames per second when the resolution is 1080p.

    The Xbox 360 upscales the resolution to 1080p and maintains the resolution at 60 frames per second fine.

    Also, this article fails to mention that Ridge Racer 6 was developed on Pre-Alpha development kits for the Xbox 360, which only gave developers access to one of the three CPU cores on the Xbox 360. This means the developers at Namco only had access to one-sixth of the General Purpose CPU power for the Xbox 360 while making Ridge Racer 6.

    On the other hand, the Playstation 3 was delayed, which means that Ridge Racer 7 was released after the developers at Namco had access to the Final Development kit for the PS3 for over SIX MONTHS, which allowed the developers to have access to 100% of the power of the PS3.

    In the stages that appear on both systems, the Xbox 360 version had more detail, better lighting, smoother framerates, and faster load times.

    In this first picture comparison, it appears "brighter" on the PS3 and "darker" on the Xbox 360, just like the person comparing the games points out. But what he fails to mention is that Ridge Racer 6 has a wide variety of times of day that you can race. The Xbox 360 looks GREAT in those night stages because of the vastly superior lighting of the Xbox 360. Take a look at that tower on the light with the green lighting for proof of that.

    Read the review for both games. The Xbox 360 version is rated higher, and the review for Ridge Racer 7 makes it clear that the Xbox 360 version has smoother graphics.

    Also, the article here fails to mention that the Playstation 3 version of Ridge Racer does NOT allow you to use a headset to talk online to the people you are playing online with, like the Xbox 360 version of the game does.

    Ridge Racer 7 is just like all of the games from EA Sports, and 2K Sports, and Call of Duty 3, and just about every third-party game for the Playstation 3; it does NOT allow you to talk online with the people you are playing with while you are actually playing the game. The Xbox 360 version of Ridge Racer, and all of the EA Sports games, and all of the 2K Sports games, and Call of Duty 3, and just about every third-party Xbox 360 game lets you talk online with the people you are playing online with.

    The reason for this is because the Xbox 360 comes with an online headset, which includes a headphone and a microphone. The Playstation 3 does not come with anything like that at all. As a result, third parties are not motivated to include voice-chat features like that in the games, since Sony doesn’t support the feature themselves.

    Ridge Racer is much more fun on the Xbox 360, simply because you can talk with the people you are racing with online, and it adds UNLIMITED replay value!
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 18:13

  • nickthegun #65 5 years ago

    I'm going to display my stunning ignorance here.... Is VGA better than a Component cable? If so, I'm gonna go run down the shop now!

    Its a fairly split decision. Some people say its sharper (some say to the point of producing jaggies) others prefer component as the colour reproduction is warmer.

    You can also upscale DVDs with the VGA cable, not that it makes much difference.

    You can get third party VGA cables from Virgin for a tenner, so its worth a punt to see for yourself. Bare in mind that some people have problems connecting audio with a VGA cable. Some TVs have just a 3.5mm jack in for audio as the input is designed for a PC, so you may need to connect it via an amp.

  • GamesConnoisseur #66 5 years ago

    Good article, IGN.com over the pond seem to be more sided with X360 in most of head to head comparsions between the two CURRENT gen consoles.

    EG should acknowledge rumble and live if they talk about PS3's tilt, however so far there is a very little differences. Call of Duty 3 and Tony Hawk supposed to be more stuttering noticeably on PS3 compared to X360 but that more likely due to getting to grip with more complicated hardware on PS3.

    I will get PS3 when price drops (may be a while but I will wait Sony out) but would confess that my thinking is that I would prefer getting X360 over PS3 for multi-platform for achievement and rumble. Keep PS3 for that exclusive-must-have games that we cant do without.

    Re cable, I use VGA as with my HDTV it is much sharper and better colours being displayed
    Edited by 2 at 23/03/07 @ 17:21

  • Bluestraw #67 5 years ago

    This is EXACTLY the sort of well-written comparison I've been waiting for. THANK YOU EG!

  • EmiliasHorse #68 5 years ago

    Thanks EG, honest unbiased comparison.
    I have always wondered why mutli format mags seldom compare like for like. Games TM had a stab but might as well not bother as it usually boiled down to Xbox crisper graphics PS2 better suited controller (Which I never understood as the dual shock was and still is useless when using both analogue sticks. Swap the D pad for the left analogue and I would be chuffed...oh and put proper triggers on.)

  • AOFanboi #69 5 years ago

    Why do the 360 games look so BROWN, though? It's like "brown is the new HD". I seem to recall Gears of War reviews also pointing that out for that game. I am especially thinking about that Fight Night picture of Ali, where he almost blends in with the background in the 360 picture. Not that the PS3 pics are Super Mario Sunshine level of brightness, but still.

    I am in no rush to buy the PS3 yet, but will probably get it during the next month. As has been pointed out it's not exactly flying off the shelves anywhere...
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 17:53

  • Les #70 5 years ago

    another day, another idiot post from mike... Had the stores had PS3s in stock and had there been any games I'd really like to have, I might have gotten one just to annoy you.

    But if I look at the next gen game displays in the stores the disappointment that is next gen really begins to dawn. With 360 being around well over a year, this is quite concerning.

    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 18:19

  • Calgon #71 5 years ago

    AOFanboi: lol not that it matters but... Resistance and MGS4 look to have outbrowned any 360 game released or in developement.

    Plus thats colour pallets which are chosen by the devs themselves, they tinker with them for "realism"... anyway 360 will be better suited to richer colours with its GPU and memory setup.

  • El_Che_True #72 5 years ago

    Mike Mogal...great post.

    Here it is again"

    The comparisons of Ridge Racer 6 vs 7 seem to leave out the fact that there are waves under bridges that MOVE in the Xbox 360 version, while the waves don't move at all in the Playstation 3 version--they just remain still, like a cutout picture...and that SUCKS.

    Also, it is a MAJOR problem when there are sailboats MISSING from the Playstation 3 version, because the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second compared to 500,000,000 polygons per second for the Xbox 360. That is the whole reason why the Playstation 3 version does not have the ability to maintain a steady framerate at 60 frames per second when the resolution is 1080p.

    The Xbox 360 upscales the resolution to 1080p and maintains the resolution at 60 frames per second fine.

    Also, this article fails to mention that Ridge Racer 6 was developed on Pre-Alpha development kits for the Xbox 360, which only gave developers access to one of the three CPU cores on the Xbox 360. This means the developers at Namco only had access to one-sixth of the General Purpose CPU power for the Xbox 360 while making Ridge Racer 6.

    On the other hand, the Playstation 3 was delayed, which means that Ridge Racer 7 was released after the developers at Namco had access to the Final Development kit for the PS3 for over SIX MONTHS, which allowed the developers to have access to 100% of the power of the PS3.

    In the stages that appear on both systems, the Xbox 360 version had more detail, better lighting, smoother framerates, and faster load times.

    In this first picture comparison, it appears "brighter" on the PS3 and "darker" on the Xbox 360, just like the person comparing the games points out. But what he fails to mention is that Ridge Racer 6 has a wide variety of times of day that you can race. The Xbox 360 looks GREAT in those night stages because of the vastly superior lighting of the Xbox 360. Take a look at that tower on the light with the green lighting for proof of that.

    Read the review for both games. The Xbox 360 version is rated higher, and the review for Ridge Racer 7 makes it clear that the Xbox 360 version has smoother graphics.

    Also, the article here fails to mention that the Playstation 3 version of Ridge Racer does NOT allow you to use a headset to talk online to the people you are playing online with, like the Xbox 360 version of the game does.

    Ridge Racer 7 is just like all of the games from EA Sports, and 2K Sports, and Call of Duty 3, and just about every third-party game for the Playstation 3; it does NOT allow you to talk online with the people you are playing with while you are actually playing the game. The Xbox 360 version of Ridge Racer, and all of the EA Sports games, and all of the 2K Sports games, and Call of Duty 3, and just about every third-party Xbox 360 game lets you talk online with the people you are playing online with.

    The reason for this is because the Xbox 360 comes with an online headset, which includes a headphone and a microphone. The Playstation 3 does not come with anything like that at all. As a result, third parties are not motivated to include voice-chat features like that in the games, since Sony doesn’t support the feature themselves.

    Ridge Racer is much more fun on the Xbox 360, simply because you can talk with the people you are racing with online, and it adds UNLIMITED replay value!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #73 5 years ago

    Noone in their right mind cares about minor background detail in a racing game, because its about RACING not counting sailboats or watching waves.

    You are of course right. It's a valid point in a direct comparison though. Sony has been touting about 1080p being _THE_ HD experience we all need and it seems it's coming at a cost. It's really irrelevant in a racing game but I wonder how much detail has to step back for the higher resolution - which definetly comes to play in other genres.

    Not talking as a fanboy now but I guess the idea of rendering at 720p with an outstanding ANA upscaler seems the better choice.

    Time will tell if this statements holds true but if the PS3 was indeed so much more powerful than the 360 than it surely would also show at least somewhat in the early stages too?
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 19:15

  • Charroux #74 5 years ago

    Great article. Basically the choice between X360 and PS3 is this:

    Price
    Games

    There are no other criteria, in the grand scheme of things.

  • fawe3 #75 5 years ago

    Yep and 'price' for both currently is way to high, 360 + net account is same as 600€ per console, just too expensive. Add price of games and you see that upgrading pc parts each year is actually cheaper.

  • MasterControlProgram #76 5 years ago

    Don't underevaluate the bright vs dark effect.

    By seeing these pictures, people (common joes) will *for sure* come to the conclusion that PS3 is better, because brighter is always better. It happens the same with LCD an plama screens.

  • TRUTH #77 5 years ago

    [link url=ht tp://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/features/6162742/...[/link]

    It seems the 360 for gaming is better in price, quality, multiformat games, game exclusives, and online gaming, with PC/360 gaming soon. and not forgetting the excellent Xb360tv.

    Personally i think the PS3 has much to prove for gaming: at present it's being out done by system half it's price. In the amjor ex PS3 exclusives: Virtua Fighter 5, Devil May Cry 4, Assassins Creed, GTA 4, now heading to the 360, it seems to be a better choice.

    With exclusives like: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Halo 3, Too Human, Enternal Darkness 2, Fable 2, and three 360 Rpg's exclusives by Final Fantasy creator: Blue Dragon, Lost Oddysee, Cry-on, on the way and already rumors of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear 4 (Konami hinted this already!), what is the point PS3
    claiming to be the ultimate gaming machine - Oh! PS3 has GT, but 360 has Forza Racing.

  • Carrybagma #78 5 years ago

    Alan Wake
    Bioshock
    Forza Motorsport 2
    Halo 3
    Mass Effect
    Alone in the Dark
    Assassin's Creed
    Blue Dragon
    Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
    Bullet Witch
    Burnout 5
    Crackdown
    Eternal Sonata
    Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
    Grand Theft Auto IV
    Haze
    Lost Planet
    Medal of Honor Airborne
    Resident Evil 5
    Shadowrun
    The Darkness
    Too Human

  • Les #79 5 years ago

    if the success of a console is directly and positively correlated to how pathetic it's fanboys are, the race is already over...

  • Carrybagma #80 5 years ago

    Everyone loses?

  • beep #81 5 years ago

    Great article.

    Funny how some games have their framerates affected at the higher resolutions (heh, like that wouldn't happen). Kind of makes games which aren't specifically coded and optimized for 1080p output at 60 frames per second, a complete waste of time.

    I wish EG did these during the last gen, but I guess there was actually more stuff of interest going on then, eh?

  • TRUTH #82 5 years ago

    It's just Sony have already promised us the future with: Betamax, Super Audio CD, Umo, Minidisc, and now Blu-ray. Just to let you know the hi-def format will be short. The winner will be downloadable movie on demand by hi-def. It's already happening, on the PC, set-top boxes, with Xb360tv will probably do this soon.

    The point is Sony have tried to force the blu-ray on you, you have to pay the price - no choice. At least the 360 you have a choice, and when you want. It's main priority is GAMES. Yet the textures, framerate, modes, online seem to be better on the 360 on games that should have been sufficiently better on console that Sony claim is the most powerful. Games that have over a year are still in a majority looking worse, or just very slightly improved - A YEARS EXTRA TIME!

    Look at Gears Of War, Lost Planet, Crackdown, Dead Rising - these don't even use the 360's full use of Core/thread technology and yet PS3's games like Motorstorm, Resistance; ehich have been esp developed for PS3 by special input by Sony, for 2yrs + don't even threaten the explosions, textures, screen display, framerate the 360 is throwing around. And these 360 games have been in development for 1+ years; that's less then Motorstorm, Resistance (2005 1st ever preview)- remember PS3 was available to game developers at the same time as 360, due to manufacturing components the PS3 was delayed to hit the shops. EA wrote/worked on Fight Night 3 both at the same time - though PS3 had a extra 9months development, due to delayed PS3 release. Oh! F.E.A.R plays better on 360 to. To me Ps3 seems to have more development time but can't quite surpass a system half it's price.
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 21:32

  • Les #83 5 years ago

    do I hear a broken record?

  • TRUTH #84 5 years ago

    Sorry F.E.A.R at the moment looks slight better on 360. And previosuly meant Gears Of War, Lost Planet, Dead Rising all were developed in approx 1+ years - less then the time started on Motorstorm, Resistance: Fall Of Man...PS3 has hype, but not proved it's cause.

  • Carrybagma #85 5 years ago

    Yep - it's yet another 360 dullboy, as if one wasn't enough already.


    Alan Wake
    Bioshock
    Forza Motorsport 2
    Halo 3
    Mass Effect
    Alone in the Dark
    Assassin's Creed
    Blue Dragon
    Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
    Bullet Witch
    Burnout 5
    Crackdown
    Eternal Sonata
    Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
    Grand Theft Auto IV
    Haze
    Lost Planet
    Medal of Honor Airborne
    Resident Evil 5
    Shadowrun
    The Darkness
    Too Human

  • Pulsar_t #86 5 years ago

    Richard Leadbetter you rock sir. Respect!

    Signed,
    An old-time Sega Magazine fan.

  • JHuxley #87 5 years ago

    @mike_mgoblue

    "Also, it is a MAJOR problem when there are sailboats MISSING from the Playstation 3 version"

    Oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

    Yes those MISSING sailboats are a MAJOR problem. Imagine the SHAME when you're showing off your new Playstation 3 to SOME friends when you drive over the bridge and there's no SAILBOATS to be seen. No boats! Your console is POO! It is inferior in every WAY to the Xbox 360 because there ARE no sailboats.

  • TRUTH #88 5 years ago

    Castle Wolfenstien is also not coming to PS3. I wonder why ?

  • Der_tolle_Emil #89 5 years ago

    Somebody just wrote that Eternal Darkness 2 is coming. I never heard of this; I liked the first one and I guess I'd love to see a sequel.

  • zuljin #90 5 years ago

    @nickthegun
    "Only a complete retard could start an argument about this piece."
    Ooh sounds like a challenge! ;)

    Good article by the way. As 3rd party exclusives get less, developers will start to add in different content for different consoles, so I think a side by side comparison of games is a really good idea!

    @TRUTH
    "Gears Of War, Lost Planet, Dead Rising all were developed in approx 1+ years"
    Where did you hear that? If the new FIFA takes a year development, and it builds on a previous game (and is made by EA with humongous teams), then I would expect a new IP to take much longer...
    Edited by 1 at 23/03/07 @ 23:55

  • bonker #91 5 years ago

    Yup, good article, I look forward to the rest.

    I wouldn't expect to see MAJOR graphical differences between the two formats during this generation. The main difference on-screen will be number of enemies, frame-rate etc.

    There's a hell of a lot more to this comparison than graphics though!

    Online play, 'features' like rumble and achievements and Arcade etc and of course price(!) must be taken into account too.

    The 360 seems to have the PS3 beaten in all or most of those areas with the biggest difference being the price of course. You can play these same games with a 'tard Core pack 360 for less than half the price of a PS3 with the, older, games costing less than half the price too.

    Bloody hard to argue against that ...

  • BartonFink #92 5 years ago

    One thing I took from the whole, mainly pointless, comparison is that 360, as suspected, does handle 1080p better than PS3. Hardly surprising but nice to see it kinda confirmed qualitatively.

  • Tweakmonkey #93 5 years ago

    I'd say that it's about even at the moment. The true tests lie ahead. How far can either console be pushed?

  • Overlush #94 5 years ago

    So, it's not a question of one being more powerful than the other (which we knew anyway despite what Sony would have us all believe) but whether digitial output is better than analogue?

    Come on MS, hurry up with that HDMI port!

  • sanctusmortis #95 5 years ago

    The main difference I see is brightness, which many people seem to attribute to using VGA. So, basically, it's all about the games. Which we all knew already...

  • Yossarian #96 5 years ago

    as I said, the fact that we are quibbling over minor differences when the PS3 has arrived a year later (longer in Europe) at a higher price after years of "ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE REAL NEXT GENERATION OMG THE CELL" fervour is laughable. even if it was narrowly better than the 360 (and so far it has yet to pull ahead even that far) it's a serious disappointment, and reaffirms that Sony PR is consistent in their unwarranted hyperbole from generation to generation.

  • JHuxley #97 5 years ago

    @BartonFink

    Eh? Where was that confirmed? Did I miss something?

  • Nige #98 5 years ago

    I think this was a good article EG, pip pip. I have a 360, and I don't plan on getting a PS3 for 2 reasons:

    1. It costs too much, when it's core abilities are about the same as the 360's.
    2. I'm not interested in the things it 'potentially' does better than 360.

    But Mike, seriously mate - give it a rest. You make us all feel like pushing your face down a soiled toilet pan with this constant OTT trolling. Xbox 360 owners know how good the system is already, and PS3 types don't care anyway. Move on.

  • gamestester #99 5 years ago

    Xbox 360 KO's PlayStation3 in 1st round!

  • mattigan #100 5 years ago

    What Nige just said +1

  • TRUTH #101 5 years ago

    Bioshock, Fable 2, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, Too Human , Forza Racing 2, Blue Dragon - i think PS3 really has to push very hard to equal these games this year. All these are exclusive and AAA titles. Oh! and Halo 3.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/07 @ 18:13

  • BadBoyBonner #102 5 years ago

    It is as simple as this…..

    The 360 was already delivering or exceeding PS3 quality nearly a year and a half before the PS3 launched here in the UK. Any more than 6 months is risky, over 12 is leaning towards a market share suicide, even for the leader.

    Most people simply want the best as soon as possible. If the consoles had been released at opposite times I would be a PS3 owner - I am a technical "FanBoy". I do not look upon manufactures as Pseudo football teams, to be worshipped through thick and thin - mearly at who has got the product that appeals to me the most at the right time.

    Microsoft would have been ridiculed had they brought the 360 out now, if the PS3 had launched when the 360 did.

    I still can not quite believe Sony have got off as lightly as they seem to have. Anyone else would have been crushed, releasing (as Sony have IMO) something with no discernable advantages to the competition so late to the party. Indeed only the strongest of market leaders could attempt such a feat, and they have, but at what cost? We will probably only know for sure in a generations time, but if Sony expect their revenues of the PS3 to be propping up the rest of the company they could be in for a rocky ride compared to the last generation.

    Sony seem to have a great fondness for leaving 5 years between console launches - can any of us really envisage Microsoft waiting over 6 years from the launch the 360 to bring a new console out? Highly unlikely I am sure we all agree.

    So with Microsoft probably on course to secure as much market share as Sony in this one - if they (MS) can release the 360 successor, with full backward compatibility (IMO-highly likely as MS now own their Own GPU even though ATI engineered it unlike with the previous Xbox and Nvidia) it feels as if Microsoft are on target to dominate another sector; which I hasten to add leaves me with mixed feelings.

    Personally only 2 things matter to me, 1) I want the best experience, 2) at the earliest possible time - and the worry for Sony is, that the PS3 is not satisfying either criteria.

  • drumbaby #103 5 years ago

    Woe betide Eurogamer ever handing it to the PS3. Very brave of you guys, I must say :0)
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/07 @ 19:15

  • Farstarbuck #104 5 years ago

    Personally, VGA is a waste of time, its faded and blurry compared to Component, the fact the EG used VGA against HDMI is just stupid. Lets compare current spec digital cable vs old as the hills washed out blurry VGA. Well done, you only succeed in showing how silly this article is.

    Perhaps its my HDTV? I use the Samsung, made in conjunction with the xbox 360 in mind, surely if im going to use VGA, there isnt another TV better equiped? Or is there? But upon my comparison, there is none compared to the vibrant colour from Component, and the clarity.

    EG, come back with a Component vs HDMI thread, then ill take on board the results.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #105 5 years ago

    Lets compare current spec digital cable vs old as the hills washed out blurry VGA. Well done, you only succeed in showing how silly this article is.

    Component is not digital either.

    It highly depends on the TV wether VGA or component looks better.

  • bonker #106 5 years ago

    "Most people simply want the best as soon as possible. If the consoles had been released at opposite times I would be a PS3 owner"

    +1


    "Microsoft would have been ridiculed had they brought the 360 out now, if the PS3 had launched when the 360 did. "

    +1


    "I still can not quite believe Sony have got off as lightly as they seem to have. "

    They haven't got away with it yet!


    "Sony seem to have a great fondness for leaving 5 years between console launches - can any of us really envisage Microsoft waiting over 6 years from the launch the 360 to bring a new console out? Highly unlikely I am sure we all agree.

    So with Microsoft probably on course to secure as much market share as Sony in this one - if they (MS) can release the 360 successor, with full backward compatibility (IMO-highly likely as MS now own their Own GPU even though ATI engineered it unlike with the previous Xbox and Nvidia) it feels as if Microsoft are on target to dominate another sector; which I hasten to add leaves me with mixed feelings. "

    Yeah I've said previously that I think the next Xbox will be out at the end of 2009. Similar architecture, double the cores, twice the RAM, dual-format HD-DVD/Blu-ray drive, wi-fi, 250GB hd, 100% h/w bc.

    Sony are talking about a 10 year lifespan for the PS3 and while that may be accurate, I think at least 5 years of that will be as the old-gen as MS will undoubtedly raise the bar another mile higher in 2-3 years time ...

    Well I think it's great that MS have raised the bar so high this time around, as long as they keep doing that then it's good news for all of us. The problem of course is if they crush the competition along the way ...

  • miiiguel #107 5 years ago

    I also agree this article brings nothing shocking, but bury the myth that was somewhat created that next-gen, and PS3 in particular, would bring this gen something completly different. But just like in every other field, jumps tend to be smaller. 360 did a much more visible leap (IMHO) by making the Live experience a part of the system, therefor investing in a service rather in a almost megalomaniac machine, that seems to be designed for a datacenter rather than the living room (why the need of a spare CPU?).

    reminds me of a bad-taste comeback of the Toy-Story graphics bs. sad is that lots of people ate it...

  • morriss #108 5 years ago

    Sounds like it's all over for the PS3.

  • Kenshin001 #109 5 years ago

    The ports were made for both consoles so it would seem odd that one version would be drastically superior to the other. That is I can't see developers deciding to fully utilise the capacity of the Cell chip when they made the port version of a 360 game. I think you will have to see one console's game raise the bar and the other better it. Something like LittleBigPlanet.

  • Rosseh #110 5 years ago

    Yeh, the brightness really got me. Sometimes the 360 can look a bit too dark but the PS3 shots all seem really washed out like the brightness was cranked up too high and it's lost it's light and dark contrast.

    I swear that Ridge Racer shot was at sunset while the other was at daytime.

  • TRUTH #111 5 years ago

    [link url=http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-com parisons-27828.phtml
    ]http://ww w.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6...[/link]

    Here's a better link (above) that shows Ridge Racer. I have a Pioneer 43ich plasma(i worked my butt off to get this), having a HDMI connected to the PS3, and the 360 with the MS HD connection lead. The 360 seems to have sharper colors, brightness is the right contrast, textures, framerates when playing Call Of Duty 3. I just hired Ridge for both consoles, again the 360 does seem sharper. As for people saying give more time to PS3 to get the best; remeber the PS3 was games were already being developed at the same time as 1st gen 360 games. Though Motorstorm & Resistance had the extra time for development due to the delay in releasing PS3. So i belive to compare 1st gen games it's a bit unfair - as Ps3 had quite a longer development period. Pgr still looks great but was rushed, as was crappy Perfect Dark as well all the other games. This was due to 360 being in the shops early then expected, as decided by MS.

    If you look at Project Gothem 4, Halo 3, Gears Of War - where developers are having the extra time to get into 360 properly; you then understand that though the PS3 came late, it had a extra amount of time to push the system, thanks to the delay; 360 did not - the 1st bunch of games were rushed for the system & Christmas.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/07 @ 18:20

  • Der_tolle_Emil #112 5 years ago

    The 360 does seem to produce a dark image but that's probably the cost of more realistic lightning.

    What's really bad is Call of Duty 3. This game is the absolute worst when it comes to brightness/contrast/lightning. I have to turn the brightness up nearly to the max just to see the darkest activision logo as the calibration suggests. The result is the greyest picture I have ever seen with the day levels looking exactly as the night levels. Absolutely horrible brightness, it is indeed unplayable on the default settings and looks shit when the brightness is turned up.

    Other than that I only had problems with Splinter Cell which was a tad too dark too. All the other 360 games are fine for me regarding the brightness. Viva Pinata is also an example that it's not the 360 but the developers with their shaders and everything that cause the darker image.

  • rez606 #113 5 years ago

    this is very much reminiscent of saturn vs playstation comparisons from 10 years ago!!! so which platform runs wipeout better? :(

  • TRUTH #114 5 years ago

    Above: i think your tv set up wrong. My picture is perfect for 360, and colors like the way they should. Call Of Duty looked great on my plasma, as did Crackdown. I suggest might want to check your settings.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #115 5 years ago

    My TV is definetly not the best. It's a very decent Philips 32" LCD though. Undoubtably there are better models out there but I found that 1700 Euros for a TV should be enough - after all that's almost two months salary. The biggest problem is the weak black reproduction - but that's quite common amongst LCDs. Still, I have a huge collection of DVDs (250+) and they all look fine. The Wii looks just fine and most 360 games look fine. So while my TV could be better I still think that the biggest problem with CoD3 is the game itself. But whatever, the game was bad anyway so I did not bother me all that long.

  • Moz #116 5 years ago

    "as I said, the fact that we are quibbling over minor differences when the PS3 has arrived a year later (longer in Europe) at a higher price after years of "ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE REAL NEXT GENERATION OMG THE CELL" fervour is laughable. even if it was narrowly better than the 360 (and so far it has yet to pull ahead even that far) it's a serious disappointment, and reaffirms that Sony PR is consistent in their unwarranted hyperbole from generation to generation. "

    You have fair point on the whole, but i'd argue that the price isn't that much higher. For starter paying for XBL for 5 years costs you the £150 you've saved.
    And if you want WiFi that's another £50.

    So again when you look at it, it really is down to the first party games, as price and graphics aren't of significant difference.

    I now have both system and think they are both amazing pieces of kit.

  • KaiB #117 5 years ago

    As a 360 owner with a pretty decent samsung LCD tellie hooked up via VGA I have to say that I'm not particularly impressed with the "washed out" look that it produces, surely a simple patch could solve this ? I think Gametrailers has at least 10 stories comparing 360 games to Playstation games . And all of them have the same results, it looks like the playstation is able to handle the maths better, and xbox does a better job with the textures. Personally I do agree with a few of the posts here about the default brightness and gamma settings on the 360...its just too dark!

    I still haven’t seen a playstation 3 plugged into the same tv as I've got so I cant really make any assumptions/accusations, but if I counted all the 1st year xbox live demo's that I've deleted within 10 minutes (PDZ,DOA,Kameo.. shudder) I'm prepared to wait a little longer before I start writing off the PS3.

  • Moz #118 5 years ago

    "Yeah I've said previously that I think the next Xbox will be out at the end of 2009. Similar architecture, double the cores, twice the RAM, dual-format HD-DVD/Blu-ray drive, wi-fi, 250GB hd, 100% h/w bc."


    This would be a bad thing!!!!!! A 4 year turnaround on consoles is a very bad thing as it leaves developers always having to catch up with whats new. Also if MS does bring out a new system in 2009 they will destroy Sony which would meen they would have no compatition. Which if Windows is anything to go by would meen that the 4th XBox would come out 2+ years late, be twice the price and only offer a small improvment over the 3rd XBox.

  • mazzl #119 5 years ago

    @Moz if ms releases the next xbox in 2009 they will lose a lot of customers, people won't buy into a console if it only has a lifespan of 4 years. a lot of people will buy into a console only in it's 2nd year. i plan to buy a 360 with an halo3 pack.
    i think more realisticly we will see the new xbox at christmas 2010. that would still be well before PS4, and would give xbox a nice 5/6 year lifespan :)

  • GamesConnoisseur #120 5 years ago

    I never had darkness/contrast problem with X360 and vga and again I agree that it is more to do with type and make of LCD HDTV.

    Looking forward to more face off but wanna see EG do Call of Duty 3, Tony Hawk and other upcoming games.

    I think PS3 will come off better with some games but X360 seem to be mostly pulling ahead thanks to texture handling AND ease of programming compared to PS3.

  • TRUTH #121 5 years ago

    [link url=ht tp://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/features/6162742/...[/link]

    Call Of Duty 3 - 360 wins! oh 360 has better frame rate too.
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/07 @ 19:56

  • Les #122 5 years ago

    idiot

  • TRUTH #123 5 years ago

    Why! because i got a different view to you Les!...Grow Up.

  • Les #124 5 years ago

    You don't have a view, you've got a conviction.

  • GamesConnoisseur #125 5 years ago

    Oblivion video head to head between X360 and PS3 on IGN.com shows...

    ..a far less differences than I was led to believe from some posts here and elsewhere! Loading speed difference is nearly nowt and graphically almost the same except for some quite minor differences!

    PC had the best platform for Oblivion due to all the variety of mods and so forth in my opinion but nothing solid to choose one over other in my view.
    Edited by 1 at 28/03/07 @ 13:19

  • davisorle #126 5 years ago

    Let's all go play on a console that still has so many problems with lightning effects, no rumbled controller but yet a 10 year old one, nothing close to achievement unlock to make it a bit more intresting and yet pay 600+ euros for it! What else would a gamer need from a console if thats what a PS is offering? F*cking retarded article. Oh and don't the rest of you forget to do what the rest of the sony fanboys do "OH THANK YOU FOR THE ARTICLE EG"

    OMFG!

  • old_skool #127 5 years ago

    And the winner is

    /drum roll

    The PC !

    /runs

  • Les #128 5 years ago

    "..a far less differences than I was led to believe from some posts here and elsewhere!"

    That wasn't the conclusion from the guys that made the footage, but whatever. Game looks boring to me.

  • GamesConnoisseur #129 5 years ago

    les

    Note I said 'shows' as my own eyeballs detect little differences also you can compare the video clip of the loading speed and graphically.

    Another recent Head to Head on IGN re MLB 07 state similar graphics but less jerky on X360 and better loading. But the difference is not that great really. If you own PS3 you would not be aware of loading being an issue but compare side by side you will notice.

    The face off flame war will continues, but I still state my view not that large difference in majority of multi-platform games with odd exceptions so why get het up about it all?!

    It is bloody fault of Sony for overhyping PS3 as being so much more powerful, and for the gamers to hardly see the differences, that is the issue.

  • yegon #130 5 years ago

    VGA is massively superior to component on my Samsung. I really wonder how some people set up their tv's, and what exactly they mean by "a good picture". My PS3 looks equally ace through HDMI.