Top
850°

BioShock 2 Xbox 360 vs. PS3 - Screenshot Comparison

In that screenshot comparison Videogameszone checked the differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360 version BioShock 2. Hint: Click on "Screenshot in HD" to view them in original size.

Read Full Story >>
videogameszone.de
The story is too old to be commented.
zeeshan3232d ago

I don't see any difference. WELL DONE 2KMARIN!

Bungie3232d ago

that's great

they both look exactly the same

jaidek3232d ago

Something fishy is going on with these images. I have a feeling they have mixed up a few. Take a look at this one, now the Xbox 360 has sharper textures:
http://www.videogameszone.d...

3232d ago
SilentNegotiator3232d ago

They're the same. Same res and AA.
The 360 version is a bit darker, that's 'bout it.

EDIT: What's with the major screen tear in the first shot?
I'd like to see Digital Foundry's examination on this.

BTW, good work 2KMARIN. Much better than that sub-par port you gave us two years back.

sack_boi3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

All those that think these screen shots look the same need to get their eyes checked.

StanLee3232d ago

Like always, I'll wait for Digital Foundry to make their comparison.

SL1M DADDY3232d ago

I will get the version for the console I have most friends on. The graphicsl differences are so slight that it comes down to fun with buddies.

LONEWOLF2313232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

Seriously man this is the same stupid website that has always either mixed up the Pictures and/or takes the pics when the 360 is loading its textures!All so that the Ps3 version can look superior. I dont know about you guys but ill wait for the Lens of Truth to do the comparisons the PROPER way THE non-biased WAY!! These guys did the EXACT same thing with that failed game Dark Void, they took comparison shot right when the 360 version was loading its textures! These guys are FAIL plain and simple!

SilentNegotiator3232d ago

What would it matter? Even if they switched them ALL, there's almost NO differences between them anyhow.

Solidus187-SCMilk3232d ago

like usual these pics are not even the same. I could probably get more comparable shots without even trying if I was to do this.

BlackAvenger73232d ago

Even If he is a known fanboy (and some time's a troll), I don't see anything wrong with his comment!!

Sarcasm3232d ago

It must be my eyes, but there's a pretty clear difference... The PS3 version is sharper. Look at image 2, where it says "Fallen Fallen is Babylon" and "Adonis Luxury Resort" You cant even read the 360 version.

http://www.videogameszone.d...

Strange... I was actually going to rent the 360 version because I finished the original on the 360. Looks like I'm just going with the PS3 version then.

heroprotagonist3232d ago

@SeNiLe911

Yeah, in that screenshot the 360 version looks more detailed, especially in the rocks and in the ceiling on the upper right. The PS3 version also looks a little blurrier in that shot.

But again, I don't really find this site's captures to be reliable. I will wait for comparisons from sites that have proven to be accurate.

Danteh3232d ago

wow, thought I would never say this, but look at the second screenshot!
the PS3 version is vastly superior... the words are much sharper :O

Sub4Dis3232d ago

they never throw in the PC comparisons. already got it preordered on steam. I got the first one for console, but when i bought the 2nd for PC they included the first one for free. i can safely say there's a huge difference. can't wait to play the 2nd.

JasonPC360PS3Wii3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

LOL this site just fumbled the ball

NewZealander3232d ago

this site is [email protected], they always do the worst pic comparisons.

wait for lens of truth not this wannabe site.

thewhoopimen3232d ago

The first 4-5 shots had me thinking the ps3 version was better, but then the last 4-5 had me thinking the 360 was better. My conclusion? A draw.

I think the problem with these pics comes down to very one simple thing. There is no LOD to speak of in this game. So really how the textures look depends upon how close or far the person is when taking an image capture of the scene . I think I am making a pretty qualified statement when I say that the closer you are to the object... the blurrier it gets in this game.

If you review all the pics again, maybe we can all correlate this. I say whichever console took a further shot away from the scene has sharper textures. The lighting effects may also be slightly different between the two consoles.

SilentNegotiator3232d ago

@1.13
Oh crap, you're right. I don't know how I missed that.

@1.14
Take into account that he's twice as close to the rocks in one compared to the other.

DaTruth3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

Those look mixed up! In some the PS3 version looks vastly superior and in others the 360 version looks vastly superior! There is one really blurry version, but it looks so bad, I can't believe it's real!

Looks like PC versus consoles; But I can't even believe a console version looks that bad!

fanboi hater3232d ago

you are all forgetting how horrible of an engine unreal 3 is. I'm fairly sure that the differences can be attributed to the textures not fully loading when the capture was taken. Just my two cents other than that they look the same.

execution173232d ago

the 360 version would look better xD guess i was wrong

mikeslemonade3232d ago

But killzone 2 looks better than Bioshock 2, so it don't matter which version of Bioshock 2 is better because it's only marginal.

FACTUAL evidence3232d ago

Bubbles for you m8!! SIKE!! Wow that ps3 version is the ruler of all...dam!

boodybandit3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

^ I stopped reading your comment there considering you are "supposedly" new to N4G. How would you know what members are what if you basically just joined N4G? Oh I know the answer. I think we all do.

BlackAvenger73232d ago

And by "just joined" u mean? been checking the site for 2-3 months now, but recently created an account(almost a week ago)..

Sorry, but ur not as smart as u think u r!

Perkel3232d ago

lol:
i thought it would look better on x360...
http://www.videogameszone.d...

gamer20103232d ago

Minor differences as far as what can be seen in the screenshots. But we need to see proper comparisons to know if their are any other differences.

vhero3232d ago

@jaidek its not the first time I have seen that from that site where one console looks better in one set of shots then another looks better in another set. That site is very unreliable for comparison shots but once again I have to say it. DO we HAVE to have one of these articles everytime a multi-platform game is released SERIOUSLY??

callahan093231d ago (Edited 3231d ago )

From what I can see from the screen-shot that FangBlade posted at 1.1, the 360 version is blurrier but that is probably a result of anti-aliasing. I notice the scene isn't as sharp, but there's also less aliasing on the loose concrete slabs in the foreground. It's a tradeoff. Anti-aliasing with a little loss of sharpness, or sharpness with a bit of aliasing? Both versions may not be identical, but they even out to be pretty darn equal I think. Some of the other shots make the PS3 version look less sharp, but what I noticed every one of these shots is that the textures that appear blurrier are always closer to the camera. Like the rocks on the ground & the footprints on the floor shots, he is standing a lot closer to these focal points on the PS3 version than the 360 version, which make effect how sharp the textures look in the shots. Overall it's a pretty poor comparison because the shots are not staged similarly enough to make a truly fair comparison.

+ Show (29) more repliesLast reply 3231d ago
The Meerkat3232d ago

In some pics the PS3 looks better.
In others the 360.

Which has the best frame rate?

jaidek3232d ago

I agree, it all comes down to performance. The other issue I have with this sites images is that they are inconsistent. Some images are further away, others have different angles and even weapons. Makes it hard to compare 1 to 1.

SilentNegotiator3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

Some look better?

The only differences I saw was a screen tear in the first screen on the 360 side (And that might be common on both sides for all we know) and a blurry hand-print texture on the one PS3 side (And THAT might be because he's 2x closer in the PS3 shot.

But I agree about wanting to know about the frame-rates. I'm sure they won't be too far off from each other, they usually aren't these days (excluding some games of pornstar witches).

bunfighterii3231d ago

I think if its that hard to compare 1 to 1, then they both are pretty much the same.

Alcon Caper3232d ago

Learned not to trust this site. Lens of Truth is better.

SilentNegotiator3232d ago

If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what they did to lose your trust? A specific comparison, perhaps.

JeffGUNZ3232d ago

It's that this site is not as percise as the other. This site does take the screen shots at the same moments, they are doing different things. Like in one of those pics the PS3 pic shows the guy just standing there while below it shows the 360 pic of him shooting the plasmid from the left hand. Lens of truth gets the pictures identical and the frame-rates are spot on for both in lens of truth. I just am able to see a clearer and more decisive difference then this site. Some pictures on this one show the 360 to be blurry and a few pictures show the PS3 to be blurry. This site is just not as good as lens of truth. It has done that with MW2 and I think borderlands too.

CWMR3232d ago

-Yeah, this site seems a little flaky. Their comparisons often do not agree with what other comparisons show and they do not represent what I see when I actually compare the games myself. Something is very strange about their screenshots.

So, like many other people, I will wait for the more in-depth analysis from Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry. Especially Digital Foundry. Their comparisons and technical analysis go deeper than those of anyone else.-

Alcon Caper3232d ago

agreed. digital foundry is very good.

IdleLeeSiuLung3232d ago (Edited 3232d ago )

I will wait for Lens of Truth or Digital Foundry.

However, either way I will enjoy this game! The first one was amazing and I doubt any differences is significant enough to change the game play experience (sans performance though)....

heroprotagonist3232d ago

Digital Foundry is the best. Lens of Truth also do a pretty good job, but Digital Foundry have more technical knowledge and they go a little deeper in their analysis. Several of the people that contribute to Digital Foundry are programmers/developers and they have a lot of knowledge about the technical side of video games.

Lens of Truth do their best to be unbiased but they sometimes miss things or they come to strange conclusions. For example, I bought the PS3 version of Mirror's Edge based on the fact that Lens of Truth claimed the PS3 version was better, only to later play the 360 version and realize that it was better. The PS3 version has more jaggies and screen tearing and otherwise the two versions were very similar. They gave it to the PS3 version because they liked the way Faith's hands in the PS3 version look in certain places and because of some subtle artifacting in the shadows in one location in the 360 version. Believe me, I have played through both versions and the things Lens of Truth mentioned are minuscule and are not seen 95% of the time, while the difference in screen tearing and anti-aliasing affects basically the entire game. It's for a few cases like these that I don't trust Lens of Truth 100%, but they are still doing a pretty good job and I appreciate their general lack of bias.

I like them both, but Digital Foundry has been a little more reliable in my experience.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3232d ago
jack_burt0n3232d ago

first picture is very funny there is a huge tear thru the screen they must have seen that and done it on puprose.

SourGrapes3232d ago

Do i care if there are tiny differences? NO!