Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, two titans battling it out for the hearts of hardcore and casual gamers alike.
Now it’s common knowledge that due to the Cell processors powering the Playstation 3, it’s a much more powerful machine capable of producing better looking, smoother running games. Right?
Since the beginning of the next-gen powerhouses’ lives, Eurogamer.com has been running a feature called “Face-Off”, where they compare games that have been released on both the 360 and the PS3. The issue seems to be that of the eleven features that they have done, each consisting of 5 – 10 game comparisons, the 360 is coming out on top every time, with very few exceptions.
The PS3 is constantly being spoken of as the Cell powerhouse, able to run full glorious 1080p at a quadrillion frames a second, whilst simultaneously washing the dishes and making dinner for the kids. But the truth is, that the results are saying otherwise.
If you’re mouth is half open and you’ve already taken your breath to blurt out “Faannnbbbooooiiii”, keep quiet and listen to my point first.
Consumers need to realise that features such as these lay down the facts, and the fact here is, that even though the PS3 is being marketed as an insanely powerful gaming console, the 360 has more games, which run smoother. To top it all off, most of them are better looking as well.
How many times are PS3 owners going to accept second best after paying nearly double the price? “It has a Blu-Ray player”, you might say. I say “So what?”. Ask yourself a question, did you buy the PS3 primarily for games or movies? That being said, how much time are you going to spend playing games on your console compared to watching films. Not only that, but because the Blu-Ray drive reads so slowly, streaming can become limited, resulting in ridiculously sized installs becoming necessary to assist in the process.
Don’t you feel upset in the slightest that someone who has bought a Xbox 360 is getting not only the same, but better looking, smoother running games for nearly half the price that you spent on your PS3?
Sucks to be you. There, I said it.
Here are some quotes taken from the latest feature, listen to what the folks at Eurogamer had to say, you can view the full article by clicking on the link at the bottom of the page.
Soldier of Fortune: Payback
“There’s a hell of lot of detail in the stages here and while the Xbox 360 version manages to cope for the most part, the PlayStation 3 code features a hideously variable frame-rate that manifests right from the beginning of the very first level.”
“you still can’t help but get the feeling that you’re missing a lot of the action due to the ever-changing refresh rate. Matters aren’t helped if you have your PlayStation 3 hooked up to a 1080p display. Yes, there’s in-game upscaling (which looks pretty good) but it introduces another performance hit (albeit minor) to an already sloth-like frame-rate – yet another reason to have your XMB set to 720p even if you have a 1080p display.”
MX vs. ATV Untamed
“Certainly, for PlayStation 3 owners, there’s absolutely nothing here that makes you feel good about owning the console.”
“Resolution is restored to the usual 720p on the 360, edges are more finely filtered, and while screen tear is still ever-present, its impact is nowhere near as bad as it is in the PS3 version.”
Condemned 2: Bloodshot
“there’s a puzzling lack of anti-aliasing in the PlayStation 3 game, and the frame-rate is a touch less consistent”
“The only other issue gamers appear to have been having with the PS3 game is some kind of audio distortion when playing over HDMI, taking the form of a weird clicking or a split-second of white noise. There are also drop-outs over Toslink optical audio, none of which is a problem for Xbox 360 owners.”
Last Updated: April 25, 2008