Shawn | 
December 11, 2009 | 
“…Wipe the mud from your eyes and let’s get dirty…”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| THQ |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
THQ | |||
| Rainbow Studios |
1 | 1 |
Rainbow Studios |
|||||||||
| Racing |
n/a | n/a |
Racing | |||||||||
| Release: 12/01/09 | 33.5 sec | 25.8 sec | Release: 12/01/09 | |||||||||
| ESRB: Everyone |
5.12% | 0.90% | ESRB: Everyone |
|||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head – MX vs. ATV Reflex Analysis We go Head2Head with MX vs. ATV Reflex for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. |
|
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
Welcome back for yet another exciting Head2Head brought to you by Play N Trade (Oviedo)! This week we take a ride with the newest addition to motor sports racing, MX vs. ATV Reflex. The question begs: which version is the muddiest and which version should be buried 6 feet under? Wipe the mud from your eyes and let’s get dirty, cause you’re about to find out!
Graphics: MX vs ATV Reflex doesn’t push the visual envelope, but it does innovate with rather nifty terrain deformations. The terrain appears to be divided into two systems: dynamic geometry tessellations and normal maps. The dynamic geometry tessellation happens from distance of the camera to about 20 feet, then normal maps kick in from 20ft from the camera onward. This allows for dramatic terrain deformations that is rarely seen (and usually faked with parallax occlusion maps). The ground could even be “shredded” down to a water layer, which was a nice effect. However, we had two complaints about the technology. The first was that surfaces such as grass deformed the same way as sand and mud, often looking far too deep. The second issue was that both consoles suffered from a very noticeable hard line that divided the dynamic ground deformations from the normal maps. Fortunately, when it comes to graphics, both games came really close to one another. The PlayStation 3 version had much more defined shading on the terrain, but suffered from a short filter distance (textures were blurry at a distance). The Xbox 360 version had less dramatic shading on the terrain up close, but held more details at a distance. So basically the graphics are a muddy stalemate.
Performance: Both versions of MX vs ATV Reflex performed relativity well. The frame rate on both consoles ran on par with one another, however the obvious and only difference here was the screen tearing. Globally, the Xbox 360 had less than 1% screen tears while PlayStation 3 was a little over 5%. Most of the time the screen tearing happened on the PlayStation 3 when there were a lot of vehicles on the screen at once. Take a look at the findings below:
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1: Length of clip: 1299 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0.14 |
Clip 1: Length of clip: 1299 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 2: Length of clip: 2208 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.85 Percent of torn frames: 7.21 |
Clip 2: Length of clip: 2208 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 3: Length of clip: 3031 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.82 Percent of torn frames: 4.53 |
Clip 3: Length of clip: 3031 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.90 Percent of torn frames: 1.49 |
| Clip 4: Length of clip: 4399 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0.05 |
Clip 4: Length of clip: 4399 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 5: Length of clip: 4715 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.93 Percent of torn frames: 2.45 |
Clip 5: Length of clip: 4715 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.95 Percent of torn frames: 0.41 |
| Clip 6: Length of clip: 3336 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0.04 |
Clip 6: Length of clip: 3336 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 5.12 Global average FPS: 29.94 |
Global percent of torn frames: 0.90 Global average FPS: 29.97 |
Loading: Both systems had very similar load times. In our loading samples, the PlayStation 3 averaged in at 33.5 seconds whereas the Xbox 360 averaged at 25.8 seconds. Also, the PlayStation 3 version didn’t require a mandatory hard drive install. Regardless, the load times were fairly quick and are well masked with an interactive test track where you can practice jumps and tricks before a race.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the differences in ground detail.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the differences in ground detail.
Conclusion, Technical Score and Staff Choice on Page 2. 
Pages: 1 2
This was quick, Game doesn’t interest me too much but the head to head was good!
Can’t wait for Saboteur h2h, apperently Ps3 has better AA in that game, but textures are slightly lower:S
We’ll SEE!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The 13038929th time and counting where 360>PS3.
PS3 had its 10 seconds of fame with Dragon Age LOL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And Tomb Raider Underworld, Wanted WoF, Terminator S, Bionic Commando and FIFA 10
And yeah, differences are huge, same framerate and graphics, PS3 version is unplayable
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I disagree.
I blatantly disagree.
Yes its true the PS3’s performance is underwhelming compared to the 360. But unplayable?
So you’re telling me you’re going to notice .3 of frame difference when you’re playing. And sure your going to notice frame tears and it will be distracting but it will NOT be unplayable.
If your talking about longer loading times…well your argument is still faulty. Why? It doesn’t affect the gameplay.
I don’t know why I decided to even respond to you. And I know i’m feeding a troll by responding to you but your response is just immature and over-exaggerated. Both you and Boutros.
The differences are negligible enough that If i had the choice, I still would buy this game on the PS3 if I was interested in it.
FYI, I played ghostbusters with those lackluster visuals and not one moment while i was enjoying did i give hoots about how awful the textures were. I had fun. FUN. Games are meant to be FUN.
Maybe finals week is getting to me heh. Well i’m done venting. Back to studying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SDF
lol could be. I dont know. It was late at night and I was studying my ass off. Strees must’ve gotten to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel so ashamed to have a system that hasn’t RRODed on me, lol I feel so left out!!!!
AHHAHAA, but thats why I have a my Elite 360;) This one has been ok 2008 Elite 8 months and going:D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bionic Commando, Wanted, Batman:AA, Dragon Age: Origins, Dead Space and Call of Duty MW2 (according to every other graphics comparison on the web) begs to differ, Boutros.
After the explosive holiday sales of the PS3, we’ll see a change in tune from developers. More will start using the PS3 as their SKU of choice (not unlike GRIN and EA are doing now).
…than the X360 will suffer from frame tearing and lag. It’s not that hardware that is superior Boutros…just the amount of money thrown at the development cycle.
See Uncharted 2. Compare to anything on the X360. Be blown away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL…Justin – you’re a fanboy or something?? Both x360 and ps3 are very good to play some games, if U like it or not
Just some of games are good for x360, other for ps3 but in the end always are the best exclusives. Maybe H2H comparations are showing that in the end x360 is better – but who cares?? I don’t know waht is your opinion but for me more important is a GOOOOOOOOOD game than platform – doesn’t matter if it’s PC, x360 or ps3 (even ps2 rocks!!! )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think people take these way too seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, what a difference… the PS3 version is almost “unplayable” *laugh*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not unplayable, but it does perform worse. The PS3 had 5.12% frame tearing versus the Xbox 360’s 0.9%. To put it in perspective:
Total frames in LoT’s analysis: 20367 (339 seconds)
Number of Frames torn on PS3: 1043 (17 seconds)
Number of frames torn on 360: 183 (3 seconds)
That is a rather sizable difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0