PS3 vs. 360 - Army of Two comparison shows differences

Army of Two: The 40th day offers nice visuals - but how well has the game been ported to the different consoles? Check out this screenshot comparison between the PS3 and the 360 version of Army of Two: The 40th day. The PS3 version clearly lacks anti-aliasing.

The uncompressed screenshots have been taken on a professional grabbing system in 720p. The PS3 was set to "Full RGB" and "Superwhite" settings for better comparison purposes.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Pennywise3267d ago

Honestly, I looked at the pics. Which one is better? They both look bad.

This comparison is like two people comparing who has made the best looking crap floating in the bowl.

morganfell3267d ago

They both look like crap but the 360 version looks like blurry crap.

commodore643267d ago

Wait.. Surely it can't be?
Pennywise and Morganfell BOTH in first with timely damage control?

*looks at jaggy ps3 shadows*
Yep, figures.

Pennywise3267d ago

You're right commodore, my stalker...

I didn't dislike AoT because of the clunky controls and bad graphics... I just cant stand jaggies. I hate to break it to you, but the PS3 version looks better overall.

But - Damage control must continue...This game is junk just like your taste and attempted attacks on peoples opinions.

morganfell3267d ago

No need to do damage control when the PS3 has produced the best looking console titles ever. It is not the console playing graphical catchup.

Just because a multiplatform developer is to afraid to exploit the graphical prowess of the console that has proven itself the visual leader is no sort of bragging rights for the console that trails in rendering ability.

Cueil3266d ago

but the crappy bottom version is the PS3 version

NateCole3266d ago

x360 version looks dull and blurry. PS3 version looks more defined and vibriant. Visually is a big downgrade for PS3 fans that played U2 or KZ2. That is the truth.

Nikuma3266d ago

PS3 version has shadows that look more jaggy, and the 360 version looks a bit more blurry overall.

bjornbear3266d ago

the top image is washed out and blurry

the bottom is bright colourful and clean o.O...

But in motion is when you can tell, not from photos -_-

BlackTar1873266d ago (Edited 3266d ago )

which one is which?

Bigpappy3266d ago

They both look good enough to play. The 360 version is a bit better looking but not by much. PS3 users are hating on games for no good reason. I guess you guys will only play 2 or 3 exclusives a year. Most multi plat's are going to look better on the 360. Just get over it and stop argruing about it every time a comparison gets approved. The slight difference don't make the game less enjoyable. Fanboys just look for something to fight about. Most of you were not ever going to get the game anyway so why even care which looks better. Just move on.

SilentNegotiator3266d ago

Pfft, blind fanboys are always praising blur filters as added AA.

mal_tez923266d ago

Because I saw better graphics than this in 2006

Christopher3266d ago

XBox 360 looks a bit more faded due to poor gamma settings.

PS3 has some jagged shadows that look more like issues with the screen capturing software they used.

So... I guess it's up to fanboys to decide the winner with pointless internet rambling!

DelbertGrady3266d ago (Edited 3266d ago )

Whatever happened to Lens of truth and Eurogamers comparisons? Not a huge fan of it but at least they did it on a more professional level(measuring framerates, screen tear, resolutions etc.) than these crappy german sites.

rezenu3266d ago (Edited 3266d ago )

But you know the fanpeople around here. There still has to be a stupid argument over which one is better.

Overall, the game looks ugly, imo.

darthv723266d ago (Edited 3266d ago )

when fans of a console smear a multiplatform game because it doesnt surpass the other console, basically stating they didnt want it in the first place.

If you dont have anything nice to type then why type anything at all? Oh wait...this is n4g...nevermind.

*looks at screens* come to think of guys are right. both look like crap.

carry on!

Tanny922253266d ago

Ps3 version is more vibrant and clear, but suffers from horrible aliasing.
360 version is blurrier and its colors seem more washed out, but it has slightly higher res textures and better (but still bad) aliasing.

At first glance, the ps3 version looks better, but I will have to give it to the 360 version which has slightly less aliasing.

TheDeadMetalhead3266d ago

The 360 version looks like it has the brightness setting too high, and I don't see any jaggies on the PS3 version. @[email protected]

ikkokucrisis3266d ago

Ugh, why compare screenshots of such an ugly game?
Why not compare UC2 on the PS3 with the 360 ver...
oh whoops it's not multiplat! haha

SuperStrokey11233266d ago

The top looks far worse, not that either looks expecially good but the top is worse by far.

SixZeroFour3266d ago

360 (top)

-the textures are more detailed
-the shadows are more smooth

ps3 (bottom)

-the colors are more vibrant

mastiffchild3266d ago

Another day another crppy, pointless comparison piece posted on N4G. makes me kind of sad to be alive!!

Jaggy shadows on the PS3 and a little blur on the 360 version? Who cares? Yet again it's not nearly enough to merit changing your choice from whichever console you would have chosen to play it on anyway. A few jaagies and/or a little blur is not going to override controller preference or playing where your mates are, is it? No,. no it's not. the game is NOT a great looker on either console and the main draw is the co-op which, after a fashion, works OK in the demo and is better than last time out.

No need for either set of zealots to crow over such small beans as it's hardly the best looking console game ever made, now is it? re we meant to assume it's as good as it could possibly have been on both platforms? No again. It's as good and as equal as they could make it with what they had with parity, yet again, being their main concern so it sells on both consoles. There are no points to be scored here-unless we're deluded enough to say this game looks better than Gears2 AND Killzone2-and we aren't that far gone are we?

Seriously, why argue over this kind of thing? the differences are tiny and it doesn't push the PS3 OR the 360 very hard AND all it wants is to look as similar as possible. Jebus!

Wake me up when there's a comparison of a multiplat game that challenges the looks of the best games on either system will you? Or when there's, y'know, some proper, game breaking issues with one or the other but not for the next however many multis that, like this, show us nothing to less than nothing about our machinery.

Government Cheese3266d ago

360 version looks faded and PS3 has jaggy shadows. If you disagree then you are blind.

vhero3266d ago

Do we have to compare every non exclusive game??? OMG!!!

MNicholas3265d ago (Edited 3265d ago )

This far into the life-cycle their PS3 graphics should be at least at the level of the original Uncharted game which maxed out the RSX but didn't use the Cell much.

Despite relying on just the PS3's GPU, the original Uncharted game was found, by Digital Foundry, to easily outperform every single multi-console title.

Realistically speaking, we can't expect anything to rival Uncharted 2 but surely, after all these years, we should be seeing more multi-console games match the visual quality of the original Uncharted.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3265d ago
Sangria3267d ago

Vivid colors and aliasing on PS3, pale colors and blurry image on Xbox 360. Interesting way to avoid "superior versions" and making community agree on "both look inferior".

Typical-Guy3266d ago

Who cares! this game sucks T-REX's balls.

bacon133266d ago

Wow, a game must be really bad for it to suck extinct animal testicles. 40th Day loses with time travel fallaccio!

xbox3flopteen3266d ago

warp-suck lol.

an´way, did the t-rex had ball, how d fck do you kno that huh¿? on topic.

yes in the forth picture you can notice the difference here, but even if the ps3 one did look more bad than the xbox, this game still stay being a crAp.

mastiffchild3266d ago

I think he means Marc Bolan's bands testes actually-though that to, in some cases, and definitely Marc's, would still take some time travel. though it would still, possibly, be as much fun as this game if it's no better, in the end, than the first one!

i_am_interested3266d ago (Edited 3266d ago )

thats gotta be the ps3 version on the bottom

some companies still havent learned their lessons with the unreal engine on it

that foliage in the first shot on the ps3 version just gave me eye cancer

Cueil3266d ago

you should call your attorny right now... I'm guessing you can get 2 to 3 million... :p

table3266d ago

lol... if people can genuinly argue a meaningful difference here then they deserve to be castrated.