December 3rd, 2009
Posted in 
“…both games had their fair share of performance problems…”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| EA |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
EA | |||
| BioWare |
1 | 1 |
BioWare | |||||||||
| RPG |
2669 mb | n/a |
RPG | |||||||||
| Release: 11/03/09 | 20 sec | 25 sec | Release: 11/03/09 | |||||||||
| ESRB: Mature |
0.0% | 0.39% | ESRB: Mature |
|||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head – Dragon Age – Origins Analysis We go Head2Head with Dragon Age – Origins for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. |
|
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
Welcome back for yet another exciting Head2Head brought to you by Play N Trade (Oviedo)! This week we finally had a chance to sit down and tackle the highly-anticipated and often requested Head2Head of Bioware’s latest epic adventure, Dragon Age: Origins for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles. So which version of Dragon Age: Origins deserves Grey Warden status and which one should have stayed in the dungeon? Keep reading to find out!
Graphics: Dragon Age: Origins opens with the option of allowing the player to create a unique avatar by flipping through a slew of preset character templates, selecting the skin color from a rather exhaustive palette, and eventually ending it all off with a more personal approach: choosing an origin of descent for you character. There are six different races that you can choose from; we decided to choose the Human Noble for this Head2Head to expedite the process.
Usually, we tend to avoid going into to depth about the color differences between versions in our Head2Head, but due to recent controversy over the color differences that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 had, we decided to address the issue up front. Amazingly, the colors on with both versions matched up identically to one another without changing any of the default settings on the in-game menus. The only conclusion here is that developers are fully aware and capable of matching frame buffers and color schemes on both platforms to ensure color consistency across versions.
Additionally, we did notice some small differences between versions that need to be noted. The PlayStation 3 version had a much more visible draw distance than the Xbox 360 version. Objects in the distance were rendering more clearly and less popping making areas easier to distinguish before plotting your next course. While the texture resolution we equal between both versions, the Xbox 360 had very aggressive mipmapping at glancing angles which resulted in blurry surfaces whereas the PlayStation 3 employed anisotropic filtering to keep surface textures crisp and clean. Aside from these differences, both versions looked almost identical to one another, especially with lighting and character animations.
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 Dragon Age: Origins was the frame rate. While the PlayStation 3 had absolutely no frame tearing, it did however run at a lower frame rate, sometimes slumping down to 15fps. The Xbox 360 had a more steady frame rate overall, but had a small amount of frame tearing (usually localized to the top 1/4th of the screen). In contrast, the lower frame rate of the PlayStation 3 was very noticeable during camera manipulation and heavy action sequences which further bogged down this experience, giving the Xbox 360 a significant advantage with regards to performance.
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1: Length of clip: 1518 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.85 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 1: Length of clip: 1518 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.95 Percent of torn frames: 0.24 |
| Clip 2: Length of clip: 2922 frames Average FPS of clip: 22.30 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 2: Length of clip: 2922 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.15 Percent of torn frames: 0.04 |
| Clip 3: Length of clip: 1102 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.99 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 3: Length of clip: 1102 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.57 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 4: Length of clip: 888 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.40 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 4: Length of clip: 888 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.12 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 5: Length of clip: 1390 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.71 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 5: Length of clip: 1390 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.78 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 6: Length of clip: 1180 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.97 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 6: Length of clip: 1180 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 7: Length of clip: 531 frames Average FPS of clip: 22.75 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 7: Length of clip: 531 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 8: Length of clip: 688 frames Average FPS of clip: 24.51 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 8: Length of clip: 688 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.03 |
| Clip 9: Length of clip: 889 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.43 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 9: Length of clip: 889 frames Average FPS of clip: 30 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 10: Length of clip: 1421 frames Average FPS of clip: 21.66 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 10: Length of clip: 1421 frames Average FPS of clip: 25.01 Percent of torn frames: 0.13 |
| Clip 11: Length of clip: 2049 frames Average FPS of clip: 21.04 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 11: Length of clip: 2049 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.83 Percent of torn frames: 0.09 |
| Clip 12: Length of clip: 1727 frames Average FPS of clip: 17.42 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 12: Length of clip: 1727 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.65 Percent of torn frames: 0.25 |
| Clip 13: Length of clip: 1384 frames Average FPS of clip: 20.02 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 13: Length of clip: 1384 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.88 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Clip 14: Length of clip: 2038 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.09 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 14: Length of clip: 2038 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.97 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 0.0 Global average FPS: 24.49 |
Global percent of torn frames: 0.39 Global average FPS: 29.00 |
Loading: Both systems had very close load times. In our samples, the PlayStation 3 averaged at 20 seconds whereas the Xbox 360 averaged at 25 seconds. The PlayStation 3 did require a mandatory install weighing in around 2669 mb, and took around 11 minutes and 30 seconds to complete. Regardless, the load times were fairly quick and it’s well masked with the interactive “dialog” screen.
Roll over to see the differences. Here we compare the different HDMI settings between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the difference in texture filtering.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences. Notice the differences in reflections on the water surface.
Conclusion: While the Xbox 360 performed better overall, the Playstation 3 version had faster loading times and sharper visuals due to its filtering method. Based on our score system the PlayStation 3 wins this Head2Head. In the end it will be up to the consumer, is sacrificing frame rate worth the slight visual boost and faster load times? Either way, whatever console origin you take, Dragon Age: Origins will be an epic adventure that will keep you hunting Darkspawn for days on end.
 |
|||
| G R A P H I C S | |||
 |
Visually, both versions of Dragon Age: Origins look good, but the PlayStation 3 looked slightly more polished with its anisotropic filtering and further draw distance. Bioware did a great job of matching default colors and contrast across both consoles. |
 |
|
| P E R F O R M A N C E | |||
 |
While neither version of Dragon Age: Origins performed perfectly, the Xbox 360 version had far better frame rate throughout. |
 |
|
| L O A D I N G | |||
|
Load times in Dragon Age: Origins were slightly faster on the PlayStation 3 version coming in an average of 20 seconds and the Xbox 360 in 25 seconds. The PlayStation 3 version did have a 11 minute install weighing in at 2669 mb. | |
|
| O U T C O M E | |||
|
The Playstation 3 version of Dragon Age: Origins is our Head2Head version of choice by having faster load times and a more visually appealing experience. Bioware has done an excellent job with the porting process ensuring an epic adventure on either system. |
|
|
 |
|||
| C O M M E N T S | C H O I C E | ||
 |
Although the Xbox 360 version did out perform the PlayStation 3 version, I’d rather play the version that is more visually appealing to the eye. Furthermore, having quicker load times sealed the deal for me. |
|
|
| Shawn | “I’d rather play the version that is more visually appealing …” | ||
 |
I have to disagree with Shawn on this one. It doesn’t matter how good a game looks if it doesn’t perform well. The visual differences were so minor that the trade off isn’t worth it. Our score system the PlayStation 3 wins, but for me it will be Dragon Age on the Xbox 360. |
|
|
| Corey | “…the trade off isn’t worth it…” | ||
 |
At first glance, I was unimpressed with the game. It looked like it was getting a lot of hype for what seemed like no good reason. Then the story kicked in! Seriously, this game has a great story, and who could expect less from the makers of Baldur’s Gate? The platform decision was really tough, but I had to go with the Xbox 360 and steadier frame rate in the end. Although the PS3 looked better at some points, the action-oriented frame rate drops to 10-11 fps were worse for me than the 360′s ever-so-slight screen tearing and slightly inferior graphics. I can’t stand “chugging” through a massive battle. |
|
|
| Drew | “…the platform decision was really tough… ” | ||
Loading ...
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.*
Nice review, although framerates haven’t been great its not like we live in an age where consoles can still maintain a high avg framerate, so that doesn’t bother me. THe graphics on the 360 looks aweful. I’m shocked
PS3 for me.
L1qu1d knowing that you have a fairly good right for your computer, I”m gonna tell you to get the game on PC for the following reasons:
1) The obvious reason is superior visuals and performance. The game runs beautifully on a quad core and my two 4870s.
2) This is the main reason to get it on PC: The over the heads view that you won’t find in it’s console counterparts. If you’ve played Baldur’s Gate before you’ll have the idea. And Hot Keys. Hot Keys are much easier that the Wheels that you’ll get on the console. Trust me on this, and if not look at all the other critics who have reviewed both the console platforms and PC platforms.
My verdict: PC all the way if you can handle it. There’s absolutely no reason to get this on the console unless you don’t have a computer that can run it.
I agree, I run a similar rig to you and it looks and plays amazingly.
Also Mod Support, the new texture mod that was released recently makes it look even better
Even gamespot gave the PS3 version a better score. I was going to get it for the PS3, but then saw videos of the PS3 in action…. Ya it does go to about 20 FPS during fight scenes. No thankyou.
Besides the 360 version only looks slightly worse. i think the characters models look the same in both version but the PS3 wins when it comes to enviromental textures. But who cares about that, if it can run good. Im going to get it for 360.
Actually ashamed that gamespot gave PS3 a .5 better score than 360. The game that runs worse got a better score. Hmmm
oh and did any reviewers actually install it on the 360 HD? That should help boost loading and texture loading times.
Two questions:
1) Which is more important overall to you guys: Frame rate or Screen Tearing? Obviously both are big issues but based on this analysis the PS3 a global average of 0 frame tears while the 360 had .39 which I must say will be completely unnoticeable.
On the other hand you have approximately a 4.5 difference on the global frame rate and based on your thoughts the frame rate was horrible during battles.
2) What origin did you guys start out with? I’m playing Elf Mage.
already have it for pc, it runs perfectly on my laptop Maxed out.
I have a new setup in my computer I sold the old 1,
i7 920 @ 4.02GHZ
6 gigs DDR3 tri channel ram
OCZ SSD 120 gig + 1 TB Seagate
Asus RAmpage 2 GEne
5870 @ 900 MHZ
windows 7 pro
Nice for u, but this guys analize console versions,not pc.. so go and get cocky on a pc games place
Hey hey man what’s wrong with him talking about his rig? Sure Lens of Truth only does console comparisons but can’t users talk about how the PC counterparts work?
As a matter of fact there’s alot more on the PC version than the console version other than better graphics for this game.
I really want your pc… Post some screenshots for comparison?
ho crap, one that looks better on the ps3 most the time
(although I dont care for that reddish/orangish shot)
i just bought it for 360 last week :/
PS3 version is the way to go. I mean, even though the PS3 FPS is lower, it doesn’t mean that the game does not play smoothly.
Framerate avg under 28 and wins.
Awesome, it was about time to put a ps3 game as a winner.
No other reason, i understand you need to keep your readers happy.
Well, that is the problem with a score based system – 2 out of 3 wins. But what is even more interesting is that people have different values when it comes to performance vs graphics. Personally I can’t stand when a game plays choppy, no matter how nice it looks. It tells me that the developers were pushing the system to hard and needed to step it down a notch.
Oh, and i would like to see the loading times with the 6’4 GB installed in the 360.
Just to know if i should install it or not.
From digital foundry:
“First up, let’s take a look at the console games via the wonders of high-definition comparison video. It’s definitely the case that the PS3 version has a collection of small technical advantages. Texture filtering is superior, the lighting model looks a bit more accurate, and the depth-of-field effect is more accomplished too (even compared to the PC version). Judging Dragon Age: Origins in terms of pure image quality, the PS3 version is the console version to have. Xbox 360 claws back some IQ points though, thanks to its inclusion of 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, which is absent on PS3. Then again, compared to the impact this has in other games it’s not that worthy of comment: edge-blurring, depth-of-field and a low-contrast colour scheme work very effectively in smoothing off edges on their own on PS3, even without the inclusion of MSAA.”
Also from digital foundry:
“In summary, technologically speaking the PC original is the winner here. While the PS3 version is closer to it in many ways, it can’t make up for the frame-rate and the cut-down visuals, and the lack of utilisation of the Blu-ray storage space is peculiar. For Xbox 360 owners, the visual downgrade is a touch more impactful, but the game is less prone to the PS3 code’s frame-rate drops.”
So it all depends on what is important to you, graphics or performance. But of course the PC would win. Kind of sad to see DF stray from console vs console comparisons.
Yeah, they shouldn’t put comparison with pc version in “Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off” article.
This is a RPG game with active pause option, framerate is not so important.
Framerate is always important. Try playing some early console 3d games with horrible framerates and tell me it isn’t almost unplayable. I have very fond memories of Alien Vs Predator for the Atari Jaguar. I remember it being one of the greatest FPS games during that time. I played it again a couple years ago and the 10fps average just about put me into a seizure. Framerate is important.
That said, I wouldn’t buy this game on either console. The lack of options, poor graphics, and poor performace mean that I would rather wait till I have a worthy PC to play this game in any form. Mass Effect looked great on the 360… what happened here? I’ll give the nod to the PS3 for the better visuals, but I’d probably be more apt to give it a tie if the framerate is more acceptable on the 360.
I think framerate in PS3 version is similiar to ME1 on X360, and ME is more action oriented.
The framerates are very important, especially to a PC gamer. And anything under under 30 frames is considered bad to me and both versions never went above 30.
Before someone jumps down my throat about my comment on framerate, I’ll clarify something. There are exceptions where framerate isn’t important. Old-school adventure games, puzzle games and obviously certain other genres don’t need a high framerate to be playable. But any action game does. And any game that comes out in 2009 does also.
lower loading times, less screen tear, better visuals > framerate, simple as that.
Lens of truth strikes again!
They insisted to comfort pathetic Ps3 fanboys,and ignored the fact that Xbox360 actually has a better loading times if you install it into harddrive.Honestly,who doesnt own a harddrive for thier xbox?I can guarantee you that atlease 99.9% Xbox360 users owned or bought harddrive for thier Xbox360,no joke.
And please,dont be ridiculous,Framerate always comes first when comes to enjoyable experience of gaming,who the hell cares when the graphics are only slightly worse?
The reasons Len of trush gave Ps3 a won really beyond me,either You guys were paid by SCEA to write this article or because Ps3 sucks and always losing in multiplatform comparison,so you guys tried to pity Ps3 fanboys and gave it a won to comfort thier fragile heart.So,Curiously…which one is correct for the reasons behind this won?
Who doesn’t own a HDD for their xbox? The people who bought the 360 Arcade.
Who doesn’t own a HDD for their PS3? Um… nobody.
“And please,dont be ridiculous,Framerate always comes first when comes to enjoyable experience of gaming,who the hell cares when the graphics are only slightly worse?”
Funny because that is one of the main things that 360 owners keep touting over the PS3. “360 has better graphics! 360 has better graphics!” Now you’re saying graphics don’t matter. Hypocrite much?
And before you start accusing people of being fanboys, why don’t you look in the mirror first.
PC>>>360>>>PS3.
Framerate is always important in gameplay, not graphics.
Devilslain: Do I hear cry?
Both versions had developed separatedly, and see what happened…
But you guys have not adjusted the display setting right for the 360…..my version doesnt look like that……sound familiar?
Interesting read. I don’t have a computer capable of playing this game so I picked it up for the ps3. Considering the type of game that it is, I’m not bothered by the framerate drops.
Perhaps I’m at the wrong site and shouldn’t even be looking here, but I feel like the game like this is still playable with drops and actually prefer the look of the textures on the ps3. (Seeing as this is a console battle I’ll leave the pc out of this as it most definitely will be the winner for those with a capable system). If I hadn’t looked at this site it wouldn’t have made much of difference to me, as I’m having a blast with the game.
I honestly don’t care either way as long as gameplay is not severely affected. Were this an action game or an fps, or an mmorpg I would care bout the drops.
One critique concerning the layout of the site, I think you should get rid of choosing the winners and your personal opinion of the game. That just spurs a lot of fanboys on who didn’t really bother to read it if they won, or read it only to dispute what they lost. Well they’d argue either way. But by taking out that aspect you’ll get more people to read what you actually wrote in the article.
Also another critique, you say you don’t usually look at colors, but seeing as this is a site the focuses on what gamer’s are looking at on the screen wouldn’t it make more sense to always look at them? Even if there are minute differences or no differences at all it will help the layout of the review I think.
A note for any commenters who read this. This site looks at things at the source but that doesn’t mean it will fit look like this on the tv. Everyone has different settings and environment for their tv so there’s not really any reason to argue that it doesn’t look the way it does here. Change it to the way you like and I’d like to read how you have your settings if you do do that. Also for those who argue against changing the settings for the TV, that is nonsense, Simply for the reasons I’ve stated earlier and also because everyone has their own personal eye taste. You wouldn’t just hit default on a pc game on a computer that has issues with certain visual aspects of the game would you? I doubt you would because that would cause strain on the gpu and cause the game to not run optimally. Then again it comes down to the type of game and what you prefer. Enjoy what you want, but accept that not everyone wants the same thing as you.
The 360 version is optimised to be installed. When installed it loads faster than the PS3 version and would therefore take the win in this H2H.
It seems odd that 2 of the 3 LoT folks chose the 360 version specifically because of performance, yet the win was still given to the PS3 version.
Two out of the three “LoT folks” also choose MW2 for the PS3…the win was given to X360. Think about that.
Because on paper the PS3 version is the superior version, that is why it won. It is a good system really, they provide the facts via the analysis and then they provide their opinions on which version they would purchase.
360 has more of one oft the greatest evils in graphic history: mipmapping, so it is the worse version.
I hate the texture pop-in so much. And thats why I don’t think Crysis is the most impressive game out now.
I know is based on the 2 out of 3 win system, but i have to disagree on the decision.
I read about the difference in FPS, so I decided to download the video. The FPS drop on the Ps3 is very noticeable, especially on Clip #8 when you look around the forest.
Either way, I am a PC gamer, so I shall be getting this for PC.
I have been hearing that there is a massive difference between the quality of the game when it is installed on the 360 hard drive. I have heard that not only load times improve, but also texture quality, and pop-up. Can anybody confirm if this is true?
no i have dwnloaded on xbox, no better than my friend that didnt dwnload it…i hate the pop-up=(
LOL yeah installing to hard drive increases the 360 clarity with AA:)
Hey guys spin ur ps3 counter clockwise twice and flip ur 360 upside down, now sell both of them and go back to school LMAO!
Lens of Truth–>Lens of Lies
Just telling the truth–>Just telling the lies
Really good joke. It was original and very mature.
I wish, when I grow up that my brain is under developed like urs!
Proof those claims by giving us hard evide… just forget it. I’d be easier to call you a troll and an idiot.
The performance on the PS3 version is very solid after the first early portion of the game.
I 100% agree with this verdict, and LensofTruth has regained all my respect. This was a very honest and very accurate analysis.
Great job guys, it’s hard to deny the PS3 version looks better, and that’s why it won.
The choice for me is very obvious the PS3 version. This is because it is very important to have fast distance rendering in a game and of course the better and crispier textures. The Last Remnant on the 360 was a nightmare since it was rendering distance textures slowly and made my experience with the game even worse. I would drop frame rate for the fast texture and distance rendering. Of course not to say that frame rate is not important but it is nothing signicant when comparing both platforms!!
better textures ftw!
pc version is best.
xbox 360 and ps3 versions.. it’s just a matter of preferences, but still this game needs to be played on pc.
i vote ofr the PC version. =D
why the ps3 version look better ??
Bioware hasn`t done an excellent job!
they all look shit!
Okay,I’m a multi-console owner who happens to own both console ports of this title,so I can judge based on actually playing both ports not by comparing crappy low res screens.(check me out:Renegade XVIII ON 360 and RENEGADE-XVIII on PSN)
Alright,I originally picked this title up for the 360 and put in about 150 hours before getting it for the PS3 and putting in over 100 hours.I’m gaming on a high end Samsung LED which I love by the way and the graphical difference between the 2 ports are night and day in favor of the PS3 version.I honestly don’t know where these guys came up with ‘slightly better visuals’ because the difference surely isn’t slight.
The Xbox 360 port looks pretty bad in comparison to the AAA title standard these days,especially the origins.You immediately notice a huge difference in texture quality,particle effects,and lighting when moving to the PS3 version.Things that look like crap on the 360 like trees,fire,and particle effects for spells look completely different on the PS3 (the Waterfall at Redcliffe looks like crap on both ports)…there are also a lot of missing textures that were left out of the 360 version.The PS3 version also has dynamic lighting while the 360′s lighting is washed out and stagnant and even mission in many places.Many designs on the walls and ceilings in the interior of buildings are also missing in the 360 version.
The 360 version does have a steadier frame rate but not by much.I didn’t notice any frame rate drops on the 360 and out of 100+ hours on the PS3 version the frame rate only dropped for a few seconds on 3 occasions.Twice while I had the combat paused in battle and once during a pre-rendered cut scene.
Also:I don’t know what these guys at Lens of Truth is talking about but the color palate is definately darker on the PS3,I actually had to slide the brightness bar up 2 notches.
I had the game installed on my 360 and load times still weren’t faster than on the PS3.Not really a big difference between load times on both ports,but while saving you can still play on the PS3 (since it saves in the back ground)but on the 360 you have to wait until the save is complete to resume play.
Well here’s my verdict after putting in so much time on both ports:
Xbox 360:Slight frame rate advantage
PS3: Significant graphical advantage
I’d say the crappy visuals on the 360 version is due to low disk space.They basically had to squeeze a 20 gig game into 6.4 gigs on the 360 thus the visuals had to take a significant hit.
Bioware is one of the most overrated developers. This game should be avoided if you havent gotten it yet. In the next few months, way better rpgs are releasing.
Anyone that voted for the 360 is clearly a fanboy because this is one of the most extreme cases in favor of the PS3.
I played it on PS3 since i prefer that system but it had so BAD FRAMERATE that I consider ps3 version of this game as a joke. Sorry.
Have you played Mass Effect 1 on 360?
The PS3 Dragon Age frame rate is better.
I agree Darkscience:
Xbox 360:Slight frame rate advantage
PS3: Significant graphical advantage
rofl, sure a couple textures, but reflection and normal maps are better on the 360 version and performance its night and day.
just funny how if a game has a mandatory install its automatically a positive. xbox give you flexibilty, if you dont install loads reasonable, installed it outperforms
bougt gamefirst for PS3, but changed it for 360 version.
Framerate on Ps3 is horrible!!!!
Ill rather have a gamethet preforms well….
Gotta side with PS3 on this. The graphics are WAY more detailed and the frame rate difference isn’t anything that will ruin the game.
No one take cares about FPS? Xbox 360 have a lot more frames per second than PS3…