http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/912/912354p1.html

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/912/912337p1.html

Xbox360 -8.0

PS3 - 7.8

As a fan of The Armored Core series, I am glad to see its back to being good after the craptastic Armored Core 4. This will be my weekend rental this week that I will keep until I finish it...thanks to blockbuster no late fees policy.

The game seems to fare well on both platforms but it appears the 360 version scored better due to better visuals.

The review states -

"But as much as I love the Armored Core experience, it has its fair share of problems. Primary among them is a PS3-specific issue. The framerate on the PS3 version is downright awful during sequences of intense action, though luckily normal battles usually go by without a problem. I just couldn't seem to get the 360 version to slow down, even after launching hundreds of missiles and flying through a collapsing building. I was hoping that the optional PS3 HDD install would help a bit, but that's not really the case. Load times aren't even noticeably alleviated, which is a shame."

Anyone else looking forward to this game?

So you mean ps3 is a crap compare to 360??

i have yet to see you make any contributions to any of the threads you post in.

this game is only 2 points difference, baja on PS3 got 4.9 compared to 360's 6.9, some devs are just being lazy on ps3's side since baja on ps3 almost looks like PS2 game

What is up with the title of this game? from Answers???

he put wrong title, its for Answers not from Answers

People act like this is somehow the 360 being better. The 360 is not better in any way then the PS3. What happens sometimes is the cost of making 2 distinct versions is too high so they dumb down both to what the 360 can handle (less textures, lower resolution, less things on screen ect). They don't want to get hit with the 2 or 3 DVD tax MS puts on (since 3 DVD games makes the 360 look bad) and don't want to make a separate higher res version for the PS3 so they just release the same lower then average version to both.

It is not a coincidence that PS3 only games look loads better then multiplatform games. Uncharted, MGS4 and the like look awesome because they're not tethered to the low specs of the 360. To say a tethered game is slightly better on the 360 isn't news.

Incidentally this tethering is why I find it worthwhile to hate the 360. It makes a lot of the games I want to play on PS3 worse.


What we really need as far as mech games goes is Zone of the Enders 3. Kojima has some free time now so.....

^I think you should replay uncharted, see the screen tearing and texture pop-in, and then come back and say that it is a game that looks loads better then CoD4 (a multiplatform game). The only evidence you have to that statement is MGS4, and even then its beauty is in the consistency of its graphics, not how real they are (I mean look at the hair of most of the characters in that game, particularly meryl).

Don't blame the 360 for Sony not looking forward and realising that a "uber powerful" CPU is useless if developers are unable to exploit it.

On topic:
Quite sad for me, I'm actually a fan of Armored Core. It's the few (actually I would say only) mech game that produces consistently playable (read at least average) games since Zone of Enders went MIA.

I only own a PS3 of the HD consoles, and if the slowdown is big enough that IGN notes it, I'm passing on this game.

Doesn't sound to different than how Armored Core 4 was between the PS3 and 360.

Slowdowns during intense PS3 action? that sucks. Expecially after Armored Core 4, which had the PS3 version looking better, and X360 having better lighting.

Damn. Damn. Damn.

I sure hope it's not as intense as he describes it.

I don't know about other issues, but I do know that texture pop-in really hurts Mass Effect even on the 360.