Top
720°

Resident Evil 5 - PS3 vs Xbox screenshots comparison

Eurogamer Portugal has release a screenshots comparison, from Resident Evil 5.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.pt
The story is too old to be commented.
MaximusPrime3544d ago

played and deleted it.

crap demo, not impressed

HighDefinition3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

But, do comparisons even matter anymore?

It`s pretty much common knowledge the PS3 is more powerful. Unless your delusional.

MaximusPrime3544d ago

i havent looked at the video either. im not here to say which is better?

im here to say what i personally think of the demo's gameplay / storyline.

HighDefinition3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

But it`s definitely not for everyone, the controls take time to get use to (like most JP action games). If you like RE4, there should be no reason to not like RE5, IMO anyway.

3544d ago
princejb1343544d ago

OK demo
could have been better
the controls remind me of dead space with top trigger and press either square (ps3)or X(360)
i only enjoyed it a little online

Blaze9293544d ago

But i'll be damned if i was gonna start one of them levels ALL over becuase I died. So i deleted it. I'll picking this up on the 360 for personal preference however. Capcom devs on this seem to really like Gears of War since they keep mentioning it and the controls feel better on the 360 due to Gears which is why I think it comes off as a bit awkward to ps3 users and when i played it on the ps3 awhile ago.

comparisons, who cares. "supposedly" the ps3 version is from a old build.

sonarus3544d ago

How are the controls similar to gears? Maybe i missed something but the only thing they changed was using right stick to look around.

Everything else is just like it was in PS2 days except for L1+R1 = shoot as opposed to L1+square. If thats what feels better to you then more grease to your elbows homie

Why dis3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

Figures you'd say that, the PS3 version has less detail/textures, has lighting and visual effects missing and seems to run at a lower resolution.

Wonder what KZ2 would look like on the 360.

thebudgetgamer3544d ago

and it would look like 7 disks

:)

Doppy3544d ago

I don't get why everyone says it sucks. I think everyone let themselves be tricked into thinking it's bad just because the majority of people are disappointed with the lack of what happened with the gameplay.

The game doesn't suck by any means, and if you truly know hoe to play the game is fast and action packed. Yes I too wish it was modernized, and yes the gameplay is the same as last gen games, but the last gen game (Resident Evil 4) was rated one of the best game for the year it came out, and it's still a really good game. Resident Evil 4 is not Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo, Killzone, or Resistance, and that's the kind of mind set a lot of people have going into the game. Resident Evil 5 is not a bad game at all so stop pending it as one. If you don't like the gameplay then that's fine, but don't say its a bad game because its not.

So far

Graphics - 9
Gameplay - 8 (a slight improvement over Resident Evil 4)

Danja3544d ago

well TBH the Demo isn't bad at all it's just that the game feels so similar to RE:4 , but overall im still getting this game im a big of the franchise , so it even means to play it for the Trophies I will..XD

AlienGorilla3544d ago

...it obviously looks slightly better on the 360. Its slightly sharper and more detailed.

Honestly though, who cares?
[email protected] nitpicking fanboys.

I will be playing it on my PS3 because i prefer the Dualshock. Not to mention that I played all of the other REs on PS consoles.

thewhoopimen3544d ago

nice try why dis, but the only difference between the two versions is how anti-aliasing is being handled. One is using MSAA and the other is quicunx. Evidentally you gain some bluriness when employing Quicunx (PS3 version)But from what I've heard, in actual gameplay, you can't tell the difference.

Antan3544d ago

"Wonder what KZ2 would look like on the 360."

Aside from coming on 3 or 4 discs, lack of 7.1 audio and so on.....

Is this the new "thing" now POG? If a PS3 game looks better than any 360 title ..."wonder what Game X would look like on the 360"? LMFAO!

Re-arrange the following.....Straws....Clutch ing......At.

Still misinformed as always POG/WHY DIS...............Keep popping your pills, the effect has a certain comedic value for the readers of N4G.

Aquanox3544d ago

What a noticeable difference between both. I wasn't expecting this.

Look at the overall detail, hair, clothes, gloves, weapons, environments, everything shines in favor of the Xbox 360 version.

It seems that the little white console still has a lot of fight to bring.

Homicide3544d ago

Yeah the 360 version looks better, and that 5GB install is pushing me to get the 360 version.

Aquanox3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

Check these out:

http://images.eurogamer.net...
http://images.eurogamer.net...

It's not matter of just different AA techniques. The Xbox 360 definitely has much more facial detail in this screenshot.

UnDone143544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

I just downloaded and played the demo on the PS3. The screenshots posted on that crap website to represent the PS3 version are bullsh!t. The PS3 version has just as much detail as in the 360 screenshots.

The "forehead" textures as some have stated that looked bad in those screenshots, are no where to be found in the actual demo I'm playing.

The game looks really sharp, and I have a 720p tv.

Why dis3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

Liar.

The 360 version looks better but I do agree while in motion it wont matter as much other than the sharpness.

gametheory3544d ago

Uh, no Aquanox, you are Wrong. Everyone realizes that you and Why dis are delusional; Why dis is "POG" so that's expected from him. Hell, your comments are usually pro-360 garbage so that's expected from you too, but just between you and me, I know that YOU unlike the rest of the fanboys are better than that.

Anyway, I saw the same pics as you without the need for you to point them out, and they look exactly the same except for the AA technique. Quite frankly in some pics the AA benefits the PS3 version and in others the 360 version has the edge. It's about personal preference.

Then again, it's obvious that Capcom isn't goint to take the extra time to push the PS3 harder because that would make the PS3 version better and would piss off Microsoft; you know, the company that paid them to put additional content on Dead Rising 2, Lost Planet 2, etcetera. :)

Capcom is probably pushing the 360 as hard as they can, while simply putting the PS3 version on par, as taking any additional advantage would probably lead to a bad relationship with Microsoft. xD

na2ru13544d ago

that after comparing both versions, they are identical. The texture patterns are no different in design nor sharpness.

THe only difference was the colour and brightness due to my TV settings for each component port and HDMI.

Consoldtobots3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

I wonder why the PS3 demo is over twice the size of the 360 version, must be using higher res textures.

that being said i find the gameplay much better in the PS3 version, went from ignore to rental.

GUNS N SWORDS3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

these are some captures i found. all point in the same direction, the ps3 version looks a bit less.

360 http://dot50cal.the-horror....
ps3 http://dot50cal.the-horror....

ps3 http://dot50cal.the-horror....
360 http://dot50cal.the-horror....

Firestorm3544d ago

Downloaded and compared both demos. 360 version is definetly slightly more detailed. Pretty close tho, so nothing for ps3 owners to cry about. I also noticed that the 360 version seems to have much greater contrast.I tried changing the brightness setting in the games options but cannot get it to look as solid. I have the exact same settings on my TV for both consoles so im not sure if this is because the xbox version has better lighting or if the ps3 outputs a much higher gamma/ brightness

Ps3 demo is probably bigger in file size because of uncompressed textures or audio. Still doesn't look as good. I'll take compressed high res textures over uncompressed low res textures any day.

iHEARTboobs3544d ago

Looks really great on both systems. The most complaints i hear about regarding this game are the controls. I hope they don't suck. Hopefully they're not that bad and the game kicks ass.

InMyOpinion3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

To all you saying Killzone 2 would have to be on 4-5 discs if it was on the 360.

How come the Resident Evil 5 demo is only 472Mb on the 360 and 942Mb on PS3? On top of that the 360 version looks slightly better. Makes you wonder, huh? ;)

SL1M DADDY3543d ago

Do as I did and put your TV in PIP mode with an equal split screen (if your TV is capable) and then load up both demos. Taking a gander myself I can safely say that this comparison is bull.

Aquanox3543d ago

gametheory -

The only time when the strange PS3 AA technique has given the console good results has been with GTA IV, and that was for a number of factors that strangely, it made the game look a bit more "real" even when the detail was softened by this technique.

In this case though, it's a completely different situation. the PS3 AA can blur some details but can't flatten, for example, the beard in the close up shot. In the Xbox 360 case it looks resembles much more individual hair whereas in the PS3 looks like old blured fashion texturing.

The reason developers use this technique on the PS3 is because its less taxing while the Xbox 360 is capable to apply it virtually without a hit by using the EDRam.

Sure the PS3 has a lot of power inside, and Killzone 2 is proof of that but in terms of detail, there are bottlenecks in the system that prevents it to surpass the Xbox 360. Even Killzone 2 texturing isn't as sharp as RE5 (Xbox 360 version) or Gears of War 2.

So please stop pretending this is only matter of different AA techniques - even the use of this technique in the PS3 instead of proper AA is a sign of troubled developing - there's more than that and we're talking about one of the best looking games of this generation... right up there in the Top 3 with Gears 2 and KZ2 I must say.

get2sammyb3543d ago

Guys honestly. The difference is SO microscopic that you won't notice it when playing at all. We're talking a MICROSCOPIC difference here. And yes I'll agree is some images 360 looks sharper, and on the other hand I'll agree that in some images PS3 looks smoother but EITHER way the differences are so TINY that when in motion there is NOTHING to argue.

I think the kudos goes to Capcom here for making a game that makes the best of both systems. I wish more developers would follow suite.

edhe3543d ago

But these comparison aren't about the game remember, it's about why a console that's 2x the cost of it's competitor is outputting lesser quality pictures whilst being able to hold higher definition textures uncompressed.

It's ridiculous that it's still the case.

Anyway, demo was crud. Might give it a second spin but it's not my boatfloat.

tplarkin73543d ago

Both versions look very good, but the 360 is sharper. If I had to guess, the PS3 is faking anti-aliasing by making the whole screen blurry.

Aquanox3543d ago

^^

The difference "could" be hard to notice for an untrained eye in the resized shots.

Click on the Full Size images to see them clearer.

Yipee Bog3543d ago (Edited 3543d ago )

why would one stop to shoot if hes got like 15 baddies coming straight at him? it feels really slow, part of the reason I find there is no scare factor. you shouldn't have like 20 seconds to shoot 2 guys 10 feet away from you. overall I was very unimpressed with the demo. I didn't get to play the ps3 demo so I cant comment for that, but I thought the 360 demo looked pretty nice. Actually better than I expected.

jBat173543d ago

yep, it's probably a tv setting.. i have edge enhancement on my samsung tv. when it's off the texture looks muddy and that's what i see on these comparison shots. it really makes a significant difference, particulary on the textures and details..

i wonder whether xbots turns off this feature on the ps3 shots..

pixelsword3543d ago

Because after Heavenly Sword there was no more room for excuses. Then came Uncharted, UTIII, Ratchet and Clank, ect with excellent gameplay and graphics.

ShAkKa3543d ago

i love the demo , at first i did not like the idea of having a second person when playing offline coz most of the time they are just a liability but in this case sheeva kicks butt and provides a lot of help to chris.

cactuschef3543d ago

@edhe

Yeah your right, the Ps3 is twice as expensive as a 360. All you'll be missing is a hard drive, wifi, and the ability to play online.

Blademask3543d ago (Edited 3543d ago )

Yeah, keep wishing KZ2 was on the 360 there POG. Maybe if you wish hard enough, it will make you forget that Alan Wake still isnt coming out anytime soon, nor is Huxley, or Warhounds, or Peter Jacksons Make Believe Halo Game, or anything, and isn't going to be setting any graphical bars that KZ2 helped shatter. You know, the bar Uncharted lined up, the one MGS4 placed, the Holes were drilled by GT5p, and Kz2 just blew the rest up.

Resident evil 5 is literally... and i do mean literally... Re4.1. You guys can all pretend its some amazing game... but did anyone play the demo? lol.. It felt like I was traveling through a time machine. Co-Op is fun, but so is Pacman, and most things that are enjoyed with another person..

How amazingly stupid do you have to be to still be having the "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" multiplatform debates? I know you guys have no 360 news, but jesus. Stop the nonsense. THe PS3 port from capcom more than likely sucks compared to the 360 version. Sucks as in, pulling out your microscope and comparing the two, however just playing both, you aren't going to notice anything.

None of this shows off hardware power when you factor in that Killzone2 doesn't require an install, and kills the 360's entire "technical power" Lineup. I know you guys really have nothing else to do, but from now on any versus story should definitely just be met with KZ2 Gifs. Its ridiculous. KZ2 has lined up and executed:

Gears 1 & 2
Halo

Nevermind, just "everything on consoles". And has no install.

Stop trying to justify your 360 purchase. Its WORTH it, by all means. good games, good online, AVATARS! I mean its all very much worth it. No one believes anyone here pretending RE5 was fun, or is some sort of technical marvel, not in the face of yet another new PS3 Only graphical standard, KZ2.

Re5 is Re4, If you loved Re4 you will love playing it again!

Even some of you PS3 guys need to just let them enjoy having something to talk about in the 360 section outside of a new Halo Card Game, or AMAZING NINJA BLADE FOOTAGE! Really, what is there to argue about? Capcom is better equipped to develop for the 360? Theres no argument. They are used to programming the old way.

Some people want KZ2 and RE5.
Some people want Re5, Halo Wars, and Ninja Blade.

HolyOrangeCows3543d ago (Edited 3543d ago )

I'm afraid that Gametrailers has already proven you all wrong. Their VIDEO (And not a photo-shopped picture. I mean COME ON. The PS3 version looked WAAAY better than these pics when I played it) showed dang identical visuals.

thats_just_prime3543d ago

The last RE I played was RE:CV on the dreamcast. Other then that I only play RE1 and RE2. However the controllers to me feel very much the same. RE5 seems very fast peace compared to the older ones. I played the demo with a friend and working together and a team was a blast and made the game a lot more fun to play. Seem to me that people are disappoint that RE5 isnt a run n gun game. That was never the systle of RE and I hope it never will be.

gametheory3543d ago

Aquanox says:

"The only time when the strange PS3 AA technique has given the console good results has been with GTA IV, and that was for a number of factors that strangely, it made the game look a bit more "real" even when the detail was softened by this technique.

In this case though, it's a completely different situation. the PS3 AA can blur some details but can't flatten, for example, the beard in the close up shot. In the Xbox 360 case it looks resembles much more individual hair whereas in the PS3 looks like old blured fashion texturing.

The reason developers use this technique on the PS3 is because its less taxing while the Xbox 360 is capable to apply it virtually without a hit by using the EDRam.

Sure the PS3 has a lot of power inside, and Killzone 2 is proof of that but in terms of detail, there are bottlenecks in the system that prevents it to surpass the Xbox 360. Even Killzone 2 texturing isn't as sharp as RE5 (Xbox 360 version) or Gears of War 2.

So please stop pretending this is only matter of different AA techniques - even the use of this technique in the PS3 instead of proper AA is a sign of troubled developing - there's more than that and we're talking about one of the best looking games of this generation... right up there in the Top 3 with Gears 2 and KZ2 I must say. "

Uh, I'm not pretending anything, you're the one watching this with your Xbox goggles, your avatar only adds insult to injury; funny that I'm the only one ignoring my avatar, I could tell you the PS3 version is superior for several factors, but that's not true and I can tell you that because I'm not wearing any Sony goggles here.

I stand by my claim in that this is all because of the different AA techniques. Of course, 360 has the advantage of having additional EDRAM in order to allow better AA at sub-HD resolutions, but again, this is probably being rendered in HD so the advantage is non-existent (you do know that's why Halo and Ninja Gaiden were rendered in sub-HD resolutions, as opposed to most PS3 games including Ninja Gaiden Black, right?). As I said before, the detail that you think is "lost" on the PS3 version is not because it's non-existent (As if capcom would downgrade the assets), it's because the AA masks it, probably because, as you said, PS3 takes a smaller performance hit if it uses Blur instead of 4xAA.

What I'm saying is so evident that even fanboys like Why dis should be able to accept it, but of course, I'm asking for too much. Even in some screenshots PS3s "blur" effect helps it, especially when cloth is involved. The PS3 version of RE5 has hanging cloth that looks clean, while on the 360 version it looks dirty (as in pixelated) thanks to 360s extra "sharpness". A similar effect happened with GTA4 (remember the massive dithering shots on the 360 version?).

On other shots you may appreciate other things better on the 360 version, but again, as I said before, it's so close and subjective that it's more about preference, not fact (it's no wonder that in spite of the fact that the 360 version of GTA4 has more pixels, more reviewers liked the PS3 version; each console renders differently anyway). But again, a few PS3 owners have confirmed that it looks better than this shots on their 720p TVs.

Since neither you nor Why dis own a PS3, you wouldn't know anyway. Of course, you'll say they are PS3 fanboys, but what makes you different anyway? Hey, if Capcom says one version is better than the other though, then I'll go by their word. Too bad they say it's the same game. :)

+ Show (38) more repliesLast reply 3543d ago
The gaming GOD3544d ago

Once again, the fanboys with microscopic vision will say "my system's version is better"

Sangria3544d ago

Yay but those are 640x360 screenshots, we can see all the details and we can say which one is the superior version. And as i will play on the superior system, i will enjoy more the game than those that will play it on inferior system.
/sarcasm

hippo243544d ago

The details are so insignificant that it really is unnoticeable and have will have no effect on game experience.

Saying that the xbox has a slightly better shade in some areas but as I said before its insignificant.

Marcelles253544d ago

i just think the PS3 anti-aliasing blurs the picture a little

The gaming GOD3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

Now instead of people "directly" trying to say "version A looks better than version B", you'll get people saying "it's not important but version A has darker or more detailed whatever than version B"

I don't know what you people are seeing. But the best chance to compare the two would be the first and second pictures in the third row (the ones with the black guy in the red shirt) I don't see any difference in either aside from the positioning because the two pics aren't caught at the same exact spot.

So you guys go ahead and "see" what you want.

@2.5- For the third time, Here we go. And if we are talking about the two only comparable pictures there (the ones I just mentioned) then you do realize the 360 shot is taken a little closer than the ps3 one right?

I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. And as for "defending myself", from who? You? a random entity on the internet that can to zero to me? Just what am I defending myself from? I have nothing to lose or gain here either. But you must THINK I do since you want me to "defend" myself

Sigh...Edit again-

Defend my opinion? In that case I already did. I'll quote myself:

" then you do realize the 360 shot is taken a little closer than the ps3 one right?"

And how you can compare the others is beyond me considering they aren't even close to being the same frame

Edit again-

"I just don't think its possible for a person with good vision to not see a difference here. "

If you say so. All I will say is I'm not even going to say what I CAN say about that because I already know the arguments that will ensure. Maybe not with you, but someone will butt in and put their two cents in. All I can say is my vision is fine And I looked at both pics hard.

Kevin McCallister3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

I'm getting the PS3 version since I'm used to RE4 on Dualshock, but even with those small comparison resolutions it's easy to see that the 360 version has much sharper textures. The difference is night and day. I wonder what causes it to look that way though.

@2.4
So you honestly don't see the difference in the skin/forehead texture and the amount of veins? One is obviously sharper than the other. Rather than accusing others of making up stuff and "seeing" things, how about defending yourself and this extremely obvious difference? I don't have anything to gain or lose by stating what I said above.

Yes I'm talking about the first two pics in the third row. In those pics, and in all of them, the textures are different between the two consoles. Lol, I meant defend your opinion on this. Nothing more. I'm not the type to start e-fights because both sides end up losers. I don't think you have anything to lose either, I just don't think its possible for a person with good vision to not see a difference here.

thewhoopimen3544d ago

Go read some beyond3d forum postings on this game. The game textures are exactly the same. The difference is the way anti-aliasing is done on the 360 vs. ps3. In that scenario, I can agree that 360 has a more eyepleasing implementation. But if you still want to argue lighting and textures, then by all means go ahead. You'd just be wasting your breath.

vdesai3544d ago

Actually there is a difference I just think that the sharpness on the 360 makes the foreground look a bit cartoonish like on the first picture its just weird I can't tell what it is but it just looks that way.

NickIni3544d ago

Who cares. If you chose which console to buy the game for based on the graphics of comparison screens, you deserve a slap.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3544d ago
Beg For Mercy3544d ago

just got done playing this and the controls made my elbow and hands hurt the placement of strafing to the right stick is pointless because you have to hold down x to run, i hope they fix this in the final code and the graphics were not all that good either, i would give it a 8 out of 10

Sarcasm3544d ago

You can hold L3 to run as well.

MGOelite3544d ago

both versions details are exactly the same, but i think the 360 version was a bit darker

Mandaspt3544d ago

And a little bit detailed too.

QuietBelief3544d ago

First of all I only own a PS3. Never played let alone own an Xbox. And I don't plan to either.

Please take a look at the pictures again. There is a night and day difference between the pics. The 360 version looks like it has more detail and the reason why this is because it seems there is a blur filter applied on the PS3 version. Now I don't know why they do this, maybe to overcome some complication? I don't know.

But the difference is clearly visible and this is coming from a neutral fan who owns a PS3.

hippo243544d ago

I wouldn't say detail I would say better shading quality.
In the Ps3 section the detail is obviously there but its not a defined.

Its unimportant either way, because gameplay is the only true measure of a game and judging from the demo there the exact same.

QuietBelief3544d ago (Edited 3544d ago )

Detail, shading quality whatever... Just want to point out that the 360 version does look superior. I wish people would stop lying to themselves just to defend their console.

Gameplay is a whole different matter. I agree with you that it is the most important part.

MGOelite3544d ago

look at the first pic the guys face, only difference is the better shadow on his face

Why dis3544d ago

Yeah except one of them has higher resolution, more detail, better textures, better lighting and more visual effects everything else is the same like you said like: gameplay, story and characters.

Aquanox3544d ago

Wow!

I was expecting both to look the same for the experience CAPCOM already acquired working with the PS3 but the difference in detail in favor of the Xbox 360 is noticeable, and when I say noticeable I mean just like the old days when the first ports appeared.

AngryTypingGuy3544d ago

Yeah the 360 looks a bit better from the shots that were shown. On most multiplatform games, it seems that the PS3 versions are a bit blurrier than their 360 counterparts. If you look at the clothing on the lead character, his clothes are more detailed on the 360 version.

Aquanox3544d ago

No pals, this time is not just about the AA technique. There's obviously much more detail in the Xbox 360 and it's not a matter of sharpness.

Check these out:

http://images.eurogamer.net...
http://images.eurogamer.net...

That is not result of different AA techniques, the Xbox 360 version definitely has much more detail in the face of this guy.

gametheory3544d ago

"No pals, this time is not just about the AA technique. There's obviously much more detail in the Xbox 360 and it's not a matter of sharpness."

"Check these out: "

" http://images.eurogamer.net... "
" http://images.eurogamer.net... "

"That is not result of different AA techniques, the Xbox 360 version definitely has much more detail in the face of this guy."

Uh, no Aquanox, you are Wrong. Everyone realizes that you and Why dis are delusional; Why dis is "POG" so that's expected from him. Hell, your comments are usually pro-360 garbage so that's expected from you too, but just between you and me, I know that YOU unlike the rest of the fanboys are better than that.

Anyway, I saw the same pics as you without the need for you to point them out, and they look exactly the same except for the AA technique. Quite frankly in some pics the AA benefits the PS3 version and in others the 360 version has the edge. It's about personal preference.

Then again, it's obvious that Capcom isn't goint to take the extra time to push the PS3 harder because that would make the PS3 version better and would piss off Microsoft; you know, the company that paid them to put additional content on Dead Rising 2, Lost Planet 2, etcetera. :)

Capcom is probably pushing the 360 as hard as they can, while simply putting the PS3 version on par, as taking any additional advantage would probably lead to a bad relationship with Microsoft. xD

likedamaster3544d ago

wow, there is an obvious difference. The xbox360 looks much sharper, more detailed and has better lighting.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3544d ago
Mandaspt3544d ago

Yep the controls in the demo are a little bit messy. And judge by this comparison the Xbox 360 version is better.

Beg For Mercy3544d ago

yea 360 looks better from the demo builds hopefully ps3 version is up to snuff when the final releases come out.