Today's best-looking mech video: Armored Core comparison
by Zack Stern 
{ Mar 19th 2007 at 12:00AM }
It's an old-fashioned PS3 versus 360 graphics showdown in today's video pick, with GameTrailers running a side-by-side comparison of Armored Core 4. Which version of this mech title looks best? Judge for yourself after the break, or visit the HD version -- it doesn't embed like the SD file -- on the GameTrailers site. Let the scrutiny begin!Image from CSG_Starfury's account of life-sized BattleMech project.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Paradox @ Mar 19th 2007 12:08AM
Thats a sweet mech. If only you could ride it!
konajinx @ Mar 19th 2007 12:08AM
To me it looks like the PS3 version is hazier/foggier/softer. The 360 version looks nice and crisp. Everything looks more vibrant overall on the 360, though the mechs themselves look pretty comparable in both versions. Another look of "blah" for the PS3 IMHO.
Zac @ Mar 19th 2007 12:11AM
The 360 version looks more stylized (more contrast).
Otherwise it's hard to make any comparisons.
Although the game looks fun, the woman's voice is already annoying me.
Negativecool @ Mar 19th 2007 12:17AM
As far as my mother is concerned, there is no difference. So far the PS3's "superior" graphics capabilies does not pass the "mom test."
All I can tell is there is obvious contrast in the 360 version, whereas the PS3's version is brighter but at the cost of gray blacks.
steve17 @ Mar 19th 2007 12:22AM
i dont know. first off this game doesnt look like anything special. and i find it hard to compare the 2 videos. the 360 one almost looks too dark and the ps3 one too light. so its hard to compare them.
i did notice one thing though. looking at the horizon's of both the 369's one is way sharper. up close they almost look the same but at distance the ps3 gets fuzzy and unclear. i have seen this same problem in other games. maby the ps3 sucks at doing distance.
Dormammu @ Mar 19th 2007 12:31AM
I agree... the PS3 looks softer, but the mech itself suffers from the sharper focus of the 360. The bright lights and the high focus of the 360 make the mech itself look almost more cartoony.
IMO the mech looks better on the PS3 and the world looks better on the 360. Overall the graphics are bland though so meh.
Louis @ Mar 19th 2007 3:24PM
I agree that the 360 version looks too dark to play almost, but the PS3 version doesn't look like it has any lighting effects. In the same areas where the 360 version is casting shadows, the PS3 version is well lit with no dark areas.
The 360 version may be more accurate, but I don't know if I could even play it without cranking the brightness on my TV. As for the PS3, it might as well be PS2.
Elmer @ Mar 19th 2007 12:30AM
I watched the video a couple times just to make sure, there is indeed a slowdown on the PS3 version. But yeah, other than that it's really difficult to compare since the contrast levels are so different. It might even come down to taste, I prefer in this case, the softer look. The 360's was too dark in many areas. But the PS3 had slowdown... what to do...
Sly @ Mar 19th 2007 12:31AM
Oh, there's a lot to compare and it's pretty easy.
Dane @ Mar 19th 2007 12:37AM
both versions look dull and boring to me. i enjoyed the first two games, but the game seems dull now.
peshue @ Mar 19th 2007 12:39AM
Neither look especially exciting. I just hope that the 360 has a gama adjustment.
icruise @ Mar 19th 2007 12:42AM
Honestly, they both look like crap to me. This game has some pretty boring graphics. But the difference in gamma between the two systems (the PS3 being quite a bit lighter) makes any kind of comparison tough. You can see the difference that the gamma makes most clearly when the mech goes down the chimney-like tunnel. You can't see a damn thing on the 360 side.
your mother @ Mar 19th 2007 12:49AM
360 is darker - some parts you could not make out.
PS3's looks more "cinematic" probably because it has some camera/filter effects causing the distance blur, which looks nice in my opinion. The 360's textures in the distance look too sharp.
The 360 mech looks cartoonish - too metallic, out of place with the rest of the visuals.
None of this really means much, however. These could simply be design decisions or developers being slack (let's just reuse textures!). At most, it leaves me wondering why the PS3 commands a 300usd premium. This game doesn't do it for me...
And... how is this better than the visuals I get from my dog-slow PC???
Daniel @ Mar 19th 2007 12:50AM
That game looks pretty uninspired on both platforms. Brown is real, right? Wrong.
The 360 version does look a little better... if only because the video has higher saturation.
AzaMcWazza @ Mar 19th 2007 12:53AM
That looks like one hell of a boring game. It's hard to tell anyway due to compression. Sometimes the PS3 looked good, sometimes the 360. Overall though I'd probably nod in the PS3's direction.
hvnlysoldr @ Mar 19th 2007 12:53AM
The PS3 version had too much light and 360 version is too dark. They're also so brown.
rom @ Mar 19th 2007 12:56AM
I thought the 360 looked better overall. The end part I give to the PS3 though.
Biggie @ Mar 19th 2007 12:59AM
Seems like the video has contrast issues, so it was really hard to tell. 360 had more contrast PS3 had none. Anyhow needless to say, they are interchangeable for the consumer so why pay more for you system if this is your game. And there is the main rub, for multi-platform titles the 360 will give you the same game for less system cost.
Ninegauger @ Mar 19th 2007 1:03AM
Haven't you heard? Real is brown.
RazorDog @ Mar 19th 2007 1:05AM
I watched the HD video and I think the PS3 version looks better, the 360 may be sharper but it's way too dark. I like the smoothness of the PS3 better as well. Regardless the game looks like crap, gameplay and graphics very uninspired. I wouldn't even bother downloading a demo of it.
BadVermin @ Mar 19th 2007 1:10AM
The PS3 version is worth the extra $120+ because...
...the PS3 version doesn't have any of that annoying anti-aliasing like the 360 version does.
...on the PS3 doesn't have headset support and I wont have to worry about talking.
...it'll only play at 480p on my HDTV.
ONI5 @ Mar 19th 2007 1:25AM
The 360 version's lighting makes the world and mech look realistic while the PS3 version looks kind of photo copied giving a phony look.
Craig Phillips @ Mar 19th 2007 1:40AM
the 360 version is far better. the game has always been dark. its not supposed to be bright so u can see everything. the game has never been as bright as the ps3 version unless u made it that way on your TV. all in all its gonna be a great game for people like myself who miss mechwarrior.
Wil @ Mar 19th 2007 2:18AM
Like has been said, it's hard to compare the two because of the difference in brightnesses, but I'd have to say the 360 version looks better simply because the mech looks shinier.. the textures look actually metallic.. even if it does look like shined and buffed chrome.
Also, it MAY be a camera effect of the PS3 (why anyone would want this, I don't know), but everything looks hazed out. And while haze is nice.. if intentional, I'm assuming it's not and the 360's crispier landscape and distance textures are just more appealing to me. Of course, what we need is a comparison that isn't extreme grey white and extreme dark black.
steve17 @ Mar 19th 2007 2:19AM
goddamnit can we get ONE good, not just decent, GOOD mech game this generation please?
TSD @ Mar 19th 2007 2:23AM
I say the 360 verison looks better; since its already darker, the thruster effects look more pronounced and cooler. Guess that doesn't really say anything about the technical side of the graphics, just the way the human eye processes it.
jcmschwa @ Mar 19th 2007 2:37AM
i think the ps3 looked better overall...the contrast does make it near impossible, but i imagined the canyon was supposed to look more like a foggy morning than a heavily backlit cinematic. however, even if i did own a ps3 by the time this came out (i will at least buy one for ffxiii alone) i'm going to get this game for my 360 simply because the 360's slightly stiffer analog sticks will make controlling this game a little easier.
big z @ Mar 19th 2007 2:45AM
fuzzy wuzzy was a ps3.the 360 hands down.
jimjo @ Mar 19th 2007 3:14AM
The explosions and smoke effects on the ps3 are weak compared to the 360 version. The lighting issues look like nothing that cant be fixed with your tv or in-game brightness.
aegies @ Mar 19th 2007 3:58AM
They should have run both systems from component if they wanted an accurate comparison. If they're running the PS3 through hdmi, which has been rumored to offer a desaturated, slightly softer picture (why softer I have no idea, honestly), and the 360 through VGA, which offers a very sharp, high contrast, slightly desaturated image, then that would explain a lot, especially the inability to see anything in big parts of the 360 video. It definitely looked like the fog was upped in the PS3 version, probably due to less texture memory, and less memory available in general. My website compatriot said he thought the energy/glow effects on the mech looked better on the PS3. I'm more interested in seeing Rainbow Six Vegas and Splinter Cell DA on the PS3 myself. Those will be better points to compare (and possibly Oblivion as well).
http://eat-sleep-game.com/news
8thmartini @ Mar 19th 2007 4:54AM
At least online play will be free on the ps3. It does have online play right?!
m ike @ Mar 19th 2007 5:34AM
at times it was very clear the 360 had better textures. expecially at the end of the video
lessbiasedthanmost @ Mar 19th 2007 5:47AM
It all comes down to system preference. Nobody who owns a PS3 will say the 360 looks better and nobody who owns a 360 will say the PS3 looks better. For those who have both it's a flip of a coin or whichever version is cheaper. For those with neither, myself included, will say "It doesn't matter which is better looking, if you like the game buy it, if not don't argue over which is prettier."
kevinski @ Mar 19th 2007 6:27AM
As others have stated, it's somewhat difficult to make a comparison when you consider the difference in gamma between the two games. Still, the PlayStation 3 version has some very obvious frame rate issues, and it's easy to tell that the game simply doesn't look as sharp as the Xbox 360 version. All in all, I prefer the look of the Xbox 360 version, because the PlayStation 3 version is just too bright. It isn't realistic. It just looks like something that you'd see in an RtCW clan video, with the gamma and whatnot cranked up in order to make enemies easier to see.
denney @ Mar 19th 2007 6:28AM
I mean yeah PS3 looked a little bit better. moslty cause it was brighter. but hey its not worth a extra £150
ill trooper @ Mar 19th 2007 7:22AM
That 360 darkness is a little bit of a problem... It's got to be some sort of gamma setting within the game, that's just too dark. Also of note is that the HUD/Score/'radar' stuff doesn't change in intensity or brightness from the PS3 to the 360 - it's the same, so it's not a dark setting on the 360's tv/monitor - hopefully you can change the gamma on the 360.
So... Which one looks better? Well, since we're talking about _this_ video, I'll say the PS3 does, as we can actually see what's happening on that platform in the canyon and the descent into the boss-fight. But assuming that you could change the 360 version's gamma, they seem to look identical in the scenes where an explosion or something actually lights up the 360 version.
That being said, I'd probably buy the 360 version as it has rumble, and most of my friends have 360s so I'd have more people to play with... There is online, I assume? Probably some innovative twist on capturing flags or incredible departures in game design, like eliminating an enemy team, maybe with brave new directions in... respawning?
Josh @ Mar 19th 2007 7:55AM
The difference in brightness/gamma could be caused by the video capture equipment. And it could be adjustable for both versions, and who knows where it was set.
ManOwaR @ Mar 19th 2007 8:12AM
Hands down the 360 version looks better. I've played ALL the Armored Core games and they've always been a bit dark to reflect the post apocalyptic Earth the game revolves around. It appears the PS3 is too bright washing out the colors and textures. Where the dark colors and textures on the 360 make the game look better.
Jack of No Trades @ Mar 19th 2007 8:15AM
What a shock! The 360 has the better graphics again! $399 will get the job done. Game looks nice.
Joe @ Mar 19th 2007 8:20AM
Seems to be lots of difference in opinions as to which looks better. Why? I thought PS3 with all of its high-dollar hardware was supposed to smoke everything we've seen on the 360?! This game looks like PS2 or original XBox to me. Not impressed. I would love a good next-gen space shooter to come out eventually, but this aint it.
BIGGEN @ Mar 19th 2007 8:24AM
amazing how the HD version makes everything compare easier. the only time i thought the ps3 version looked better was in the tunnel. cause you could actually see it. every other time, the 360 was better. the ps3 version looked too flat. while the 360 version had alot of depth.
sheppy @ Mar 19th 2007 8:26AM
I really prefer being able to see the surrounding environment. So, thumbs up to the PS3. It's clearly superior to the 360 version. All of you that disagree with me can suck my balls.
The game itself, is obviously a huge steaming pile of dog shit. Armored Core as a game is fundamentally flawed. So, fuck you AC fans, find a real game.
neale @ Mar 19th 2007 9:09AM
360. how many deep tunnels with no lights have you looked down and seen the whole tunnel clearly? its pitch black for a reason
Jake @ Mar 19th 2007 9:13AM
I would have set the game to be brighter for the 360 version. Not only could you then compare the two, but you could also see better in the 360 version. Otherwise, there is pretty negligible difference. I'd bump up the brightness for the 360 version and leave the PS3 where it is at. If I were to buy one or teh other, 360 hands down for achievements and superior online component. But, the game looks crappy so I won't be getting either.
JJ @ Mar 19th 2007 9:50AM
Because we all know a game like armored core 4 REALLY takes advantage of the botht he PS3's and the 360's hardware!
Come on the difference here is negligible and could probably be fixed betweent he 2 with color and contrast settings.
Either way comparing a game like AC4 is hardly indicative of which console is superior graphically, i haven't played and AC since AC2 but even back then i never remember them being considered... system power pushers.
Darcrequiem @ Mar 19th 2007 10:08AM
The 360 version has the slight edge in my opinion. The PS3 version seems to have a haziness about it. Also the textures in the 360 version are much sharper. This becomes readily apparrent near the end of the video.
Pal @ Mar 19th 2007 10:42AM
I don't really care. You make an investment and you stick with it. They both look fine; adjust your TV according to your taste.
I don't own any of the new consoles, but my friend has all three so I get to do taste testings quite frequently.
Only advantage that the PS3 has right now is Mainichi Issho (available free via PS Store JP). It's fantastic for a native Japanese speaker like me. Ohhh my goodness.
sheppy @ Mar 19th 2007 10:42AM
You'd figure someone trying to impersonate me would bother to see how I felt about mecha games. In particular, the AC series. I love it. It's not ZOE by any means but since the first video was shown on this one, I'm been looking forward to it.
I like that the PS3 version actually has Depth Of Field but dislike the lack of contrast. It also has to be said, when the raven is generating light but this is not reflected in the tunnel sequence, it's a big drag.
My choice of console wasn't decided by a preference between the two versions but rather all my AC playing friends bought PS3s so naturally my necessity to upgrade OmegaScythe MkIV to the next generation is chosen by those I battle.
LaughingTarget @ Mar 19th 2007 11:24AM
The coloring difference is fairly typical of the whole ATI vs Nvidia argument that goes on in PC circles. Nvidia and ATI are both able to produce roughly the same quality in complexity, but their coloring schemes are different.
ATI produces richer colors than Nvidia cards, but they frequently come off as too dark. A simple gamma adjustment doesn't work too well as it washes the colors out.
Nvidia produces brighter visuals but lacks the color depth of ATI cards. Darkening the gamma doesn't solve the problem much as it just gets dark.
(I'm a Nvidia man myself)
It comes down to a personal preference, richer colors or brighter environment. Apart from that, the PS3 and 360 versions are immaterially different. The whole depth of field thing on the PS3 is a little irritating as the software doesn't exactly know where your focus is. I've had a problem with blur simulations like this since 3dfx decided motion blur was a good idea, objects blur when your vision is stationary and an object moves through the field, comes off as bad when your eyes follow the object and it is blurred anyway. This is why the distance doesn't look too hot in the PS3 version. AC4 would do well without it.
krakhead @ Mar 19th 2007 11:36AM
Well I think the x360 version looks better, 'cos if you look at the 2 versions, that part of the game is happening in the dark, while the ps3 version feels like the game set in day light; Now from drawing distance, charpness, explosions and the game set itself, the x360 version looks more realistic.