Cross platform game IGN scores PS3 vs 360

Status
Not open for further replies.

heliosphere

Newcomer
Code:
Game                                     PS3          Xbox 360
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marvel Ultimate Alliance                 7.9          8.2
Tony Hawk's Project 8                    7.0          7.8
Need for Speed Carbon                    7.9          8.2
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07                  8.3          8.5
NHL 2K7                                  8.6          8.9
Madden NFL 07                            8.3          8.5

So IGN's scores for several cross platform titles are up for PS3 and 360 now and the 360 seems to have a slight edge across the board. Is anyone surprised by these results? Were people expecting early cross platform titles to be a bit better on the PS3 or do you think this is entirely to be expected for the first round of titles on a new platform? Anyone expect the scores to be reversed for next years titles?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are the reviews by the same people for both platforms? If not that'd be the first area I'd question. If so, do the PS3 reviews talk of more technical faults or problems that'd explain why the lower average? If there are, that'd point to development difficulties.
 
Vs thread are not allowed but if people are able to have a correct attitude may this one will live ;)

I'm not surprised, it's due to, my guess, better dev tools and to the fact that devs have already a first experience on the 360.

On a less technical point of view, better online integration help 360 versions of these games to shine somewhat more than theirs ps 3 counter parts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a better online component is deserving of the extra points. Besides Tony Hawk it's not a huge difference.
 
Almost every review of multi-platform games is currently attributing a lower review score to the PS3 version's framerate issues.

IGN Insider head to head has only one PS3 game up, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, they say the PS3 version has better particle effects for example, but in the end recommend the 360 version (among next gen consoles) due to a smoother framerate.

I'd kinda like (and maybe I will!) to make a post asking why the PS3 seems to be struggling in that area, but who knows, it might be interpeted as the ever touchy flamebait. My only guess is Cell not providing enough general purpose cores, or weak dev tools, or early state of development, or I guess there's always the "port" reasoning, aka all these sku's are likely 360 ports.

Another common reason you'll see for a slightly higher 360 score is more robust online features. Gamespot's Tony Hawk review I believe for one.
 
Need for Speed Carbon compares the two directly in the PS3 review:
One disappointing aspect is that the PlayStation 3 version of the game doesn't have a couple of the "show off" features that the Xbox 360 game does. The 360 version lets you pause the game at any time and enter a photo mode. It's basic, sure, but you can spin and zoom the camera and take a snapshot of your vehicle in motion. You're also able to upload a photo of your modded vehicle for others to drool over, but the PS3 game lacks this feature as well, sadly.

Visually, the PlayStation 3 version of Need for Speed Carbon falls short of its Xbox 360 counterpart. The two games run at roughly the same framerate, but the PS3's filtering effects, specifically the blurring, can be ugly. Road textures look nice and detailed at low speeds, but when you're flying down the road and the game blurs everything, they simply look poor. A few other odd things don't match up either, like the Drafter's wake, which is a transparent cylinder on the 360 and some rather ugly blue streamers on the PS3.

Don't see any direct comparisons in the Tiger Woods review.

Tony Hawk's also has some direct comparison:
The first major issue that the PlayStation 3 version has is that it doesn't include any online support. Considering that the Tony Hawk series was the first online game for the PlayStation 2, even before the Network Adapter was ever released, makes this seem curious. And the fact that this is the only major launch title that isn't online but should be is basically inexcusable. Tony Hawk's online play is good fun, and it's really disappointing that Neversoft included it with the Xbox 360 version but not this one.


The second problem with the PS3 variant of Project 8 is that it simply doesn't run all that well. The game chops up left and right, sometimes to the point where the controls don't feel responsive. It's bad enough that the camera isn't always perfect, but when it's staring at the bottom of your board and the game is running at 15fps, well, there's a major problem. That's not to say that it always runs poorly, as it can be reasonably quick most of the time, but Project 8 chops up way more often than is normally forgivable.

No direct comparison for NHL 2K7.

Marvel ultimate alliance review has this to say:

Oh, and just for argument's sake, we popped in the 360 version of Ultimate Alliance to compare and we have to say... the PS3 edition just isn't as polished. Comparatively, there's a lot more framerate stutter with our game compared to theirs (expect hiccups when turning the camera in highly-populated areas) and the colors are deeper and seem to be in better contrast with the 360. At least Sony owners can take solace in knowing that in 1080p, their game's textures certainly look better, and that regardless of resolution, Ultimate Alliance has better bloom lighting and more particles on PS3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CoD3 is also much better on the 360 according to gamespot and i've been reading some bad things about the ,much hyped, ps3 version of fight night 3.
 
You are correct about COD3.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/callofduty3/review.html?page=1

Call of Duty 3's online component is more robust on the Xbox 360, but there's still a lot to like on the PlayStation 3. Twenty-four people can play online, but whereas four players per Xbox 360 could go online, just one person can play on a single PS3, and there's no ranked play. Having 24 people in a match makes for some intense action, though it's difficult to make a difference operating as a lone soldier. There are nine different multiplayer maps and six different match types available for play, including team battles, capture the flag, headquarters, and more. If you're looking to play as something other than a basic soldier, there are seven different kits to choose from, including a medic who can revive players and a support soldier that delivers ammo. And you won't have to hoof it all the time, either. Jeeps, tanks, and motorcycles are found throughout the levels, adding even more depth to an already deep multiplayer experience. Playing on prerelease servers, the online action ran smoothly with nary a hint of lag.

Call of Duty 3's visuals are great, though a problematic frame rate leaves the game looking decidedly less impressive than it does on the Xbox 360. The game, of course, looks best in high definition (the maximum resolution is 720p), but it still looks nice when viewed on a standard television display. The draw distance is excellent, and you'll never notice any buildings or textures suddenly popping into view. Whether it's a farm in the French countryside or a war-torn village, each level is very detailed and looks fantastic. The outdoor environments are particularly impressive, and though you'll run into an invisible wall should you stray too far, smart level design makes them feel larger than they really are. There are plenty of lush bushes, thick grass, and large trees to use as cover, and they all look great. The textures feature a lot of detail and look nice when viewed up close. It's hard to appreciate every little detail when you're trying to escape death, but the cutscenes offer a chance to enjoy the improved presentation without having to worry about getting shot because you stopped to admire the falling rain, planes flying overhead, or a puddle that has collected in a hole left by a grenade. The game's effects are outstanding. Throwing a smoke grenade results in a thick cloud of smoke so dense and so realistic you'll sometimes find yourself squinting in an effort to see better. Explosions from grenades, rockets, and bombs are similarly impressive.

There are a couple of visual issues that mar the otherwise great graphics. Key amongst these is the erratic frame rate. It was fast and mostly smooth on the 360, but the game's extremely choppy on the PlayStation 3. This problem isn't limited to hectic battle sequences either--it'll chug in rooms that are completely empty. It never happened to a soldier that was alive, but after you kill them, dead soldiers will occasionally get stuck in walls and even float in midair. It's also possible to see the sparks from weapons fire through solid walls. Even though most of the textures are quite good, some of them aren't all that impressive and some of the indoor environments, houses in particular, are repetitive.


This is a pretty informative thread for us multiplatform owners. Resistance is it for me at launch. :smile:
 
IGN seems to have the most reviews on both platforms at the moment, the others seem to be a bit slower posting their reviews.
 
Is it just IGN? What about 1up, GS, etc.

The post above yours mentions a Gamespot review of CoD3 for both platforms.

I'd attribute these so far to: Lack of experience with PS3 and its more difficult to develope for. And its rather unclrear online plans.

Not something major, just as I figured. Things that'll be taken care of and even out, and once again we'll see that it'll come up to the games you want. which actually makes it harder sense both have nearly the same games.
 
The post above yours mentions a Gamespot review of CoD3 for both platforms.

I'd attribute these so far to: Lack of experience with PS3 and its more difficult to develope for. And its rather unclrear online plans.

Not something major, just as I figured. Things that'll be taken care of and even out, and once again we'll see that it'll come up to the games you want. which actually makes it harder sense both have nearly the same games.

Yeah I agree, the devs have had 360 dev kits longer right (as it's been out longer)?
 
This is probably teh superior software tools and documentation of MS showing through.

Also, there may be an aspect of developers allocating more resources for 360 if they're targeting the holiday userbase, most of the sales will come from the 360 version this year, obviously.
 
No developers have had 360 and PS3 dev kits for roughly the same time.

Oh, I didn't know that, I always thought 360 dev kits were out longer since the console has been out for a year now.

This is probably teh superior software tools and documentation of MS showing through.

Also, there may be an aspect of developers allocating more resources for 360 if they're targeting the holiday userbase, most of the sales will come from the 360 version this year, obviously.

I wonder which is the lead platform?
 
Uhm i think that the very simple fact that different people are reviewing the games on different systems might have a liiiiiiiiittle more influence on the scores than how long developers have had tools for, or how good these tools are, or how much electricity the consoles use up...
I know the tendency here is to go super-geek on every subject, but most times the simplest solution really is the most likely to be true...




Just my 2 pennies.
 
I wonder if the framerate issues are due to the games being somewhat cpu-limited? I've heard some (most?) devs say that both the Xcpu and cell are rather difficult to get good performance from. I doubt it's the gpus, because most people have experience with the graphics APIs. Multithreaded programming is another beast entirely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uhm i think that the very simple fact that different people are reviewing the games on different systems might have a liiiiiiiiittle more influence on the scores than how long developers have had tools for, or how good these tools are, or how much electricity the consoles use up...
I know the tendency here is to go super-geek on every subject, but most times the simplest solution really is the most likely to be true...




Just my 2 pennies.

The simplest solution is true, it's called framerate.

Maybe you didn't read the thread but most games are compared head to head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top