See the console visual differences for Capcom's cooperative shooter.
didn't ign score down the ps3 version yet that comparison makes the ps3 look better, the only tearing on that vid is on the 360, the lighting also looked better on ps3..... whatever, coop demo was sound, versus 1 was a load of sh*te imo.
only thing that matters to me is that LP2 looks a lot better than LP1 did on either system...especially the PS3 port of LP1 being nearly unplayable... demo was ok, but nothing overly special imo...i'll probably rent it at some point...or most likely completely forget about it...
It DOES look better on PS3, why the stupid media keeps the futile attempt to make the 360 superior? I cant understand! the only logical reason behind it is that M$ is INDEED giving money to those websites. Anyway, the Console War will not finish, M$ will not retreat nor Sony, so fvck it with the reviews of pseudo journalist, it only proves that there will be no winner this generation or the next Also they will never accept that the PS3 is the superior console either, some hundred bucks depend of it.
to all dumb fncktards saying one looks better than the other BOTH look the same to me judging om that video but to make this interesting JUDGE both games this way Xbox360 version on a samsung LCD and the ps3 on a sony LCD
wath did you expect from IgnorenceGN ?
I'm confused... I don't see anything there that would denote a whole 2 point difference in graphic quality between the PS3 and 360 version. Yet, IGN's reviews says that the graphics of the PS3 in movement make it harder to play and give it a 7 compared to the 360's 9? To my own eyes, they look practically identical other than one is a little 'brighter' than the other in some scenes.
Bah, get your eyes checked or actually see it in person. they are really close to the same but once again performance problems on the ps3 vs 360 and the 360 gets the edge. keep denying it all you want and keep hoping sites like videogamerzone.de or whatever continues to play interference before the legit comparisons. but as IGN was clear on the winner.
I though it was the most impressive looking game to me, and it was multiplatform. Most of the games I own in 360 are multiplatform. I you refuse to buy multiplatform, you are missing out on a lot of amazing games.
that you think Lost Planet 2 is the most impressive looking multiplatform game you have seen so far? The original was a decent title. Nothing overly special but I don't regret purchasing it. LP2 demo was extremely disappointing to me. I actually think it's a bad game and most reviews feel the same. With that said I don't understand why there are comparison articles covering this title. It's not even an average game. I wouldn't even rent it or play it if someone loaned it to me or gave me a copy.
What if someone gave you 4 copies and you had 3 friends, party chat & beers on the go? Sounds like fun to me. Wouldn't buy it if i didn't have coop buddies.
Nice one edhe! Brews, buds and gaming? Hell I'd even play the Wii in that scenario. +Bubble to you for making me laugh and proving me to be slightly over zealous in my comment.
Just proves how low your standards are set. You have obviously never seen a PS3 exclusive on a HIGH-DEF TV. I buy multiplatform games and they just can't compare. I do agree that you will miss out on good games if you ignore multiplatform games, but there is only ONE multiplatform game that doesn't dumb one version to equal the other... FFXIII
That's not a fair argument... everything is more fun with beer and friends.
immature fanboy games & console wars aside.. PS3 is clearly the winner here. But hey! .. It's no biggy though, The game still plays the same & can be enjoyed on both systems so there's no problem here.
Nothing new to see here, move along people
keep working on trying to convince everyone.. you got 8 suckers who are obviously blind and cant read maybe you can get a few more. oh and 360 wins and this comparison and the score agree with me.
I would have gotten it for PS3 if online Co-Op wasn't such a big part of the game.
*psst* Hey, got a secret for you, but don't tell anyone else, k? The PS3... it has... ONLINE GAMING! That's not even the really crazy part. Sony doesn't even charge for it! Must be running on dusty old internets or something.
I see Sony's implementation of PSN as more of an add-on than a service. I am not a fanboy in any respects but XBL has a far better online service than PSN. I own KZ2, RS:V, SC:C, Uncharted 2, and MAG, and the online services for those games ended up being aggravatingly inconsistent, poorly implemented matchmaking, and really no online community to speak of. This is more of the developers fault than Sony, however PS3 not shipping with a mic has definitely hurt online Co-op play for many PS3 games. That being said PSN would be much better if Sony created some online standards game developers had to adhere to much like XBL.
"the online services for those games ended up being aggravatingly inconsistent, poorly implemented matchmaking, and really no online community to speak of" Wow.... oh, which game is SC:C? But seriously??? Are you playing the same games i'm playing???
You're right, Microsoft has much better internets. I better go buy 10 years of XBL Gold in advance, just in case they run out of their private stock of superior internets. On a serious note though, I disagree. I've played on both, a lot. I've spent about 15x as much time on the PSN though, and I've experienced about half as much trouble as I've run into on XBL. Lag being the main one. The community might not be the most talkative because mics don't come standard, but it's there. It's an annoying misconception that the PSN is in the equivalent of the stone age when it comes to online gaming.
Yea, I definitely don't think that PSN is in the stone age. However PSN is inconsistent because there are seemingly no standards for online experience. I am lucky enough to have a 50mb/10mb connection at my home so I rarely experience lag, but what I do experience is PS3 games performing poorly over PSN. I think SC:C and Warhawk were prime examples of this in the beginning where the games were left unplayable for weeks because of server and patch issues. Or Sony console patches breaking online play for some games. I believe this is because PSN originally was unfortunately an afterthought, a presentation bullet, for Sony instead of a fully backed service that would be the backbone for its console. When you have a Company (Sony) that is so divorced from its 3rd party developers or even its own division (PSN) that updates regularly break online play for games it clearly signals that change is needed. I think the recent examples of MAG and KZ2 where I believe they are wonderful games that online experience could have been drastically improved with some increased standards from PSN/Sony. If Sony would have added party/community features into PSN (beyond Home) KZ2's clan system would have been heavily adopted and used. And MAG is still plagued with random server disconnect issues, and game queues that you can honestly walk away from for 10 minutes and make a sandwich before getting placed in a game. Many people have completely stepped away from MAG mainly due to its online issues. If Microsoft has done anything right, it has been being unwavering and holding developers feet to the fire when it comes to implementing online features on XBL. If Sony threw down the gauntlet and did the same I think PSN could be much better. That being said I think PSN has dramatically improved over the last 2 years, but so has XBL. /imho
PSN is more flexible about how developers can implement it within games: YES, I agree. But you still have your elite multi-player titles like COD and BF which work great online. Matchmaking, VOIP, squad/partying system, they all work great on PSN. Just realize that there are a some great exclusive games that have really pushed the limits to what is possible on consoles because of that added flexibility the PSN gives to developers. PSN users have been able to experience playing some of the most ground breaking Multi-player console games from a networking perspective: Warhawk (24 players), Resistance 2 (64 players), and now MAG with 125 players online in one game lobby! It's true, some of these games have not worked perfectly or are the cleanest most polished games out there, but they are cutting edge new and original to the console community. What's also good is that all of these games that you've mentioned above are still being consistently supported by their respective developers, patched, updated, to improve our online experience! :)
These problems you speak of i have a hard time finding. The only problem is that not everyone has a mic, but as far as other things go im calling BS on it. If you prefer live, so be it but please point out these problems that the games you listed have, as im having a hard time finding these same things. Its pretty rare when psn drops me from a game or has horrible lag and when that does happen, more than likely its the devs fault, like the drop games that tend to happen a bit too much on BFBC2. It will drop some people at random but you stay logged on the psn, thats EA's problem. As far as MAG is concerned, thats because at certain times of the day, very few people are playing it. Not a psn problem
Does this even matter? I never understand comparisons between 2 ports of a crappy game. I mean I know there are a lot of original LP fans (I was one of them) that will pick this up, but what's the point in comparing something that was almost universally panned.
To tell the true I'm interested in the game, mostly because its coop. To play the whole campaign split screen makes this game kinda a rare gem and render some of the main complains (like dumb partners AI) not valid anymore. That said, IGN itself published a review stating LP2 was a Bayonetta of sorts, in the sense of having a lot of frame dropping and the game looking noticeable worse on the PS3. That got me worried. However this video doesnt seem to support that opinion. I guess I'll need to wait for a more professional analysis from DF.
Yeah, I get that people will be interested considering the first one was pretty damn good but my point was that every game now has to have a comparison. It's old. All it does is to fuel the flame wars which are also old. Any game that would have enough of a difference to matter would have that mentioned in the review. All other games are very similar with slight differences that nobody (who was being honest) could see if they weren't being compared side by side.
What the hell was IGN chatting when they dreamed up that article about the PlayStation 3 version being significantly worse? Oh, do you mean a slight textual difference or a slight difference in light has automatically ruined the came ten fold. Absolutely ridiculous, I was expecting the PS3 version to look NOTICEABLY different to the Xbox 360. I don't see anything noticeably different that would truly affect my experience. They both look fine. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be satisfied with the PS3 version as well as the Xbox 360 version.
http://www.youtube.com/watc... OMG............ FU IGN!!!!!!! FUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!
is it just me or does the ps3 version looks better in all of the above. seems like it has more detailed and shadowing is better. funny thing is at first lp2 was exclusive for 360...yet you think it would have the better advantage with graphics wise, but i guess not now lol.
I'm surprised you where able to see anything with such crappy video. The only thing I could tell is; the PS3's video was less pixelated lol.
Well... I don't know about you guys, but I can hardly tell any difference between the two systems. I certainly don't see anything that justifies different scores for each version. And how can you explain doing just that with this game but not with FFXIII? Double standards much?
The double standards are getting old.
We all know the Wii version looks the best. ;)
Wii Version FTW!!1! :D
Arnt you guys fedup with comparisons. im sure this things are just to cause arguments or at least get a debate going. and with adobe video shop anything can be done. who knows the side of the 360/could be ps3/ and the ps3/could be 360. eaither way. i own a ps3 had too many 360's and i just wish day would come when devs didnt port games. why the hell they port from 360. it makes sense to port from the highest spec first right. but end the day resaults are shown for speculation and to start a debate. ps3 better 360 better. you fan boy im not fanboy. who cares u like the game by the game. you dont then move on pal.
Its getting to a point ....Does it really matter what console it looks better on ? Just be happy its a muiti platform game....People spent more time enjoying the game than being pickie...That's coming from a Die-Hard PS3 fan.
... it does look sharper on the PS3(have the demo for both PS3 and 360) but if I were to buy it, which i doubt I will, I would only do so for the 360 because of the bonus Gears characters.
Neither side appears to be getting shafted here so need for the chest pounding from either camp. I guess I will be picking this up way somewhere down the line as there are just too many games that suit my taste better than LP2.I'm way more excited for Dead Rising2.
Multiplat games better start looking like PS3 exclusives.....all my Multiplat games r pre-played n exclusives brand new. LP2 better be good coz da 1st one looked bad but played tilll da end coz of the story.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.