Videogameszone checked the graphics between the PS3 and Xbox 360 version of Dark Void.
ps3 version looks better
I'm just judging from the demo BTW. I took issue with the target specific ammo. A bullet is a bullet and should damage what you shoot it at.
One of the more obvious signs to spotting the multiplatform game that's better on PS3 is review scores. When the game doesn't score real high, it's actually often better on PS3. But when the game is hyped up to be something more than it is and given an obscene score, it's usually the other way around and performs better on 360. Just an observation.
@dirtyhairy You make a real good point. They never lower a 360 game if its not up to pair with the PS3.
Dragon age disagrees with you.stop the conspiracy thing already!
...you speak the truth.
I wonder why they gimped the 360 version, they completed took out lots of details. Another thing the demo was bad but the game itself is much better. I wonder why the didn't show the vertical combat in the demo, thats my favorite. I don't get it.
I never trust screenshots for comparisons. People do some of the most bias of stuff with comparisons in general, it's just much easier to provide a load-buffered scene of a screenshot on one console versus another to try and prove that one is better looking. I'll wait for the Lens of Truth comparison.
lol, it seem like most of the time the 360 version was loading its textures while the pic were taken ANYWAYS who cares the game sucks!
It's a demo anyway hard to tell if there going to be in the final product. And other then the plane dash board which is totally weird the 360 version just looks darker which could be for any number of reasons.
More little differences that mean nothing at the end of the day. Christ, I played and enjoyed Bayonetta on PS3 more than I enjoyed the demo on the 360 even though some sites and people would have you believe the PS3 version was so bad it melts your bloody eyes! Fact was the slight(though actual , which did kind of make a change)slowdown at odd times and a few long loads were nowhere near enough for me to change my choice as they didn't outweigh, not nearly, my preference for the DS3 controller over the 360 pad. In actualy fact the issues were so small that I really wouldn't have noticed them unles I'd been told(which I had been in an OTT way for what seemed like an age!)and now we have a comparison of DV, a game that was surely killed by it's own averageness, awkward flight controls and godawful demo(seriously, it made even THIS game look worse-I always thought the misleading demo was a Sega speciality too!)being put through the entirely pointless comparison wringer! Great! Again, yes there's a difference but the aim was tro make them identical so the fault lies with the dev and not the 360 here-as it ALWAYS does no matter which console gets the minute advantage(that they even use programs to find if they can't see the damn screen tears or slowdown!).Are we likely to vchange from playing on our console of choice because of these things? The last time a game was bad enough to make me change was the terrible Orange Box port to PS3(and even then the Valve made 360 port was pretty weak in it's own right and was only any good by comparison to a sticker on PS by EA)but since then never. Playing for free online and controller preference do it for me but for someone else they might like the 360 pad better or have mates gamiong on L:ive that they want to play against or compete with for gamerscore or whatever-all reasons which seem a lot more importnt than a dropped pixl or two on games which aren't ever among the best looking on either console so what exactly does ANY of this stuff prove beyond the fact that some devs just aren't good enough to maatch the versions even below optimal levels for either platform, no? I'm starting to think these articles exist only so the guys who write them kee a job-they need programs to find issues? What IS the point if your eyes don't detect things? What's the point when , even if they do, the differences aren't worth a fig anyway? And they VERY rarely are.
but in general I don't mind the comparisons because normal gamers who own both like them to find out if there are any significant differences between the 2 versions so they can REALLY GET THE BETTER ONE, the only problem here is this comparison is tainted, just looking at the screenshot comparison on this thread and its clearly a very poor comparison as its obvious 360 pic's are taken while loading, I'll wait for Lens of Truth, they seem to explain and show the technical details very well, not that it matters anyway, aside for simple curiousity I not too interested in this game. I also got to disagree with you on Bayonetta, there have been alot better examples of ps3 ports being just as good or a few slightly better in ps3's favor but Bayonetta had some clear performance differences on the ps3 vs the 360 version, IGN did a vid for both showing this, along with some other good sites I trust. However I do agree that more was made of the difference than should be, some especially ironicly many ps3 fans act as if the game was unplayable or horrible on the ps3, nothing could be farther from the truth, its still a kick-ass game on either console, just more of a gap between it and the 360 version that we've seen in sometime for a multiplat. That said its clearly no fault of the ps3 and the finger should be pointed directly at the dev.
For once it looks better on PS3, game still sucks
They're equal. I've played the demo on both, for one. For two, this game is on Unreal Engine 3. Somebody obviously took that 360 screen from an unloaded texture, as the Unreal Engine 3 is as well known for it's ridiculous pop-in as it is for it's detailed textures and great lighting.
The whole Bayonetta thing again... 1) Bayonetta had pretty much Half the frame rate as the 360 counterpart making the gameplay NO WHERE near am smooth. that's not hard to notice unless you have really bad eye sight the human eye can see above 30fps. 30fps is just a average min before it looks laggy Bayonetta PS3's average fps was 26. 2) There where whole environmental objects missing you can't notice a huge plant pot missing? 3) You can't notice a load screen when you pick up an item? 4) Everything was alot less colourful and washed out. But your saying you got Bayonetta on the PS3 when you had the option because of the DS3 sorry but that's just bias. Bayonetta Is superior on the 360 and its noticeable end off. @above I forgot about texture pop-in great point. Anyway this is just some terrible attempt at a hit back from the PS3 crowd for Bayonetta. Even though its Sega they should be mad at not the 360.
lol what happened with some of the detail in the 360 shots??? doesn't matter. won't even be renting this one. edit: the devs should be ashamed. @below pop-in inside the cokk-pit or whatever that is!?!? rofl
The PS3 can pull data form the HDD and Blu-ray at the same time. My guess is this game has an install? In which case the higher res/mip levels will be stored on the HDD, while the lower res stuff stays on the BR disc. Makes streaming the Higher-res stuff a bit faster. In the end, if the game was installed to HDD on both, I wonder if there would be a difference?
Identically mediocre no matter what system you play it on.
There you go PS3 fans you get this and we get Bayonnetta. I am so envious. Now hopefully they just make it exclusive to PS3 so I don't have to keep skipping past it. That is the worst demo I have ever played. I don't think it is possible to fix what is wrong with this game. It plain and simply sucks arse.
look at this; http://www.videogameszone.d... that is one hell of a difference! but based on the demo alone, the game is CRAP!
not sure I trust those screens. for one thing they probably have the video settings (brightness, colour etc) different (you can change them in the ps3...). there are probably select areas where the ps3 version can look better and I would bet that is because there is much more storage space, meaning higher res textures can be saved... but the difference wouldn't be as extreme as screenshot #2 - that is texture pop in for sure. they both look the same in the end.
PS3 version superior as all other multiplat games. The game itself will still suck though.
but thats not true, although i am happy ps3 gets good ports :)
@Shane, No offence, I do prefer the PS3 any day however that statement isn't true because most developers nowadays don't care about actually getting the PS3 port to the same quality (only the money).
Let the PS3 fanboys have this, the game is garbage. It will go great with the rest of their collection.
Spin baby spin! Ps3 multiplats are starting to look better than the 360 multiplats. "Bu-bu-bu... teh games are teh garbage!!!" Holy crap is pic 2 for real?!? Edit: Oh, apparently this game runs on the Unreal Engine.. That would explain it. -_-
Well, they can't talk about sales no more and now they can't talk about multi plat comparisons so what now and they never could talk about quality so what now?
http://www.n4g.com/tech/New... Eurogamer Multiplatform Comparison Xbox 360 wins- 109 PS3 Wins-15 Draws-57 You were saying?
Maybe someone should call the Troll Police. ...Oh, I see...
how comes games for windows scores the lowest number of wins most of time? Graphics on pc are in about 99% of cases better than the consoles. And if it is games for windows then they have to support controllers correctly (though some games like [email protected] ignore it) - even though a mouse is far far better if aiming is required. PC games can only be degraded by being a bad port, and usually the other up sides far outweigh the issue (eg, mw2 - the issues on pc due to it being a bad port are also on the other platforms, if it was a good port - dedis - then they just wouldn't be present on the pc platform). edit: following that link I couldnt find any of the actual pc comparisons, ign wanted me to log in and the eurogamers figures were selectively taken from various articles - they havn't done a specific head to head comparison. some very interesting ones overall though - usually when the ps3 loses it is only because the image settings are bad :S the actual rendering process is usually incredibly similar or better, and seemed only to be worse in mw2.
I just looked at the screens and the PS3 version looks much better by a mile. It looks like 3rd party devs are finally taking advantage of the PS3 and not letting the Xbox hold them back anymore. Keep it up guys.
Dark Void is using the Unreal Engine and they took the shot with without letting the textures loadup so that site should not be taken seriously
So, the 360 has problems loading textures from it's "faster" DVD? Oh...
Texture pop-in should be taken into account when comparing formats - but anyone that puts it in the comparison pictures and tries to pass it as an actual difference in game loses all credibility.
Dude, are you high?! The game looks like crap overall. Clearly it's a case of a "lazy developer" since neither version is impressive. Funny how when the game looks better on the PS3 developers are "taking advantage of the hardware", even though the game clearly looks unimpressive and pushes neither console's hardware. You fcuking fanboys are so annoying.
There are examples of texture pop in on all consoles right now, unfortunately. The first Mass Effect was riddled with it, and both Assassins Creed and Assassins Creed 2 on PS3 have it. I chose PS3 for my Assassins Creed platform of choice, so I've seen it first hand. Not sure I'd even bring it up when pulling out the old console measuring yardstick.
The Open Zone is that way. It's for trolls mostly, but the blind are also welcome there. Take a look at the other shots besides the c0ckpit shot. Identical.
You really are trying hard.. poor little fella.. I know you and your fellow dogs have been kicked an awful lot this gen.. Cheer up, things are bound to get better.
I have looked at a few other comparisons on that site and it looks as if they are going though a lot of trouble of making the 360 version look worse
Agreed this isn't the first total bullsh*t comparison this site does. I will wait for a site that actually compares these things with some technical detail and not GLARINGLY obvious crap screens this site uses for 360. It's funnty every one of their comparisons has favored the PS3 and all are the complete opposite of sites that do these comparisons and have a reputation for them.
the 360 is graphically more powerful, but is held back by the lack of storage space for high resolution textures. in the end what should happen is ps3 games have a higher level of detail if you move in close, it is also possible for there to be higher poly counts on models. generally though the more powerful gpu of the 360 overshadows the extra storage space, not to mention most games are made with the 360 in mind anyway and don't put the effort in to make use of the ps3's storage space. Also, the colour correction settings on both platforms are different, and the ps3 is often left looking whitewashed when there is no performance reason for it. that image is almost definately an example of texture popin. you can tell immediately by the site design and usability of videogameszone.de that it can't be trusted.
bayonetta 360 = 1. Darksiders PS3, dark void PS3 = 2.
Talltony, really? based on the first 3 games of the year? Lmao, It wont stick like that ;)
based on alot games late last year to this year. Alot different then it was in 2008 and I think you can agree with that.
http://www.videogameszone.d... You might want to wait for the 360 version to finishing streaming the textures in for this shot. UE3 is known for this issue. If your going to be fair to both then give both a chance. They may LOOK similar but there is always a difference between how each console runs any given game. Willy waving with screenshots is only half the story.
Yes, it's like they didn't even try to hide their manipulation. But oh well, if you have to lie and decieve in order to get a comparison "win" then I just feel sorry for them.. Much like that KineticNinja site that SDF uses to compare Uncharted to Gears.
Well these kind of sites get found out eventually, just a matter of time before Lens Of Truth etc etc comes along and shows them how to do it.
Most of those screens look almost identical with some minor contrast changes. All but that one picture which the link from this N4G article focuses on of some dreadful texturing, yet all the gameplay pictures and everything else look pretty much identical.
the cocpit view is a lie .fact alll other screen shots favor the 360 version this site is a sony site. o yeah the game runs on the ue3 ps3 version (requred install)360 version as we all know loads up the textrus THIS SITE IS A JOKE OF A SITE THEY TOOK a screen before the texture load up.
darksiders was fake as well, so was dragon age. gtfo
Does it really matter? It's like comparing a turd to another turd.
Wow best statement yet. Bubbles.
I mean honestly, everyone's getting uptight about which version looks better but they are both garbage. The only real winners in this argument are the people who didn't play the game.
They both look ok. I got it on the PS3 (that's all I have) I'm enjoying the game. I think it's better than the demo was overall. I suggest if you are not sure than give it a rent...if for anything than just get some trophies out of it...it's really easy and you get a trophy in every 5 minutes.
I notice that to. Whenever I play Gears 2 it takes a few seconds for the textures to come in clearly when I start horde of online matches.
It's that or longer load screen time...I know which I pick,
Since texture pop is usually finished in a couple of seconds, I really don't know why developers insist on getting you into the game as soon as possible. The Unreal engine used to (and probably still does) have an option to delay loading until the textures are done, so it's nothing extra they need to code for. Hell - they could make it an option as part of the game. That way gamers who want to get into it and don't care can, and those who don't want to be pulled out of the experience by a sudden change in texture can as well!
360 superior version CONFIRMED Too bad for PS3 owners. sorry.
But yea the ps3 has the edge.
It's the Unreal Engine not the system itself
There's not a lot of difference. It's using the Unreal Engine, so that could be the result of them taking the screen-shot as the texture is still loading. Though one review said the 360 version would hold back enemies, compared to the PS3 version, in the final battle. They put it down to keeping performance high, but it could be for a number of other reasons. Still looks like a fun game, with a great soundtrack (that's if I can get The Rocketeer's theme out of my head!), and I'll probably get it when it hits the bargain bins.
Does it matter which has the better looking version? If a game is good, then its good no matter what system its on. Remember Arkham Asylum?
This would be worth talking about if the game didn't suck. It's clear that more time was spent polishing the PS3 version. At least nobody should complain this time that 360 held the PS3 back.
Terrible game, and the fact that PS3 is the superior version (against all odds) doesn't change that fact. PASS! -End statement
...KillZone 2!!! ;-P