Anyone who looks at those 2 shots and says that the PS3 shot looks better, either has no eyes... or is a rabid fanboy.

I just showed it to three neutral parties that don't play games at all (In my office) and all three of them picked the 360.

I'm not gonna go picking apart the PS3, because I'm kind of excited for some of the things that may be coming out in the future for it. I won't purchase one until they can truly justify that there are some unique games coming to the system (Littlebigplanet = Erection).

And it does matter, no matter how little a difference there is, it DOES matter. Its a $70 game, thats not cheap. Would you rather have the inferior version if you have both consoles? No. Would you rather be playing the version that has a worse frame rate? No. So the differences do matter, and if they never get pointed out then Sony can't ever try to fix there problems. Unfortunetly the problems they have are more part of the console than they are fixable issues. Either way, I'm not trying to rag on the PS3 all hard, Sony doesn't need anymore help doing that. I'm just hoping it gets better.

FiXXXerX

Sega did exactly this with the Saturn.

It's kinda ironic that this played a major role in Sony's trouncing of the Saturn in that generation, while Sony's getting its own arse handed to them by Microsoft in this one for pretty much the same reasons (as well as a whole shitload more of course).

GarethDE

GarethDE

Anyhows, this topic is just asking for PS3 vs 360 wars ^_^

Ultrasinc

RedRedSuit

Keeko_ca

It's to bad that you can't do 40 man matches on AC. It may be overkill, but I can imagine it would be a lot of fun.

Yeah, I think I'll be picking this up. And I can't image they won't add voice chat later on in a patch. The technology has to be there, after all.

PapaBear

fli_guy84

laesperanzapaz

I've been playing AC since the original on PS1 and I'm definately looking forward to the new version. I also have a PS3 and I have to agree that playing online on PS3 is not bad at all. I've had some great matches online, complete with friends lists/clan lists and I've competed in a few teams matches that were awesome. 40 player online is insane with no lag. So I'm with you my friend. Sure Live is the better service but I'm not going to go the fanboy-douchebag route by thinking if it's not Live then it's crap. Do Live fans realize that Live still isn't better than gaming online with a PC...which is still hands down the best service available?
------------------------------------------------
I've said it time and again...Sony gets kicked in the nuts for their current online service, Nintendo has provided how many Wii games online...? yeah, exactly, none...so give credit where it's due. Live wasn't great when it debuted, actually Sega did a better job online with the Dreamcast than MS did with Xbox when Live debuted. Sega had Quake 3 AND Unreal and they had mouse and keyboard support and 56k support. Not to mention the PC players could play against the DC players online in Quake3 mouse to mouse, keyboard to keyboard...so you know which Unreal Tournament 2007 I'm getting...

With that said...I'll be getting the PS3 version. As far as voicechat goes, that's nothing that Skype can't fix. My only gripe is that one of my friends has been playing AC as long as I have but he's has a 360 so we won't be able to play against each other but hey...it's all good, between AC and VF5...I can live with it.

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

This man is correct. What he says is not to be ignored. Let us listen to this man, and stop arguing. Please.

KotakuOtaku

smartasse

As PapaBear mentioned, perhaps Sony's new devkit will alleviate this mess. Sony has always had troubles with anti-aliasing for some reason (even the PS2 was plagued), hopefully it's not a disease that runs in the family.

Pal

What's disappointing, however, is that I can't talk to anyone on the PSN like I can Live. I still don't understand why that wasn't a built in feature.

PapaBear

Cacophanus

But it makes good Blu-ray player - what a pity that as a console is a failure.

anonim1979

So you needed to type in bold to prove your fanboy worth?

For the record FEAR (for the 360) was muddy and crappy compared to the PC as well. Considering the 360 is supposed to be next gen, and it was running in lower resolutions than the PC can achieve, plus the game was a year old before the 360 came out.

EnigmaNemesis

It's the first few games to come out ported for this platform, folks. People don't yet know how to properly program for this new setup.

Let them figure out the archetecture, and let the new dev kit get some use. The PS3 will stand toe to toe with the 360.

Programmers can't do anything for imaginary jaggies, however. Those are just here to stay.

PapaBear

Taz

Type-E

Pal

Type-E

"The only real difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, according to the producers, will be the presence of voice chat on the Xbox 360 version. PS3 owners, it appears, will be silenced."

Another win over Sony, though I don't know why this is. Sure, Sony doesn't have an official headset system (as of yet) but any ol' bluetooth ear piece works just fine, so I can't understand why they would not allow speech between gamers.

PapaBear

Clearly the 360 version looks better. That's all there is to it. Look around the whole screen, not just the circled area, and you'll see that the 360 is anti-aliased perfectly. I was playing MotorStorm the other day, and while it's awesome, it is pretty jaggy (it's very noticeable).

Love the heat wave effect near the legs, and the reflections of light and glass are very nice bonuses if you're a 360 owner.

All that said, I'm still waiting on purchasing a new console. I hate gambling with my own money :P

Pal

In todays news, we can't report today's news, until tomorrow.

parazen

To be fair, I've never had any trouble getting into an online game of Resistance, nor have I for the demo to Full Auto 2 (even if it IS run by Gamespy.)

I even have a couple of guys I like to play with on my friends list. Seems to work just fine so far. Not quite there with Live, but getting there.

PapaBear

ez054098

And what the hell is meant by "Effects in the PS3 version seem to be hardware rendered, while in the Xbox 360 version, they are software rendered"? Does the PS3 have some magical "Hardware Effects Renderer?"

I find myself quesitoning whether "Ollie knows his shit" since he seems to be spouting complete nonsense.

Oh yea -- all this is moot given the fact that the game itself sucks big time.

wheezo

ez054098

except that the 360 version of Oblivion will get the same graphical upgrades as the PS3 version via an update on Live

SquirrelPhister

I wasn't aware that this game would be out next week. I assumed it was down the line a ways.

My mistake, then.

I guess I have to retract my statement and say that in this instance 360 wins on this front for added features. Achievement tracking would be nice for a game like this.

While Home WILL track your stats once it is releases, it is a long while off, so I have to call a "kudos" to Microsoft on this one.

PapaBear

niledeltadisco

I would like to point this out. Fuck both of those screens. The PS3 version of the game has a versus mode which both screens (p1 p2) are both about 13inches wide. I wonder if that will change on the 360 version. It was hard as hell to play Vs mode because the screens are so damn small....

Ixero

NoBullet

By the time this game comes out, Home will have been released, allowing you to have all the rewards and trophies you could want.

And I hear tell you won't even have to use "The Sims" like interface to see peoples rewards, either, if that is a deciding factor for you.

PapaBear

well, there goes any credibility

SquirrelPhister

Aex

Cacophanus

ez054098

2x Antialiasing is NOT free on Xbox 360. The process of scaling a double sized image down to a single sized antialiased image is free, but you've still got to render an image twice the size in the first place. A 720p antialiased image on the Xbox takes as much GPU effort to process as a 1280p image on PS3 without the antialiasing on. And Microsoft don't let you ship games without AA.

Secondly, visual effects programming on Xbox 360 == visual effects programming on PS3. It's all just shader model 3, people. If one machine has fewer effects than the other, it's because the programmers couldn't do it quickly enough. If they've got the same effects but they look diffrent, that'll be down to ATI's and NVidia's hardware implementation, just like it is on PC.

Of course in the end it's all subjective anyway. What counts is whether it looks nice. And as far as frame rate goes, the casual observer has no way of telling whether it's the CPU or GPU at fault.

Mentalist-air

Cacophanus

The AA-question has been commented enough times already, but still I'm asking, what "blur"? Xbox one has no "blur" chip installed, nor does the 360.

Also, what "software rendered" effects can you find on the 360 shots that are "hardware rendered" on PS3?

The shots are ok, one can compare if one wishes, but that analysis simply makes no sense. Also, as they're not moving, commenting on the "heat haze" effect (software, is it? ;) is sorta pointless, but I could swear there's zero to none in the PS3 shot.

kryo

niledeltadisco

RedRedSuit

Thanks for getting my hopes up for nothing.

aslum

As for the actual screen shots, they look pretty similar, and I can't decide which one is better.

Ignus

dowingba

Leathersoup

AgainstOne

I'm not seeing it on there. Can anyone else confirm that the demo is on Xbox Live?

Guard

BigKidIcarus

360 has looked better to me in each comparison, but honestly, they are so close it is not that significant. When you have to search two still shots to notice the differences, who cares? That said, I wouldn't say "the next generation started when Sony said it started," unless "next generation" means worse lighting, less texture, and crappy online features.

Raring

I think it says more that programming on the PS3 still hasn't really been figured out yet. Hopefully that new kit that the Phil and the boys were doling out at GDC will help make that a little bit easier for everyone. If I remember correctly, one of the key components of that kit was graphics oriented.

I think it's far too early to be comparing things like this right now. It's taken a year for the 360 to get this far in terms of utilizing effects like these.

I mean, you can go ahead and compare all you want, but those of us who are smart will save the judgements until the PS3 has had ample time to be learned by those that have the ability to make the difference.

I think it's great that developers are able to push the 360 this far already. I look forward to the PS3 getting to that point eventually, too.

instantpop

ddldave

AgainstOne

Streaks

maikeru

Well, maybe not better, but 'cleaner'. The lines are sharper on the PS3. The edges of the AC look a bit better defined. The effects on the 360 look better in a still, but the PS3 might look fine when in motion. Other then that, there's very little to tell. The camera angle change really messes things up when trying to do a direct comparison though

Considering the devs have 1 year less experience at PS3 coding, and the well publicised (by 360 owners) lack of GPU performance, I think it stands up pretty well!

Silent_Shark

The PS3 is a good console. Nothing more.

Why do so many people believe Sony when they say they are going to bend the laws of physics and give you hardware for under a $1000 bucks that will somehow outperform everything NASA and hollywood have combined?

When have they ever lived up to this hype?

PS1? nope.

PS2? nope.

Some good TVs. Walkman. (thanks guys, you made the 80s a lot more fun) Some decent stereo gear.

A whole shitload of useless proprietary formats (yeah, beta was great until you had to change tapes to finish an average-length movie).

Where was I?

O yeah, get over it people. PS3 is not gods cellphone. It is a good game system. Roughly equivilent in power to the 360, with larger optical media and more limited RAM distribution.

There will be no miracles here.

kNZA

I own both systems and that statement still pisses me off. I am so glad to see xbox 1.5 holding it's own against the 4D supercomputer.

punkasscrab

Jabbertrack

Oh and blurring? lol... That was a cheap shot.

@vindicated:
The only difference on the gun is it's lit up by the lights underneath and you're viewing the bottom of it in the 360 shot. How is that a minus?

@Duophonix:
Agreed, it's crucial to use shots with the same camera angle if one is to compare reflections since reflection is exactly that; Light, angle, eye/POV. Apparently what you see in the windows in the 360 shot is a reflection of something next to or close by what you see in the PS3 shot.
I'm not gonna say for sure though but it looks like the reflection in the 360 shot seems to have some displacement in it making those "bulges" It may however just be whatever is reflected actually look like that.

In the end however it's pointless to compare these things since the difference is minor and all it does is feed the flamers and fanboys.
I'm buying all these consoles. When I'll be deciding on what machine to get a specifig game for when it's out for them all it's gonna be more about the price + overall performance than looks and pointless effects that doesn't really make a difference in the end, being there or not.

McKack

The lighting on the 360 version is superior, as is the environmental effects. The game does indeed have anti-aliasing as most people noticed (blur filter indeed!) though, this is not free as most people seem to think. It just costs less than would be the case on anything but the new DX10 cards. Not suprising as it uses some DX10 techniques to achieve it.

The PS3 version suffers from framerate issues, this is not down to the Cell but, rather down to the PS3's choice of GPU. Trade off is that the PS3 runs cooler than the 360 and so suffers from less hear stress failures.

Botton line is that the Japanese (although they will never truly adopt a foreign games system) are realising that they may have sold the 360s capabilities way short. Mainly due to some excellent Sony PR about the apparent power of the PS3. As with all things in life however, great power is only advantageous if it is able to be applied to the right things.

penhalion

4xAA is done for free on the 360 according to all the tech docs. Its free because of the very fast ram embedded on the GPU.

The 360 is capable of producing better effects then the PS3 simply because the GPU is more advanced with its unified shaders and the fact that it has more potential ram to work with.

d0x

That said, 360 wins this one because the PS3 has got aliasing problems...again. Any other differences are too small for me to notice with the shots being so different.

Also, 360 AA is free at 720P but at 1080 resolution, there is some performance cost IIRC. The special RAM buffer is only 10MB because it is built into the GPU daughter-chip and runs just as fast and costs a lot.

kNZA

Uh, then why are you doing it now?

helio9000

CheapyD

photoboy

But like some have already pointed out, the graphical differences are a moot point.

As long as the game makes all my sub woofers shake the neighbourhood with every explosion, then all is good.

Concerto

ClosedAccountDueToErrorsAshCouldn'tFix

vindicated

Benzido

Im a wii owner and do not wish to purchase a ps3 or 360, but i am a very experienced 3d Designer and having spent many years with shaders, renderers etc i know that the slightest movement can cause materials to appear differently.

I am curious to know what hardware rendering effects the ps3 can do compared to the 360.

DUOPHONIX.com

BlindsidesDork

I'm not surprised, though.

At the same time I think it is too early to really be making a news story out of the differences seeing it's a demo. This is still an interesting article, though.

Air

blahism

Not sure what he means by a "blur filter" - if he's referring to the NTSC flicker filter, well, that's only for SD - if he's talking about a general blur effect, that's something done with a pixel shader on the GPU, and could be written easily on both the PS3 and the 360. Not sure how the performance would stack up which could be a reason not to include it on one platform vs. another.

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between an effect rendered in hardware vs. an effect rendered in software - both the PS3 and the 360 have a multitude of highly programmable chips that can do a variety of different things - everything you see is rendered using a program running on a given processor. It's not like there's a special motion blur chip in the PS3 that's not in the 360.

The two main differences I see in quality are the reflection on the building on the side and what appears to be real-time lighting from the glowing parts on the robot on the upper-extension thingie. That sort of implies the 360 is doing more advanced effects, but who knows.

AgentMunroe

rluzinski

That's how I've felt about pretty much all of these 360 vs. PS3 comparisons so far.

PaulMorel

Rectangle

Concerto

BlindsidesDork

Nac

Amsterdaam

These comparisons for the most part are things a player would not even notice unless he was playing both games side by side. This is like stupid comparisons places gamespot made where they are zooming in on background texturing of a far off building in some racing game, when in motion both games look identical and really no one would notice these things.

Kyle81

Watership

360's 512 megs of video ram is the killer screenshot helper though , thanks to the Gears of War team for convincing Microsoft to do it.

AvocadoOverboard