April 2nd, 2010
Posted in 
“Just Cause 2 has many rough areas…”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| Eidos Interactive |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Eidos Interactive |
|||
| Avalanche Studios |
1 | 1 |
Avalanche Studios | |||||||||
| Action | 1135 mb | n/a | Action | |||||||||
| Release: 03/23/10 | 11.6 sec | 15.4 sec | Release: 03/23/10 | |||||||||
| ESRB: Mature |
0% | 3.89% | ESRB: Mature |
|||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
We’re back! Well, we didn’t really go anywhere but our capture card decided to take a permanent vacation. The replacement arrived early this week and was immediately put to work capturing Just Cause 2 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. If you haven’t guessed, Just Cause 2 is the follow up to the 2006 Eidos release, Just Cause. The first entry in the series had fairly impressive visuals for its time, so how does Just Cause 2 stack up with the high expectations of today’s games? Read on to find out.
Graphics: Just Cause 2 has many rough areas in the graphics department. First and foremost, the game appears to be running sub 720p on both consoles, which leads to a rather blurry experience. Another issue is that the game’s art feels like it is stuck in the first generation of “next generation” games. Some of the character models could easily pass for PlayStation 2 art, the shadow system is rough, and many of the textures on both the environment and props are extremely low resolution. The only thing that really makes this game look decent are the lighting effects, explosions, and motion blur (which, by the way, is completely disabled on the PlayStation 3). While the Xbox 360 tended to have more contrast, cut scenes lost detail. An example is highlighted in one of the rollovers below. In the rollover, you can barely make out the female leader in the foreground and forget about seeing anything behind her. It’s just one dark void. On the PlayStation 3′s side, although less contrasty, you can make our the female leader better and see all the way to the back of the bunker. In terms of graphics, Just Cause 2 pushes no boundaries and delivers nothing new. So, in short, graphics enthusiasts should look elsewhere for a fix.
Performance: Just Cause 2 also has a few issues in the performance department. One thing we noticed while running the footage through our analyzer is that both games appear to have an uncapped frame rate. During the cinematics, the Xbox 360 version would sometimes run as high as 60 fps, then drop back down to the 30 range after a camera cut. The PlayStation 3 version would run at around (either slightly below or above) 30 fps depending on the scene. While the Xbox 360 did have the higher frame rate, it was at the cost of screen tearing. Why the developers didn’t just v-sync the game is beyond us. It is worth noting that both games run at around 30fps in-game with minor tearing on the Xbox 360 and zero tearing on the PlayStation 3. Here are the full stats from our analysis:
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 3 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 1818 frames Average FPS of clip: 23.71 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 1818 frames Average FPS of clip: 42.32 Percent of torn frames: 21.05 |
| Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 3820 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.69 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 3820 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.61 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
| Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 3227 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.40 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 3227 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.00 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
| Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 1834 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.48 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 1834 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.00 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
| Clip 5 info: Length of clip: 2024 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.44 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 5 info: Length of clip: 2024 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.03 Percent of torn frames: 0.01 |
| Clip 6 info: Length of clip: 1136 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.47 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 6 info: Length of clip: 1136 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.00 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
| Clip 7 info: Length of clip: 2811 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.32 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 7 info: Length of clip: 2811 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.28 Percent of torn frames: 0.07 |
| Clip 8 info: Length of clip: 3352 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.25 Percent of torn frames: 0.00 |
Clip 8 info: Length of clip: 3352 frames Average FPS of clip: 36.29 Percent of torn frames: 1.94 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 0.00 Global average FPS: 29.49 |
Global percent of torn frames: 3.89 Global average FPS: 32.33 |
Loading: The PlayStation 3 had a mandatory install that lasted 2 minutes and 13 seconds and weighed in at 1135mb . In fact, the installation did seem to help out with the load times. In our samples, the Xbox 360 loaded in an average of 15.4 seconds and the PlayStation 3 averaged at 11.6 seconds.
| PlayStation 3 Load Times | Xbox 360 3 Load Times |
| Sample 1: 30 seconds
Sample 2: 10 seconds Sample 3: 4 seconds Sample 4: 7 seconds Sample 5: 7 seconds |
Sample 1: 30 seconds
Sample 2: 9 seconds Sample 3: 6 seconds Sample 4: 18 seconds Sample 5: 14 seconds |
| Sample Average: 11.6 seconds |
Sample Average: 15.4 seconds |
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.
Roll over to see the differences.
Roll over to see the differences.
Conclusion, Technical Score 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.*
What a joke. This test is a huge joke. The 360′s version is much better in every points, except loadings. Even one of the official SONY mag wrote it that the PS3 version is technical “inferior”. The visual quality is much better on the Microsoft’s machine, and the framerate is clearly more stable in-game. Once again the poor fanboys from Lensoflie wrote big bullshits, like their ignorance, I recommand to everyone who have both consoles like me, to get the 360 version, for the graphics quality (textures, less aliasing, more colored, better luminosity), much stable framerate (even in-game). Lensoflie makes me laugh with their “fanboyism” for SONY, what a pity to be not honnest like them. Shame on you, poor idiots. People from Eurogamer gonna laugh when they’ll see this dumb head to head. This garbage site of SONY fanboys must deleated for “fake informations”.
Stable framerate > High framerate with fluctuations
Quincunx > Whatever the 360 version has for AA
You do realize that Quincunx is one of the least visually impressive anti-aliasing solutions out there? Or are you just saying that because you hate the Xbox 360?
Wanna know why it sucks? It takes up little GPU time, meaning a small performance toll. However, instead of sharpening jaggies, it blurs it effectively making textures look mushed up.
http://ducati.doc.ntu.ac.uk/uksim/dad/webpagepapers/Game-18.pdf
Get your facts straight. Also, the quincunx AA method is Nvidia technology. So it’s not on the Xbox 360 (ATI).
In other notes, instead of using quincunx AA though, the developers could’ve passed AA tasks to the SPUs instead to save GPU time and to employ a better AA technique. Then again, that would incur more costs (programming time). They probably felt satisfied with quincunx as the AA method as it complimented the art direction of this game as well as its assets. Employing a superior AA method becomes negligible at this point unless it can be done hassle free (Xbox 360′s eDRAM with virtually infinite bandwidth makes it possible easily if everything fits within a 10 MB frame buffer).
Quincunx blur isn’t that bad, and it’s really effective when it comes to eliminating jaggies when compared to a method with similar performance such as 2xMSAA
sounds like someone is bitter cause their console didn’t win
I agree. Xbot Fanboys always cry when its a tie. They always like their console to be superior when its not. Silly little boys
your console isnt either…remember killzone 2 videos and all those lies?…hahahaha
Yes i remember Killzone2 videos and they were even less impressive than the real game. By the way you have a comparisson between Killzone2 and Gears of War2 here http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=4192
Dont cry too much after see it. Of course you can tell than everything is lie…
Anyway is bit unfair to compare a ps3 exclusive to xbox one.
I agree too.
Now graphics of x360 version wins because has more blur effect.
When ps3 version has more blur or temporal effects x360 version wins because sharper.
It is ironic, isn’t it?
It has MOTION Blur.
So moving things leave “trail” and make their motion more fluid for human eye.
Like movies do – moving things at 24fps without it would like mightyly juddery.
It ISN’T the same thing as “quincux” or other “blur whole picture” sh1t that tries to emulate proper antyaliasing by bluring everything…
—–
Anyway I don’t like tearing (but can live with it in cutscenes and not that jumpy cutscenes in PS3 one are anything to look for…) — but motion blur on X360 makes game to apear MUCH smoother and pleasant than PS3 one.
Also PQ looks a little beter on X360 but so to cry over.
PS.
Once again a few seconds difference in loading for PS3 – WIN.
A few seconds difference in loading for X360 – TIE… (see Bad Company 2 comparison)
Here’s motion blur example in movie:
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/DeathProof.jpg
Anh here example of bad blur/Quincunx on PS3 port of Bayonetta:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4661/bayonettafaceoffhdstrea.jpg
About motion blur in movies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
@Star_Platinum
I love coming to this site to read all of the comments from confused people. Let me put this “real simple like.”
[Technical Score Breakdown Simplified]
Graphics: Xbox 360 wins.
Performance: Tie. Both perform equal in game and suck in their own way in cinematics.
Loading: PS3 wins. Some areas load twice as fast.
Outcome: Tie. Pick which one you like.
As for the Staff Choice, that is a PURE opinion section. The writers can choose either one based on personal taste. So happens they choose the PS3 version. But the official ruling is a TIE.
I think you are here complaining because you have been banned from Eurogamer.
Hmm. It’s odd the writers forgot to mention the video capture mode on the PS3 version. That’s a plus for me. It is an action game after all and I really would like to record my stunts. When I was playing the demo, I was even able to leave a helicopter in mid-air while a missile approached me, then I caught up to it while in free-fall and tried to control it. It was a hell of a fun stunt that I would seriously like to capture.
As for the loading problems on the Xbox 360, a simple hard drive installation will alleviate the “problem” and leapfrog the PS3 when it comes to loading. Then again, they’re comparing the “default setting” with the PS3 requiring a mandatory install. I wish LOT’s H2Hs will add loading times given the game was installed to the Xbox 360′s hard drive. Also, Just Cause 2 is a really large open world/sandbox game. I make it a point to always install such games to my Xbox 360′s hard drive. You know, games like Crackdown, GTA4, Test Drive Unlimited, etc.
According to lensoftruth comparisons
Xbox 360 Winners ( 32 )
PS3 Winners ( 11 )
How does that make them a PS3 Fanboy?
You sir are a ignorant Fanboy here not them.
What everyone is overlooking is the fact that PS3 didnt win. the staffs general opinion favors towards the PS3 yes but the fact is JUST CAUSE 2 WAS EQUAL ON BOTH CONSOLES. so everyone thats saying xbox 360 should have won needs to shove it. and everyone that says PS3 is better needs to understand that its an opinion.
lmafo at you fanboys, look how much you have written, and look how little anybody cares, i hardly find this site sony fanboys seeing as xbox has won 3 to 1 of head to heads, and really you have both consoles? i find that incredibly hard to believe and if you dislike this site so much why are you here? mate your a joke, go back to eurogamer.
Insted of comparing the xbox version to the ps3 version how about all future head to heads are comparing all xbox games to god of war 3?
@Star-Platinum (Xbot)
I have the 2 consoles an you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
Xbox version has worst loading times, its too dark, and has a lots of screen tearing.
You are just a stupid xbot mega fanboy with no respect for impartial works.
“Eurogamer gonna laugh…”??
Are you kidding??
EUROGAMER (and Digital Foundry) are the biggest XBOTS on the planet.
Everybody knows that!
Why do you bother reading the site if you hate it? People like you are the reason for birth control.
Worthless troll.
oo wahhhh cry :’(
Xbox 360 version is much better. I agree with you, comrad Star_Platinum. This test is a lie, & this game is ment to be in “Xbox 360 Winners”! liars pff…
I agree with the technical score, but not the outcome. I’d consider the 360 version better because I prefer better graphics, even with the extra second of loading.
The extra framerate comes with awful tearing. Everyone would take a few less frames per second to avoid the awful tearing.
Na… The tearing does not bother me. I prefer that ridiculously fast frame rate!
In the article, it was stated, that the screen tearing only happens on the cutscenes. Also, that the story is cheesy nonsense, which’ll probably be skipped anyway.
The outcome is a tie.
The writers’ opinions are just their personal preference, but that isn’t part of the outcome at all.
i agree to, the ps3 version looks way inferior, the xbox version screen tear aint as bad as they make it out to be. and framrates dipping to 17 is awful, but they make it sound like its not a bad thing. and bringing 4 seconds into load times is a joke, especially when you don’t mark the ps3 down for making you install a game in the first place. I do think when alot of the games tie, the xbox should have won but they have to throw a bone to ps3 from time time.
you might want to take your fanboy glasses off. Nowhere does it say the FPS on PS3 hits 17fps. the lowest they go is 23fps but in the same scene the 360s tearing on 360 is 21% which is awful. Neither out performs the other. in fact most of the time the FPS is higher on PS3 but only by a very small margin and it never tears.
If you watch the intro part, the frames drop to around 15-19
Average fps of 24fps. In the same shot with 17 fps the 360 had over 36% tearing.
Are you guys seriously out of your mind? This must be an April Fools joke because the 360 version is superior in every way.
Additionally, if you choose to install the game on the 360′s hard drive, you will notice the load times decrease tremendously.
Just looking at the pictures you can tell that the 360 looks way more polished.
This will be the last time I use this site as a reference, it’s Digital Foundry from here on out, at least they’re accurate.
The only difference picture wise is the contrast. Thats why the X360 is missing background detail. Its darker on 360.
Accept thats its a tie.
You forgot additional post processing effects present on the Xbox 360. While the Xbox 360 version is technically more impressive, the visual outcome is more of less the same for both. Which is why it is a tie.
The PS3 version has a video capture feature, which is a big plus (especially for me). I don’t know why they left this out in their staff decision.
The contrast problem can be alleviated by adjusting the image settings. Xbox 360 games tend to be darker than their PS3 counterparts.
The slower loading times on the Xbox 360 don’t take into consideration the hard drive install. From experience, the hard drive install can kill loading times by more than half. Then again, LOT is comparing both games with their default configuration wherein the PS3 version requires a mandatory installation. The Xbox 360 install feature is optional, dare I say a luxury feature. Then again, the 4 second difference in loading time for the default configuration is negligible given that this is an open-world/sandbox game.
Tch, anything below 30 FPS is seriously annoying, but screen-tearing is just as bad. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that both versions are garbage when compare to the PC version anyway.
PS3 should take the win. Both games look very similar but the Xbox 360s tearing and lack of detail is bad. And the PS3 version has extra features not found in the Xbox 360 version like the ability to capture and post videos on Youtube.
For me the 360 version looks sharper and with a negligible screen tear, I think that’s the version to get, but tbh the game does look shite.
Used to be in the past that PS3 fanboys were the worst for whining, the last two H2H’s have shown some 360 owner’s are not only as bad but worse.
Probably the same people who take metacritic score as gospel.
I agree. While PS3 owners are glad if its a tie, 360 fanboys throw their toys out the pram if the 360 version doesnt win. A tie is not good enough for them. So sad.
Of course fanboys are going to throw a tiff if their version wasn’t the superior version, that’s what makes them fanboys as compared to just owners.
You should see your own comments in all the other H2Hs.
i find ps3 fanboys are worse still, there is just only some 360 fanboys who go mad just on here, other places they brush it off, ps3 fanboys here seem to only favour lens of truth if thier version wins, thiers one in this commenting section who does it, says thier bias but as soon as the ps3 version wins or is a tie he sings thier praises
thier the worst of the lot
I agree with Star_Platinum. You can also tell they are PS3 fanboys because they say the game looks like shit, when one glance at the screens shows it actually looks pretty damn nice, especially for an open world game. Although there are some areas where the graphics are weak. In a lot of ways, -this will probably really curdle their PS3 fanboy toes- it challenges Uncharted visually. I would agree Uncharted looks better, but then again Uncharted is on rails.
PS3 fanboys always tend to say multiplatform games look like crap, the better to pump their precious PS3 exclusives. That way they can excuse the PS3′s poor performance in ports. Gamer: “Hey, game X looks better on 360″ PS3 fanboy: “Lol who cares that game looks like crap anyway” (even when the game actually looks fabulous such as RE5 or Lost Planet 2). Is a typical exchange played out on the internet thousands of times. The only exception to this is the rare case of the superior Ps3 port like FF13. Then suddenly PS3 fanboys treat it like a PS3 exclusive and say it looks amazing. I even saw a bunch of PS3 fanboys saying Edge’s low FF13 review was proof of their anti-PS3 bias. I was like, how is it bias to rate a MULTIPLATFORM game low? They were acting just as if FF13 was a PS3 exclusive when it isn’t! And the only reason they were doing that is because the PS3 version was better. If the PS3 FF13 had been worse, they would have said nothing. But it’s the same damn game.
The differences aren’t much here though I agree. But the 360 version looks a tad better due to contrast or whatever, plus the motion blur thing they mentioned which cant be seen in screens.
So if a person has the opinion this games looks shit they’re automatically a PS3 fanboy? absolutely retarded logic.
Can’t comment on the rest I stopped reading at the part, “it challenges Uncharted Visually”, I personally don’t think UC2 is all that great but this isn’t in the same league graphically.
I own both consoles and judging by your narrow minded sweeping generalizations I’d say you don’t own a PS3.
Fanboys are fanboys because they are that way, they are stupid so you shouldn’t worry them, their stupidity might be contagious.
Anyway, that as far that graphics concern this is a win for the Xbox 360, heck, LensOfTruth had already stated that in the Technical Score.
Many xbox fanboys were hoping that xbox360 version would be better being Ps3 the leading platform.. how arrogant.. By the way FF13 looks crap even in Ps3. It is far far away of a Ps3 exclusive in graphics and quality im sorry. It would must have been much better only developed for Ps3, be sure of that.
Sharky it doesn’t even come close to challenging uncharted 2. Even with your big world theory uncharted has better graphicss. Look at the size of the damn games uncharted has 25 GB of polygons and textures this game has less than 8 gigs. plus after the way you handled your arguement their hardley puts you in a position to cry fanboy. The ps3 version of ff 13 has more technical proof of it being superior than the contrast and motion blur of this game. I have a 50¨ hdtv and have played them both on it (thanx to my brother ) and the difference is quite astounding. Even more so than any other port favored to 360 with the exception bayonnetta.
Anyway, in my opinion, LensOfTruth has provided us a thorough analysis of the technical aspects of both verion, basically all that we needed to judge which version is more suitable to buy. This H2H is a tie because that is how LoT’s scale works, people should know better to read and judge which version to buy for themselves.
Just thought you’d like to know.. The PS3 version of Just Cause 2 has vSync enabled at all times unlike the X360 version which is able to drop the feature to increase it’s frame rate.
No wonder why the PS3 has a slightly lower fps in cutscenes.. vSync always makes a serious impact on FPS in any game..
So if you want image quality, PS3 version is for you. Zero frame tearing!
The screen tearing on the Xbox 360 is sometimes distracting. But you guys are insane to say this game isn’t beautiful.
Wow just wow at Lens. They need a more detailed H2H.
Like for the fact you can install all 360 game which would would have made JC2 load just as fast as ps3 if not faster.
You can also turn off motion blur on 360 version which makes the screen tearing next to none.
Also they did not mention in article that the 360 version can be played at 1080p and has way more AA than ps3 version.
And lets not forget that ps3 version has youtube capture thing
Everything they do is default out of the box, so they wouldn’t be messing with settings. In my opinion, if the game has issues with the effect (screen tearing) the developers should have disabled it from the get go.
Also they do mention that it upscales to 1080p in the 360 info block.
Well, the additional AA on the Xbox 360, while impressive from a technical standpoint, does little to contribute to the game’s visuals. It’s a game that’s asking the player to take awe in the vastness of the game world and to forget about the little details. IMO, you don’t need to sharpen the little details in a game like this. Similarly, Gran Turismo 5 employs a similar method of luring/drawing the eyes (typical art stuff). Instead of focusing on the backdrop which contains awful (but photorealistic) assets and not so impressive geometry, they make you focus on the superior roads and godly-looking car models, which is all you ever need to look at anyway. As impressive as your brush and paint may be, it is nothing without a good painter to wield these.
Also… Are you sure the PS3 doesn’t have 1080p upscaling? I highly doubt that it doesn’t have it. It is merely upscaling after all.
the ps3 verison doesnt upscale to 1080p, ive noticed this in a lot of games posiblily becasue of the previous restrictions on the upscaling chip i dont know, anyway seeing as its still native 720p or less i really dont see any value in upscaling as it really doesnt much difference if any at all imo. and i agree with your points btw
I really liked the way almost everything could be destroyed in Red Faction and Mercenaries 2. I think Just Cause 2 would be a lot better if that was possible.
Good comparison. I played the demo on my 360, PS3 and PC. While I miss the lack of motion blur on the PS3 version it is the one I preferred overall on the consoles. The only time the framrate is really better on the 360 is in the cutseens and the tearing is atrocious. In game you could tell by eye the framerates were very similar and the PS3 had 0 tearing which I liked. If they vsynced the 360 that probably would have swayed my decision.
On a side note, I wonder if the blur caused an issue with the PS3 in terms of performance?
Played both, 360 and PS3 and preferred the PS3 version too! On 360 the trees, shadows and grass look awful, it give me an headache! PS3 make it sweeter for the eyes, on 360 it look too much sharpened!
@ INdescript
Motion blur as well as depth in field are post processing effects and they will take some GPU time. It’s not merely an effect that they can superimpose on an image. That’s the only trade off here. I’m guessing they didn’t want to pass it off to the SPUs as it will take more time (I’m not saying developers are lazy, I’m saying they probably had budget constraints). Taking a lot of time (and money) to work on a feature that doesn’t have much of a visual impact, hence, doesn’t have much impact of the final outcome of the product is like spending a lot of time and money into decorating a really slow, but big laptop.
Good guess. That’s kind of what I assumed. Overall I would say the job of porting the engine over to the PS3 seems to have went pretty well overall. It would be interesting to see how and what the engine distributes in terms of load across the SPUs.
For those who want to see the true beauty of the game, look at these (look at the screen shots of the PC version):
http://www.pcgames.de/Just-Cause-2-PC-212762/Bilder/Just-Cause-2-PC-gegen-Xbox-360-und-Playstation-3-Der-grosse-Grafikvergleich-706165/galerie/1269482/?fullsize
http://www.pcgames.de/Just-Cause-2-PC-212762/Bilder/Just-Cause-2-PC-gegen-Xbox-360-und-Playstation-3-Der-grosse-Grafikvergleich-706165/galerie/1269481/?fullsize
http://www.pcgames.de/Just-Cause-2-PC-212762/Bilder/Just-Cause-2-PC-gegen-Xbox-360-und-Playstation-3-Der-grosse-Grafikvergleich-706165/galerie/1256535/?fullsize
Sure it might look outdated, but it’s not all that bad.
Really? You guys don’t think this game has good graphics? I never knew that graphics were this subjective. I played the xbox 360 version and I think that this game is absolutely beautiful. You guys have to consider things like draw distance, and the lack of loading between places.
I agree. for an open world game it looks fantastic. when you compare it to games like GTA4 and Saints row 2 its leagues ahead.
I did find the 360s motion blur more than a bit annoying. I prefer the clearer PS3 version.
You can turn off the motion blur on the Xbox 360 which is a non-issue of you want a so-called “clearer” version. But if you ask me, the motion blur contributes a better sensory experience in tandem with the game’s art direction.
Only thing stopping me from getting the Xbox 360 version is the PS3′s video capture feature. As for the supposedly worse loading times on the Xbox 360: once the game is installed to the hard drive, it will leap frog the PS3′s loading times.
I’m not big on either trophies or achievements. I’ll be checking first if the PC version is vastly superior.
Xbox fanboys are just hilarious in this thread
“Xbox version better in every way”? LOL, Xbox has only MB and MSAAx2 on all objects, but PS3 version has QAAx2 on most objects, QAA has better quality (smoth edges like MSAAx4). PS3 version also has better shadows quality and uses alpha test on grass and other alpha effects, Xbox version uses Alpha to coverage just like Bad Company 2!. Xbox version has no vsync at all, PS3 version has Triple Buffering, framerate in the demo was very similar. If you don’t belive me read DF article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-justcause2-demo-analysis Sorry to hear that LoT has fanboys that stupid 
“in this thread”
Too much time on the forums 
Yeah after playing both I found that the grass and trees remind me of BFBC2 and How much my eyes hurt after playing it! Tried the PS3 version and trees and grass just look beautiful and doesnt give me an headache like the Xbox version!
Yeah, A2C is used even in PC version! Only AAx4 (or higher) can fix this
your fanboysm is abosolutely unique!!
dos sony pays you for making yourself their clown???
About framerate in the cutscenes: If you play this game just to watch the cutscenes then… it’s something wrong with you
Framerate in the gameplay is the same or even little higher on the PS3, with 0% tearing as the bonus. You know that video capturing option in PS3 version consumes resources?
I prefer the PS3 Version in this one. PS3 had less screen tearing. Screen Tearing is sometimes annoying to me. Not bothered with motion blur.
i got the pc version, tried both console demos, really annoying on the 360 how there was so much tearing… the ps3 looked fine no tearing, but the framerate was alot lower then in the 360 version on few parts. id go for the ps3 version if my computer couldnt run this game. Great comparison.
You mean in cutscenes? In gameplay PS3 has higher avg. framerate, look at the performance section.
Higher framerate cause no cap for framerate, xbox has a 30fps cap, so it’s normal!
Both games have a cap on framerate. 360 has no cap on framerate during cutscenes. Both the 360 and PS3 go from 30-31 sometimes 32fps.
Looks like lensoftruth forgot to mention PS3′s recording & youtube upload feature.
Amen. I can plainly see the areas where the 360 version excels, but in the grand scheme of things… screw all of that, video capture = 110% more fun.
I voted tie, both looks great and 4 sec loading time isnt that mutch better
Is not framerate 30fps a limit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk1JVNtwM_c
Huh, so LoT capturing device must shown crazy numbers… DF article stated that only PS3 version has uncapped framerate.
… Both Xbox 360 & PS3 DO NOT upscale the game to 1080p.
The game always defaults to 720p
Tested both, Xbox 360 upscale to 1080, ps3 stay at 720!
The namecalling in here is getting extremely annoying. The lack of any technical knowledge is appalling, but even more so when people present their false statements as fact. Despite LoT’s desire to keep this site fanboy free, it has turned into a hardcore fanboy battle zone and the discussions suffer greatly And no, neither side is better than the other..
No mention of the shadow smoothing for the ps3. Come on LoT thats a big one.
What the hell are you fanboys mumbling about? Graphics are EXACTLY the same. Only small difference is that motion blur that doesn’t even adds much. And I actually prefer the cutscenes without all that screen tearing….you can’t really tell the framerate is low without the counter on, but the tearing is far more noticeable and hurts the eye.
And anyway, LoT made a big mistake saying this looks like an old game….I’ve never saw a game with such a Draw Distance before, high quality streaming and great effects…..of course the details aren’t so great up close, this is a sandbox game, what did you expect?
They really showed their only noobs on this one.
Just watched the whole video again in HD and I reafirm what I said…..the graphics are pretty much the same. X360 have an additional blur, PS3 has slightly better shadows…..but who cares? In the end it’s almost identical, just look at the pictures.
So if you want to start a fanboy war, use Bayonetta or FFXIII instead, because this one just doesn’t serve for that purpose. You’re just making a fool of yourselves.
By the way, JC2 has some pretty kick-ass graphics. The strenght of the visuals are on the vistas and the fluidity of things….whether changes, the rich forests, snowy mountains, nice water, especialy when viewed from above. That’s trully impressive next-gen stuff.
“Lensoflie” loves to feed their SONY fanboys when they can lie. And they did it with Just Cause 2, by saying it’s a tie. What a crapy thing! I have both consoles and i made a test in my store before to buy the game, and the 360 version owns clearly the PS3 version! It’s a fact. About loadings, when the game is installed on the hard drive, the loading times are more FASTER on 360. Lensoflie “forgot” to mention it… Like they forgot to mention that the PS3 version doesn’t support the 1080p upscaling. I have a Panasonic Plasma 1080p, and I think it gonna be a frustration for a player who can enjoy is full HD screen with a version like the PS3 who can’t support the 1080p “upscaled” resolution. What a shame for the PS3! Remember what the SONY’s boss said before the PS3 will be available? Native 1080p in every games, 120fps, 4D… Remember those lies? Anyway.
What a collection of lie once again by the staff of Lensoftruth in this “fake” head to head. Remember Batman Arkam Asylum? They wrote that the PS3′s graphics are better, when that version doesn’t support the anti-aliasing!? Plus, they didn’t make a “revised” of their head to head of Darksiders, when the patch came out for the 360 version to reduce (erase?) screen tearings and to have a more stable framerate than the PS3 version. By side of that, they did it for Bayonetta with the patch who reduces loading times! Why? Oh yes, i know, because they don’t say the truth! They must change their name by “Lensoflie” or “Lensoftruth for SONY fanboys”.
Liars!
Guys, if you want a honest and real head to head between HD games, i advice you to wait the next Eurogamer’s face to face. Forget that site filed by lies…
And one last thing, if you have both consoles like me, Just Cause 2 Xbox 360′s version is the choice, i bought it and i love it. Don’t follow their idiot opinions.
sounds like another pathetic xbot with butt hurt. xbots dont like it when a 360 version doesnt win outright. even a tie is not good for them. Pathetic.
For all your crying about what they didnt mention in the 360 version there is one thing that was completely missed out and that is the video capture feature on PS3. That far out weighs all of your minor tearjerkers.
When you upscale one game you dont get more quality its obvious. Its like to convert an image in Photoshop 640×480 to 1920×1080 you only get that the result image fill more space in your hard disk, so nobody does it. The overall quality inst improved in any way.Please try to learn a bit before write something in a web.
Once Again LOT is proving to be a ps3 fanboy site.
firts of all, the supposed screnn tearing was not present in my opinion as I never saw it. (I play games uspscaled to 1080p at home) and I have not seen it.
Another thing is that of the install: as an xbox owner with a hdd, is normal to install games, you should have tested load speeds on the 360 side installing the game, BUT YOU TESTED NORMAL VERSUS PS3 INSTALLED…THATS NOT FAIR!!
I wantr impartiality, not this…
ps3 fanboy staff….
You don’t want impartiality, you want a website that reinforces your own point of view.
You just ignore the fact that this website has given more H2H wins to the 360 and when a H2H come’s along that doesn’t agree with you, you call foul play.
LOT has given JC2 a tie, because basically they feel that overall one version isn’t that much greater than the other.
Maybe LOT should include the load times for the 360 when fully installed to the hard drive, but tbh if the loading isn’t that drastically different it should still be a tie, who really gives a shit about 1-2 seconds.
they also missed out the exclusive video capture option on PS3. hardly bigging up the PS3 version are they.
that feature is not a great replay value.
only one idiot will waste his time uploading shit videos to youtube from this game.
that does not add any advantages, just shit.
but if you want to upload videos and make yourself the clown, go ahead.
thank gos that x360 version does not have this feature. and by the way, RCV and his fanboy crew here is making good results parasiting this site, in addition to 360 fanboys as well as 360 forever, hwho give us xbox owners a bad name, lucky for us that sonyers here are the true clowns of the show, defending the undefendable…oh lens of truth staff..be more impartail…and install the full game to 360, and change teh score, of course, if you have sense of honor.
ZoLRak is showing clear signs of xbot stupidity. Take something extra that isnt on the 360 version (check), says its rubbish and that you are an idiot if you want it (check), insult ps3 owners (check) and finally be glad that the optional extra isnt in the 360 version.
ZoLRak without sounding like a complete dick explain to me why it is a good thing that the 360 version doesnt have the video capture extra.
Ps3 owners are parasiting Lot, and im the captain seems… Today Lot and tomorrow the world my comrades!(irony)I dont see your obsesion with get a victory for xbox here. Its clear that none of the versions is superior to another, so Lot gave a tie. A tie in graphics and tie in load times (irrelevant unless they are annoying) would have been even more accurate (in MY opinion) but i respect the opinion of Lot, even your opinion thinking xbox360 is superior, but that is a thing that you seem to not make with other ppl. Better shadows, stable frame rate and the option of upload videos (i bet that sometimes you have looked for a video in youtube to know how to pass a difficult part of a game, the guy that helped you making it must be a clown by your words seems…) against higher framerate with motion blur and tearing for xbox. By the way Zolrak have you seen the comparison of Lot between Killzone2 and Gears of War2 i mention before? you havent told us nothing…
^^very true. I am losing hope with this site. They need to redo this h2h.
And what outcome will redoing the h2h produce? Let me see, um…Xbox will win for graphics, they will tie for performance and the loading will go to the PlayStation 3 just as before.
If you don’t like their out of the box methodology then you are more than welcome to leave.
out of the box methodology? LMAO
I install all my 360 games i am playing. Loading would go to 360 if installed.
You have to take into consideration that not all Xbox 360 owners have access to a hard drive install feature as the Arcade SKU doesn’t allow that. Besides, it’s an extra feature. The PS3 on the other hand has a hard drive on each console, regardless of SKU, but only because a majority of its games require it.
They can mention or add a side note regarding the loading times of the Xbox 360 hard drive install. Then again, it is almost always guaranteed that the hard drive install on the Xbox 360 will make the loading times on the Xbox 360 MUCH FASTER than on the PS3. But it should make no bearing on the loading scores of the H2H because they’re comparing default configurations.
It’s like making a review of two cars competing for the same market, say a Porsche 911 Turbo vs a Ferrari 430 (or a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla) and the purpose of the review is to highlight the purchasing points to the viewers. What’s the point of a comparison review if the other car isn’t stock and came with upgrades? Mind you, not everyone likes a “tuned” or “modified” car. Half the people I know scoff at the idea of doing it to their cars.
It should have tied for graphics. Motion blur is not a big deal. It should be considered a feature like the ps3′s capture screen option.
It IS a big deal. Imagine Gran Turismo without the motion blur. Simple as that. It will be ugly without it. It’s like saying you want a painter to paint without using his brushstroke techniques to better the visual outcome of the painting.
Motion blur and depth in field (classified as post-processing in graphics) supplements the art direction chosen by the developers. And as artists, it is their up to their discretion if the lack or presence of such techniques may compromise the artistic and/or visual integrity of their work. In the case of Just Cause 2, it simply seems like they weren’t able to implement the feature on the PS3. To provide a form of parity, the Xbox 360 is able to turn motion blur off. From this we can say that motion blur isn’t critical to the visual outcome of the game, but it certainly improves it regardless of how much or how little.
It’s like choosing between two Big Mac meals. The only difference is that the other meal has more fries. If judged by portion size, the meal with more fries wins. But if judged by taste, they’re the same. In this H2H, it just happened that the graphics department was the portion size department.
The best looking games don’t necessarily have the best graphics (rather, graphics technology. graphics =/= visuals), but they certainly have superior art direction and styling. Gran Turismo 4 and 5 Prologue, Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2 and Killzone 2 are good examples of these. The only exceptions I can make are God of War 3 and Uncharted 2. Both have great graphics being employed while still retaining superior art direction and styling. The graphics part of GOW3 and UC2 should be owed to the Cell for providing additional post processing that the RSX (PS3 GPU) can’t handle. The RSX alone wouldn’t stand much of a chance against the Xenos (Xbox 360 GPU) on the Xbox 360 when it comes to shaders.
Samething can be said for the shadowing on the ps 3. I think it’s a small comparison for them to give it the win for graphics. Consider the screen tearing for makeing the game “look good” as you stated would defenetly tie it up. I don’t understand why these xbots talk about graphics so much when ps3 obviously takes the win in there exclusives. Kinda of a screwed up point of view. I’d figure people who nitpick about graphics so much would own GOW 3 or uncharted 2.
1) No one ever said screen tearing looked good. And it’s not a graphics related. It’s performance related. It may obstruct the visuals if you’re too vain, but the rest of us don’t care. Plenty of PS3 and Xbox 360 games out there with tearing. We don’t complain. It’s only these H2Hs that give fanatics from either side ammo to continue raging their petty point scoring war against each other. Even if PC gaming elitist came in with their $2500 rigs and claimed Just Cause 2 being better on their platform, it will still play just like it does on the consoles. That’s what matters — parity in gameplay experience. *cough*SplinterCell:Double AgentonPS2&XboxbetterthanXbox360version*cough*
2) Going around the net calling people “Xbots” and “PS3 fanboiz” make the rest of us think you’re idiots for caring too much for your console of choice.
3) “Xbots” like to nitpick about graphics? Why are you talking about motion blur and upscaling, and downplaying it then? Seems like you aren’t over the fact that the green team has taken it again in the graphics department of a H2H.
I was pointing out to everyone that those two effects are not a big deal. technecally you just called me a fanboy you sir are no more innocent than anyone here.
Lol….PS3 doesn’t scale to 1080p, that’s a good one.
Then how come I am playing at my 1080p Samsung at home? Maybe I’m playing an imaginary magic PS3 version that does 1080p unlike the ones that you guys are claiming you’ve played.
Both X360 and ps3 versions will upscale to 1080p, there is no difference.
You can play at 720p on a 1080 tv.
But for real, ps3 don’t upscale
I am afraid http is correct. If you have all resolution checked in the display settings (480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p) the PS3 will default to the highest resolution the game supports. Which in most cases in 720p. To test this, in the display settings uncheck both 720p and 1080i. This will force the PS3 to display the game in 1080p if it is supported. What you will most likely be left with is a game rendering in 480p goodness.
Why the hell would the 360 upscale anyway?
Because the Xbox 360 has a dedicated hardware scaler (namely the ANA chip) unlike the PS3 which only uses a software-solution. The Xbox 360 enjoys superior scaling without any performance toll because of this.
O.K. But why even waste resources on something that doesn’t make a difference. Upscaling a game from 720p does not make the game look better. I personally believe xbox made it for earlier games that wern’t HD. The application of it to this game is useless.
It’s not a waste of resource. I did mention it was a HARDWARE scaler. It’s basically free upscaling without any performance toll.
You ask again. “Why?”. Because it’s free.
FACTS:
-Both versions upscales to 1080p
-Both versions have similar ingame framerates
-PS3 version has an exclusive video capture option that lacks on 360
-Xbox has only MB and MSAAx2 when PS3 version has QAA on most objects, QAA has better quality (smoth edges like MSAAx4).
-PS3 has ZERO screan tearing unlike the 360 version which is full of tearing.
-PS3 version has Triple Buffering, and and unlike the PS3 version, Xbox version has no Vsync at all.
-PS3 version also has better shadows quality and uses alpha test on grass and other alpha effects, Xbox version uses Alpha to coverage just like Bad Company 2!
There are any doubts on what is the best version?
After all this, Xbots still trying to convince us that 360 version is better???
Are you serious? What a jokers!!
QAA is almost worse than no AA at all.
QAA more or less works by blurring the whole screen. Sure, it smooths edges almost just as well as 4X MSAA, but it also applies the same smoothing/blurring to textures, lowering their quality–which kind of defeats the point of AA in the first place.
The PS3 version make yo waste a lot of time in the installation process. Why the incompetent staff of this page don’t rest a point for that. And the 360 have the option of installing the game, this comparative are not partial. I have both the PS3 and the 360 but when you waste your time installing something, the time wasted should be added to the overall loading time. The staff don’t know nothing about mathematics.
I’m sure its been said before, but if you’ve got time to play a game then you’re not that busy, how hard can it be to wait for 10mins for a one time installation, grasping at straws here.
you ever looked up install or load in a dictionary. there’s a reason why these are two different words.