No need for such comparisons, Console gamers dont care about graphics(atleast they claim not to, specially when PC versions are added to comparison lol).
Why does the PC version lack Depth Of Field? o_0 That's odd.
This is the hottest Sleeping Dogs article in a while. It's like people that didn't care much about the game now suddenly pretend to because it's a graphical comparison. You guys sicken me.
There's no lack of DOF. What you are seeing is the sharpness in PC textures vs console. What you think is DOF on console is actually a low res blurry texture.
comparisons meh i beat it yesterday on the PS3, and not only did the game look great on my 46" plasma with the best settings it was fun as hell. more fun than when i played GTA4.
these comparisons are worthless and are just for those people who like arguing back and forth like little children.
tordavis said "There's no lack of DOF. What you are seeing is the sharpness in PC."
Yes, the PC is sharper but no - the DOF is obviously lacking. It's too bad too. I don't care if the PC version is capable of higher resolution textures, the DOF they pull of in the console version gives a much more impressive, cinematic feel overall. I'd rather they use lower resolution textures in the background and employ depth of field then make everything so sharp everything looks unnatural. That's just my personal preference though.
Cutscenes that are rendered in game. They're not prerecorded, thus, the graphics card is still do the rendering on fly. Yes it accurately depicts the game.
How to tell the difference between comparisons (imo).
Xbox 360: Slightly darker than PS3. PS3: Slightly lighter than Xbox 360. Center: If you haven't figured it out before Xbox 360 and PS3, then you will after.
I commented about how to tell the difference, not which one is better. Some people prefer the graphics of Xbox 360 over PS3 and vice versa, I don't mind either. The differences are minimal at best.
Well the Xbox definately won this one. I just jumped over to lensoftruth and saw a screenshot comparison for the latest transformers game and I was shocked at how much better the Xbox version was than the ps3. Wow.
@ mewhy32- It isn't shocking since the Unreal engine is very PC friendly, that's why the games tend to look better on 360 since is the exact same architecture... Unreal isn't too friendly on PS3!!!
my ps3 far more powerful than most pc its got 8 processors beat that and its got ram thats about 4 times quicker than pc plus only cost £150 in 2008 most pc nerds *specky + no girl friends or real friends spent 10 times that in last 4 years and to cap it all sony make easyly the best exclusives uncharted beyond last ov us and ps3 owners have sun tans because they actually go outside and dont sit in dark bedrooms by kevdee
The PC version does lack depth of field. tordavis obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, console games have had good DOF effects for years now, it's not exclusive to powerful PC's, the only areas the PC outdoes consoles in terms of graphics is anti-aliasing, resolution and sometimes tessellation (when done well). Considering how much more powerful a good PC can be the games don't look much better than the best on 6/7 year old consoles, I guess this upsets PC gamers who wasted all that money on only marginally better visuals when they could have just bought a console and had access to the best games in the industry which are mostly not available on PC.
There are a few options in the PS3's video settings that take care of the washed out look, not many people seem to know about them but when switched, everything becomes much sharper. I guarantee you that any comparisons from any websites never have these options changed.
I have the game. PS3 version looks great and is FAR from being washed out. Its dynamic range allows your TV's own contrast, color and brightness preset to not "damage" the overall picture. Your TV will not display a flat image. So even though a noob's eyes may be tricked, more contrast does not equal better picture.
On the other hand, why is the 360 version so damn dark? It loses detail in dark areas. And why is the PC version like depth of field (from these pics)?
@Lovable Best hand-to-hand combat in an open world game of its kind. Decent third-person shooting mechanic. The driving is great. The flow of story is great.
A more in-depth comparison than just screenshots of cut-scenes.
"On Microsoft's system, Sleeping Dogs adopts a native 1200x720 presentation, with an 80-pixel horizontal upscale to 720p, while on the PS3 we're looking at a much lower 1152x640, which has more severe implications with regards to overall image quality."
"Generally there are lower levels of screen-tear on the Xbox 360 too. Conversely, the tearing can be quite unsightly on the PS3, with the tear-line moving up and down the screen creating a juddering effect, and this isn't helped by the more variable frame-rate which drops lower - and for longer."
"The Xbox 360 game appears to enjoy higher-resolution normal maps and textures (top) and has less aggressive LODs, as you'll see in the bottom shots."
And so on. Seems like the PS3 version is gimped. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone anymore looking at 3rd party console games.
60 lines less? Sorry. Couldn't tell the difference while actually playing the game on a TV.
Only thing noticeable was how dark the 360 version is and how any detail in dark areas is lost. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone anymore looking at 3rd party games.
@ NathanExplosion
I bet $100 that if it was the PS3 version that came out on top you would be able to tell the difference, and LOL at your "lost detail in the dark spots", spin. You guys are nothing if not entertaining. Keep trollin, trollin,trollin.
@Jamiel Nope, still wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference.
However, the darkness level is no spin. Look at these screenshots. 360 version is full of black crush. And your TV will most likely increase the contrast.
Could be or it could be that they remember how lazy some devs have been. He did PC always wins and not PC almost always wins.
Rage comes to mind as an example. Any Ubisoft game is another. What about a PC/PS3/360 comparison on Red Dead Redemption? I know its not on PC at all but that is kind of the point I'm sure I could find more if I looked into it.
While nobody can argue that the PC has the potential to be the best, a lot of developers this gen have also been sloppy in their work
@ zoid2012 ummm i guess you havent played assassins creed on pc with 1080p, everything on ultra and with AA maxed aswell as AF maxed. IT kicks the crap out of console versions however all versions have crappy facial graphics.
Pc may win in graphics, but lack a lot of other things. Rockstar games come on console first and sometimes don't even make it to pc, plus pc doesn't have some of the good exclusives like uncharted, little big planet, gears of war, and so on. No disrespect towards pc I'm just pointing out that pc isn't perfect either.
PC has tons of exclusives, a lot more than you apparently think, and a lot of them are equally as good (I won't say better because I enjoy both my PS3 and PC). Dota 2, Total War series, Star Craft 2, Amnesia: The Dark Descent [ I <3 Frictional Games ].
Rockstar games are not the entire gaming industry ;)
Anyway we are already seeing a change with Rockstar as Max Payne 3 (PC easily the best and released soon after consoles) pointed out. So if thats the quality we can expect from GTA 5 then its gonna be all roses and dx11.
I love my ps3 exclusives but if i had the choice id rather play uncharted or the last of us, killzone on a gaming PC in native 1080p with dx11 and msaaX16 etc...the one thing about pc that pisses me off is having amazing hardware but faulty drivers and poorly optimized games lead to graphics glitches. Im not the greatest with computers i love the graphics benefits but damn the maintenance on pc to make it possible sometimes is a pain in the ass.
You really got to experience the game with everything maxed out and high resolution texture pack. Finally AA and 3D vision the game looks really beautiful.
In the middle you have the representation of the: PC Wins her her her, i definetelly have to say this every article because im insecure and blah blah freaking blah. Crysis looks better.
On the left we have the: Ehrmegerd, You dont say? OMG so much better than PS3, I am also insecure because the internet recognizes my system as the weakest of the three platforms, and i also still live with my mom.
And on the right: Ehrmehgerd PC, shut up. you could probably insert a bunch of tech jargon and come to the conclusion these guys know a few words but dont know what any of them mean. :O OMG MOAR Insecure people because they bought supposedly the most powerful platform even though it doesnt show in 90% of games.
Dislike if I offended you by being at least 66% correct!
Dislike only because of the "I know you are but what am I" mentality of throwing a statement at the end insinuating any dislikes automatically makes them support your post.
The 360 visuals are sharper but also a little too dark for my taste, it loses some of the important details and I prefer they way shadows are rendered on the ps3
not to mention they are showing the pc in the same low res as consoles, you should see the game in 1600p, it is astoundingly crisp, blow those console screen up to fill your entire screen and then you get a true view of how grainy and low res the game is on ps3/360
although the pc version looks great. they really need to patch the damn thing. so tired of it crashing because HkShip.exe has stopped working or it keeps freezing up.
I can't believe people are disagreeing with you. There are more complications on PC. It isn't all plug and play. You upgrade graphics drivers which sometimes fix some things, but at the same time make older games worse.
On console, you turn it on, stick the disc in and press X on your controller to play (or A depending on which system you're playing).
The hardware has stayed the same the entire generation so you can literally take a game that came out when the PS3 launched, stick it in and play it and experience it the same as if it just came out.
I have no idea why people are disagreeing they have a whole thread about it on steam. I have the PC version but they really need to patch the game. Its still a good game but the problem are really annoying
I say these comparison threads or articles are pretty pathetic. It isn't like you can't adjust the contrast and brightness settings on a TV.I know for dang sure that when I get or if I get it that my game would not look like those pictures. Everyone has a different type of HDTV so it is going to appear different for everyone. No two eyes are alike!
Maybe because you shouldn't have to go f#$k with a bunch of settings to get it to look right on a console. I bet they didn't do it to the 360 version, so why do it to the PS3. This argument never makes sense to me. "But, but, but, if you change all your settings for each and every game it looks a LITTLE better."
I always thought that was a benefit of consoles. Get home, put the disk in, play. Not get home, put the disk in, go to settings and get everything set right, then play. Weak as hell argument. It's not like they do anything to the 360 version and not the PS3 version. That wouldn't be fair, but they don't. It's just a fair comparison, and 360 was better in this case.
I don't like the fact that some developers don't put that much effort into the PS3 with the capabilities that the PS3 has. There's no way it would look like this. But I don't care that much about graphics, I really care about gameplay. Why do people compare the PC to consoles. Consoles have limitations compared to PCs unless they not high end PCs.
"Now ask you why MS doesn't make/buy exlusive IPs anymore for your beloved 360."
MS doesn't make Exclusive IP's anymore?
So Halo 4 isn't an exclusive IP anymore? Gears of War Judgment isn't an exclusive IP anymore? Fable Journey isn't an exclusive IP anymore? Forza Horizon isn't an exclusive IP anymore? Steel Battalion isn't an exclusive IP anymore? all other Kinect titles are no longer an exclusive anymore? Kinect added features to core titles like Mass Effect 3, Ghost Recon and Skyrim are no longer exclusive to the 360 and Kinect?
I really don't understand your comment. Maybe you need to elaborate more with what you mean.
@Lvl_up_gamer: Halo 4 is the 6th Halo this gen.. -Gears is an Epic IP, with an exclusive contract, 4th game in the series, same gen... -Fable Journey is the 4th this gen, if you count the crappy Fable Heroes.. -Forza Horizon is the 4th Forza this gen. -Steel batallion sucks balls with the use of that useless Kinect crap, sucky combination between Microsoft & Capcom.... -The Kinect features like voice command & that gun upgrades, are things that aren't needed, why would I waste my time using something that is more useless than going to the system's menu..
Obviously you have exclusive IPs, but it's the same IPs over & over, where's:
Your comment is irrelevant to the argument that OooHJohnny was making.
You even said so yourself that he is incorrect.
"Obviously you have exclusive IPs, but it's the same IPs over & over"
You are looking to make a completely new argument, an argument that has been going on for years now by a certain group of people on this site.
The only ones that seem to complain about the exclusives on the 360 are those that don't own a 360. Judging by your comment where you say "Obviously YOU have exclusive" only confirms my comment that those who complain about the exclusives on the 360 are those in which don't have one.
Yes MS has IP's that were once on the Xbox from last gen not seen this gen but if you noticed, MS would rather release IP's that they know will sell vs. creating new IP's that won't sell eventually leading them into a negative financial position that can be seen with other highly popular console and game makers today.
If 360 owners truly had an issue with the amount of 1st party exclusives on the 360, then nobody would buy the exclusives causing MS to have no other options than to create new IP's. If MS's exclusive IP's continue to be some of the highest selling and reviewed IP's on the market, why would they put aside money making product for products that may not make any money?
I thought PC graphics would be much more better than consoles. What I see is something equivalent. Shame on PCs ... A 7 years old technology gives exactly the same result (so few differences). LOL
Theres actually quite a big difference if you see gameplay and not cutscenes, the high res texture pack really helped and the extra effects were great too.
Anyway they will always cater for consoles, its where majority of the money comes in, only a true PC exclusive that tries to push graphics will be way ahead. Same reason why many exclusives on consoles can look better than multiplatform games as they will play to each platforms strength. (I feel like people can't think logically here).
Textures are the same, but the 360's darker images make it look like it's better texture imo.
The ps3 version has better ailiasing if any1 caught that:)
Other than that they are exactly the same! It's all about the performance though!
EDIT: It seems from the face off that there's more than meets the eye when it comes to game play and the 360 version is actually better than ps3...it might just be because these were just cut scenes and they might look closer to each other during cut scenes.
Oh and ofc, PC blows both out of the water. @Tucky equivalent?
Just because the picture is of the same scene doesn't mean they are equivalent, and also please don't be stupid...as everyone knows most multiplatform games are VERY similar because they are developed with the consoles in mind.
Much like exclusives with the PS3, the exclusives for PC would blow the console games out of the water....ARMA 2 and metro any1?
Also if you actually looked at the pictures, you'd also see much better texturing and a game running at 60 fps. Also if you look shadows are much better, backgrounds are much less blurred and the ground actually looks 3D unlike the paper you see on the consoles.
70°
50°
70°
20°
10°
40°
20°
Ad 
20°
Where's my cookie?
''LOL Why are they comparing the PC version with the console version, stupid comparison. PC Wins''
While its just meant as a fun-thing, instead of a battle.
And yes, the PC version wins again.
That's odd.
This is the hottest Sleeping Dogs article in a while. It's like people that didn't care much about the game now suddenly pretend to because it's a graphical comparison. You guys sicken me.
these comparisons are worthless and are just for those people who like arguing back and forth like little children.
Yes, the PC is sharper but no - the DOF is obviously lacking. It's too bad too. I don't care if the PC version is capable of higher resolution textures, the DOF they pull of in the console version gives a much more impressive, cinematic feel overall. I'd rather they use lower resolution textures in the background and employ depth of field then make everything so sharp everything looks unnatural. That's just my personal preference though.
Xbox 360: Slightly darker than PS3.
PS3: Slightly lighter than Xbox 360.
Center: If you haven't figured it out before Xbox 360 and PS3, then you will after.
So, I guess, nope to your comment.
disagreed to you because you just totally ignored the comment you replying to and posted a random comment/opinion.
Seekdev was just pointing out how to tell the difference, I only looked at the thumbnails and thought the exact same thing.
your stupid uneducated rant gets the the rating of Dumb/10
All I can say is that the console versions of Battlefield 3 looked like complete @$$ compared to the PC version.
You don't have a single clue on what you're talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
PS3 version looks great and is FAR from being washed out.
Its dynamic range allows your TV's own contrast, color and brightness preset to not "damage" the overall picture.
Your TV will not display a flat image. So even though a noob's eyes may be tricked, more contrast does not equal better picture.
On the other hand, why is the 360 version so damn dark? It loses detail in dark areas.
And why is the PC version like depth of field (from these pics)?
How is the game? I'm very much intrigued by this
Best hand-to-hand combat in an open world game of its kind.
Decent third-person shooting mechanic.
The driving is great.
The flow of story is great.
A more in-depth comparison than just screenshots of cut-scenes.
"On Microsoft's system, Sleeping Dogs adopts a native 1200x720 presentation, with an 80-pixel horizontal upscale to 720p, while on the PS3 we're looking at a much lower 1152x640, which has more severe implications with regards to overall image quality."
"Generally there are lower levels of screen-tear on the Xbox 360 too. Conversely, the tearing can be quite unsightly on the PS3, with the tear-line moving up and down the screen creating a juddering effect, and this isn't helped by the more variable frame-rate which drops lower - and for longer."
"The Xbox 360 game appears to enjoy higher-resolution normal maps and textures (top) and has less aggressive LODs, as you'll see in the bottom shots."
And so on. Seems like the PS3 version is gimped. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone anymore looking at 3rd party console games.
Only thing noticeable was how dark the 360 version is and how any detail in dark areas is lost.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone anymore looking at 3rd party games.
I bet $100 that if it was the PS3 version that came out on top you would be able to tell the difference, and LOL at your "lost detail in the dark spots", spin. You guys are nothing if not entertaining. Keep trollin, trollin,trollin.
Nope, still wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference.
However, the darkness level is no spin. Look at these screenshots. 360 version is full of black crush. And your TV will most likely increase the contrast.
I think it looks just fine. Nope, don't see it as a problem at all.
Rage comes to mind as an example.
Any Ubisoft game is another.
What about a PC/PS3/360 comparison on Red Dead Redemption? I know its not on PC at all but that is kind of the point
I'm sure I could find more if I looked into it.
While nobody can argue that the PC has the potential to be the best, a lot of developers this gen have also been sloppy in their work
Rockstar games are not the entire gaming industry ;)
But i actually prefer the colour of the PS3 shots.
All good tbh, played the demo on all 3 systems anyway,lol and will be picking it up.
PS3 version colors look washed out.
You really got to experience the game with everything maxed out and high resolution texture pack. Finally AA and 3D vision the game looks really beautiful.
PC Wins her her her, i definetelly have to say this every article because im insecure and blah blah freaking blah. Crysis looks better.
On the left we have the:
Ehrmegerd, You dont say? OMG so much better than PS3, I am also insecure because the internet recognizes my system as the weakest of the three platforms, and i also still live with my mom.
And on the right:
Ehrmehgerd PC, shut up. you could probably insert a bunch of tech jargon and come to the conclusion these guys know a few words but dont know what any of them mean. :O OMG MOAR Insecure people because they bought supposedly the most powerful platform even though it doesnt show in 90% of games.
Dislike if I offended you by being at least 66% correct!
Childish at best.
Sure they are rendered in the engine but still, quite sloppy and uninformative.
On console, you turn it on, stick the disc in and press X on your controller to play (or A depending on which system you're playing).
The hardware has stayed the same the entire generation so you can literally take a game that came out when the PS3 launched, stick it in and play it and experience it the same as if it just came out.
I always thought that was a benefit of consoles. Get home, put the disk in, play. Not get home, put the disk in, go to settings and get everything set right, then play. Weak as hell argument. It's not like they do anything to the 360 version and not the PS3 version. That wouldn't be fair, but they don't. It's just a fair comparison, and 360 was better in this case.
MS doesn't make Exclusive IP's anymore?
So Halo 4 isn't an exclusive IP anymore?
Gears of War Judgment isn't an exclusive IP anymore?
Fable Journey isn't an exclusive IP anymore?
Forza Horizon isn't an exclusive IP anymore?
Steel Battalion isn't an exclusive IP anymore?
all other Kinect titles are no longer an exclusive anymore?
Kinect added features to core titles like Mass Effect 3, Ghost Recon and Skyrim are no longer exclusive to the 360 and Kinect?
I really don't understand your comment. Maybe you need to elaborate more with what you mean.
-Gears is an Epic IP, with an exclusive contract, 4th game in the series, same gen...
-Fable Journey is the 4th this gen, if you count the crappy Fable Heroes..
-Forza Horizon is the 4th Forza this gen.
-Steel batallion sucks balls with the use of that useless Kinect crap, sucky combination between Microsoft & Capcom....
-The Kinect features like voice command & that gun upgrades, are things that aren't needed, why would I waste my time using something that is more useless than going to the system's menu..
Obviously you have exclusive IPs, but it's the same IPs over & over, where's:
-Crimson Skies
-Project Gotham
-Killer Instinct
-Kameo
-Rallisport
-Conker
-Milo(LMAO)
-Too Human(crap)
Not only as retail, but some can be XBLA as well, so it is a more known fact they're relying mostly on same IPs & multiplats!!!!
Your comment is irrelevant to the argument that OooHJohnny was making.
You even said so yourself that he is incorrect.
"Obviously you have exclusive IPs, but it's the same IPs over & over"
You are looking to make a completely new argument, an argument that has been going on for years now by a certain group of people on this site.
The only ones that seem to complain about the exclusives on the 360 are those that don't own a 360. Judging by your comment where you say "Obviously YOU have exclusive" only confirms my comment that those who complain about the exclusives on the 360 are those in which don't have one.
Yes MS has IP's that were once on the Xbox from last gen not seen this gen but if you noticed, MS would rather release IP's that they know will sell vs. creating new IP's that won't sell eventually leading them into a negative financial position that can be seen with other highly popular console and game makers today.
If 360 owners truly had an issue with the amount of 1st party exclusives on the 360, then nobody would buy the exclusives causing MS to have no other options than to create new IP's. If MS's exclusive IP's continue to be some of the highest selling and reviewed IP's on the market, why would they put aside money making product for products that may not make any money?
PCs are just a waste of money
as always with third party games....
What I see is something equivalent.
Shame on PCs ... A 7 years old technology gives exactly the same result (so few differences). LOL
Anyway they will always cater for consoles, its where majority of the money comes in, only a true PC exclusive that tries to push graphics will be way ahead. Same reason why many exclusives on consoles can look better than multiplatform games as they will play to each platforms strength. (I feel like people can't think logically here).
The ps3 version has better ailiasing if any1 caught that:)
Other than that they are exactly the same! It's all about the performance though!
EDIT: It seems from the face off that there's more than meets the eye when it comes to game play and the 360 version is actually better than ps3...it might just be because these were just cut scenes and they might look closer to each other during cut scenes.
Oh and ofc, PC blows both out of the water. @Tucky equivalent?
Just because the picture is of the same scene doesn't mean they are equivalent, and also please don't be stupid...as everyone knows most multiplatform games are VERY similar because they are developed with the consoles in mind.
Much like exclusives with the PS3, the exclusives for PC would blow the console games out of the water....ARMA 2 and metro any1?
Also if you actually looked at the pictures, you'd also see much better texturing and a game running at 60 fps. Also if you look shadows are much better, backgrounds are much less blurred and the ground actually looks 3D unlike the paper you see on the consoles.
Don't be a troll!
Look at the first pic an you will see for PC a shadow on his neck that doesn't show up one the other two. Thats what I'm talking about.