Amored Core 4 graphic comparisons between 360 and PS3

[Sound_Card]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=17890&type=wmv


The PS3 version looks hazy and lacks shadows. The colors on the 360 version seem to have more depth as well.

Thoughts?

 

[Neb]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=17890&type=wmv


The PS3 version looks hazy and lacks shadows. The colors on the 360 version seem to have more depth as well.

Thoughts?

I watched it fast but the the xbox version has longer draw distance and smooth stable framerate and better lightning. The PS3 version has light DoF and lower draw distance but perhaps slightlyand more "battle fog", the framerate is also very inconsistent. Hmmm...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The external lighting on the PS3 version looks more realistic to me - the 'haze' looks like atmospherics. There's a huge difference in contrast and saturation though, which may hide the same degree of haze on the xb360 footage. I can only guess these are choices in art direction . The PS3 version does appear to lack shadows in the external combat, although they're there in the internal combat. the internal lighting was very different. Overall it was flat, although the XB360 version upped the contrast to make it more dynamic but less realistic (you don't have big open-lit areas wtih areas of near-black shadow!).

Overall, the biggest question I have is why on earth I'd want to spend money on this title on either platform. It looks primitive in visuals and gameplay.

 

[Neb]

I watched it fast but the the xbox version has longer draw distance and smooth stable framerate and better lightning. The PS3 version has light DoF and lower draw distance but perhaps slightlyand more "battle fog", the framerate is also very inconsistent. Hmmm...

Although some scenes lack HDr/bloom on the xbox360 version when the PS3 version has it (inside building). Also the brigthness/contrast is set to darker for the xbox360 capture willst it is set to brigth for the PS3 (dunno if it is the camera or the game itself).

 

[Rangers]

PS3 version has sharper textures due to AF.

360 versions has better framerate.

I've seen direct screen comparisons off the same TV.. 360 version doesn't have AF.

Anyways this thread'll be locked.

 

[Neb]

The video quality is quite blurry but here is some screen grabs, no image sharpening done to reveal more details.

 

[assen]

AFAIK the two consoles have wildly different output gamma curves, and it's hell to try to match them - that would explain the dark vs washed-out looks, not art direction.

 

[Neb]

Last set, Ingore the 0/1 number it is not related to the game.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/ac44.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/acPS1.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/acX1.jpg

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Lighting

PS3 version has sharper textures due to AF.

360 versions has better framerate.

I've seen direct screen comparisons off the same TV.. 360 version doesn't have AF.

Anyways this thread'll be locked.

They make artistic mistakes with XBox360 version lighting, it is like on/off lighting, not smooth changes. I prefer smooth light changes. I feel this is probably not technical problem with Xbox360 but incorrect art decision.

 

[scooby_dooby]

AFAIK the two consoles have wildly different output gamma curves, and it's hell to try to match them - that would explain the dark vs washed-out looks, not art direction.

Yup, PS3 video's always come out lighter than 360, which makes comparisons very hard.

 

[Neb]

Interesting comparision, link to source and to screenshot with explanation.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7291/4d4gy6fze5.jpg

Source, user observation at http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145993 .

(Description from the GAF forum member that also posted the screenshot.)

PS3 - Big Oval on the Left side: "No reflection in the glass."
360 - Big Oval on the Left side: "Reflection in the glass."

PS3 - Top Left Oval: "No lighting from the booster flares below."
360 - Top Left Oval: "Lighting from the booster flares."

PS3 - Big Oval close to the bottom: "No contortion (blurring) effect from the boosters."
360 - Big Oval close to the bottom: " Contortion (blurring) effect from the boosters."

PS3 - Bottom Oval: "Jaggies."
360 - Bottom Oval: "No jaggies."

 

[assen]

The gamma problem makes comparisons very hard indeed - people will be talking about how much they like the "lighter" or "darker" game, and ignoring the objective technical differences (such as the PS3 version's deficiencies, as per the NeoGAF quote). An extreme version of "art trumps technology", if you wish...

 

[LogisticX]

Does the 360 have games with better visuals? Yes.
Does the PS3 have games with better visuals? Yes.


So........what is the point of comparison? To me, it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to somehow establish some kind of superiority one way or the other. The fact that some people will try to go about this in an "intellectual" manner is irrelevent since at the core, this is nothing more than a childish game of 'mines bigger/better than yours'.

Of course, one will say "But what if I'm a multi-platform gamer and want to choose the best version"? Well, I say that's bullshit.

360 wins this simply on the grounds that its framerate is stable and all else is negligible either way. Doesn't mean anything else other than that. Let's get real.

 

[assen]

So........what is the point of comparison? To me, it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to somehow establish some kind of superiority one way or the other. The fact that some people will try to go about this in an "intellectual" manner is irrelevent since at the core, this is nothing more than a childish game of 'mines bigger/better than yours'.

Yep, and it usually it's the other way round - the "widely believed fact" that the PS3 is more powerful in all aspects than the 360 is reigning supreme even today even on this forum - just look at the technology section. Just several months ago everyone was talking how the 360 versions of Armored Core and Virtua Tennis are handled by "B-teams", while the PS3 versions will be superior in every way possible. Objective comparisons such as this are the only way to shatter the myth of the mighty PS3 and shift the public perception to what multiplatform developers already know: the PS3 is again the lowest common denominater for which games must be cut to fit in.

 

[TheChefO]

Yep, and it usually it's the other way round - the "widely believed fact" that the PS3 is more powerful in all aspects than the 360 is reigning supreme even today even on this forum - just look at the technology section. Just several months ago everyone was talking how the 360 versions of Armored Core and Virtua Tennis are handled by "B-teams", while the PS3 versions will be superior in every way possible. Objective comparisons such as this are the only way to shatter the myth of the mighty PS3 and shift the public perception to what multiplatform developers already know: the PS3 is again the lowest common denominater for which games must be cut to fit in. (currently)

Agreed.

Good post assen.

I understand the desire to not want to encourage vs threads but I think an honest evaluation is healthy. Currently, I think some people still believe what they want based on nothing more than a myth and facts need to be introduced to have a better educated board through better educated members.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Does the 360 have games with better visuals? Yes.
Does the PS3 have games with better visuals? Yes.


So........what is the point of comparison? To me, it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to somehow establish some kind of superiority one way or the other. The fact that some people will try to go about this in an "intellectual" manner is irrelevent since at the core, this is nothing more than a childish game of 'mines bigger/better than yours'.

Of course, one will say "But what if I'm a multi-platform gamer and want to choose the best version"? Well, I say that's bullshit.

360 wins this simply on the grounds that its framerate is stable and all else is negligible either way. Doesn't mean anything else other than that. Let's get real.

In the end the only way to judge consoles is comparing the actual games produced. God knows we've spent enough time arguing paper specs around here, why not compare actual results?

The more and more games that come out like this do show that the 360 can hold it's own against PS3, and if the trend continues we may find that the conventional wisdom that PS3 is slightly more powerful is eventually dispelled.

 

[DJ12]

Interesting comparision, link to source and to screenshot with explanation.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7291/4d4gy6fze5.jpg

Source, user observation at http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145993 .

Well, the reflection "proof" you can forget about as the PS3 screen is square on to the building and the 360 is definitely at an angle.

 

[crystalcube]

Objective comparisons such as this are the only way to shatter the myth of the mighty PS3 and shift the public perception to what multiplatform developers already know: the PS3 is again the lowest common denominater for which games must be cut to fit in.

Although I agree that such Objective comparisons can be interesting , it may be too early to derive any conclusion that PS3 is the lowest denominator. Its not even six month since the release of PS3. We are effectively talking about 2nd gen game on one platform to 1st gen game on another platform from same developer.

 

[-tkf-]

PS3 version has sharper textures due to AF.

360 versions has better framerate.

I've seen direct screen comparisons off the same TV.. 360 version doesn't have AF.

Anyways this thread'll be locked.

Anyone else seen the actual games and compared them or is this gonna be another Screenshot battle?

 

[Neb]

Well, the reflection "proof" you can forget about as the PS3 screen is square on to the building and the 360 is definitely at an angle.

Wont argue the comparision description as it is from the GAF forum member not mine!