Riiiiiiiiiiidge Racer! Xbox 360 vs. PS3 screens
by Kevin Kelly 
{ Nov 14th 2006 at 1:55PM }
Sister site Xbox 360 Fanboy visited the same site we did detailing the graphic differences between the Xbox 360's Ridge Racer 6, and the PlayStation 3's new Ridge Racer 7, which is one of the hottest selling titles in Japan right now. The verdict: not that pretty. The site has been farked, so you can translate and read the text but not see the pix. Hopefully they'll get the images back sometime today. In the meantime, check out these comparison shots between the two. There's no cruise ship on the PS3 (does that ship move by and just simply isn't there in that shot?), and check out the details in the water and the lanes on the bridge in the 360. It's a pretty huge difference.
It may just be us, but we're expecting a lot more from a next-gen title that's being released a full year after a previous version on another console. This is also a game that wasn't exactly lauded as a graphical masterpiece when it came out on the 360, so it seems like there's been plenty of time to beat the PS3 version into shape. Not only that, but these PS3 screens are in 1080p, while the Xbox screens are only 720. What happened, Cell processor?
Check out a couple more picture comparisons after the break.
[Thanks, Hinkmania]
This is the Xbox 360 version in 720. Click to enlarge
This is the PS3 version in 1080p. Click to enlarge.
So where's this TrueHD that's going to blow us out of the water (pun intended)? Yes, the PS3 screen here looks a bit better than the 360 -- you can see more detail off into the distance, and the car is a bit less jaggy on the PS3 -- but it's not a quantum leap in difference. Especially given that one is RR6 and one is RR7.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
nick @ Nov 14th 2006 2:02PM
Wow in the first shot the 360 version looks better, in the second shot the PS3 version looks better. But they're not far apart.
WhetWurm @ Nov 14th 2006 2:03PM
Is it just me or does the Xbox360 version look more "real". Perhaps seeing it in motion would help, but I almost prefer the 360's color scheme and detail richness. Not that it matters, I hated this game on 360. I was just hoping for more from PS3...
Dalvin @ Nov 14th 2006 2:16PM
Ya what happen Cell Processor??
Looks like Sony is up to their lies again. But this time they wont work. (*cough* killzone 2 cgi trailer *cough*)
Koo @ Nov 14th 2006 2:45PM
Clearly you guys aren't seeing this on an HDTV or you have your immersiveness turned down. Ridge Racer looks so real that I actualy feel like I'm driving a car.
gamerx @ Nov 14th 2006 2:06PM
HAHAHAHAHA wait wait let me get myself togethahaHAHAHAHA sorry Sony fanboys i cant stop laughing im tryingahahahaha im out!
Marty @ Nov 14th 2006 2:06PM
They should call it the "FreeCell" processor... it could probably run that game with full detail.
Derbeste @ Nov 14th 2006 2:08PM
Nick....
Your talent for summary is astounding.
Anyway....
I despise Sony, but even I know most have said that the cell processor's potential would take a while to tap.
In this case, it's not hardware that is the limiting factor....it's the software (obviously). Sony's whole marketing campaigne has centered around the idea that there will come a time when xbox 360 will no longer be able to keep up.
Wii can't keep up (graphically) already. (note...I'm only buying a Wii anyway)
Anyway....my point is....this shouldn't be a surprise. But it still does prove the single biggest point I've been making for MONTHS.....
Anyone that buys a PS3 at launch is terrible with money.
Mazzani @ Nov 14th 2006 2:09PM
Well, to answer the cruise ship question: Yes, it had moved out of the shot in the PS3 screen. As you can see, it is still there, just with it's bow adjacent to the bridge rather than in the background.
LunarDuality @ Nov 14th 2006 2:27PM
Seems there is a ship of some kind on the left and closer to the foreground in the PS3 shot that isn't in the 360 shot...more confusion.
Also, it seems like the 360 shots are taken with a camera off a display whereas the PS3 ones are direct screenshots. That could explain the general darkness of some parts of the 360 shots. Also, why is the PS3 version more drab looking?
The jaggies in the 360 picture could also be a product of the lower resolution, and not necessarily the models.
The water looks suspect in the 360 shots though.
Overall: it's pretty close and I really don't care about either game.
nick @ Nov 14th 2006 2:12PM
Why, thank you. And might I add you ability to point out the obvious, is equally astounding.
Inspired @ Nov 14th 2006 2:12PM
@Derbeste
Or smart, selling it on ebay for a profit.
Antaeus @ Nov 14th 2006 2:13PM
the 2 versions have different lighting and sharp edges look better on PS3 with a 1080p screen but that doesn't really matter because I buy games if they are fun to play not for how many trees it can display on a mountain.
MrCHUPON @ Nov 14th 2006 2:18PM
It really takes seeing it in motion. I own Ridge Racer 6; I've only seen video footage of Ridge Racer 7 (both shaky cam and direct-feed). Even then, it's still very easy to see that the lighting in Ridge Racer 7 is more intense, vivid and colorful than in Ridge Racer 6. Regardless of what any of these still shots may try to tell me, a racing game is about motion and if it looks better in motion, I'm going to say that it looks better overall. Ridge Racer 6 is darker, more mundane, and less - well - the lighting is just... not "there" as it is on Ridge Racer 7. Let me qualify this by saying that it means nothing: this doesn't mean that the 360 can't handle RR7 and it sure doesn't mean that the PS3 is "teh suck" hardware-wise. It's ONE game, and I *still* think it looks better in motion than RR6 does. (At the end of the day though, I won't have a PS3 for years anyway.)
psynautic @ Nov 14th 2006 2:16PM
tell me nobody has noticed, the other ship. the one in teh ps3 and missing in the 360?
JC @ Nov 14th 2006 2:16PM
This was explained in Major Nelson's blog a couple of
weeks ago.
If you render your game at 1080p and 60 frames per second, you must most likely be prepared to make
some sacrifices to maintain the constant 60 fps.
Expect this to be the case until the programmers
make more efficient use of the ps3 hardware.
Silver @ Nov 14th 2006 2:18PM
The 360 might be more detailed when you analyze specific actions, but looking at the full screen the PS3 looks more realistic - more like an actual photo. The 360 has that "definitely computer-generated" look to it.
And no bias here - I'm getting a Wii. :)
Cabcru @ Nov 14th 2006 2:18PM
Not really up on all this res stuff but with 1080p vs 720, doesn't that mean the PS3 is drawing twice as crap onscreen? I dunno about you but when I whack the res up on my PC games, performance suffers.
That said, it's hard to compare those first two pictures when the contrast is so high on the first one and low on the second.
Myke @ Nov 14th 2006 2:18PM
Ummmmm, isnt the PS3 version supposed to look better???
=)
T @ Nov 14th 2006 2:18PM
@Derbste
I'll be selling 5 of them and keeping 1 for myself. Am I a poor money manager?
> @ Nov 14th 2006 2:19PM
Umm.. someone seriously jacked up the contrast in the 360 version; it looks like a comic book.. if thats what you're into, then thats fine.
Ubersnuber @ Nov 14th 2006 2:25PM
I am a PS3 fan, and I agree this is not enough.
The graphics should be far better than this.
This is like a EA product..
Cabcru @ Nov 14th 2006 2:20PM
"the PS3 is drawing twice as _much_ crap onscreen?"
Always good to miss out words... much.... much! :)
K-Tron @ Nov 14th 2006 2:21PM
Both games look very similar. I think the PS3 screen looks slightly better, probably because it's running in 1080p as opposed to the xbox 360's 720p screenshot. It also has better reflection effects on the backwindow of the car... but I think it's apparent that the graphics capabilities of both systems are pretty much on par with each other, which is what several developers have been saying so far. It's true that developers have yet to tap into the ps3's potential, but the same can be said for the Xbox 360.
Scott @ Nov 14th 2006 2:21PM
What did happen Dalvin? The PS3 looks the best in both of those shots. Granted, graphical quality is dependant on the display and the graphics card(I wouldn't expect Consolers to know what a graphics card is), as well as the quality of the textures.
Spartacus @ Nov 14th 2006 2:21PM
Wow. The first shot comparison is night and day. If it takes devs years to tap the seemingly "insanely complicated to code for" Cell, then by that time, the 360 may just win by default. It's pretty foolish to make a console so difficult to program for. Plus, it'll only be the platform exclusives that really harness that power, making the vast majority of games looking equal or possibly BETTER on the 360. Even if I were interested in a PS3, I wouldn't bit for another year or two... Which is a sentiment that may bite Sony in the butt.
Marino @ Nov 14th 2006 2:22PM
We are all guilty of being eyecandy bitches. I doubt that there will be much difference between 360 and ps3 games, specially those that are made for multiple platforms, since the graphics engine will be almost identical. The higher res is not really a selling point for me. My TV supports 1080i and I don't intend to spend 3K to buy a 1080p set with HDMI. The games are what sells a console, not the other way 'round. I own a 360, a PS2, and am waiting for my Wii. I was going to buy a PS3 at launch, but I have yet to see a game or 3, that are worth the investment. Still, I am sure I will get one next year.
David @ Nov 14th 2006 2:24PM
Considering the 720p vs 1080p.....those aren't even screenshots..they are digicammed on the screen..of course you can't tell the difference then...
also depends on the screen....720p and 1080p would probably look the same on any set smaller than a 60"
SP @ Nov 14th 2006 2:25PM
Sony is trying really hard to justify that $200 upcharge. Good work Sony. They're on their way to making the next N64 without 3 of the greatest games of all time to pick up the slack. Looking good.
The Other Jason @ Nov 14th 2006 2:30PM
Everyone should remember too... the PS3 has been around hardware wise for a while... its not like the developers just got their hands on it... there was a several month delay for its release because of the blue laser problem...
Also... its not like the PS3 version IS BETTER... it is newer so they had a chance to implement more things in the game in general... really they look quite alike for being a version apart!
Pince @ Nov 14th 2006 2:26PM
Neither seem that impressive at all. I think this is less of a "what happened, Cell processor?" question and more of a "what happened, Namco?" (because both games could have been better looking if you ask me).
Or maybe my expectations for next-gen are just too high.
The main difference i can see between the two screen shown is that it appears to be on a dark windy day in the 360 version (different shadowing, colors, and waves on the water) and the PS3 version seems to be showing a calm day (calm water, more sunshiny).
In both of them the trees dotting the landscape are horribly fake looking (what, you could only create one tree model?) and there are noticable jaggies here and there (but I guess there always will be to some extent). Neither is more impressive than the other.
Vercin @ Nov 14th 2006 2:26PM
I dunno. I'm going to have to disagree with everyone. I'm a complete 360 fanboy, but I think the PS3 pictures look more like photographs (aside from the ugly rocks on the left of the bottom PS3 picture). Look at the water. It appears to be lacking detail in the PS3 version, but does water really look like it does in the 360 shots? To me it looks like we're comparing decent computer renderings of a scene (360) with (admittedly washed-out looking) photographs of the same scene (PS3). I did just wake up, though, so I could be way off base.
Marty @ Nov 14th 2006 5:32PM
@24 Precisely... Unless you follow the links to the actual pics, you might not notice that these are photos taken with a camera from different screens, not actual screenshots. Thus explains the deep contrasty look of the 360 screen as compared to the PS3 one.
SuicideNinja @ Nov 14th 2006 7:36PM
RR6 for the 360 still costs 1/3 of the price of RR7 for the PS3. Is the difference worth $40?
We'll ignore the price difference in consoles.
Scott @ Nov 14th 2006 2:28PM
The textures on the 360 version looks better. Beyond that, no real noticeable difference IMHO. You have to start picking nits to see any.
Scott @ Nov 14th 2006 2:30PM
Oh, I also agree that the PS3 version's colors look more washed out. Gametrailers had a video comparison between the PS3 and 360 for THP8 and the PS3 version's colors looked more washed out there too.
Tank @ Nov 14th 2006 2:31PM
Umm ... hate to be a bummer here but ... I have money on a Xbox360 Fanboy using a PC Game image of Ridge Racer 6, Switching the image to a PS2 image and calling it a PS3 image or something of that matter. I suspect foul play here. I have played both and I can see a notable difference between the two. (With PS3 graphics being the better of the two)
Now before I get Flamed for being a Sony Fanboy ... I would like to inform you all that I own all three brands of consoles, with no favorite between Microsoft and Sony ... and my preference is PC Gaming.
Knoxximus @ Nov 14th 2006 2:32PM
"What happened, Cell processor?"
*Cell processor hears question and proceeds to get up on soapbox*
I'll tell you WTF happened! Those hotshots up in R&D figured it would be brilliant to saddle me with slow ass non-unified RAM, a last gen graphics card setup, a freaking OS that takes up 1-freaking-5th of the said RAM, and 7, count 'em, 7 damn near worthless dyckheads who are supposed to 'assist me'.
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!?! These ASSHATS can barely do rudimentary math much less kick out some convincing AI. Then, with no advanced notice, that fat-pig-slob of a OS can just come an 'jack' one of my so called homies away and not even have to give me a reason why! WTF is up with that?
So, if you want to give somebody shit, don't blame me. Get on the horn and cuss out those f'n R&D bozos. Matter of fact, do me a favor. If you happen to purchase a PS3, pick it up, position your mouth by one of the air vents, and say very LOUDLY....."ALL OF YOU IN THERE EXCEPT THE CELL PROCESSOR SUCK ASS!!"
At least I'll feel a little better.
kthxbye!
*steps down form soapbox and returns to cussing out the entire system*
Willie @ Nov 14th 2006 2:35PM
The XBOX version looks more like the art style of Burnout. The PS3 version went more of a realistic photo approach. Does joystiq know anything about different art styles? I am beginning to think there is some type of bias towards certain companies on this site. Every article is a bashing towards Sony. Especially the article, that 2.5% of games don't work by backwards compatibility......enough is enough.
The Enlightened @ Nov 14th 2006 3:14PM
@The title picture of this post.
The ship is in the Playstation 3 shot, if you look in the far left of the image you can see the front (is it called a bow?) of the ship justing coming into shot, not having played either game i can't tell you if the ship moves.
steve @ Nov 14th 2006 2:36PM
Don't blame the Cell processor alone for any shortcomings in PS3 rendering; the GPU is doing most of that work.
Are these taken on the same TV? If you have a 1080p LCD running 720p, you'd see some downsampling and the final image might look slightly better (or worse, depending on the TV) than something running at native resolution.
Evan @ Nov 14th 2006 2:36PM
The PS3 screenshot is not anti-aliased (obvious when you zoom into the picture). IGN reported that many of the PS3 games they previewed were not anti-aliased, and a blog claiming to have details of nVidia's GPU said that, although the PS3 can render more polygons per second than the 360 without anti-aliased, the PS3 is significantly slower than the 360 when 2x anti-alising is enabled.
Scott @ Nov 14th 2006 2:37PM
#32 Tank,
Xbox360 Fanboy didn't do any switching because these images come from a different site not affiliated with any of the Joystiq/Fanboy/Engadget blogs.
Obvious @ Nov 14th 2006 2:47PM
The real difference: The PS3's version of the same car GOES TO 11!
ill trooper @ Nov 14th 2006 2:39PM
OH NOES HOW I I GONNAZ $ELL MY PS3 ON EBAY NOW WHEN TEH PIXELS GET PWNORZED?
But seriously, the second shot DOES look better (textures, objects in distance, curves on car, water) on the PS3... I wonder if both games render and drive equally fast, because that would be impressive, taking into account how many pixels that 1080p is pushing around.
So what gives? Is that first photo with the cruise ship a fly-over during a replay or something? Unfortunately, that PS3 first-screen looks a little TOO much like reality, we gamers like some color and contrast bump!
Also, these are photographs of a tv screen, not screen-grabs, so the ridiculously 'HDR' look of the 360's second screen is probably a little off - look to the bezel of the TV for exposure difference.
I'd have to attribute this to different teams working on simultaneous development. Still not giving us the answers we need, but certainly clues...
mark @ Nov 14th 2006 2:40PM
The Korean in the boxe of the PS3 version say "nonexistent cruise ship," and "nonexistent fence." That leads me to believe that becase the fence obviously can't move, the cruise ship hasn't just sailed out of the screen in the PS3 version, it's just not in the game.
tetujin @ Nov 14th 2006 2:39PM
the 360's knees are obviously too sharp, and someone needs to give the PS3 a sammich. i definitely would not hit it.
The Intangible Fact @ Nov 14th 2006 2:41PM
http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360
Don't be surprised! The 360 is the superior gaming system.
Willie @ Nov 14th 2006 2:47PM
"It may just be us, but we're expecting a lot more from a next-gen title that's being released a full year after a previous version on another console."
I feel the same way about the XBOX 360 after buying it. A year after its release, we finally get Gears of War. Yet, the campaign mode is short and online is horrible. Where are the options and game modes online? I smell an EA moment coming here. I bet they will charge us for added modes....ones that should have been included.
JK @ Nov 14th 2006 3:23PM
Well, I think this really comes down to the argument of "photorealism". As a serious non-pro photographer, I'd have to say the PS3 screenshot looks much nicer, the colors are more realistic to what you'd see taking a shot in the middle of a mountain road. The grass texture is finer, and the reflection off the car doesn't seem as contrasty.
On the other hand, the 360 version seems to have more "detail". The textures are possibly rougher on the 360 version (look at the left side, mountain texture), making it look grittier and more apparnently rough like we expect rock to be. In this case, what we like to play in video games may not be the same as what we'd like to see if we were buying a postcard of this location.
I'll admit the water looks weak in the first shot for the PS3, but if someone has a true 1080p screenshot of it, and a full 720p screenshot of the 360 version, would we be able to notice more subtle waves in the water that I can't see in the PS3 shot now? The 360 version has more obvious waves, that doesn't mean it is more accurate in representing water.
Plus on a computer screen, it's just not the same as playing a game on a TV. You'd sit further away for sure. Hopefully.
VampireHunter Z @ Nov 14th 2006 2:45PM
Both shots are terrible. Why don't you guys get some direct shots instead of "off screen" shots? Plus RR6 didn't look as good as PGR3.