220°

CVG | Far Cry 3: PS3 vs. 360 gameplay comparison video

We put in plenty of time with the shooter to bring you our 9.4 Far Cry 3 review in which we said the shooter is "one of this year's best games" and "an experience you have to sink your (bloody) teeth into".

While we were at it we also captured footage from the console versions to bring you the Far Cry 3 PS3 vs. 360 gameplay comparison video you can view below. Which version, if any, are you planning on picking up?

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
DoomeDx4587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

I hate comparisons like this where both version have 50% of the screen..

having 2 screens both at 100% would be way better Because in that cage you can see a lightsource at the left (Xbox360 side). Which is not visible on the ps3 because of the video. making it look like the xbox360 has better lightning. While the ps3 has that lightsource too, but its just not visible

If you know what i mean? I suck at explaining things lol.

EDIT: Nevermind later in the video he changed it.
It looks like the typical Dark version (xbox) vs Bright version (ps3).

Welshy4587d ago (Edited 4586d ago )

"It looks like the typical Dark version (xbox) vs Bright version (ps3)."

Took the words right out of my mouth! Alot of people don't seem to realise even now, that a darker game isn't actually the better looking one.

I personally found playing the same game on both PS3 and 360, that the harsh dark contrast most 360 games use actually kill alot of the details making the PS3 look "washed out". In actual fact, alot of PS3 titles actually more resemble their PC counterparts but in lower res, where 360 alters it, so it looks "better" on their platform as a direct comparison to other console games as opposed to a comparison the the PC. Battlefield 3 is a pretty decent example of this.

It isn't washed out at all, thats the colour scope and detail that was intended to be there, but naturally isnt as high res as the PC, so by crushing said colours and contrasts on 360 it hides them to make it look "better".

To be honest, aren't these comparisons getting a little old hat now anyway? we're on the brink of the next gen in a year, 2 years max, and we still see arguments over negligible differences in lighting and some textures.

Bottom line? PS3 and 360 are nigh on identical and to base any purchase or compaints on minor differences like the video shown above? That's just plain tedium or being a fanboy.

Choose your platform, buy your games and have fun! Nothing else matters in gaming at the end of the day!

Ju4586d ago

I think so, too. I thought the lighting engine was better in the PS3 version and probably more sophisticated and closer to the PC implementation. Otherwise both version look identical. The over saturation might be a design decision. But it definitively shows a higher range. Cool, looks good. Have to get it ASAP.

roartj4586d ago

I switched on full range RGB on my PS3 settings. My oh my...all the multiplatform games on PS3 became almost identical to the XBOX360. Some had more screen tearings others less and there were some tiny lighting differences. But apart from that they were identical.

Kur04586d ago

If you're tv isn't set to full range 0-255 RGB then you're just crushing blacks and losing detail for the higher saturation.

Kinger89384587d ago

Seems to be missing a platform

Avernus4587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

No. Title said PS3 and xbox 360 comparison. Both consoles were in the video.

I know what you meant, but yeah...

Kinger89384587d ago

I know :) just saying they should put pc in these things too

Avernus4587d ago

...why?...I think it's common knowledge PC is superior. So it makes more sense comparing the platforms that are similar to each other.

It comes like comparing a multiplat game on the Wii, PS3, and xbox 360.

Kinger89384586d ago

Just personally want to see if its much better as ive just moved into new place and pc is upstairs consoles downstairs, want to see if its worth the hassle of bringing the pc downstairs to play it on the couch, sorry should have said

DoomeDx4587d ago

@ Avernus.

So what? Comparisons are not meant to be competitions all the time.

Its fun to see the PC next to the consoles.
Why does everyone see gaming as competition..

cannon88004587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

@ DoomeDx

You've been on n4g for a long time and you still don't know how people here are and act like? We can't change their minds. It sucks but it's the truth. I just ignore them because even if I write the most truthful statement, I'll be bombarded with disagrees just because they feel I attacked their console. Just ignore them man.

vickers5004587d ago

@DoomeDx

It's not meant to be fun, these comparisons are meant to help decide which version of the game to buy, and anyone with a gaming PC already knows which one to buy, so there's no point in including the pc version in these comparisons.

I'm not saying they shouldn't show pc footage at all, but they definitely do not need to be in these comparison videos. Besides, if you want to see pc footage, you can just go to youtube. User uploaded footage of pc games tend to be far superior in video quality to these comparison vids.

MasterCornholio4587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

Both look the same to me except for a slight difference in contrast. Like i said on youtube im happy that they didn´t ruin the PS3 version.

@Kinger8398

Well thats because this game didn´t come out on the Wii U. The PC version is almost never included in these types of comparisons because it´s common knowledge that it will be better than the console versions unless the developers screw up.

seanpitt234587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

The ps3 is so much lighter for some reason

Hicken4587d ago

It always is, in these comparisons. It's odd, because my PS3 games never look so... pale.

seanpitt234587d ago

I know all my ps3 games don't look so bright it's like the tv has got max brightness settings on

BuLLDoG9094587d ago (Edited 4587d ago )

the reason these comparisons always have the ps3 version looking paler is because they have the RGB setting to "Limited" rather then "Full RGB" in the PS3's display settings.

StanSmith4587d ago

Guys, please tell me your PS3s aren't set to RGB Full? It Should be on limited when connected to a TV and Full on a PC Monitor.

j4re4587d ago

Thank you STANSMITH. it drives me nuts when I hear the whole "it needs to be set to RGB full" over and over. Go ahead people and crush those blacks. Do a little research into it. You RGB full folks might just learn something.

greenpowerz4587d ago

Thanks stan.

Some Sony fans actually don't know what the settings are for or what they do. They use to say Super White wasn't turned on.

The point of the comparisons is not to match what a game looks like at home with various gear and quality levels but to show the differences between consoles. The 360 version doesn't look like that on my 360/TV either but with these comparisons I know the 360 version isn't gimped.

Has anybody ever stopped and realise the devs might gimp the color range due to memory limitations? High color range is info just like anything else hense why many PS3 games are at a lower resolution.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4587d ago
roartj4586d ago

Have you switched on "full range RGB" I can promise you that you will not see that difference anymore. ;-)

zero_cool4587d ago

I sense game trailers type comparison trickery with cvg's comparison video.

Cheers Gamers & Happy Holidays!

WetN00dle694587d ago

The Game looks great on consoles!

Ju4586d ago (Edited 4586d ago )

Totally agree! Vastly improved over FC2. And I thought that was quite good, too.

BTW: Looking at those videos in the link I have the feeling the PS3 version is quite improved over the 360 version. A little less tearing (even though it still does), but better distance "bluring" (360 out of focus is blurred quite a bit), awesome AA without blur (!) and overall better lighting (sharper picture). Surprise, surprise. Both videos set to 720p, of course. But maybe that's just me.

Show all comments (48)
240°

Far Cry Has Become A Shadow Of Its Former Self

Following a series of repetitive games, a formulaic approach, and a disappointing last entry, the Far Cry series has been run into the ground.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
JEECE326d ago

The trouble with most criticisms of this franchise is that they insist Far Cry 3 was the best game, but the things they claim to hate about the franchise are all the elements that 3 introduced.

Deeeeznuuuts326d ago

Couldn't agree with you more! I've always thought that, my personal favourite is two, the whole atmosphere, mystery, adrenaline, my vehicle steaming up because I've crashed too many times trying to escape and then getting in a shootout, having to pull a bullet out my arm while fire rages and bullets fly, can't beat it

JEECE326d ago

Yep, 2 is my favorite by far as well, and one of my favorite singleplayer games of all time. It was probably one of the last games Ubisoft made before they started homogenizing their franchises to be open world collect-a-thons with unnecessary RPG mechanics tacked on. I enjoyed 3 for what it was, but it was clearly an attempt to make the franchise appeal to a mass audience (which, in fairness, was successful).

LucasRuinedChildhood325d ago

That's not the issue. If Far Cry 3 never existed and they just made another 5 or 6 games that were increasingly generic copies of Far Cry 2 instead, would that make FC2 the real problem?

No. It's the lack of creativity and effort that followed that's the real issue.

And there are things that are genuinely different about FC3. Simple example - the story was easily the best. Best main villain by far too but it also has strong themes and wasn't afraid to explore controversial topics. The sequels are much blander.

Comparing the fun and creativity of Blood Dragon to the DLC in the sequels ... also says a lot about how Ubisoft fell off.

-Foxtrot325d ago

Yeah like even Far Cry 4 was decent, not as great as FC3 but they still gave us an interesting story, setting and villain. Pagan Min's random calls to Ajay were pretty funny.

They just got lazier and lazier, pumping them out while making it a little more streamlined each time. I mean Jesus, they gave us a silent protagonist with FC5 which really hurt the main story and are obsessed with pleasing everyone by trying to do two characters, male and female rather than just settling on one to tell the best story they can.

neutralgamer1992325d ago

I started FC6 and yes the game works fine but I just wssnt Fun. Do many Ubi games are huge playgrounds but feel empty and doesn't give the feeling of a world which is lived in

JEECE325d ago

I have found that the more recent FC games work better as what I call "background games." Basically what I mean is it's nice to have an active save in one of them going for those times you have 45 minutes to play games and just want to have fun and don't want to get bogged down playing a game online or starting a new game and spending all your time into an annoying tutorial. Like I haven't touched FC4 in years but I know if I had 30 minutes to an hour to play I could hop in and easily be back in the swing of things and attack an outpost and have a good time.

I think a lot of people use big RPGs like Skyrim or Cyberpunk in a similar way.

isarai325d ago

Yes because FC3 executed those aspects better. Every game since FC3 has just been Frankensteined off the bones of FC3 with half the effort.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 325d ago
Michiel1989326d ago

you could say it's a far cry from what it was

wesnytsfs326d ago

Ubisoft gets a lot of hate for their content filling of maps. Personally I enjoy the mechanic when i play an open world game I like revealing hte entire map and doing all the side mission stuff before i go into main missions. Far Cry and the RPG AC maps where a joy to play.

RaidenBlack325d ago

Far Cry 2 was soo unique ... it was ahead of its time and is often misunderstood (thank you Clint Hocking, can't wait for his next game Assassins Creed Hexe)
(yes, FC2 was a departure from from FC1, so in strictest sense, Crysis 1 & 3 are the truer successors)

JEECE325d ago

Yep. Unfortunately there has been so little since then that has scratched the same itch. Really the closest thing has been BOTW, which uses a lot of similar systems (though ironically FC2 came out before Ubisoft put the Assassin's Creed towers in Far Cry, while BOTW had Ubi towers). Obviously it isn't a shooter though. I keep hoping that that some indie dev will put an FC2-esque game out on Steam, but so far I've been left wanting.

Sircolby45325d ago

I actually enjoyed Far Cry 5 and New Dawn. Far Cry 6 was a joke. It was a step backwards in every way. That was probably the worst Far Cry I have ever played.

Show all comments (26)
80°

Why Far Cry 3 Was The Best Of The Franchise?

Far Cry 3, an open-world masterpiece that redefined the series. Gameplay and storyline makes it a timeless classic that still inspires today.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
Deeeeznuuuts358d ago

It's gotta be Far Cry 2 for me, the feeling of that game I'm still yet to find again, just everything about it, I'd kill for a remaster, I'd even be happy with just a bump in resolution and frame rate, occasionally go back to it, think I'm gunna have to do just that now 😂

porkChop358d ago

A remaster of Far Cry 2 would be amazing, especially with the mods that fixed the broken stealth system and the dumb checkpoint respawns. Include those fixes and it would be a huge upgrade over the original.

JEECE358d ago

Enemies respawn in Far Cry 2? Terrible! It's a broken system! Make me a one-man army who can inexplicably hold an entire region!

Enemies respawn in Dark Souls and Zelda? Brilliant! So much more hardcore! Glad the devs took risks!

porkChop358d ago

The problem isn't them respawning. It's that they respawned after just 5 minutes. Like you'd still be in the area looking for diamonds, loot, exploring, etc, and the enemies would just respawn with you there.

70°

Our Favorite Villains in Gaming - Roundtable

There have been plenty of great villains in video games over the years. Now it's time for the VGU crew to name a few of their favorites.