Mass Effect 2 Xbox 360 vs. PC - Graphics Check

Videogameszone published ten more screenshots, which compare the PC with the 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.
iMad3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

I can see no difference. XBOX has a lot of power to show us.
Gaming on consoles has more pros then gaming on PC: price, big tvs, sofa and co-op play with friends, more fun.

The General3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

If you're trying to decide which version to get the PC version definitely looks sharper and more detailed. You have to be blind or very biased to not notice the differences.

And why exactly is the 360 version (inferior version) ranking higher than the PC version?

Is it just me or has there been an increase in the amount of Xbox fans on this site? I know it probably is just the same Xbox fans from last year with even more accounts, that go and de-bubble PS3 and multiconsole owners. It's just been a little annoying seeing fans like foxgod, the guy above and others getting away with blatant lies.

iMad3242d ago

Yes, but 1% difference can't make PC version better for me because of pros console gaming have over PC gaming.

The Meerkat3242d ago

"Is it just me or has there been an increase in the amount of Xbox fans on this site? I know it probably is just the same Xbox fans from last year with even more accounts, that go and de-bubble PS3 and multiconsole owners. It's just been a little annoying seeing fans like foxgod, the guy above and others getting away with blatant lies."

Are you having a laugh?
This site is dominated by PS3 fans. Look at the number of disagrees you get if you say anything positive about a 360 game, especially Halo: Reach.

Oh, and I cant see any difference between the PC and 360 shots.

likedamaster3242d ago

I'm gonna have to go with iMad here, there's hardly a difference in visual quality. Not bad Bioware, not bad.

3242d ago
Budg3tG4m3r3242d ago

The General the ammount of Playstation fanboys in the 360 secton is staggering compared to the 360 fanboys. IF Xbox fanboys were to retaliate it would only be poetic justice for the crap PS3 fanboys have done in the past couple of years on this site. I for one don't like any of it and would like to see some changes.

On topic this games looks good no matter if it's on the PC or 360. The only real difference here is the money you want to spend playing this great game. 360 is cheaper than a PC and you don't need to buy or upgrade Windows for a 360.

peterdawa3242d ago

iMad, the screen shots prove that the game was definitely made for 360 and ported to pc. The pc version looks better but it doesnt look that impressive for a pc game. This generation has been dissapointing in the sense that many developers are aiming for similar experiences across the different hardware. To me its just wrong or lazy. The pc version should look better than what im seeing there.

flakko3242d ago

i can play my pc games on my big tv sitting on a sofa...

Guido3242d ago

And seeing this on my 52 inch Sammy is amazing. What? You didn't think you could run a PC on an HDTV? Get an education sir!

ryuzu3242d ago

Have to say - all those advantages are actually for PC, not 360...

1) Price
360 is expensive!!! If you bought a PC today with the spec of a 360 it would cost about 50% of the 360 price. Of course no one buys a PC with the spec of a 360 because the 360 is 5 years old. Not only that but the PC is more flexible.

Factor in that games are cheaper, DLC is free, online is free and in fact, over a like for like period, the PC is cheaper - oh and it has better games.

2) Comfort
Um, if you hadn't noticed, PCs support hdmi/dvi, surround sound, remote controls, BluRay, stremaing video - so much stuff that the PC is the ideal media kit for the lounge - big screen gaming on a PC is cool.

Anyway, that's all irrelevant I guess. ME2 doesn't look great but then again why would it - it's based of a 360 development which is a 5 year old PC.

However, I imagine with some high res textures applied via mods we'll have a better looking game soon - only problem is ME2 is SP so by the time those mods come out no one will be playing it....


moneybuyseverything3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Need a tissue? Whats with the fanboy fit filled with BS?

ME2 is an RPG, It's not going to look like Battlefield Bad Company 2. It's an RPG with photo real art VS most RPG that have bad cartoony graphics.

What did you expect, a 40 hour long RPG to look like this, one of the most graphically stunning games on PC and the best looking game on consoles

I'm afraid most the people, magically praising PC when the PC only articles are alway empty are not trustworthy, being because most are PS3 fans are looking for a way to attack the game and the 360.

Guido3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Wow, looks like ryuzu got the better of an Xbox fanboy here. Who needs the tissue now?

moneybuyseverything3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

*Looks at your fake XBL gamertag in your N4G profile*

*Hits ignore*

You have to compare ME2 to other RPGs like Demonsouls and western RPGs plus the cartoony JRPG so you make sense bashing ME2's graphics.

Raf1k13242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

The reason there's no difference is because it's a direct port with a few tweaks for keyboard and mouse control.

The visual options are pretty much non-existent. All the graphics options (other than resolution) are either 'on' or 'off'. If this was created specifically for the PC and then ported to 360 it would be very different.

edit: @moneybuyseverything, lol at 'photo real art'. Funny guy. There are a few characters who have enough facial detailing to be considered photo-realistic. There's nothing photo-realistic about any of the alien species or even environments but they do look great in terms of their visual appeal.

Nihilism3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Firstly, these pictures don't even say what settings or resolution were used on the PC version, secondly, if they used the in game settings only, then they would have had no anisotropic filtering or anti-aliasing enabled, I will be running 16af and 8-16qaa as you can force it through Nvidia control panel, I have no doubt that it will look a lot better than these shots here.

I played mass effect 1 on both pc and 360 and the difference was phenomenal, the same is true for all multiplat games.


Yep, the link says to click to view the full size image, the total res was 1280px × 1737px ( for both pics + borders ) so they only took the PC shots at 720p, I will be running 1080p, more than double the amount of pixels. Big difference when you do it right, myth busted, next time they should use a decent res and some AA.

SlxTeN3242d ago

Bioware just made the game look identical on both platforms, so no need to get excited about xbox having more power.

peterdawa3242d ago

Raf1k1 kakashi I agree with you totally. There is nothing fanboy about saying the truth. I wish others like moneybuyseverything would stop bringing up fanboyism anytime a game he likes is criticized. As gamers we should be able to criticize and praise games so they can get better.

evrfighter3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

does it say what res and settings they had the pc version at?

First thing I noticed when I saw the 360 version is apparently they have anti-aliasing on the 360 maxed out (ya right)...A true HD screenshot comparison would clearly show how much of an issue Anti-Aliasing is on consoles.

commodore643242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Well, it stands to reason that the PC version SHOULD look better,
but it seems in these screenshots the differences are negligible.

That's not to say that with a $1500 2010 PC rig, you couldn't crank up the resolution, AA, AF, texture detail, draw distance etc etc. and make the game look really hot.

But then what would be the point of such a comparison?
If anything, the 360 version should be judged against a PC specced with 2005 hardware.

With that in mind, we can all agree that the 360 version looks pretty damn close to the PC version, depending on the power and age of the PC you compare it to.

Congrats bioware.
360 gamers thank you.

SilentNegotiator3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Turn on more Anti-Aliasing. Stop making PC vs Xbox comparisons with AA off or really low.

And Bioware shouldn't be COMMENDED for making them look similar, they should be shamed for porting the xbox version and leaving the textures looking muddy.

Double Toasted3242d ago

I can't believe they fell for! I would think that they would've gave you AGREES just to prove you wrong, lol...

xTruthx3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Wow commodore64 its pretty obvious to me that you know nothing of computers when you say you would need a 1500 to max it out. with 800 bucks you can have more than enough power to run this to max, my pc is 2 years old right now and i spent 1200 on it and because i had to pay 250 bucks for shipping to my location. Many people in the world have computers by now, they would only need to buy a vid card, ram and a cpu. That would cost less than 500 bucks.

@Double Toasted
If you knew that the people hitting disagrees to fox are the same 360 fan boys with multiples and accounts, now you see how bad n4g has it.

For the people getting disagrees and don't know y, ill explain. You must not know about pc resolutions and performance's because anyone with a little bit of computer knowledge would know any game would look better on pc with decent parts over any console.

Double Toasted3242d ago

Why would 360 fanboys disagree with him? Hmmm...the plot thickens!

WhiT3Kr0w3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

I have a PC as well, and I have it connected to my 50" Kuro TV. It is amazing, yes it is.
What I don't agree with you is that the PC is cheaper. For you to play most games that come out to the PC you need to be upgrading it every 2 or 3 years. Even if you don't spend much you need at least to change the graphics card and add some memory/hd because of new OSes. This is without touching CPU and Motherboard. No way you could get the same amount of gaming you have on either XBOX360 or PS3 with the same money on a PC. Where would you buy a PC that costs 300 pounds and offer you gameplay for years?
Every platform has it's own benefits over the other, but I don't agree on the cost bit. If you buy a PS3 or XBOX360 you don't need to constantly be adjusting resolutions and check wether it runs smoothly or not. And you will be playing it until a new console comes out.

Of course the PC has (much) better specs. And it's normal because it's being constantly upgraded. Every day something new comes out. Consoles on the other hand are just that. Static hardware to last a few years. No graphic card or CPU upgrades. I love my PC, but I prefer playing on my console.

EDIT: Once again, what I am saying is that with the price of a 360 you couldn't play most of the games for PC out now. Of course you could play most games on the 360 if they were made with the same specs for PC. But that doesn't happen. When a game is made for PC is made to use the hardware there is available at that point of time.
Of course PC is more powerful, but come on. Half price PC is better than the 360? You can buy one for around 150 quid. Are you saying you will get a PC for 75 pounds and it will run better than the xbox360 and that you will be able to run all games available? :p
I like both consoles and PC and I don't think of myself as a fanboy of any kind, but you on the other hand... Oh well, hope you have fun with any platform you own. I enjoy every game I play on either.

ryuzu3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Well having played this for a couple of hours on PC I think it's fair to say, graphically this isn't up to current PC standards.

The environments are small with not much going on, and yet the texturing is poor and some parts are just downright ugly - i.e. don't look out of the windows at Project Lazarus!

Need to play the game a bit more before I comment on that - not been wowed as yet but that may come.

@MoneyBuysEverything - except a clue and decent PC for you huh?

This is a SP RPG with small instanced environments - that's why graphics should be better. Then again it's been developed using a 5 year old cheaply built PC architecture that is the 360 so I guess that's the reason.

Doesn't make the game less fun - but it does break the immersion when the graphics don't stand up.

Also, what's with the walking? - guy looks like he has a pencil up his butt lol.


EDIT : @Krow ^^

Just go buy a PC with the spec of a 360 - it'll cost about half that of 360 for starters. Then you can play 99% of the 360 games and do a lot more besides. Not only that but the games are cheaper too and you have access to all those PC *exclusives*.

Frankly the cost argument is LAME. The reality is that with the rise of consoles it's cheaper than ever to keep a decent gaming PC current - the reason is games like Mass Effect 2.

Devs these days make their money from consoles - they develop games to console specs and as a result, you don't need the latest graphics card or processor because even an average PC right now is much more powerful than a 360.

If you want to play Crysis maxed out - that's different (then again, Crysis isn't particularly good so I'd skip it), if you're happy with the majority of games around now, a fairly cheap PC is plenty.

vhero3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Well I got the PC version and it doesn't look no way near that bad so them shot were obviously taken at min settings. I have Next to no jaggies at all on my PC which is 2 1/2 years old now and running this game at 1680x1080 on a 8800gt with near max settings. It looks WAY better than on those screens though that's a FACT. They have obviously downplayed the PC version to make it look like 360 can compare. I am not slating 360 here but how can it compare to modern graphics considering its now 4 years outdated? Technology is always upgrading and games looking better every year 360 and PS3 is falling behind.

Also the fact I can run this game on a 2 1/2 year old PC at max setting means this game was downplayed however as the 360 was probably the version they worked off.

Genesis53242d ago

I am playing this game at 1920x1080 on a 40" Bravia on max. settings. You are telling me the 360 version would look just as good? I don't think so.

Dev8 ing3242d ago

@vhero - If you game on PC then every game that comes out new is at least $10 than the console version. PC online is also free which is another $50 a year you save. If you buy 5 games a year you would save $100 a year. Every 2 years you could upgrade your video card with to a new midrange card ~$200 which is a bit excessive.

For PC pro's there is also the fact that modding gives games much more replayability. Also I can have 3 screens when I am playing my games which consoles can't do, at least not without buying 2 more consoles.

HDgamer3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

PC version all the way. Too many factors why it's superior.

1. Good Graphics Card
2. Very short loading times
3. One Disc or none at all.
4. Superior Graphics as Number 1 states
5. Mods, they change the game experience more times this game can be beaten.
6. Superior Anti-Aliasing.
7. It's only 50 bucks

All in all these screenshots are set to minimal settings. I don't know why mine look so much superior than these pathetic shots, I guess it's because i have a better pc.

Hanif-8763242d ago

There is hardly any difference at all and i'm not being biased about this Bioware could of done a better job porting this to the PC

Christopher3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Those PC shots don't looks as nice as how I have it running on my system. Overall, they did a good job on both versions of the game. The detail on the models and environments are improved, but overall the graphical quality is only a small percentage better than what there was in Mass Effect.

Most disappointing is that my 1080p monitor shows the various cut scenes in worse quality and oftentimes with that annoying filter grain automatically on than what I play in-game.

Luckily the gameplay is still fun and the storyline enjoyable.

MetalProxy3242d ago

Budgetgamer says "The General the ammount of Playstation fanboys in the 360 secton is staggering compared to the 360 fanboys. IF Xbox fanboys were to retaliate it would only be poetic justice for the crap PS3 fanboys have done in the past couple of years on this site. I for one don't like any of it and would like to see some changes."

Thanks for the laugh dood, obviously you werent at N4G the first few years the PS3 was out. This place was ran by the xbox lovers,fact. So now is what you would call..poetic justice.

On topic Iam still working on the first ME and cant wait to play this now that its just as good as thePC version.

wicko3242d ago

I find it funny that you mention both price and big TVs in the same sentence.. I don't know about you but all the big TV's I see cost more than a gaming PC.

Also, do you really think they made the PC version of mass effect first, pushing the PC to its limit, and then the 360 version after, making it equal to the PC? No, it is the other way around, where the 360 version was created first and the PC version is ported from that.

darthv723242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Generally comparisons are made between multiplatform games on consoles. At least with that you have a set standard by which to guage the final result.

PC is to variable to properly make a comparison. Different graphic cards produce different results as well as performance between CPU's being used.

While I can understand the need for this, it should be reserved for games on 360/PS3. When and if ME2 comes to PS3 then we can have a good head to head comparison.

In all fairness, to those who absolutely despise the 360 and want to play this game. Get the PC version and adapt your system to at least the minimum requirements if it already isn't better or equal to.

Why is this becoming an issue?

Budg3tG4m3r3242d ago

MetalProxy no I wasn't here 5 years ago, I only see the guilty ones now.

flyponix3242d ago

Without even looking at the pictures, the PC version is graphically superior. If it isn't, it should be. That's not to say the Xbox is bad or anything, the hardware in my computer is just a lot newer.

As far as the play experience goes, i have an Xbox controller hooked up to my computer, play on a 50" 1080p TV, all while sitting on the couch in my living room. Lol at my $1500 dollar Xbox!!

For me, computer is always better. With exceptions... Rock Band, all my friends have Xbox's but not all have computers, and I can't get the dang wireless Xbox controller to work :(

btw, when will they let PC gamers play against Xbox gamers? Then all I need is a PC version of Rockband and i can donate my Xbox to charity.

Sarcasm3242d ago

Honestly, who really cares. Yes the PC is going to be the "superior" version simply because of the hardware. But the game runs excellent on the 360 and is much improved over ME1. I see with my own two eyes on my TV how detailed the characters and environments are. Needless to say I'm much more impressed with the graphics of the 360 now. I'm willing to admit that the 360 still had untapped power.

So Ironically, it's not that PS3 devs are lazy. It's most 360 devs are lazy for not pushing the 360 like they SHOULD. ME2 and Bioware just proves that you can do a lot more with the hardware.

menoyou3242d ago

It is such a shame that they didn't make the graphics much better on the PC just so it could look good on 360. The graphics are great either way but it pisses me off when the unlimited potential of PC is thrown off by companies trying to the console version look equal.

mcnablejr3242d ago

just let them have it, its not like pc gaming is doing well for itself nowadays anyway.. apart from world of warcraft which just embarrasses ''gaming rigs'' (waste of money)

VanHalen3242d ago

haha, totally! funny how defensive pc gamers get when a console version of a game looks no different than pc version. seriously man, its like you said 1% difference. i guess thats enough to play it on a pc and spend thousands of dollars constantly upgrading your machine for. let them keep deluding themselves. ive gotta friend that has it for pc and i see virtually no difference. if any its so damn hard to tell. definately not worth the money and crying about. just play the [email protected] game already. who cares what you play it on, its frikin awesome!!!

superrey193242d ago

The only reason they look the same is because the PC version didn't have an option to turn any AA on.

CWMR3242d ago

-Based on the screenshots there is hardly any difference. That said, with the right PC hardware and seeing the game in person I am sure the PC version will be even nicer looking.

Personally, the 360 version has already blown my socks off. It is easily one of the best looking console games I have laid my eyes on.-

goflyakite3242d ago

They look very similar. Not sure if this is a bad thing for the PC, or a good thing for the 360. I'm thinking a bad thing for the PC

wicko3242d ago

You know what's great VanHalen? Playing ME2 at 1920x1080, without scaling. Also, only idiots spend 1000's of dollars building PC's. You could easily spend under a grand and have an incredibly powerful PC. Funny thing is people rarely build PCs just to play games. I mean, are you commenting from a console right now?

Rageanitus3242d ago

PC' hard ware is not that expensive anymore plus you dont need to spend that much to get a super rig

YOu can connect your pc EASILY to a large screen HDMI pretty standard interface (in case you dont know HDMI outputs the same signal as DVI)

PC pioneered multiplayer and it is still strong.... PC gaming is a hobby and im sure ppl who play PC games have friends who also play pc games

Virus E3242d ago

"big tvs, sofa and co-op play"

You obviously don't own a pc that can play games and know NOTHING about tech or TVs. My xbr800 I had in 04 had dvi in on the back that made my pc games look awesome in 720p and 1080i. My current card has a DVI out and..... wait for it...... HDMI. Hmmm I wonder what that would let me hook my pc up to? They also make these cool things called “wireless keyboard and mice”, you should check them out sometime. A 360 controller works right out of the box too! Okay well you obviously need to go study and I need to get back to my co-op game of Left4dead 2 in 1080p at a solid 60fps. Any other retarded crap you want to share iMad?

1920x1200 is more than 2 times the pixels of 720p (921,600 vs 2,304,000). 2560x1600 (30" monitors) is 4,096,000 pixels. These are not small differences. Even though the xbox 360 version looks amazing the sharpness and clarity of the pc version makes a huge difference.

No pc gamer runs games like this at 720p and if they do their machine is junk, so why are both sets of shots in 720p? At 720p the difference is marginal at best as the shots above show. Try this, go buy a dvd and compare it a bluray with the output limited to 720p. Thats the kind of difference we are talking about.

Saaking3242d ago


yet a 1 percent difference makes 360 multiplats better than the PS3 version? What a hypocrite.

starchild3242d ago

"obviously you werent at N4G the first few years the PS3 was out. This place was ran by the xbox lovers,fact."

This is a lie PS3 fanboys tell themselves and others to make themselves feel better about all the shameful trolling they do.

I was on this site back then on a different account that I forgot my log in details for and I later came back, and it was not much different then than it is now. Maybe things were not so heavily dominated by PS3 fans and things were a little more even, but it most certainly was not dominated by 360 fans.

Even then PS3 fans were talking crap about how the 360 would not equal the 'mega power of the PS3' and all kinds of other hate towards the 360 and its games.

I have even gone back and read a bunch of old threads to see if my memory was correct and sure enough there were no 360 fanboys "on rampage" like some PS3 have claimed. It was pretty much the same as it is now, except things were a little more balanced and there were a more equal number of 360 fans as PS3 fans.

Read the following old comments from articles that came out around several years ago. Notice the comments and the disagree/agree ratios. I don't see the kind of hate from 360 owners as we see today from PS3 fanboys.

Go read any of those article threads or go look at any old thread you can find and you will see that things were a little more even back then and fanboyism wasn't quite as bad, but things were not dominated by a bunch of hateful 360 fanboys as some PS3 fanboys have tried to claim.

The myth that N4G was once dominated by hateful 360 fans and the poor PS3 fanboys are just getting even now is a complete falsehood. It never happened.

JudoChinX3242d ago

Hypocrite this and fanboy that. Can't we all just get along?

andron3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Those posts don't really show everything. Lots of inane fanboys before too, on both sides:

N4G was as bad then as now in many ways...

y0haN3241d ago (Edited 3241d ago )

Very similar, good work from BioWare, but the better UI + slightly better graphics means PC for me. Also 1.0's point is moot because you can use Xbox 360 controller + plug your PC into your TV.


+ Show (48) more repliesLast reply 3241d ago
king1233242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

the difference is little or even no difference
if you didn't tell me which one is which I'd never know

CernaML3242d ago

This game doesn't seem to offer native AA for the PC version which is a huge disappointment. Oh well. At least the frame rate makes a huge difference.

Nihilism3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

It does on Nvidia cards...

OpenGL3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

That is the result of the deferred rendering path used by Unreal 3. There are ways to get around what is normally a hardware limitation with DirectX 9. If they haven't done it yet, I would expect both ATI and Nvidia to offer a work around in a future driver update.

mcnablejr3242d ago

lol you needed to point that out.... good old pc gaming..

CernaML3242d ago

I have a GTX 260 Core 216 and I even tried forcing AA using Nvidia's Control Panel. Still didn't seem to do anything. Unless I'm doing something wrong. Oh well, I'm sure a whole bunch of mods will fix that. :)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3242d ago
3242d ago Replies(3)
gillri3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

PC version looks about 5% better, and my xbox cost me £100

ME is a console RPG at heart with the action combat and cinematic gameplay whereas DA (which I got for the PC) is a PC RPG at heart,

the 360 version has better metacritic score than the PC version whereas its vice-versa with DA which I think is correct

Personally I was always getting the 360 version. third person shooting are always better with control pads and I hate fiddling with settings

plus I have a 46 inch TV downstairs and a comfy ssofa

360 version for sure

Raf1k13242d ago

I think you'll find there isn't much to fiddle about with as the PC version is a direct port with a little tweaking for PC controls.

The only options you'll find are the standard resolution options and the rest are just shadows and various effects that you can either turn on or off which don't make a huge difference. That's all there is to it.

It also runs better than the first game which is good since if you were able to play the first you won't have any trouble with this one.

Christopher3242d ago

There is a lot you can tweek, just not from the in-game options.

Go into the UI and Game INI files and there's a lot more that can be modified, even to improve graphical quality a bit, though you'll take a big hit in performance on older machines/graphic cards.

wicko3242d ago

It has a worse metacritic score on PC, because PC games don't fall into hype as easily as console owners. It takes a lot more to satisfy a pc owner than a console owner, and rightfully so.