Eurogamer Portugal published some exclusive screenshots comparing the two versions. Check them out.
umm ...they actually look the same
good job to Edios, they actually know what they are doing.
Wow. They actually look damn near identical.
The PS3 version just looks a little blurrier to me...but other than that they look pretty close. A really nice looking game btw.
Looks the same but with the exclusive content on the PS3 version it makes it the better & must get version.
Everybody should keep in mind that you can't tell everything from screenshots...there is still the all important performance criteria to be considered...and you can't tell that from screenshots. Does one tear more than the other one?...does one have slower frame rate than the other?...you know, stuff like that.
You're right. There is a slight blurr to the PS3 one and makes it look a tad darker other than that they're identical.
Based on the screenshots they look nearly identical. I do see what you guys are saying about the PS3 version looking a little softer, but I don't mind that. I am just happy that the developer was able to do such a good job making them as close as possible.
That blurryness on the ps3 is quincux, its how the ps3 handles jaggies. 360 uses AA for jaggies since the video card has eram it can provide 4x aa with no cost to frame rate.
I heard that it might use it when throwing the batrang. Anyone know?
^^did you read the article earlier today on that?...both the 360 and PS3 gpu are capable of 4x msaa, but the overhead on either system is far too high... most 360 games use 2x msaa because of that EDRAM...and the PS3 uses quincux, a cpu based AA procedure...for similar results...but the two do produce a very different 'feel' to screen shots... in motion though its hard to tell either apart...if you would watch videos of the two games in motion...you probably couldn't tell which was which without a description... either way though...the UE3'ness of the game is kind of bothering me...the lighting is so off at times it drives me nuts...at the start of the demo, kill all the bad dudes...then go stand in the cells with the bright flood light shining in...and watch how it has zero effect on the character model, and that the shadowing is blatantly wrong...the shadow actually points towards the light...I understand this is simply a quibble...not every game can be killzone 2 and have absolutely perfect and accurate lighting across the board...but after you notice the tech in some games, it makes it hard to 'go back' thats all... light sourcing has always been UE3's biggest weakness...as it hides its lack of a true dynamic light system with overly amped bloom and more recently, occlusion...if you compare its lighting to something like crysis or killzone 2...its blatantly obvious...but otherwise, some of the details go unnoticed... it drove me nuts in bioshock, Gears 1 and 2, and UT3...it has good shadowing and lighting 'effects' at times...but they are completely inaccurate, and have absolute no ground in the 'lights' you see in the environment...stand in front a flood light and killzone 2, and the shadow, effects on your gun, etc. are all based on that light being a 'real' light...you can even put your back to the light and see your own shadow cast realistically over the weapon on screen...and on the ground in front of you...UE3 simply can't do that, and never will...hopefully UE4 gets it right, as to anyone that likes the tech involved with newer video games, its pretty obvious...
Not only do I usually HATE UE3, these graphics (or atleast the character models) outdo the detail that was put on Gears of War. It's amazing. How do these guys pull off a better looking outcome than Epic themselves? The only difference between each picture is contrast/brightness. Also, Eurogamer needs to stop using semi low quality scresnhots. I can't stand the jpeg artifacting while trying to compare.
Honestly in these pictures the 360 version looks slightly better, lighting and colour is just that much sharper. However when I play the game on my PS3, it definitely looks A LOT better than the pictures they are showing. In fact it looks on par with the 360 shots in this comparison, because when I played through the demo I saw NO blurring issues and NO jaggies. I dunno whether these guys are using the right settings, but HDMI with Full RGB and Super White is always the way to go with PS3, really makes a huge difference to the colour.
360 looks sharper, like always
360 screens are marginally brighter PS3 version has better texture quality (particularly noticeable on the hair) In other words both versions are about equal.
...they look identical. Will be getting this badboy for my 360. Looks like that DELAY payed off.
they went with the tim burton / batman TAS arkham style ... smart move ... would still have loved to see a grant morrison's arkham like from arkham asylum a serious house on serious earth... well anyways some of the lines are from the comics themselves... like "the chokes on you"... that was awesome... good stuff
The Xbox uses slightly higher contrasts etc to make games look "better" but really the PS3 gives a more "realistic" colours the AA on the ps3 makes it look a little blurry in parts, but it also seems to have better textures in parts
Yeah they look EXACTLY the same. And yes it does look a tad bit blurry BUT its nothing game breaking the reason for this is cause quincunx edge-smoothing is running. But man as stated before the PS3 version is the one to buy if you are a multiplat gamer due to the exclusive content.
on both systems. Game analysts rate this one a buy. I'm picking up the CE on the 25th.
both look the same in just about everything, one thing did catch my eye however. 360's version appears to have some sort of blur in certain places (more like anti-aliasing, noticeable on hair and foliage) both are 720p, 360's version apears to be 720p with 2xaa. 360 http://images.eurogamer.net... ps3 http://images.eurogamer.net... 360 http://i27.tinypic.com/34nm... ps3 http://i26.tinypic.com/6jq8...
.... here... we.... go.... again.... another irrelevant article. just plain waste of space in the N4G servers. speaking of which, you people know why The Joker is only on the PS3 and NOT on the Xbox360??? because of the amount of data The Joker occupied on a disc, didn't fit in a DVD9, hahahahahahahaha oooo I laugh... ---->end of joke<---- ...or was it...
The ps3 has its usual vaseline/quincunx blur applied. Apart from that, they look very much the same.
I'm honestly not trying to be biased but the PS3 version looks slightly sharper, with slightly improved textures, and more realistic lighting. However the difference is so slight in motion you wouldn't see it. And for all you who disagree. Loot at screenshot 3 in full size, notice the better hair on the PS3 and more detail on the jokers face, and notice how it is slightly better lit, making the guards and the jokers costume look more real. Look through all the shots and you will find the PS3 is actually superior for once.
The blurriness is depth of field effects in the PS3 version, that is lacking in the 360 version. That's why the textures look better in some places on the PS3. Where ever the focus is, that is the part where the textures are better in the PS3 version.
Yes indeed. Things I noticed. -360 has 1% better lighting -PS3 has 1% sharper textures Other than that, they look exactly the same.
This is what I don't get about CELL or Xenos. Acording to theese pictures, and my own comparisons in my house, and a couple of commentes on many sites. The PS3 version has better looking textures, alot of times they're not better, but just look better. And the Xbox version gives better performance. To me this sounds like the same pros and cons we've been having from Nvidia and ATI respctively for the last TEN years. At what point do the cotumizations on theese procesors kick in, and give results that are independent from their GPU specs?? When are the "wunder" procesors going to counterweight their GPU cons?? For a while now I've looked at the PS3 as "the Nvidia machine" and the Xbox as "the ATI machine". I feel that's were the console war should concentrate at.
Who cares anymore, "Oh my god, it looks darker, less jaggies, what has more aa?" Who gives a rats a$$. What I want to know, is whether the game will be good, I played the demo, and it's all right, but seems like it may get repetitive. Who cares which one looks a little better, when the game might not be that great anyway.
Look damn near identical. Crazy.
It looks like they are running it on PS3 with full range RBG. That setting just adds more shades of black making everything darker. Anyway they both look fantastic. I can't wait for it to come out.
yup and despite ign talking alot about bad screentearing i have not seen any on the ps3
At least not in the demo, and despite the slight blur seen on these pics I don't notice it while playing. Maybe my tv is just suuuuuuper, lol.
Every game except the PS3 version of Ghostbusters, which I found had awful screentearing issues, I've never actually noticed any of the things they've complained about in this area. RE5 and Dead Space, for instance, I found performed better , on my set up, on the PS3! It wouldn't surprise me if the game was very close to actual parity this time out as from the two demo versions they really are very close and if that's borne out in the funal game then I can only commend Eidos for doing wonderfully well for the UE3 on a multi plat.