In that screenshot comparison Videogameszone checked the graphics and interfaces between the PC and Xbox 360 version of Mass Effect 2. Hint: Click on "Screenshot in HD" to view them in original size.
The screens arent of the best Quality... but yeah PC looks better watcha expected? Still getting it on xbox.
It's expected to look better on PC...like every other game out there but the difference is minor.. both versions are good choices http://www.videogameszone.d...
Xbox360 version it is for me.
Both look great. Can't wait to start playing it.
I don't see the point, or course PC looks better, mostly due to the much higher resolution which can't really be seen, and the screen are pretty poor quality as said above.
Not much of a difference PC always win but getting the 360 version
Well hmmm the PC version seems to be very slightly better. Quite honestly, it's great that the 360 game looks so close to the PC game, though.
As always the 360 version looks washed out. That aside it also looks like the 360 version suffers from sever aliasing. Having played ME on both system I have to say that besides the obvious graphical, cost (only $50) and loading advantages the PC version has the major factor that gives the PC version the leg up is the controls. Using the mouse and keyboard is a lot easier for playing this game and made playing the 360 version a nightmare. Obviously I will be getting the PC version but not until it goes on sale on EA or Steam.
Been playing through the first installment and am very excited for this new one. Dragon Age: Origins is pretty awesome too. Gotta Hand it to Bioware. They know what they are doing.
PC version doesn't look like it's running on max/highest quality in those screens.
looks no way near as good as ps3 exclusives like uncharted 2
You know Jammy, having played some of the best games on PS3 and beeing lucky enough to have Mass Effect 2 in my 360 atm, I must say that for a 360 game, ME2 is very impressive visually. And it also plays really well on the 360 to boot. Visually the clear winner is the PC though. And saying something like (looks no way near as good as ps3 exclusives like uncharted 2) is a clear exageration and simply shows us that you don`t know what you are talking about, sorry. If you play ME2 in 1080p and say it is not impressive at all, you just don`t have an eye for graphics, sorry.
ok maybe it'll look good playing but the pictures dont look to impressive, and im right cuz it wont look as good as uncharted 2.....
@jammy_70: Visuals aren't top notch, but the first game visuals weren't either. This didn't prevent it from being one of the best games I've ever played.
Great effort from Bioware in getting the 360 version so close to the PC one and doing it even better than they did wih the first Mass effect. I actually feel very pleased now that i decided to play through the first game again(and this time on 360 after first playthrough on PC)and get my char sorted to carry over to ME2 on the 360! Seeing this has, though, made me realise JUST how lazy some other devs are when porting games to the 360 from PC(looks directly at Gabe and Valve for their shoddy efforts on 360 that feel EVEN more like cheap, easy money due to the lucky accident of the dev tools being so similar that they can just bash out lazy ports to make coin)and very thankful that Bioware try so hard and even more impresse by the THREE specialised teams Brink has working on it at SD!Good effort Bioware! That's how you make a PC/360 release look good on both platforms!Come on Valve, either just stick to PC or start giving us decent ports on the 360 as well as allowing some community and mod support for L4D1 and 2 so we get something close to the PC gamers experience-we certainly deserve it when we pay a LOT more(my 360 L4D cost £45 and my PC copy just $20 off Steam on promotion!).
Thankfully I dont need to upgrade for playing this game. Judging by the PC shots my laptop will be capable to run it at a very good framerate. Still need to finish ME1 though, very good game.
I have to agree with N4PS3G the differences are hardly noticeable. I can hardly tell the difference.
PC looks better but the 360 is close. I wonder what setting were the PC set too (Low Medium or High)
my 6th sense tells me that MS has quietly issued encouragement to developers to keep both versions on somewhat equal footing. Sure you can crank up the resolution (NOOB STUFF) but I wonder how much access they will customers to the graphic engine? You know the place where you can REALLY crank up the graphics by adjusting AA levels, frame buffers, post processing, anisotropic filtering, etc.
I could care less about the graphics in this game. The first one has decent enough graphics but that is not why I played it. I loved the story. The only thing I care about is whether they fixed the bugs and glitches and the framerate issues in the first one.
Hmm...I hardly notice a difference. Then again, just as is the case with multiplatform games, screenshots are not the best way to compare games. A lot of times the differences are things that won't be seen in a screenshot like frame rate and screen tearing. That said, I have done a lot of comparisons between PC and 360 and PS3 games and the PC versions often are not that significantly better. I think some people exaggerate the graphical differences between the PC and 360 versions. Oftentimes there have been virtually no differences aside from higher anti-aliasing and higher resolution that the PC version offers. Obviously, if you have a PC and enjoy playing games that way then the PC versions are a no-brainer. For people that prefer the consoles I doubt that any of you would notice a difference big enough to really care. Check out the comparison video between the 360 and PC version of Fallout 3. http://www.eurogamer.net/vi... Even in motion the difference is actually pretty small.
Because not everyone has a great PC. I know my PC will be able to run it at high settings, but for those without a good computer, the comparsion may be misleading. But whatever, I'm getting the PC version.
"Anti-Aliasing: 0" ...so turn it on and compare it again.
The screen look almost IDENTICAL and that is a SURPRISE because the PC version SHOULD look miles better. If I were a PC gamer I'd be disappointed about that. 360 gamers should be pleased though.
I'm just glad that both versions were developed for at the same time. I'm a PC gamer, and I'm not disappointed in the least bit. I've seen enough evidence of Mass Effect 2 to know that it's not only going to be an incredibly enjoyable experience, but a beautiful one at that.
lol @ people saying they looks the same, it doesn't even mention texture settings and it says that no AA is being used on the pc verion, I don't know about the rest of you but 16qaa is gonna look sweeeeeeeet The pc version clearly looks a lot crisper, better contrast and colours, the 360 version looks like they slapped a layer of sepia over the top @el zorro Actually the difference is massive beyond belief, you can't judge based on a compressed internet video. The draw distances on the pc version are about 5x as large ( even larger because I modded mine to go further than the highest in game setting by far ) the frame rates are doubled, resolution is much higher and higher res textures, better effects. That's not even to mention the better controls etc
This is one game I wish were coming to the PS3. Especially considering they made Dragon Age on all three. Oh well, there's other good games to play. About the graphics, I'll probably get disagreed with but, they aren't that impressive (on either). Maybe the size of the game is the reason.
No, the graphics are very impressive. The most recent videos I have seen look incredible. It is definitely one of the best looking games I have seen on any console.
-Wow, they both look great. It is truly a gorgeous game.-
PC destroys it but of course it will as The 360 in terms of technology is now 4 years behind what you expect. Not a shot at 360 but PC games are gonna look better 4 years on. Got the PC version already :)
soft armchair or sofa and a bigger TV screen make it 360 version for me.
enjoy your awful interface
Yeh I'm a little upset cause they programmed this first for the gimped crapbox360 then ported it over to PC. I don't see any Directx 10 effects in those screenshots which is unexceptionable for a PC game in 2010 But You can play on your crapbox 360 in the living room and I'll play on my Monster PC in the living room on the big screen as well but at 1920 X 1080P FULL HD at 60 FPS. What do you STUPID MICRO$uck BOTS think all those HDMI ports on the side of a TV are for? Well since your crapbox can't out put Full HD I guess you wouldn't know. PC had WIRELESS Mouse/keyboards/controllers way before consoles did. So yes I'm on the couch gaming just like you: except im pushing 60 fps in Full HD in one window, browsing the internet in another window all the while downloading Itunes and burning movies on one machine all at the same time.
"PC had WIRELESS Mouse/keyboards/controllers way before consoles did. So yes I'm on the couch gaming just like you:" Not only that, you have the option to use a 360 controller on the PC. lol
"bubububu I PLAY TEH SUPERIOR VERSION ON PC ololololo" hahahahahahahahahahahahaha droid moron
360 has games? didn't know that, that's news to me /(0_o)/
You are a clown, people like you don't give it damn about gaming on higher specification like PC or PS3 platforms.
"higher specification like PC or PS3 platforms." PS3? You're funny.
PS3 is no higher spec than the 360. It is actually lower spec in many respects. The PS3 has the advantage in the CPU, that's it. The 360 has the advantage in GPU, memory, and disc read speed. PS3 and 360 are both older tech by PC standards. They can still put out some nice graphics though.
"PS3 is no higher spec than the 360. It is actually lower spec in many respects." And yet, PS3 exclusives are the only kind to up the graphical benchmark for consoles.
WOW! There is an UNBELIEVABLE amount of misinformation being spewed around here! "The 360 has the advantage in GPU" ~ Only partially right but ultimately WRONG as it's not leaps and bounds "better" just a little. And because the PS3's Cell takes up and can be used to aid in graphics processing the graphical advantage goes to the PS3. So you CAN say the 360 has a "better" GPU but it honestly doesn't mean anything because it cannot graphically display or match what the PS3 is capable of. PERIOD. But if you take the time to read the link/information at the very bottom of this comment to be properly informed, enlightened and taught something correctly you may learn something. "memory" ~ WRONG. The PS3 and 360 have the same amount of ram 512. It's just the PS3's is split. AND half of that "split" is XDR ram which is hands down at least 400% superior than that of ALL of the 360's 512 in itself even being only half @ 256. Again read the information/link below to learn something proper. "disc read speed" ~ You are using "speed" improperly which ultimately makes you WRONG...because of this ~ a 12x speed CAV Dual Layer DVD is "slower" (in throughput) than a 2x CLV BD and since 99% of 360 games are CAV Dual Layer's this makes them "slower" and the PS3's BD "faster" (in throughput). Here is that extra info I described earlier ~ Ram & RSX Explained - http://talkplaystation.com/... "There has been a lot of talk about the Playstation 3’s Random Access Memory (RAM) vs Xbox 360’s RAM, saying that the 360 has more RAM to work with etc. Here’s an article to explain the situation of its RAM. Just so you know that the PS3 has 512MB of RAM (256 for video and 256 for system). The Cell chip has 256MB of completely sharable RAM, the GPU has 256MB of dedicated RAM. Now the key here is what type of RAM it is. The Playstation 3 has 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz and 256Mb of XDR at 3.2ghz. So what exactly is XDR ram? Here are some of the highlights: * XDR makes PS3 super effiecient * XDR aids in faster cache mapping, both direct and indirect * XDR ram works by a pointer to pointer technology and needs very small buswidth for execution * XDR is not just faster than GDDR3 but it is much more efficient * XDR RAM works by breaking down data into several packets which prevents data loss and exceptions The Rambus XDR™ memory architecture is a total memory system solution that achieves an order of magnitude higher performance than today’s standard memories while utilizing the fewest ICs. Perfect for compute and consumer electronics applications The PS3 has two times as much cache at 2x the speed, making it way faster for direct/indirect mapping. Not only that but it has 512k of L1 cache + 1.7m of L2 cache for the 7 spes. The PS3’s GPU, RSX was made to work with the Cell processor, it is not some GPU they took and slotted in. It is made to be compatible with the Cell. More RAM does not mean a faster system it means more data can be stored in a fast access area. Games don’t always need 512mb of RAM. The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn’t need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files. A lot of people are saying that the RSX only has 256mb of RAM, whereas the 360’s GPU has 512MB of RAM. To make it sound a bit simpler, here’s the real deal. The PS3 has it’s RAM in two separate parts, 256MB for the RSX and 256MB that can be used be either the Cell or RSX."
-You are full of it, oner. You just wrote a bunch of unsupported claims. I'll just leave you with words from an actual developer: http://www.gamedaily.com/ar... -"Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance," he says. "Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power." He also suggests that Blu-ray is not really an advantage: "[It's] great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the Blu-ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if you're streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream." He acknowledges that with the greater storage space of Blu-ray "there is the potential to use that to do something cool," but he argues that "most developers who use the entire Blu-ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the PS3 such as its slow loading." He adds, "For instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem." Ultimately, Booth says "the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally... developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code..."-
You're saying I'm full of it when you are using a quote from some BS ROCK BAND HARMONIX "dev" who can't properly use the hardware in the PS3 (are you freaking kidding me!?!?) and not to mention that "article" is well over 2 years old!?!?! PLUS on top of all that you fail to mention (& understand) that is a "theoretical peak fill rate" and that sure as hell is not the same as ACTUAL fill rate achieved in games! First party exclusive titles have SHOWN the PS3 is graphically more capable than the 360 time and time again. This is not debatable. That is REAL WORLD verifiable. Hell I can even go as far to admit that my info is over a year old too but the difference it that doesn't change it's validity because IT'S ACTUAL TRUTH that has been verified and factual! Anyone who can understand even the basics of computer technology, hardware architecture and how it relates to bandwidth (speed & power) cannot deny that though "certain types" will no matter what) and you can't hide the FACT that the PS3 has 4 times the internal bandwidth, twice the memory bandwidth and overall much faster ram than the 360! These are VERIFIABLE FACTS not "conjecture" and "claims" such as yours.
Yeah the PC version looks sharper and darker while the 360 version looks a bit washed out, no thanks. 360 has games ;)
PC version is gimped by the 360 hardware. Thank you damn Bioware i will not buy your game if you gimped the PC version. All multiplats even the PC version will gimped by the 360 hardware.
Either 360 will not sell. btw 360 version will be 80% of all sales, because PC gaming is dead.
if pc gaming were to die, microsoft and sony would shamelessly charge you 100usd per game. hence its not something to be proud about.
Higher Resolution Textures Higher Anti Aliasing Less Restrictive Mip-Mapping Though you'll notice almost none of that when running side by side, because it's full of a futuristic environment and clothing (a lot of sleek, flush panels and plastic materials with almost no texture to even render), and they've done a damned good job of it, too. I wish it was on PS3 ;_;
Normandy space on home FTW!
Of all the games on the 360, this is the only one I really wish was on the PS3... ohh well. I'm waiting to see if there will be a PS3 "sigma" version of both 1&2 within the next year or so. Otherwise I'll just get the trilogy on PC and save the most money that way.... Yea I'm cheap. ;P
That's the odd thing: Techmo managed to make NG:Sigma even though it was a paid for exclusive. But under IP laws, if you change enough of a product to be considered a whole new product, you can sell it on, without breaking the exclusivity clause. EA and Bioware have gone on record saying there is no Exclusivity deqal with MS, they just happened to develop only for 360 as that was to be released first. They could easily port to PS3 (since they're both Unreal Engine games). Which is why I have hope for a collector's edition some day. Maybe (probably, if at all) after ME3 is out for at least 6 months.
I love when people disagree and don't tell you why. This rating system needs to stop being anonymous. The quality of my posts doesn't improve because I don't know what's wrong with it!
Not much of a difference to play it on a gamer rig. 360 FTW! :)
One, the PC version looks way better and will run much smoother. Second, the PC is far more reliable and won't die halfway through the game due to some RROD issue. In the end, it is an RPG and RPG's are just plain better on the PC.
Obviously you're trying to flame but the advantages of PC version are 1) Graphics 2) Faster load times 3) Price ($50) 4) Controls (M & K FTW)
How is stating the truth equal to flaming? I speak the truth and you seem to agree. Can't we just call it what it is?
"Controls (M & K FTW)" Yeah Mouse and Keyboard make a big difference in an Role Playing Game that calculates your accuracy based on assigned skill points. Did you even think about what you were typing??
I'm a PC gamer, and even though it's common knowledge that the game will perform better on the PC, there's VERY minor differences between the two versions being shown, which goes to show that anyone who purchases the game on the 360 version will really not miss out.
Hmmmm wonder if ME2 is DX11 compatible........???? Anyways cant wait to play this.....Tuesday cant come any sooner.
No ME2 is not Directx 11 capable because those JERKS made a 360 version then ported it to PC. Totally unexceptable in 2010 for any PC game not to use Directx 10 or 11 ME2 will play smooth on the 360 or Pc because it's a rpg w/ limited FPS Regardless the PC has the mouse/keyboard or controller option (LOGITECH or PS3 controller screw xbox controller) Big difference = ME2 PC will get a graphics mod and will look way better than what it looks now. PC 1920 X 1080P FULL HD at 60 fps Xbox360 1280 X 720 30 fps
Wow... a lot of hardcore M&K fans disagreeing it seems... don't like the fact the game aims for you? Perhaps you should stick you FPSs, then?
Its clearly just ported from 360 again, and the shots are poor. Minimum effort to take advantage of the extra performance PC offers, although PC gamers should probably just be glad its on their platform of choice rather than hoping for significant enhancements. As a PC gamer though im getting a little tired of saying that. :( Still no anti aliasing support in engine for PC thanks to unreal engine 3. Hopefully nhancer can solve that quickly. However as usual the PC version will have the rather nice advantage of being capable of running 1920 x 1080 and 60 frames a second. Which is exactly what its gonna be doing when i sit down to this next week in front of my HDTV.
What did you expect? Benutzte Auflösung PC: 1920x1080 - High Quality Bloom: On / Film Grain: Off / Motion Blur: On / Dynamic Shadows: On / Light Environment Shadows: On / Number of Cinematic Lights: drei (von max. drei) / Use Spherical Harmonic Lighting: On / Anisotropic Filtering: 16x Anti-Aliasing: 0 And people are going to bag a 360 over a pc worth +2000usd. when a 360 cost a lot less, then one of the new ati/nvidia high end cards. And the 360 version looks dam close...............:) wouldn't you say. 360 Version for me first play through second play through pc version? update @ mensaap , Do not get me rouging with pc costing a lot cheaper these day but the pc that is benchmarked here cost 2000+usd, but I do agree with you. but do you really need to by a pc to enjoy mass effect 2 or with the 360 service. of course if your a pc gamer on a budget it might be cheaper to get a 360?, A lot off early people are posting that there pc are having trouble running mass effect 2 as it is, so upgrades will be on most peoples mind right now, On a side note, dam I hate dell laptops these bloody keyboard stuff up all the time bloody hell??? :(
A pc doesn't costs 2000 dollars ... I'm sick of that stereotype a good decent one is about 800 dollars still more expensive then a 360, but it's A PC U don't have to pay to have excellent online features, better graphics (if the dev's want to at least) better controls (it's still a shooter) and when you're done gaming, u can do your normal internet stuff OW and pc games are cheaper, u'll save money in the long run (at least for now, stupid activision bastards)
Well you hardly need a high end new card to run this. Just from the shots now i can tell you a budget card will run it better than 360, higher resolution etc. But theres my point. Bioware havent exactly worked hard to take advantage of the sort of performance on offer on PC. Something like a 4870 costs a hundred quid these days, and they are at least four times as fast as 360's GPU. I mean there is a balance, you dont want to isolate people with budget machines, but thats the entire point of having settings....lol. Maximum settings should be significantly better than a four year old console and there isnt much excuse why they shouldnt be
So your console costs around $300, and you probably have some kind of budget pc, we'll put that at around $300-$400. Rather than buy both of those,just build a gaming pc for around $600-$700. Hell, for that matter, go get a job and buy both if you really want.
"Do not get me rouging with pc costing a lot cheaper these day but the pc that is benchmarked here cost 2000+usd" The hell? The article never mentioned any PC specs so you're just pulling that number out of your ass.
You can play Crysis on a PC that costs 600 or less.. you'll be able to handle this game on a PC that can do Crysis easily.
6.4 - ""Do not get me rouging with pc costing a lot cheaper these day but the pc that is benchmarked here cost 2000+usd" The hell? The article never mentioned any PC specs so you're just pulling that number out of your ass." Agreed. Let's hope Demon5500 was wearing gloves.
These are the spec settings for the pc rig Benutzte Auflösung PC: 1920x1080 - High Quality Bloom: On / Film Grain: Off / Motion Blur: On / Dynamic Shadows: On / Light Environment Shadows: On / Number of Cinematic Lights: drei (von max. drei) / Use Spherical Harmonic Lighting: On / Anisotropic Filtering: 16x Anti-Aliasing: 0 Did you notice some thing, that's right no AA "Anti-Aliasing" is being used on the pc version to bad hey. All the ps3 guys all ways have to bag out the 360 version and the 360 is running 4xaa @ 720 and 2xa @ 1080p Hana upscale. I would wait for the movies and better screen shots before really pulling it apart......:)