Just how much graphical difference is there between these two next-gen powerhouses?
I thought it wood look very bad on the ps3 but it's not that of a huge difference now i might rent it.
Looks like the 360's color saturation is too high/illegal. Like the values need to be clamped. Also, there's the typical 360 waaaay too blown out white levels and blacks with very little color imformation in them. Look at the indoor court scenes, the 360's shirts are just blown out white with crazy hotspots, while the PS3 you can make out details in the whites on their jerseys. Also look at the walls in the BG, Smoother grade along the walls without the murky overly dark corners...we are inside after all, the lighting should reflect it. ...is the 360 version even using HDR? Looking very nice for both systems though.
After reading your comments/review I went back and watched the video about 4 more times. I could find ANY evidence of the blownout whites and other flaws that you point out. I did notice that the colors on the 360 version were a bit richer or more saturated, but nothing over the top. As a matter of fact I thought the bolder colors on the 360 version is actually what gave it the nod as to which one looked better. It does look great on both systems, but, I would have to disagree on the whites being blown out and colors being too saturated on the 360. You're not judging photographs pal, this is a video. What would make you ask if the 360 version is using HDR, maybe I missed something. You are talking High Dynamic Range. I deal with HDR/Tonal Mapping when I do photography, but I never really hear of someone bringing it up on video game video footage. Interesting. Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should recalibrate your monitor and view it again.
Since graphics are pretty identical, why would you buy a PS3 to play this game when the XBOX360 is much cheaper? Sony says the PS3 graphics are suppose to be realistic and next-gen and better than the XBOX360. Yet the XBOX360 version looks the same! I don't mean to flame, but why do I need to pay $200 more for a PS3 when I can play this game on the XBOX360 that is $200 less? Also, the XBOX360 version has the rumble capability. So, the gameplay MUST be better than the PS3 version.
Well My 360 cost: - xbox 360 $399 - recharging kit $25 (I think, it was long time ago) - CBOX Live $50 (expired in Jan, did not renew) Total $474 MY PS3 20 GB cost: - PS3 $450 (10% OFF with new TARGET Credit ACC) - recharging kit 0 - online muiliplayer 0 Total $450 I bought PS3 in TARGET. When you open TARGET Credit ACCOUNT you get 10% OFF of anything you buy. I know I could have bought my 360 in Target but I didn't. And it is only what I PAID, but even though if I would not get 10% off the PS3 would be $25 more.
All the color differences can easily be chalked up to the default settings of the systems. You get the same thing with screen geometry where one system may be set up with a little wider horizontal setting or a vertical setting, etc. And to the guy above "4me2" Dont forget that you are also getting a bluray disc player, and to get something equivalent to that on the 360, you would have to pay basically another $200. And also dont forget, that it also doubles as a Linux PC
I got my xbox 360 from walmart. and i had a gift card. so i only spent 100 dollars on my 360. yet i bought my ps3 at best buy and paid $500 dollars for it. that means my 360 was 400 dollars cheaper.... Just shut the f##ck up 4me2.
1). No you DID NOT get 360 for $100 2). I doubt you own 360 Core ver --it is a money trap, 360 for $100 not for long long time. Not even original xbox(brand new) got to the $100 level. 3). You own PS3????? 4). What's your problem boy. That's what "I PAID" - read entire post if you are capable, don't skip parts that are inconvenient for you Bill 5). At least I have PS3, 360 and Wii
uxo22 "You are talking High Dynamic Range. I deal with HDR/Tonal Mapping when I do photography, but I never really hear of someone bringing it up on video game video footage. Interesting." Well then let me explain digital HDR to you then...... The point is, things can be really dark...and things can be really bright and you can still see information in the color. Whites shouldn't be above 1 because after that they will become clipped, any rgb info is lost after r1.g1.b1 Look at the hotsopts on the boxers in FN for the 360, or especially Madden. It just looks bad. The same things can happen in the red and blues or greens. I'm seeing the same things here and it's a problem, not a feature. LOL
I was pretty amazed when I saw this comparison. As you can see the 360 kills the ps3's version. The 360 is sharper, colorful, and brighter while the ps3 looks washed out and even slightly blurry. It almost looks like it's similar to Call of Duty 3. The 360 version was sharper while the ps3 was washed out. Maybe the PS3 GPU IS the problem. Well whatever it is, you can add another game that looks better on the 360.
Ok all I can see is a contrast difference - which can be changed on the ps3's settings or/and tv - I think there may well be something wrong with the ps3's default settings, but otherwise - is the 360 version really sharper? I'm struggling to see that. I'll watch it again.
I would have to say the 360 version definately looks sharper... especially if you look at the backround. The PS3 version seems to have some jaggies in the backround.
Yuh perhaps slightly washed out - but then again it looks kind more real. I don't think that's a graphical problem with the system. Tis interesting though in those differences. I wonder if it would look different if they changed the default settings. I am truly being open-minded here, and wouldn't put the graphical power of each of the systems over on this comparison - or which one looks better. I mean often the differences aren't so different, and at times its not so easy to dunk it in the 360's net, and the ps3 seems to come back with better visuals in its court on some games. I am speaking from reading around reviews - because this is something that interests me - I haven't seen them side by side and I doubt I ever will, but from reading reviews some go with ps3. Hey ho.
...........browser screwed up
The 360 version PWNS THE MESS out of the PS3 version........ ahahahaha just kiddin.... So many things to say and im going to contain myself from saying them. I only name a few. 1. EA Sports + Porting Games+ PS3 2. Posted an article IGN gave the games an exact word for word review with matching score of 8.8 (hmm I wonder why) 3.Why are we still comparing multi platforms anyways? I want to see: Gran Turismo 5 vs. Forza 2 Killzone 2 vs. Halo 3 Heavenly Sword vs. Ninja Gaiden 2 MotorStorm vs. Flatout Tekken 6 vs. DOA 4 MGS4 vs. Bio Shock and so on. Now those will be some graphics comparisons worth acknowledging.
ftw?!?! MGS4 vs. Bio Shock ?????????????????? Anyway... This whole mutilplatform visuals comparsion thing? Tired. Sad. Enough.
Its does make sense. The whole porting thing and EA. Unless they are going to take time to fine tune the game for each console (Bethesda anyone) then its going to be either the same or slightly edged on 1 console. Nothing major. And this game does look identical to me.
Why would you ask "Why are we still comparing multi-platform games" as if you thinks it stupid or a waste of time. If you took games that were exclusives, how could your truely compare the power/features of the consoles. To be honest, either console can have a better looking game than the other simply based on what the developers decide to put into it. Look how beautiful Gears and MotorSport are, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
that wouldn't work. I could make a game that's absolutely sucks, but looks like cgi, but it would have no sound, all you do is press a single button and the physics are horrible, but hey it looks super amazing. The other problem is that the games would need to be released at the same time. And everything would have to have the same features. (damage on racing games, vehicles in fps's etc.) In the end you'd have to compare the entire game and it won't just be the 'grafix'. The best way to compare systems is by doing this. taking games that are built for one system and porting it.
"I hope whomever's doing these comparisons are calibrating the TV's. I had both the xbox 360 and PS3 and due to there different connectivity (component vs HDMI). I had to have two diffrent settings of calibration for each system. DVE is a great calibration CD and should be used before making comaprison's of any kind. Calibrating through the HDMI for the PS3 required I up'd the color and lowered the brigthness. Which judging by the video this was not done and this comparison should be re-done." Anyone with a little video knowledge will agree with me.
Yuh that's cool. Though they're comparison is based on default settings, which I guess is fair. But still what we're looking for is graphical differences, NOT differences in contrast. I'm trying to look for the jaggies in the background - can't see it. Also trying to see whether its sharper, not sure about that either. You know its so close to call. Def the colours are nicer in the 360 version, but really I just think its cause its darker. Lots of people turned down the contrast on COD3 and said it looed the same as the 360, but that obv the framerate let down the ps3. I wonder if framerates are good in this one. Wasn't there meant to be a difference in resolution and framrate of these versions? I read someone post that - thought they may wel have been BS. They said something like 1080p 30fps for 360 and 720p 60fps for ps3. Slightly ironic. I'd go for the 60fps any day, I don't even have an hd tv. Anyway that's prob BS.
I recently posted that info on the framerates. NBA was highly touted as being the first 1080p game for the 360, so I did a bit of digging to find out the rates. All I could find was on the NBA Street site, a forum post saying that the 360 will play this game in two modes, either 1080p @ 30fps, or 720p @ 60fps, while apparently the PS3 vesion only does 720p @ 60fps. That's the only info I could find.
That;s very strange - bout the two option for 360. Interesting. Though I think optimising for 60fps is good. Umm just wondering...in the UK we've always had 50fps, and could never support 60fps...has that all changed now?
I'm not saying calibrating the source will make the PS3 the winner. But any display not calibrated properly will effect not just contrast but detail overall.
The Xbox360 is clearly the winner in this. The colors, reflections, textures, and pretty much everything else look much better than the PS3's. The PS3 version looks a bit blurry, and even foggy.
Props to whoever put it together. I like how you can pause it and see the difference in the two, while not both cameras matched up all the time, a few where the same camera angles. If you are watching it on a small PC monitor, thats not doing it justice, Im watching it on a 27" Widescreen, and I can tell a difference between the two games. Not much though.
youve got identical images but... you still have people online flamin..
nicely worded, Tim.
THE COMPARISONS ARE DONE USING DIRECT FEED FOOTAGE DIRECT FOOTAGE=WHAT THE CONSOLE DIRECTLY OUTPUTS TO THE TV THE TV/MONITORS EACH HAVE THE SAME SETTINGS. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU FIDDLE WITH THE SETTINGS ON THE TV/MONITOR IT WONT MAKE THE PS3 VER LOOK BETTER THAN THE 360 VER.
The fanboys again, twisting everything up. Fact is they both look almost identical.
Only taking into account that these are 2nd hand images, I prefer the 360 version. Seeing them side-by-side on a properly configured or calibrated display might change some minds though. I suspect the clarity and contrast differences have more to do with display/output issues. The HDMI should look better than the component. I'd be interested in more information on how these were set up. These comparisons are just flamebait without any accompanying specifics. The results are too easily skewed.
The 360 version looks sharper and brighter. The PS3 version doesn't look as crisp, but still looks good and somewhat more realistic(less plastic looking). If I had to choose the better looking one in my opinion, it would have to be the 360s version, base on that video.
it looks more real on the PS3 and the washed-out colors if thats what u preffer to call it makes it look more alive, thats why I preffer COD3 on PS3 too, it just give it the adge over the 360, all games looks too cartoony on the 360, PS3 make em look more real-life like, I guese thats what Sony was tryin to say.. more real-life like is what I choose, so PS3 version is bettah..
Xbox 360's player models are sharper but everything else is just about the same. But what else was expected? Its a multi platform game and I wouldn't expect it to look to different from each other.