360 vs PC graphics comparison - video inside

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by xyzygy (10067 posts) -

Gamespot just did a video of direct comparisons of PC version on Medium and High next to the 360 version. The 360 version looks slightly better than the PC running on medium, but obviously not as good as high. Considering the console is 6 years old this year, that is an amazing feat. From these videos the game is looking like it'll be one of the if not the best looking 360 game as of yet. And the framerate seems to hold up across the board.

This is just such a tease! Can't wait for the 17th!

#2 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11458 posts) -

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

#3 Posted by xyzygy (10067 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan: I know what you mean about the lighting - in the first scene it almost looks like geralt's skin is blue from the fog. I think I prefer the 360 lighting in that scene!

#4 Posted by mordukai (7184 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

#5 Edited by believer258 (12106 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

I don't know about him, but for me, not enough to make up for the cost of a good (read: runs everything on high at 60FPS) PC. Don't get me wrong, I think PC gaming is worth it by quite a shot, but not *just* for the cheaper game prices.

EDIT:

#6 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

I wonder if it was max EVERYTHING on the PC version. Because I just recently played it with all settings maxed and it did not look quite like they showed it.

#7 Edited by louiedog (2335 posts) -

Was that the Enhanced Edition for the PC or the one that's currently available for sale? PC users get the upgrade when it launches and it's 10 GBs of new reworked assets and improvements that the 360 version is getting. The guard at the beginning is dressed differently in each. I haven't played the game so I don't know if an outfit like that is randomly generated or if a guard's look is randomly generated or if it's because the PC version is the older one.

#8 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11458 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

There's a difference between buying games over the course of a year and having to drop a very large amount of cash all at once to get a PC. Believe me, if I could, I would build the best PC I can. But for the time being, that's not an option.

#9 Posted by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

Pc version doesn't look maxed out. The constant switch to med is kinda annoying as well.

#10 Posted by mordukai (7184 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

I don't know about him, but for me, not enough to make up for the cost of a good (read: runs everything on high at 60FPS) PC. Don't get me wrong, I think PC gaming is worth it by quite a shot, but not *just* for the cheaper game prices.

I get where you're coming from. It is quite the investment but you can still come up with a rig that will run everything on high and still not brake the $1000 mark. Personally I am glad I waited on a PC build. Witcher 2 looks amazing on high setting. There are also some features you can turn completely off and not miss them at all like the various blur effect and step down your AA and AF and have shadows running at medium.

On subject, seems like they cut the lighting a lot and obscured a lot of object in cutscenes. Colors also don't look at vivid as the do even on the medium settings. Still looks like a very good job on the port.

#11 Posted by PSNgamesun (412 posts) -

I agree looks awesome n I really hope it controls kool that's what matters to me

#12 Posted by mordukai (7184 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@MooseyMcMan: I know what you mean about the lighting - in the first scene it almost looks like geralt's skin is blue from the fog. I think I prefer the 360 lighting in that scene!

Don't forget the PC version is getting everything offered in the enhanced edition so they might very well changed the lighting in that particular scene. Still you can't see as many details as the original. Look how much they obscured, but still only one cutscene. This game is taxing on a system even on medium settings. I would like to know how is the overall performance on the 360. If it does a steady 30FPS without much dip then good job on them.

#13 Posted by CannonGoose (373 posts) -

Wouldn't the 360 version have at least some of the updated graphical effects in it? The Enhanced update isn't out for the PC version yet, so it's a little silly to compare the two versions just yet when one could be using features that the other simply doesn't have yet. The Witcher 2 Enhanced update is a 10GB update, so there will be some significant changes.

Still, with that being said I think the 360 version looks great. It's awesome that a whole lot more people will be able to play the Witcher 2!

#14 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

@rebgav said:

A few screens of Witcher 2 actually maxed, including ubersampling.

An example:

A 720p video isn't really a great format for comparison.

Perfect example of what I was talking about. I am confident that the video they had A. Wasn't maxed out and B. was stupid to try and compare the PC version (which will be running at 1080p and look at least twice as good as xbox) in a 720p video.

#15 Posted by Shivoa (643 posts) -

Can't afford $1000 PC every few years, too busy buying $60 games every month (to play on $600 console).

vs

Steam sales are my only option for quality gaming, spent all money on last upgrade to play Crysis one notch higher.

So now we can laugh at both caricatures, shall we drop the comparison and just enjoy these great games (now playable as enhanced content editions on both a console or a PC, your choice).

#16 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

That wasn't maxed out, or at least the video didn't convey it very well.

Medium on PC at 1080P will look better than the 360 version regardless, so it's not quite as clear cut as saying 360 looks better than PC on medium. You're not taking into account the possibility of a resolution difference.

Edit: I think these comparisons are always stupid, let's compare a 7 year old console to the PC, good idea guys!

#17 Edited by xyzygy (10067 posts) -

I realize that the comparisons are kind of stupid because of the quality of the YouTube video, but I just thought it was great to see how good the game runs on the 360. Many people were sceptical as to how they would pull it off but the game still looks amazing on the 360, regardless of how the PC version looks. It's a given that the PC will look better - that's not the point of the comparison. The point is to show how good of a job CDPR will hopefully do with porting the game to 6 year old hardware.

And no, I believe that the PC "high" in the video is just high, not ultra or maxed.

#18 Posted by h83r (470 posts) -

I strongly urge you all to play that video in the first post with Kanye West's Power playing in the background. It coincidentally happened for me where Power started playing as soon as I hit play on the graphics comparison, and it was AWESOME!! Here's a link for your convenience.

#19 Edited by LiquidSword (74 posts) -

Really excited to finally play this since all I have is a laptop. Also, RPS posted a story the other day that all launch copies from Amazon will be signed by the developers. That's pretty awesome!

Edit: Hmmm. It seems like they took that story off the site? Not sure what that means.

#20 Posted by Praedos (23 posts) -

@h83r:

#21 Posted by Bollard (5765 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

Gamespot just did a video of direct comparisons of PC version on Medium and High next to the 360 version.

Why?

#22 Edited by xyzygy (10067 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

@xyzygy said:

Gamespot just did a video of direct comparisons of PC version on Medium and High next to the 360 version.

Why?

Why what? To show us that the 360 version runs smooth and looks good considering it's on 6-7 year old hardware? That's a good enough reason for me.

#23 Posted by zombie2011 (5037 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

He will still have to buy those games on PC.

#24 Posted by JusticeJanitor (197 posts) -

@zombie2011 said:

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

He will still have to buy those games on PC.

PC games tend to be cheaper. Especially with Steam sells.

#25 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Nobody was attacking PC gaming in this thread, you guys can stop being so defensive.

#26 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11458 posts) -

@JusticeJanitor said:

@zombie2011 said:

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

He will still have to buy those games on PC.

PC games tend to be cheaper. Especially with Steam sells.

I already have most of the older games that would be on sale, and even for new releases, I usually try to save money even on the console versions. Last year I managed to get just about every big release (that I wanted) for around $40.

#27 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1547 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

Nobody was attacking PC gaming in this thread, you guys can stop being so defensive.

Haha, I was thinking the same thing.

"But guys, look at what the game looks like maxed out at unplayable framerates!"

#28 Posted by AlexW00d (6389 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@mordukai said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's weird how the lighting looks completely different in some of those. Not necessarily better or worse, it just looks like they changed it for stylistic reasons.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the framerate is steady throughout, because the 360 version is the only chance I'll have to play the game unless I wait a large amount of time until I have the money for a gaming PC (which could be years, I dunno).

I have high hopes!

How much do you spend in each year for console games?

I don't know about him, but for me, not enough to make up for the cost of a good (read: runs everything on high at 60FPS) PC. Don't get me wrong, I think PC gaming is worth it by quite a shot, but not *just* for the cheaper game prices.

EDIT:

It's 'cause the consoles can't handle SSAO, which is what makes lighting look so good in PC games. That's why it looks crappy in the console versions.

#29 Edited by kyrieee (379 posts) -

I think the SSAO is quite subtle. The biggest difference it makes is on faces during closeups in conversations. Especially on Geralt if he's wearing a hooded armor. For the 360 version I've mostly noticed the textures being lower res. It doesn't look bad, it's just that the textures on PC make your eyes fall out.

#30 Posted by killacam (1286 posts) -

@Shivoa said:

Can't afford $1000 PC every few years, too busy buying $60 games every month (to play on $600 console).

vs

Steam sales are my only option for quality gaming, spent all money on last upgrade to play Crysis one notch higher.

So now we can laugh at both caricatures, shall we drop the comparison and just enjoy these great games (now playable as enhanced content editions on both a console or a PC, your choice).

are you time-traveling to 2005 to pick up your consoles?

#31 Posted by Cincaid (2959 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

Nobody was attacking PC gaming in this thread, you guys can stop being so defensive.

Exactly what I was thinking, haha.

#32 Edited by Shivoa (643 posts) -

@killacam said:

@Shivoa said:

Can't afford $1000 PC every few years, too busy buying $60 games every month (to play on $600 console).

vs

Steam sales are my only option for quality gaming, spent all money on last upgrade to play Crysis one notch higher.

So now we can laugh at both caricatures, shall we drop the comparison and just enjoy these great games (now playable as enhanced content editions on both a console or a PC, your choice).

are you time-traveling to 2005 to pick up your consoles?

Yep, I'm buying them new when there is exclusive software to play on them. Why, are you only buying them today? Must have sucked to have all those games you couldn't play for all those years.

But as the final line of my comment pointed to, those are both distorted jokes of an argument; this game is ace and more people being able to play it is only a good thing. So my caricatured fight would obviously consider the maximum price of a console and the person who overspends on hardware at the detriment of software when pushing the two idiotic opposing viewpoints against each other. That was kinda the point of the joke.

#33 Posted by evanbower (1216 posts) -

@Shivoa said:

@killacam said:

@Shivoa said:

Can't afford $1000 PC every few years, too busy buying $60 games every month (to play on $600 console).

vs

Steam sales are my only option for quality gaming, spent all money on last upgrade to play Crysis one notch higher.

So now we can laugh at both caricatures, shall we drop the comparison and just enjoy these great games (now playable as enhanced content editions on both a console or a PC, your choice).

are you time-traveling to 2005 to pick up your consoles?

Yep, I'm buying them new when there is exclusive software to play on them. Why, are you only buying them today? Must have sucked to have all those games you couldn't play for all those years.

But as the final line of my comment pointed to, those are both distorted jokes of an argument; this game is ace and more people being able to play it is only a good thing. So my caricatured fight would obviously consider the maximum price of a console and the person who overspends on hardware at the detriment of software when pushing the two idiotic opposing viewpoints against each other. That was kinda the point of the joke.

Exclusive gems like Genji: Days of the Blade, and Kameo: Elements of Power! Yeaaah launch-line ups!!

#34 Posted by kerse (2118 posts) -

Why do these videos never show how it is during combat. It actually looks pretty good on the 360, but I want to know how the framerate is when everything is jumping off, not when your walking around through a town.

#35 Posted by EXTomar (4922 posts) -

...but Witcher 2 can run smooth only 6-7 year old PC hardware too. I never get these comparison videos beyond showing "it works!" but people read too much into them.

#36 Edited by mordukai (7184 posts) -

@kerse said:

Why do these videos never show how it is during combat. It actually looks pretty good on the 360, but I want to know how the framerate is when everything is jumping off, not when your walking around through a town.

I'm sure it's be like any other. So do* expect a steady frame rate of 30. I'm sure they also reduced the numbers of enemies you fight. Probably break it off into waves like what they did with DAO.

#37 Edited by cloudnineboya (845 posts) -

geralt was never blue when i played ,when did he turn into a smurf .

#38 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -

I recommed people curious about the differences between the platforms to check out this Digital Foundry Analysis. Way more thorough and accurate.

I'm really liking the changes to the lighting, and can't wait to play the Enhanced Edition on my PC.

360 / PC

360 / PC

#39 Posted by JasonR86 (9764 posts) -

Yep, PC version looks better.

#40 Edited by AndrewB (7686 posts) -

Well it definitely looks better than my PC. The Witcher 2 just crushes it. I need literally everything on low. That'll change once I get a new graphics card though. Still almost makes me wish the 360 version had been announced before I bought it. The chances of Nvidia releasing the rest of their lineup of 600 series cards before the 360 version of The Witcher 2 comes out for the 360 are non-existent, and I want to play it now.

It *is* weird how the lighting had been changed completely in that opening scene, though. I don't know if I like that.

#41 Posted by LiquidPrince (16124 posts) -

@AndrewB said:

Well it definitely looks better than my PC. The Witcher 2 just crushes it. I need literally everything on low. That'll change once I get a new graphics card though. Still almost makes me wish the 360 version had been announced before I bought it. The chances of Nvidia releasing the rest of their lineup of 600 series cards before the 360 version of The Witcher 2 comes out for the 360 are non-existent, and I want to play it now.

It *is* weird how the lighting had been changed completely in that opening scene, though. I don't know if I like that.

The lighting is far better and more understated in the Enhanced Edition. The PC version had everyone oddly glowing. I can't wait for the Enhanced Edition to come out on PC as well.

#42 Posted by C_Cage (56 posts) -

Maybe the enhanced edition will be a lot more optimized because I can't get playable fps on my laptop unless I play on low which doesn't look as good as the 360 version and even then it stutters. The best can do is use high resolution textures on low settings which makes a huge difference.

#43 Posted by HiCZoK (248 posts) -

laptops don't compute with witcher2

#44 Posted by Chop (2000 posts) -

Glad to know it's not a mess. I'm really excited now <3

#45 Posted by Vitor (2830 posts) -
#46 Posted by mosdl (3243 posts) -

@Vitor said:

Definitive analysis from Digital Foundry as always: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-witcher-2-tech-analysis

Yes PC version of course looks better, but the console version still looks fantastic AND never drops below 30FPS. Which is INSANE. Even first party games like Gears and Fable struggle to achieve that.

Actually, it says the game does dip under 30, but doesn't affect the user experience much. The good news sounds like tearing isn't very noticeable.

#47 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

Obviously the PC version is far better and the one to play, but damn if they didn't do a fine job with the graphics for the Xbox.

#48 Posted by Syndrom (363 posts) -

played through the proglogue this afternoon, game looks good and plays awesome too.

can't wait to play more!

#49 Posted by mosdl (3243 posts) -

I forget, does the game put an autosave before you make the big branching decision?

#50 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Am I weird for buying the console version even though I have the PC version and can run it on high at a constant 50+ FPS?

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.