• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 16

squicken

Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=318609

Baja: Edge of Control
Mirror's Edge
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
Fracture
Guitar Hero: World Tour
FIFA 09
Quantum of Solace

Pretty shitty games this time. Excerpt from only one anyone will care about.

Mirror's Edge said:
As you can see from the video, there's barely anything to tell these games apart. They're both equally excellent to look at, and the overall gameplay experience is virtually identical. However, proving that direct performance of UE3 isn't completely identical, there are technical differences in how Unreal Engine 3 runs. First of all, there's the question of anti-aliasing. Mirror's Edge is a game with a hell of a lot of detail and hard-edged architecture, meaning a lot of potential for the dreaded 'jaggies' to make an appearance. PlayStation 3 has nothing in the way of anti-aliasing to smooth off the image, whereas the Xbox 360 code employs AA selectively to make the game look marginally more appealing.

There's also the question of v-lock and screen-tear and the way each console handles it. For the most part, the 360 version is v-locked, but when it drops frames, it can do so quite severely - and you get a couple of frames of bonus screen-tear to boot. The PS3 version isn't v-locked, so runs a touch smoother in a few rare instances, but has noticeably more tearing. Curiously, both games have difficulties handling different scenes. In terms of real-life impact, the tearing is a minor annoyance on the PS3 (most noticeable on left-to-right panning motion - for example, the introduction scene), and the dropped frames on the 360 game are weirdly only noticeable on the cut-scenes with close-ups of other characters - Faith hugging her sister being a case in point.

edit: oops on link
 
What was the score?

I predict BIA going to the 360 from what I played.
 
diffusionx said:
Has he done one of these for Saints Row 2?
Not sure if there was a Eurogamer face off, but going by the reviews and gamer comparisons from when the game came out: The 360 version's better. More stable framerate, slightly better visually etc. Mostly due to Volition already having experience with the system with the first game, but also the "usual" reasons.

Unless you just really want to get it for PS3 (ie the "it's good enough" excuse), the 360, or better yet waiting for the PC version if applicable, is the better choice
 
I've finished Mirror's Edge PS3 two times now and there's been maybe two or three instances where I've noticed some tearing. It's definitely jaggier though.
 
danwarb said:


Holy crap at the differences in those first 2 pictures. Compare the lighting and the textures on them, the PS3 version looks like someone took a smudge tool to those buildings... and the lighting is just... wierd? Also the shadows are just plain softer. O_o weird still looks pretty though. Actually it's just really noticeable on the buildings on the left... other than that looks good.
 
TTP said:
Leading platform my ass.

Why is there this mindset that a game should be better because it's "lead" on one platform? Just look at last generation, most games were built around the PS2 yet they almost always ran so, so much better on the Xbox, PC or the Gamecube. If you can make one aspect of the game better on one platform because the hardware allows it you should, it would be stupid to keep the games the same just to satisfy console warriors if you can do better because the hardware or software used allows it.
 
SolidSnakex said:
It's still UE3 at the end of the day. An engine that initially ran so badly on the PS3 that Sony had to step in just to make it respectable.

I know. You might recall in the ME demo thread I specifically said no UE3 game can be said to be "leading" on PS3.
 
dallow_bg said:
Of course.

Well it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, I played beijing Olympics at a friends house over the weekend on PS3 and could not believe how bad the aliasing looked even in the menu's, it looked terrible to be honest. I cant believe that game was so demanding they couldn't slip some AA in.
 
Foxix said:
Holy crap at the differences in those first 2 pictures. Compare the lighting and the textures on them, the PS3 version looks like someone took a smudge tool to those buildings... and the lighting is just... wierd? Also the shadows are just plain softer. O_o weird still looks pretty though. Actually it's just really noticeable on the buildings on the left... other than that looks good.

textures clearly haven't loaded yet in the ps3 shot. i almost hate to point this out, as it's just going to give butthurt ps3 fans another pretext to rail on eurogamer's highly informative comparisons
 
These comparisons again .. they always talk about minor texture, tearing, framerate and aliasing issues that few will notice.

Amusingly here's another comparison:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=1343

That states some points that ME is better on PS3 (based on the demo).

So I wouldn't know who to believe, especially this some of this stuff is subjective.

AgentOtaku said:
Sometimes Eurogamer goes overboard with the amount of tearing they supposedly see. I recall them saying it was terrible in PS3 GRID, but if you actually bought the retail copy and patched it, it was pretty much non existant except during some parts in replays and cockpit view ....hardly gamebreaking

They do have a talent for exaggerating the severity of some of these "issues".
 
TTP said:
I know. You might recall in the ME demo thread I specifically said no UE3 game can be said to be "leading" on PS3.

Well, it's still a nice looking UE3 game. It might not be perfect but it's much better than most UE3 games you see on the PS3.

But it's no surprise that DICE has indicated that they'll move ME2 over to their Frostbite engine.
 
Sometimes Eurogamer goes overboard with the amount of tearing they supposedly see. I recall them saying it was terrible in PS3 GRID, but if you actually bought the retail copy and patched it, it was pretty much non existant except during some parts in replays and cockpit view ....hardly gamebreaking

And yeah, I rarely spot any tearing in ME for PS3

These articles are always fun to read though they mean shit to me now as I sold my 360.

Seriously, it's all in good fun but by the game for the console you want to play it on.
 
SolidSnakex said:
Well, it's still a nice looking UE3 game. It might not be perfect but it's much better than most UE3 games you see on the PS3.

But it's no surprise that DICE has indicated that they'll move ME2 over to their Frostbite engine.

mirror's edge comes closer to platform parity than battlefield bc, where performance is quite perceptibly better on 360, so i don't know what you're getting at exactly
 
PS3 vs. 360 ENDGAME

PS3:

Killzone2Pillar.gif


360:

245c74h.jpg


/fight

(stop posting these stupid threads)
 
drohne said:
mirror's edge comes closer to platform parity than battlefield bc, where performance is quite perceptibly better on 360, so i don't know what you're getting at exactly

...and for me there is enough parity at this point, hence I finally sold my 360 as I was buying all 3rd party stuff for my triple
 
drohne said:
textures clearly haven't loaded yet in the ps3 shot. i almost hate to point this out, as it's just going to give butthurt ps3 fans another pretext to rail on eurogamer's highly informative comparisons

Annndd there I'm reminded of how stupid I am =/ Anyway thought something was wrong:lol Is this now just eurogamer's fault or does the ps3 just take slightly longer to load all the texture work and they just "caught it off guard" so to speak?
 
Annndd there I'm reminded of how stupid I am =/ Anyway thought something was wrong Is this now just eurogamer's fault or does the ps3 just take slightly longer to load all the texture work and they just "caught it off guard" so to speak?
Texure pop in is a UE3 thing.
Happens in all UE3 games including Gears 2.
Just a very choice shot by Eurogamer.

mr_bishiuk said:
Well it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, I played beijing Olympics at a friends house over the weekend on PS3 and could not believe how bad the aliasing looked even in the menu's, it looked terrible to be honest. I cant believe that game was so demanding they couldn't slip some AA in.
It's Beijing Olympics...
They just ported the game, and that's it. The way the 360 outputs visuals, there's almost an automatic 2xAA cleanup on jaggies.

Want beautiful clean lines, look towards Uncharted or Ratchet and Clank or KZ2 or pretty much games built on the PS3.

It's just the nature of the multiplat UE3 engine.
 
drohne said:
textures clearly haven't loaded yet in the ps3 shot. i almost hate to point this out, as it's just going to give butthurt ps3 fans another pretext to rail on eurogamer's highly informative comparisons
Yeah on the first shot definitely your average UE3 loading issue, but did the lighting on the character fail to load on the second comparison shot? I certainly noticed the different lighting and the aliasing when playing the PS3 demo, but that second comparison shot makes no sense.
 
Perhaps predictably, Neversoft has done it again. Guitar Hero: World Tour, just like the recent Aerosmith game, is built on the same engine as the aged Guitar Hero III. Specifically that means a resolution drop from 720p to 1080x545 or thereabouts, and less impressive lighting effects compared to the 360 code.

I had no idea Neversoft did such things with GH: WT. I mean, visual fidelity isn't crucial to GH games, but still.
 
drohne said:
mirror's edge comes closer to platform parity than battlefield bc, where performance is quite perceptibly better on 360, so i don't know what you're getting at exactly

Frostbite is one of those engines built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and mooted to have equal performance on both platforms - claims we've heard before and rarely believe. However, DICE's coders are more open than most and they claim that PS3 performance has been substantially optimised. According to posts on the Beyond3D forum from one of Bad Company's developers, the game makes extensive use of the SPUs - everything from animation to the Havoc physics and even the generation of undergrowth are farmed off to PS3's satellite processing units. The result is a game that is pretty much identical to its Xbox 360 sibling.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=202449&page=6
 
Blimblim said:
Yeah on the first shot definitely your average UE3 loading issue, but did the lighting on the character fail to load on the second comparison shot? I certainly noticed the different lighting and the aliasing when playing the PS3 demo, but that second comparison shot makes no sense.


It's not just the second shot where the lighting is off. On the first comparision shot you can see the 360 has better lighting aswell. It's really quite shocking the differences there.
 
PSGames said:
Yeah 360 version it is for me then. That's a big difference there. The lighting, detail, anti-aliasing, pretty much everything looks a ton better.
Play the demos on both systems.

That's the best way to compare.
 
huh -- comparing the battlefield bc demos, ps3 seemed to tear more often. maybe it's different in the final versions, maybe my perception was just off
 
Wow.. those mirror's edge comparison shots are something else.

Looks like ass on PS3 compared to 360. I played the 360 one and noticed a bit of tearing and the jaggies were worse than most other games I'd played on the platform recently, but wow. :lol

That PS3 version is a whole step down from the 360 one.
 
Top Bottom