Mass Effect 2 Xbox 360 vs. PC: HD Screenshot Comparison Checks Graphics and Interfaces

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.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
THE MAX SPEED 213221d ago

The screens arent of the best Quality...
but yeah PC looks better watcha expected?
Still getting it on xbox.

N4PS3G3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

It's expected to look better on every other game out there

but the difference is minor.. both versions are good choices


Bubbles_Kitty_Cat3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

Both look great.

Can't wait to start playing it.

ColdFire3221d ago

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.

Bungie3221d ago

Not much of a difference

PC always win

but getting the 360 version

commodore643221d ago

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.

Dev8 ing3221d ago

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.

pangitkqb3221d ago

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.

Christopher3221d ago

PC version doesn't look like it's running on max/highest quality in those screens.

jammy_703221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

looks no way near as good as ps3 exclusives like uncharted 2

Montrealien3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

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.

jammy_703221d ago

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.....

hay3221d ago

@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.

mastiffchild3221d ago

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!).

raztad3221d ago

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.

blue7xx73221d ago

I have to agree with N4PS3G the differences are hardly noticeable. I can hardly tell the difference.

solidt123221d ago

PC looks better but the 360 is close. I wonder what setting were the PC set too (Low Medium or High)

Consoldtobots3221d ago

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.

nycredude3221d ago

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.

el zorro3221d ago

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. Even in motion the difference is actually pretty small.

mal_tez923221d ago

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.

SilentNegotiator3221d ago

"Anti-Aliasing: 0" turn it on and compare it again.

FamilyGuy3221d ago

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.

Arnon3221d ago

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.

Nihilism3220d ago (Edited 3220d ago )

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

goflyakite3220d ago

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.

SaberEdge3220d ago

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.

CWMR3220d ago

-Wow, they both look great. It is truly a gorgeous game.-

vhero3220d ago

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 :)

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 3220d ago
iMad3221d ago

soft armchair or sofa and a bigger TV screen make it 360 version for me.

tdrules3221d ago

enjoy your awful interface

ATi_Elite3220d ago

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.

CernaML3220d ago

"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

Gigalol3221d ago

"bubububu I PLAY TEH SUPERIOR VERSION ON PC ololololo"

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha droid moron

Michael-Jackson3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

360 has games? didn't know that, that's news to me /(0_o)/

The real killer3221d ago

You are a clown, people like you don't give it damn about gaming on higher specification like PC or PS3 platforms.

likedamaster3221d ago

"higher specification like PC or PS3 platforms."

PS3? You're funny.

el zorro3221d ago

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.

CernaML3220d ago

"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.

Oner3220d ago (Edited 3220d ago )

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 -

"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."

CWMR3220d ago (Edited 3220d ago )

-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:

-"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..."-

Oner3220d ago (Edited 3220d ago )

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3220d ago
Michael-Jackson3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

Yeah the PC version looks sharper and darker while the 360 version looks a bit washed out, no thanks. 360 has games ;)

The real killer3221d ago (Edited 3221d ago )

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.

iMad3221d ago

Either 360 will not sell.

btw 360 version will be 80% of all sales, because PC gaming is dead.

t8503220d ago

if pc gaming were to die, microsoft and sony would shamelessly charge you 100usd per game.

hence its not something to be proud about.