December 5th, 2012
Posted in 
“Which version will escape the island alive?
| System Breakdown | Xbox 360 Stats | PlayStation 3 Stats |
| Resolutions: | Up to 1080p | Up to 720p |
| # of Discs: | single | single |
| HD Install: | Optional (Recommended) | Mandatory (6.5 GB) |
| Metacritic: |  |
 |
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! Today we will be putting Ubisoft’s Far Cry 3 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 under the knife to see which version is this weeks Head2Head winner. While the game continues to get awesome reviews, the question still remains, which version is the superior one? Come join us as we try to escape the pirate infested island and explore any differences we may find along the way. Also, we’ve decide to give you a sneak peak on the performance while we work hard on the full in-depth analysis, make sure to check back soon.
Performance: This time around the performance struggles on both platforms, both version have fluctuating frame rates and constant screen tearing, Are preliminary findings look rather grim on both platforms, but the real question here is how would the Wii U hold up if Ubisoft did a complete port and utilized the Wii U’s GPGPU architecture? Below or the average frame rates and screen tearing percentages. Make sure to check back soon for our full in-depth analysis.
| Xbox 360 Frame Analysis | PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 11644 frames Average FPS of clip: 23.37 Percent of torn frames: 18.87 |
Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 11644 frames Average FPS of clip: 23.26 Percent of torn frames: 19.37 |
| Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 6518 frames Average FPS of clip: 24.30 Percent of torn frames: 9.28 |
Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 6518 frames Average FPS of clip: 21.36 Percent of torn frames: 8.61 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 23.09 Global average FPS: 23.82 |
Global percent of torn frames: 22.24 Global average FPS: 22.62 |
Loading: We now come to our final category; the load times. First off, remember folks we never factor installs into our verdicts but a 6.5 GB mandatory install is rather hefty this stage of the game. And while the newer PlayStation 3 come equipped with much larger hard drives, our retro 60 GB has finally hit its full capacity and required us to delete some demos and installs of previous game. Below our the average load times we captured during our capture session.
| PlayStation 3 Load Times | Xbox 360 Load Times |
| Sample 1: 17 Seconds | Sample 1: 22 Seconds |
| Sample 2: 16 Seconds | Sample 2: 20 Seconds |
| Sample 3: 20 Seconds | Sample 3: 19 Seconds |
| Sample 4: 18 Seconds | Sample 4: 19 Seconds |
| Sample 5: 15 Seconds | Sample 5: 17 Seconds |
| Sample Average: 13.2 Seconds | Sample Average: 17.4 Seconds |
Rollover to see the Difference.
Click to Enlarge Image.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Click To Enlarge Image”.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Click to Enlarge Image.
Rollover to see the Difference.
More Roll Overs, Sliders, Conclusion, Video and Staff Choice on Page 2>>>
90 comments from members, join the discussion in the forum >>>
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 is that net-like jersey pattern on the PS3?
You should see the Shadows man………even worse. Xbox has this in the bag.
My only question is how the hell can ps3/360 play with the average framerate so close to 20. Im not even being a PC dick right now, im actually curious.
Doesnt that make the game hard to enjoy for you guys?
@BUNNY , 20 fps is the absolute lowest a game can play at and be “playable”, if your not used to it is can be a bit jarring, but it is playable(depending on the game ,ex ,skyrim is better than cod at 20) some of the best games in the past have run at 20 on consoles, ocarina of time ran locked at 20fps. you get used to it. also lazy devs or the fact its running on 6 year old hardware ,it would be unlikely to even get 20 fps on a pc of similar specs from the same era.
@Selling
But the question still remains why? It SHOULDNT be jarring to play a game on a console. Yes, PC will always look better and play better. thats the nature of PC games vs Console games… but that doesnt mean that you guys should have to put up with under 30fps.
The consoles of current gen arnt running 6yo hardware. its closer to 9. I admit the 360/ps3 does amazing things with 256 ram, But imagine if the consoles themselves wernt so cheaply made. imagine how much further this gen would have gotten if they spent the 10$ to get a gig of ram in the 360/ps3, so on and so on.
I just cant wrap my head around it being the case of ‘Its ok as long as you get use to it’.
Bunny, you clueless: “imagine how much further this gen would have gotten if they spent the 10$ to get a gig of ram in the 360/ps3″
Why, you think that 7 years ago you could buy a whole GB of ram for $10?
Because 7 years ago the ram the have in there was 24$ for 1 gig retail. Retail is more than double the cost at retail. What costs 20$ at retail, most companies can get for 10$ or less.
Now lets say your the company that produced the ram. Your telling me they wouldnt give sony/microsoft a 3-4$ discount per stick when they are buying so much in bulk? We’re talking 400k sticks at launch alone for 1 system. We both know they got discounts on every single part in their system, so the fact that the price is so cheap, it stands to reason they could have spent a few dollars more and made a stronger system.
You sir, are the one whos clueless
@BUNNY well if you normally play at 60fps it will be jarring to go to that low of a frame-rate, but if you normally play games at 24fps than it isn’t , it goes both ways too, if you play at 24fps and go to 60 its just as jarring,especially in movies(normally 24fps) if your not used to high frame-rate it will look like everything goes too fast. whether it should be acceptable idk ,what i do know is that frame rates as low as 20 have been the norm for a very long time and will likely stay that way and as graphics get better they will require more processing power or more time(milliseconds per frame)
example: bf3 looks alot better than mw3 but it has 2x the time to render a frame 60fps=16ms per-frame 30fps=32ms per-frame
@Bunny Really?
http://www.jcmit.com/memoryprice.htm
At November 25, 2006, 2x 1GB DIMM DDR2-800 was $199.99 incl shipping. Then check the prices before the PS3 launch, since Sony had to buy the memory in advance. Also consider that the PS3 uses 256MB of much faster, and thus much more expensive, XD RAM. Even doubling it would have raised the whole cost significantly.
Now, who is the clueless, Sir?
I agree with Bunny about the quality of this game. I’m a console gamer and like most people seem to be okay with, I don’t just accept a poorly developed game.
I watch most of these analysis’ not to see whether one or the other has an almost unnoticeable slight graphic fidelity over the other. I watch them to see whether the game I’m interested runs at a stable framerate and has little to no screen tearing. Or if the game has a lot of screen tearing whether it’s noticeable or not.
I purchased Darksiders 2 this year and quit mid game because not only was the first game much more enjoyable, but the screen tearing was ridiculously bad.
I’ll buy this game eventually, but once I can get it for less than $10. I have a PC that can run the game, but I’m a fan of consoles since I can actually own a physical copy of the game without all the DRM tacked onto it.
I’m one of those hoping the next gen console generation comes soon. I hope that most games next gen for consoles are atleast locked at 30fps.
PS3 has sharper image quality overall,Xbox 360 has better shadowing and slighly better SSAO.The texture quality is the same,performance is crap on both consoles.Clear tie.
-PS3 version has better texture filtering.
-360 version has harder shadows, but no ugly dithering. PS3 version has some odd way of filtering shadows. It’s actually not bad in motion, though.
-360 version has stronger SSAO, but I personally think it’s too much.
-Both versions have black bars, but the PS3 version has a border (bars on the sides, too).
-Tearing and performance is bad on both, but it does look nice for an open world game IMO.
As a plasma owner, I don’t like how developers have black bars. I would rather they render it at a slightly lower resolution and scale it so there aren’t any bars.
Yes, it seems that PS3 has slighty sharper textures (in the scripted-scenes from the opening on the game). usually it’s like this: 360 uses less sharpened textures, but get the occasional extra frame — so it can win the analysis!
i recall assassin’s creed: revelations also looked better and even played better on the ps3. is it ubisoft montréal that is the better in-game studio, because future soldier looked awful on the ps3?
Ps3 wins
Digital Foundry showed us how terrible shadows look on PS3, while having the better texture filtering. But the shadows look awful so have to give the edge to 360 on this one.
I agree. I don’t like that shadowing method either. Reminds me of a PS2 game.
How the hell does the PS3 have a higher average of loading times when almost every sample is faster than the 360?
Oops good catch, forgot to do the averages.. Thanks.
Definitely a 360 win yet again. Most of the screenshots look better and despite matching the ps3 versions shocking tearing in the cut scenes, it at least has a better framerate than on ps3.
Methinks getting this on pc is the obvious choice as per usual.
And here goes Android, once again showing off his inferior gaming intellectual thought process; Android, give it a rest for once dude. You don’t own a gaming PC, you don’t own a PS3; you’re a noob 13 year old who get’s home from school and plays his “poor man’s PC”…
I do enjoy these conspiracy theories lol.
I certainly don’t own a poor man’s pc as you put it, and i certainly do own a ps3(something’s got to play my bluray movies).
All i’ve done is confirmed what we already knew from Digital Foundry, it’s a 360 win.
I know you ps3 deluded fanboys hate the real facts, but even with gimped shadows, the ps3 version still can’t quite match the 360 version
Android DOES have a PS3. In fact, he plays it more than he admits as his trophy count is higher than mine!!!!
I’m with you Android (surprise surprise). PS3 version is ok, but I can’t stand that shadowing technique. Xbox with this one. Which I always knew would be the case.
I’m diappointed in this game as a whole though. PC all the way. Even on medium settings it blows the consoles out of the tropical water!
@Android123
“I certainly don’t own a poor man’s pc as you put it, and i certainly do own a ps3(something’s got to play my bluray movies).”
So, why not just buy a blue/ray player, “jackass”… Wal-mart have $70-$100 blue/ray players and you go out and buy a PS3…??? I do love it when shitbox fan-nerds talk trash about PS3; calling it an “expensive blue/ray player, and that they only purchased it just for such; when they could simply say, they bought a PS3 for the exclusives, they’ll never see on their crapbox…
Even if you do own one Android, that’s no excuse to kidd yourself about why you bought one. I’ll admit all day, I’v owned a 360 since 2006 for the sole purpose of playing it’s exclusives and (some of the time) noticeably better looking multiplats.
…and let’s not forget the fact that, you’re praising a game that looks and plays like crap on both systems; especially since you claim to own some sort of “gaming rig” that could run this bad boy on maxed settings; despite which version won what, the console versions should be totally irrelevant to you… …wouldn’t you agree???
@Samchez77
“Android DOES have a PS3. In fact, he plays it more than he admits as his trophy count is higher than mine!!!”
If that’s the case, then I imagine Android as the type of person who games on his PS3 like, a featishly self-pleasuring sociopath would slap on the make-up, pleasure himself, while at the same time, calling himself a “dirty whore”…
Amusing final comment lol.
I don’t hate my ps3, i just don’t buy into this hype that certain fanboys seem to have about it(all powerful super computer).
The exclusives are overrated by many a fanboy, maybe i’m just not getting this ‘sony gaming franchise’ love fest that a lot of people go through(i detest metal gear games put it that way).
Of course it has some great games, Uncharted was good, God of war 3 was fun. But having just completed the vita uncharted game, i’m not sure i could handle anymore of the samey gameplay(it’s run its course).
And it’s Pointless buying a walmart cheapo bluray player as i’ve had my ps3 for a good 5 years now. It’s very good at movie playback
Oh android, you never stop to amaze me with your fanboy comments.
to ambitious, at least on consoles, I’ll give it a miss even though reviews are very good, I don’t want to spend 20 hours playing a game with piss poor performance, I’m sick of these compromised and I don’t game on PC, I hope the next gen banishes screen tear and poor fps.
Wow, very odd comparison. PS3 looks sharper in some shots, 360 in others. Gamma looks very close which is nice. Tie for me I guess.
It won’t be once you see those shadows in motion. They even flicker on static objects.
since both are about the same in suckage, im gonna get it for the 360 just because i have more games for my PS3 then i do for my Xbox.
The PS3 version runs at a slightly lower screen resolution, 1274×702 ( XBox 360 runs at 1280×704 ) and has thin black bars both horizontally ( top and bottom ) and vertically ( left and right, barely noticeable though ), whilst XBox 360 only has them horizontally ( something like Battlefield 3 ).
On the 360 ther is a more noticeable pop in issue when moving your view fast enough, but nothing really painful for it is just a matter of a split second.
Once again we see another xbox 360 vs ps3 shodown….and the result is obvious, both games look almost identical, with a small advantage in favor of the 360 due to better shadows and no mandatory install. It does not matter, MANDATORY INSTALL IS NOT ANA ADVANTAGE, ITS A WEAKNESS, cause all PS3 best looking exclusive games (exept GT5)DONT REQUIRE INSTALL, because the sony’s trick to stream bluray video and textures during gameplay, if we install the xbox 360 version into harddrive the difference from 13 sec will drop to 7 sec, 6GB is RIDICULOUS on ps3, and the proof of the great lazyness of developers.
PS3: OWNED
well.. i would say your wrong about most things i’ve read by you, and this seems to be no exception. This game is overambitious and both consoles performed miserably with only slight differences. PS3 have the slightly better texture filtering + AA, and the Xbox have the better shadows. But for the rest, this game is just bad – from a technical perspective. Furthermore, the mandatory install is a great idea, because you won’t wear out your drive, and if you install to the xbox harddrive you have less chance of your xbox starting to devour disks (as is sometimes the case). But still, most games could be run of the bd-drive perfectly fine if the developer just bothered, but with 500 gig hdd’s in ps3′s these days, it’s hardly an issue. Besides, this console-gen is really close. There is no real performance divide between the consoles, but different architechture makes for different results and approaches. I’m glad i returned to pc-gaming for the multiplats (’cause i always win then), but for the multiplats on consoles, the differences are really so and so. No title is really being owned by one platform or the other in multiplats today, ’cause the differences are small as to be non-existant (except for a few rotten apples obviously). But seriously dude, try to enlighten your view a little, and join the debate on all the nice technical stuff, instead of just bashing randomly for something that is really no disadvantage.
The difference is… that if you install anything in your crapbox (assuming that it DOES have an HDD, you know) it won’t never be faster than my PS3′s 7200rpm 750GB HDD with currently 108 games downloaded, most of them for free thanks to PS+. Plus obviously all game installs, patches and DLCs. And still more than half of its space is free.
PS3 FPS= 22.62 Xbox FPS= 23.82
That’s what we in the industry call PWNAGE! PS3 loses again, how sad. =(
one frame… ownage ? Really? Damn, that is just the saddest piece of fanboy prattle i have ever heard.
Xbox 360 – Global percent of torn frames: 23.09
PS3 – Global percent of torn frames: 22.24
Oh look at that, it seems the 360 apparently tears more than the PS3 version. That’s what we in the community call easy ownage of internet clowns.
1 frame… pwnage? lol, u serious? That means the torn frames is a crazy victory for the ps3.
0/10 you fail to troll. Please go back to reddit.
Hi, I have been viewing the head2heads on this site for a couple of years now but I have never felt the need to comment. I currently own a PS3 and a wii and used to own an xbox 360. Both consoles have their strong points and their weaknesses. I have noticed that on 99% of the time what I see on my TV looks nothing like what I see on here (they usually look much better when I’m playing). Anyway my conclusion is that the PS3 can produce better graphics and performance than the xbox when it comes to exclusives (Killzone 3 – Uncharted 3). We are yet to see that level on the xbox 360. Most multiplats are better on the xbox as they are developed for the xbox and ported across. There is very little between the two consoles but when developed for from the ground up the PS3 just edges the xbox. I’ll probably get a shit load of crap for this post but it’s my honest opinion. I also think it’s time for PS4/Xbox 720 as developers are pushing the current consoles too hard to get the best visuals but ignoring performance (hence the 20fps and heavy tearing in far cry 3). A balance between visuals/performance needs to struck on the PS3/Xbox 360 but it just isn’t. Both consoles are out-dated relics when compared to PC but the consoles make sure PC gamers have games to play, it’s a viscous cycle – games have to be developed to run on the lowest common denominator…I’m sure all you fanboys will decide which that is lol…
Totally agree dude. This game should have been pared back visually so it would run better. 22 fps average is considered almost unplayable by long torm pc-gamers like me…. i’m defo getting this for pc, even though my current pc will certainly not be able to run this on ultra settings in 1080p. Maybe high settings or high settings in 720 / 1366 x 768. But i would much rather sacrifice the visual fidelity for 60 – 50 fps. The consoles are just too outdated, and the new ones should have been here allready. I love consoles for the sit down and play style – no setup required. But for know i just own pc and ps3.. my xbox died a bit too much, so i ended op trading it in. And honestly, i would rather have the slightly less superior performer on ps3 than constantly taking the xbox to the shop… he he…. And btw. if all you guys really care about graphics just buy yourself a rig. If you slap it togehter yourselves it will be a 600- 800 euro for something that will spank anything at 1080p w. ultra settings.
360 wins, visual and perfomance
At 22-23 fps average with massive screen-tearing i would not really call anybody a winner….
Lol, you on drugs?
Nooo.. not right now anyway.
Another game,The same fanboy´s,OWWWW SHIIT!!………..
Why am I getting voted down for giving an opinion? Did I touch a nerve fanboys?
>Come to the internet and expect people to agree with your opinion and not vote you down.
>Especially on a site full of fanboys.
lol, you crazy?
With both systems having frame rates in the low 20s, why even compare ‘em ? Sony and Microsoft need to release their new consoles. 512 MB of RAM with old GPUs obviously isn’t cutting it anymore.
Spot on. The consoles have done really well to remain competitive for as long as they have.
Yeah.. spot on. I mean, even a cheap gaming rig has like 2 gigs of ram GPU and 8 for the system. Yeah the set hardware limitations makes the consoles able to do amazing things with such weak hardware, but they are too outdated. They’re holding back game development and gaming evolution.
My worse nightmare has come true. average 23fps with massive screen tear! I can’t say its a huge win for any of them. For some reason i think this game needed a better optimized engine or better hardware. Seriously i would be ok if the frame-rate was 28-27 max, with all the screen tear, but this is absolutely disgusting. So i have to say you can’t go wrong with either of them, the shadow thing on ps3 is kinda of a bummer, but nothing that can ruin the hole game and get the xbox version a huge superior advantage. I got it as a gift for ps3, and im enjoying it, except for the screen tear… If you own a powerful rig, get it for pc.
This game should have been pared back significantly visually to salvage some performance. Both consoles are way to old to do something like this right at this point. An average of 22 – 23 i would consider close to unplayable…. and then massive screentearing too! This is just plain awful for consoles.
LOT could’ve installed the 360 disc in half the time it takes to do the same on the PS3.
Also I do wonder how fragmented the files are in the LOT PS3 HDD since it sounds like you guys have an old model PS3.
PS3 has a better lighting and textures more defined.
I’ll go ahead and say it…
BOTH versions suck balls.
If you are going to play this game at all, please do NOT get it on any console. Get it for PC so you can enjoy the damn visuals without having the eyeball destroying screen tearing.
Once GTA V drops, I will be all set for another 4 years… I probably won’t even buy into next gen and keep gaming on my PS3 until it dies.
Just tried out the pc-version. And that looks awesome! My pc won’t be able to run it at full specs though. My buddy just bought a gtx 670, and damn
This game looks absolutely stunning on a 40” in 1080p and ultra settings.
They are almost identical, but the performance is terrible on both consoles -_-
yeah, but performance is equally terrible, which means this game should really have been pared back, to up performance.
But as i see it the the PS3 has slightly better texture filtering, slightly better AA, but a lot worse shadows.
The Xbox has worse texture filtering, worse AA, but no dithering trouble with the shadows….
Soo… it’s a tie. A horrible tie. Everybody loses! YIPPIE! lols..
Pick your poison gentlemen.
Love that i get downvoted for telling the truth. The differences are minimal with this one, but they both look and perform like shit. Deal with it…
Ill wait for the Wii U version.
Wii UMAD?
thanks for this head 2 head lens of truth. gosh i havent logged into this site in forever. anyways as far as this head to head goes id give it a tie, in which i did. i tip my hat to ubisoft though, to run this ambitious of a title even this well on 6 and 7 yr old consoles. will be getting this soon hopefully, and again i appreciate the analysis lens.
Another victory for 360! Clearly the most capable console, especialy when it comes to hardware demanding games.
Also lol at the poll
Makes you wonder why its exclusives can’t seem to match up to multiplats while PS3 exclusives continue to raise the bar.
@Cernaml: thx man! that comment made me laugh..
@ CERNAML
It’s funny to see Sony fanboys still relying in a 2005 myth
Halo 4 is currently the best looking game on consoles, so your logic just failed.
Halo 4? Best Looking consolegame? LOL! Not even close dude. Yeah it looks allright, but far from the best.
@ CERNAML
Well, as someone who played most 360 and PS3 ‘contenders’, i think Halo 4 is currently the best looking console game. Reviewers seem to agree anyway, oh, and it just won the best graphics of 2012 awards at VGAs.
Spot on Paulo, when Halo 4 came along and kicked the ps3′s ass big style, the fanboys got all defensive and started to attack the best looking fps game on console.
But the real non deluded fans out there knew the truth, it’s not surprising to see it win best graphics 2012.
The ps3 fanboys will need a few drinks to get over the depression of seeing an even older console with storage issues matching/beating the best sony’s ageing machine has to offer
Halo 4 only won best graphics (despite having screen tearing, even just slight) because there really wasn’t anything on the PS3 that could compete this year. Journey had an awesome artstyle but couldn’t really compare to all the other PS3 exclusive games that won best graphics for like a good 4 years straight. It’s refreshing to finally see a 360 game win that category. lol Now we just need a 360 game to actually be nominated for GOTY. lol
The Last of Us, God of War Ascension and Beyond Two Souls for next year? Sony really needs to stop competing with themselves. lol
You’ve hit the bottle early i see cerna lol.
Yes i’m looking forward to the last of us as well, despite it reminding me of uncharted with different characters(but i’ll admit i’ll buy it).
Beyond two souls looks interesting, I liked heavy rain but will admit it wasn’t for everyone.
Not sure how two souls will be recieved, hopefully it’ll be a good game rather than just fancy tech.
@ CERNAML
Yet, it managed to win against some PC games, you know, a gaming system that is currently 10 times more powerful than 360 and PS3! Deal with it, buddy, 360 and PS3 are awesome consoles but their tech is similar and equally old, now.
As for The Last of Us, it does look amazing, but then again, not better than many 360 and PS3 games already available on the market.
Funny thing is though, every single game looks 10 times better on the pc by now, so how on earth did it win the best looking? Unless it was just for consoles. Besides, i’ve seen it, and it aint got nothing on UC 3 (or even UC2) for my money. And actually for my money, the Xbox has better looking games than Halo 4 itself. Yeah, it’s allright, but not especially impressive to me. But well, since i’m just again enjoying Metro 2033 on ultra settings, which even on medium will spank every single console game ever… he he…. just saying, get a pc and play that gem. You can even get it for free now (check their fb-page). Well, i like how everybody was so blown away by Halo.. i’ve tried most Halo games, and while it’s ok fun i just can get captured by the guy-in-a-can protagonist and Fisher Price-weaponry. Glad the Xbox-crows enjoys it though, ’cause good exclusives on Xbox are getting very few and very far between.
Random question: what happened to the head2head index which listed out all the ps3 wins and all the xbox wins? Id like to know the percentage of which console wins the most? thanks
Thanks for the review and detailed performance analysis. I normally buy games on the xbox 360, but 20fps? Time to buy for my PC instead.
Looks identical on 360/ps3 btw, not sure how you guys can declare a winner but fps is unacceptable on both.
I’ve just about had it with these pathetic delusional 360 fanboys. How the hell is this a 360 win again when texture filtering is better on ps3 and it has less pop up and less screen tearing? What 360 has better shadows that about all it really has and that no way in hell makes it better especially with all the other flaws. Also you can increase fps a bit on ps3 that I bet df, lensoftruth and everyone here didn’t know about. lol you xbox fanboys love talking about how you can install your games and beat ps3 load times but you always seem to forget ps3 blows 360 loading out of the water with solid state drives. Oh don’t worry about df I’m going in there next face off and I’m owning his biased xbox loving ass.
Man are you gay? hun?
Fanboys here,Fanboys there,Fanboys everywhere…OWWWWW SHITTT,my console is the best,mimimimimi,asshole kids, want to have the best platform, buy a PC …
It’s a tie for yet again another crappy FPS. What happened to the RPGs?!? I need more of them!
Halo 4 Won Best Graphics!Who was this microsoft halo fanboy who awarded halo 4 this?What an utter crock of fanboy shit!Whilest halo 4 is a good game it gets COMPLETELY OWNED!by every ps3 exclusive thats ever come out,Theres more detail on one hellguest soldier than there is on the whole of the screen on halo 4!wich at times can look bland and boring on halo 4″Also if you look closer to the tv you will see the grathics at times makeing funny patterns’That tells me that the xbox is really pushing its guts out to run this game,And paulo!You sir are a huge Fanturd!FACT,Go in the fanboy corner with Android’He will hold your hand and make you feel better when the ps3 owns the xbox 360 with its Awsome line of exclusives.But in Another mouthful’if this award was for this years best game graphics then yes i agree’on console anyway!as the PC guys will pretty much own anything in terms of grathics,and i cant think of a sony exclusive that came out this year’so yes.
Dude, do you realise how idiot you sound???
You are obviousy one of those arrogant brainwashed Sony drones, if you can’t accept that other systems also have equally good (and equally good looking) games. Personally, i think Halo 4 is currently the best looking console game. Digital Foundry (more Halo fanboys?), also stated that it was up to the best on PS3 and basically every single reviewer praised it’s graphics, so prefering Halo 4 graphics over Uncharted or KZ is a fair opinion.
Just a tip, fanboy, PS3 is a great console, just like 360, and both a equally outdated by now.
Does Halo 4 really look that amazing? I recall reading the reviews for Halo 3 and Halo: Reach, and 360 owners said the same. Me, an owner of 2 360s, thought they both looked really low-res and muddy. I can’t help it, it’s just my opinion! So, have 434 really surpassed the awesomeness in graphics as they portrayed in the poor Combat Evolved: Anniversary. Because, believe it or not, during some corridor-running in The Silent Cartographer level, I switched back and forth between the next-gen and the 2001 graphics — and some of the corridors actually looked better from 2001; I actually thought I was playing the “new graphics” and it was all 2001!
Paulo!How idiot i sound?If you think this game looks as good as uncharted games or or killzone 2 and 3 then you need to go to specsaver’s fella!Because it come nowhere near any of them period!and for you to listening to a dude who’s on a microsoft payroll at didgital foundry to say good comment’s on there games’then your more stupid than i thought!Like marcus fenix said on gears 2″Eat shit and die!thats what all you xbox fanboys can do,so continue enjoy getting buttraped by microsoft buy paying for there shit service and never getting free games off them,And you can dream all you want about haveing graphics like uncharted and killzone and god of wars on your xbox because it will never happen2LMFAO::::::}}}}}}}
Hehehe….love how you Sony fanboys keep feeding that myth XD
Why on earth would a console with a more advanced graphics processor and more usable ram, not be able to handle those scripted fests? They look great, just like Gears of War 3 and Halo 4, but they are far from technicaly advanced games.
Now, a good question would be: Could PS3 with it’s limited memory, run Red Dead Rdedemption in HD or Skyrim with a playable frame rate? Those are console hardware demanding games.
The PS3 is ultra powerful with its huuuuge 256mb split memory. How’s that Skyrim on PS3? Yes, both systems have pros and cons. I’m just glad I’m not a raging fanboy who can only afford one system. I dont have to pick just one. I can enjoy the PS3 exclusives and all the multiplatform games on XBOX. True gamers like games not systems. Go hide under a fanboy rock. Open ur mind. You are only shortchanging yourself. Have fun with 1 console.
Poor performance? give it a miss? over ambitious? Really? Dear oh dear. Listen to yourselves, sound like a bunch of spoilt kids. If your a console gamer and you don’t buy this because of ‘performance issues’ then your cutting off your nose to spite your face. FarCry3 is in the top 3 best games of 2012, if its the game your wanting the 20fps or screen tearing doesn’t take anything from the game, if your looking to compare with PC or just moan because your eyes bleed when the screen tears of your brain jars with the 20fps, then by all means give it a miss, otherwise just shut-up and let the thousands that have bought this game and have upto 60hours+ fun from it, enjoy it. Go back to your fixed 30fps, Zero screen tear masterpiece… whatever that means!
Okay, well, I think this is more of a tie, but if there needs to be a winner, it’d be PS3.
First off, the PS3 was putting more detail into things out of render, also had clearly better lighting.
But also, PS3′s shadows are both good and bad. 360′s will stay clear regardless of distance, which LOOKS nice, but is very unrealistic, and shadows distort over distance irl.
Whereas PS3′s shadows actually fuzz up over a distance and not look like a real figure, makes them less eye candy, but that’s accurate.
Though, the issue with PS3′s net-like shadows are usually annoying, sometimes it looks perfect and it should be their on fabrics and such, but not everything :L
I also noticed higher res textures on Vaas on the PS3 version.
But 360′s upper hoof is frames, but then again, it is doing a lot less work then the PS3 is.
Sorry, have to ad that PS3 also had better color.
So, PS3 would be the better choice if you want full experience on console, though PC would still be better.