The post here in VGC is less likely to see any difference. I clicked on the link and the 360 is jaggy...

As long as the 360 performs well this won't be much of an issue at all.

SD is 480p. Therefore anything higher is HD.

With you logic there is something between SD and HD.

And it's called "sub HD'.

Not exactly. Each 360 DVD can only hold 6.8GB of game data. The rest is MS stuff.

Are these confirmed as the final 360 shots (excuse my ignorance)? If so, ouch! Sub-HD missing many graphical elements versus 720p with many added extras. Again, are we sure the 360 images are representative of the final product?

Then it's a tad different, plus, the BR is probably holding Sony's latest firmware update, too... (even though it's small, my PS3 downloads them real quick @ my 4MBPS connection).

the only reason for that is that the devs did not know what they was doing, SE are well respected devs and normally push hardware, as you have noticed their games are normally to most visually impressive, I am not wanting to start a war here, but in my opinion it was the devs fault that Ghostbusters was not as good on the PS3.

Why'd you shrink down the images? It kinda defeats the point of a comparison such as this when you've scaled both shots to 867x487, and the supposed resolution of the 360 version is 1024x576.

From what I've read on gaf, the analysis of the available screenshots was done properly. The only question is the source of the 360 shots. I'd wait until after both versions of the game are readily available before trusting any comparisons like this.

What about 576p, the PAL DVD standard for many years?  The expressions Full HD, HD and SD cover standard resolutions e.g. 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.  The non-standard resolutions like 600p that are seen in games like COD 4, aren't covered by these terms. 

What's interesting is the 360 can definately support better AA and textures than that. As ever, this shouldn't be taken as confirming something about the HW so much as the software.

Assuming that is final build, then I see three options:

1 - due to space, even with three disks, SE dropped the resolution on the textures, etc. a bit and this is the result. Not horrible enough to affect the game IMHO but clearly not as nice as PS3. But again, this isn't down to the 360 but the textures themselves

2 - the late port engine on 360 just isn't as well tuned. SE has made comments they ended up with two versions of the engine, which is odd because ages back they said all their tools/engines were PC based and fully multi-platform. If the 360 version is a different cut of code then looking at the timeline for release it simply can't have had as much optimization and polish as the PS3 version. Again, nothing to do with the 360 simply SE having (in a reversal of Bayonetta) a weaker version of the engine on 360. The weak AA hints at some flaws around the engine.

3 - a combination of the above two, which is what I think personally. The assets look like they're simply weaker to squeeze it all onto the disks, as I guess SE had to juggle how much to compress the CG videos vs the actual game assets. The AA implies to me a not fully 360 optimized engine.


BTW if you can't see the difference (on the originals) then I'm a little amazed. There's no law saying everyone has to understand how to spot AA, texture resolution, etc. but on the other hand the entire image immediately isn't as sharp or vibrant on 360.

Anyway, I'll be waiting until I see 360 version (retail release code) content before accepting for sure these are final build images.

If it is I wonder why they didn't simply go for a fourth disk? 3 or 4, what's the big difference, and then they would have had far more space to play with an could have reduced the compression of the assets.