A huge gallery with lots of comparison screenshots between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 has been put up on Cynamite.de. Can you tell the difference?
At least in Japan so far =P
Not to be bothersome but aren't there more ps3's in Japan? So wouldn't proportionally there be more games sold for it, then its competitor? Just throwing that out there
goodness sake wat is it with that ridiculous blur all over the ps3 version
360man can you see little pink fairy's and sock goblins with those fanboy goggles you wear as well.
Yeah, the lighting is also worse quality in the PS3 with less subtlety. The textures on the monster thingy are worse on the PS3 version. Also, notice how the two characters look like they're standing in front of a blue-screen or something in the PS3 version of the last picture on the first page. All in all, the PS3 version looks like it's missing one last stage of polish compared to the 360 version. It appears some shaders and post processing effects are non-existent in the PS3 version to keep it running at a stable framerate. 360 version is hands down better looking- on this game it's not even a question.
ign confirmed that during game play ps3 struggles with the frame rate whilst the 360 is consistant through out
goodness sake wat is it with that ridiculous fanboyism all over n4g
Both versions look nearly identical. The only difference I see is in the intensity of the lighting- sometimes it looks more vibrant and intense on the PS3, and sometimes it's in favor of the 360. It doesn't seem to be technical limitations, but rather differences in artistic intent between the two platforms' lighting artists or whoever. All this "360 version looks undeniably better" is just xbots getting caught with their pants down because they think they can say it about every multiplatform comparison. P.S. @ 360 Man (nice name, hides your bias) that "ridiculous" blur in the PS3 version looks to be motion blur, a post-processing effect that takes more horsepower to render.
that "blur" is motionblur wich we allready saw in some multiplats to be only on the ps3 version because of the lacking horsepower of the 360 on that kinda postproscess effekt. i wouldnt be suprised if re5 has a ps3 optimised motionblur too.
why all you all disagreeing with comment 1.5 by 360 man? Thats the truth, IGN already confirmed that the 360 version is the superior version the the one they recommend. http://forums.gametrailers....
actually hor ur information blur doesnt require much hard ware power it is mostly used to hide jaggies now multi sampling anti aliasing on the other hand requires more hardware power and keeps the game crisp and good to look at
good call on the IGN comparison. you can tell the analyst is kind of a sony fanboy (he prefers dual analog for FPS shooters?!?) and it pains him to recommend the the 360 version.
The exact comment is "the framerate dips for the trained eye" Lol what? How about a benchmark test? Anyway, the Xbox 360 version has some nasty screen tearing. The game look exactly the same, no matter how stupid you are.
The people who are able to notice a missing pixel in a game are the same people who can`t see a difference between DVD and BluRay. Think about it.
"1.13 - Food 4 Thought...... The people who are able to notice a missing pixel in a game are the same people who can`t see a difference between DVD and BluRay. Think about it. " +bubble hi def very nicely said
WTF is this trash ! There is hardly any difference at all except in the lighting image. Both versions are visually identical and only fanboys would care about this crappy comparison. Just buy the game for whatever system you have, and be happy. Noones going to go out and buy the other console due to small differences such as a supposed low res texture. Its pathetic and all you people fussing about this are even more pathetic.
Gamespot said halo wars looks "unfinished and bland" 6.5. SO4 looks like crap compared with the bullshots that got released. MGS4 and LBP stole all the graphics awards from AIAS and Spike. Gears and fable won zero, cause 360 releases bullshots and the games look worse. PS3 has better graphics, we know it. :)
the people on this website are ridiculous
IGN HEad to Head: "Still, there are some small differences worth noting. The PS3 presents more brightly, and this helps to bring out more visual detail in dark areas. In comparison, the blacks in the 360 version tend to wash out some of the finer details. In brightly lit areas, however, the PS3's brightness adds a slight haziness to the image that makes brighter colors look a touch washed out. The PS3 takes a hit in the framerate department, with noticeable dips into the low 20's in some especially hectic scenes. It's also worth noting the PS3 version appears slightly more aliased than the 360 version. You won't see this without looking closely because environments generally have so much polygonal detail that straight lines never stand out. Still, you'll notice a slight jagginess on gun models and some simpler environmental objects in the PS3 version. The PS3 version requires a hefty 4.8GB installation that took me upwards of fifteen minutes. Once the game is running, the PS3 version loaded into levels just a second or two more quickly than the 360. The PS3 will have you loaded in from the level select menu in 10-11 seconds while this takes 12-13 seconds on the 360. It's a small difference and shouldn't be an issue either way. " Winner (Overall, page 4) Xbox 360 http://insider.ign.com/arti...
Which version looks better? Couldn't say. Though from what I've read both have pros and cons. That you couldn't notice without putting them under extreme scrutiny while the menu is paused, but then, you're not playing that 60 buck game for enjoyment anymore, are ya?
Best Post of the Thread
i dont understand how ign can claim some small improvements when it comes to the 360's 2 extra polygons but downplays small improvements to load times and contrast on the ps3? ill never know for myself because ive never been into the RE series very much and after playing the RE5 demo i will not be picking up this game. i understand you cant compare different genres but to me i would rather spend my time playing Kz2 because its superior to RE in every way. not the same type of game, just my preference which really is all that matters to me.
When playing the demo, I really can't tell the difference in lighting, textures, frame rate, etc. But the one thing I do notice, which doesn't require stills and a microscope, is that the 360 has screen tear and the PS3, at least in the demo, does not.
They all look better on PS3 except for that cutscene shot where you see Chris's pistol up close.
They look almost identical. I'm sure the framerate drops on the PS3 version shouldn't be gamebreaking, besides it's only when it gets "hectic". Any have a PS3 only or 360 only should still drop dollars on this title.
Very minor difference, you can only tell by using a side by side comparison. Personally the PS3 version looks like it has better lighting (i.e. more realistic), but is slightly blurry in some of the pics (I'm guessing that's cos they took the screenshot during motion). 360 verion looks just as good, but the whole screen looks slightly over-brightened. But either way, whatever version you play, it looks just as good on either to be honest.
MY PIXELS LOOK BETTER THAN YOUR PIXELS!!! YARR!! YARR!! YARR!!
From the comparisons, the gfx are basically the same. But no one can argue that a locked Framerate is worse than one that dips into the low 20s on occasion. Seems like 360 is the way to go for multi console owners.
Stop being fanboys guys. The 360 version looks better because its easier to code for, and the PS3 Suffers in multiplatform games because parallel coding is more difficult to do. This just shows you how capcom has abandoned the PS3 or they just aren't good enough coders for it, or they just didn't put enough time into it. It looks worse for reasons, but the 360 being a better system is not one of those reasons. Multiplatform games means the ps3 version is going to be worse (usually, not always)
Time and time again, I see the comparison videos or read how awful the framerate is for the PS3 version of "game-x", yet once played, it isn't even an issue. Orange Box is a perfect example, imo. "Oh the framerate is a slideshow!"...then you play it...and it's not. Bandwagoners and gaming posers will try to convince you otherwise. Many, many people will buy the PS3 version and not think about how it plays on the 360. Which will be exactly the same. Also, enough with the message board game programming gurus. The difference are so noticeable, Capcom had both version of RE5 side by side at CES. You see what you want to see.
i was going to say, who cares, both will look good (and that's still true). but then i got to the image of him holding the key. look at this face in that picture. in the ps3 version his little blue tooth thing and his piece of hair that are hanging down don't cast a shadow. they do on 360. not a big deal, both versions have some of the best graphics on console this generation. but look at the picture. this can't be disputed (though i'm sure i'll still get a ton of disagrees).
to pumpkinpunker 1.4 are u crazy or blind XBOX360 cant handle The Last Remnant it lagg like it have 15 frame per second and now he cant handle Star Ocean XBOX 360 = Red Ring Of Death PS3 = like 4 ever Wii = same as ps3 (dont like it) but system is very good but need more graphics xd
Just enjoy the game.
If it were only that easy. I have enjoyed tons "inferior" multiplats so far on my PS3. Go figure....
@ ^^^ Funnily enough, I have enjoyed the "superior" 360 multiplats just as much, if not more. :)
wonder why Capcom skimped on the PS3 version.
I've enjoyed the "SUPERIOR" PS3 exclusives. Fancy that.
for making me laugh. G1
I have enjoyed the superior 360 exclusives as much as, if not more than you have enjoyed the superior ps3 exclusives. Fancy that. This is too easy. Anyway, let's stick to the topic, which was a RE5 comparison between ps3 and 360. This nice article sums it up for all of us: http://forums.gametrailers.... looks like yet another superior 360 multiplat!
Interesting indeed, the ps3 version got much better color contrast & shadow effect...
360 versions looks better...hands down
I'm surprised your still around N4PS3G you say alot of controversial that almost everyone disagrees with you on. If you take your xbox fanboy microsoft-edition goggles off you could see, they look exactly the same.
He's not controversial, just this place is fully of hyperdefensive ps3 fans. Extremists. Terrorising this poor fansite shouting down your point of view and opinion. Be a jihad next.
...since we all know you own those special edition xbox fanboy microsoft-edition goggles. be a jihad? you are an oddball sometimes man.
360 wins again
Hahaha blind x-fart, the ps3 version got much better color contrast & shadowing ROFL!
you both can suck your respected companies proverbial pricks...ROFL
wat is it with that ridiculous blur all over the ps3 version
Only the PS3 with its enormous and untapped power can run something as flashy and technically complex as Killzone 2. Only the PS3 has the raw power to support the total package that is Killzone 2 from running flawlessly. With this background, it is natural for a game like RE5 which is not complex at all, to run so smoothly on the PS3. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the "wait till E3" delay60 console, where it is pushed to the limits by RE5 (and by Gears of war 2). The developer of RE5 has already spoken about how his team has absolutely pushed the last drops of the delay60 to its limits. Do not be surprised if a spike of overheating occurs in March, people. Do not be surprised at all.
ign has confirmed that 360 has a much better and consistent frame rate than the ps3
360man is this the only way you Muppet's can maintain your erections because a multi-plat game that looks the same but your secret M$ decoder goggles shows you the real game that no one else can see.
" ign has confirmed that 360 has a much better and consistent frame rate than the ps3 " IGN can't confirm anything, retard. They can only give their opinion unless they actually did a benchmark. Even if they did, you are still a retard.
ps3 version has quite alot of jaggies i expect thier using 4xAA on the 360 version http://www.cynamite.de/_mis... http://www.cynamite.de/_mis...
IGN Video Co-Op Reviewd said that X360 version has screen tearing.
Jack Shyt, your still poppin your gums?
Haha yes they did say that. These fearless Xbox fanboys just can't grasp that there console isn't the graphics king. Both consoles are great, both have great games, but to say that PS3 doesn't have a lead on graphics is living in never land.
I honestly cannot see the difference at all, so it leads me to believe in motion it really won't matter to me if I do indeed buy this game.
if u look at the first picture and the second u will see that the second have very white/yellow color of the left side of the man face where u wont see that in the ps3 picture!! ps3 wins this game!! but by a little so nothing to get worked out for!! both versions r great!! PS3 FTW
The 360 always wins i don't know why they bother comparing them anymore. Its just becoming embarrasing.
the 360 version has already been confirmed by ign as the version to get
i`m not gonna say which one looks better as it is plain obvious. I will say, however, that the days of the 360 getting better multiplats are over.
I think i will stop looking at these comparisons as the result is always the same. the ps3 seems to struggle with textures on multi-formats... why is that?
interesting question judder...but i think thats the last thing on a lot of ps3 owners minds considering when they are all playing killzone 2
Here's from a hardware perspective explained in non-technical terms: The PS3's memory is split in half - 256mb super-fast video ram, 50% regular ram. The 360 has 512mb super-fast unified ram. So overall they have the same amount of memory. HOWEVER Textures are stored in video ram for fast accessing. This means a developer can fill up a maximum of 256mb video ram in the ps3 (the regular 256mb ram block is used for other game assets), however if they need it in the 360 they can go beyond the 256mb because the 360 uses a large 512mb block for everything and they can sacrifice space for other elements that would usually be stored in regular ram (eg: sound, geometry) in exchange for sharper textures. Hope that explains it well enough. =) By the way this is ONLY for textures talking about here - ps3 excels in other areas such as shaders, lighting and physics. EDIT: I got a disagree? Sorry to say it but you can't disagree with the exact specs of the consoles. Look it up yourself. This is how they work, not a matter of personal opinion.
edit nvm i wont even bother correcting your specs just a hint why your argumentation is utter nonesense, read some tech documents if your rella interested in such things (and i dont mean the specs sheet). Learn how different ram can be used, what streaming really is and how textures are processed. and its not simply because of some specs you post that either version lacks certain things (wich in re5's case absolutly isnt because the game looks the same ffs, only the render style is a wee different but thats because of the 360/ps3 itself. ps3 has a different output method then the 360.) Re5 looks gorgeous on both plattforms, claiming either version is superior is pure fanboy bull.
The reason why you got all those disagrees is for the same reason "you" should look up the specs. the PS3 XDR ram is far faster than the xbox360 DDR3. And the ps3's "regular" RAM just happenes to be DDR3 as well. The reason why multiplats have trouble on the ps3 is because most 3rd party studios program the way they've always programmed for ages now. In that setup, the 360 works exactly like a PC and no optimizations really need to be made. With the split memory/processor architecture of the ps3, most 3rd party devs don't want to take the time to optimize for 2 different memory banks and 7 different coprocessors. They just treat the PS3 like its a single core, 256mb system... hence the really inferior ports at the beginning of this gen. Unfortunately, optimization means time/money 'wasted' for 3rd parties so they don't bother much. They're really dependent upon Sony's ability to come up with the threading solution. However, that will ultimately change now that Sony has really upped the ante by releasing new resources, techniques, and even a sophisticated 3D engine from making Killzone2. As you can see from that title, the ps3 is a real standout when it comes to multiple lighting, shadows, physics and AI.
"edit nvm i wont even bother correcting your specs just a hint why your argumentation is utter nonesense, read some tech documents if your rella interested in such things (and i dont mean the specs sheet). Learn how different ram can be used, what streaming really is and how textures are processed. and its not simply because of some specs you post that either version lacks certain things (wich in re5's case absolutly isnt because the game looks the same ffs, only the render style is a wee different but thats because of the 360/ps3 itself. ps3 has a different output method then the 360.) Re5 looks gorgeous on both plattforms, claiming either version is superior is pure fanboy bull." "that "blur" is motionblur wich we allready saw in some multiplats to be only on the ps3 version because of the lacking horsepower of the 360 on that kinda postproscess effekt. i wouldnt be suprised if re5 has a ps3 optimised motionblur too." Both of them posts are from you correct? Got to love the PS3 fanboys double standards they spend all day slating the 360. And love all so much to slate anyone that could happen to pre-fair the 360 calling them a fanboy. Although I agree with you both version's look the same however it could run a little better on the 360 from what I have read. The last person I want to hear it from though is a little raving hypocrite. Please explain where your opinion of the 360 lacking horse power comes from? If you don't have an extremely valued explanation I will simply call you a raving hypocrite with double standards as stated above. Because as far as am aware no game has maxed out the 360 yet and just because the PS3 currently has the best looking console game doesn't mean its going to stay that way.
nice try ryudo read again i didnt say that the ps3 version is better or vice versa. i said i "wouldn't be suprised" if the ps3 has a unique made motionblur effect. And i contert the guy asking why the ps3 one is so blured, in fact you cant screenshot the exact same frame on the consoles so maybe on the ps3 one its a frame further where motionblur is applyed. the games look the same mate i clearly said so. i have all consoles and gaming for 25 years now, try again another time calling me a fanboy.
You got the specs wrong, especially since the XDR ram is blazingly fast. Suggest you relocate your sources and read them more carefully next time to avoid embarassment.