IGN - We compare the graphics and load times of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions of Mass Effect. Is one better?
Why are we still doing this? Oh wait, WE aren't it's just IGN. Time to grow up and move along.
LOL and people say they dont care about graphics.... N4G sure its bipolar.
I agree with OneAboveAll, Graphics is something but comparing is so 2007.
i care about graphics :/
I care also lol.. But articles like this is only in it for the hits and to refuel a nerd war.
I kinda enjoy the comparisons... I just don't care for all the douchery that comes along with it, but sometimes they influence me to buy for one console over the other. It's interesting how people act like it's the console's fault when it's better or worse on one system, when in reality it's the developers fault. I have ME on both XBOX and PS3, and run all my systems to two identical 24" Sony 3D monitors. I'm gonna compare the two games tonight for my own personal gratification, but I game on every available platform, so I have no horse in this race.
"LOL and people say they dont care about graphics.... N4G sure its bipolar." Because one person says something = the whole of n4g agrees?
These comparisons were more relevant when gamemakers were actually trying to highlight the strengths of different systems. no they aim for parity. which doesn't really suggest anything in terms of superiority.
I support comparisons. I mean if you own multiple consoles then you want to be sure that you're getting the best release for you money. There's nothing wrong with that. Thus far it's been multi console releases best on Xbox and ps3 having the best exclusive software. Anyone that doesn't want to get the best version of a multi console release is either an idiot or only has one console.
Ah ME1 I remember playing this when I was still a virgin...which was about 1 year ago :)
I'm so happy to know that you popped your cherry in the last 365 days. Now I can go on with my day./s On topic: What is the point of comparing this game so many years after its original release? It's not like it's going to influence anyone's decision about which system to buy this late into the generation. I played it years ago, without ever owning an Xbox 360.
Comparisons are for people with multiple systems.. Surely you'd want to know which version is better if you had more than 1 option.
Well XBOX 360 looks slightly better, with better natural colours. The loading times are better aswell. Its a shame when the games is about 5 years old
It looks fine on both of them. No difference worth noting. Or at least not that I can tell. Load times vary just slightly.
how can you tell from such crappy quality video? They aren't even using software to test the frame-rate....
LOL looks the same. Which means its a good port and the PS3 did not get shafted. Don't get so riled up about it.
I'm sorry but they do not look the same at all. In most cases there is little to no difference, but the 360 is definitely better here. That's because the game was made for the 360 specifically, though.
funny vid.. colors are washed & longer load times on ps3 BUT colors can be changed plus 360 has screen tears so ya.. Its the same game & its actually on PS3 now so be happy.. I own the trilogy on 360 only because it released on there 1st but after what EA did to it, i dont care for it anymore.. STFU & Play lol
what ea do to it?
Nod goes to Xbox A little more vibrant looking and load times are much better
Much better on 360 for load times. I hope this is just the disc version and not the digital, which should at least match the 360 if not improve on it. I do agree the 360 looks more vibrant, but found it weird that the Citadel approach scene (the Citadel itself) was more vibrant (less blurry) on the PS3 version than the 360.
I noticed that as well
The PS3 disc version is installed on the hard drive before you can play, and seems to access it quite a bit for loading levels. Not sure if the optical drive makes a difference. I've been playing it the past few days on the PS3, and the load times aren't really that bad. Certainly not a reason you should pick one over the other. If they are faster on the 360 then great, but on the PS3, it seems to be fast enough. The only really annoying thing is if you have auto-save turned on and you take the transit system around the citadel it will save after each transport, and that tends to take about 30-40 seconds.
***The PS3 disc version is installed on the hard drive before you can play,*** Only certain elements are. It still has to read from the disc for certain things and that could be what is taking so long. Or, it couldn't. But, the "whole game" isn't transferred to your HDD from the disc.
if you guys put the time you spend sitting in front of N4G comparing graphics for every multiplat game into working a few extra shifts, you could afford a PC that would always crush the competition in graphics. the countless hours spent writing these articles, doing these analyses, and then commenting on them... Hell all of you could prolly buy 3k PC rigs. Doesnt matter that you only need like 800. Make it overkill. It will pay off when you brag to your buddies about how large your... oops i mean how powerful your gaming machine is.
Wasn't that the same argument that Sony made about buying the PS3 when it released? As I recall they kind of got a lot of heat for it.
And deservedly so. PS3 was expensive and multiplats look worse on it to this day. How is that the same with what I said ?
Yep, I could build an awesome PC and have NONE of the exclusives the consoles have. The point of arguing console graphics is because they're actually COMPARABLE: it makes sense to compare three static platforms than to brag about what your new graphics card can do. It's also more entertaining- though perhaps that's not the right word- to see how developers improve their techniques and make better and better looking games over the life of the consoles. It may be an incredibly stupid war, but I prefer comparing console graphics to the "depends on X and Y components" false sense of superiority that seems to be par for the course for PC gaming. I mean, sure, you can build a PC that can outperform any console on the market. You can also build one that's weaker than a TI-56. Don't know why you WOULD, but you COULD.
lol @ you Hicken. "The point of arguing console graphics is because they're actually COMPARABLE". Yes very comparable. They are basically identical in fact. Which means there is no point for you to sit there and argue about it. Its a very stupid thing to do. "omg look the shadow looks just 1 tiny teeny bit better on the xbox". If its such a big deal get a PC. If not, stop commenting about it. Its very tiresome to see endless graphics articles about 2 machines with equal capabilities.
Lawl, why do console people always use "exclusives" when arguing against PC gaming when PC has way more exclusives and more genres of games than console? I could spend less than 300 for console but have none of the exclusives PC has.
They Instagrammed the PS3 version... Whats with the pale washed out look?
How can some of you ay you don't care about graphics but then rip on the Wii-U for not looking next gen?
still comparing sloppy seconds ?
PS3 colors are washed out and Shepherd looks like a pale horse. Not getting this and already have it on PC since a long time ago anyway.