EA chose better fighters over 3D crowd and solid framerate, Someone should go and tell them off
Gamespot comparison of PS3 and 360 games
- Thread starter mrboo
- Start date
- Status
EA chose better fighters over 3D crowd and solid framerate, Someone should go and tell them off
thatdude90210
Regular
That's odd if they are the same time, because the PS3 version doesn't even have the stadium shadow.
EA chose better fighters over 3D crowd and solid framerate, Someone should go and tell them off
Pretty disappointed in EA on the PS3 version of FNR3. They choose to add better sweat textures and loss some frames and added load time.
EA chose better fighters over 3D crowd and solid framerate, Someone should go and tell them off
Yah because we know the x360 couldn't handle the 10k more poly's and higher res normal maps that the fighters have on the PS3. Oh and those specular sweat maps require the power of the cell accessing the 9th dimension to compute
so it's not just the lighting they are saying textures are blurry? (on several games evidently)
what would cause that?
as for the shadow in Madden, the writer clearly states that the shadow of the stadium does not appear on the field in the PS3 version as it does on the 360, hence the "different time of day" appearance.
Last edited by a moderator:
These same people are saying the PS3 version of FN3 as "inferior lighting" when the disgusting bloom has been noticeably improved / toned down to make it more realistic. I highly doubt they are technical enough to distinguish between subtle things like texture quality vs washed out brightness settings.
On another note though, it seems that theres not much to say from this comparison that hasn't already been previously said in this forum. Surprisingly, not much seems consistent. For instance, relative texture quality is not a consistent thing. I think there needs to be some more time given before comparisons are made. If I remember correctly in a survey by 1up, people thought many of the launch Xbox360 games could be compared (visually) to PS2/Xbox games while featurewise they fared even worse.
On another note though, it seems that theres not much to say from this comparison that hasn't already been previously said in this forum. Surprisingly, not much seems consistent. For instance, relative texture quality is not a consistent thing. I think there needs to be some more time given before comparisons are made. If I remember correctly in a survey by 1up, people thought many of the launch Xbox360 games could be compared (visually) to PS2/Xbox games while featurewise they fared even worse.
Anyone want to explain why the shadows in Marvel are sharper/higher res for PS3?
Well, if you look at the crowds, they are affected by the lighting on X360 whereas they are flat looking on PS3.
Well, if you look at the crowds, they are affected by the lighting on X360 whereas they are flat looking on PS3.
Last edited by a moderator:
While it's a different site, this is essentially the same topic Wavey started a week ago, but with more useful mouseover screenshots rather than side-by-sides (and videos).
Pics are nicely set up for comparison, but was each system calibrated to look best on the same screen? And are we looking at screenshots/grabs or (preferably) pics?
Also, the second NBA2k7 screen was reversed. You get PS3 by default and X360 on mouseover, contrary to the caption and I assume the other pics.
Though the conversation has been civil so far, the local sheriffs'll determine if this thread is appropriate. If general graphics comparisons are allowed, I'd think they'd be better suited for the Console Tech forum, at least in terms of determining the cause of the IQ differences. For instance, the near white-out in the first Tony Hawk PS3 screen is surprising. I wonder if that's a byproduct of the lighting system, the framebuffer format, (what ERP described as) PS3's assuming everything above 230 is pure white (doesn't seem likely), or just a different art style.
Pics are nicely set up for comparison, but was each system calibrated to look best on the same screen? And are we looking at screenshots/grabs or (preferably) pics?
Also, the second NBA2k7 screen was reversed. You get PS3 by default and X360 on mouseover, contrary to the caption and I assume the other pics.
Though the conversation has been civil so far, the local sheriffs'll determine if this thread is appropriate. If general graphics comparisons are allowed, I'd think they'd be better suited for the Console Tech forum, at least in terms of determining the cause of the IQ differences. For instance, the near white-out in the first Tony Hawk PS3 screen is surprising. I wonder if that's a byproduct of the lighting system, the framebuffer format, (what ERP described as) PS3's assuming everything above 230 is pure white (doesn't seem likely), or just a different art style.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya I noticed this too, the reflections are a dead giveaway.
I'm surprised at the general bluriness of alot of the PS3 shots.
Ok, I have some questions for GameSpot, but since they rarely listen, you guys will have to make do. Let me know if you agree or not, and why.
1. The first Madden shot is supposedly taken with the same game / time settings, namely 1pm. GS then goes on to point out that the stadium appears not to cast shadows over the field in the PS3 version, but it does in the 360 version.
A few simple questions. I see a shadow in the PS3 version, running over most of the audience, and picking up a corner of the field in the far right, too. On the 360 version, there are pretty long shadows. But the game is supposed to be at 1pm. Where is the sun at this time? Almost directly above the stadium, or in a position to cast some significant shadow? Is it possible that the EA team decided to correct the shadows to match a 1pm setting more accurately? Certainly the shadows that the stadium casts matches the shadows that the player cast in the PS3 version. Or are the games in different seasons? (Summer vs Winter). Is there a setting in the PS3 version to make the game play later in the day which should give longer shadows?
My conclusion: the PS3 version more accurately represents a sunny situation at 1pm. Sure, this could be done because the PS3 can't handle 'real' shadows that run longer ... if so, then there is probably no way you can change the time of day so that the PS3 can throw longer shadows. Conspiracionists, conspire!
Next, the textures up close. The 360 shirts do seem to show some nice fine detail in the main body part of the jersey. But look at how the numbers on the shirt don't show shadows like the rest of the jersey, unlike in the PS3 version. (Also note that one editor spotted better animation in the jerseys.) There seems to be some very different techniques behind the two versions in this area, which to us, beyond3d people, is interesting. On the close up of the guy with the helmet there is something weird going on above his (from our pov) right eye though, that looks ugly on the PS3 version.
Call of Duty 3
It is amazing how similar these two are. The major difference I detect is quite simply brightness. The PS3 shots are a few notches brighter / slightly less contrast. However, the PS3 version does seem to have less aliasing. It's not much though, but it's visible. Especially telling is the 3rd shot, or other shots where you have specs of detail in the 360 version that have been filtered out in the PS3 version. It seems ironic, but this proves a point I have been making in Xbox vs PS2 screenshot comparisons, where I have felt in some cases the Xbox suffered from it's obligatory GF3 AA, which prevented the image sometimes from attaining a vibrancy that the PS2, despite its limitations, sometimes managed to achieve. I think a strong part of GT4's striking visuals comes from having very selective AA (only for blur/depth effects, and often as a blended polygon overlay).
Carbon
The ground texture definitely has more depth in the 360 version in the first shot. In the first driving shot, however, it almost seems the other way around, with the headlight cones on the tarmac looking better too on the PS3. The last picture with the rear-view mirror is very different - completely different lighting, with overall more darkness in the PS3 version, but then again more detail in the building textures in the front of the car.
Marvel
Again, the PS3 versions are brighter, and you see this in everything - shadows are more marked/sharper too. It makes you wonder whether, using the same intensity settings, the NVIDIA's light-sources just output more than ATI's. Could that be a reason here? Also isn't Marvel 1080p on the PS3? They're using 720p for the comparisons, though.
NBA
Rather striking difference in the first shot: the player on the far right doesn't have any hair in the PS3 version. This game also supports 1080p on the PS3, right?
Fight Night
There is too little in these pictures to work with, due to the motion blur that affects the players very differently in the screenshots, which aren't like each other enough for a meaningful comparison ...
Project 8
Probably a good decision (from an artist pov) to get more contrast in the garage, as you're looking from a dark area into a bright area. It only works if it is intentional though and it tones down if you get out of the garage. They definitely skimped on those floor textures in the last screenshot, in the PS3 version though - 360's textures are noticeably more detailed.
Tiger
Difference is too subtle for me. Mostly tiny differences in contrast. I do notice that the PS3's last shot has something like a second tree behind the first, which the 360 shot doesn't have, and both are more blurred. What gets AA / blur in both versions seems to be almost at random at times.
To be honest, after all the talk, I expected worse than what I've seen now. But then, maybe it is my untrained eye.
Let me know if you agree or not, and why.1. The first Madden shot is supposedly taken with the same game / time settings, namely 1pm. GS then goes on to point out that the stadium appears not to cast shadows over the field in the PS3 version, but it does in the 360 version.
A few simple questions. I see a shadow in the PS3 version, running over most of the audience, and picking up a corner of the field in the far right, too. On the 360 version, there are pretty long shadows. But the game is supposed to be at 1pm. Where is the sun at this time? Almost directly above the stadium, or in a position to cast some significant shadow? Is it possible that the EA team decided to correct the shadows to match a 1pm setting more accurately? Certainly the shadows that the stadium casts matches the shadows that the player cast in the PS3 version. Or are the games in different seasons? (Summer vs Winter). Is there a setting in the PS3 version to make the game play later in the day which should give longer shadows?
My conclusion: the PS3 version more accurately represents a sunny situation at 1pm. Sure, this could be done because the PS3 can't handle 'real' shadows that run longer ... if so, then there is probably no way you can change the time of day so that the PS3 can throw longer shadows. Conspiracionists, conspire!
Next, the textures up close. The 360 shirts do seem to show some nice fine detail in the main body part of the jersey. But look at how the numbers on the shirt don't show shadows like the rest of the jersey, unlike in the PS3 version. (Also note that one editor spotted better animation in the jerseys.) There seems to be some very different techniques behind the two versions in this area, which to us, beyond3d people, is interesting. On the close up of the guy with the helmet there is something weird going on above his (from our pov) right eye though, that looks ugly on the PS3 version.
Call of Duty 3
It is amazing how similar these two are. The major difference I detect is quite simply brightness. The PS3 shots are a few notches brighter / slightly less contrast. However, the PS3 version does seem to have less aliasing. It's not much though, but it's visible. Especially telling is the 3rd shot, or other shots where you have specs of detail in the 360 version that have been filtered out in the PS3 version. It seems ironic, but this proves a point I have been making in Xbox vs PS2 screenshot comparisons, where I have felt in some cases the Xbox suffered from it's obligatory GF3 AA, which prevented the image sometimes from attaining a vibrancy that the PS2, despite its limitations, sometimes managed to achieve. I think a strong part of GT4's striking visuals comes from having very selective AA (only for blur/depth effects, and often as a blended polygon overlay).
Carbon
The ground texture definitely has more depth in the 360 version in the first shot. In the first driving shot, however, it almost seems the other way around, with the headlight cones on the tarmac looking better too on the PS3. The last picture with the rear-view mirror is very different - completely different lighting, with overall more darkness in the PS3 version, but then again more detail in the building textures in the front of the car.
Marvel
Again, the PS3 versions are brighter, and you see this in everything - shadows are more marked/sharper too. It makes you wonder whether, using the same intensity settings, the NVIDIA's light-sources just output more than ATI's. Could that be a reason here? Also isn't Marvel 1080p on the PS3? They're using 720p for the comparisons, though.
NBA
Rather striking difference in the first shot: the player on the far right doesn't have any hair in the PS3 version.
This game also supports 1080p on the PS3, right?Fight Night
There is too little in these pictures to work with, due to the motion blur that affects the players very differently in the screenshots, which aren't like each other enough for a meaningful comparison ...
Project 8
Probably a good decision (from an artist pov) to get more contrast in the garage, as you're looking from a dark area into a bright area. It only works if it is intentional though and it tones down if you get out of the garage. They definitely skimped on those floor textures in the last screenshot, in the PS3 version though - 360's textures are noticeably more detailed.
Tiger
Difference is too subtle for me. Mostly tiny differences in contrast. I do notice that the PS3's last shot has something like a second tree behind the first, which the 360 shot doesn't have, and both are more blurred. What gets AA / blur in both versions seems to be almost at random at times.
To be honest, after all the talk, I expected worse than what I've seen now.
But then, maybe it is my untrained eye.Ok, I have some questions for GameSpot, but since they rarely listen, you guys will have to make do.
1. Call of Duty 3
It is amazing how similar these two are. The major difference I detect is quite simply brightness. The PS3 shots are a few notches brighter / slightly less contrast. However, the PS3 version does seem to have less aliasing. It's not much though, but it's visible. Especially telling is the 3rd shot, or other shots where you have specs of detail in the 360 version that have been filtered out in the PS3 version. It seems ironic, but this proves a point I have been making in Xbox vs PS2 screenshot comparisons, where I have felt in some cases the Xbox suffered from it's obligatory GF3 AA, which prevented the image sometimes from attaining a vibrancy that the PS2, despite its limitations, sometimes managed to achieve. I think a strong part of GT4's striking visuals comes from having very selective AA (only for blur/depth effects, and often as a blended polygon overlay).
To be honest, after all the talk, I expected worse than what I've seen now.
you forgot the part about CoD3 running on 60fps on the X360 (atleast from what ive read from reviews - 60fps, but not stable) vs 30ish fps on the PS3.
Obviously I haven't been discussing framerates. I have seen some side-by-sides videos but you can't really tell much from such a degraded IQ as videos generally offer (I certainly couldn't). So you'll have to forgive me for not commenting on what I cannot see. I did mention 1080p twice partly as a mental note because it may effect how the game is set up internally.
For what its worth, about that white reflection you see behind the players here.
It's actually a moving/scrolling reflection that goes up and down the court. So in the screens it's all about timing them right when capturing a screen; and obviously the reflection wasnt in the same position in the ps3 shot.
scooby_dooby
Legend
For what its worth, about that white reflection you see behind the players here.
It's actually a moving/scrolling reflection that goes up and down the court. So in the screens it's all about timing them right when capturing a screen; and obviously the reflection wasnt in the same position in the ps3 shot.
The second shot is just the first shot cropped, so the reflections should be in the same place.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
