Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

TT-2k · 07.10.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Uh-huh, vähän pitänyt taukoa näiden vertailujen referoinnissa tähän ketjuun, joten nyt pitää käsitellä neljä juttua samalla kertaa.

Dead Island: PS3:lla aito 720p ja lataa tekstuurit nopeammin, boksilla reso "vain" 1200x720 mutta parempi ruudunpäivitys ja vähemmän repeilyä; voittaja X360 (jos PC-versiota ei lasketa)

Sony's system offers up a small lead in image quality, with a sharper presentation and better texture filtering giving the game a mildly clearer look to it. But at the same time it's a real shame that Techland couldn't deliver a suitable level of performance to go along with the slightly better presentation on offer. There's no getting away from the fact that the various issues with heavy frame-rate drops and near continuous screen-tearing more than outweigh the benefits in other areas. In that respect, the Microsoft platform is home to the most consistent gameplay experience, and one that comes with very little cost when it comes down to the overall look of the game. As such, it should be the number one choice for those without a semi-decent PC.

Dark Souls: 1024x720 ja 2xMSAA kummallakin konsolilla, PS3:lla ei pakkoasennusta mutta tarjoaa häviöttömästi pakatut 7.1-äänet, X360-versiossa tasaisempi ruudunpäivitysnopeus (30 fps) kovimmissa kahinoissa; tasapeli

In the final conclusion, image quality on both platforms is ostensibly identical, while performance is an apples and pears situation. Neither the 360 or PS3 version can definitively claim to have an absolute edge here, with Sony's machine taking volumetric effects in its stride, and Microsoft's handling destructible elements more convincingly. These are minor quibbles compared to the performance hit both consoles take in the face of particle effects and multiple enemies, however.

For the deciding vote, it's close enough for us to recommend either controller preference or the PS3 version's larger range of supported audio formats as more crucial points for consideration. It's clear From Software accepted no compromises when it set out to deliver the dark, fantastical world of Lordran, and to that end, an extreme price is paid in terms of playability at points. However, it's ultimately the same story whichever version you end up buying. In the run-up to its release much has been made of the game's promised difficulty, but it's ironic that Dark Souls is just as unforgiving towards your hardware as it is to you.

F1 2011: PS3:lla repeilyä + ruudunpäivitysongelmia ja MLAA-reunanpehmennystekniikka ei sovi pelin graafiseen tyyliin lainkaan, boksilla 4xMSAA ja tasaista menoa kaikissa tilanteissa; voittaja selvästi X360 (pl. PC-versio)

Out of the two console SKUs, there's simply no doubt that the 360 game is the one to get this time around. The difference in image quality is instantly noticeable: there are no major issues with aliasing and the enhanced smoke and water effects appear fuller. Performance is the real clincher: the more predictable 30FPS update makes for more enjoyable experience all round. That said, the PS3 game is still playable, and is worth picking up if that's your only option - bearing in mind the excellent optimisation effort in the last game, we'd like to hope that the issues are being resolved and a new patch released.

Rage: PS3:lla 8 gigan pakkoasennus, hitaasti latautuvat tekstuurit, pidemmät latausajat mutta tasainen 60 fps:n ruudunpäivitys, boksilla 22 gigan "vapaaehtoinen" asennus (mutta käytännössä lähes pakollinen), lataa keskimäärin 8 sekuntia nopeammin mutta ruudunpäivitysnopeus heittelee; voittaja hyvin niukasti X360

Conclusion: This was a very close and unique Head2Head when compared to the past. Both versions are well worth the money, but officially the 360 version will be squeaking by with a VERY close victory. Much of this choice will be a matter of personal taste. Are you willing to accept a few more pop-ins for a smoother frame rate, or are you willing to sacrifice those frames for a slightly more polished visuals? In terms of scoring, this is a 360 win when it comes right down to it. When it comes to which version you should buy, it all depends on what you as a gamer want in a product as both versions have their pros and cons.

Lähteet: Eurogamer (Dead Island), Eurogamer (Dark Souls), Eurogamer (F1 2011) ja Lens Of Truth (Rage)

TT-2k · 08.10.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Joutuiko Digital Foundry raivon valtaan? Vuorossa Face-Off: Rage. Aloitetaan Ragen varsin erikoisesta piirteestä eli nk. dynaamisen frame-bufferin käytöstä. Taatakseen tasaisen 60 fps:n ruudunpäivitysnopeuden, pelimoottori muuttaa natiiviresoluutiota lennosta tilanteen mukaan tavallisesta 1280x720:sta jopa 640x720:een. PS3-versiossa tuota tapahtuu selvästi useammin, ja kun kummallakaan alustalla ei ole käytössä reunanpehmennystä, nähdään Pleikkarilla välillä varsin rosoisia reunoja.

Rage operates an internal monitor that measures engine load and when the renderer is in danger of missing a 60Hz refresh, it downscales the next frame. A 720p vertical resolution is always maintained, but the horizontal can be adjusted dynamically - anything from 640x720 (cutting image definition in half, basically) up to full-fat 1280x720.

&

The success of dynamic resolution is all about visual perception and everyone will have their own tolerance level, but based on our experience, Rage on Xbox 360 manages to maintain the illusion of a full high definition presentation even when it is switching between various resolutions: there's just the odd shimmering visible in the aliasing every now and again but overall integrity of the effect is sound. The effect on PlayStation 3 seems to be much more frequent and the resolution drops are significantly more noticeable.

PS3-versiossa on reilun 7 gigatavun pakkoasennus, mutta siitä huolimatta se lataa tekstuurit paikoitellen huomattavan myöhässä verrattuna täysasennettuun X360-versioon. Sen sijaan ilman asennusta eli pelkästään DVD-kiekolta pyöritettynä boksiversion tekstuurilataukset ovat vieläkin hitaampia.

Another element of image quality where there are plain differences between the two consoles is in terms of the texture streaming. To fully understand this, we need to have a bit of a refresher course on how id's virtual texturing works: in short, there are four levels here in the journey from storage to display: the optical drive, the hard drive cache, the memory cache and the on-screen texture. In a worst case scenario, the Xbox 360 will go through all four stages on every piece of art in the game. Installing the game to hard drive cuts out the optical disc completely and thus removes the slowest part of the procedure.

PlayStation 3 only gets a partial install - a weighty 7.1GB that takes around 20 minutes to complete - so some of the texture data is still being drawn from the Blu-ray (which in terms of all-important seek times is slower than the Xbox 360's DVD drive), and this does result in significant differences in the time it takes for the image to fully resolve. Running Rage on an Xbox 360 without the install, but with a hard drive attached for caching purposes, isn't quite as fast as the PS3 - but it's not a million miles away from the overall performance profile.

Lopputulos on Digital Foundryn mielestä varsin selvä; jos on varaa upottaa n. 22 gigaa Xbox 360 -version täysasennukseen, on se paras tapa pelata Ragea konsoleilla. Kaikista parasta versiota varten tarvitaan kuitenkin teho-PC (ja toimivat näytönohjainajurit).

In terms of the consoles, the purchase recommendation is very straightforward: Rage is an easy win for the Xbox 360 - if you have the hard drive attached. The dynamic resolution scaling technology works more effectively on the Microsoft platform, and there are very few instances where you feel or even recognise that you're playing a sub-HD experience - unfortunately the same cannot be said for the PlayStation 3 where the visual sleight of hand is not quite so effective.

&

Texture streaming is the other main bugbear people will have with Rage: it's noticeable on all platforms (even PC), but a full 360 install up against a partial PS3 install is no contest - the 360 wins hands-down and provides the better experience. At its worst, the combination of low resolution textures and sub-HD resolution combines to make Rage look rather bland, a touch blurry/blocky and detail-lite on the PS3 at times, something that just doesn't seem to be the case with the 360 game running exactly as id outlines.

Lähde: Eurogamer

Cobretti · 15.10.2011

Vastaus: Crysis - remastered [PS3/X360]

Höh, konsoliversioista puuttuu kokonaan yksi kenttä. Aika huono uutinen, varsinkin kun tästä lähes 20e maksoin. Itse kenttä ei kauhean kummoiselta näytä, mutta periaate on periaate.

Perhaps one of the more curious changes to the console remasters was the omission of the cumbersome Ascension level. On PC, this sees the player navigating an airship across a series of valleys while fending off alien scouts, and permits them to trace their route back across some of the game's major landmarks, only from a higher vantage. Now, this may well have been removed as a result of either implications arising from technical restraints, size limitations set by Microsoft or Sony on downloads, or even time constraints - but it may also be that, just as Crytek UK claim, that it simply wasn't that much fun.

( Face-Off: Crysis - Page 2 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net )

Ilmeisesti tämä kenttä: Crysis HD Ascension - YouTube

TT-2k · 22.10.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Bädä-bädä-bädä-bädä-bätmään! Ja nyt kun kaikilla soi legendaarinen Batman-tunnari päässä, voittekin sitten lukaista lyhyen tiivistelmäni Lens Of Truthin Head2Head: Batman: Arkham City Analysis -artikkelista.

Ulkoiset erot ovat aika pieniä. Paikoitellen PS3-versiossa (tarkemmin määrittelemätön) reunanpehmennys toimii paremmin, mutta toisaalta X360:llä tekstuurit ovat siellä täällä hieman tarkempia. Pleikkarilla valaistus- ja karvaefektit (!) jäävät myös joskus jälkeen boksikumppanukseen verrattuna.

While most of the differences are small and will likely go unnoticed when playing the game, they are there. With that in mind the 360 will be taking this category by a nose.

Ruutua kummallakin konsolilla päivitetään kivasti 30 kertaa sekunnissa käytännössä koko ajan, mutta PS3:lla repeillään enemmän; 1,70 % vs. 9,55 %.

Both versions had some tearing, but the PS3 certainly has more of it. The 360 version only tore slightly less than two percent, while the PS3 version ranks up at a much more noticeable ten percent zone. While neither of them have super high tearing numbers, the 360 version definitely handles things better in this aspect. Microsoft’s platform will be taking this category as well this time around.

Latausajoissa oli keskimäärin alle sekunnin ero (kiintolevylle asentamattoman) X360-version hyväksi, vaikka Pleikkarilla onkin vajaan parin gigan pakkoasennus.

Näistä kaikista pienistä eroista seuraa lopulta se, että LOT:n vertailu voitto meni X360:lle.

Conclusion: This was a pretty clear cut comparison, regardless of how well both versions looked. While both versions had pros and cons when it came to visuals, the PS3′s advantages seemed to be in very isolated spots. Meanwhile the 360 version showed off its edge throughout most of the game. Furthermore the performance side of things favored the 360 as well. Even though both had an equal frame rate performance, the PS3 version tore noticeably more than the 360 overall. No matter what version you play, you are sure to have a blast. If you have the option however, the 360 would be the one to buy.

PS. Tämän vertailuvoiton myötä tilanne multiplattarien herruudesta vuoden 2011 osalta kääntyi toistaiseksi Xbox 360:lle. Vaikka alkuvuosi olikin PS3-versioille varsin suosiollinen, oli kyseessä ilmeisesti kummiskin vain jonkinlainen sattuma tai tilastoharha. Mutta vuotta on toki vielä jäljellä kolmatta kuukautta, ja vertailuja ehtii tulla muutamia, joten ei nuolaista ennen kuin tipahtaa.

Lähde: Lens Of Truth

TT-2k · 28.10.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Ja taas soditaan: Head2Head: Battlefield 3 Analysis! Tarina etenee vanhan kaavan mukaan, eli ensin kerron, kuinka PS3- ja X360-versioissa on pieniä graafisia eroja. Boksiversion HD-tekstuuripaketin asennuksen kanssa tekstuurit ovat käytännössä identtiset, mutta Pleikkarilla kestää välillä hujauksen pidempään ladata varsinainen pintakuviointi. Valaistusefektitkin ovat likipitäen samat, mutta jostain syystä esimerkiksi motion blurista pääsee nauttimaan (?) vain PS3-versiossa. Sahalaidatkin saavat parempaa käsittelyä Sonyn konsolilla. Näinpä ensimmäinen vertailun osa-alue meni PS3:lle.

When it is all said and done, both versions have their own perks. However, the PS3 had more perks that also happen to be much more noticeable by comparison. With that in mind, the PS3 version will be taking the visuals category today.

Kumpikin konsoliversio tähtää 30 ruutukuvaan sekunnissa, ja siinä onnistutaankin suhteellisen hyvin. Mikään ei kuitenkaan tule ilmaiseksi, vaan repeilystä kärsitään molemmilla alustoilla. Latausajoissakin on vain 2 sekunnin ero X360:n hyväksi, vaikka PS3:lla onkin 2 gigan pakkoasennus.

Lopulta kärhämä päättyi PS3-versiolle niukasti, mutta ei X360-versiollakaan ole tarvetta heilutella valkoista lippua.

Conclusion: This was a pretty close comparison overall. Loading was nearly identical between versions with rather short times overall and performance ended in a tie as both versions tore rather bad, despite a smooth frame rate. What did make a difference here was the visuals. Both versions pulled their own cards from under their sleeve, but when it came to the overall number of advantages it was the PS3 version that had the deck stacked in the end. Noticeable Anti Aliasing advantages, extra post processing effects, and the lack of Z-fighting far out weigh a very minor texture disadvantage and equally minor texture streaming issue. All in all, the PS3 version pulls through with a win on one of this years most anticipated games this Holiday season.

Lähde: Lens Of Truth

TT-2k · 16.11.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Syysväsy... Mutta Digital Foundry jaksaa painaa, ja sieltä onkin tullut viime aikoina kolme uutta vertailua. Käsittelen ne ylimalkaisesti.

Battlefield 3: Tasapeli (mutta PC-versio on omaa luokkaansa, ja boksilla tekstuuripaketti on lähes pakollinen)

It's safe to say that Battlefield 3 really is a treat visually, regardless of the platform you own: DICE's trademark ultra-detailed textures and materials look magnificent on the new engine, the destruction model is second-to-none, atmospheric rendering and particle effects work are sublime. Invest in some decent PC hardware and you can see just how scalable Frostbite 2 is, but even on console - which DICE itself acknowledge is roughly equivalent to the PC version on its lowest settings - the experience in multiplayer is remarkable.

Modern Warfare 3: X360-versiolle voitto (tasaisempi ruudunpäivitys, paremmat läpinäkyvyysefektit, tarkemmat tekstuurit)

However, in terms of the console comparisons, it's fairly obvious that the underlying Infinity Ward technology favours the Xbox 360 architecture and in terms of both image quality and performance, it's the Microsoft platform that is the recommended buy - unless you prefer gaming on PSN of course. It's in the multiplayer game that Modern Warfare finds its longevity, so the make-up of your friends list may well be more important than additional frame-rate or sharper visuals. In this all-important mode, overall performance between the two console versions appeared to be much closer.

Skyrim: X360-versiolle voitto (PS3:n FXAA-reunanpehmennys syö tekstuureista yksityiskohdat ja ruudunpäivityskin pykii)

... despite their best and most well-meaning efforts at achieving parity on both consoles, we can confirm that the 360 does command a clear advantage over the PS3 when it comes to both image quality and performance. Even with the PS3's mandatory install, the geometry pop-in in certain areas is more distracting than it is on Microsoft's platform, and the light blur introduced by its post-processing tends to affect the clarity of the image as a whole.

For those lucky enough to be multi-platform owners, the 360 version also comes recommended for its more stable frame-rate. With that being said, they're both perfectly acceptable taken on their own terms, and the core of Skyrim's complex open-world design remains entirely intact on each. However, the save game issue on PS3 remains a concern and we'll continue to carry on playing there in order to see if its manifestation necessitates a blog update.

Lähteet: Eurogamer (Battlefield 3), Eurogamer (Modern Warfare 3) ja Eurogamer (Skyrim)

TT-2k · 21.11.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Ei hitto, miksi näitä tulee nyt ihan solkenaan? EMMÄJAXA!

Skyrim: X360-versio paree (perustelut samat kuin Digital Foundryllakin; PS3-version ruudunpäivitysongelmiin tulossa patch...)

When you look at the overall package as a whole, the 360 just has more to offer in terms of visuals and performance, therefore claiming the victory of this Head2Head. With a VERY noticeable lead in visuals and a solid frame rate to handle it all, there isn’t much left to complain about if you can wait for a patch to fix the streaming glitch for running the game off of your HDD (which will force you to wait about seven centuries every time to go into a new area if left unaddressed). There is a little matter of screen tearing that is absent from the PS3 version, but the massive amounts dropped frames that the PS3 has to dish out from time to time (only when under stress) in order to make that happen can be much more annoying, and noticeable. With that in mind though, if you REALLY can’t stand the tearing or you just don’t feel like waiting for a patch to play the game with faster load times, the PS3 version is still a perfectly playable alternative in the end.

Assassin's Creed: Revelations (Lens Of Truth): Tasapeli (PS3-versiossa lopultakin päästy Quincunx-sutusta eroon ja mukana bonuksena eka AC)

When you look at the overall package as a whole, you really can’t go wrong with either version. The loading times are equal, which therefore make them a non factor, and both versions had their own slight perks to boast about. For the most part, they look and perform about the same. If you want to really get into it though, you can basically pick your poison. Both versions look great, but the PS3 version is slightly sharper and more appealing overall. On the other hand, while both games had the same performance issues, the 360 version had slightly less frame drops and tearing under the lens. Regardless of this however, it seems that Assassin’s Creed is making great strides in perfect console parity. Even though it isn’t truly perfect with this game, neither version can be considered better than the other, which is something that the past entries to the saga were not able to say.

Assassin's Creed: Revelations (Eurogamer): X360-versiolle lievä nyökkäys (boksilla vähemmän repeilyä)

Well, in visual terms the gap has narrowed once more to the point where image quality comparisons are basically pointless, but things are certainly different from a performance perspective. Here, across the run of play, it's clear that the Xbox 360 version has a consistency in terms of frame-rate and controller response that seems to be lacking within certain map areas on the PlayStation 3.

Saints Row The Third: PS3-versio voittoon (Pleikkarilla ei lainkaan repeilyä, boksilla repeilee massiivisesti, vapaavalintainen v-sync heikentää X360-version ruudunpäivitysnopeutta, PS3-version ostajille Saints Row 2:n latauskoodi kaupan päälle)

When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package.

On tää rankkaa...

Lähteet: Lens Of Truth (Skyrim), Lens Of Truth (Assassin's Creed: Revelations), Eurogamer (Assassin's Creed: Revelations) ja Lens Of Truth (Saints Row The Third)

TT-2k · 05.12.2011

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

No...

Modern Warfare 3: X360 (perustelut voi lukea vaikka tosta alta)

Overall it is clear that Call of Duty remains best played on the 360. With much sharper visuals and more detailed textures, no one can really argue which version looks better. While the PS3 version did eliminate jaggies, it came at the cost of an ugly blur filter that rarely is worth the effort. If you only own a PS3 however, there is no reason to feel down if you were looking forward to this entry in the Call of Duty franchise. While it may load SLIGHTLY slower and the visuals aren’t quite as pretty, you won’t get sold out when it comes to performance, as performance numbers for both versions are extremely close. It is safe to say the Modern Warfare 3 is the best performing Call of Duty game on the PS3 as well. Now if only the developers would show the visual aspect some attention and effort to get it on par with the 360 version. While we all know it is possible, it certainly did not happen with this game.

Saints Row The Third: PS3 (PS3:lla 4 gigan pakkoasennus, boksilla 2xMSAA, Pleikkarilla Quincunx joka onneksi ei aiheuta kärsimystä johtuen pelin graafisesta tyylistä, motion blur parempi PS3-versiossa, X360-version suuri ongelma paha repeily)

When it comes down to the final analysis of the console versions it's all about compromises when deciding which one to go for, but if we had to choose between the two we'd take the PS3 release for the lack of screen tearing, seeing as this has far more impact on your enjoyment of the game than the drop in image quality. Alternatively, if the 360 version is your only option, by all means pick it up instead - the content is identical between releases and most of the fun comes from the madcap antics on offer. The technical issues - while unfortunate - aren't deal-breakers.

Update! Otetaan loppuun vielä puolisentoista kuukautta sitten tullut Digital Foundryn Arkham City -vertailu, joka on jostain syystä unohtunut.

Batman: Arkham City: X360 (Pleikkarilla huonommat läpinäkyvyysefektit, epätasaisempi ruudunpäivitys, pikkaisen repeilyäkin ja vajaan parin gigan pakkoasennus)

The good news is that both Xbox 360 and PlayStation games come highly recommended, and the graphical differences have no meaningful impact on either the overall look of the game or the gameplay. The frame-rate drops, although more noticeable on the PS3 aren't exactly a big deal and the additional tearing we see on the Sony platform didn't affect our enjoyment of the game. Rocksteady has done a fantastic job at delivering a solid cross-platform title; one which combines some impressive visuals with stellar gameplay, a great story and more.

Lähteet: Lens Of Truth (Modern Warfare 3), Eurogamer (Saints Row The Third) ja Eurogamer (Batman: Arkham City)

TT-2k · 03.01.2012

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Vuosi 2011 tuossa tulikin päätökseensä, joten katsotaanpa hetki viime vuoden multiplattarivertailujen tuloksia. Tilanne monialustapelien suhteen näyttää muuttuneen oleellisesti, eli nimenomaan PS3-versiot ovat parantaneet laatuaan kuin se kuuluisa sika juoksuaan. Vuoden aikana tilastooni kertyi 49 pelin vertailut, ja jakauma on seuraavanlainen.

PS3 = 17 (35 %)
Tasapeli = 13 (26 %)
X360 = 19 (39 %)

Vaikka vuoden kokonaisvoitto menikin edelleen Xbox 360 -versioille, oli ero vuosien 2007-2010 mittelöihin verrattuna huomattava. Koskaan aiemmin ei ole tullut noin monta "voittoa" PS3-versioille, ja toisaalta sekä tasapelejä että X360-version pidempiä korsia oli ennätysvähän. Jos näin amatöörinä jotain voi syistä sanoa, on PlayStation 3:lla päästy varsin hyvin sahalaitojen aiheuttamista ongelmista. MLAA:ta tai muita vastaavia Cellille ulkoistettuja reunanpehmennystekniikoita käyttikin tänä vuonna huomattavan moni peli, kun taas pahamaineinen Quincunx on ollut varsin vähäisellä käytöllä. Toisaalta useiden gigatavujen pakkoasennuksia on nykyään lähes jokaisessa pelissä.

Kun kaikki vuodet ja 304 peliä huomioidaan, näyttävät tilastot tällaisilta.

PS3 = 54 (18 %)
Tasapeli = 88 (29 %)
X360 = 162 (53 %)

Poistettu jäsen 5945 · 24.02.2012

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Eikai tämä ketju nyt kokonaan voi olla kuollut? Onko tullut uusia vertailuja ja jos on niin voitteko tänne laitella.. Näitä on yllättävän mukava lueskella.

TT-2k · 24.02.2012

Miika_- sanoi:
Eikai tämä ketju nyt kokonaan voi olla kuollut?

Olin tuossa puolitoista kuukautta "lomalla", joten vaikka vertailuja on maailmalla julkaistukin, ei kukaan ole niitä tänne latonut.

Jos tässä illalla vielä jaksan, nakuttelen referaatit neljän pelin vertailutuloksista. Vihje: yksi tasapeli, yksi voitto PS3:lle ja kaksi voittoa X360-versioille. Eli perinteisissä merkeissä jatketaan...

TT-2k · 27.02.2012

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Noooooh, ihan ei jaksanut viikonloppuna, mutta tässä näitä nyt tulee tosi pikaisesti ja tiivistäen.

Soul Calibur V: tasapeli (720p@60 fps molemmilla alustoilla, boksilla reunat pehmentää FXAA, PS3:lla MLAA, PS3:lla vapaaehtoinen parin gigan asennus)

SoulCalibur 5 delivers an ultra-smooth experience whether you're playing on Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, meaning you can purchase either knowing you're getting a top-end experience. Put simply, this one is one of the closest cross-platform games we've ever played.

The Darkness II: tasapeli (1152x600-reso kummallakin konsolilla FXAA-reunanpehmennyksen kera, boksilla palikkaisemmat varjot ja enemmän repeilyä, mutta hieman parempi keskimääräinen ruudunpäivitysnopeus, PS3:lla ei minkäänlaista asennusta, PC-versio lopulta paras)

During gameplay the PS3 has a very slight edge (hardly any tearing is present) while things are a tad smoother on the 360 when the engine is being pushed. In the end though, the differences are pretty minor in real world terms, and shouldn't really bother players engrossed in the action.

&

If you've got the requisite hardware, the PC version of The Darkness 2 is clearly the one to get, but the good news is that the game still packs a hell of a punch on both consoles.

Final Fantasy XIII-2: PS3-versiolle voitto (720p nyt myös boksilla, 2xMSAA-reunanpehmennys, X360-versiossa hieman tarkemmat varjot, mutta PS3:lla ruudunpäivitys pysyy kautta linjan tasaisempana ja Blu-rayn ansiosta välivideot parempilaatuisia)

Taking all these points into account together though, there's no doubt that it's the PS3 version that we'd recommend if given the luxury of choice. With Final Fantasy 13-2, Square Enix has managed to pair the overall look of both versions very closely due to their matching framebuffers and identical assets and effects. As far as image quality is concerned, FMVs on the 360 still stick out like a sore thumb due to some extreme levels of compression, although this is made more tolerable by virtue of their infrequency. However, it's the edge in performance that the PS3 offers - usually ahead by 5FPS at any one time during town stages and cut-scenes - that makes it the version to vouch for.

Kingdoms Of Amalur: Reckoning: X360-versiolle voitto (PS3:lla ~4 gigan pakkoasennus ja paikoitellen tarkemmat tekstuurit, mutta ei reunanpehmennystä eikä motion bluria, boksilla kuvaa hieman pehmentävä FXAA käytössä, paremmat varjot ja v-sync estämässä repeilyä, PC:llä silti nautinnollisin kokemus)

In conclusion, it's safe to say that you can buy Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning on any of the three major HD gaming platforms and you're going to be in for a real treat. The experience on console is essentially interchangeable where it truly matters, but if we had to make a choice, it would have to be the Xbox 360 release. While the more minor visuals upgrades such as texture filtering and improved shadows are nice, it's the motion blur and reduced aliasing that makes it the marginally better buy.

But clearly it's the PC version that's the one to get, even if you have a relatively modest gamers' rig - it looks better, it plays better, it just feels right.

Syndicate: tasapeli (PS3:lla 7.1-ääniraita ja dynaaminen frame buffer eli natiivireso muuttuu lennosta välillä alle 720p:n aiheuttaen sahalaitaa, boksilla tekstuurit ladataan nopeammin ja motion blur -efekti on parempi, pientä repeilyä vain X360:lla, PC-herrarodun edustajat saavat parhaan kokemuksen)

Syndicate is equally recommended on both console platforms but those looking for the most refined experience would do well to opt for the PC game: it looks better, it plays better.

Myös Lens Of Truth oli muutamia (samoja) pelejä vertaillut, mutta saittinsa antaa tällä hetkellä vain tietokantavirhettä, joten jäävät nyt väliin.

Lähteet: Eurogamer (Soul Calibur V, The Darkness II, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Kingdoms Of Amalur: Reckoning ja Syndicate)

TT-2k · 07.03.2012

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Uusin SSX-snoukkapeli on varsin tasavahva monialustajulkaisu. Molemmat konsolit puskevat kuvaa alle HD-resojen, tarkemmin sanottuna natiivitarkkuus on tällä kertaa 1120x585, johon on ympätty päälle FXAA-reunanpehmennys. Xbox 360 -versiossa röpöt siloitellaan ihan pikkaisen paremmin, joskin liikkuvassa pelikuvassa eroa ei senkään vertaa huomaa.

However, the Xbox 360 version of FXAA is more refined than its PS3 equivalent and this manifests in SSX via less pixel-popping/dot crawl than we see on the Sony platform. Thankfully this isn't especially noticeable during play - good news since this is probably the biggest difference between the two platforms.

PS3-version erikoisuus on sen ylimääräinen Fuji-vuori, mutta tuokin vain Yhdysvalloissa. Euroopassa PS3- ja X360-versiot sisältävät samat mäet ja kumpareet. Ruudunpäivityskin pysyy nätisti 30 ruutukuvassa sekunnissa molemmilla alustoilla, joten lopputuloksena oli tasapeli.

Overall though, corporate shenanigans and lockout deals aside, SSX is a beautifully playable game that's well worth consideration on either platform. Neither version commands any kind of appreciable technical advantage over the other, so you're good to go regardless of console.

Lähde: Eurogamer

TT-2k · 08.03.2012

Vastaus: Julkaistut multiplatformit, Xbox 360 vs PS3

Digital Foundry on testannut nopeasti Mass Effect 3:n julkaisuversiota ja toteaa ikävän tosiasian: jo demossa olleita PS3-version ruudunpäivitysongelmia ei ole tällä kertaa saatu korjattua, vaan Pleikkarilla nykimistä tapahtuu selvästi useammin kuin X360-versiossa.

Regular readers may recall how Mass Effect 2 on PS3 went from a consistent 30FPS with regular tearing in the demo to 20-30FPS with v-sync engaged, although the end results were largely comparable to the 360 version.

However, with retail code of the new game now available, we can confirm that performance on the final PS3 release is extremely similar, if not identical to that of the stuttering demo code.

&

Bearing in mind that the days of major differences between PS3 and Xbox 360 games are largely a thing of the past, this is clearly a disappointment - not just from a visual perspective, but also in terms of gameplay as the frame-rate dips impact controller response during shoot-outs to a certain extent.

Laajempi multiplattarivertailu on tulossa myöhemmin.

Lähde: Eurogamer

Cobretti · 08.03.2012