Compare the graphics of the PS3 version to the Xbox 360 version and decide for yourself which one looks better! Brought to you exclusively by GameTrailers!
Looks the same. Not much of a difference.
Very close actually, but not exactly the same. Still images always make difference(minor or not) more noticeable. But honestly, in motion the differences aren't so huge. Definitely equally playable and enjoyable in both consoles.
check youtube for the pc version, it looks really good, and the frame rate makes it.
Paints a totally different picture than the Digital Foundry analysis. But then again according to digital foundry, enslaved on xbox has no screen tearing and split second looks better on 360 even though it runs at a higher native resolution on PS3. Bullshot foundry.
I'm not sure about everything else, but I do agree with the Split/Second thing.
OH come on man, Snake Plissken doesn't cry. :) Game is fine on both so just enjoy it. I am finding it really fun. I do seem to remember their FXIII analysis was taken as gospel. hrm.
burt0n DF is known to pull crap like that I trust any other site but them when it comes to comparisons The only difference i see is the lighting PS3 darker 360 lighter it won't be a surprise to me if 360 has an edge since the PS3 version is the port also people care about graphics for this game? i will be honest, this game itself isn't the best looking thing around for a multiplat. I mean it doesn't even look great(graphics), the game itself is fun.
also 360 has already been confirmed by lens of truth to have screen tearing (for enslaved)
Don't care much for comparisions but, imo, PS3 looks a tad bit better. I prefer it being a bit darker than light and washed out. Anyhoo I'm having a blast, forgot how much fun going crazy on zombies was!
the thing i don't understand is in these shots you can tell the PS3 is darker but in Digital Foundry shot u can tell right away 360 is darker whereas the ps3 looks light and washed out. I wish these sites would begin telling what settings they have on, cause something is going on here. Showing the settings would add to a better comparison
I think the folks at Digital Foundry do a great job when analyzing the tech aspects of exclusive games or just one specific version of multiplatform games. But when comparing 360 and PS3 versions, their true colors start showing. Like when they claimed "Bayonetta PS3 is inferior because the hardware can't handle it" and a couple months later "FFXIII on Xbox360 is inferior because it's a lazy port and doesn't do the hardware justice". But yeah, when I saw what you mentioned about Enslaved and Split Second, I was like WTF?! By the way, where's all that proverbial screen tearing for the PS3 version? Seems hardly an issue in this video.
ill stick to digital foundry comparison not half ass one made by gametrailers http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... 360 version of Dead Rising 2 runs at native 720p resolution with the bonus addition of 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. The edge-smoothing is welcome PS3 version of the game shares the 2x MSAA of its 360 counterpart, but the unfortunate reality is that resolution has been compromised. There's little doubt that Dead Rising 2 on the Sony platform is running sub-HD, with 1024x576 appearing to be the game's native resolution. http://images.eurogamer.net... http://images.eurogamer.net...
I played it, it looks might fine the PS3 version. Tech isnt everything fanboy. Look at the screenshots in digital foundry, identical. Alan wake looks bad since its 540p? no
Digital foundry analysis proves that dead rising 2 not only looks better but also performs better on the 360
Yup it seems like it goes back and forth between sub-hd games. FFXIII on 360 anyone? Halo 3? ODST? Alan Wake? Splinter Cell Conviction? all sub-hd games
but also left these sub HD game out of your list MGS4 red dead ratchet and clank GTA4 so how about being litte unbiased next time
Ratchet & Clank? It's 1280x704. Hardly considered sub-hd. And when in my post did I say only 360 games are sub-hd? That's what "back and forth means." I'm saying that both systems have their fair share of sub-hd games. As for Dead Rising 2, I'm going to dload the superior version. On the PC. lol If I had a choice, I'd get it for the 360. Heck, it brings back old memories playing Dead Rising 1 on the 360. It used to be one of the best reasons to have a 360 at the time.
"Ratchet & Clank? It's 1280x704. Hardly considered sub-hd." @ sarcasm That is sub-HD.
No that's not Sub-HD. Jesus christ people, it's 1280x720 vs 1280x704. That's like a 5% difference.
There are about the same amount of titles on the PS3 that are SUBHD as there are on the Xbox360. If you want real HD gaming you have to PC game. Btw. Regardless what you think: 1280x704 IS SUBHD. No amount of saying it is not will change this. That's SubHD like most games running on these consoles this generation.
R&C is sub-hd as is Halo:Reach. Regarding the video I was actually expecting a clearer superiority of the XBOX SKU, surprisingly it's not that apparent as DF made it to be. EDIT: I decided to watch again the video and stop it to check for details. Just as a sample. stop at 0:16 and you will notice how the PS3 version clearly wins. It is like XBOX and PS3 versions were switched if you believe DF analysis.
Red Dead and GTA4 are multiplat games. I believe Sarcasm was talking about 360 exclusives.
Personally i believe both DR2 and Enslaved run better on 360 but digital foundry is biased beyond belief.
You make a very poor argument. Out of those two pictures, the PS3 version looks much better and has more detail.
Actually...according to that video the textures are clearly better on PS3.
PC version destroys both.
I swear PC players are like guys that show up to an orgy with a 10" rubber dildo strapped to their legs just to show how manly they are. We get it...PC games offer better graphics. Now let me get back to my $299 console ffs.
Console 299.. you forgot to add in extra paid per game. not to mention almost everyone has a PC, all it costs to beat the console experience is a 100usd gpu max. @shoddy L2English
I'm a pc gamer too but I still pick console for thier variety of games and community. Almost everyone have a PC but not everyone is a computer nerd.
I can buy this for $60 and sell it in a month for at least $30...how is the PC game aftermarket? And I could have said $199 (hell..this week $149 console) to play this game. As for $100 gpu...you are talking greek to 99 percent of the populace.
@pedobear lol even if we consider 150usd, lets not forget for most games hard drive is needed. add in that 100usd. the console is already at 250usd now. Now add in the fact you need to pay to go online. Add in 5 years of live. thats another 250usd. now the console is 500usd. Now add in every game bought is more costly. Lastly if you consider the after market on console, then dont forget the discounts on DD such as steam. Those are really insane.
Correction. Console gamers bring that fake 10 inch dildo....PC gamers bring the real thing LOL
Really? Who would have thought a pc game could outdo a console game. Strange times we live in. /s Get lost troll. No point stating the obvious just to start a flame war.
Not trying to start a flame war, I personally thought the PC version was going to suck due to fact you cant change your keyboard settings but I was shocked that they where actually good. Also the fact it was only $40 on PC was good too.
it's funny to hear people talk about the difference between xbox and ps3 as though they even exist 95% of the time....but 99.97% of the time the pc version craps on BOTH console versions. Ohhh and by the way...on console, both versions run sub-hd. 720p is sub hd to me! 1280x720 it has been over 5 years since i made a pc game stoop that low it's also 39.99 on pc...vs. 59.99 on console pc=win
You make this comment about the PC...for? The thing is though, its not going to run the same at all...on the pc. Guarantee it will run the same on every PS3 as far as the PS3 version is concerned and the same goes for the 360 versions. I just thought I would enhance your comment with my own, cheers.
Your right. It runs the same on all PS3's and Xbox360's: Subhd and at 30fps with minimal AA. How nice. Welcome to the 1990's....
Ahh, how cute, lol. Why don't you go open a terminal and command yourself to disapear? Let me know when there is something worth playing on your jet engine, lol.
Dam 20 usd price difference over one game is insane plus the fact game is superior on PC, great to be a PC gamer. Lets not forget console gamers after paying so much for their games, have no gaurantee all these games will work on the next console. PC players pay less and more less are gauranteed these games will work for a good while to come. @below So what is it you are typing this post on? Anyone having a dual core PC from 4years back just need add in a 100usd gpu, thats all it takes to beat the console experience. The initial price tag on console is a delusion later on the extra costa add up very quickly.
lol no pc in the price range of $199-$300 will run this game as good as ps3 or xbox. hell you cant even build a complete pc in that price range. love the pc elitist "my pc may cost 8x as much as your console but it runs the games better"
In-depth comparisons show the 360 has the clear edge, but it's not going to effect you if your playing the PS3 version. At a glance both look very similar and you wont exactly call this game a looker anyway. It's all about killing zombies in a fun, entertaining way and resolution or colour balancing isnt going to effect that.
...I'll buy it on the platform I prefer. That said, the textures in this video are most definitely favoring the PS3 version. If I were a fidelity junkie, my money would definitely be going to the PS3 version. I'm not sure how anyone can't see the missing textures on the floor tiles, the detail in the clothing and self shadowing (something PS3 often takes a hit on). It just looks better on PS3.
Umm.. you can see the PS3 screen tearing.. just watch when it goes into full screen.
I've been playing this game for Two days now. I can tell you it looks and plays just fine on the Ps3. What's funnier is that it might be sub-hd on the ps3, I don't know. But if it is that kind of makes the xbox 360 version look bad. Why you ask? Well, because at lower Rez the Ps3 version looks just as good. Truth is, the game isn't GOTY contender. It's a diversion game. A game you play just for fun and to get you over until something you're actually looking forward to comes along.
the x360 version does not look as bright and is super blurry in the background imo, there was hardly any screen tearing on that video for the ps3 version, looks like this is not as bad as some people made out, the only thing better is the x360 resolution... multiplats that are superior/slightly better on ps3 -- before you complain -dragon age -batman -ff xiii -vanquish -dead space -resonance of fate so things are getting better for ports going to the ps3, but it requires that a game is built up intended for both platforms for it to work well for both and not just ported on the last minute, also when x360 has a game with the equivalent of MLAA and 720p running at 60fps let me know then we can talk about x360 being as good as ps3, alan wake tried to prove the power of 360 and it failed
Screen tearing and no shadow for the zombies on ps3? rofl
That´s bullshit, zombies have shadows, and even though Digital Foundry proclaimed that ps3 have no more than 1 shadow, that´s not truth. When you´re on the roof, it´s clear you can see shadow from the moon and from seperate light source, so calm down.
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.