“…both games had their fair share of performance problems…”

Ubisoft									Ubisoft
Ubisoft Montreal	1	1	Ubisoft Montreal
Action/Adventure	1526 mb	n/a	Action/Adventure
Release: 11/17/09	22 sec	19 sec	Release: 11/17/09
ESRB: Mature	16.36%	5.06%	ESRB: Mature

			Head2Head – Assassin’s Creed II Analysis Length: 00:06:48 We go Head2Head with Assassin’s Creed II for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

This week the Lens of Truth was able to get our mitts on another blockbuster game: Assassin’s Creed II. This hands-on exclusive was made possible by the noble folks at Play N Trade (Lake Mary). Watch the video analysis to see which version makes you feel like you’re in the Renaissance and which one makes you feel like you’re at a Renaissance Faire.

Graphics: Assassin’s Creed II is a nice step up in graphics from its predecessor. However, overall, the graphics seem inconsistent. The town is well laid out and you never get caught staring at a bad wall texture seam. Characters, on the other hand, seemed to be hit or miss. Models like the mother have some great textures and the details will make you wonder if you’re really looking at a game or at a real life person. Unfortunately, models such as your main character’s face, lack detail and are overall flat textures. Also, most of the models in the present time line (first level) make you think you’re playing a different game. Aside from the normal contrast differences (which can easily be adjusted per one’s discretion) the game looks nearly identical on both systems. Overall, both games seem to support 4x anti-aliasing and the texture quality and shadow maps between the two were almost indistinguishable. Speaking of shadows, both systems feature the same annoying shadow clipping plane. Basically shadows that are closer to the camera render at higher samples than those further away. Makes sense, but they should have smoothed out the transition as you can clearly see the high resolution/low resolution line a few feet from the camera.

Performance: While the graphics were extremely close, our frame analyzer was able to capture major differences. The main and most obvious performance issue with both versions of Assassin’s Creed II was the screen tearing. Even though both games had their fair share of performance problems, the PlayStation 3 just simply had more. The PlayStation 3 had almost 3 times the amount of screen tearing when compared to the Xbox 360. This was the major deciding factor of this Head2Head. Listed below are the results of the analysis:

Loading: Both systems had very close load times. In our samples, the PlayStation 3 averaged at 22 seconds whereas the Xbox 360 averaged at 19 seconds. The PlayStation 3 did have a mandatory 1526mb install which took around 4 minutes. Regardless, the load times were fairly quick and it’s well masked with the interactive “loading” screen.

Roll over to see the differences. Notice the difference in texture filtering.

Roll over to see the differences. Notice the variation in the town lighting at night. Looks like the Xbox 360 lights have more decay.

Roll over to see the differences. The Xbox 360 seems to have better shadowing in this scene.

Roll over to see the differences.

Conclusion: The winner of this assassination is the Xbox 360. Both versions were very close in every category except performance. Screen tearing is a major performance problem and we at the Lens of Truth, quite frankly, can’t stand this. With the PlayStation 3 version having close to 3 times the amount, it was the only issue that prevented a tie. Everything else was either identical or too close to give to one or the other (like loading). Any consumer would be pleased with the overall gameplay and story. However, overall the game had many tiny technical issues. Many camera cuts would somehow destroy character models. Geometry (character models in particular), fall apart when viewed frame by frame. At normal frame speed, models would look like they were popping or snapping into scene, which, at any frame speed, can be pretty jarring. With these issues being prominent in both consoles, these issues had to be eliminated from the scoring, but we felt it was necessary to be mentioned as a consumer alert. That being said, it is still a game worth buying.

	G R A P H I C S
	Visually, both versions of Assassin’s Creed II look virtually identical. Textures, shadows and anti-aliasing quality match very well.  There are a few discrepancies in lighting (town at night from above for example) and missing objects in cinematics (candelabra in room). But all-in-all Ubisoft did a great job matching the graphic quality between the two versions.
	P E R F O R M A N C E
	While neither version of Assassin’s Creed II performed perfectly, the Xbox 360 version had far less screen tearing than its PlayStation 3 counterpart.
	L O A D I N G
	Load times in Assassin’s Creed II where all but a tie. The PlayStation 3 loaded in an average of 22 seconds and the Xbox 360 in 19 seconds. The PlayStation 3 version did have a 4 minute install weighing in at 1526mb.
	O U T C O M E
	Both versions of Assassin’s Creed II are very close in all ways but one. Performance. And that is where the PlayStation 3 had the most issues. You won’t be disappointed with either version of Assassin’s Creed II, but if you have a choice we recommend the smoother performing Xbox 360 version.

	C O M M E N T S	C H O I C E
	Ubisoft did a great job with both versions of Assassin’s Creed II , but I will have to pick the game up on the Xbox 360 due to the PlayStation 3’s performance issues. Also I have the first Assassin’s Creed on the Xbox 360 and I can’t bring myself to split up such a great series.
Corey	“Ubisoft did a great job with both versions…”
	This game looks amazing! Seriously, getting to the top of the highest building and looking out gave me chills. I love open world environments because even when the game’s over there is still tons of things to do. However, I don’t like screen tearing. The winner here is the Xbox 360 by a long shot and believe me, WOW!
Jaime	“…WOW…”
	My first impressions of this game were that the game was unimpressive, based on the first level. It can be very deceiving. Even though it was important to the story, the level really brought the graphics down. But if you can get past it and get into the real game, you’re gonna have fun. Overall I’d pick this up on the Xbox 360 for less screen tearing, although I’m interested in the PSP connectivity.
John	“It can be very deceiving…”   http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16415

i guess i will wait for the PC version, hopefully it will be superior to PS3/360 versions

couldn't they turn on color profile to full, and hdmi super black?
those lack of contrast pictures are ugly.

Hmm its your typical PS3 tearing due to the Cell architecture with QAA vs MSAA and slower loading + install due to Blu Ray multiplat. I wonder what the Xbox 360 load times are after install?

8.6 vs 9.1% tearing doesn't look like big difference to me.

rather the overblooming the ps3 have. it's more annoying.

both version should have been installed squilly there is no way and uninstalled game it's faster than installed one for obvious reasons.

Aren't these the guys that distort the color because their recorders or whatever can't do PS3's Full HDMI or whatever.

profile HDMI 1.3 have new color profile. so it's possible

edit: it looked ugly, here is the the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC

up to 1.2 everything was set up RGB standards in CRT, some manufactures have it own calibrations, but then XvYCC profile, full/limited was implemented. my b450 support it and it does make a huge difference.

Even if we say that tearing is not important. where did your number s come from? The article clearly states

Global percent of torn frames: 16.36
Global average FPS: 28.97

Global percent of torn frames: 5.06
Global average FPS: 29.76

This is a 3:1 ratio. Where did this 8,6 vs 9,1 of yours come from?

Are you reading the same passage?

They clearly sated the PS3 version was installed. And it's mandatory if you read it.

the ps3 is just weaker than the 360.