November 16th, 2009
Posted in 
“…both games had their fair share of performance problems…”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| Ubisoft |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ubisoft | |||
| Ubisoft Montreal |
1 | 1 |
Ubisoft Montreal | |||||||||
| Action/Adventure |
1526 mb | n/a |
Action/Adventure | |||||||||
| Release: 11/17/09 | 22 sec | 19 sec | Release: 11/17/09 | |||||||||
| ESRB: Mature |
16.36% | 5.06% | ESRB: Mature |
|||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head: Assassin’s Creed II Analysis: We go Head2Head with Assassin’s Creed II for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. |
|
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
This week the Lens of Truth was able to get our mitts on another blockbuster game: Assassin’s Creed II. This hands-on exclusive was made possible by the noble folks at Play N Trade (Lake Mary). Watch the video analysis to see which version makes you feel like you’re in the Renaissance and which one makes you feel like you’re at a Renaissance Faire.
Graphics: Assassin’s Creed II is a nice step up in graphics from its predecessor. However, overall, the graphics seem inconsistent. The town is well laid out and you never get caught staring at a bad wall texture seam. Characters, on the other hand, seemed to be hit or miss. Models like the mother have some great textures and the details will make you wonder if you’re really looking at a game or at a real life person. Unfortunately, models such as your main character’s face, lack detail and are overall flat textures. Also, most of the models in the present time line (first level) make you think you’re playing a different game. Aside from the normal contrast differences (which can easily be adjusted per one’s discretion) the game looks nearly identical on both systems. Overall, both games seem to support 4x anti-aliasing and the texture quality and shadow maps between the two were almost indistinguishable. Speaking of shadows, both systems feature the same annoying shadow clipping plane. Basically shadows that are closer to the camera render at higher samples than those further away. Makes sense, but they should have smoothed out the transition as you can clearly see the high resolution/low resolution line a few feet from the camera.
Performance: While the graphics were extremely close, our frame analyzer was able to capture major differences. The main and most obvious performance issue with both versions of Assassin’s Creed II was the screen tearing. Even though both games had their fair share of performance problems, the PlayStation 3 just simply had more. The PlayStation 3 had almost 3 times the amount of screen tearing when compared to the Xbox 360. This was the major deciding factor of this Head2Head. Listed below are the results of the analysis:
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1: Length of clip: 696 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.22 Percent of torn frames: 14.83 |
Clip 1: Length of clip: 696 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.87 Percent of torn frames: 8.33 |
| Clip 2: Length of clip: 1116 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.66 Percent of torn frames: 10.92 |
Clip 2: Length of clip: 1116 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.76 Percent of torn frames: 3.76 |
| Clip 3: Length of clip: 1613 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.90 Percent of torn frames: 8.75 |
Clip 3: Length of clip: 1613 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.11 |
| Clip 4: Length of clip: 1132 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.43 Percent of torn frames: 5.56 |
Clip 4: Length of clip: 1132 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.97 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 5: Length of clip: 2046 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.37 Percent of torn frames: 5.46 |
Clip 5: Length of clip: 2046 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.82 Percent of torn frames: 2.45 |
| Clip 6: Length of clip: 869 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.69 Percent of torn frames: 0.58 |
Clip 6: Length of clip: 869 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 7: Length of clip: 855 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.99 Percent of torn frames: 0.47 |
Clip 7: Length of clip: 855 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 8: Length of clip: 3468 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.60 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
Clip 8: Length of clip: 3468 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.78 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
| Clip 9: Length of clip: 1220 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.70 Percent of torn frames: 1.96 |
Clip 9: Length of clip: 1220 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.68 Percent of torn frames: 0.45 |
| Clip 10: Length of clip: 1013 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0 |
Clip 10: Length of clip: 1013 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.95 Percent of torn frames: 1.79 |
| Clip 11: Length of clip: 1873 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.49 Percent of torn frames: 1.03 |
Clip 11: Length of clip: 1873 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.047 |
| Clip 12: Length of clip: 2766 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.58 Percent of torn frames: 5.40 |
Clip 12: Length of clip: 2766 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.95 Percent of torn frames: 0.22 |
| Clip 13: Length of clip: 1346 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.58 Percent of torn frames: 1.88 |
Clip 13: Length of clip: 1346 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.57 Percent of torn frames: 1.48 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 16.36 Global average FPS: 28.97 |
Global percent of torn frames: 5.06 Global average FPS: 29.76 |
Loading: Both systems had very close load times. In our samples, the PlayStation 3 averaged at 22 seconds whereas the Xbox 360 averaged at 19 seconds. The PlayStation 3 did have a mandatory 1526mb install which took around 4 minutes. Regardless, the load times were fairly quick and it’s well masked with the interactive “loading” screen.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the difference in texture filtering.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the variation in the town lighting at night. Looks like the Xbox 360 lights have more decay.
Roll over to see the differences. The Xbox 360 seems to have better shadowing in this scene.
Roll over to see the differences.
Conclusion: The winner of this assassination is the Xbox 360. Both versions were very close in every category except performance. Screen tearing is a major performance problem and we at the Lens of Truth, quite frankly, can’t stand this. With the PlayStation 3 version having close to 3 times the amount, it was the only issue that prevented a tie. Everything else was either identical or too close to give to one or the other (like loading). Any consumer would be pleased with the overall gameplay and story. However, overall the game had many tiny technical issues. Many camera cuts would somehow destroy character models. Geometry (character models in particular), fall apart when viewed frame by frame. At normal frame speed, models would look like they were popping or snapping into scene, which, at any frame speed, can be pretty jarring. With these issues being prominent in both consoles, these issues had to be eliminated from the scoring, but we felt it was necessary to be mentioned as a consumer alert. That being said, it is still a game worth buying.
 |
|||
| G R A P H I C S | |||
 |
Visually, both versions of Assassin’s Creed II look virtually identical. Textures, shadows and anti-aliasing quality match very well. There are a few discrepancies in lighting (town at night from above for example) and missing objects in cinematics (candelabra in room). But all-in-all Ubisoft did a great job matching the graphic quality between the two versions. |
 |
|
| P E R F O R M A N C E | |||
 |
While neither version of Assassin’s Creed II performed perfectly, the Xbox 360 version had far less screen tearing than its PlayStation 3 counterpart. | |
|
| L O A D I N G | |||
|
Load times in Assassin’s Creed II where all but a tie. The PlayStation 3 loaded in an average of 22 seconds and the Xbox 360 in 19 seconds. The PlayStation 3 version did have a 4 minute install weighing in at 1526mb. | |
|
| O U T C O M E | |||
|
Both versions of Assassin’s Creed II are very close in all ways but one. Performance. And that is where the PlayStation 3 had the most issues. You won’t be disappointed with either version of Assassin’s Creed II, but if you have a choice we recommend the smoother performing Xbox 360 version. | |
|
 |
|||
| |
C O M M E N T S | C H O I C E | |
 |
Ubisoft did a great job with both versions of Assassin’s Creed II , but I will have to pick the game up on the Xbox 360 due to the PlayStation 3′s performance issues. Also I have the first Assassin’s Creed on the Xbox 360 and I can’t bring myself to split up such a great series. |
|
|
| Corey | “Ubisoft did a great job with both versions…” | ||
 |
This game looks amazing! Seriously, getting to the top of the highest building and looking out gave me chills. I love open world environments because even when the game’s over there is still tons of things to do. However, I don’t like screen tearing. The winner here is the Xbox 360 by a long shot and believe me, WOW! | |
|
| Jaime | “…WOW…” | ||
 |
My first impressions of this game were that the game was unimpressive, based on the first level. It can be very deceiving. Even though it was important to the story, the level really brought the graphics down. But if you can get past it and get into the real game, you’re gonna have fun. Overall I’d pick this up on the Xbox 360 for less screen tearing, although I’m interested in the PSP connectivity. |
|
|
| John | “It can be very deceiving…” | ||
Loading ...
Tags: 
And yet [I]another[/I] win for X-Box 360. Not surprising.
Plus the 360 version [I]clearly[/I] looks much better when you compare those screenshots. The roofs, etc., just looks very realistic instead of washed out like the PS3 version.
and yet another n4g sheep vote in favor of the inferior ps3 version. at least its not as bad as some other comparison voting.
Yep. Playing this game right now on the PS3 and I see those Screen tears you’re talking about. Awful but not necessarily making it unplayable but for those who have the privilege of choosing, go for the 360.
grabbing mine tomorrow:) I would say that 10% difference isn’t a big thing especially for a port:)
Thank You LOT for the comparison, and Thank you Ubisoft for making a good port:D
Honestly, the PS3 version simply looks washed out. I would have to turn down the brightness and contrast on both my TV and PS3 in order to get it to look the same… Something one shouldn’t have to do!
In addition, the PS3 has more lighting, but not very realistic in my opinion. They did not have halogen street lights back then!
the ps3 version is HORRIBLE
the ps3 version looks HORRIBLE
no it dos’nt!!! your just a 360 fanboy that apperently only buys 360 games.
it is, look at the colors :S
seriously, what’s wrong with the ps3 version? I’m not a fanboy, I own a pc.
EVERYONE and their dead grandmother owns a PC, I don’t see how owning a PC has anything to do with whether or not you’re a fanboy.
The colors are exactly the same, the major difference is on the PS3 the brightness is up too high and the contrast too low. Both of which are adjustable within the game (and on the display), and neither of which are anything any reviewers ever do for some mind boggling reason.
The textures on both appear to be exactly the same, just that the PS3 has a different filtering method from the 360.
The 360′s lights in the night shot of the rooftops look better, but in my opinion a notch too dim (that said the PS3′s lights are way too bright, more than a notch), and it’s possible that it looks the way it does as to not have to render all of the lights the PS3 is rendering in the distance. I don’t know if that’s it, just putting that idea out there.
Playing this on the 360. I’ve had 3 crashes and the screen tearing is dreadful. I might just go back to Call of Duty 4, this game is disappointing me to no end.
well shoot. gamefly is shipping my a ps3 copy. but it looks like ill be buying the 306 version instead. now i gotta wait longer. oh well, i gotta admit its not entirely unexpected. it is quite worse of a difference then i expected however. too significant to consciously buy the ps3 version, even if i prefer these types of games on that console.
The PS3 quality looks bright because of the default setting in the PS3 so you have to change to full.
Are you sure about the numbers? If I average out the screen tearing of the clips you mentioned I don’t get 15 percent, I get 3.83% vs. 1.01%.
While the difference is still there, the absolute size of the problem is much less prominent.
Also, you don’t give any value to the superior lighting of the PS3 version, which in my opinion is important for a game set in a renaissance environment (consider how much better European monuments look nowadays at night thanks to superior lighting).
All in all, it seems that the xbox360 wins, but by a tiny margin.
Which in any case shows that Ubisoft did a good port, but at the same time did not leverage any of the post processing effects that the Cell processor enables (e.g., deferred rendering, advanced pixel shaders, etc.), going instead for geometry (which works better on the 360 because of the better GPU).
I’m glad someone brought this up! Something we’re working on is the display of the statistics. What you’re looking at is a “weighted” average. Basically, the tearing in longer clips means more than the tearing in the shorter clips.
Do you find this more useful? Or would you prefer an “unweighted” average where the FPS and tearing of each clip are considered equal?
Hmm I just had a class and exam about weighted average vs moving averages in operations management. I’m perfectly fine with the weighted average but how to measure the weight on each clip? For example: what is the weight of a 10 min clip versus a 5 minute clip?
Good question. It’s actually weighted by the number of frames. Basically you take the average framerate for each clip and multiply it by the length of the clip (in frames). Add them all up and divide by the total number of frames to get a weighted average.
the lightning isnt better in the ps3 version its just used differently and its honestly looks better on the 360 version anyway.
Wow.
I have yet to see a winner for the PS3 in all of the lens of “truth” comparisons. I’m not trying to be a fanboy here, but come on. There are some games the look better on the PS3 and some that look better on the Xbox 360. For me, this site has lost all of its integrity because it doesn’t appear to show the best of both consoles. Stop the bias and actually be a lens of truth.
and what game looks better on ps3?
im still looking for one.
The PS3 has won 8 Head2Heads and 9 have been a tie, so you’re obviously not looking very hard.
has nothing to do with bias, if they just gave out wins to ps3 for no reason then it would be bias, and they’d lose credibility. The winner is determined by a criteria which looks at technical aspects so there isnt really that much to be bias…
why does every single multiplatform game look so washed out on the ps3?
its really starting to bug me no matter what i do with my settings it the colors always look crap.
i normally have super white on, and full RGB but changing it around makes almost no difference.
its not a suttle difference either, its like the 360 version was painted with 1 part paint to one part water.
where the ps3 version was painted with 100 parts water to 1 part paint.
just makes it look extremley crappy.
It is simple the GPU in the 360 is better than the GPU in the PS3, programmable vs fixed pipelines. This has the effect of giving multi platform titles a slight advantage on the 360. Because devs aren’t spending the time customizing the graphic engine of a game for the quirks of a PS3. Now if other devs follow Naughty Dog’s lead and start offloading graphic work to the Cell we may yet see a reversal of fortune on multi platform games towards the PS3. But I wouldn’t hold my breath, that they will spend the time doing it.
Yeah, 3rd party devs aren’t exactly rich (except for some like EA & Activision), plus it’ll take them more time & more money just for them to get PS3 versions of games to get U2 kind of graphics. They’re simply not going to do it when PS3 is still stuck in 3rd place & that development costs are rising (costing them about $10-$20+ million to develop for). Not to mention that PS3 versions of games don’t sell very well like 360 versions of games do. Also, 3rd party developers are in a tight spot trying to recoup the money on which they spent developing games for both PS3 & 360, so bringing out a newer console so early won’t be very good for either Microsoft or Sony.
If Sony hadn’t made their hardware so much difficult to develop for the PS3, then it would’ve most likely been the other way around in terms of multiplat comparisons. So, until the PS3 starts getting better at multiplats, I’ll continue to buy most of those multiplats on 360.
Also, let us not forget that the 360′s power isn’t exactly maxed out. It still has a lot of juice left in it.
I don’t agree with the verdict. The difference in performance is too small to make out a clear winner. Screentearing, while a bit distracting, doesn’t break a game.
@TheWretched
No one claimed that the screen tearing broke the game. However, three times the amount of screen tearing on the ps3 is something to note. Hence, the 360 won.
Yeah….
Wolfenstein was vsynced on PS3 and had same graphics quality… tie http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=14394
Assassins creed 2 has little less screen tearing and render much less light sources on X360… Xbox win.
Both games are 720p, PS3 version have QAAx2, Xbox MSAAx2.
Actually they both display the same amount of light sources but the 360 has a higher decay on the light sources which means the light doesn’t travel as far as the PS3 version.It’s more of a artistic change than a technical change because it would have little effect on the performance.
Seriously do the comparison honestly or don’t do it at all.
I’ve got both versions, both suffer from screentear and performance issues, that’s the trouble with multiplats.
Get the game on whatever system you have.
I was trying to decide which version to get and I ended up pre-ordering the 360 version since I compared both versions of the original game on my 360 and PS3 and found the 360 version to look and perform noticeably better. I thought it most likely that the same would be true of the sequel and Lens of Truth have revealed that to be true. That said, I think the difference is somewhat smaller this time than it was with the first game.
Anyway, I agree with the Lens of Truth guys that screen tearing is extremely annoying. It is one of the things I hate the most about this generation, as it seems that so many games seem to have screen tearing compared to the percentage of games that had it last generation. It sometimes makes me want to get a gaming PC and just do most of my gaming on that platform so that I can enable v-sync and avoid the aweful screen tearing. One of the things I love most about games like Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 is their complete freedom from screen tearing.
So anyway, I hate screen tearing and will always choose to get the version with less of it if I have the choice. The 360 version also had slightly faster load times and frame rates, and I have to also admit that I thought it looked better in the screenshots as well.
WOW
I have to say, I am amazed at the obstinacy of PS3 fanatics.
As a owner of all 3 consoles & PC, i consider myself as objective as it gets. & this game is clearly better on 360.
Yet, 360 only gets 42% of the votes; despite hard evidence staring everyone right in the eyes.
Astonishing.
Looks like the PS3 version has more blooming, which washes out the details a bit more.
The night shot looks better on PS3, IMO.
Overall the 360 version looks sharper.
X360 looks sharper becouse it uses MSAAx2, PS3 version uses QAAx2, edge smoothing from QAA is better but it makes every texture look “washed out”. Another factor is this: http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16360
PS3 version handle much more light sources. IMO PS3 version technicaly wins.
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison-large_282-0031-45323791_PlayStation%203_280-0042-14397277_Xbox%20360_stack.html
Not less light sources. They have a greater decay on the light sources thus (especially in those night shots) it seems like there are less light sources. If you look closely at the screen shots though, you can still see the other lights, they are just “dimmer”. This has no performance impact on the game, more of artistic change really. Not sure why they did it.
It’s the word trickery that LoT uses here that’s at fault.
“Greater decay”? As in that’s “greater” – meaning more or better..? or as in that’s worse – but LoT doesn’t want to say “worse”?
It has the hallmarks of a fan boy statement.
Greater decay just means the light source tapers out faster/ doesn’t travel as far. It’s purely artistic. Play with any game engine and you will see. I light source is a light source is a light source. It’s about how many, not how bright. This isn’t about console bias, this is about a artistic change between the two.
Hell, if you wanted to make it a which system is more technical with the lights, dimmer lights (again remember a light source is what counts, not how bright or dim. Once you put in a light source, it takes up the same amount of cpu cycles.)- the dimmer the lights, the more shadows are present compared to a brightly lit area. Meaning the 360 version would have to process more shadows than the PS3. This is supported by the shots showing greater shadow detail in the 360 version.
HOWEVER it doesn’t change the fact that the lights themselves are irrelevant. They both have the same amount of light sources, although at different brightness.
“This isn’t about console bias, this is about a artistic change between the two.”
It isn’t an artistic change at all. The art style should be consistent between the two games. Perhaps you’ve heard of developers trying to get two versions of a game to look as similar as possible?!
Here’s a piece of concept art from AC2 >>>
http://www.game-hub.co.uk/files/slideshow/assassins-creed-concept-art-13.gif
Notice how the city is lit up by all the light sources? The PS3 version more accurately represents the concept art and what it should really look like. It has many light sources and they’re all lighting up the streets similarly.
“The dimmer the lights, the more shadows are present compared to a brightly lit area. Meaning the 360 version would have to process more shadows than the PS3. This is supported by the shots showing greater shadow detail in the 360 version.”
LOL, no. Shadow size is entirely based on the angle of incident. If an area is more brightly lit, you’ll see a higher contrast between what is lit and what’s in shadow. If there’s more light sources, then you’ll see multiple shadows! For you or Lens of Truth to come out and say that the X360 has greater shadow details than the PS3 version is a load of rubbish! FACT.
If you look at a number of the screen shots in various places, you’ll see how shadows fall at different angles between the two versions. That’s entirely due to the time of day in the AC2 world.
If you don’t believe that, take another look at the video above (http://www.youtube.com/v/2AWJ4EXeuQY&hl=en&autoplay=1&hd=0) and pay attention at 4m53s. The PS3 version has all the shadow effects that the X360 version does. People and buildings cast shadows…
Now pay attention to 2m26s. There are FAR more light sources on the PS3 version in the city distance than there are on the X360. Pay specific attention to the building on the middle-right and how the X360 version of the building is lit up identically to the PS3 version.
PS3 > X360 for lighting. Clearly.
A further example of how the shadows differ between versions can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/v/2AWJ4EXeuQY&hl=en&autoplay=1&hd=0 … 2m58s as a very good example of the light source position being different and so the lighting being different.
If you look at any number of comparisons that have been run while the main character is running around during the day, you’ll again see that the angle of the shadows is different between versions and that’s purely down to the light source position because shadows are cast dynamically.
Nope the 360 version has better shadows and is sharper.
The ps3 doesnt have better lightning at all just used differently and if you have a sense of taste the decayed lightning looks better.
Ps3 Version is mine
Lens of Truth are XBox 360 fan boys.
1.) I have no problem with it being said that AC2 on PS3 has more screen tearing.
2.) I have no problem with it being said that AC2 on PS3 takes a few seconds longer to load.
3.) I DO have a problem with the statement “Notice the variation in the town lighting at night. Looks like the Xbox 360 lights have more decay.” No. What it should say is that the XBox 360 lighting isn’t quite as good as the PS3 lighting.
4.) I do have a problem with the statement “The Xbox 360 seems to have better shadowing in this scene.” No. The shadowing will be identical for both systems and you can bet that the actual specific frame being captured & shown here is what’s different.
5.) I do have a problem with the overall “graphics” review. Textures and AA are similar sure, but the higher gamma offered by the PS3 version helps to hide the jaggies that are so blatantly visible on the XBox 360 version.
Graphics -> PS3 wins.
Performance -> XBox 360 wins.
Loading -> Tie.
Overall -> Tie.
so just because of a few asset lights pretty much only visible during night time you give the graphics edge even tho MSAA, texture filtering difference all favor the 360 version? Both had strengths in graphics that’s why they gave it a tie in the graphics department.
PLUS, The night lighting exists in both versions just the intensity is much higher on the ps3 version.
Can’t say I agree with you.
Both games have 4xMSAA. The textures are identical but the texture filtering looks worse on the X360 version. Take a look at this screen shot and pay particular attention to the floor boards. The pixels on the X360 stand out as far too sharp / contrasting and it suffers badly with jaggies.
>>> http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison-large_282-0056-41799926_PlayStation%203_280-0005-94979248_Xbox%20360_stack.html
The lighting on the PS3 version far better represents the sources that they’re intended to represent, while the X360 version seems overly pale by comparison. Try this…
>>> http://assets.panda.org/img/original/singapore_candle_lit_birthday_c_jacky_ho.jpg
or this…
>>> http://assets.panda.org/img/original/singapore_candle_lit_picnic_c_jacky_ho.jpg
Actually, I take what I wrote about 4xMSAA back – I was quoting the LoT article, but in actual fact the article here is wrong anyway…
THIS >>
Kleo says:
November 17, 2009 at 7:29 am
“X360 looks sharper becouse it uses MSAAx2, PS3 version uses Quincunx”
The lighting is better on the 360 version. They’re supposed to be oil lanterns.
on the PS3 they look like high pressure sodium for goodness sake.
No. See my post above.
‘No. What it should say is that the XBox 360 lighting isn’t quite as good as the PS3 lighting.’
I would have a problem with that. Its night time, as such I prefer less lighting. It looks more authentic to me.
Your comment is more biased than the original. The 360 lighting does have more decay, but that isn’t making a judgment call. Yours is making a judgment call on something that is simply preference. If you prefer brighter lighting, then more decay is bad, if you dont then more decay is good. Theres no judgment in the original statement, but there is in yours. Your statement is much more biased than the original.
No, it’s not a case of preference or bias.
It’s a simple case of which game provides the most realistic looking lighting. That has nothing to do with bias or preference.
Point in case… To this very day XBox 360 fans continue to praise the lighting in Halo 3. That may be fair – even if the textures in Halo 3 aren’t up to much.
As I said, nothing to do with bias, everything to do with creating realistic lighting effects.
Your trying to tell me the statement ‘What it should say is that the XBox 360 lighting isn’t quite as good as the PS3 lighting.’ is not biased?
The statement I made is a true reflection of the facts. i.e. It is better, it is the same, or it is worse. There is no hiding in any of those statements – therefore it is not showing any untruthful bias.
The statement LoT made is that “the X360 lights have more decay”. As if to suggest that ‘more decay’ is for some reason preferable despite it looking less realistic than the PS3 version. Why not just say it looks worse? LoT is deliberately not being straightforward because of their bias.
Hopefully you get it now.
Ya, I get it. But your statement is more biased. Saying the ps3 lighting is better is passing judgment.
The lighting in the 360 does have more decay. I like darker games, so to me thats good. They could have also said, the lighting in the ps3 has less decay. To me, that still would have been negative, because I like darker games. Someone who likes lighter games could find either statement as a negative for the 360. Along with screenshots, either statement leaves final judgment up to the viewer, your statement does not.
NO, you don’t get it. Having dimmer lights in a house doesn’t make the lighting worse than a house with brighter lights. You prefer the brighter lighting in the PS3 version. I DO TOO. But to say that it is better lighting like it is a technical statement is false. The brightness of the light has nothing to do wtih the performance of the engine. The AMOUNT of light sources in the area at one time does. As you can see from the screen shots above, they both have the same amount of lights in the town. On the 360, they dimmed the lights. THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GAME. There fore, your PREFERENCE is that you like the brighter lights. In no way does it make them better, unless your preference is universal at which poin, I would like to direct you to the peoples comments above.
You are 100 % wrong LordVonps3
The 360 version has better graphics in every way.
The lightning is used differently and looks better anyway on the 360, that bloom looks like shit on the ps3.
Also the 360 version has sharper visuals with less jaggies cause MsAAx2 is better than QAAx2
No, you’re wrong.
The PS3 version has better lighting with more light sources.
The angle of incident of light and resultant shadows cast appears different between the screen shots purely because of the position of the light source.
See > http://www.youtube.com/v/2AWJ4EXeuQY&hl=en&autoplay=1&hd=0
at 2m58s as a very good example of this.
The 360 version has more visible jaggies because Quincunx does a more successful job of blurring them.
^Nope, you are wrong.
The ps3 doesnt have better lightning at all, and it looks better on the 360 version anyway in an artistic view.
And the shadows are better in the 360 version, that is fact, the lightning is always the same in that indoors cutscene and the ps3 is completely missing some shadows there.
And no, the ps3 version have more jaggies cause the AA method the 360 version uses is better.
Im starting to get really annoyed with this site..
TURN ON FULL RGB ALREADY..
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_282-0012-14894409_PlayStation-3_280-0018-98310852_Xbox-360_stack.html
Please see our F.A.Q. page.
full RGB(ps3) expanded(360) crush blacks and its quite severe in the screenshots from this site and the others posted.Console games are looking for video levels not pc but the ps3 and 360 seem to handle those levels differently with the 360 suffering far more black crush on expaned vs the ps3′s full RGB
The game with exclusive content on the Ps3 looks and performs better on the 360
I’m saving myself for Final fantasy XIII
I’ll probably die of laugh then
Ps3 alwasy gets the BAD version tehehehehe
correction http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison-large_282-0008-90271606_PlayStation%203_280-0013-15240478_Xbox%20360_stack.html
If you simply turn the brightness down on the PS3 captures you will find they both look the same! I seen your COD MW2 piece and thought yes Xbox 360 looked nicer and when I played the PS3 version its was the same slightly washed look. All I did though was change the brightness and the game looks identical to the 360 in terms of your screen dump.
thanks lens of truth for yet again giving us another honest view. some of you guys must have not been on this website long or don’t take a look at the end of the videos with your eyes. they clearly state they use RGB full and super white on the PS3. It still looks the way it does because of the porting job. No matter how much brightness you turn down on the PS3 it’s not going to add contrast, a higher color palate, or take away some screen tears. It is what it is. I actually wanted to get this game for my PS3. However, it’s almost dumb to get the inferior version when I have a 360. Its sad because we all know the PS3 is capable of more than this. Oh well though…
Hi Ghostdog.
If you have COD MW2 on PS3 try it with that. Just couldn’t belive the change in colour\contrast etc… This is the brightness option in the game mind! If AC2 has a simila option then we’ll at least look the same. The tearing etc yes its crap port again!
hey what’s up Rob. I actually have MW2 on both platforms because I have friends on both. I can tell you, it’s true that turning down the brightness “almost” matched the 360 version. But for some reason during the single player campaign the frame rate is worse on the PS3 than the 360. Especially during scenes with smoke effects. This is weird because this doesn’t happen that much in multiplayer, but with lots of smoke it does drop frames and it doesn’t do this in the 360 version. As far as AC2 goes. Watching this video in HD shows there are some texture differences between the 2 versions though. 360 seems to have more pronounced textures. Maybe it has something to do with MSAA vs QAA? Making it appear sharper? I just know that the PS3 is capable of more. I have the exclusives.
im getting sick and tired of these developers favoring one system over the other (usually xbox) and playing this biad game they play. The excuse of being hard to program for is ridiculous and old being that its already been 3 years since the ps3 has been released and phenomenal games such as u2 and killzone 2 have been released which honestly blow xbox games out the water graphics wise. they need to stop trying to develop the ps3 versions around the xbox versions bcus we all know which is the more powerfull system.
This is true.
Xbox is base on PC programming, so it would be easy to do.
Maybe a few more training lesson in how to program for PS3 might help in the future. Or go ask MGS creators or U2 and KZ2 ppl how they did it. lol.
I agree. This is just uncalled for. You should write them and tell them exactly how they should be coding different. I’m sure with the knowledge you bring them, they may even hire you.
We aren’t talking a few extra hours to get the PS3 versions running right. We are talking weeks if not longer to get the same/ greater performance our of a port to the PS3 than it does on the 360.
Games like UC2 and KZ2 look so good because they were designed specifically for the PS3.
The console is a beast but your game engine has to be very very picky with coding. You have to designate tasks to specific spes and such compared to just coding with simple multithreading in mind.
The PS3 takes work. It will reward you a lot of you dedicate your time to it but for multiplat ports,
*but for multi plat ports, you aren’t ever going to see the PS3 quality performance you get from exclusives. They would practically have to develop two different games.
I dnt knw about you guys but i like my games slighty bright so i can see whats going on.
PS3 version will be for me, as long as the game is good and doesnt crash i dnt really care.
C’mon. XBox 360? XBox 360 with its gay DVD drive? C’mon now…
The PS TRIPLE has the best games.
Come one PS3? With its slow to read Blue ray disks and mandatory installs?
Seriously, I love my PS3. My Blue ray movies look amazing on my tv and the PS3 exclusives look just as good.
But to say that the Blueray drive makes the PS3 games better is just wrong. It has a slower read speed. This requires developers to issue mandatory installs for their games. It is generally the reason for the slower load times also.
If the next gen systems don’t go digital only, we will see much faster blue ray drives and this won’t be a issue anymore.
If it’s a cross platform game intended for the X360, then Blu-ray on PS3 will generally work out slower, but at the same time a system exclusive can take full advantage of the Blu-ray drive and it does make for better games.
A single level of KillZone 2 can take up 2.5GB of disc space. That’s 3 levels and no game on a single XBox 360 DVD.
It is completely fair to say that both systems have differing advantages over the other, so it isn’t so easy or clear cut to say one system is better than the other unless you want to get down to specifics.
To take Chad Warden’s comment “The PS TRIPLE has the best games”. I’d argue that the PS3 has most of the same titles to play on and they’re of only slightly less – or similar quality to the X360 versions. The PS3 has a generally higher quality set of exclusives than the exclusives on the X360 and there’s also more variety on offer. KillZone 2, inFamous, Heavy Rain, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo 5, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted 2, God of War III…. Vs… Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Forza 2, Forza 3.
You’re such a troll.
Xbox 360 has more exclusive than ps3. Look it up. And if you want to compare quality, thats all subjective. Subjectively, very few of the ps3 exclusives impress me.
I thought his comment was pretty well thought out and even though I’m sure his opinion differs some from other people, I didn’t think he presented it in any form of trolling.
I don’t see why people are complaining about the graphics here…both look identical with the exception of a few differences and the team gave them a tie in the technical scores. So why not debate about the performance issue instead?
Have both consoles and i’m buying it for the one that lost this comparison.
Do what I did long time ago that’s if you own both of them.
Buy the multiplats on xbox and only the exclusives on ps3.
bought it for ps3:) PSP connection to get exclusive weapons and upgrades:D
I might be getting Bloodlines. How is the PSP game itself? And are the weapons worth the buy?
I liked it, for a portable game it really did its Homework.
I would say the controls are all little wonky, at times even annoying (yes, the camera angles are most of it), but over all the game plays well, graphics are amazing in some parts, in others they are ordinary.
Its prob worth a buy pre used: I just went for it because I’m a fan of the AC series.
Thanks LOT for another great comparison.
Just another reason to own the Xbox 360
sorry fanboys but version PS3 is the best in grafics because PS3 have better anti alising and better light ,,,you can see this images ,,,,,http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/assassins-creed-ii-playstation-3-vs-xbox-360-comparison_43.html,,,,,only fanboys X360 think version X360 is the best ,,,,fanboys X360 need glasses X360 not have good shadows grafics X360 always much dark because processor not can show much detail in the images
I don’t know about you guys but reading that just made my head hurt.
Has this head2head been tampered or something ? I mean I just bought the PS3 version and there was the candelebra inside the room just like the 360 version and they even kissed the same way as in the 360 version. So either the whole kiss/candelebra is just a random value in this scene or lensoftruth simply reworks their videos. I vote the first option personally.
http://www.videogameszone.de/aid,699613/Assassins-Creed-2-Grafikvergleich-PS3-vs-Xbox-360-Unterschiede-in-Texturen-und-Kamera/Special/?menu=browser&mode=article&article_id=699613&entity_id=219434,219433&image_id=1222438&page=1&order=
look here and see the ps3 got a better texture what now ?
I love this site for two things.
1.) The comparisons. They aren’t really a deciding factor for which version I’m getting but they certainly are interesting.
2.) The discomfort in the lower back area of the fanboys on both sides. They’re fun to read and show that people are taking the console love a bit too serious.
OK xbox people you call it a “win”. Then I have to ask…What is “Agent” to you? I’ll call it an epic success, you probably look at it as an epic fail. But hey…whatever
You can have your barely better looking games, we’ll take exclusives and better games any day.
I don’t know about you, but it sure sounds like butt hurt to me.
I mean, seriously, this had to what to do with the article?
“The AMOUNT of light sources in the area at one time does. As you can see from the screen shots above, they both have the same amount of lights in the town. On the 360, they dimmed the lights. THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GAME. There fore, your PREFERENCE is that you like the brighter lights. In no way does it make them better, unless your preference is universal at which poin, I would like to direct you to the peoples comments above.”
LOL. You are wrong!!!
Take another look at the video above (http://www.youtube.com/v/2AWJ4EXeuQY&hl=en&autoplay=1&hd=0) and pay attention to 2m26s.
There are FAR more light sources on the PS3 version in the city distance than there are on the X360. All the lights provide the same amount of brightness. I would agree that more lights = better lit – as you say, but pay specific attention to the building on the middle-right and how the X360 version of the building is lit up identically to the PS3 version!
So what’s LoT saying about “more decay”? I’ll tell you. It is wrong. It is a lie. It is not a fact.
PS3 > X360 for lighting. Clearly. LoT are either WRONG or DIDN’T WANT TO ADMIT that the X360 is worse and so they came up with this stupid line about “more decay”.
^All your statements are wrong.
360 > ps3 in EVERY area of graphics in this game
thank you LOT, for telling the Truth again.
Don’t let the Sony Defence Force keep you from continuing your good work.
I like how SDF keep on insisting on a lost cause. The tearing is much worse on the PS3, so they just keep on talking about light sources and other stuff instead.
Lens of Truth needs to start being truthful with its comparison. GamesWire is much more honest, and completely humiliates this site for being so BIASED.
This is what Assassins Creed 2 ACTUALLY looks like on both consoles, i.e. almost the same. PS3 version has some additional Bloom effects, but that’s about it.
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_282-0012-14894409_PlayStation-3_280-0018-98310852_Xbox-360_stack.html
Been there. Seen it. Looks the exact same as what is on this site.
Call me when they do actual analysis and videos. Still images mean nothing.
LordVonPS3 is an obvious PS3 fanboy. I love both my consoles equally, but it is easy to see that the 360 version looks better. I think the lighting looks more realistic in the 360 version as well. I am willing to bet that most of those aren’t even real-time light sources. That is to say that each of those “lights” would not actually cast real-time shadows. They might affect specularity maps, but I doubt that they are all real-time light sources.
In that case, they would essentially be nothing more than art painted onto textures to give the effect of light. So the fact that the artists decided to make the PS3 version much more lit up has nothing to do with performance of the engine and really comes down to an artistic decision. In my personal opinion the PS3 version looks way too lit up in the night scenes, making it look like a modern metropolis more than an ancient oil lamp-lit city. I guarantee that Italian cities in the 1400s were not lit up that brightly. In any case, I like the look of the 360 version. I can imagine sneaking around in the 360 version’s city with its mixture of brightness and darkness. The PS3 version, on the other hand, makes it look like you couldn’t walk down nearly any street without being in plain view.
I can’t read comments on here anymore, it just gives me a friggin’ migraine every time.
I know, rite? It’s pretty embarrassing but at the same time it goes to prove you that you’re a better human being.
XBOX all the way baby POS3 is a piece of shiiiieeet!!!!
360 fanboys… well at least spell PS3 correctly and by considering games like UC2 PS3 is not “shiet”
what is Light decay…and why does the ps3 textures lack a little bit…?
lensofbullshit try to compare with same graphic options.
OK the 360 is the better version, fair enough. I was hoping to pick this up on PS3 but I guess Sony has screwed with my mind again.
Don’t you love it how they (Sony) gain advertising exclusivity (or even timed exclusivity and publicity) for certain games, and those games turn out either noticeably inferior on the ps3 (AC2) or horrendously inferior (Ghostbusters). If you’re going to promote a third party game to create brand loyalty among a certain franchises fanbase, at least lend the developers a hand and help them make the game the best it can be.
All those exclusive developers like Naughty Dog and Guerrilla could at least provide tips to 3rd party developers – it’s not like they’d be giving away all their secrets. Fact – games can run on Ps3 with 2xMSAA with Vsync on. I just wish Sony would get off their high horse and help out.
Unless they want Microsoft to monopolize gaming like they have personal computing, they’d better pull themselves up by the bootstraps ASAP.
Another thing that really bugs me about comparisons is that sound seems to be omitted. I personally enjoy hearing uncompressed audio in a lot of titles, where the 360 equivalent has been atrocious (HAWX explosion sounds ring a few bells here)
No discussion: X360 version is far better (i have the PS3)