NNN2004 said:
result :
1- SoulCalibur IV : Namco-Bandai has been unable or unwilling to match on the equivalent PlayStation 3 code. For one thing, the game is running internally with a whopping great 40 per cent resolution increase on the Microsoft console, with a native framebuffer of 1365x960 versus the standard 1280x720 on the PlayStation 3. The Xbox 360 version also has an extra layer of lighting effects completely absent on the PS3 game.
2- Kung Fu Panda : PlayStation 3 is locked to 30FPS, whereas the 360 code does its best to run at the more preferable, fulsome 60fps. The result is a better looking game for the Microsoft console, but the smoother update comes at a cost - there's some pretty awful screen tear to contend with.
3- Mercenaries 2 : the advantages of the Xbox 360 version are twofold: there's the inclusion of a depth-of-field effect (taking the form of a subtle blur the further 'into' the screen you go) along with an improved ref
resh rate. As both
games target 30fps, and achieve it with no v-lock, that translates into an additional amount of screen tear on the PS3 game.
4- Guitar Hero: Aerosmith : PlayStation 3 owners get a technically deficient game - something that's become more depressingly predictable the more cross-format Neversoft games I've looked at...Just like Guitar Hero III, the Aerosmith edition runs at a sub-optimal 1040x585 resolution compared to the native 720p, 60fps loveliness of the Xbox 360 version - basically a 33 per cent drop in detail.
5- Beijing 2008 : While the Xbox 360 version gets the entire range of visual effects, including excellent anti-aliasing, selective depth-of-field blurring and full 720p resolution (blowing up nicely to 1080p if you are that way inclined), the PlayStation 3 rendition of the game looks a bit unfinished in comparison.
6- The Incredible Hulk : the Xbox 360 version look tangibly worse than the equivalent PS3 code ??!! ( one point for sony here).
7- FaceBreaker : ..... draw here.
8- EA Sports Roundup : There's a slight deficit in performance with Madden on PlayStation 3 - the menu system seems prone to entirely arbitrary pauses and the replays are noticeably lacking in animation compared to the Xbox 360 version. The developers are on record as saying that this is down to a memory shortage in the PlayStation 3 hardware .... All three games take longer to load on PlayStation 3 than Xbox 360.
and now one question for sony .......... : WHERE IS THE POWER OF THE CELL UR TALKING ABOUT ??!!
|
Who said anything about the Cell? I find it laughable that Eurogamer is still trying to "prove" that the X360 is somehow superior, in terms of graphics quality, to the PS3, when it clearly is a total wash from a high-level.
I love how they include earth-shattering games like Kung Fu Panda and Beijing 2008, clearly developed by AAA teams... and already on clearance at most major retailers (maybe not in Europe?). Another huge win for X360 owners across the world, I guess.
Some of the games in this list makes their article look like a joke -- which is how I perceive most Eurogamer articles, actually.
Since I own all 3 consoles, and I'm a total framerate junkie, I always buy on the console with the best framerate, as long as there aren't any serious issues (like horrendous pop-in or loading pauses) that make me want to buy on the other HD console instead. Games like Madden 08, AC, and CoD4 absolutely rock on the X360 compared to the PS3, but for a good number of cross-platform games (like DMC4, Oblivion, and GTA4), the PS3 is clearly superior. There's no clear winner here, other than the console that any particular game was typically developed on, or a the one where a significant amount of time was given to a port a game. Eurogamer does at least cave in and admit the PS3 is superior on "trivial" games like GTA4, DMC4, Oblivion, etc., when the entire rest of the media are lauding the performance, and appearance, of them on the PS3, and they'd look foolish not to do the same. Then of course, they bash all those ugly PS3 games, like MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, etc. that just can't stand up to wonders like Halo3... which looks slightly better than Halo2 even.
Their opinion of Mercs 2 is way off, IMO. I find it more satisfying on the PS3 than the 360, and I could swear DoF was in both games... and tearing? I didn't see any, myself. I don't know what they're yammering on about with that one.
Its a laugh that Eurogamer is still trying to "prove" that the X360 is "better" in some way. What a ridiculous rag they are. I hate to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but their reviews and opinions are so far off base as to really make the games media biz look amateurish. I feel the need to rush in and call BS on one console looking better than the other. It's just not true, from any perspective. Some games look better on one console than the other, but it has nothing to do with the console, and everything to do with the developers.
They need to spend a couple weeks agonizing over fine tuning gamma levels, lighting, and colors for one console and a zillion different TV types, and then do it all over again for another, because the output hardware is different, not "better" or "worse" -- then they might have some perspective. It has nothing to do with the hardware, just like the food at your favorite restaurant has nothing to do with the ingredients from day to day... Its the chef, and the developers, that are the issue.
