November 17th, 2011
Posted in 
All Will Be Revealed…
| System Breakdown | Xbox 360 Stats | PlayStation 3 Stats |
| Resolutions: | Up to 1080p | Up to 1080p |
| # of Discs: | single | single |
| HD Install: | Optional | Mandatory/3.8 GB |
| Metacritic: |  |
|
| Watch / Download Video: |  |
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This time we will be looking at this year’s new Assassin’s Creed title. Over the series’ lifespan, there has always seemed to be a little bit more going for the 360 version in the past. Overtime however, the PS3 versions of this series have gotten a little better with each release. Could this new entry be the game that matches or even surpass the 360 version, or will this old habit of shoddy porting die hard? Lets put this “Revelation” under the lens and discover what lies beyond in both versions.
Graphics: This category seems to tell us that the Assassin Creed devs may have had a revelation of their own during development. For the most part, the game looks pretty identical. There are however some spots on one console that looked rather washed out due to the gamma levels. To our surprise however, it was the 360 version that had this problem. It is also evident that the gamma isn’t the only thing that leaves the PS3 version looking slightly sharper. Some details are just outright better on the PS3, though most of them will have to be seen pretty close up to notice. For example, if you refer to the ninth rollover on the second page, you can clearly see that the shoulder pad on Ezio’s outfit has a little more detail overall when compared to the 360 version. These close up details are pretty easy to overlook in most parts, but it is still a clear advantage that the PS3 has in the visual category. Many spots will look the same during game play, but at the end of the day the visual detail found within the game is indeed better on the PS3 without a doubt.
When we look at anti aliasing, things seem pretty equal across the board for MOST parts. Most noticeable jaggies will be present on objects off in the distance and on some of the shadows. There are a few spots where one console might hide them better than the other, but they exist on both sides and pose no real advantage what so ever. The shadow quality of both versions is also pretty equal, though there is a difference that boils down to personal taste. This would be that they are more pronounced on the PS3, but softer on the 360.
As far as pop ins go, they both stream textures pretty well overall. Same goes for fade ins and draw distance, so there is no real advantage on either console in this aspect. All in all this is probably the most equal Assassin’s Creed game in terms of visual quality thus far, but the PS3 will be commanding the overall advantage here with sharper textures.
Performance: The performance aspect of the game was pretty well matched, but unfortunately that doesn’t mean they were perfect. The targeted frame rate for the game was thirty frames per second, and both game remained close to it for the most part. However when the action heated up or if a lot of distant scenery was shown on screen, both versions began to drop frames and tear on a slightly noticeable level with the extra stress. While neither game dropped to an unplayable or even annoying level, it did appear that the PS3 always seemed to drop an extra two frames more than the 360 version. Furthermore, while both games had tearing, the PS3 version also had a little bit more. Overall the performance was matched pretty well this time around, but the 360 edges it with a slightly smoother experience.
| Playstation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 8948 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.50 Percent of torn frames: 2.79 |
Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 8948 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.48 Percent of torn frames: 3.40 |
| Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 4060 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.74 Percent of torn frames: 6.16 |
Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 4060 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.40 Percent of torn frames: 2.96 |
| Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 5328 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.34 Percent of torn frames: 6.74 |
Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 5328 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.03 Percent of torn frames: 6.41 |
| Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 3020 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.47 Percent of torn frames: 5.50 |
Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 3020 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.42 Percent of torn frames: 3.27 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 16.09 Global average FPS: 28.64 |
Global percent of torn frames: 12.20 Global average FPS: 29.34 |
Loading: The loading times were also pretty even between both versions, and fairly decent as well. There were some spots where one version would load quicker than the other by up to five seconds, but these instances can be found on both sides. At the very least here, you won’t have to wait much longer to play based on what version you buy. It is worth noting that these times are based on the 360 running off of the disk, while the PS3 version has a mandatory install of about 3.8 gigs. If you don’t have a hard drive on the 360, you have nothing to worry about here. If you plan on playing it installed on your 360 anyway, then the results of that option are pretty obvious. All in all however, loading ends in a tie with no issues found on either version.
| PlayStation 3 Load Times | Xbox 360 Load Times |
| Sample 1: 19 Seconds | Sample 1: 18 Seconds |
| Sample 2: 20 Seconds | Sample 2: 22 Seconds |
| Sample 3: 25 Seconds | Sample 3: 20 Seconds |
| Sample 4: 25 Seconds | Sample 4: 19 Seconds |
| Sample 5: 20 Seconds | Sample 5: 25 Seconds |
| Sample Average: 21.8 Seconds | Sample Average: 20.8 Seconds |
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
More Roll Overs, Conclusion, Video and Staff Choice on Page 2>>>
Pages: 1 2
Tags: *To ensure color accuracy from the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii U output, the PlayStation 3 has RGB Full Range set to "Full" and Super White "On", and the Xbox 360 has Reference Level set to "Expanded" and HDMI Color Space set to "RGB". Our capture card we have captured segments from the AVS HD 709 . Blu-ray, HD DVD, & MP4 Calibration suite.
As you will see, each system matches each other at the SOURCE LEVEL. No contrast or gamma settings are manipulated before or after capturing our images/videos. We strongly believe that these types of corrections are done on a individuals preference and should not be adjusted by us. Finally, washed out looking images that are due to contrast or gamma differences will not have any influence on our final verdicts. Please Read through our F.A.Q page if you have any questions or concerns.*
first? that’s pretty cool I guess.
was never interested in this series, but they do look cool.
You won internet on floppy for being first, go outside and wait for mail.
—-===—-
Curious comparison.
This is FIRST time that “brighter lightning, more bloom = win” DOESNT’T apply in LoT comparison.
Maybe because it is FIRST time it is in X360 version and not on PS3?
Do I have to buy tinfoil hat or does anyone have the same feeling?
Anyway less tearing, better lightning, soft shadows = X360 win for me here.
I started the series with 360 and will finish the series with 360.
I am however glad Ubisoft can now program for the PS3.
The first Assassin Creed better on PS3 \o/
I think now UBIsoft is getting experience on PS3 /o/
I’m shock to be honest considering all the Assassin’s Creed games looked and performed better on XBOX 360, no? This is indeed a pleasant surprise from Ubisoft and will definitely pick this up for PS3!
So the PS3 version looks better graphically and comes with a free copy of the first game on the same disc….yeah, totally a tie. Please refer to my avatar.
“Scientific factual evidence.” – ELPRESADOR
TREY4LIFE
LOOK AT THIS SHIT!
Thank the Gods that crafted PS3 and the PS3 controller, ELPRESADOR is here!
Huge win for PS3 here, too much bloom with the inferior “console.”
not the game does not look better on ps3, the xbox 360 version and ps3 are quite similar.
and is peforming a little better in xbox 360
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-assassins-creed-revelations
Lol… Regardless if PS3 won the head-to-head or not, I still got it for the PS3 anyway for better reasons; 1. PS3 gets first and only dibs on DLC; 2. PS3 version came with the first Assassins Creed game (which happened to be the only one I didn’t play); 3. Just because I mainly prefer the Dual Shock controller over the clunky-rock, that is the shitbox controller… But this head-to-head win for the superior PS3 version will do, as well… And to think, the “Moron Trio” (Blandriod, MyAssHurts, and Crying1999)tried to call this one before the head-to-head.
Damn a lot to say about this PS3 win. Where were you at on the Skyrim H2H. I guess the shit box had you tongue tied.
u do realize that all the problems they had found on the PS3 are getting patched right? bc it was a glitch haha which will make the xbox look like crap afterwards just watch you see bc this site doesnt have enough news on stuff like that
@ BTFE It doesn’t matter that a patch is coming for the PS3. A patch is also coming for the 360. So your argument is garbage. Bottom line, this site and other sites say 360 version of Skrim is better, deal with the facts.
uuh! right in the stuff!!
Game developed first on ps3 = ps3 win
game developed first on xbox = xbox win
simple as that…
so 7 lines is a lot to say? crikey, u must be almost mute , if you think that’s a lot to say lol
skyrim was 360 win, simple. this is very close , and possibly a ps3 win overall. Only thing either of these games show in terms of the console war, is: a) ultimately game engine defines winner usually in these h2h’s. Given most engines are using 360 as lead format, most games win on h2h on 360. Only heavy optimising or ps3 as leading format, makes this not the default position
b) give bethseda any game, and they will a make a broken mess with glitches galore.
Skyrim clearly faboured 360 architecture, and they made a horrible choice choosing that aa process on ps3, but hey ho, it is what it is. If people like the game (assuming it’s actually working), the ps3 version is not an abomination, and looks reasonable. it just looks better on 360.
both versions can burn in pits of hades imo, as it looks so boring to me, its untrue, but hey ho.
I don’t mind the softer look of Skyrim on the PS3, and t=it’s not as blurry as you might think if your TV is set up right. I’ve put 40 hours in to Skyrim and don’t regret purchasing it on PS3. I just want the stupid save file shit to be patched NAO!!!!!!
Why do people keep using Skyrim as a meter of comparison? Bethesda has been able to do a crappy port even on PC!!!
Let’s look at he facts: AC games were always slightly superior on X360. Now that Ubisoft learned how to program and made a new engine the PS3 version is better. As it was always supposed to be. Too bad it took them 5 or more years. But at least Ubisoft did it, Bethesda is still stuck with the same old problems its games always had. Unbelievable.
Don’t be mad that the PS3 version is LEAPS and BOUNDS above the crappy xbawks.
PS3 fans rejoice!!
wait this game came out just recently and you guys already have the FULL head2head? come on where is the modern warfare 3 head2head? also can you guys mention how to adjust the gamma levels for the ps3 version to match the 360 version? how many steps to the left on the gamma bar should i move it?
u like the over bright look on the 360? wow dude
It’s an obvious Ps3 win at least in graphics, but the “bright look” is just when you are in the “limbo”, and it looks more like gloom than other thing, i can tell since the effect disapearse when you are not that “limbo”
Although Brotherhood is possibly the best looking open world game I’ve seen on consoles, it tore like a champion and it kinda turned me off. Shame it never got better after every installment. Still looks cool though. Nice to see Ubisoft really bust their ass off for console parity (lol console parody in the article). That’s how you show some real talent.
LOL
Nice catch CernaML, I’ll fix that now. We do enjoy a good parody though so I’m not shocked that we got the words mixed up. XD
hey LOT staff, can you specify in analysis’ whether the screen tear is usually down the sides or middle please, as if its down sides of game, or at top of screen, as in some games, it’s not really noticeable at all, even if its high in terms of figures.
thanks
For those bragging about the PS3 version getting the 1st AC, it’s the inferior version (the 360 version of the 1st AC was better which is odd since it originally was going to be a PS3 exclusive). Less screen tearing and a better frame rate? 360 win.
The PS3 had much better framerate on Rage and the graphics were unnoticeable. Yet 360 gets slightly better framerate and has screen tearing almost just as bad, and the graphics are much better, the 360 still wins? You’re like the kid on Big Daddy who wins no matter what.
honestly, i noticed the visual differences in rage. it pissed me off when i found out why the game felt blurry on occasions…
It didn’t have better framerate in RAGE.
That was LOLcastic LoT error.
Check Eurogamer comparison. Especially 2nd driving video.
PS3 has more and lower framerate dips (38fps). And both PS3 and X360 have it only in driving parts.
Not sure why some are assuming this is a ps3 win. Based on the article…
360- Slightly better performance (16.09 Torn Frames for the ps3– YIKES!)
ps3- Slightly better visuals
Result: A tie. Really not hard. Depending on what you value more it could go either way but this is a tie.
By the way LOT staff why did you get rid of your summarizing results section delineating specific wins for each console in the different categories? It’s what gave your site a unique look. Oh well.
360 – 12.20% torn frames YIKES!!
See what I did there?
The tearing was crap on both consoles, framerate was only slightly better on 360. PS3 has noticeably better visuals. Nice try to spin a 360 win though.
You fool,
If LOT had stuck with the usual conclusive summaries for each technical aspect of the game they would’ve had the ps3 logo for visuals and the 360 logo for performance and both logos for loading.
See this is why they should not have taken this part out to SHOW Why it’s a tie. There have been similar head to heads where the performance differences were this close but they gave the nod to the console that was the better performer. So what are you talking about?
Seems like you’re the one spinning things here.
I love how you tried to do damage control from a 360 loss with the “YIKES” there.
That was funny
360 version looks washed out
Epic PS3 win once again!!!
Wow, I never knew being a fanboy was this easy!
In all seriousness though… who at Ubisoft thought it would be a good idea to let a game tear this much? Also, how do people not notice screen tearing even when it’s like this? I’ve seen people say they’ve never seen a screen tear in their life even after playing Heavy Rain and Uncharted 1. I wish I had their incredible tear-less vision.
Either way your getting pretty much the same package. PS3 has a slight visual advantage from some sharper AA and more realistic lighting but it’s a very slight advantage. 360 has the slight advantage in performance with less tearing and higher average FPS but again not that wide of a gap. I’d call it a tie and with other entries in the series looking and playing much better on the 360, I have to give props to Ubisoft Montreal for making this a rather even experience throughout.
Wow they actually got it right this time! good work ubisoft!
Oh My God That’s such a surprisingly surprise. WoOoW nice one , though I expected the 360 to win, as we know they never bother to look after the PS3 version.
oh, wow. it’s… it’s not washed out on PS3 O_O
the screen tearing is pretty close as well O_O
Did they… did they learn?
SR3 h2h please!!!
Yeah a tie is fair, I can’t argue I prefer the ps3 screenshots(blurry visuals annoy me, something that usually affects the ps3 version).
It’s taken the ps3 version to be the lead version this time around to reach parity, it’s also a shame it’s done it on the worst rated assassin creed game yet.
I’m still getting it though
You invest way too much stock in metacritic. The same moronic site that translates a C into a 50 (dumbest thing ever). Android, it’s not parity when one version looks graphically much better than the other. Sure they both tear pretty close to each other but that’s not an ideal place for parity. The amount of tear and dropped frames are so close what do you think people will notice the most? The huge gap in graphics quality of course, so no this is not parity. I’m sure you thought L.A. Noire and Portal 2 were examples of parity too, huh? Way to scrape the bottom of the trolling barrel there, buddy. Hmmm, superior graphics, slightly more tearing and dropped frames and two games for the price of one or inferior graphics, slightly less tearing and dropped frames and one game for the price of one? It’s a no brainer what owners of both consoles should choose.
Been playing since launch on PS3 and while yes it is more of the same, it’s still a great game. Maybe not the strongest story and structure as compared to ACII and ACB but it if you’re an AC fan this is still a must have and fitting close to Ezio’s legacy. Personally, I loved the atmosphere of first AC more than ACII and ACB despite its weaker gameplay. Thus, the return of Altair is a very welcome addition even if somewhat limited. With ACR you get the graphically best AC entry yet. For a series well known for having a slight edge in texture qualities on 360 (despite most noticeable difference only being gamma—360 with its crushed blacks, PS3 with its more feint but far from “washed out” default gamma—both of which can be corrected in game menus and through TV settings) it’s pretty ironic that it’s strongest graphical entry yet looks vastly better on the PS3. As in L.A. Noire and Portal 2 better.
surely the point is, that which version the games engine is based around usually ends up better off?? I saw nothing about ps3 being lead platform either tbh, just they said they were going to strive for parity more.
Either way, if it was lead or not, it doesnt really matter. The simple fact is, that in most games, if a game is lead on a platform, that version will be better overall, bar maybe the odd aspect of a game, which other platform excels at.
The 360 is usually lead platform, and thus wins most h2h’s. were ps3 easier platform to program for, and had most engines not been developed with 360 architecture as basis, this wouldn’t be the case, and it would be reversed(or if ps3 had been hugely dominant in terms of sales, then we’d still see a reverse, even with current architectures, as they’d choose the most poplar platform)
simple fact is, not sure what either set of fans are moaning about, it looks decent on both, with minor pro’s and cons either way, and all in all, for a game churned out in a year or so, looks very nice on both platforms.
i didnt even find the difference between skyrim that huge tbh, it was clear, but hardly cry in my coffee large differences. Id be more worried about the fact that it’s a broken mess on either platform(surprised? it’s bethseda after-all)
id happily say a tie, or a ps3 win, or even 360 win, if it shuts up the moaning fanboys. It’s just good to see, neither platform owners getting royally screwed
Hm, you seem to be two-faced when it comes to PS3 wins vs. 360 wins. By this I mean that the same standards don’t apply to you when it comes to the advantages in one version v.s another. I’m 99% sure that if this had been a flip scenario and the 360 had the better visuals but weaker performance, you would opted for the 360 version because 1) You’re an Xbot and 2) because you protect that box down to the death. I’m absolutely sure that YOU would have provided the argument of ” what do you think is going to be more noticeable, better visuals or better performance?”
Why defend something so badly that it blinds you in the most clear of victories? The difference between you and SOME of the PS3 fanboys is that we know how to accept a lost. You need to learn to accept the facts dude, and not just choose which one’s you want to listen to.
Regarding this Head2Head:
Sure took them long enough to accomplish a task that should have been done since the first game.
@Lens of Truth
I would like to request a full Head2Head for Saints Row: The Third, at least a Heads Up for Ace Combat: Assault Horizon, and perhaps one for Need for Speed: The Run, too.
By the way, here is the first six minutes of Tekken: Blood Vengeance (1080p supported), which will only be available until the 25th (of this month):
lmao. This isn’t a tie, its a PS3 Win. Playing down the PS3 advantages and trying to boost the Xbox downfalls. At least this site is staying true to form. Apparently you won’t notice the graphical differences even though they are strikingly obvious, but the xbox wins on performance, as a 2 fps difference is apparently huge. lol. just lol.
I know you’re desperate for a ps3 win samchez after the lack of success of late for the ps3 in these h2h’s lol, but seeing slight differences in zoomed in shots graphically speaking is not going to be that noticeable in the game itself on your HDTV screen.
The reason the 360 wins most of the h2h’s is because it usually backs up the less blurry graphics with the better performance.
As we can see here the ps3 version can’t quite manage that regarding the performance.
Even the loading slightly favours the 360 version(from DVD only), installing to hd on 360 will widen the gap even more.
It’s a tie for sure even if I prefer the look of the slightly cleaner looking ps3 visuals
How hypocritical can you be? You kept celebrating Batman Arkham City as a 360 win when parity in that game as proven by DF and just common sense when comparing the two, is far more then ACR. The differences between 360 and PS3 BAC are so miniscule and trivial they are not even worth mentioning. In fact, when you adjust gamma levels they look IDENTICAL when played on the same display. With ACR this is not the case at all. No matter how much you toy with the gamma, guess what? The PS3 version’s textures and overall image quality is still sharper and more crisp. C’mon, Faildroid, I expected better from you.
Cowardly thumbs down and lowered stars but ZERO comments being able to dispute what I said as it is 300% true. BAC is an AWESOME example of parity across the board! With a little adjustment of gamma, the two versions look identical and frame rate and tearing differences are so ridiculously minor they are just null and void. With ACR, the graphical differences are actually very noticeable.
@samchez77
Poor overpriced internet ready blu ray player fantards. Oh and as our butthurt buddy samchez77 says,”The gamma can be fixed by adjusting your tv.” Right samchez77? Oh and lets not forget,”The game looks much better than these screen shots.” You’re right there too samchez77. So I guess, using your own logic, that even the visuals department would be a tie here. Proving, yet again, that even with the overpriced internet ready blu ray player as the lead development platform, the 360 can easily match the fidelity of the game machine wanna be. Lucky for the overpriced internet ready blu ray player that the 360 wasn’t the lead platform or this h2h would have turned out like 95% of the others…a win for 360.
“The Xbox 360 is the BEST console EVER made.” –John Carmack.
you are an idiot but i guess you all ready know that cos you bought a ***box, the ***box can only dream of being as good as the greastest console ever made the mighty ps3 now piis off and go back to your stupid halo & gears of war, while i will play God of War, Uncharted 1 2 & 3, Heavy Rain, GT5, LBP,Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Motorstorm, now stop crying you big sook
You’re acting like just because this game was led in development on PS3, that means it maxed the console out, which if you look at Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, God of War 3, Heavy Rain, Resistance 3, and even MGS4 (the list goes on and on), thats not the case. So no, when you compare the best exclusives the PS3 has to offer against the best exclusives the 360 has to offer (which can still look good), the 360 can’t match what the PS3 can do when fully utilized. Not a fanboy statement, just what is obvious when you compare the games.
“BUYING1999 is wallowing in his own miserable 360 infused life” – Hig1134
OH my GOSH just shut up! Buying1999 is here with his usual rant/whine. You guys should know by now that this kid is a twelve year old with a vengeance. With the help of his boyfriend oh Johnny boy he proves to us how much of a life he has–NOT.
Oh and has no-one noticed he always resorts to the old “overpriced Blu-ray” quote and that annoying John Carcrap quote, it’s no-where even near expensive EVEN for a Blu-ray player!
Go away plz.
Nobodi wants your input anymore, even the most brainwashed of Xbots.
So plz gtfo
lmao. I would add to this…..but everyone else has already said it for me!!!!
its not a win for ps3 it is a tie, i think they both look really close, ps3 does look a little better and it is a slight bit. remember this game was a ps3 lead game so it goes to show that what ever version gets ported is inferior, ps3 is not a power house like u would have every 1 believe. i think if your going to truly compare the two consoles then do it when both versions of the game have been developed for seperately.
i could argur that my xbox version gets held back because people like you keep moaning about having an inferior version and so they lead on ps3. ill make two valid points for you now take them in and get your head out of your arse when you read them.
1. sony decided to build a console that is a headache to develop for, they went against what developers wanted because they invested a shit load of money in the cell processor that they won’t be using come ps4 that kind of says it all.
2. why should games be lead on ps3 or have extra money spent developing them when most multiplatform games sell a shit load more copies on xbox. kind of dumb to give the middle finger to your biggest customer, so what ubisoft is doing is making the game on ps3 noing that the xbox can easily match what the ps3 can do even when ported. obviously this game would have looked better if it was xbox lead and the ps3 wouldn,t have matched it, so to keep cry babys like you happy they start on ps3.
Looks like I might of bought the wrong version. O well, it still rocks
Wow! I’m pretty surprised, honestly… I hopped in here, expecting for sure that the 360 version would be the superior looking game. Very surprising indeed, after seeing the previous 3 games favor the 360. Interesting…
Both are good Versions –
but the xbox360 Version has the Edge with the added BloomEffekt that are missing in the PS3 Version.
Texture work are identical with some difference in the Blur effect.
Good point though Im sure last time the PS3 game was FP16 against FP10 for 360. Wonder if it’s the same this time around.
Bloom effects are on PS3 version too, what are you talking about?
And anyway, bloom effects don’t help to raise the graphic quality of the 360 version, deal with it.
Wow, that was fast!
I’m getting the PS3 version myself. The fact that it comes with AC1 doesn’t really sway me either way though, as I have already beaten it. The differences and advantages are small either way, but the frame rate isn’t bad on either so I would prefer to have the sharper version. I do agree with the overall verdict of a tie though. No matter how you slice it, they are VERY similar.
Thanks for the speedy H2H guys! I almost went with the 360 based on past results, but you guys saved me here. Though like I said, the differences are small so it wouldn’t have mattered too much. Keep up the good work!
Quite surprised by the PS3 visual win though by looking at the screenshots I don’t think the 360 version looks washed out gamma wise but gamma can be corrected anyway. Ubisoft has always tried to appeal the AC game to the PS3 audience so a bit surprised it’s taken them this long to achieve some kind of parity.
I like the AC game engine but they really need to do something about the screen tear.
Omg… for the first time in AC history, the graphics are maybe actually better on the PS3 I think…or maybe a tie, but I can’t see the usual X360 domination in the visual quality department
…
But I’m always surprised about how the hell the 360 can load faster from disc, even when the PS3 has a nearly 4 gigs of data on the HDD. LoT, can’t you do a H2H with 2 PS3s, one with a regular HDD, and one with SSD? I would love to see if there’s difference!
You can get rid of the “may be”.
And no, graphics are not a tie, it’s a clear PS3 win.
PS3 won another awesome game … i guess after all lot of devs learning to make games properly for PS3 …not shitty port from shitbox like COD’s -skyrim … lotta shitty port and the funny thing is xbox fan boys think that their console is really superior than PS3 … yeah superior my ass.. haha PS3 FTW !!!
stop moaning about ports, this was ps3 lead. xbox looks almost as good just shows that the xbox can match ps3 even when its ported, makes the xbox shine even more over the ps3.
maybe i should cry now wahh wahh, this is a shitty port, its the developer they are crap and don’t no what they are doing im much more intelligent than these people and could make a better game myself. this is the sort of stuff people like you say, learn about what the consoles can do and write a comment that is constructive for once, you make yourself sound like a deranged chav on crack. get a grip peasent.
Ok I have seen the video for about 4 times to experience each console in this video, now I guess both systems are capable of handling this kind of games. Both versions drop and tear, but it’s not the systems problem it’s Ubisoft Devs should by now knows each system very well. UbiSoft should know very well each system in and out,
The question is, DO they really see all the frames drop and this bad tearing? meaning how could they release a game ignoring both problems.
It’s a tie, get over it people.
Funnily enough, going by LOT’s rules for these h2h’s, the 360 version is actually the closest to the win.
It won the performance and intalling to hd would have won it the loading as well(by a bigger margin than it already has).
So ps3 deluded fanboys should be thankful that having slightly less washed out visuals has scraped them a tie here
And by installing it to an SSD to the PS3 would’ve given the PS3 version an even bigger advantage in both loading and visuals. Let’s cut the buts and what ifs.
Lucky for you xbots that sound isn’t a category…
Obviously you need to get over it lol. You keep posting about how it was a “tie” even though you truly know the PS3 version looks better. Do you realize how much of a fanboy you are?
getting it on christmas!!!
Makes one wonder why they could not get the previous games right on PS3?!!
An assins creed game looking better on PS3???, Thats a new one.
Anyway, great work ubisoft. Despite some mino differences both versions look really alike and the game seems to be well donde on both systems.
See bethesda???, Now that’s how you make a multiplatform game.
Some xbot told me on the Skyrim H2H that Xeron(w/e the name is) > RSX…
What happened to the almighty Xeron?… Like I said on that same H2H(Skyrim). If the developers take their time to make the game right on the PS3 it will LOOK and PERFORM better than the x360.
I’ve always said it, the PS3 is way more powerful than the x360 but the 2 consoles balance themselves out because the x360 is like SUPER easy to make games for. I’d say that 100% of the developers know how to make the x360 “respond” to whatever they ask it to do. As opposed to, MAYBE, 30-40% of the developers would make the the PS3 “respond” to them(developers).
So in essence, we WILL see more games performing better on the x360 (percentage wise) but , as seen with the Uncharted, Killzone and God of War 3′s of the wold, the PS3 will have better graphics/performance if the developers really know what they’re doing. Some xbot will not accept that fact but that’s reality.
Way more powerful? I think that’s pushing it a bit lol.
I gave you a 5 star rating for delusion alone.
PS3 exclusive look and perform WAY better than anything on the x360. If exclusive developers can make WAY better looking games than anything the x360 has ever seen, that perform WAY better than anything on the x360 then it can only mean that the PS3 is WAY more powerful than the x360.
Keep in mind that developing for the x360 is as easy as developing for the PC. So it shouldn’t( AND IT DOESN’T) take developers that huge of an effort to achieve great graphics on the x360. On the PS3 the more you mess around with it, the more power you get.
Thank you for the 5 stars tho.
If ps3 exclusives managed to run at full hd 1080p and 60fps, then i’d agree with you about ps3 exclusives performing way better.
But the facts are they run at the same cut down 720p hd res and target 30fps(just like on 360).
That’s hardly performing better.
If you’re talking about uncharted and how good that looks, a lot of that is down to the incredible programming team at naughty dog and their superb engine they use.
It actually stands out from anything else on ps3 to be fair.
When you look at other ps3 exclusives like infamous 2(bad slowdown in spots and zero AA)and resistance 3(sub hd by a long way), it just goes to show you that there are actually only a few stand out exclusives from the crowd on the ps3(just like the 360).
If naughty dog all of a sudden decided to do a 360 game, i’d be very surprised if it wasn’t instantly the best looking game on the machine.
Sony are very lucky to have them.
Android the 360 has had plenty of chances to out perform with its exclusives. I’ll give you a few facts. You complain about being sub HD, well Alan Wake and all the Halo games are sub HD. Alan Wake even had massive tearing and the lowest resolution i’ve seen (540p i think). Halo is the 360′s best exclusive FPS and it falls far behind games like Killzone and even Resistance.
The only 360 exclusive that is closest to the PS3′s best (although still far behind) is Gears 3. And that was made by a 3rd party developer. Although visually its great all it has is narrow areas with no vertical distance and the same few enemies moving from cover to cover. All the parts that would test the engine are in cutscenes. Even then the main game has tearing. While games like Uncharted use the in game engine even in cutscenes and the action scenes are actual gameplay and playable. Even with all that it maintains a rock solid framerate and no tearing at all.
You are lying about infamous 2. The engine in that game can handle insane amounts of on screen action with about 30 people, 10 cars, a huge boss and a tornado without a single frame rate drop. It puts most open world engines to shame.
Like I said earlier the 360 is yet to prove itself to be better than PS3. Most the PS3 faults are down to poor programming from 3rd party devs.
Many people forget that one of Sony’s biggest acheivements this generation is the studios its bought. M$ have just paid for exclusive DLC which has backfired. Next generation if both Sony and M$ release their next consoles at the same time, its Sony that will have the huge advantage. There should be a lot more exclusive games for Sony. Sony has the biggest studio count than everyone else.
Remember everyone its the games that are the most important thing. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo really dont care about you. They are only in this business for money.
I agree with CASFAN,
mate speak up we need some like you who speak well and knows what he is talking about.
Well said.
Not complaining about some ps3 exclusives being subhd casfan, i was stating the fact that the ps3 has its fair share of sub-hd exclusives as well(just like the 360).
That doesn’t sound like the 360 being outperformed to me.
As for infamous 2, i completed the game and enjoyed it, but it did have slowdowns in some areas and some very odd low res effects at times.
I remember one scene when i think you were going along on a boat through the swamp and had to keep jumping off to kick the crap out of the bad guys.
That area struggled like crazy and i saw some real low res graphic effects there.
I will admit the main city ran very well in the game though.
If you don’t even know the name of GPU in both console, then how could you know the specs of either GPU? And if you don’t know the spec, then how could you know that the ps3 has more power than the xbox? The XENOS(xeron lol) is more powerful than the RSX, but the cell of the ps3 is more powerful than the xenon. However, they are different, and even today it isn’t entirely clear how the two match up because they work in very different ways. “I’d say that 100% of the developers know how to make the x360 “respond” to whatever they ask it to do. As opposed to, MAYBE, 30-40% of the developers would make the the PS3 “respond” to them(developers).” Where did you pull that from? It couldn’t have been anywhere other than your ass if you don’t know what a GPU is. OH guess what, I’D SAY that if I was shot 100 times in the head with a shotgun i’d be ok. That’s about as intelligent as what you said. Based on nothing. Love how you just make stuff up. Oh and by the way, the xbox has never been easy to develope for, as its CPU is simultaneously multi threaded but then again there is no point in telling you that because you don’t know anything about computer components. It’s just easier than the ps3 is to develop for because the ps3s CPU is an asymmetric multiprocessor.
And also, the 360 has never been easy to develop for, it is just easier than the ps3 because the cell CPU is an asymmetric processor. The xenon in the 360 is a symmetric processor but it is simultaneously multithreaded making it more difficult than if it was single threaded like the SPE cores in the cell of the ps3. When developers first saw this on the 360 they knew this would be tough, altough consumer CPUs are going this way(at least intel anyway but AMD don’t seem to be interested) which somewhat makes it easier although there are some differences as the xbox has a RISC CPU instead of x86. So if you want to comment about the ps3 being better than the xbox in any way I think it’s only fair that you actually know everything that I said at the very least and obviously from there prove how that is the case.
Developers have been making games on similar “system” (multi thread etc) even b4 the x360 came out… The GPU on the x360 is similar to ATI GPU’s. If you don’t think the x360 is easy to develop for (easy for developers of course) then you’re in denail.
There had hardly been any experience in it at least for games anyway before 360. A xeon and the 3Ghz pentium 4 were the first to introduce it and that was only in 2002, not long before the 360 came out. Using 6 threads is a very different story. Even crysis when it first came out hardly took advantage of more than 1 thread even though they claimed it would take advantage of quad core, if you look at CPU usage, it used 1 and basicly no more. So yes, this was basicly a start to multithreading. John Carmack even said himself that the multithreading of the 360 would prove tricky when it came out. And when the xenos came out, it was the first GPU to use a unified architecture so i’m telling you, things were somewhat different from the off. Obviously as all GPUs went this route it simplifies xbox 360 development but that doesn’t mean it has always been really simple. And while all pcs are using still using CISC, 360 as I said before is RISC, which although is similar still has its differences.
The ps3 looks better in limbo for sure, although the xbox has a strong bloom effect which to be honest I think looks over done. However, on the second page picture 7 is sharper on the xbox and in picture 9, ezios beard and moustache hair is blurred on the ps3 and focused on the xbox, and the hood is sharper on the xbox aswell although his pauldrons have parts which are sharper on ps3 and parts sharper on 360. I don’t really understand this though. How can the ps3 be any better looking than the xbox on an engine that for the first 2 games was dominated by the xbox(keeping in mind the engine hasn’t changed), that doesn’t even have the most outstanding graphics(they are fantastic but they have been beaten by games on both systems for sure)? I think to be honest ubisoft are trying not to show favouratism and with all this condemnation about devs being lazy with ps3 versions of games everywhere, I think to be completely honest they put considerably more effort into the ps3 than the xbox in an attempt to make the ps3 version look better to make up for the last 2 games favouring the 360. Still a game worth getting im sure but it feels like a bit of a stab in the back from an engine which is old and well understood.
On closed range object, texture seems alot better in xbox, however this time PS3 managed has better visibilty range & present great DOF
Im voting – Tie
Garbage game from garbage series.
—786—
firstly i dont care on which platform a game looks better and this n that cause im a multiplatform gamer n i judge by my own mind not by peoples minds…..the only thing i wanna say is l.o.t mentioned that in 9th screenshot there is more detail in ps3 version(i.e on characters shoulder pad)…well yes i agree with that but how could u testers missed the other difference in that screenshot.i.e the cloth patern on the characters head is more clear n more detailed on x360…hands up or down i dont care because im not against any console i go with the facts…
and also dont take me wrong about l.o.t as well im a sensible person and i admire their work…im just sharing my point of view…
No denying, ps3 is better on this one and with way better textures and not really big difference in screen tearing, ps3 takes the win with this big title. Anyway, does skyrim have lots of things to do in the game? Cause I tried the game and thought about buying and wants to know if it´s worth buying.
People, i don’t care about screen tearing at all!
I don’t care about blurriness at all!
I just want to play the games how they were made, play them on the console i bought, regardless of the differences between versions!
In the end what matter is the fun you get from it and not the extra effects or defects.
yeah bro…agreed…
I’ll say ps3 win. The visuals on the 360 are surprisingly washed out and not as defined as ps3.
How wrong you are.
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/2/3/0/0/360_atmosphere.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/2/3/0/0/PS3_atmosphere.bmp.jpg
“People, i don’t care about screen tearing at all!
I don’t care about blurriness at all!”
Why are you on this site then?
True. But let me explain you why: I want to see if the developers managed to match both versions.
See, i bought Bayonetta, Red Dead Redemption and some other games for my PS3 and they were the “blurry” and/or the worst versions overall.
I didn’t care about that. I just had fun playing them.
Now, can the developers match both versions? No, but some of them manage to do that.
set the resolution to 720p you will be pleasantly surprised that the sharpness is a little or a lot better,
I see an PS3 wins even with the screen tear. I hate the gamma and sharps on this AC.
Even the gamma i will play this game because i want to know what happen on the story.
I have 1 thing to tell to all ps3 fanboys: when AC 2 or AC Brotherhood came and win x360 all of you tell that if the AC series going to be developed in PS3 and ported to x360 then the difference will be abbysmal even with a mandatory!!
The reality is clear now, the x360 can port much better a ps3 game than the ps3 can port a x350 game so who is the inferior?? i can see now that uncharted will look pretty good on x360, in 2 disks but the same experience
Remember: Even with the mandatory LOL
Uncharted 3 would just end up worse than the Final Fantasy XIII port for the 360. LOL
I don’t think it would be possible to port Uncharted 2 or 3 to the 360. There is a huge difference in developing a game intended to be multi-platform and developing a game intended to be exclusive. Final Fantasy 13 is the showcase of how and why this just doesn’t work out and it was running on a multi-platform engine which Uncharted is not.
This is developer’s fault, they didn’t max out the powa of the 360 gpu.
I think Ubi went lazy this time.
D’oh, nope, that works just in case we were talking about the Ps3.
My bad
*Troll ironic stupid xbox fanboy off*
Lasts words: even though Xbox has a little better framerate and a little better loading times…i think the Assassin’s Creed 1 extra worth much more than a little bit better textures and missing blooms effects.
Yeah assassin creed being included for ps3 makes it a tempting prospect even if the original wasn’t great on ps3.
Free is free after-all, if the original has trophies as well i might even choose the ps3 version this time
it’s amazing how the argument reverses if the opposite of whats expected happens
I dunno If I will buy this one. I still haven’t finished Brotherhood on my ps3 because of excessive lag when running around in Rome. Supposedly it’s the firmware’s fault but since that’s been updated I think the problem is the fact that the game was never playtested on older machines. So here’s the score on the ps3: AC1 lagged and tore horribly, I never could force myself to play it (did it on the PC though), AC2 lagged a little less and was actually playable but had some rough edges, AC Bro is pretty much dead in the water for me because of excessive lag, AC Revelations has smooth performance but I haven’t confirmed it myself. 1 out of 4 is pretty bad IMHO. Don’t forget that the AC 1 that’s included with Revelations will be exactly like the original, a laggy mess with no tweaks whatsoever.
I go with PS3 version as well…just only cause you get more bang for your buck to be included the first Assasins creed game. Hopefully I will get a chance to play this very soon.
I just sow the Limited Edition at Mega Store, and hesitated to pick it up. I was going to pick the PS3 version, but don’t know if that drop and tears will effect the game play.
Ok for starters @LOT staff Jaime you are a ridiculous Xbot where and how did you see the Xbox version looking better than the OPS3 version way to show your Microsoft colors hahaha
then for the stupid comments that the xbox bloom effectis making iit better than the PS3 version LMAO it dosen’t make it better it makes a disgrace the details (graphics) dissapear on Xbox version due too way to much light bloom hahaha look at the water loser xbots
this is a total PS3 win just 5 frames more of screen tearing and a couple more FPS does not make your $hitbox vrsion look better just accept this time you lose ok and yes I accept Skyrim is a total Xbox win just like assassin’s creed revelations is a Ps3 win grow up fools and skyrim is a ridiculous ugly game compared to Assassin’s creed for god sakes i’d feel embarased if my girlfriend saw me playing that kind of crap while assassin’s creed is amazing you even learn different languages and see real historical landscapes have fun with your dragons and superior quality maps i hope that gets you laid tonight ROFLCOPTER!!! =^]
PS3 is the clear winner judging by the screenshots. So I read PS3 was the lead platform no? PS3 is a very capable machine. So is the 360. Though you can not compare exclusives. PS3 will flat out murder the 360 just look at God of War 3.
yeah angel of death you are so right bro i’m playing God of War 3 right now LOL so it shows no matter how old the PS3 exclusive is it’s still high quality i played Killzone 2 couple weeks ago for campaign and damn that was beautiful and exilerating fun jeez gaming is fun depending which way you go ex. God of War bloody vengeance fun Uncharted well the best damn movie game shooter ever Killzone best FPS based in space and other planets Assassins Creed best game to invlove history thus making it a incredible experiance for open world Crysis 2 best new york city involving game ever so yeah i guess war in homeland Gran Turismo 5 hell yeah some driving that feels so real i flinch when i crash LOL and Batman Arkham City which is the only superhero game from a comic book i approve of for a incredible game spiderman had his day when i was a kid but thats where it stays in the past and Infamous is really cool because its a new super hero so no cheesy weird things going for Cole like a power ring or lasso or i can fly yay!!! hell know hes a tru monster killing warmachine LMAO
so yes PS3 beats Xbox 360 FINITO!!!
Digital Foundry declared the Xbox 360 version the clear winner for it’s consistency across the board. They say that the more they descovered of the city the worst the PS3 version performed, dropping more frames and alot more screen tearing. As for the haze, DF claims that it persists in BOTH versions but in different areas. They say visually they are identical with one being prettier in some areas and the other in other areas, but again, the PS3 drops more frames and has more screen tearing while the Xbox 360 rarely drops a frame or two even in the heat of battle or in the more bustling parts of the city. They even say that the PS3 version’s FPS drops so low in some areas of the city (down to 20 FPS!) that the controller seems outright sluggish at times, a problem they did not encounter with their Xbox 360 copy. Sorry Sony fanboys. I’m just the messenger. But at least Lens of Truth’s sub-par analysis agrees with you (seems LOT’S “analysis” is based off of the first 10 minutes of the game as apposed to DF’s waaaay more in depth analysis of the game in it’s entirety) and you also get a sub-par version of the first Assassin’s Creed for free! I love being a multi-console owner with no allegiance to a single company.
ok
the graphic on the ps3 in better because he is more deanemic and the shadow is better