• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

multi-plats that are better on the PS3

Zoe

Member
Dynedom said:
I really don't think Catherine has been confirmed yet as being better on PS3. That being said, frame rate issues, IQ, resolution, lack of AA, tearing, etc. Plenty of stuff that can go wrong with it.



Welp, I guess I stand corrected. Still going to wait on the DF analysis. Will be interesting to see.

It's been out for months.
 

industrian

will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
HooYaH said:
I think one of the Tomb Raider games was better on PS3.

Underworld had a higher resolution and better lighting on the PS3, but it had a shitty framerate in comparison to the 360.
 

Risette

A Good Citizen
Atomski said:
On such a simple game that just sounds like lazy/cheap programming.
It doesn't matter how simple the game is; encoded cutscenes have to be heavily compressed to fit on the 360's disc most likely.
 

Zoe

Member
Atomski said:
On such a simple game that just sounds like lazy/cheap programming.

Is replicating cell animation well really so simple?

The rest can be blamed on the DVD.
 

Special J

Banned
Kagari said:
PS3 version is less blurry. Xbox version has massive macroblocking in the animation scenes.

lol way to overexaggerate the link shows very little difference and the blurry claim seems backwards since qaa on ps3.

wow game used gamebryo engine
 

ULTROS!

People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
Special J said:
lol way to overexaggerate the link shows very little difference and the blurry claim seems backwards since qaa on ps3.

What's little about this?

ndfdc.jpg

ouxi86.jpg
 

Jigsaw

Banned
star ocean 4

-no disc swapping when traveling back and forth between planets
-faster load times
-motion blur
-2x anti aliasing in battles (vs zero on 360)
-anime menus/portraits and japanese voice overs
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Host Samurai said:
I have GTA on 360 and PS3 and I think the PS3 version is the better looking version. I also feel like it has more NPC's on screen.

RDR is far better on 360 though.
No, GTA 4 is better on the 360, no contest there.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/grand-theft-auto-iv-ps3-vs-xbox-360-special-article?page=4
After almost two thousands words of technical discussion, the bottom line is that it's clear that Rockstar had some issues matching the basic performance of the Xbox 360 game on the PS3 hardware. Lower resolution, zero anti-aliasing support and a more variable frame-rate are the bottom line.

The sad thing is that even the PC version runs pretty bad due to lack of optimizations (rendering shadows on the CPU lulz).
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Zoe said:
Subjectively, didn't one of the lead devs say he prefers the look of the PS3 version?
You would have to ask every dev then. The PS3 version runs at a lower resolution and lower framerate. Maybe the dev worked on the PS3 conversion? Some people get attached to their work and lose objectivity.

DanielJr82 said:
Details, please. I think they're identical.
It's even apparently.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-faceoff-battlefield-bad-company-2?page=2

If multiplayer isn't so much of a focus, the decision is harder. It comes down to a small, but noticeable performance advantage and a small smattering of "nicer" graphical implementations on 360 up against a PS3 version that - overall - seems to have fewer noticeable graphical artifacts.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-battlefield-bad-company-2/2/

Tie. If you like graphics over performance then the PlayStation 3 is your game, if you like performance over graphics get the Xbox 360 version. Honestly though, Digital Illusions has created an incredibly game no matter what version you choose so go get this game and meet us on the Battlefield!
 

Jigsaw

Banned
godhandiscen said:
You would have to ask every dev then. The PS3 version runs at a lower resolution and lower framerate. Maybe the dev worked on the PS3 conversion? Some people get attached to their work and lose objectivity.

even leadbetter said it looks better on ps3

Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p. However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly.

PS3 GTA IV looks absolutely fantastic, and even factoring in zero anti-aliasing support and a lower resolution, in many scenarios it looks as good as the 360 version, if not better.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/grand-theft-auto-iv-ps3-vs-xbox-360-special-article?page=4

btw the ps3 has anti aliasing,he was wrong on this and corrected it in the episodes face off
 

Zoe

Member
godhandiscen said:
You would have to ask every dev then. The PS3 version runs at a lower resolution and lower framerate. Maybe the dev worked on the PS3 conversion? Some people get attached to their work and lose objectivity.

It wasn't just some conversion dev. It was Sam Houser.

http://www.1up.com/features/sam-houser-speaks?pager.offset=3
The 360 games have a certain look to them; PS3 games have a certain look to them. I like the way [the PS3] renders. There's a certain kind of softness without being blurry -- some warmth to it -- and then there's a certain more clinical element to how the 360 looks.

This kind of thing is more than just numbers. There is a subjective element to it.
 

Oppo

Member
I would like to see some of the console warriors (somehow) do a blind test. Play both games back to back, comment on the differences, see if they can actually tell without labels.

I have both of the HD twins and I still say, with extremely few exceptions, buy the one that uses the controller you like, or has the better friends list if you are into online play. I picked up a couple of the supposedly "inferior" ones, on PS3 (like Red Dead) and 360 alike (Vanquish) and the differences are so small. The only thing I really consistently notice is that the PS3 versions tend to have slightly better audio, if you have a good setup.

On the whole though they are really damn close for 3rd party stuff.
 

Majanew

Banned
I have a 7.1 Pioneer Elite Receiver that does HD Audio and the only difference I can tell between the 360 and PS3 version, is that the PS3 version seems to be a lower mix. The audio is identical but I have to crank it louder on PS3 to get the same output. On Blu-ray movies I can tell the better audio with HD audio and it's louder (without distortion) than normal surround sound.
 

Special J

Banned
zon said:
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Bionic Commando was better on PS3 than on the 360.

it has but pointed out that all of grin's games were since they're all using diesel engine
 

fernoca

Member
Phonomezer said:
According to Digital Foundry, these look better on PS3:

Mortal Kombat
Actually:
Minor graphical differences may favour the 360 version, but in terms of an actual purchasing decision, the PlayStation version gets the nod. Owners of the Sony console get an additional character in the form of God Of War's Kratos - expertly integrated into the Mortal Kombat storyline, which is far more important than a few graphical niggles that are likely to go unnoticed by most people.​
As the article says (and everyone knows anyway), overall the PS3 version is superior because it has more content (Kratos, God of War -arena, 3D, trailers); but on visuals (which I noticed yesterday, since I got the 360 version); the 360 version looks slightly better in textures and special effects (fire for example doesn't look pixelated, which the same DF says happens on the PS3 because of some filters).

Also according to DF, the PS3 version in Shao Kahn's Throne Room runs at 680p for some reason they don't know.
 
Dan Yo said:
I got used to it in the 90s when there were no better alternatives. Now there are. So I'd rather not.
that's the spirit.

It's the least favorit controller for me too, but that doesn't mean i won't play awesome games with it. The real triggers made a lot of difference for me.
Real%20Triggers_2_.jpg
 

fernoca

Member
Mockingbird said:
Isn't Batman: arkham asylum game of the year edition -- the best version of the game -- only on the PS3 with 3D and all that?
Nope...
BrY1V.jpg


Both were released at the same time too.
 

vocab

Member
Atomski said:
On such a simple game that just sounds like lazy/cheap programming.

Ummm..... Every dev compresses their pre rendered cutscenes. Even on the PC. There are exceptions, but man it's noticeable as hell.
 

manzo

Member
Lard said:
Curious about:

Alpha Protocol, Bioshock, Enchanted Arms, Nier, Resonance of Fate, Way of the Samurai 3

Which are the better versions?

Alpha Protocol, Bioshock and Enchanted Arms all suffered from early PS3 porting problems. Nier is absolutely identical. Resonance of Fate gets a slight nod at 360 (some odd LoD problems on PS3 and effects missing), Way of the Samurai 3 - don't know about that.
 

manzo

Member
ULTROS! said:
What's little about this?

Holy macroblocking batman

I think only QAA on PS3 and 2xMSAA on 360 is the only difference in Catherine, if you don't count the videos.

Jigsaw said:
star ocean 4

-no disc swapping when traveling back and forth between planets
-faster load times
-motion blur
-2x anti aliasing in battles (vs zero on 360)
-anime menus/portraits and japanese voice overs

You basically took out all the visual negatives on PS3 that include:

- also lower alpha effects
- lower resolution in game
- worse textures
- worse lightning

However, if I'd have to go through this awful game again, I'd do it on PS3. The disc swapping at the end of the game caused me to quit playing the side missions.
 
Mockingbird said:
Isn't Batman: arkham asylum game of the year edition -- the best version of the game -- only on the PS3 with 3D and all that?

Nope, but the Lens Of Truth guys actually gave the PS3 version the win:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-batman-arkham-asylum/

They felt that, graphically, both console versions had comparable strengths and weaknesses but much preferred the (slightly more zoomed-out) camera placement in the PS3 version.
 

Mastperf

Member
I believe that was before LOT made their own analysis software like DigitalFoundry. The DF software showed the 360 version performing better. LOT isn't really as capable as DF in the non-software analysis tech discussion either.
 

abracadaver

Member
Burnout Paradise

Ive completed it to 100% on both platforms and much prefered the 360 version. I couldnt see a graphical difference, as far as I know there is none. Same resolution, same fps, same AA etc. But the 360 version had custom soundtracks, achievements, and all the xbox live features. Playing online felt wrong on the PS3. Infact I bought it for PS3 first, then sold it and bought it for 360 again and had a lot more fun with it.
 

manzo

Member
Mastperf said:
I believe that was before LOT made their own analysis software like DigitalFoundry. The DF software showed the 360 version performing better. LOT isn't really as capable as DF in the non-software analysis tech discussion either.

DF's Leadbetter has also a history of being a bit biased towards the 360, but lately he's started to give the right nods on PS3 where it counts.
 

vocab

Member
abracadaver said:
Burnout Paradise

Ive completed it to 100% on both platforms and much prefered the 360 version. I couldnt see a graphical difference, as far as I know there is none. Same resolution, same fps, same AA etc. But the 360 version had custom soundtracks, achievements, and all the xbox live features. Playing online felt wrong on the PS3. Infact I bought it for PS3 first, then sold it and bought it for 360 again and had a lot more fun with it.



I had no problems with the ps3 version when doing it online. The community sucked, but everything else was fine. I thought the Ps3 version looked sharper, but when your going max speed, the framerate drops, and you can easily crash during a race.
 

Mastperf

Member
manzo said:
DF's Leadbetter has also a history of being a bit biased towards the 360, but lately he's started to give the right nods on PS3 where it counts.
Just read the details and skip the opinions and you usually get a pretty informative article. The analysis software they use is usually the best part and it leaves no room for bias.
 

Ellis Kim

Banned
MMaRsu said:
WRONG

Also, how can you possibly say NG2 is better on ps3? No decapitations, no BLOOD wtf..
Conversation's already done from a few pages back, but I wanted to contribute to how wrong this post was.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ninjagaiden2-faceoff-article

The trouble about comparing NG2 with NGS2 is that they both take advantage of their respective hardwares in different ways. They're hardly the same game (gameplay balancing, graphical fidelity, # of polys, shaders, etc). That said, the PS3 version certainly looks better, as demonstrated here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ninjagaiden2-faceoff-article?page=2. The 360 version has its share of pros, but personally, I prefer the NG1/B-esque balancing of NGS2.

Two comparisons:
ss_preview_Lighting_02_NG2.jpg.jpg

ss_preview_Lighting_02_NGS2.jpg.jpg

ss_preview_Lighting_14_NG2.jpg.jpg

ss_preview_Lighting_14_NGS2.jpg.jpg


Also, Ayane looks 10x better in Sigma 2 than in NG2 :/
 

nomis

Member
Zoe said:
It wasn't just some conversion dev. It was Sam Houser.

http://www.1up.com/features/sam-houser-speaks?pager.offset=3


This kind of thing is more than just numbers. There is a subjective element to it.

Even still, when I was lurking the GTAIV thread those years ago, every time I saw someone agree that the game looked better on Ps3 while appropriating the exact same verbiage as Sam Houser in that article, I kinda shook my head. Hearing that the Ps3 looked "warm" and the 360 "clinical" seemed like nonsense. There have also been multiple arguments in the years since that a lower framerate was more "cinematic" because of film being 24p. It might have been thanks to my roots playing on PC, but as far as I was/am concerned, a sharper image and smoother motion should be the goal for any game no matter the platform.

To the OP though, LA Noire and Burnout Paradise definitely looked better to me on Ps3. FFXIII not only looks sharper in game, the cutscenes have cringe inducing macro blocking on the non blu-ray version. Dead Space and Dead Space 2 have lossless 7.1 if I remember correctly. Portal 2 would have been a no brainer to get on Ps3 as well (for Steamworks) if I didn't have a friend on 360 I wanted to complete coop with. The release of Mass Effect 2 on Ps3 had Bioware claiming they had "moved it to the ME3 engine", but it really just looked like a different contrast pass with some pretty crushed blacks to me.
 

ChryZ

Member
It's pretty sad how overlooked audio is. Many PS3 games stomp their 360 counter part into the ground in that regard.

LA Noire for example:

360 = Dolby Digital
PS3 = Dolby Digital, 7.1LPCM, 5.1LPCM, DTS
 
abracadaver said:
Burnout Paradise

Ive completed it to 100% on both platforms and much prefered the 360 version. I couldnt see a graphical difference, as far as I know there is none. Same resolution, same fps, same AA etc. But the 360 version had custom soundtracks, achievements, and all the xbox live features. Playing online felt wrong on the PS3. Infact I bought it for PS3 first, then sold it and bought it for 360 again and had a lot more fun with it.
PS3 had those to.. well Trophies not Achievements..
 

Ellis Kim

Banned
B1gg_Randall said:
PS3 had those to.. well Trophies not Achievements..
The shit part about it is that the trophy patch came so late. I didn't feel like playing through the online stuff again :/

@Aberacadaver: Was there really no difference? For some reason, the Criterion guys overtly prefer the PS3 version. I swear I remember something about performance differences.
 

abracadaver

Member
The only performance difference I remember was when the camera flew over the cars before an online race it was smoother on PS3. But that didnt affect gameplay.

And the custom soundtrack and trophy patches came like a year after release. Too late. Also the trophies were easier to obtain than the achievements. You didnt have to get 100% for platinum or something like that.

They ruined burnout paradise anyways with all those shitty patches. Day and night cycle sucks, too much and too expensive DLC, fucking bikes and minicars. The game was best right after release.
 

Finaika

Member
ChryZ said:
It's pretty sad how overlooked audio is. Many PS3 games stomp their 360 counter part into the ground in that regard.

LA Noire for example:

360 = Dolby Digital
PS3 = Dolby Digital, 7.1LPCM, 5.1LPCM, DTS
I agree. One of the reason why I love my PS3. Sadly, most gamers probably are content with just stereo.
 
Top Bottom