PS3 version looks noticeably worse than the 360 version.

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -
#2 Posted by Grillbar (1895 posts) -

thats not what i want to hear. could buy the pc version but dont wanna support origin, ill proberly end up with the ps3 version anyway since the difference is not that big to my untrained eye

#3 Posted by thehexeditor (1404 posts) -

I thought PS3 was lead platform out of the two consoles.. It's the version they showed off the most..

What the f happened.. The game still looks good though.

#4 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -

Seems like it'll be negligible if you're running through and just playing.

#5 Posted by Chris2KLee (2337 posts) -

@thehexeditor said:

I thought PS3 was lead platform out of the two consoles.. It's the version they showed off the most..

What the f happened.. The game still looks good though.

Well, with PC being the overall lead, it was probably easier to port the code over to 360 than to PS3. But like others have said, when you're running and gunning, I'm not sure it will be that noticeable. I'll probably get it on PS3 anyhow since that's the system most of the people I know play on.

#6 Posted by m0rdr3d (474 posts) -

Wow. There's like a nasty ghosting effect on the PS3 character's hand. That would bug the heck out of me. Still a good looking game, of course.

#7 Edited by Three0neFive (2300 posts) -

I like how people will fervently bitch about graphical differences between consoles, but as soon as the PC is brought up everyone tries to dismiss the whole thing as if they didn't care in the first place.

#8 Edited by Contro (2040 posts) -

According to the UK games journalist I spoke to in detail about this last Friday, the PS3 version is the best version overall, he was told this by a designer at DICE's HQ's in Sweden. Having played the PS3 version myself thoroughly, I can happily say that I saw nothing that concerned me about it's overall quality - it looked fucking amazing on PS3.

You'll notice that I backed out of saying as much in my blog, because these arguments are a load of BS.

#9 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

These comments regarding this will never get old.
 
Oh wait, they do.

#10 Edited by DonPixel (2603 posts) -

It might be that English is not my native language but I think noticeably doesn't means the same to you than it does for me dude.

anyway pretty much this:

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

These comments regarding this will never get old. Oh wait, they do.
#11 Posted by Devoid (429 posts) -

Man, the community on that site is terrible. But that's the Internet, I guess.

#12 Posted by LittlemanBodie (126 posts) -

Only thing pissing me off about the ps3 version is that I'm having to update it right out of the box. Only 30 more minutes...wtf!

#13 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

@DonPixel said:

It might be that English is not my native language but I think noticeably doesn't means the same to you than it does for me dude.

anyway pretty much this:

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

These comments regarding this will never get old. Oh wait, they do.

How is it not noticeable? Look at the texture on that poster with the apple on it. It's blurry as shit on PS3 and crystal clear on 360. And right beside that, a poster with a bottle on it, on PS3 you can't even read what the bottle says and on 360 it's crystal clear.

#14 Posted by Balex1908 (143 posts) -
#15 Edited by DonPixel (2603 posts) -

@CL60 said:

@DonPixel said:

It might be that English is not my native language but I think noticeably doesn't means the same to you than it does for me dude.

anyway pretty much this:

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

These comments regarding this will never get old. Oh wait, they do.

How is it not noticeable? Look at the texture on that poster with the apple on it. It's blurry as shit on PS3 and crystal clear on 360. And right beside that, a poster with a bottle on it, on PS3 you can't even read what the bottle says and on 360 it's crystal clear.

Yeah you know what.. I'm not going to argue that, you win.

:)

cus is late and I was just taking a break from the tedious bf3 campaign so whatever.

#16 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

Why do people still care about graphics.

#17 Posted by Sackmanjones (4784 posts) -

not really,

#18 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

not really,

Since I see a lot of you saying this.. how in the fuck is this not noticeably worse? The textures look like ass on ps3.

#19 Posted by Wuddel (2099 posts) -

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1105029/battlefield_3_ps3_vs_360_vs_lowres_textures_screen_comparison.html

Versions with textures seem identical.

#20 Edited by spazmaster666 (1978 posts) -

@Wuddel said:

Well aren't there optional textures on consoles? Are they installed on both?

The PS3 install is mandatory, the 360 one is "optional." So it must be some kind of glitch, or somehow they got a screenshot of the PS3 version without the high-res textures applied.

#21 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

That ghosting shit on the ps3 is making it look like shit. They need to patch that fast.. Otherwise they both look good but PC will dominate anyways and all will be back to normal.

#22 Posted by Doctorchimp (4078 posts) -

Ah yes, picking apart graphics on consoles.

#23 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Three0neFive said:
I like how people will fervently bitch about graphical differences between consoles, but as soon as the PC is brought up everyone tries to dismiss the whole thing as if they didn't care in the first place.
"Gameplay and story are what matters" 
Haha, sad sods.
#24 Edited by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

GOD REALLY WERE STILL DOING THIS?!?!!?!?

Both versions look similar. Are you honestly gonna look at the texture that much up close and let it bother you? For what, to see what the superior version is? You can't really tell that from a screenshot nowadays because of things like lighting and framerate and even *gasp* controller lag can fuck the game up to compensate for that marginally more detailed texture.

I have both a 360 and PS3 so go think again if you're gonna call me a fanboy. EDIT: Wait, I am a fanboy. PC master race, biatch!

#25 Posted by withateethuh (726 posts) -

@Grillbar said:

thats not what i want to hear. could buy the pc version but dont wanna support origin, ill proberly end up with the ps3 version anyway since the difference is not that big to my untrained eye

That's just silly. Origin isn't really bad or intrusive at all, and either way if you buy the game you're buying EA, therefor supporting Origin.

#26 Posted by bwmcmaste (859 posts) -

Has anyone else noticed that the 360 images look darker than the PS3 ones? Is there an explanation for this?

#27 Posted by Wuddel (2099 posts) -

@bwmcmaste: I am not sure. Maybe different gamma settings?

#28 Edited by Psychos1s (9 posts) -

DICE had to use lower res textures in certain areas like many cross-platform games tend to do. Most of the textures in the comparison screens are identical. And when the game is in motion and you're busy shooting and dodging bullets, the posters will look blurry anyway. What you will notice more than a few blurry textures here and there is lighting. In many of the screens and videos I saw on Lens of Truth, the PS3 version had better lighting.

I will point out in the screen above–while the 360 has high res poster textures, it also has more blurriness from the middle guy on, (I'm assuming this is due to the AA method used). Ignore the posters and look at the middle guy's pants and shoulders. Also the seat right above his shoulder is blurry. The gun model on the PS3 also looks sharper.

Both platforms have positives and negatives. I'm glad I have a kickass PC to run this game though!! :)

Little explanation below:

I'm a die hard PS3 fan. But as powerful as the processor is its the GPU and memory issues that are the problem. This becomes a huge issue with multi-platform games, (especially when the PC is the lead platform). It's just easier to go from the PC to the 360. They have similar architectures and developers LOVE memory. Having the freedom to control the 512MB of shared memory on the 360 is a lot easier and forgiving then being stuck with 256MB of video ram for the PS3. They have to do more streaming of the textures but this is a problem with the Blu-ray media. It can hold a lot more than a DVD but it also streams slower. That is why there is always a mandatory install on most PS3 games–especially mult-platform.

After reviewing countless Face-Off's by Digital Foundry (www.eurogamer.net) and Lens of Truth we should all know by now that developers have to take little shortcuts here and there depending on the game and whether or not the PS3 is the lead platform. This creates flaming and fan boy wars between consoles when side by side screenshot are put up. However as long as the game runs at a decent frames-per-second (this varies and is a different topic) we won't notice the differences in the heat of gameplay.

#29 Posted by Bucketdeth (8044 posts) -

I would never notice while in game. People told me how horrible Dead Island was on the PS3 and it plays fucking great, unless you nitpick.

#30 Posted by EVO (3932 posts) -

Yeah, noticeable difference... Side by side.

#31 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

*hugs PC*

#32 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -

@Psychos1s said:

What you will notice more than a few blurry textures here and there is lighting. In many of the screens and videos I saw on Lens of Truth, the PS3 version had better lighting.

This really stood out to me as well that dude in the middle of the screen looks like ass in the 360 version. I don't know about you guys but when I'm shooting a dude I'm not checkin' out posters on the side of the screen. :P

#33 Edited by Hamz (6846 posts) -

I always view these sort of topics like this, if you're going to stand still looking at static images in the game world then by all means I can see why such comparisons between game versions are made. But if, like me, you don't do that sort of thing when playing games then it shouldn't make much of a difference. At the end of the day when you're sprinting like crazy fragging some badguys or just trying to hit the next checkpoint. You don't notice whether the text on an in-game poster is blurry or not.

Personally I've always found a lot of the side by side comparisons for games are to be taken with a pinch of salt. Half of what they try to present as a noticeable difference in quality between versions is only ever actually noticeable when, as I said above, you stand still and spend five minutes actually staring at a static image without moving. And honestly if you're that anal about this sort of thing then being a gamer is not the hobby for you!

EDIT: Just to throw in some fanboyish commentary anyway regarding these sort of comparisons. Pretty much 90% of the PS3 images have actually decent lighting in them where as the 360 looks rather dull and dreary, pump up the gamma god dammit!

#34 Posted by Robo (813 posts) -

Why do people pick apart graphics?
Well, we're given the option of buying the same $60 game on three platforms. Why not get the best version for the money?

If you only have one console or all your friends are getting it on one, cool, get that, but don't bitch about people with a choice trying to weigh their options.

Funny how people don't seem to mind when others comment on graphics being GOOD.

You don't see conversations like,
"Wow, this game looks great on the 360"
"ZOMG WHO CARES ABOUT GRAPHICS!?"

Nah, the only time you see that is with people jumping to defense. Frankly that defensiveness is worse than comparing visuals.

#35 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

2 discs are better than one.

#36 Posted by MrOldboy (871 posts) -

Other than the texture streaming, I think they are pretty similar. Although a screenshot taken at the exact moment the steam issue happens is of course going to make the article better, by having a more noticeable difference. Watching video I cant honestly say I can tell.

#37 Posted by Andorski (5352 posts) -

I'll say it again: the Lens of Truth people are amateurs in these graphical comparisons. Their analysis is little more than taking random pictures through the game and doing naked-eye side-by-side match ups. Wait for Digital Foundry to post their comparison. Their analysis is almost scientific.

#38 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@LordXavierBritish said:
Why do people still care about graphics.
This....as long as the graphics don't get in the way of the gameplay I couldn't care less what the graphics look like.
#39 Posted by truckington (54 posts) -

I'm extremely wary of any site that does graphical comparisons by using shrunk down JPGs.

If they want to be taken seriously at all they need to use a less shitty format and show them in the original resolution they were captured at.

#40 Edited by Wuddel (2099 posts) -

All this arguing almost makes me hope that the next console generation will be a device with hardware made by Sony (with more memory) and the software made by MS. One console. End of discussion. Will never happen though.

In 2011, with the PC so far ahead, it'r really pointless to discuss these details. Both do not look terrible. That's all I need to know.

#41 Edited by gike987 (1770 posts) -

Lens of Truth is terrible, their comparisons are extremely amateurish. Wait for Digital Foundry if you want a real comparison. But if graphics are that important to you you should probably get a PC instead.

#42 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

God I don't care. It will be patched in a week. I don't know why people still bitch about this stuff, it's just the way things work now, get used to it.

#43 Posted by Arker101 (1474 posts) -

@Three0neFive: Well, I think most of us can agree that no matter what, the PC version will be graphically superior. There's really no arguing over that, but if a lot of console games are able to be very similiar -graphics wise- on both PS3 and 360, it seems extremely weird that this game, which has been flaunting its graphical prowess, would be that much worse on the more powerful of the two consoles.

#44 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

The thread title just makes me think this guy works at Microsoft.

#45 Posted by bybeach (4977 posts) -

Hamz said "Personally I've always found a lot of the side by side comparisons for games are to be taken with a pinch of salt." The rest of what he said was good, but this is my condensed down take, also. Simply, there can be other factors, not even including intention of predjudice/manipulation on the part of the presenter. Plus things do tend to get corrected. What perplexes me is why so much patching on games that are suppossed to be done.

#46 Posted by fodigga (124 posts) -

Games are fluid, moving things. True graphical quality can't accurately be measured by screenshots taken from a video. Maybe if there was a stark difference between the quality of side by side videos of the game there could be something to this. But picking apart screenshots strikes be as being unnecessary and not doing justice to the game.

#47 Posted by Sogeman (874 posts) -

@thehexeditor said:

I thought PS3 was lead platform out of the two consoles.. It's the version they showed off the most..

What the f happened.. The game still looks good though.

The reason they showed it off more wasn't because of quality but because of marketing. Just like other games always show off the Xbox version.

#48 Edited by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -
#49 Posted by laserbolts (5349 posts) -
#50 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

It clearly states below the images that the PS3 took slightly longer to stream in proper textures when they were taking the snapshots. So that's probably the reason the textures don't look right on the New York signs on the subway for the PS3 version. Honestly, the Lens of Truth guys are probably not bright enough to figure that out.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.