220°

CVG | Far Cry 3: PS3 vs. 360 gameplay comparison video

We put in plenty of time with the shooter to bring you our 9.4 Far Cry 3 review in which we said the shooter is "one of this year's best games" and "an experience you have to sink your (bloody) teeth into".

While we were at it we also captured footage from the console versions to bring you the Far Cry 3 PS3 vs. 360 gameplay comparison video you can view below. Which version, if any, are you planning on picking up?

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
DoomeDx4171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

I hate comparisons like this where both version have 50% of the screen..

having 2 screens both at 100% would be way better Because in that cage you can see a lightsource at the left (Xbox360 side). Which is not visible on the ps3 because of the video. making it look like the xbox360 has better lightning. While the ps3 has that lightsource too, but its just not visible

If you know what i mean? I suck at explaining things lol.

EDIT: Nevermind later in the video he changed it.
It looks like the typical Dark version (xbox) vs Bright version (ps3).

Welshy4170d ago (Edited 4170d ago )

"It looks like the typical Dark version (xbox) vs Bright version (ps3)."

Took the words right out of my mouth! Alot of people don't seem to realise even now, that a darker game isn't actually the better looking one.

I personally found playing the same game on both PS3 and 360, that the harsh dark contrast most 360 games use actually kill alot of the details making the PS3 look "washed out". In actual fact, alot of PS3 titles actually more resemble their PC counterparts but in lower res, where 360 alters it, so it looks "better" on their platform as a direct comparison to other console games as opposed to a comparison the the PC. Battlefield 3 is a pretty decent example of this.

It isn't washed out at all, thats the colour scope and detail that was intended to be there, but naturally isnt as high res as the PC, so by crushing said colours and contrasts on 360 it hides them to make it look "better".

To be honest, aren't these comparisons getting a little old hat now anyway? we're on the brink of the next gen in a year, 2 years max, and we still see arguments over negligible differences in lighting and some textures.

Bottom line? PS3 and 360 are nigh on identical and to base any purchase or compaints on minor differences like the video shown above? That's just plain tedium or being a fanboy.

Choose your platform, buy your games and have fun! Nothing else matters in gaming at the end of the day!

Ju4170d ago

I think so, too. I thought the lighting engine was better in the PS3 version and probably more sophisticated and closer to the PC implementation. Otherwise both version look identical. The over saturation might be a design decision. But it definitively shows a higher range. Cool, looks good. Have to get it ASAP.

roartj4170d ago

I switched on full range RGB on my PS3 settings. My oh my...all the multiplatform games on PS3 became almost identical to the XBOX360. Some had more screen tearings others less and there were some tiny lighting differences. But apart from that they were identical.

Kur04170d ago

If you're tv isn't set to full range 0-255 RGB then you're just crushing blacks and losing detail for the higher saturation.

Kinger89384171d ago

Seems to be missing a platform

Avernus4171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

No. Title said PS3 and xbox 360 comparison. Both consoles were in the video.

I know what you meant, but yeah...

Kinger89384171d ago

I know :) just saying they should put pc in these things too

Avernus4171d ago

...why?...I think it's common knowledge PC is superior. So it makes more sense comparing the platforms that are similar to each other.

It comes like comparing a multiplat game on the Wii, PS3, and xbox 360.

Kinger89384170d ago

Just personally want to see if its much better as ive just moved into new place and pc is upstairs consoles downstairs, want to see if its worth the hassle of bringing the pc downstairs to play it on the couch, sorry should have said

DoomeDx4171d ago

@ Avernus.

So what? Comparisons are not meant to be competitions all the time.

Its fun to see the PC next to the consoles.
Why does everyone see gaming as competition..

cannon88004171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

@ DoomeDx

You've been on n4g for a long time and you still don't know how people here are and act like? We can't change their minds. It sucks but it's the truth. I just ignore them because even if I write the most truthful statement, I'll be bombarded with disagrees just because they feel I attacked their console. Just ignore them man.

vickers5004170d ago

@DoomeDx

It's not meant to be fun, these comparisons are meant to help decide which version of the game to buy, and anyone with a gaming PC already knows which one to buy, so there's no point in including the pc version in these comparisons.

I'm not saying they shouldn't show pc footage at all, but they definitely do not need to be in these comparison videos. Besides, if you want to see pc footage, you can just go to youtube. User uploaded footage of pc games tend to be far superior in video quality to these comparison vids.

MasterCornholio4171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

Both look the same to me except for a slight difference in contrast. Like i said on youtube im happy that they didn´t ruin the PS3 version.

@Kinger8398

Well thats because this game didn´t come out on the Wii U. The PC version is almost never included in these types of comparisons because it´s common knowledge that it will be better than the console versions unless the developers screw up.

seanpitt234171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

The ps3 is so much lighter for some reason

Hicken4171d ago

It always is, in these comparisons. It's odd, because my PS3 games never look so... pale.

seanpitt234171d ago

I know all my ps3 games don't look so bright it's like the tv has got max brightness settings on

BuLLDoG9094171d ago (Edited 4171d ago )

the reason these comparisons always have the ps3 version looking paler is because they have the RGB setting to "Limited" rather then "Full RGB" in the PS3's display settings.

StanSmith4171d ago

Guys, please tell me your PS3s aren't set to RGB Full? It Should be on limited when connected to a TV and Full on a PC Monitor.

j4re4171d ago

Thank you STANSMITH. it drives me nuts when I hear the whole "it needs to be set to RGB full" over and over. Go ahead people and crush those blacks. Do a little research into it. You RGB full folks might just learn something.

greenpowerz4170d ago

Thanks stan.

Some Sony fans actually don't know what the settings are for or what they do. They use to say Super White wasn't turned on.

The point of the comparisons is not to match what a game looks like at home with various gear and quality levels but to show the differences between consoles. The 360 version doesn't look like that on my 360/TV either but with these comparisons I know the 360 version isn't gimped.

Has anybody ever stopped and realise the devs might gimp the color range due to memory limitations? High color range is info just like anything else hense why many PS3 games are at a lower resolution.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4170d ago
roartj4170d ago

Have you switched on "full range RGB" I can promise you that you will not see that difference anymore. ;-)

zero_cool4171d ago

I sense game trailers type comparison trickery with cvg's comparison video.

Cheers Gamers & Happy Holidays!

WetN00dle694171d ago

The Game looks great on consoles!

Ju4170d ago (Edited 4170d ago )

Totally agree! Vastly improved over FC2. And I thought that was quite good, too.

BTW: Looking at those videos in the link I have the feeling the PS3 version is quite improved over the 360 version. A little less tearing (even though it still does), but better distance "bluring" (360 out of focus is blurred quite a bit), awesome AA without blur (!) and overall better lighting (sharper picture). Surprise, surprise. Both videos set to 720p, of course. But maybe that's just me.

Show all comments (48)
70°

Our Favorite Villains in Gaming - Roundtable

There have been plenty of great villains in video games over the years. Now it's time for the VGU crew to name a few of their favorites.

90°

Which Far Cry Should I Start With? - A Beginner's Guide 2023

If you’re new to this long-running franchise, we’ve got you covered.

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
masterfox407d ago

Farcry 3 and literally thats it! lol

GamingSinceForever405d ago (Edited 405d ago )

I recently tried 3 for the first time but the frame rate was a turnoff.

I liked 5 and 6 though.

banger88405d ago

If you have a Series X or S, the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 fps with fps boost. It's a shame the remaster doesn't.

isarai407d ago

2 and 3, pretty much the only ones i really enjoyed. 1 was amazing for the time but aged quite poorly. 4 has the elephant gun, all i can praise from any entry after 3 lol

cooperdnizzle405d ago

Ummmm 3 than stop.

Okay maybe two as well. But yeah probably 3 and then move on.

JEECE405d ago (Edited 405d ago )

Far Cry 2. People constantly rant about games now being too easy, holding your hand, having too many unnecessary RPG-lite leveling features, etc. People specifically complain about open world games being too focused on tons of collectibles and "checkmarks" that just waste time.

Far Cry 2 is an answer to all of those complaints. It was made by Ubisoft before they fell into all the traps discussed above (and before they started inserting towers into their games to defog the map). It has respawning enemies, weapons that degrade, and the collectible diamonds are very useful in the game (which you find in a similar way to the way you find shrines in BOTW with a radar system). The map you have is an in game item you pull out while playing, not a pause menu that is unnecessarily detailed. Also the enemy AI and physics are much better than later entries in the series.

It has a mixed reputation because people at the time said it was too hard, the weapon degradation was annoying, and then respawning enemies were annoying. FC2 came out in 2008, so this was before games like Dark Souls and BOTW had come out and made it cool to like these types of features.

XbladeTeddy404d ago

Far Cry 2, the one with the AI that find you through walls and trees, can one shot you from a mile away and have 100% accuracy? That was frustrating not fun because cheap AI.

JEECE404d ago (Edited 404d ago )

Uhh, I mean, it isn't one of these games where once the enemies have detected you they will magically forget you exist because you walked behind a wall or went into a bush. And yeah the AI isn't stormtrooper level accuracy. Again, these are positives, not negatives to me.

To be fair, I'm really directing this at the people most critical of "Modern Ubisoft" or "Modern Open World" design elements. Like the type of people who fawned all over Elden Ring because it had a clean UI because they are so burnt out by the "checkbox" type of open world design.

If you like those types of games, then a later FC game like 3 and especially 4-5 would be more your style.

Show all comments (11)
120°

Far Cry 3 Is One Of The Most Important Games Of Our Time

TheGamer Writes "Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
Knushwood Butt489d ago

Beat it twice; once on PS3, and once a couple of months ago on PS5.

Doesn't Far Cry 2 have some of the things they are talking about here? Diamond hunting, healing, malaria medication?

shinoff2183489d ago (Edited 489d ago )

I believe 2 did. I highly doubt it was the only game like that though. I imagine the writer isn't old enough to have played part 2 but I also feel it wasn't the first game to introduce stuff like that

They bring up mass effect 2. I felt mass effect 1 was better. It just seem cut down. The citadel was a joke in part 2 compared to 1. How do you cut back on that.

Profchaos489d ago

Having just replayed the entire me trilogy yeah I think 1 was my favourite I think 2 had better cover and shooting mechanics but everything else in 1 was better

jznrpg489d ago (Edited 489d ago )

Mass Effect 1 was the best . It played like an RPG . The other games were more shooter and lost the feel the first game had unfortunately

gurp489d ago (Edited 489d ago )

I played it on PC when it came out, might play it again some time
Far Cry 3 is the best of the series, it was ahead of it's time

Palitera489d ago

It seems the blogger didn’t even play RDR1 if he thinks FC3 brought these elements to the AAA table. Tiktokers always have a new surprise. Smh

Sgt_Slaughter489d ago

"Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"

>Came out in 2012

Okay then

BrainSyphoned489d ago

If we are going to talk early 2000's game design how about start in the year 2000 with games that are a far cry better than something released 12 years later.
"Chrono Cross, Baldur's Gate II, Diablo II, Dragon Quest VII, Final Fantasy IX, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, along with new intellectual properties such as Deus Ex, Jet Set Radio, Perfect Dark, The Sims and Vagrant Story."
The article names things Ubisoft has shoved into games to dumb them down and then claims we should rush off to play it. Maybe instead look back at it as the death of originality from Ubisoft and gaming in general.

glennhkboy489d ago

Far Cry 3 & Assassin's Creed VI: Black Flag are 2 of the very best games from Ubisoft. All Ubisoft games since then are all just copying these 2 games.

ChubbyBlade489d ago

This isn’t an early 2000s game…you’re about a decade to early on that one.

Show all comments (13)