Face Off: Digital Foundry vs Reality

Yes believe it or not, some people out there believe that not only is the Xbox 360 equal to the PlayStation 3 in power but is actually superior as well. One prime example is Richard Leadbetter, the writer of the Digital Foundry blog. His latest attempt is their latest comparison Face Off: Final Fantasy XIII. It's about time someone called him out.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ClownBelt3202d ago

Digital Foundry got busted...hahaha

CrippleH3202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

That comparison article was pretty damn biased. A lot of the talk was how the 360 version could have been better rather then talking about shadow quality, texture quality, and etc. I don't see them doing the same thing with Bayonetta PS3 version.

FamilyGuy3202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

I noticed all these things (360 defending, PS3 downplaying) when I read the DF FF13 article but I had never read the bayo one for contrast. I also completely forgot who it was (in gaming media) that had made that extremely bold claim/speculation/prediction of the 360 version being better once the game finally got released. I remember that article clearly and even considered that the guy might end up right because of how well thought out it was. I even encouraged people not to boast about which would be better just in case that did happen.

Everything he said was like getting all the best arguments from this site about PS3 vs 360 situations (on this subject) and spreading them out so everyone could see them clearly. *clap clap clap* BRAVO!

PS1 ff titles 7 8 and 9 were linear, SE claiming 13 on PS3 wouldn't be compromised yet coincidentally it ends up "linear as a string" with all exploration done at the end or the the 360 version case, entirely on the 3rd disc.

DF has lost a lot of credit today.

DevastationEve3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

This guy makes an absurd case. He doesn't understand the way that Square Enix decided to port FF XIII from the PC to the consoles. There is an architectural difference when working on PC 360 or PS3, in particular the two consoles have different approaches to how graphics work is done. Speaking of graphics, both PS3 and Xbox 360 are comparable in specs and are both considered HD gaming consoles.

Xbox 360 has a very powerful graphics chip that gives developers a 48-way unified pipeline to utilize for graphics and a tripple core dual threaded PPC 970 cpu for all other work. Xenos has support for hardware tesselation, and Xenos itself has 10MB of eDRAM "intelligent memory" for its framebuffer. The daughter die consists of additional logic for handling intensive framebuffer functions, and 192 pixel processors to supply extreme pixel fillrate. Xbox 360 has 512MB of GDDR3 memory that's unified and shared between cpu and gpu.

PS3 takes a backwards approach and uses a less pipeline efficient gpu coupled with a cpu that's designed to take on more than just AI. RSX does its job to process pixels but as developers start taking advantage of CellBE for its potential to do more graphics work RSX will see its use be more strategicly focused on pixel fillrate than vertex processing. Unfortunately RSX's memory isn't fast enough to compete with Xenos's eDRAM, so lots of games on PS3 don't have antialiasing. Developers have recently worked on utilizing CellBE to solve the problem, however it means having to utilize more of the XDR memory. So Sony releases updates to the SDK to free up more memory for use by developers.

There's the spec story for you. But there's one more piece of the story that's also important. Xbox 360 has consistetly matched PS3 in graphics despite being the cheaper of the two. And will continue to drive home the games I want, 5 years into the game. FF XIII was always on my list, and soon it's gonna be on my shelf. Good day :D

barom3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

lol, I was quite the avid reader of DF actually and I always thought they were more professional than lens of truth (which I still think) but I guess he is right. I always disliked it when he/they began putting in opinions in his "analysis" as they always seemed 360 biased but I figured it was just me being a PS3 fanboy and saw it that way. I guess I was right then and it wasn't my biased state of mind. The FFXIII comparison was actually extremely clear, the whole focus of that article was what the 360 port should've been instead of doing their regular face off. Then he did that "it's all about gameplay" statement when clearly the story and presentation in FF series has always been a key factor of its popularity.

Anyway I still think DF gives a more clear picture of the tech than any other site but I must say I lost a TON of respect for them/him.

ShinRyuHadoken3201d ago

''Someone preorder this fool an ambulance for March 16th because this dude is literally going to fall back once he witnesses the graphical might of Sony's God of War III.''

Hahahahah. LOL! Great article! Digital Foundry are corrupt this is the fact.

UltraNova3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

Digital Foundry got obliterated.. They are clearly biased against the ps3.. For all their technical knowledge their prediction about the 360 version of FF13 being superior to the ps3 throws even that down the drain..

Anyway all these face offs were crap to begin with..

jack_burt0n3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

<edit>f**k it. lol

CrippleH3201d ago

Or just stick to Lensoftruth. I might get disagrees thanks to posting Lensoftruth though.

andron3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

This article doesn't prove much bias. The article is in itself biased against DF and makes half-baked accusations and dubious claims. Taking quotes out of context and providing no counter arguments doesn't make this article any better than what it's trying to criticize DF for apparently doing. Not a great argument.

I read all DF articles and find them mostly on point and informative. Are they perfect? No probably not, but overall they have the best PC and console comparisons.

They had already done an article on the PS3 version:

The face-off focuses more on the 360 version and the corners cut in porting the game. It's fair pointing out that the port isn't all it could have been, that's what 360 owners would like to know. It could have spent some more time on the differences.

I, myself am a PS3 owner and find these accusations of DF a bit paranoid. They in no way downplay that the PS3 version is the best or it's strengths. If more people read DF whole articles instead of just some quotes this kind of fanboyish accusations wouldn't even be possible...


kwyjibo3201d ago

He goes in depth to compare the technical aspects between games that are released.

He's not there to debate over whether a feature was cut in development due to multiplatform constraints - which is what this entirely idiotic article is about.

He takes a look at what's in front of him, and makes a fairly objective judgement. Obviously, this isn't good enough for those blinded by pure emotive love for corporation X.

Evocation3201d ago

While I think DF genrally do do a good job, and quite often have praised the PS3 with it's exclusives, like uncharted.
I do sometimes feel the faceoff's are boring as sometimes they use known bad ports, and when a PS3 version does have an advantagse it often feels downplayed.

DaTruth3201d ago

My comment of the original article was pretty much the same... Just the shorter version! But most people were too caught up with the, "in your face"(PS3 fans), and the, "they look the same" damage control(360 fans), to discuss this aspect of the article!

ProjectVulcan3201d ago

Reads like a rant to me. The guy accuses digital foundry of overlooking positive aspects of PS3 games and 360 bias, but fails to himself point out how amazed digital foundry were at powerhouses like uncharted 2 and killzone 2 which got their own dedicated articles, stuffed full of impressed comments about the technology.

tinybigman3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

the only ones who care about comparisons are the idiot fanboys who refuse to be gamers, and hate on consoles they can't afford it seems or refuse to get for some dumba$$ reasons.

im so glad i have all 3 systems as to not give two craps about this stuff. this dude from DF can downplay one aspect and play up another all he wants it wasnt going to stop me from buying the PS3 version the version i was going to buy from day one of its announcement.

have any of you read the comments from that article? its funny how some were talking about failure rates of PS1 and PS2; as i've only had 1 PS1, and 2 PS2.

for those living off of comparsions do yourselves a favor and just move on, and play the games on whatever system you like.

gaffyh3201d ago

What he's saying makes sense, but I don't think the article is very well-written. Most of what he says seems to have nothing to do with his topic, and article is way too long.

All I can really tell from this article is that when an Xbox 360 game is worse, the writer (DF) becomes apologetic, but when a PS3 game is bad, the writer attacks with all his might.

Dude4203201d ago

There's a point in the article when he quotes DF's take on the DVD/Blu-ray formats, then he goes on to say that DF is "hating" on blu-ray. I did not see any hate on blu-ray whatsoever, am I missing something?

Sure he MENTIONED blu-ray, but he just remarks about the storage available on it.

Either I'm missing something, or this is just a stupid paranoid idiot.

Statix3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

The 360 has only "consistently matched the PS3" in terms of multiplatform games--and that is only because the vast majority of multiplatform games are lead-developed on the 360 and ported (sometimes poorly) to the PS3, or because the PS3 version receives less attention than is optimal in a multiplatform development environment. When the reverse is true, and you see a game that first began development on the PS3 (i.e., lead-developed), you see what happens (re: FFXIII).

Oh yeah, and you saying "the 360 is the cheaper system" is fallacious. Microsoft may sell you the actual core system for less than a full-featured PS3, but they more than make up the difference by charging high prices for add-ons and subscription fees (Xbox Live fees, hard drive add-on, wifi adapter). The net result is that a normal Xbox setup ends up costing MUCH, much more than a PS3.

So no, it's not cheaper, but more expensive.

andron3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

Just to prove my previous point about this article being biased and flamebait, I will put some "pro" PS3 comments from the DF comparison to show that this article just ignored any positive PS3 quotes to make it's point:

"This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha."

""Adequate but a touch disappointing" best sums up the Xbox 360 version. Fine edges lose precision, and while the effect is mitigated thanks to the MSAA along with the multitude of post processing effects the engine has at its disposal, the fact is that the lack of resolution can make the 360 build look sub-par. The clean CG look of the PS3 game in motion is unduly compromised, and while it's still a handsome enough title on Xbox 360, it lacks the pristine presentation of its sibling. "

"Unfortunately, when any particular scene ramps up the motion, the encoding solution Square has employed collapses horribly. Detail disappears in a sea of macroblocking and banding, while the PS3 version remains pretty close to pristine thanks to the incredible amount of bandwidth (and thus video information) available."

"So, occasionally fine, sometimes grim: a statement that effectively sums up how much of Final Fantasy XIII looks on Xbox 360 when compared to the PlayStation 3 game, meaning that if you own both consoles, there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision. "

These are all comments from DF FFXIII comparison. And if you looked at these without the rest of the text you'd think DF was PS3 fanboys. This is the kind of flawed case this article makes and it's just not true....

blackmagic3201d ago

This blogger is quite the conspiracist...

IdleLeeSiuLung3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

This is at best the pot calling the kettle, but I suspect is just the the pot!

Gameonsmash unfortunately only give you one view and there are plenty of articles or even opinions in that one article to support the PS3. The FF XIII article points out where the 360 version could have been better. How is that biased? Clearly the 360 version was a rushed job and developed much later. Even the video encodes was of low quality as many sites have pointed out.

Missing features in a game (the towns)? Many major games reboot and make changes to their core game play, but that suddenly now an issue?

Basically the whole article reeks of fanboyism with no opposing view! Even in some parts of the opinion piece, he quotes big chunks of DF. In fact, so big that his point is lost not to mention proves the opposite! Many of his quotes are PS3 positive!!! Some of his conclusion can only be done by a conspiracist!

I lost all respect for GamesonSmash after reading that article. It was as if a high schooler wrote it!!!

What I want to know is, can this guy write a better article? Show us some technical know how? Why is the 360 inferior as he so adamantly suggest in the first intro (which by the way, sounds very fanboyish)?

Give me something other than DF said this, therefore he meant this i.e. putting words in DFs mouth.

rexus123453201d ago

It's listed on their profile:
"Digital Foundry is one of only 20 video studios worldwide approved by Microsoft for PC and Xbox 360 high definition video projects"

Highatus3201d ago

Here's the difference.

If DF wanted to call out Square-Enix on the shortcomings of FFXIII on the Xbox360 then they should have done a call out article for it.

Not through a comparison piece in which they did. I just read through this article and DF's Face off article. The article at Games is correct for the most part. The article for the Face off however does come off bias, and for the most part negative not only for the Xbox360 but for the PS3 as well.

Essentially he writes where Square failed to 'optimize' for the 360 in each comparison segment paragraph then in one sentence somehow tries to spin how the PS3 seemingly has crippled the 360 version.

I believe there are two instances where he makes a somewhat postive remark about the PS3 in his comparison. This doesn't make sense in a 'comparison' piece! Three pages of an article and two semi positive remarks in regards to the PS3 version?

Like I said previously; If DF's article was a comparison piece then why is there only two relatively positive statements in the entire article about the PS3 version if it was so superior? Why not more positive on what Square did right on the PS3 version?

DF should have done a comparison piece and a call out piece. Unfortunately DF's comparison comes off negative from the get go, ultimately resulting and coming off as a rant more than an article.

pixelsword3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

I couldn't believe someone finally called them out on that in an article.


I said similar things myself.

I liked some of their stuff, but that FFXIII article was just an apologetic article instead of a critique.

After this game is rated, there will be a lot of back-reading into multiplats to see of the same "standards" are held when one game is declared "better looking" or "better playing" than another.

3201d ago
exnihilonihilfit3201d ago

You really have no point.

Obviously blu-ray is in the same family of storage media as DVD, just as DVD is in the same family as CD. Would you say that DVD isn't a significant improvement over CD? Should the 360 just be running off of CD's? If so, then you can stick to your guns, but the real question is why not choose bluray? The point of any "next gen" storage media is to have two things, more capacity and ideally improved read speed. Unfortunately blu-ray sacrifices some speed, but it makes such a significant improvement on capacity, there's no reason not to switch if you do in fact need more storage. It's clear that you're only making this argument out of some trivial bias, which you don't really need to bother with. What makes for better storage... more storage, duh! The recent spate of triple-A PS3 exclusives has demonstrated in many different ways the advantages of bluray, and none of these recent exclusives have yet been matched in terms of graphical quality by anything on the Xbox. The only game that would appear to come close is the up and coming Alan Wake, which I believe may be able to achieve near UC2 quality, but GOWIII, in my opinion, has already raised the bar, and the PS3's graphical capability has only just begun to be unlocked, thanks in large part to more storage.


Thanks for quoting the same tired old argument that everyone already knows. I don't even know why you bothered saying that, as no one made any claims about the GPUs. As for qualifying the approach as "backwards" that's an opinion which does not take into account that Sony didn't invest as much in the development of the RSX GPU because they wanted to focus on the Cell CPU. If anything, they were attempting to be forward thinking, as it was their development theory that CPU's will take on a more important role in graphical processing over time. That theory hasn't exactly born fruit, as no other products currently use this approach, but the genius of it is that now PS3 developers have familiarized themselves with techniques for getting around GPU limitations and for optimizing the use of the CPU for graphics processing. This will come in handy in future generations even if powerful GPUs are integrated because a GPU can only do so much, and once you've optimized its use, if you have the knowhow, you can turn to the CPU to add to your pool of resources. That said, the architectural approach of the PS3 will probably not be utilized much in the near future as product developers appear to be sticking with other trends, but that doesn't take away from the PS3's current power. The fact is that the best of the Xbox has not been shown to match the best of the PS3 in terms of graphics so far, and the PS3 has consistently out paced the Xbox in terms of graphical quality of it's exclusives since very early in the generation, e.g. Uncharted 1 looks demonstrably better than Gears of War 2 which came out much later and at the time of its release was considered by many to have the best graphics on Xbox. The processing advantages of the Cell clearly make up for the short comings of the RSX and then some, and though the difference is relatively marginal as compared with the ever versatile PC, PS3 is indisputably more powerful than the Xbox - a fact that has been demonstrated time and again (just look at the fact that the military uses the damn things as super computers).

baum3201d ago

Because according to him, Eurogamer is pretty neutral regarding PS3 and Xbox 360.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 3201d ago
PirateThom3202d ago

That guy from Digital Foundary just got his ass handed to him.

kaveti66163202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

I call bull, dude.

I read that entire article, which by the way was poorly written (probably in haste), and the writer basically labels different quotes from Digital Foundry as bashes against the Blu-Ray. And I didn't see it that way at all.

"This failure is compounded by the fact that Square-Enix hasn't even made full use of all the disk space it has available. Around 1GB of storage is left empty on discs one and two of FFXIII, and you have to wonder why all that empty space couldn't have been repurposed for higher bandwidth encoding. Perhaps it's because of the background loading taking place while the cut-scenes play out, but regardless, the hit to quality using Bink is often unacceptably bad."


Where in that quote from DF do they actually bash the Blu-Ray?

If you can explain to me how they bash Blu-Ray from that quote I will take back my comment, but I just don't agree with it.

Apparently, DF was just pointed out that a good amount of space on the 360 version's discs was not utilized at all. How is that a bash against Blu-Ray? It sounds to me like DF is just criticizing Square-Enix for what they perceive to be a lousy port.

You know what I don't get? When Bayonetta on the PS3 was inferior to the 360 version, it was painfully obvious that it was just a sh*tty port by Sega. And it definitely was.

But as soon as this multiplatform game ended up looking better on PS3 than 360, the PS3 fanboys said, "What do you expect, you're working with sh*tty hardware." It's kind of a double standard. Sure, the DVD-6.8 that MS uses forced Square Enix to make the game more linear. No objections there, but after doing that, and spreading the game across multiple discs, why did the 360 version still end up looking as bad as it did? Was it merely a space issue or was there a performance cap with the hardware? DF was addressing their concerns and opinions. And this yahoo hastily wrote a crappy, grammatically "Holocaust-ed" opinion piece to bash DF.

Digital Foundry was considered an expert source, and now that it's calling out SE for making a crappy 360 port, the PS3 fanboys are upset. They'll do anything now to discredit Digital Foundry and whoever else disagrees with their opinion.

Ravage273202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

you might want to check out the DF Bayonetta comparison, they were basically treating it like a gift from the gods that took advantage of the 360 architecture. Not one word about the laziness of PG programmers, it was all about how the PS3 couldn't achieve this and that.

Fast forward a few months, you get a similar situation. This time, the entire piece came across as an apologetic push-the-blame damage control written by a sobbing 360 enthusiast. It's all about how SE failed the 360. Instead of acknowledging that the BluRay gave the PS3 an advantage in data-heavy games like ff13, they pulled BS out from their asses with
"The Microsoft XDK ships with a VC1 decoder, giving it the ability to playback video files encoded using technology supported by Blu-ray discs and players. Indeed, movie pirates out there get excellent quality VC1 encodes of Blu-ray movies that manage to fit onto a dual-layer DVD and run from the Xbox 360 dashboard.Decent encoding takes time and effort, but the results can look good - even on challenging material. Combine this with the fact that the game doesn't need the 1080p-sized video the PS3 version boasts" I'm not going to lengthen my already lengthy post explaining the amount of fail in this, check out the neogaf forums for more info.

I'm pretty sure they expected their preferred version to be superior, no doubt they were gutted and are just being anal about it. It seems to literally kill these guys to admit that the PS3 has certain hardware advantages over the 360, the bias has never been clearer.

kaveti66163202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

I don't think it's fair to selectively take out parts of Digital Foundry's analysis and spin it to make them look like fanboys.

I watched the Digital Foundry analysis of the Uncharted 2 trailer when it first was released, and they didn't say anything negative there. They were praising the ambient occlusion techniques and all of that. I understand that one or two parts of the DF analysis may sound anal retentive but figure it this way.

DF says that the 360 version DOES NOT need to boast the 1080p CG of the PS3 version. Now, the guy who wrote this article claims that DF is asserting that Blu-Ray is NOT NEEDED this generation, but all I got from that was that DF was criticizing the fact that the 360 version was 576p and could have been better, but didn't need to be as good as the PS3 version. Basically, it sounds to me like DF would agree that the 360 version would never look as good as the PS3 version, but at the same time, it was still poorly ported. Digitial Foundry's reasoning for this was given by their discovery that 1 gigabyte of space from two of the 3 discs was not utilized.

Sure, all that technical yahoo goes way over my head, but my discerning of the analysis didn't reveal any fanboyism on the part of DF. Now, the whole Bayonetta article is a different issue. I haven't read it, and I would assume that if DF said Bayonetta could never be done properly on PS3 the way it was done on 360, I would be suspicious too.

But maybe DF was saying that it could never be perfectly ported to the PS3 because of the architectural differences between the PS3 and 360. If Bayonetta was designed specifically around the 360 architecture, then I would also claim that a flawless port is not possible. The game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up on the PS3.

ClownBelt3202d ago

"If Bayonetta was designed specifically around the 360 architecture, then I would also claim that a flawless port is not possible. The game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up on the PS3."

And the same can't be said to the PS3 FF 13 version right?

DelbertGrady3202d ago (Edited 3202d ago )

Mis-take post :)

Anyways, are the BF BC 2 servers up yet?

Hakimy3201d ago

@kaveti6616: I agree with you.the article is indeed poorly written.Not only that but it had some false info as well,especially the Mikami part.why? because Mikami had nothing to do with Bayonetta's Kamiya's game,not Mikami.He is also not the director of Devil may cry!in fact,you guys should skip the Mikami part in this article cus it's full of false info.
oh and this guy didn't like what DF said about tekken and NG? DF said that Tekken looks better on the ps3 and that NGS2 is the version to pick over NG2 so how is this being called an xbox360 fanboy? the guy just preferred the ps3 version for crying out loud!
also using the word "xbot" shows that writer is the fanboy here.every console has its own advantages.just because you guys are upset that other sites haven't scored the xbox360 version lower than the ps3 version doesn't mean that all media is biased.I'm a ps3 fan,but I think you guys take things waaaaay too seriously :P

Rock Bottom3201d ago

The article was badly written, and most of the point he was trying to pass were pulled out of his fanboy imagination.

Why base anything on such an article, go to the source and see for yourself. Read the DF's Bayonetta article and see how they never mention anything about bad programing and made it look like the PS3 just can't handle Bayonetta, then switch to FFXIII article to see how they bash SE for there bad programing/video encoding.

ClownBelt3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

It's Minami not Mikami. That alone proves your lack of knowledge on the subject.

" All of which seems somewhat at odds with a statement put out by PlatinumGames' Tatsuya Minami. "With Bayonetta, we created the Xbox 360 version of the game first, and then handed off all the data and other assets to SEGA so they could begin the process of porting Bayonetta to the PS3, giving them advice regarding the porting process along the way and overseeing the progress to ensure that the PS3 version would be the best it could be," he wrote."

Yeah he has nothing to do with the game. You got caught with your lying...

@ Rock Bottom

" Read the DF's Bayonetta article and see how they never mention anything about bad programing and made it look like the PS3 just can't handle Bayonetta"

How about you read the Bayoneta DF face off first?

" As it is, the layering of transparencies, the sheer amount of them all over the screen, plus the added overhead of post-processing - it's the sort of thing that you shouldn't really be making central to the game experience in a multi-platform release, because the PS3 hardware just doesn't compete in this regard. Short of completely rewriting the game in the way that Tecmo did for the PS3 rendition of Ninja Gaiden 2, Bayonetta is always going to have problems. Even if the overdraw (transparency upon transparency) levels were reduced, the sheer amount of effects on-screen at any given point is never going to favour the RSX.

So, if the conversion work is disappointing, how about the game itself as a whole? It's fair to say that the performance you see in the PS3 demo is pretty much akin to the game running on its very best terms: it can get a whole lot worse. "

They never even criticized Sega for the bad port. They just kept rambling how Sega did all their best and the PS3 has the problem. This is not the case on FF 13 now is it?

Edit. Before I get all the disagrees. I just want to point out that I don't disagree with their comparison or all the tech crap they can spew since I don't know that stuff. I just don't like how he can blame the system on one game(Bayoneta) then once the other system got the problem(FF 13), he blames the developer for it.


Yeah my bad.

Hakimy3201d ago

@ClownBelt: wrong dude.the article talks about shinji didn't even mention minami at all!now who shows lack of knowledge on the subject? ;)

Rock Bottom3201d ago


So you try to prove me wrong and then you go and say:

"I just don't like how he can blame the system on one game(Bayoneta) then once the other system got the problem(FF 13), he blames the developer for it."

Which is exactly what I was trying to say?... You're weird.

Let me put my previous comment in simple(er) words.

DF has double standards, 'cause:
DF --> Bayonetta --> PS3 can't handle it.
DF --> FFXIII --> Bad programing from SE.

Am I clear now?

Information Minister3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

I was going to write a comment exposing just how differently DF treated Bayonetta/PS3 and FFXIII/360, but I see Ravage27 and Clownbelt got ahead of me. And then Rock Bottom pretty much nailed it:

"DF has double standards, 'cause:
DF --> Bayonetta --> PS3 can't handle it.
DF --> FFXIII --> Bad programing from SE."

The simple fact that we have yet to see a single website giving a lower score to the 360 version of FFXIII (even those who had no problem doing it with Bayonetta on PS3) is proof enough of double standards. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Darrius Cole3201d ago (Edited 3201d ago )

I read the Bayonetta face-off, the Ninja Gaiden 2 / Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 face-off, and the Final Fantasy XIII face-off, all before this opinion piece was written.

Ravage27 is correct.

In the Bayonetta face-off, as well as the NG2/NGS2 face-off the DF guy did say plainly that the games were doing things that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate on the PS3 without re-writing the game. In the case of NGS2 he went on to say that re-writing the game code was exactly what they did. In contrast, with FFXIII he never said or implied that that what FFXIII was trying to do was close to impossible to replicate on the 360.

I think that :

1. The DF guy appears to have a slight lean toward the 360 (emphasis on SLIGHT). That lean probably is more as a programmer than as a gamer and I don't think its enough to outweigh or significantly color his analysis. I suspect that he is simply more familiar with 360 or 360-like programming, and as a result sees more options when trying to do something on a 360. By contrast he is probably less familiar with PS3 or PS3-like programming and simply doesn't see as many options with bringing 360 code to PS3.

I don't mean that as a knock on him. All reports say that PS3 coding is harder than 360 coding. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, he seems to be more comfortable with the notion that "porting 360 code to PS3 is hard" than with the notion that "porting PS3 code to 360 is hard."

With Bayonetta to PS3 he was like "porting this would be almost impossible because...(no good option).

With NG2 to NGS2(PS3) he was like "porting NG2 to PS3 would give you nightmares because..., they were right to re-code the game from scratch".(again, no good option. He says starting with a blank slate is better than porting).

With FFXIII he was like "had they taken time with the port they could have done X, Y, or Z." (He sees options)

2a. I think the unfairly good treatment of FXXIII(360) is because of the money behind the game. Both from Square-Enix and from Microsoft. With Bayonetta the DF guy says its hard to recommend Bayonetta PS3 to people who have NGS2 and DMC4 as options. It seems clear to me that Mass Effect 2 is a better option than FFXIII to someone who has a 360, but he makes no mention of that. Why not? Must be the money.

2b. Likewise, the other review sites are NOT criticizing FF13(360) for looking worse than FF13(PS3). Why not? Every other game got criticized in words and review scores for this; why is FF13 so special? My answer: the money.

2c. FF13 releases in the two days. Reviewers seem to be avoiding it like plague. It only has 16 reviews as of today (March 07, 2010, 1:00PM CST). Saying nothing at all is better than saying something bad I guess. It also has a higher metacritic on 360 than PS3 (83 vs. 82). How is this possible for a port that has been verified to be inferior by essentially every measure? (That is not an exaggeration or a figure of speech, but a fact.) My answer = the money.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3201d ago
GOS_SAND-MAN3202d ago

i do have to say,, a lot of the reports on some of these articles are really dumb

stonecold13202d ago

this site shpould be closed oh well the bots got owned better luck next time folks these bias site should be closed or black listed

Droid Smasha3201d ago

give it up there is NOTHING you can do about it

and it has exclusive advertising in the US and its on THREE DISCS and its STILL NOT getting scored worse than the ps3 version

I know you roaches are PISSED hahahahaha

raztad3201d ago

This is not nice bots. I'm temporary banned to the Open Zone because I used the word "xtards" w/o making any personal reference. Talk about x-mods controlling this site. At the same time trolls like Bungie/we won/etc etc has full access to the Gamer zone. Good work. Raztad will be online again in a couple of days.


Read this article comparing Forza 3 and GT5PROLOGUE and how Digital Foundry does DAMAGE CONTROL on GT5PROLOGUE trouncing Forza 3.

jack_burt0n3202d ago

Article gets an amen from me.