PS3 vs 360 Face-Off: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Digital Foundry

Digital Foundry: "For console owners with the luxury of choosing between the two SKUs, it's got to be the PlayStation 3 game that gets the nod. Both versions have somewhat variable performance, but on the Sony platform you get a few extra FPS in taxing situations and there is some extra zing to the controls. While the disc-swapping situation on 360 is hardly a massive bother, it's annoying that there is any at all when you have the game fully installed onto HDD, and the fact this is eliminated completely with the extra storage space of the Blu-ray on PS3 can only be a good thing."

[mrmikew2018]

Oh boy this is not going to end well? Regardless I'm pretty sure the differences on the 360 are not going to effect anyone that purchase it for that system. Anyway the demo did not do this game justice. The game so far deserves a 9 and nothing lower.

[zootang]

Well the PS3 wins this round, better frame rate, one disk and slight graphical differences (when the horse jumps the gap there is no light on the rocks in the 360 version).

[Akagi]

Ps3 wins, but it was very close. It's a good game and worthy of a purchase on either platform.

[Game-ur]

The mainstream don't pay attention to this stuff, it's just trolling fodder wether pro 360 or PS3.

And the hardcore buy multiple-platform games for whatever system they are collecting trophies/achivements on.

[darthv72]

Well said.

I did notice something. Game data at 4.12gb and movies at 7.5gb??? Wonder what that ratio is on MGS4? Not trolling but I hear so many say that MGS4 is more movie than game.

I have just started playing it myself. (late bloomer i guess).

[The Wood]

best comment

common sense 'trophy' 'achieved'

[raztad]

The framerate of this game is not acceptable. Lows at 20? wtf? the combat is slow, with a lot of slow motion/blur to cover up that awful framerate. Also the lack of AA is a huge bummer, but I guess they couldnt afford it considering how compromised the framerate already was.

Well, I commend Mercury for using the PS3 as a lead platform, they did a good job. Still they have a lot of room to improve.

[Immortal321]

(just to be honest...)

the ps3 exclusive and the 360 exclusive games are totally different styles?....... the 360 exclusive are like same as the multiplats but with more western.

[jack_burt0n]

Digital foundry is WORTHLESS.

On top of that if the results were reversed the outcome of articles headlines would be:

"xbox 360 version of castlevania is abysmal, unplayable BROKEN, dvd compressed mess, looks like the original NES version, avoid at all costs."

where as the truth is the 360 version comes on 2 dvds stutters like crazy and is only to be bought if you are poor.

[starchild]

Come on, if you actually read the whole comparison the PS3 version has a slightly better framerate in some situations, but we're talking about just a couple frames in even the worst situations.

They didn't even mention that the 360 version has a sharper look and richer colors.

I like the way the 360 version looks over the PS3 version, but the PS3 version does have a slight advantage in the framerate, so I really don't know which one to pick.

[Dance]

digital foundry said games look identical, just slightly better framerate for the PS3 version so lets the fanboy try spin it all they want

[BISHOP-BRASIL]

Oh so now slightly better framerate don't matter? I see, I see... Call us when a game don't have grass, right?

Really, all this comparisons are waste of space, ever were... But the only people downplaying it now are the exactly same that cheer about it when their console of choice gets the almost better version.

I said before and I'll say it again, stoping wasting time with those guys, don't give this sites hits. I haven't seen that many games in this gen where the difference between versions were so big it made the game better or worse in any platform. The few I remember just from the top of my head were Turok (crap on PS3) and FFXIII (crap on 360).

Guess what, play Castlevania on 360 or Dead Rising on PS3 and you'll be just as satisfied as the other crew, you wouldn't even notice differences if a site wouldn't point it for you.

[snp]

Well said bishop-br.

To anyone that isn't a fanatic, these comparisons are beyond stupid 99% of the time. There's the odd - very seldom found - game where things stack up enough to make a difference, but not for the vast vast majority. These sort of sites - even more so than others - only really exist to fuel feuds, and are invariably gravitated to by those desperate to prove something or other (god knows what).

[TheBlackSmoke]

Pretty much all multiplat comparisons turn out like this. Its just 360 fanboys that get so excited and start throwing out crap like "INFERIOR VERSION".

Notice PS3 owners dont really care about this slight win because we actually have first party games which destroy any multiplat.

[mastiffchild]

Like I say WHOEVER ends up with the "winning" version this is ALL BS. While multiplatform games aim , first and foremost, for parity between the two HD consoles how on Earth are we supposed to see the end results(which take into consideration all the weaknesses of both platforms but NONE of the unique and unshared strengths as they would be anathema to parity)reflect exactly what either is capable of?

As a direct result the two versions of nearly every multiplatform game are so close in quality that you'd NEVER be well advised to change from your console/controller of preference because of them. Really, DF and LoT slow things down and use programs to find flaws and celebrate when they find the littlest things so they can announce "winners" and legitimate their sites' existences.

I play all my multis on my PS3 because, mainly, I prefer the DS3 and the only time I've felt forced into changing was with TOB-I just don't expect any great differences to come along-mainly because the two user bases are so similar in size that putting one half's noses out of joint could cost a dev potentially half their sales. This is why we don't, for example, see many, if any, multis using very similar working practises to the better PS3 exclusives-aqnd because it's a pretty different way of working it would also mean making two very different and work heavy versions. Pushing either system ahead of the other isn't desirable to devs right now, would mean extra work(if better games generally if they DID bother)and possibly losing a large slice of income.

IF devs were just trying to push each system as far as they could then LoT and it's ilk might have a little purpose but as it is they massage tiny differences to justify what they do when, in reality, we'd be hard pressed to even notice most of the things they find and would almost never feel they made ANY impact on our game experiences. It's just a generation, unlike the last, where each install base is so similar in size that allowing either system any kind of lead would be potentially too financially damaging to bother with. This whole comparison scene is as broken, to me, as anything I've ever come across. Including GOTY awards and review scores and Metacritic making up scores for reviews without them!

[HolyOrangeCows]

"just slightly better framerate for the PS3 version so lets the fanboy try spin it all they want"
"just slightly better framerate for the PS3 version"
"just slightly better"

"lets the fanboy try spin it all they want"
You already did, hypocrite.

[Christopher]

Personally, I think we should be congratulating the heck out of the developers for getting them so close together and making both versions of the game look good. Not only is the art direction in this game top notch, but the developers were able to ensure that both platforms could enjoy this game equally.

Congratulations to MercurySteam for doing something that much larger teams with a lot more experience haven't been able to do and this should be used as an example of a multiplatform title done right.

[OneSneakyMofo]

PS3's superior as always.

[kancerkid]

Yea, look at that 20 FPS go...

[Akagi]

^^^
And yet DF stated PS3 version has a more consistent Framerate.

[kancerkid]

@Akagi

And on both systems, the game is at ~25 FPS, if you are lucky.
Wow.

[edhe]

Love it - one comparison comes out with a slight tweak of the ps3 above the 360 and now its "always" :D

[divideby0]

I always buy the best version of the game for the system which it is best on..
This time I will be getting it for the PS3 vs for my 360..

While I continue to play BC2 on the 360.

[cervantes99]

Castlevania for my PS3 and Enslaved for my 360.

[coldfoot]

BC2 is by no means superior on the 360...it has a better framerate but also super ugly transparencies, so they're about equal in my book. If you wanted to buy the best version of BC2, you'd have gotten the PC version.

[King-Leonidas]

We are twins separated at birth.

[Malice-Flare]

well done, MercuryStream...

* plays 'Ode to Joy' *

[DigitalAnalog]

That there was a lot of expectations from the 360 fanboys hoping that the PS3 version would get the short end of the "stick".

-End statement

[mastiffchild]

But if it had, like always, it would have been the short end of a stick that could only be detected by people using incredibly advanced measuring equipment due to both ends of the stick, as ever, being almost exactly the same sodding length!!

So, PS3 "wins" this round? So what? Until the differences start being actual game changers and not fluff you need programs just to detect I wish they'd just drop it. Same as when 360 "wins"-they aim for parity and not for the best either system can do and because of that the results are always pretty close and very, very rarely anything like reason enough to alter where you'd ideally want to play a game.

[starchild]

mastiffchild, what you are saying is complete nonsense. Just because this one was pretty close doesn't mean that you can pretend that they are all this close.

This game looks nearly identical and has only slight differences in the framerate. We're talking 1 or 2 frames, and only in the most demanding parts of the game. Most of the game is going to feel identical.

That isn't the case with many multiplatform games. Take the recent comparison of Dead Rising 2. It's sub-HD on the PS3 (360 is 720p), has quite a lot of screen tearing on the PS3, more slowdown, and missing effects like depth of field and light bloom. THAT is a major difference. You're being ridiculous if you want people to believe that such differences are so minor as to be unimportant.

If you want to get every multiplat for your PS3 because of controller preference or whatever, be my guest. To me that is just stupid. I can play equally well on either controller and I have friends on both consoles, so what it really comes down to is which version is better quality for my money.

[MNicholas]

but the PS3 version is missing some features that are becoming standard. It's clear that, while they're pushing the GPUs in both machines, and using a lot of pixel shading (the strength of the RSX), they haven't really utilized the Cell to the extent of games like Uncharted 2, KZ 2, God of War 3, etc for post-processing.

There's some motion blur but not of the quality that exclusives provide. The simplest upgrade is MLAA which, nowadays is more or less a "drop in" feature. Thanks to the Cell, future PS3 games can get virtually free ultra high quality anti-aliasing equivalent to 16xMSAA.

[DatNJDom81]

Lots of butthurt 360 guys here today. Let the LOLz begin!

[nickjkl]

oh lawd the comments on that forum

"looks better than god of war 3" - "but it has no AA"

just goes to show you the ps3 and 360 are the same in power

[swinesucker]

The PS3 and the 360 aren't even in the same league when properly utilized. You get SubHD on the 360 from first party devs with zero AA in many cases and up to 4xAA when resolution is severely hit. God of War 3 runs at 60FPS some of the time and never 15fps like this game does. At times you are getting 4 times the framerate in GOW3 and usually twice what Castle is pumping.

And this game isn't even close to Uncharted 2 dude. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[fallingdove]

You are clueless. Please stop posting non-sense.

[nickjkl]

my god i copy and pasted comments of ludicrous comments on the forum but i get disagreed with by ravageous fanboys

[mastiffchild]

If multis looked better than PS3 and 360 exclusives DF/LoT might have a point but they don't. It's generally easier to work with the 360 and when not really taxing either system you'd expect the odd tiny difference in it's favour while parity is the aim. Parity is also easy to get close to(and has none of the risks involved with showing either console appreciably better than the other-when the bases are so similar in size it could be financial suicide, no?)-and much cheaper than making two totally optimised versions-but not THAT easy to achieve totally. Fact is without sites like this pointing out non differences no one would ever notice and devs know only a tiny percentage of gamers will ever know LoT/DF ever existed let alone read a comparison there!

It's not talent but money that drives multi plat development in the first instance and if you don't think it pays them to make the versions almost exactly the same then I don't know what you think-obviously they do or a multiplat would have appeared looking better than Gears or Uncharted on their respective platforms. I just don't buy that multiplats are pushing either console as hard as they could and with the PS3 needing more specialised work to eke out the best results naturally they will use methods better suited to what they know on PC and 360 and work from there.

With the differences always being pretty small and usually unseeable with the human eye it's plain to me that multis are rightly looking after themselves and not trying to put noses out of joint between two pretty closely matched platforms. It6's sad they aren't trying to make optimised games for either platform and that shared weaknesses are more important than individual strengths but that's the way it is and it make total financial sense because what LoT and DF say makes almost zero impact on what sells where-and never will.

there's no anti anything conspiracy going on-just a sad fact that we aren't getting games quite as good as we could be doing, imho.

[Achemki]

Same power?

GOW NEVER dips to 15fps (it can push close to 60 at times), has morphological anti-aliasing carried out by the SPUs (Castlevania has none), never had control response issues, and is 35 GB on one disc with no install as opposed to 12 GB over 2 discs in Castlevania even with an install...and we haven't even touched on the fact GOW3 supports DTS audio and Castlevania on the 360 can't. I don't game in mono, so yes, audio 'power' matters too.

[AKS]

DTS? I believe it's 7.1 LPCM.

BTW, the PS3 version of Castelvania: LoS also appears to have 7.1 audio. I rarely see anything about it though.

[carreirabr]

15fps?

Hahahahahaahhahaah!

And I'm sure you don't have any kind of video to prove it, right?

[MetalFreakMike]

@AKS

There is such thing as DTS because my surround sound supports it. Here is a link explaining it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Enjoy reading and next time think before you speak.

[P_Bomb]

@carreirabr

The site already has its own videos. Its common knowledge.

Here's a vid of the demo, play from 2:40 and watch it dip to 17fps http://www.relyonhorror.com...

[AKS]

@ MetalFreakMike

Oh, my. I don't think you want to have an audio debate and take that tone with me unless you are a glutton for punishment. I'm well aware of what DTS is. 7.1 LPCM is of considerably higher quality than DTS and is supported in the PS3 version. And yes, my receiver and home theater setup supports 7.1 LPCM HD audio.

[6wl]

@MetalFreakMike

DTS audio is a 15 year old, lossy audio format. Sooner DD5.1 and DTS die the better. The GPU on the 360 might be slightly better, but the audio quality on the PS3, with 7.1 LPCM over HDMI is next gen next to the lossy over optical rubbish in the 360.

[boodybandit]

I am shocked how this is not brought up more often in comparisons regarding the PS3 vs 360 for any reason. Exclusive games, multiplat games, psn/xbl games, digital downloads and even dvd playback all sound better on the PS3 over the 360.

The 360 has nothing but handshake issues with audio over HDMI. Till this day MS has never done a thing to improve this. It's so frustrating! I ended up giving up and using the optical adapter for sound and using HDMI only for video on the 360's I own.

Another thing people are not talking about concerning C:LOS, btw again I am playing it on the 360 and I am just keeping it real, is the compression this game went through on both consoles. Most exclusive games that past couple years on the PS3 far exceed 12gigs. Yet this game was compressed down to 12 gigs so it would fit on 2 DVD's for the 360. Has anyone stop and thought for a second how good this game might have been if not for all that compression?

Do the research yourself and read how they used Bink Codec to compress this game, including the cinematics, so it would fit on only 2 DVD's. They did everything possible to make these games identical and you can't argue they are nearly the same. All I am saying is how much better could it have been if not for that compression to fit on DVD's.

[kupomogli]

Actually there are videos to prove 15fps. The 360 version of Lords of Shadow hits 14FPS while the PS3 version hits 16FPS. Not good on either system. The FPS is much lower on videos than it is on gameplay though. The gameplay thankfully carries a much higher framerate.

On the colossus battle, the framerate is similar on both systems and the 360 has better framerate than the PS3 at times. Both go as low as 22FPS, however, every other part the PS3 maintains at least 26FPS while the 360 will go down as low as 20FPS sometimes(even though both versions hit 18FPS(360) and 22 and 24FPS(PS3) at one point(though it quickly jumped back up.) The PS3 version is consistently 2-4FPS more than the 360 version(except like I mentioned with the colossus battle when they were almost always the same and sometimes even better on the 360.)

On both versions it doesn't seem that the reduced framerate affects any of your actions, so that's a plus, or it may, just might not have been noticeable. I've only played the demo of each though, so no idea of the actual game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[MetalFreakMike]

This is rich. "DTS is not that good" and "7.1 LPCM is better". DTS has a very good sound quality and is preferred for a lot of movie releases. DTS HD offers more improvements and evolves. You can keep on thinking 7.1 LPCM is better but from what I get from my sound system says everything.

[shazui123]

Are you kidding?
GOW3 rapes C:LOS visually! castlevania looks very good, but GOW3 is in another league! the same as most PS3 exclusives are in another graphical league to any 360 game.

Castlevania is still a great game though, but it's unfair to compare it to the king of hack and slash games. Shouldn't stop anyone from buying it

[gamerdude132]

Oh my God, this again?! STOP APPROVING THIS CRAP!!

[sher00win99]

too late

[Corrwin]

The PS3 does not need to suffer because you don't know how it works. Mercury Steam have create a fantastic, consistent game, without any excuses.

Well done to them.

Nominate it for GOTY just to piss off those who can't make a consistent multiplatform game.

@KratosGirI:
Yes, bravo to Platinum Games for making half of their current gen games consistent. They deserve a pat on the back.

[KratosGirI]

Vanquish says hi.

[pyramid121]

Ladies and gentlemen wii/ps3/ds/PC/psp/Ipod fans.

Witness the 360 fanboys and their hyporcisy, watch them flipflop and now say "fram rate does not matter".

sigh.....

[blodulv]

Was going to buy regardless, but was hoping it'd be the PS3 that had the optimal performance... DS3 + Hack n' Slash = WIN.

[garrod]

PS3 won. I don't understand how and why xbots always bellyache about cross platform games like this? What I always tell them whenever they get in my face is I ask them.
Me; "The Xbox 360 and Ps3 are both HD gaming machines right?"
Them; "Yes."
Me; "So let me ask you a question."
Them "Shoot"
Me; "Do you watch HD movies on a standard DVD?"
Them "Of course not."
Me; "Then how can you possibly expect to have a better HD gaming experience on a machine that doesn't support a physical HD media?"
Them "Silence"
Me; lls
Now granted some of the more hardcore xbots go into the whole "compression is good" argument and whatever but now I will use this as an example that "compression kills games" and that MS needs to jump on the Physical HD media wagon or else we wont be seeing another Xbox :p not that I care though.
Edit; Btw I still think the 20fps is completely unacceptable for an HD game like this

[NnT3291]

You can watch HD movies on DVD, Its just that you need more than one DVD.

[edhe]

"because i know that the resolution of graphics generated on a console are not defined by the storage medium on which they are stored"

Fail much?

[carreirabr]

Funny how multiplatform games have to run around at 20fps if trying to match PS3 exclusives graphics.

Is this becoming a new trend? Hope not.

[no_more_heroes]

this is how multiplatform games should be done. This game is now the measuring stick for the quality of multiplatform games for me.

[wenaldy]

Just enjoy your game depend on system you have... Both looked goood..

[mrmikew2018]

Like I said before it's not going to matter what system you buy it for. I really don't know why one version to be better than the other? Some you kids need to grow up and stop counting these pixels and frames all of the time.

[Silly gameAr]

This bull has really hurt feelings. If means jacksh** but to some guys stuff like superior multiplat titles mean the world.

[BannedForNineYears]

Told you guys Lense of Truth was biased.
They were like "What difference? There's no difference. :D"

[Soul Train]

DF - "Perhaps it's an issue with the review code we had (highly unlikely), but it seems to be that the 360 itself is doing a hardware check before it allows you to access the data."

Nice that DF is using the review code for their "face off", LOL! Talk about biased. What a joke!

[units]

look at these guys post before making that claim

pyramid121

CernaML

HD Media

OneSneakyMofo

[saint_seya]

i really dont care wich one looks better... if it doesnt have extra content, exclusive dlc or a really really huge difference in the graphic department (and im talking something that any game had yet)i will be happy playing the game, if is a sub-par port i wont be buying, if is a minimal difference like always, i will get it for shure, and i think that 360 owners must think the same,who do care about those small differences are the sites looking for hits...
i wanna ask this to all, 360 and ps3 fans... how many of us get 2 copies of the same game running side by side, searching for those tiny differences just to play the "superior" version of the game? i think nobody (at least 99% of us) dont do that---
so enjoy your game in the console that suits u better (could be for controller preferences, trophy/archivements, online friends)

[xg-ei8ht]

PS3 FTW

[Moonboots]

Funny they mention how jerky the game is throughout the whole comparison and I completely agree.

WTF is up with the jerky gameplay?

Annoying, distracting and made me put the game down unfortunately.

[stonedgamer]

just because the X-Box DVD is limited doesn't mean you cant take advantage of the bluray like this game has.

its microsofts fault for choosing the format, they made their decision.

multiple discs wont kill them, you would think any normal gamer would want this game to be like it is; a huge nice looking game rather than a smaller/shorter experience.

just because one system has a handicap doesn't mean you should punish the other one for it.

[edhe]

That's how i feel about the ps3. If it wasn't for devs trying to learn the Cell all this time then we could've had much better performing games already.

Where the data is stored matters far less that how it's coded/decoded stored in memory, split into threads and run.