We F.E.A.R. PS3/Xbox 360 side-by-sider video |
Ó
Don't worry - GameVideos points out which side of the sync'd video is the PS3 and which is the Xbox 360. Other than that, you know the drill by now. Watch, analyze, inwardly digest, head over to GameVideos for the HD-level, HDD-heavy download if you desire it, offer your opinions in the comments.
And we never heard a thing.
Buy: [F.E.A.R. for the PS3]
Buy: [F.E.A.R. for the Xbox 360]
25 Jumps Custom firmware 5.50GEN-D now out
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
its pretty much the same thing (already reviewed it at fanboy) except that its brighter on the PS3. They're both good games
its better to see better in less darkness. unless you are afraid of blood to see xbox oowners. ps3 really does look great. fear, hahahahaha.lol
The PC version is better then both, the end.
^truth
Xbox is way darker, which seems to be a recurring theme, but beyond that they both look to be on par with each other. What was interesting to me was that during the FMV, the character models on 360 looked better (more detailed) than on the PS3, but during the gameplay it was the other way around; 360 actually seemed to show some relative lack of detail.
All in all, I vote PS3, but that's mostly just because I own a PS3 and don't own a 360.
Your right and i own a ps3 and 360 jus want a ps3 game and i think this is the one ima get!
Ya the 360 is darker... and the fire on the ps3 at the start with the girl seemed better... but when the guy was eating the body his jacket looked better on the 360... I would say they are about equal to eachother in almost every way.
they think it will make it look better,and if a game comes out on both systems and it look better on the 360,it would b because they made it on the 360 first them ported it 2 the ps3,and developers said that was the mistake they were making,now most of the developers will make it on the ps3 first and then port it 2 the 360
"and developers said that was the mistake they were making,now most of the developers will make it on the ps3 first and then port it 2 the 360"
No, Julian from Factor 5 (who NEVER make's multi-format games BTW), says he THINKS that would PROBABLY happen, since it's not happening now. He says that's what they'll need to do to get the best out of the PS3, and therefore expects the trend would be in that direction.
Besides, Factor 5 only ever code for one console per gen (N64, GC and now PS3), so they're not exactly the best to say what multi-console developers will or won't do.
We'll have to wait and see.
The graphics are identical in terms of detail, except once again the PS3 version looks washed out compared to the 360 version (which has better contrast and richer colours).
However, you can see that in many places, the framerate is better on the 360 version.
Look at the scene shown in the image above. As the camera pans across the line of soldiers, the 360 version on the left is perfectly smooth, whereas the PS3 version stutters in comparison.
You have to ACTUALLY see it side by side to determine framerates. This is just a crappy video which shows virtually nothing except that 360 makes games darker. I read something about how the darker images make the game hide something or other. Oh well they both look equally less impressive than the PC version.
Oh yeah, if you haven't played this game BUY IT, this game rocks.
xbox 360 win!!
alot off times they always try 2 cheat the ps3,im not saying they did on this 1,but theres know telling what there using,we dont know if they were using hdmi with ps3,cuase i think there using component on the ps3..............all yall 360 fans always say its better but,u really never seen what the ps3 can do,both my brotheres have a 360,and i got ps3,now 2 me the best looking game on the 360 is fight night round 3,not gears of war,cause gow has that ugly ass glow 2 it that makes it look unreal,and the best looking game on the ps3 is fight night round 3,and me and my brother but it side by side using the split screen feature on the tv,the right side was ps3 and on the left was 360,and the ps3 fight night looks better and it has way more stuff on it,like a new fighting mode,and when ur online it keeps track of everything,the 360 does not
It looks like they both look about the same. What would tip the scale for me is the rumble feature of the 360. The scary scenes that pop up, just could not have the same impact, without the added rumble.
>"This is just a crappy video which shows virtually nothing except that 360 makes games darker."
You can download and watch the HIGH QUALITY version over at GameVideos. That's the version I watched before it was reported here on QJ.
http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/10662
>"I read something about how the darker images make the game hide something or other"
Ignore such comments, they come from dumb fanboys online. Don't listen to them.
The 360 is darker and the PS3 more washed out in these comparisons because the default contrast, brightness and colour levels are DIFFERENT between the 360 and PS3, just as they are different between different graphic cards on the PC. All it takes is a few seconds and you could make the 360 version lighter or the PS3 version darker, or the reduce the colour, or increase it etc.
If today you buy a new graphics card for your PC, there's a high probability that you'll have to adjust the contrast, brightness and colour to get it to the way YOU like it, especially if it's a graphics card from a different GPU company.
>"Oh well they both look equally less impressive than the PC version."
Should that be a surprise? Besides, that's provided you have a PC with sufficiently power.
if a scary scene pops up i can rumble my controller my damn self,but they might add it,but if yall dont know there is a gt demo that has rumble........xbox 360 elite should be coming out soon so yall will have hdmi,hd dvd,and 120gb hdd,but it still uses 1.2 hdmi,and the ps3 has 1.3 hdmi,and it was the first deviece 2 ever have it
"the ps3 fight night looks better and it has way more stuff on it,like a new fighting mode,and when ur online it keeps track of everything,the 360 does not"
The PS3 version was released 9 months after the 360 version, so it has benefitted from extra developement time. That said, the main improvement in the PS3 version is on the boxers, but they've reduced the effects in the background. For example, crowds in the 360 version are fully lit by the light sources surrounding them, whereas they are not in the PS3 version. If you run them side by side again, focus on the backgrounds only and see the differences.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-6.html
They both look great, but I think the 360 version is too dark, as they trying to hinde something ? I get my eyes too tired when games are that dark, so I'll get it for my PS3 ;)
OMG MY CONTROLLER IS SHAKING! This definetly feels MUCH MORE realistic! its so immersive!
/sarcasm
its pointless to bring up darkness versus light... because YOU CAN ADJUST THAT ON YOUR TV OR IN TEH GAME... most likely these videos are vreated on default settings...
why does everyone care so much about these comparisons? do you really need a bunch a fanboys telling you their system is better so you should go buy it? buy what you want and play what you want, who cares. seriously guys, this crap needs to end. why do you feel the need to so strongly defend these companies? "dude, why did you get that red shirt when this blue shirt is way better?" think about it. play your games and stfu!
But it seems many gamers here are not smart enough to realise that. ;)
the 360 looks jaggier
The 360 version of it looks better.
yeah.. thats what the in-game gamma control is for..
They both look pretty identical to me only diffrence i seen was in the beginning of the video when the guy's in the cell. If you look at the wall behind him, the 360 displays a bit more detail but other than that it looked near identical. This is coming from a PS3 owner. I also agree with the post above, just enjoy the game and stop worrying about which looks better, the end result will be the same on both systems, you will play the game, get to the end and beat it.
The 360 version looks better. PS3 is too washed out and bright. In fact, its so bright that even in the pitch black dark rooms the PS3 player didnt even have to use his flash light. I dont even think the PS3 player even turned on his flash light once. I dont see how that game is gonna be scary when youre never really in the dark unlike on the 360 version. But we all know 360 does shadowing and light better anyways, so its no big deal. Also the framerate for the ps3 side looked choppy in some areas and the part with the guy on the floor had more detail along with the part where he was eating the dead guy his jacket had more detail on the 360 side. And whats the point of playing a shooter without rumble? boooring.
oh whats that sound, it's me getting shot in the back.
I agree with this. I downloaded the HD version and watched it on my 60". The PS3 version did seem a bit choppy and lighting wasn't as good. Overall it's a pretty decent port.
Great comments Games4James. Nice to see there are a few sensible gamers around here.
Going back to Fear. I never really liked the game on the PC (maybe it's just me), but the console ports do look rather good.
Looking at the high res video though, sometimes the framerate is not as good on the PS3 version, but other than that, and ignoring the brightness, they look the same.
Dont see no difference but the Developers in profits as the sales of the 360 will outsell the PS3 version by around 1000 to 1
I agree with Games4James and HM, the fanboys just see any post from the console they dont own and post a negative Reply, they look at the comparison on these videos and just see what they want to see and believe, its Pathetic...
Dont see no difference but the Developers WILL in profits as the sales of the 360 will outsell the PS3 version by around 1000 to 1
I don'[t care both versions look the exact same to me, oh wow the 360 version is abit darker so? Turn up your brightness. The PS3 version will be priced at $59.99, and the 360 version is down to $39.99. Now if you owned both systems what one would you get?
I would rather save my money on the exact same game.
u have a gd point there.
i would go for ps3 as i own a ps3.
a person who owns both consoles would most prob go for the 360 version unless he has a gd reason to go for the ps3 version.
in the video (i have the full hd on my laptop but will watch it l8ter) both games look the same except from brightness ect ect but when makeing the video they could had adjusted the brightness to make it look the same ect
1 more thing. i wonder wot res the games r at, because the ps3 dont upscale so it will be 720p but 360 can upscale to 1080i/p so if its 720p v 1080p thats not fair
Sorry, but I go all the way with the 360 version. Why? because if the only argument the Sony fanboys have is that the 360 is to dark, well that's something i can fix in the brightness setting. The problem is that for a $600.00 system, the graphics look identical, I'll expect a better framerate or better graphics, but they are nearly identical.
They look close enough, but you only pay $30 with the XBOX 360. That alone makes the 360 version better.
Everything about the PS3 is more expensive.
i hope u know its a port yer which means theres gona be less detail in the game ect ect
u might think they had time 2 improve it but thats not the only game they have 2 port 2 the ps3 and they r working on other titles. im impressed with the ps3 grafix especially when u compare them 2 early 360 games.
I agree. FEAR is such old news now. I played this game 2 years ago on my PC above 1080p TV resolution.
First off I think what Gamesdmc3 ment to say is the coding will be made for the PS3 then they will use that code on the 360 version. Not necessarily that one version will always come out to retail first.
And this is the reason why that is going to be. The guy from factor 5 did not explain why. It is not because one is better than the other, it is because of the way the memory works on the platforms.
Both 360 and PS3 have a total of 512mb of ram. But the 360 allows developers to use that ram which ever way they want. It is not dedicated to either graphics or system memory. So they can use for example 400mb for graphics(shader s, textures) and 112mb for System (physics and geometry). Or Vise Versa 400mb system and 112mb graphics.
The PS3 however has 256mb dedicated to graphics and 256mb dedicated to System. So developers are not free to use more than 256mb in either catagory.
So when developing a cross platform game. Lets say they made it for 360 first (Splinter Cell is a good example of this) and used the 400mb to 112mb ratio that I mentioned earlier. Well in order to port it to the PS3, they have to find a way to fit in the same amount of lighting, texturing and shading into 144mb less ram. And that is extremely difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Thus most developers dont want to waste the amount of resources and they just dull down the graphics. Splinter Cell was a prime example of this.
HOWEVER if they coded a game on the PS3 first and optimized for the 256mb to 256mb ration. There would be no effort involved to get it running on the 360. The only thing that might make that port hard is if the game had a ton of physics or needed more space than a single DVD.
But otherwise it would cost much less to go from PS3 to 360 rather than the other way around. Thats why Julian from Factor 5 said that. Its easier and Cheaper. Its not a matter of computing power or anything like that. Just the memory.
This is strictly concerning cross platform games. Games made specifically for either system will still have a hard transition in the future to the other.
Firstly, I think it's quite clear than Gamesdmc3's comments are strongly biased towards the PS3 and against the 360. But moving on...
The memory arguement is an issue, but if developers want more than 256MB for graphics, they are not going to limit it just because of the PS3 (and haven't so far). And if they DO want to use just 256MB to make things easier, then they can do so on the 360 and still port the game to the PS3. There's no need to swap over and start developement on the PS3 to achieve this, so that's not really the reason.
The only arguement for starting on the PS3 instead is too try to get more out of the hardware due to it's design, such as better use of the SPUs (the REAL reason why coding on the PS3 is much harder). Devs may start on the PS3 because it's harder to develope on, and therefore easier to port to 360. But that doesn't get rid of the higher dev costs to optimise the code on the PS3 hardware to start with. So whether you start on the 360 or PS3, the total costs to produce BOTH versions would be about the same.
There are other factors as well, including the ease of going from PC to 360 and the better developement tools found on the 360.
So it's not a simple case of devs switching from the 360 being the lead format to the PS3 because of memory. There are many factors involved, and therefore each dev will make their decision depending on those factors as a whole.
Therefore I agree with Games4james that we'll have to wait. Right now, I'm not convinced that devs are moving over to the PS3 as the lead developement format for multi-format games.
devs are NOT limited to 256 of system and 256 of graphics memory..yes there are two seperate pools..but they can use the two as if they were one..devs are free to use more than 256 of memory for graphics. get yours facts straight before you post. 360 and PS3 have the same amount of memory. the issue with ps3's split memory is devs have to learn to deal with coding across the two pools, the are not limited to using only the graphics pool for raphics etc.
just because the lighting is different doesn't make the graphics appear to be 'washed out' (CoD3 is washed out) the colours and overall graphics looks almost identical, with differences in textures here and there.
the 360 elite doesn't come with a hd dvd drive...
he did turn it on...and he didnt leave it on because he didn't need to..i know i would have used it - and its not sooo bright that the flahlight is completly different, its just a little brighter. and the colours do not lok washed out, i think people need to get over this phrase, the lighting is just different.
exactly code2006...it's just a port, and at the same time, a multiplatform game. multiplatform games really wont look much diferent from each other.
i would just like to bring up GT:HD...a demo which has really excellent car graphics, cars that look better than a full retail game by the name of Forza 2...and you all know what happens to demos.they are improved upon, and since GT5 wont be untill 2008, it's going to look extremely goood.
identical except the 360 one is darker, so dont tell me im wrong because i watched the hd version on my 1000000" tv
Did anyone notice that the walls, and the tiles on the walls look shiny on the 360, and not on the PS3.
Take a look for yourself in the vid..
Everything about the ps3 more expensive? Online - free. Next-gen dvd - free. Memory slots - included.
Ability to switch hdd without having to pay bill Gates an extra $100 - included.
Yeah I could pay for $30 for the 360 version, but that mean I settled for a 360.
"just because the lighting is different doesn't make the graphics appear to be 'washed out'".
I didn't say it was to do with the game, it's more to do with the default settings on the PS3 compared to the 360 (as I explained above).
"a demo which has really excellent car graphics, cars that look better than a full retail game by the name of Forza 2..."
That's pushing it a bit. Forza 2 isn't out yet, and from the most recent pics I've seen of Forza, the cars are now on par with each other.
"devs are NOT limited to 256 of system and 256 of graphics memory.."
Well, in a sense, they are to a degree right now, but it should improve over time.
It is far from straight forward for RSX to utilise the 256MB of XDR memory, which is why no devs that I'm aware of are using BOTH GDDR3 and XDR for textures on the PS3.
The only use I know of XDR for graphics so far is Warhawk, but not for textures, it's used for the volumetric clouds, which are rendered by Cell and combined with the graphics rendered by RSX to produce the final image.
But that's a very small use of XDR so far.
We'll see.
Isn´t it cheaper on 360 cause its been out longer? and thats supposed to make it better? i think that Sierra should get some respect because the PORT of the game actually looks about the same as the original unlike the other ports that are out there right now -_-. also if you port a game wouldnt the graphics be at best the same as the original?
¨Sorry, but I go all the way with the 360 version. Why? because if the only argument the Sony fanboys have is that the 360 is to dark, well that's something i can fix in the brightness setting. The problem is that for a $600.00 system, the graphics look identical, I'll expect a better framerate or better graphics, but they are nearly identical. ¨an answer to my question above would disqualify this fanboy right here. framerate is something you can argue, but not graphics because it is a port afterall.
yeah Fps on console only good for halo... FEAR on PC has extraction point... so its technically better!
How's that crowd looking on the PS3 veriosn of fight night ? Pixelated enough for ya ?
haha, looks better my ass....
what's ironic to me is that i can use my PS3 controller on my computer to play F.E.A.R, which i do (when i'm not using keyboard and mouse), and since it looks exactly the same on my PC and PS3, i'm not getting the PS3 version.
great game all around, though. it's a fine addition to the PS3 library, which is short on quality games.
best PS3 games thus far:
Resistance
Virtua Fighter 5
Motorstorm
Oblivion
and now F.E.A.R.
man, i can't wait until June/July, when Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Lair hit.
well if it dose sell better thats just stupid. ps3 will have more stuff in the game
it really isent
OMG I CAN TLT MEYE *****ROLLR!1 This definitely feels MUCH MORE realistic! its so immersive!
/sarcasm
Go away, nerd.
I was saying that the 360 version looks shinier, as in the reflections look a lot better than on the PS3.. i think u misunderstood me...
I don't really care, this is what they do they just make a game for computer then they passed the game to the xbox 360 and then to PS3 wich means that they are not making a new game with new graphics its just a replica of the same game but its working in a different system.
The game is not taking all what the PS3 can handle....either the Xbox360...
he speaks the truth. Except F.E.A.R Combat > than the rest (cause its free)
Adjusting the brightness up causes the lightest whites to become washed out, and going darker will make the 360's problem even worse. Contrast can tone it down, but only somewhat, and you can't bring back what wasn't there in the beginning... And when you do, there goes the 'amazing' lighting and contrast that all you xbots tout / spew. We've even heard this being acknowledged directly from QJ editors.
Ridge Racer XBOX360 vs PS3
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/7/4/5/3/0/Ridge_Racer_9_1080p.jpg
The 360 version is Ridge Racer 6 released at the launch of the console in November 2005, the PS3 version is Ridge Racer 7, release ONE YEAR later at the launch of the console in November 2006.
So, RR6 vs RR7, 2005 vs 2006. If you still can't work why there's a difference, then you're very stupid indeed. :|
This isn't a problem, it's a simple issue which is EASY to solve.
As pointed out already, what we are seeing is simply a difference between the DEFAULT contrast, brightness, gamma and colour levels between the two consoles. The same kind of difference you see between different video hardware (DVDs, Videos etc) and different graphics card for the your PC.
I recently upgraded the graphics card on my PC and spent ages adjusting the graphics settings on the monitor and the new card to get it to the way it was with my old graphics card!
So if someone adjusts their TV settings so that games on their 360 looks perfect, then PS3 games on that same TV will probably look lighter and washed out in comparison. Adjust the TV to make the PS3 games look correct and the 360 games will look darker with deep colours on the same TV. Those with both consoles probably have the settings somewhere in between (if adjusted via the TV alone that is and not the console).
That's the difference.
come on people look at it, ps3 has more light and it looks clearer then 360,360 version is so dark u cant even see the girl where shes at, she might be right behind u and u r dead lol hahahahaha
but then again u can adjast u r brightness on u r tv if u want brighter x360 fear
that the gears of war game is cool but when you playing and it loads a respawn place it wont load right will look all blury like for 10 sec or more and on ps3 for example resistance fall of man it loads great when you fire you see the effect on each bullet meaning that if you fire five bullets quick you see the effect on whatever you shooting on all bullets but on xbox 360 you see like 3 out 5 of on gears of war or any other game but in the end i have both system and each console has its private partieswich will make them to sell.
But remember when ps2 came out didnt have good titles and later on booom whe had all this great games so its just to early to judge but i go for PS3.
that the gears of war game is cool but when you playing and it loads a respawn place it wont load right will look all blury like for 10 sec or more and on ps3 for example resistance fall of man it loads great when you fire you see the effect on each bullet meaning that if you fire five bullets quick you see the effect on whatever you shooting on all bullets but on xbox 360 you see like 3 out 5 of on gears of war or any other game but in the end i have both system and each console has its private partieswich will make them to sell.
But remember when ps2 came out didnt have good titles and later on booom whe had all this great games so its just to early to judge but i go for PS3.