However... in this case... I think it's justified. From both the screenshots, the statements by the developers and my own experience with the PS3 version of the game, I can say with confidence that the PS3 version is lacking in graphic quality. It just doesn't look like a game this far into the PS3's life cycle. The system is capable of vastly better graphics than this.

As a PS3 owner, I think this is deplorable. I see no reason why PS3 fans should be pissed off that people are complaining about it... it reflects badly on the developer's skill with the system, not the PS3's quality as a whole. I could easily have bought the 360 version instead, but I prefer the PS3. Had I read about this beforehand, I would have gone the other way. Is it still a fun game? Sure. But if you own both systems, there is absolutely no reason to buy the PS3 version (unless you're dying to play the multiplayer with your PS3-owning friends). And honestly, it's not enough fun for me to run out and buy the 360 version as well.

Proof that the PS3 is inferior? No. A disappointment for people who buy the PS3 version? Yes.

 Reply

Yeah...I miss those days.

And before you call me a Sony fanboy, I don't even own a PS3. I'm on the "winning side" and I still think this shit gets tiring.

 Reply

[ps3.ign.com]

"For all the fanboys out there who want to beat their chests about which system got it right, there are some differences between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of this game. The PS3 features an eight-minute, 4 GB install that apparently doesn't do much seeing as how it takes both games about 30 seconds to load after a death or load a mission from the main screen. Although the PS3 has exclusive videos about refurbishing Ecto-1 and the Blu-ray trailer, the graphics seem to be a touch dumbed down on Sony's system. When you proton stream burns a wall on the 360, there's a black gouge in the wall that features smoldering embers and bits of fire. On the PS3, you get the fire and black gouge, but the little embers embedded in the cut don't make it. Similarly, when you attack Stay Puft on Microsoft's console, you're making dramatic changes to his puffy exterior. On the PS3, these changes aren't as severe -- it's almost like a bruise rather than a fiery cut. Still, I'll save you the suspense and tell you both versions are getting the same score for graphics because the overall package is solid on each platform. "

 Reply

So, I go back to confirm these comparisons are complete BS, boot up the Segewick Hotel level and... thanks for ruining it for me!

It looked exactly like the picture, minus my contrast not being boosted so high. That low texture rug? Yep. Looks just like that.

So, any other PS3 owners who haven't noticed what's being thrown in our faces, go check it out again and be in shock.

 Reply

itd be cool for you guys or any gaming site to have a recommendation for which system to get a game for when reviews are done. sometimes its tough getting a game for ps3 or 360 when i have no idea what the diff is if any. i miss the snes/genesis days when differences were clear.

 Reply

"This post on Polycount from Terminal Reality's lead character artist explains why there was so drastic difference between the PS3 and 360 versions texture quality.

Lens of Truth made the comparison using the pre-release copy of the game which had texture quality lowered."

 Reply

It's a shame developers blame RAM for these poor results, Xbos 360 has more memory, sure, but haven't seen this mediocre graphics either on PS3 or Xbox 360 since a loooong time. Even if it's tough developing for PS3 I think as an Xbox 360 game is too ugly, what's the problem about Xbox 360 hardware? it's because it uses DVD only? and couldn't make textures look better?. Absurd!!!!

People just look around you look at Forza 3, Uncharted 2, Halo ODST, MAG and what can you see?, this game is just not on par with today's technology.

So I suppose it's not just about RAM, it's more likely about developers abilities.

 Reply