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.
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)
MY PS3 20 GB cost:
- PS3 $450 (10% OFF with new TARGET Credit ACC)
- recharging kit 0
- online muiliplayer 0
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
"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.
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.
trying to justify buying the ps3???
you comments are plaind dumb.
any one with half a brain can see the 360 one looks better
The games are cartoons. So shouldn't they look like cartoons. If you have a video game like COD3 and it looked like say the movie saving private ryan with absolute real movie detail, it would blow all of us away, not to mention, it won't be this generation of console that will provide it. And maybe not even the next generation either.
It's the same thing we've seen in previous cross-console comparisons, and these guys seriously need to calibrate their TVs correctly before doing these comparisons for millions of people to see.
Graphically, these two versions are identical. No need for bickering or false claims. Yeah, I'm looking at you FirstKnight. =P
You may be right... the guy didn't "calibrate" his tv propertly. But did you know that if you "calibrate" the wii enough it will start to look like GT:HD or even MotorStorm? ahhh ahahaha! I guess it simply can't be as simple as the XBox 360 looks better.
Calibrate TV ? Why don't they do the test on the same tv set ?
SOME ONE WHO NEEDS EDUCATING
THE COMPARISONS FROM GAMETRAILERS ARE DONE USING........
..........DIRECT FEED FOOTAGE.
The signal is being recorded before it even gets to the tv.
So the 360 is just slightly better in colour and sharpness, although ths ps3 may have had beeter lighting in a few places (not sure on that 1)but not overall.
dude the ps3 version would totally mess up my game play the graphics just arent sharp enough the brightness would get in my way when im going up for a dunk and that just isnt good u know thats why the xbox 360 version is better(SARCASM). for u to say that the Xbox 360 version looks better u would just have to be a dack. these game look the dam same. they play the same. thats probaly why ign gave them the same score
but you would never notice unless they were side by side and standing alone they both look great so does it even matter?
THAT MAYBE THE POINT THEY BOTH DO PLAY THE SAME
BUT ONE CONSOLE COSTS (IN THE UK) 425 POUNDS AND THE OTHER CONSOLE COSTS 199 POUNDS, AND THE VERSION THAT "LOOKS" BETTER IS ON THE 199 POUND CONSOLE.
AND FOR A CONSOLE THAT COSTS 2.25 TIME MORE EXPESIVE , I WOULD EXPECT THE GAMES ON IT TO LOOK 2.25 TIMES BETTER , WOULDNT YOU ?
OR ARE YOU JUST ANOTHER BLIND SONYFAN?
maybe I just haven't gotten enough rest but...I just can't see the difference.
You say the PS3 version looks washed out? Well, I really wouldn't say that. I mean for a moment there until I looked in the corner of the screens to see which is which, I thought it was the same thing being shown over and over again. I didn't even realize the system designation until halfway through. And just because one appears brighter than the other doesn't make it the clear cut winner. your foolish if you think so. "Oh look at our colors they're sooooo colorful...". May be a ploy to draw your attention from other things, not sayin' that's the case, but leaves one to wonder.
I was thinking the ps was going to be better but i think i have been lead wrong by someone elses hardware test. I need to run load tests my self to see what is really going on in the PS3.
The 360 looksa way sharper. in the first shot the buildings in the background look wat better on the 360.
The tree looks way sharper and so do the on court stuff, including players.
The bulls logo almost looks like the real thing at the UC on the 360. it as not dull as on the ps3, ofcourse i have never been that close to it.
Not only does the PS stuff look fuzzy and out of focus, but there a an additional haze over it.......i don't know how u can miss that deepbrn
A. Xbox360 Fans will claim it looks better because everyone with an x360 is hoping to God that the PS3 will suck. That's just standard partisan behavior.
B. Under what conditions where the videos taken (connection, contrast settings et al), not to mention the compression of the video file. Thats like doing a taste test of high end bottled water through a garden hose, it will all taste like crap!
C. Xbox360 has a year headstart on the PS3 with regard to development tools, tweaking, developer experience etc..
This test proves nothing. If a company claimed to take advatage of each system's specific architecture (CELL SPE's etc.) and then a comparison was ran, I think we would have a much different test. Heck the RSX alone is reason to believe that, given time, the PS3 will have a marginal advantage over the 360, and that's just the GPU. If the issue becomes cost when porting, then all games will look almost the same... The fan thing with either console is retarded, niether microsoft nor sony gives 2 shts about anything but making money and owning your living room so they can make more money than the other guy. The best thing we could possibly do is buy both consoles, but NOT the WII :P I mean the controller is a great idea, but wtf, it's time for HD graphics, who the heck wants to watch GameCube esq graphics on an HDTV..
Well its hard to tell, I do notice some differences as someone said in the background being a little bit more washed-out on the ps3 version, but other than that... the game looks near identical. And if its just that whats visually different... who really cares? Seriously?
2 thumbs up in the fanboy department. :-)
Well, here is another ported multi platform job that looks crap on the ps3. I personally don't care about crappy sports games etc, but Its sad for those who like this stuff to see the blurry crappy ps3 port. On my regular crappy tv, my ps3 looks crisp. But thats playing other games than this. But I do think, and I have said this before, that Microsoft's choice of ATI is way better than SONY'S choice of NVIDIA. I always liked ATI's image quality even on my pc. Colours are better. Period.
but anyone who really wants to can tell that the 360 version is sharper an more crisp with more colour!! but what did they expect sony fanboys to say!!I hope they wasn't looking for them to say an xbox game looks better than a Ps3 game!!everybody listen!! one way you can tell if a game really looks better on the xbox is listen to the excuses (its EA,oh its a port, its a lazy dev etc)that's how you know. so going by that, I think you know which one looks the best even if its only by an inch!!
And isn't that the point? The PS3 is 200 dollars more (or 100 if you want to go that route), and yet the graphics look the same, and if anything maybe a little worse.
Casual gamers are going to see stuff like this and think -- Why would I spend $500 when I can get the same/better experience for $300???
And apologists, stop with the porting excuse - there were tons of games that were ported from ps2 to xbox, and pretty much every time, the games looked better on xbox. Just go to the head-to-head section at ign if you don't believe me.
Sorry for coming out and saying that but nobody on here is paying attention to detail!!! I noticed the difference right off the bat!!! If you look when they slam dunk the ball and you look at the backboard you can see the reflection move like in real life on the PS3. You see no change in the 360 version!!!!! The PS3 clearly has more going on in the background. PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL!!!
If you have no intention of ever buying a 360 then the PS3 version looks damn good. Just not as good as the 360's version. At this point though let's stop crapping on the systems and start playing more. Man you guys need to play some crackdown. I have been playing it the last 2 days and I love it. Come on play games and stop looking at dumb flame war material. The war is over and we have all won. The games are here and more are coming.
I can't even read all the comments on this one but the 360 version does look better, backgrounds do seem sharper and jerseys and things. The major difference is the color pallet, it's definetly brighter on the 360 version.
If they're so close then who really cares? Its not like anyone going to jump side because of it. If the PS3 version does look slightly more "real" as some are saying then that probably explains the slightly washed out look, to de-emphasise that plastic look. Plus your only looking at video, not the game running proper. Does it really matter? If it proves anything, its that multiplatform games are not the way to show what a console can do really do and if anything both versions probably would have looked better if the Devs had concentrated more on each platforms attributes. Sorry kids, no one just got OWNED.
about the difference that u guys said.. but seriously... from what ive seen.. the PS3 version look more real.. the reflection on the court floor on the 360 is way too strong.. almost like a mirror.. in which.. the ps3 version is a bit more subtle and blended with the floor colour
and i think the lighting for the 360 is quite off.. how could a darker environment show clearer and sharper objects... and i agree with some of the guys.. the 360 has a plasticy look to it character model..
and one more thing.. it seems that the sharpness on the ps3 has been messed with.. it's turned down.. dont believe me?? check the HUD on both version.. u can see the difference in sharpness..
if i didnt know better.. i would say this is a conspiracy to make the 360 look good... (wink²)
P.S: The soft shadow is nicer on the PS3 too..
Even though they dont, the 360 version is sharper and crisper .
But the ps3 is 600 bucks and is so much mor epowerfull, well now do you realize that multi games will look the same and not any better on a 600 buck ps3( i own one).
The fact that 360 cae out ealrier so they will make games first on 360 then port to ps3 or whatever excuse you want to use, its obvious the ps3 and 360 are equal and sony has no business selling a 600 buck machine with claims it will destroy the 360, well now who looks foolish.
Whats even crazier is that there isnt one game on the ps3 that looks better then the 360 games, not one game coming looks better then GOW, theres nothing so far to justify buying a ps3, theres not one thing and yet you guys just troll away and bow down to sony , they lied to you , thats the fact. they lied to me as well, and add to the fact that you wont use the motion sensor to play most of these multi plat games and then we are left with ps3 games with no rumble on top of that, so ps3 games dont look any better and the ps3 costs 600 and theres no rumble and motion is not a good replacement. so ps3 is screwed.
They should show two videos without a console label attached and let ppl vote. Fangirls will always twist it up. Bigger disc space, 2 tera flops of CPU performance, delayed console, plus a $600 price tag. The 360 version looks better hands down. Looks like the 360 is the way to got for multi-plat games for now. Don't give me the BS about EA learning to use Sony's hardware. Sony made the hardware so they have to put up with mixed results. Remember EA sports BIG is a big seller to casual gamers.
how many excuses will people use, sony made the system the way it is, its there fault they didnt make it easy to dev for, its htere fault they are charging 600, they didnt need blueray, it sure hasnt proved anything yet, nothing is better on the ps3, how many more years must it take for you to realize the ps3 was overhyped and will not deliver anything better then the 360, multi games will look the same and then you just have a ps3 thats more expensive and does nothing more then the 360 .
What if the 360 version looks better. STOP F-ING MAKING EXCUSSES FOR SONY. Sony and M$ can handle their own problems. If the PS3 version looked better you guys would be throwing up "Cell" processor specs right now. Now you say it's not enough to care about. Looking better is looking better no matter how much it does. Now if I out that up on my 52" TV, what version do you think I want. A system that is $200 more should look better. The 360 is $200 more than the Wii, and the Wii can't touch it on graphics. Use this logic when you compare the PS3 to the 360. I don't care why it cost more either. I WANT TO GAME FIRST. I DON'T CARE ABOUT WATCHING MOVIES. I AM A GAMER NOT A MOVIE REVIEWER.
If VF5 turns to look better on the 360 (like what, in 6 months from now ?) i guess some people here will run in and scream "TOLD YA ! THE 360 PWNS TEH PS3 LOL"
Of course, it will prolly be the sme people that said "Oblivion looking better on PS3 ? psshhh, of course, they had extra time to polish"
Even if some of us are biased towards our favorite console, it's obvious,and there shouldn't be any denial that the 360 version does look superior in the video. Even if the contrast can't be used as a reference to see which looks better, the 360 version is sharper by all means. That should not be so obvious in a video, but it is. This just adds insult to injury as more and more multiplatform games are superior on the 360. Recently a Sony rep said that the Xbox360 and PS3 were about even. That's ironic considering that Sony said the next generation doesn't start until they say it does. So why do they now say that the two systems are even? Wow.
PS3 Version Makes you Rub your eyes to focus while the Xbox 360 version runs at 1080p sharply (I could care a Fuk about natively or not that sh1t looks good). PS3 has jaggies still and the 360's Skins Teams looked more Sweaty and lifelike while the Ps3 version look faded like they washed their skin in bleach.
This comment section demonstrates the feeble mind of the fanboy. There's absolutely no difference between the two versions. My guess is gametrailers posted this video knowing that.
EA is just a whining baby. I don't considered them a power house developer and quite frankly I feel they have been slacking off due to their almost monopoly in sport titles. I have seen enough games on the PS3 to know that its not the machine that sucks its EA's development staff. How can you trust any software company that openly slanders any game console. It would be like some game developer slaming PCs using ATI GPUs because they prefer using OpenGL and generally Nvidia Cards do better with OpenGL - EA ethics are tacky.
I'm with those who don't see much of a difference and the differences I do see like color and sharpness can easily be adjusted on the TV. PS3 and Xbox 360 are too totally different machines. Each machine will have its own default settings. Some TVs will default in favor of the Xbox 360 and other TVs will default in favor of the PS3. Heck, I just bought a new DVD player and had to reconfigure my TV again because the settings on my new DVD player were different than the old one.
I will have to go with GaMr and say let the exclusives battle it out. Games exclusive to a system are the only true way to determine the power of a game console since it was written specifically to take advantage of it. Of course, it would help if those comparisons came out in the same quarter. Five to Six months after will get the fanboys all shouting that the game developer had enough time to adjust and improve on the graphics/gameplay.
EA is complacent in so many areas it's not even funny. Take a simple game like TW golf for example. In every since 05 you could swing with the left stick or the right stick. For the PS3 in online matches you cannot swing righty but you can choose either for the 360. EA has the nerve to post in the FAQ that "due to the limitations of online play" they could not program it into the game. And they expect the consumer to believe it. Complete and utter BS. You can do it in the offline game modes and in the online daily tournament but not in online matches? You could do it on the PS2 and XBOX1 but not PS3? Sure thing there EA...limitations of online play my ass. ;-)
Cutting corners at it's finest. EA's unspoken company policy...