Head 2 Head comparisons: Can gamers trust them?

Something that existed in previous console generations but has taken off this gen and something gamers today are no strangers to are the head to head comparisons of the same games released on multiple consoles. Countless fanboy flame wars have been fanned to the point where any legitimate debate by gamers is lost, consumed by the raging inferno started by so tiny a spark as a website's observation that one particular texture might look a little off on one version compared to another. Now gamers who own both systems might ask "But I have a choice. How am I to know which version is the better version for my money?"

Websites like the Lens of Truth and Eurogamer have made quite an impact on the internet forums with their "Head2Head" comparisons of games released on Sony's Playstation 3 versus the Microsoft Xbox 360, but how useful are these comparisons in the long run?

[Jamegohanssj5]

Only if they come from game trailers. Lawlz.

TGSI

[Anon1974]

Some will quote these game comparisons like they're the gospel, but really they're just some other dude's opinion. I say, find a review site you trust or use something like metacritic. These head 2 head comparisons so often make so much out of nothing, and it this point there's usually so little different between the versions it doesn't even warrant a mention, yet negative fans feed on these type of discrepancies that in no way impact the overall games.

I mean, do you really care that the shadows on the PS3 version of Batman are better? Did you care that the shadows on RE5 were better? Of course not. Gamers don't play slight graphical discrepancies, they play games.

[Montrealien]

Wrong title.

Head 2 Head comparisions : Should gamers give a flying f*ck?

discuss.

[Anon1974]

I considered a title more along those lines after looking at that joke of a comparison I referenced from Cynamite.de.

However, I like to keep it a little less "in your face"

I at least try to remain professional. Or at least pretend. :)

Edit below: Exactly my point! At this stage, these type of comparisons are just nitpicking. All they do is muddy the waters for a lot of gamers.

[StanLee]

I mean who really cares? The differences are usually negligible in the majority of instances.

[Blaze929]

Like I said in that NFS SHIFT submission, multi-platform owners care.

For $60 you always want to get the best version of a game you can get and thats who and what these comparisons are for. If you (not you specifically) are a single console owner then stop coming to these comparison submissions and complaining since it has nothing to do with you.

Its like comparing which TVs are best, which internet service provider is best, what car is best etc etc. You pay for something you want the best possible version you can buy.

So if you (not you specifically) own both a 360 and a PS3 these comparison videos may...or may not...help you ultimately choose which version to buy. If they didnt do a Orange Box comparison, I wouldve bought the PS3 version. Glad I didnt though.

[Chris399]

If it's a massive discrepancy in performance - seen with a couple of multi-plats in 2006/ 2007 - then "yes" I might care. But we haven't seen games with those sorts of issues in a good while. Most of that Eurogamer and Lens of Truth crap is pixel counting at it's finest. It's not something that a person actually takes note of when playing a game.

That said, when given the choice of what system to buy a game on, I'll probably still go with the PS3 version. Why? I like the controller better. That, and my 360(s) have had reliability issues and I play the console only much as is needed.

I'm not a fanboy, I'll be playing Magna Carta 2 and Venetica next month on my 360, but I still have a preference. And in view of reliability issues and simple inclination towards the PS brand, I'll usually play whatever multis I purchase on my PS3. Simple.

People who own multiple systems are not console messiahs, but they are people, and people have a preference. Always. There's nothing fanboyish about that.

[BlackTar187]

I own 2 ps3's 2 360's and 1 wii.

if a game has such small difference like all these things show SMALL then why care you don't notice small blips when moving full speed in a game. If you chose a game because one i blacker in one part then the other then that in my honest opiono sucks for you thats how i see it you pick a game over the other because of a pixel that takes up 2sec in a 10hr game then you need to get laid or god help you in the future. Im j/k about the laid part but people who invest this much energy in to but the superior version because of worthless stuff like that make people losers to me. Now a huge difference sure i agree but 85% of these are the smallest thing ever and people blow it out of porpotion like it sacrifices the games fun level.again if a pixel here or there ruins a game for you then you found the wrong hobby maybe think about being a inspector everyone hates them but they need to find the smallest errors.

[el zorro]

Hmm.. why is it that most of the people who don't like multiplatform comparisons are PS3 fanboys? Could there be a reason for that? Could it be that they don't like them because they most often show the PS3 coming out behind?

In fact, the very author of this article, Mr. darkride66 himself, is a massive PS3 fanboy. That couldn't have anything to do with his stance on this issue, could it? Nah.

@Blaze929

Thanks for coming forward with a little common sense and defending the obvious truth. Your TV comparison analogy was an apt one. Should we not compare TVs? After all, the differences are often fairly minor and you would only notice the differences if you had the TVs side by side. Baloney! Of course consumers want to know how one product compares to another, even if the differences have to be uncovered by technical analysis.

When I am in the market to buy a new TV I want to know such things as a TV's contrast ratio, color accuracy and decoding, processing, motion handling, and other such things. I want to know how one TV compares to another, even if I can't tell the differences looking at the models in the store. I want to know which TV in my price range is the best.

Why would it be any different when buying games? It's beneficial to people like me, who own multiple platforms, to do a quick check to see which version of a multiplatform game performs or looks the best. And despite what some of these radical fanboys will tell you, the differences are very often more than slight. The fact is, I have compared many games myself and have found the descriptions given by groups like Digital Foundry to be nearly always highly accurate. This has led me to realize that their comparisons are legitimate, precise, and can be trusted.

To me, the simple difference of one version having anti-aliasing while the other lacks it is a difference I want to know about. It can have a fairly significant impact on overall image quality -especially on larger displays, like the TV I own. Moreover, the differences are often much more substantial than that, with one version having a higher frame rate, more advanced effects, less screen tearing, etc. Those are differences I want to know about. After all, it's our hard earned money to be spent, and $60 is nothing to sneeze at.

[Anon1974]

Think about it. Sure you want to know which TV is better, but if it comes down to one has slightly better contrast and one has slightly better color, which do you pick?

These types of comparisons often make those judgments. Like the BluBlaze comparison on LOT. One version has problems with controls, the other has mere seconds difference in loading times. It's a tie. Excuse me? A fighting game with control issues isn't the same as one with seconds difference in load times. One is obviously preferable, but not according to LOT's opinion.

I have no idea how a select few always seem able to make this about their console of choice. This has nothing to do with what game machine you choose to game on. I personally game on a 360 and PS3. My gamertag and PSN-ID are DarkrideHex66. Say hi sometime. Console preference doesn't play into this article in the slightest.

Nowhere did I say comparisons weren't useful, I simply pointed out that comparisons are simply opinion and shouldn't be taken as fact. They can certainly be a useful tool, but they're just as fallible as any other review. That's the point which you obviously missed in your rush to take personal shots at me and turn this into another "PS3 versus 360" console wars joke. The idea that you game on both systems is laughable given your posting history.

Personally, I'm in the same boat as Chris399. For me, reliability trumps graphical differences as I'm on my 4th 360 and don't trust it. However, I know not everyone is going to have issues like I did and I'm in the minority. Still, I could run a comparison of every multiplatform game and say the PS3 wins due to system reliability because that's what's important to me and it would be no different then any of these comparisons. At the end of the day they're simply opinion, not fact.

[shocky16]

I'm sure we can praise and trust them when a PS3 version turns out better.. now if it was the 360 version then that's a different story. >_>

[Sunny_D]

Sure, because we never see 360 fanboys saying once again the PS3 is the inferior version!!!!111 HAHAHA/sarcasm Don't play innocent.

[ZombieAutopsy]

everything goes both ways here.

[BlackTar187]

I just read thru some of your comments and man are you so damn defensive. and talk about playing the victim so well i commend you.

He said she said lol i mean come on doesn't something jump up and bite you every time you post the he did it line when you play this huge anti whatever in most of your posts?

Man if im writing something like what you did i think i would be like man doesnt playing the victim ever get old to me?

[WildArmed]

Honestly, gamers shouldn't really care.

Devs have finally got multi-plats down. They are nearly identical. Now it should just come down to the content the game has to offer on each console.

ex. Dark Vader vs Yoda in SCIV. (yes i know they are DLC now.. but they werent initially).

So when you are deciding what platform you want it on, just consider your community and if it offers any more content on a specific console.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

However, these are still useful in cases where some games are extremely badly done such as Orange Box and Ghostbuster for the PS3. If you are a huge fan, you will want the best version regardless of the platform.

I'm a huge fan of Ninja Gaiden, so I just want the best version intended... probably doesn't apply to most people though.

[The Wood]

you better pick up sigma 2 then;)

cant wait for that game as they done a great job with the first 1.

The example from lens of truth makes me laugh. Seems they pick and choose what makes a game unplayable and what points should be taken off as a result.....kinda like 'shocky' ........you being selective again i see;)

[mastiffchild]

Great article, imo, and even so there's things he misses out. The biggest point of comaparisons shouldn't be which is the netter version necessarily but also what it tells us about how well the dev has done-these days as they've had time with each platform nothing too far short of parity should be acceptable and seeing as there've only been TWO cases of games I was interested in having a big enough advanntage in the 360's favour for me to buy that version over the PS3 as I prefer the DS3 to the 360 pad how much real point is there to multiple console gamers choosing cos of these articles?

All the usual stuff like where your mates game(if it's an online enabled title) controller preference, paid for or free network should, and does, come before any of the infinitessimal differences these sites come up with and this author's also right that it's STILL opinion. Who decides if a little loading is equal to a bit of bad texture? The REVIEWER-like always. That's without getting into any bias based arguments. For me they're nigh on redundant as since ROB the only game they've nearly swayed me on was Ghostbusters but my hatred of the 360 pad and the facts I despise waiting, live in the UK AND don't like devs who can't do their job well enough meant I just rented it for PS3 anyway.

Basically I don't feel the comparisons do a great deal except propel a few flame wars over very, very ,little and the way we've seen sites caught out either doctoring images, passing off the other consoles as a different ones images and just using incorrect settings make this all very slap dash and , on occasion, dodgy to noot. Luckily I doubt many take any notice at all as most gamers won't have a clue they exist and of those that do 99% will either find other issues more important or are too in love with a platform for anything to sway their opinions.

BTW-NGS2 does look like being the ultimate package for NG fans BUT why haven't we put more pressure on Tecmo Koei to at least sort out the game hindering camera on the 360 version of the game? Fair enough to give the PS3 gamer who has waited for the game a few extras but when one is a fix to basic gameplay that would buff up the orihinal immensely then it SHOUL be patched in for all of those who bought it.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

I already pre-ordered my Ninja Gaide Sigma 2 Collector's Edition at (ugh) GameStop. Unfortunately, there are no other retailer that sells the CE version in the US.

[The Wood]

;)

[Sunny_D]

I agree it doesn't help in the long run, but 360 fanboys have nothing else to cling to, so they stick to head2head comparisons even if its a flop game.

[ZBlacktt]

Many times there pointless. When they show one systems view is a tad lighter in appearance. While the other is a tad darker. Heck, even a tv control adjustment could fix that issue if you want it darker or lighter.

Other than that, everything else would seem to be so minor. As game Dev's know people are going to be looking for flaws every single time. So I'm sure they don't want to put out something that sucks for either console. But I think we are all waiting to see how FFXIII turns out, lol. As that game is said to have no changes. Yet we see pictures from time to time showing otherwise.

[ZombieAutopsy]

I have to agree with you 100% on the darkness thing, most games let you adjust the gamma settings so you would think a "good" comparison site would try to get the setting to look the same before they do it.

[ZBlacktt]

ZombieAutopsy,

Very correct. :)

[ZBlacktt]

LOL, at all the kids who disgree with again, a simple fact about adjusting your own tv, lol.. This site.

[table]

Great article that succesfully questions the point of, the subjectiveness and the legitimacy of these comparisons. What more can I say, the article pretty much said it all.

Should reach more degrees if there's any justice.

[RadientFlux]

it won't as the article doesn't have any flamebait, now change the article title to "Head 2 Head comparisons: [insert console name] version is always better then [insert console name] version"

[SupaPlaya]

You forgot the question mark at the end.

[Mr PS3]

No you cant

[RadientFlux]

Head 2 Head comparisons are pretty much useless this console generation with the majority of third-party games looking almost identical on each system (the exception being the Wii).

They did serve a good purpose for the last few console generations, when the performance gap between systems was pretty large.

[JeepGamer]

Head to head comparisons are nothing but people trying to get page hits. In a few cases it's valid, when there's a significant difference between two versions but in 95% of the cases the differences are so minor nobody would even notice them if these idiots weren't around to point them out.

[Tyetan]

I like the comparisons. I think they're helpful when you have two consoles and you want to pick the best version. The only people that seem to be upset by them are the fanboys.

[HDgamer]

That is a fanboy statement. Which one is better is subjective by a video from a 3rd party with an ulterior motive. Real gamers get it for the platform they want to play it on, not some stupid excuse like this little pixel is much more better on the ps3/360 version WAHHHHH!

[HBK619]

Great article.

Some have already said it here. But basically the only thing multi-console owners need to look at here is content. Which game will give you the absolute full experience possible.

Batman: AA, Mirror's Edge, Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 1&2 are some that you would choose for the PS3.

GTA IV, Fallout 3 (Because it has the DLC now, not later) and possibly MW2 are some that you would choose for the XBOX 360.

That is all taken into account that you don't mind choosing one game over the other because there are still other factors like friends, achievement/trophy count, controller, etc. But as I said if you don't mind choosing one game over another just to have the one with the most then those shouldn't matter.

Of course if you can't split what console to by the game for and want simply the BEST version then you can look. But at the end of the day it is going to be the most nit-picky thing you can get and it will rarely change your gaming experience.

TBCH I never even noticed the issues with The Orange Box until I read about them on the internet (Completely agree it was well and truly playable, just had poor load times and occasional framerate dips). Maybe I'm not the most diligent gamer in the world. But I had no issues with The Orange Box and still loved it just like everyone else who has played it did.

[ForROME]

Well I only trust them if they are done on the same equipment, on the same EXACT part, unlike some do it in dark places while the other system is done in a place with lots of lighting, Im like I cant compare that, idiots

[evildeli]

He quotes where Blazblue wins for controls on the Ps3 and is baffled that the game ties? Maybe he should have read the part where the load times were better on the Xbox. Please follow through on your research Kyle, you look like a flameboy.

[Anon1974]

So let me ask you, do slightly faster load times trump control issues? That's my point. These comparisons are still subjective. Personally, I think in a fighting game, controls are much more important that seconds on load times. Obviously, LOT doesn't feel the same. It's just their opinion.

[athlon770]

Taken from the article:

"For example, take the Lens of Truth’s recent comparison of the fighting game, BlazBlue. Their final analysis of the game found both versions to be practically identical in all parts but control. On the 360 versions they noted “I can’t tell you how many times we had to recapture the Xbox 360 version when we simply wanted to walk left. Sometimes we would jump, sometimes we would crouch. Every time we would curse.”

Now, to many a control issue as serious as this in a fighting game would be a deal breaker. Not so for Lens of Truth. Their final verdict was a tie between the PS3 and 360 version."

So I take it in your eyes, you would rather have a game with poor control over a game that takes 3sec longer to load? Foolish you are is what I think. Try to keep it real.

[evildeli]

Controllers can be remapped and even switched with fightpads and others. You can't change the load times.

[Anon1974]

If your game requires you, by default, to remap the button controls, or purchase a new controller...to me that's worse than a few seconds of load time and I wouldn't buy that game, but that's just my opinion.

And again, all I'm saying is that this is opinion. You're trying to argue if LOT was right by giving BluBlaze a tie. Quite frankly, I don't care. My point was regarding the usefulness of these comparisons, not with BluBlaze specifically. I think you missed the point.

[Anon1974]

I suppose it was inevitable that someone would try to turn this into some kind of console war discussion.

This article has absolutely nothing to do with your choice of consoles. You could still game on a Sega Master System, for all I care. This article is about the usefulness of comparisons and reviews in the process of selecting which game you choose to purchase.

If you want to turn this into you're own little console wars discussion, Open Zone is over there -->

The LOT comparison could have just as easily said the PS3 controls sucked and given it a tie, and I would have still said "Wait a second. Controls are pretty important in a fighter. Are you sure it's just a tie?"

No one is criticizing your precious console here so stop making an issue where there isn't one. Get over yourself.

[evildeli]

Who would do that? I don't know, how about anyone who plays Street Fighter IV or any other fighter game. By using a game like BlazBlue, you keep overlooking the point that your article is based on your SKEWED facts. Why didn't you use Ghostbuster to ask why Head2Heads are useful? Maybe because a game like that exposed the lies Activision were giving to the public. Instead you're going on a fanboy witch hunt cause your console didn't win even though your controller did. Get over your PS3 and try writing articles with full facts that way you can at least have a somewhat unbiased standpoint. If this were English 101, you would have failed on fact checking. See me after class.

[Anon1974]

How is this article based on skewed facts?

No one is talking about facts, we're discussing opinions, and how seriously we should take these opinions. Facts have nothing to do with this.

I could have easily have used Ghostbusters as an example and it wouldn't have changed a thing. Some reviewers thought the differences were minor. Some made a big deal about them. Overall, the differences did little to change the overall scores the game received because as a complete package it was still worth picking up on either system. But still, the differences were reflected in review scores overall.

I could have used Terminator as well. That game was an abysmal mess on the 360 version compared to the PS3 according to LOT. They said the PS3 won by a landslide, but ultimately that's still just their opinion. Are they right? I have no idea. Others could disagree with their findings, or point to something else that in their mind trumps the PS3's pro's. It's simply opinion.

Again, I have no idea how you think this article is in anyway pro-PS3. That's my point. Your "console war" slant to the issue of head to head comparisons isn't in the article. You made that up.

Some people put too much weight in these type of comparisons. It doesn't matter if they come out pro-PS3 or pro-360, that's completely beside the point. If you took off your fan googles for a moment, you'd see this article has nothing to do with PS3 versus 360.

[n4gno]

great article.

only bots are allways exagerating ridiculous differences.

[strickers]

Most of these issues you can only spot with the systems next to each other.Many of the frame,textures issues and such like you wouldn't see any other way.I love these people that claim a 2 frame drop ruins a game for them.Don't ever play an ambitious game like GTA then.
The biggest multi format issues are extra content or maybe achievements and trophies.

[CobraKai]

i like seeing the way developers approach different problems on the different systems to get the same look. Just from a technical standpoint.

[GUNS N SWORDS]

i go by curtain properties that are essential in a comparison.

things like loading times and controls are something that i personally don't count, cause that depends on YOU and how much those aspects effect your experience. if you feel that you have no problems in waiting the extra seconds or using a controller that you've been use to for so long then there's no point in taking someones advice on that.

[AliTheBrit]

I have done my own comparisons

Fallout 3, Dead Space, GTA IV, Call of Duty WaW, ES: Oblivion

I tried them all, both the PS3 and Xbox 360 connected via HDMI (same model of cable) both to the same TV (Samsung 40' LCD HD 1080p) both consoles running on there optimal settings.

And I got to say, the Xbox 360 shows a significant difference, the Xbox 360 always has better colours, sharper more detailed image, less jaggies in games such as Fallout and Dead space.

The only game out of the ones I tried that looked better on the PS3 was ES: Oblivion, But I suspect that's simply because it was released a year later on the PS3 than 360 so had time for polishing.

[Anon1974]

Other people that have done comparisons haven't found the same thing you did.
IGN said of Fallout 3, "Both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions look great, even if they do suffer from occasional framerate issues that cause the game to stutter."

For Deadspace, LOT said "The Xbox 360 shadows were extremely pixelated while the PlayStation 3 version looked cleaner but both games looked and played identical to each other."

For GTA4, IGN said "Sure, there are framerate hitches here and there and (particularly on 360) there is some texture pop-in, but it actually runs better than I expected."

So, you say they all run better on the 360, these sites say it's the same or better on the PS3, who's right?

That's the point. It's all just opinion. The vast majority of the games are so close these days, play on the console you like the most. Play on the console where you have the most friends. Don't fret about these comparisons or nitpicking on these forums. If issues are serious, you'll hear about them in the reviews but ultimately, YOU need to play for yourself.

[table]

Hey, there's phantom disagrees to the number of 8 going around, I'm guessing it's omega.

[djfullshred]

I suppose there is a fraction of game players that own both systems, and obsess over this stuff, but I don't think anyone else gives a damn.

Am I going to buy another console because some website said the textures looked a little better on another version? ummm, no. I am going to buy the version for the console I have, and ignore these comparison articles, like I always do.