Comparison screenshots are one thing, but when you do a well-done comparison video, trying to discern the difference between a PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 cross-platform game suddenly takes on a much different meaning. Of course, F.E.A.R. may not be the best game to compare since it was originally a PC title, then a 360 title and then finally a PS3 title.
Had it been a PS3-only or PS3-developed first title, would there be a bigger difference? I think so, but hey, what do I know?
porty goodness for all.
while sony are at it could i get a few more pc ports, i hear half life is good.
or dikatana.
didn't that have david bowie in it or did i dream it?
And... they look exactly the same. Except that, like every other time, the X360 is a little darker and the PS3 a little lighter. And I think the saw the frame rate drop on the PS3 once.
But developing PS3 only and/or porting might look better, but the same can be said for developing Xbox 360 only and/or porting.
Great side by side shots, wish all were done like this. But as its been said with every comparisons.. Xbox looks generally darker, and the PS3 is brighter, graphics wise, not enough of a difference to even really bother to comment on.
Can the PS3 survive the year or can it make it by on games that have come out months ago on other systems that look almost exactly with minor improvements? We shall see
100 dollar difference?? I thought the 20 gig PStri got the boot? It's going to be a while before I spork over another 600 bucks..... sorry. Unless I can somehow acquire a PStri for free..... Then I'll spew over it's gorgeous graphics and processing capabilities. Folding@Home4Free!
FEAR is a terrible game. I bought it on the PC and I really don't understand why either 360 or PS3 owners would care about it even if the port were perfect. The battles are fun, but the environment is some damned repetitive and plain dull that you get bored of it in no time. The horror is also a derivative knockoff of the "Ring" cross with "Doom" and is pretty boring too.
Other than that, the lighting is easilly editable to whatever you like by in-game options almost 100% of the time. So I don't really factor it very much.
Aside from that, the games seem to graphically be the exact same. However, if my eye reads correctly, the PS3 seems to be running 5-8 FPS slower than the 360 at all times.
Just how much longer is it going to take for a developer to properly code for the PS3? Why bother making a game on the system if they aren't going to do it right?.. I own all three systems, but I don't believe that the PS3 itself is much of a problem. Things had to change for the gaming industry to evolve.
Do we really want to buy systems the size of modern day PC's with 8 integrated processors in order to run these higher processing requirements for games of the future? I think not. I think the Cell processor was the way to go. And I think that Microsoft is likely to work out any kinks developers had with the PS3 in the future for their Xbox Explode or 720 or whatever they plan on calling it.
The question is, when are Developers actually going to take the effort to properly code for the damn system.
The big difference is that is doesn't matter. You can get a 360 for $300 and play this game, you now have to pay $600 to get a PS3. the difference is nowhere near worth $300. The differences this generation will be just like the differences between teh PS2 and the xbox. xbox always looked better and had faster load times, that is unarguable. last generation the systems were the same prices. Is a bit better visual effect worth $300? not in my book.
namelessted, I had not thought about the fact that they are stopping the 20Gb models, so you are right, cheapest option on both consoles is now a $300 difference. 2 360s for the price of 1 PS3.
I think we are seeing, in part, some of the same issues that the PSP has. Not enough original content. No one doubts that the PSP is superior in hardware, and yet it does not sell like the DS. You can be the Mercedes of hardware, but the meat is in the software. Ports (psp and ps3) and what are screwing the system and they need to come up with some original content.
I tried to do this same thing with my PS3 vs. 360 and I noticed just the opposite with the GTA4 Trailer. It seemed that the PS3 was darker and the 360 lighter. Maybe it was just the trailer but me and 4 others noticed the difference in color. The PS3 at times did look more smoothed out rather than sharpened like the 360.
Either way my PS3 doesn't do anything but folding@home and collect dust.
@pandlcg: DrXym is either a liar or crazy, so ignore his comment. FEAR is one of the best PC shooters I have played in a long while. The combat is great, withe some scary good enemy AI. And the horror side of things scared the shit out of me, whereas both The Ring and Doom failed spectacularly to do so.
The damn comparison video looks like yin and yang, dark and light. No difference otherwise, and also, cocks.
And summa, the game wouldn't look any different if it was a PS3 title first. The game was designed for teh PC. they made it look just as good as they wanted to when it came out. You have to realize that the game came out a year ago on the PC. And PC is the one system where hardware is MUCH less limiting than consoles. They could have made the game look like Crysis, nobody would be able to play it, but it would look spectacular.
Wow, er... looks like the only difference is brightness. In that case the 360 version is the victor. Fear + high brightness = takes the fun out of watching your friends piss their pants when they play it.
lol...there's no difference between these videos, besides the 360 looking a little sharper. Xbox version definitely looks more clean and has better shadows surprisingly.
To me, the 360 version looks a little less well aliased, but with somewhat better lighting. Also, the ps3 seems to have a noticeably poorer framerate. But I'm not a graphics whore, so I don't really give a fuck.
In regards to the game itself; awesome. Fun combat, good scares(the last chapter had me on the edge of my seat for the entire duration), and a decent story for an fps. The environments are a little samey, but most are pleasantly destructible, so I can forgive that.
Wow, I've got to say that when I watch a compare video and the 360 version has a flashlight on half the time and the PS3 never turns it on, I consider it to be a shitty compare video.
All I'll say here that playing FEAR on a console is an affront to nature. :(
The PC version has the best graphics, an expansion, and keyboard/mouse controls. Why would anyone play it on a console is simply beyond my comprehension.
That said, it seems to me the 360 version looks better in comparison to what the PS3 has.
"It's really weird that most dual releases seem to be darker on 360 but brighter on PS3. "
Thats not it exactly. Rbrooks seems to be the only one who really nailed it. The 360 version at first looks darker, then you realize that it's the realtime lighting effects that the PS3 is lacking in many places. The PS3 seems to be having a hard time with shadows in the video so they use surface mapped lighting on the PS3. Basically, the surfaces glow slightly because they can't get the lighting sources to hit all the vertices correctly. I remember back in Quake III this was a setting you could switch to if your video card couldn't handle the lighting effects. It seems the PS3 is using this trick a little bit on many of the exterior building surfaces. Because of it, it looks brighter. The 360 version certainly looked sharper once we got out of the cutscenes. Why would you pay more for a game that comes out a year later and doesn't look as good?
To all the people wondering about why there seem to be some problems maxing out the potential of the ps3, imho, it is gimped by the memory. While the 360 has 512MB, the ps3 only has 256MB. That might not seem like much of a difference, but then there needs to be about 10MB dedicated to each core (rather slow too), and after memory dedicated to the internal system stuff like HOME or whatever they have, it only leaves like 90MB for games. Not to be totally negative, the system is a monster for floating points, which really shows in things like lighting effects.
I remember an interview with one of the artists from Sucker Punch (Sly Cooper guys) where he was talking about pallete selection and struggling to make night scenes so they aren't too dark. I think they pulled it off pretty well. These guys didn't. Can we please get some games with color, or at least less contrast? The dark/evil/terror genres wore out their welcome about 5 years ago.
As for the actual comparrison, the PS3 has some trouble with texture resolution, but otherwise it looks the same to me. If something is chronicly too dark, that's a developer issue. Just adjust the gamma curve a bit for heaven's sake.
Could tell a big difference during game play, but one part of the cutscene has a rather obvious difference. At one time the camera pans across a group of soldiers standing in a line. The PS3 side as jaggy and jerky, but when it hits the line that becomes 360, smooth as butta. I cut the scene out of the HD version of the file and coverted it to DVD rez divx here.
F.E.A.R. is not a terrible game. I have it for PC (could care less about the PS3/360 version) and it looks great, plays great, and is a lot of fun in the DM modes. Slo-Mo DM FTW.
@Imako
The ps3 has 512 MB of RAM, with 256 MB of video RAM, just to be clear. And there's actually only(wait for it...) 256kb local storage for each core. But the DMA engine on the PS3 is so fast that it's as if all 512 MB was dedicated to each core. All in all, a PS3 will stomp a 360 into the ground. The problem is that with the asynchronous design of the cell processor, it's very different from regular multi-core designs like multicore AMD/Intels and the 360. It will be a couple of generations before the developers have created libraries that allow them to efficiently utilize the full power of the cell processor. I can tell you the not one single current gen game for the PS3 is even close to utilizing the cell processor, as they are all ports from other platforms. Most of the games are running a single thread on the powerpc core, and using the SPU's as co-processors. This is not the way that the cell processor is meant to be used, as the SPU's are faster general purpose processors than the PowerPC core, and should be treated as six independent processors, with the PPU orchestrating the show...
I don't think many people are going to care if their games have so many more features especially ones that require ocular implants to see the pixel changes. Especially in 'several generations.'
The overall point in the ps3 to x360 debate is that the ps3 is supposed to be superior hardware. A superior tool.
But, if you don't use a tool properly- especially when other tools have been out and used happily for a while - then what good is it? Like using a knife or a screwdriver, they do the same things only the users have to jump through more hoops, or learn slightly different methods. And who wants to jump through more hoops, for something they've already done before with a different tool?
*hops off soapbox* now, with that said, looked a bit jumpy on the ps3, and the areas were so bright they didn't even need the flashlight half the time. How long did the devs have to develop it for the ps3? I don't know, so I can't comment either way.
Considering I played through fear and discovered it was a tactical shooter with a little girl chasing you, both sides would likely be a dissapointment...
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
1:40 PM on 04.16.2007
| 
porty goodness for all.
while sony are at it could i get a few more pc ports, i hear half life is good.
or dikatana.
didn't that have david bowie in it or did i dream it?
But developing PS3 only and/or porting might look better, but the same can be said for developing Xbox 360 only and/or porting.
Either way, like previously mentioned, the lighting is the only noticable aspect of the grahpics. I prefer the darker myself.
yet it still looks better on my shitty inspirion laptop than both of them. go figure.
Other than that, the lighting is easilly editable to whatever you like by in-game options almost 100% of the time. So I don't really factor it very much.
Aside from that, the games seem to graphically be the exact same. However, if my eye reads correctly, the PS3 seems to be running 5-8 FPS slower than the 360 at all times.
Just how much longer is it going to take for a developer to properly code for the PS3? Why bother making a game on the system if they aren't going to do it right?.. I own all three systems, but I don't believe that the PS3 itself is much of a problem. Things had to change for the gaming industry to evolve.
Do we really want to buy systems the size of modern day PC's with 8 integrated processors in order to run these higher processing requirements for games of the future? I think not. I think the Cell processor was the way to go. And I think that Microsoft is likely to work out any kinks developers had with the PS3 in the future for their Xbox Explode or 720 or whatever they plan on calling it.
The question is, when are Developers actually going to take the effort to properly code for the damn system.
I think we are seeing, in part, some of the same issues that the PSP has. Not enough original content. No one doubts that the PSP is superior in hardware, and yet it does not sell like the DS. You can be the Mercedes of hardware, but the meat is in the software. Ports (psp and ps3) and what are screwing the system and they need to come up with some original content.
Either way my PS3 doesn't do anything but folding@home and collect dust.
The damn comparison video looks like yin and yang, dark and light. No difference otherwise, and also, cocks.
In regards to the game itself; awesome. Fun combat, good scares(the last chapter had me on the edge of my seat for the entire duration), and a decent story for an fps. The environments are a little samey, but most are pleasantly destructible, so I can forgive that.
The PC version has the best graphics, an expansion, and keyboard/mouse controls. Why would anyone play it on a console is simply beyond my comprehension.
That said, it seems to me the 360 version looks better in comparison to what the PS3 has.
Thats not it exactly. Rbrooks seems to be the only one who really nailed it. The 360 version at first looks darker, then you realize that it's the realtime lighting effects that the PS3 is lacking in many places. The PS3 seems to be having a hard time with shadows in the video so they use surface mapped lighting on the PS3. Basically, the surfaces glow slightly because they can't get the lighting sources to hit all the vertices correctly. I remember back in Quake III this was a setting you could switch to if your video card couldn't handle the lighting effects. It seems the PS3 is using this trick a little bit on many of the exterior building surfaces. Because of it, it looks brighter. The 360 version certainly looked sharper once we got out of the cutscenes. Why would you pay more for a game that comes out a year later and doesn't look as good?
See, PC gaming isn't dead!
I remember an interview with one of the artists from Sucker Punch (Sly Cooper guys) where he was talking about pallete selection and struggling to make night scenes so they aren't too dark. I think they pulled it off pretty well. These guys didn't. Can we please get some games with color, or at least less contrast? The dark/evil/terror genres wore out their welcome about 5 years ago.
As for the actual comparrison, the PS3 has some trouble with texture resolution, but otherwise it looks the same to me. If something is chronicly too dark, that's a developer issue. Just adjust the gamma curve a bit for heaven's sake.
F.E.A.R. is not a terrible game. I have it for PC (could care less about the PS3/360 version) and it looks great, plays great, and is a lot of fun in the DM modes. Slo-Mo DM FTW.
The ps3 has 512 MB of RAM, with 256 MB of video RAM, just to be clear. And there's actually only(wait for it...) 256kb local storage for each core. But the DMA engine on the PS3 is so fast that it's as if all 512 MB was dedicated to each core. All in all, a PS3 will stomp a 360 into the ground. The problem is that with the asynchronous design of the cell processor, it's very different from regular multi-core designs like multicore AMD/Intels and the 360. It will be a couple of generations before the developers have created libraries that allow them to efficiently utilize the full power of the cell processor. I can tell you the not one single current gen game for the PS3 is even close to utilizing the cell processor, as they are all ports from other platforms. Most of the games are running a single thread on the powerpc core, and using the SPU's as co-processors. This is not the way that the cell processor is meant to be used, as the SPU's are faster general purpose processors than the PowerPC core, and should be treated as six independent processors, with the PPU orchestrating the show...
I don't think many people are going to care if their games have so many more features especially ones that require ocular implants to see the pixel changes. Especially in 'several generations.'
The overall point in the ps3 to x360 debate is that the ps3 is supposed to be superior hardware. A superior tool.
But, if you don't use a tool properly- especially when other tools have been out and used happily for a while - then what good is it? Like using a knife or a screwdriver, they do the same things only the users have to jump through more hoops, or learn slightly different methods. And who wants to jump through more hoops, for something they've already done before with a different tool?
*hops off soapbox* now, with that said, looked a bit jumpy on the ps3, and the areas were so bright they didn't even need the flashlight half the time. How long did the devs have to develop it for the ps3? I don't know, so I can't comment either way.
Considering I played through fear and discovered it was a tactical shooter with a little girl chasing you, both sides would likely be a dissapointment...