Today's comparingest game video: Virtua Tennis 3 360/PS3
The PS3 versus 360 side-by-side showdowns keep rolling out, with GameTrailers mixing those versions of Virtua Tennis 3 together. This comparison may be even more interesting because those versions were developed by two studios (Sumo for 360 and AM2 for PS3). Or maybe that difference makes the comparison about each developer instead of a straight 1080p hardware shootout.Either way, taste both flavors after the break, or hit the HD version on the GameTrailers site.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
dark @ Mar 24th 2007 12:15AM
And what does that have to do with snow white? hmmmmmmmm?
AssemblyLineHuman @ Mar 24th 2007 12:21AM
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?
Russell @ Mar 24th 2007 12:21AM
They looked almost identical, but I thought the shadows on the clothing looked better on the ps3, but the 360 version had better AA'ing.
fwacce @ Mar 24th 2007 12:22AM
Why do the women on the PS3 version look so much smoother and real?
Brandon @ Mar 24th 2007 12:24AM
Well that was pointless... They are essentially identical. The only difference I noticed, was that the sky was brighter in the PS3 version, but otherwise they are near identical.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Mar 24th 2007 12:29AM
Brandon: All of the colors seemed a tad brighter on the PS3 version. Also notice that the skirt seems to have a life of its own with that ridiculous flapping.
oGMo @ Mar 24th 2007 12:38AM
Given this is a low-quality flash video comparing two HD games, it's sortof silly. Maybe you can tell some things here, but it would be nice to at least see this in 720p. Quality can change dramatically... better or worse... in real HD.
oGMo @ Mar 24th 2007 12:39AM
Wait, I'm dumb, my eyes drawn to the oh-so-shiny video that I missed the link right above it. Watching. ;)
JMD @ Mar 24th 2007 12:39AM
The lighting and shadows are a hell of a lot better on the PS3
konajinx @ Mar 24th 2007 12:44AM
Well they both looked identical to me. Not to mention identically boring.
oGMo @ Mar 24th 2007 12:45AM
Yeah it's hard to tell. The shots aren't very good to begin with; they should pick a series of shots that focus on specific things (character motion) and play them repeatedly then switch them up so you can actually get a perceptible difference.
The crowd also might have been more detailed on the PS3 version, but it could just be the crappy shot picks. Hard to tell.
pukgreenuniform @ Mar 24th 2007 12:48AM
Great another washed out and bloomed up ps3 version. Both character models are too close they might be the same. The skirt physics are terrible obviously. Personally I don't think either one wins out though.
robert @ Mar 24th 2007 12:50AM
At the beginning the 360 version says: Exhibition Match - the PS3 version says EXHIBITION MATCH.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Mar 24th 2007 12:51AM
robert: That's because it's the Xbox 360 and the PLAYSTATION 3.
nick @ Mar 24th 2007 1:03AM
pukgreenuniform: washed out? ummm maby u should go outside and look at the sun...im pretty sure it doesnt put a dark contrast on everything....look in the shadows on the ps3 version, there is nothing "washed out" or "bloomed up"...i guess u like turning you contrast all the way dark so the colors look more "vibrant", lol. The biggest difference i noticed was the character desighn. Look at the shoulders of both versions, the 360 has the noticeable sharp lines, while the ps3's is very smoothed out. the skirt is also a huge stick out between the 2 for the same reason. and as said before, the crowd looks a bit blurred out in the 360 version and not nearly as sharp.
(just to lyk, i have rented both versions, the ps3 version does look a lot sharper and smoother, with better textures as well)
nick @ Mar 24th 2007 1:03AM
pukgreenuniform: washed out? ummm maby u should go outside and look at the sun...im pretty sure it doesnt put a dark contrast on everything....look in the shadows on the ps3 version, there is nothing "washed out" or "bloomed up"...i guess u like turning you contrast all the way dark so the colors look more "vibrant", lol. The biggest difference i noticed was the character desighn. Look at the shoulders of both versions, the 360 has the noticeable sharp lines, while the ps3's is very smoothed out. the skirt is also a huge stick out between the 2 for the same reason. and as said before, the crowd looks a bit blurred out in the 360 version and not nearly as sharp.
(just to lyk, i have rented both versions, the ps3 version does look a lot sharper and smoother, with better textures as well)
Dane @ Mar 24th 2007 1:07AM
they both look lame to me. i hate this strange desire for developers to be super-realistic, yet they don't even get it right. the only game with realistic facial features i've yet to see is gears of war. when will more people get it right?
nick @ Mar 24th 2007 1:14AM
yea...i know so many people with 10" wide faces, your right...GoW did have very very very nice character graphics but did you every look at them in cutsceans? they were very color blocky with a (just like every this gen game) plastic Barbie look. This gen is really pushing graphical capabilities for realism but we arnt quite there just yet. wait for xbox 1.3 trillion and ps 23 and then we will be there. untill then, enjoy all the plastic you can!!!!
back on topic. Developers have to stride for this because if they dont they will get bitched at for NOT trying hard enough, or not taking advantage of the tech. available. its a double edge sword, but vt3 does a very good job of doing this, exspecialy the ps3 version. (the 360 just looks a lot more "fake" to me...i dunno)
bootsielon @ Mar 24th 2007 1:17AM
Yes, the PS3 version looks definitely better. So? Both games are boring.
pukgreenuniform @ Mar 24th 2007 1:19AM
Well I wasn't commenting on shadows and the sky I meant on the character and objects. But I won't argue
really since you have physically played both versions.
I think i might rather have the crowd slightly blurred as a stylistic choice so it doesn't distract me as I play but that probably wasn't intentional on their part. I don't think there is much difference in models. Neither look very good though. I think the animations are nice though. Again though there isn't a very big difference at all unless one version has superior texture work.
Frankly I wish both versions had been made by the same team because it looks like lighting choices were purely by preference and not a sign of hardware power like everyone insinuates on most comparisons. Bottom line it isn't important which version you buy because neither is "superior" just have fun with the game.
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
Patrick @ Mar 24th 2007 1:22AM
Definitely a boring looking game, but the crowd in the PS3 version looks a lot better. (Especially right at the end of the video)
LaughingTarget @ Mar 24th 2007 1:31AM
Also - the PS3 version told us Melbourne is in Australia, the 360 version just said Melbourne.
Hooray for impercievable differences beyond the color brightness/richness difference. If they need more focused shots to show a difference it means the differences are immaterial.
Anonymous @ Mar 24th 2007 1:48AM
These comparisons are ridiculous, there is no way to set up a control. The PS3 is probably connected via HDMI or Component, the 360 is either VGA or Component, and in either case, even if the connection method is the same, the different ports would have different settings for contrast/gamma/color etc.
What a waste of time. (For my money, they look identical except more bloom on the PS3 version. But both look pretty terrible)
Matt @ Mar 24th 2007 1:52AM
As soon as there is a game on all three platforms you will see that the there isn't enough of a difference between these and the wii to even care...or tell with the crappy H.263 artifacts allover the place
Matt @ Mar 24th 2007 1:56AM
On another note....do these flat chested beauties really walk around like centaurs?
MOoooooooooooooooooo
notlwonk @ Mar 24th 2007 1:56AM
The blur of the crowd at the end of the 360 version is a deliberate choice, a trick to pretend you have a camera focus- notice the logos are blurry as well, where they are crisp in some of the other 360 shots. I think the two are very similar. If the difference were big enough that I would notice while playing, that would be worth mentioning, but I just don't see it. As usual the 360 is darker, but whether that looks better or worse is pretty subjective. In some games I think darker looks great (shooters), in sports games, not so much.
xbox fan @ Mar 24th 2007 1:57AM
It's no Ace Combat 6 or DMC4, that's for sure.
rfom @ Mar 24th 2007 1:59AM
Just wonder...as an aside..Are any these developers using multiple processor cores yet or they are still working with just one 3.2GHz core (which really sucks because each single SPE or processor is quite weak becuase they lack OOP) DOes anyone know? I heard Gears used just one processor, though it still looked very good. I suspect the shooters and "simple" games like VF5 are using single cores for simple coding while physics heavy games like Motorstorm use multiple cores.
dsub @ Mar 24th 2007 2:20AM
they both look identical to me. If there are ANY differences, we sure aren't looking at anything like the difference between PS2/XBOX that existed last time.
Ian @ Mar 24th 2007 2:26AM
Where's the video comparing the online mode for VT3 on XBOX360 vs the online mode for VT3 on PS3? :D
Aex @ Mar 24th 2007 2:38AM
@LaughingTarget
The Australia is there in the X360 version as well, but the text is a little smaller and hard to make out in the video. On a TV, I doubt it would be anything close to an issue tho :)
rfom @ Mar 24th 2007 2:39AM
"Where's the video comparing the online mode for VT3 on XBOX360 vs the online mode for VT3 on PS3?"
Neither of them has online mode in the free version. Oh, of course, you do get online on the 360 version, but thats extra, USD50 per year.
Fernando Rocker @ Mar 24th 2007 2:52AM
That game will be far more better on the Wii...
generaldane @ Mar 24th 2007 3:30AM
these games usually suck
mike @ Mar 24th 2007 4:11AM
All i know is the 360 version has Online play, online VT.TV, 50% more game game the PS3 version
NeverSage @ Mar 24th 2007 4:51AM
I reeeeeeeeally couldn't tell any difference. And if the PS3 looks marginally better, like some of you guys say, that's not good enough for how powerful it's supposed to be.
@pukgreenuniform
This shirt is dryclean only, so it's dirty.
Poisoned Al @ Mar 24th 2007 5:28AM
I can hardly tell the differance, and as most 3rd party multi-platform titles I bet you won't be able to with them ether. Unless Sony gets some good exclusives to show off the power of the PS3, developers will be lazy and make stuff for the 360 and then make a half-arsed port for the PS3.
Ed V @ Mar 24th 2007 5:33AM
No way you can see which one looks better with this video. Anyone hyping one over the other is just a fanboy and that's it!!!
Tony @ Mar 24th 2007 5:49AM
The numerous obvious improvements the PS3's visuals have over the 360's seem to be being swept under the carpet by a lot of people here.
:/
Poisoned Al @ Mar 24th 2007 5:57AM
Oh is that right Tony? Care to point them out for us?
KC @ Mar 24th 2007 5:58AM
Dudes, the games look the same.
There are very small differences, but nothing that changes the way the game looks.
When are people going to realize that these two consoles basically have the same graphic capabilities? The ps3 was overhyped to be the ultimate graphics machine. Its the same power as the 360.
Tiny little details in textures and whatnot do NOTHING for the game.
LaughingTarget @ Mar 24th 2007 8:44AM
AEX - Ah, you're right, there it is, all tiny. I can see why I didn't notice it last time around.
empfeix - I don't see much hating on it based on gameplay (except from those that would otherwise not like tennis). We have to admit, the game does look like ass with a side of putrid basted with nast-ay.
George @ Mar 24th 2007 8:52AM
empfeix- i dont think there are alot of sports fans in these forums. probably mostly star trek, star wars fans with pocket protectors thats why they dont like it.
Zeromaru @ Mar 24th 2007 9:39AM
Well they looked identical to me. But it doesn't matter, 'cause Wii Tennis looks hella better anyway. Much more animated. If I wanted to play realistic tennis I'd go outside.
Petey @ Mar 24th 2007 9:40AM
How bout a video comparing the 360 controls vs the SIXAXIS controls? Here's a clip of the SIXAXIS controls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8qVMOwcgKw
PS3 owners give up online play for that, LOL!
Fioter @ Mar 24th 2007 9:41AM
To the dope who brought up wii tennis.. are you serious? lol @ u
Zeromaru @ Mar 24th 2007 9:48AM
*missed the note about sci-fi fans*
So George, I'm betting you're some dumb jock that's all like "hurr I've been out of high school ten years and too fat to play real sports so I'm gonna watch these polygonal women play sports and then jerk off later, maybe after a game of Madden."
Am I sounding stereotypical? I sure hope I am. Not so hidden message being think before you say things.
DefineReality @ Mar 24th 2007 9:52AM
Okay... Real quick here.
1) I am a closeted 360 fanboy. Meaning, I don't want to be (I want to be fair, dammit!) but deep down, I am.
2) The PS3 version does look better. But only by a marginal difference. Arms seem better defined and realistic, the skirt flaps around unrealistically (a lack of developers understanding physics, not the machine's), the colors seem to 'pop' on the PS3 (be through inputs or console, who knows), and general textures seem to be shinier ... texturier (
Zeromaru @ Mar 24th 2007 9:53AM
Yay triple post for completely legitimate reasons.
Something looking "better" doesn't mean it has to have better graphics. Artistic design plays a major role, look at The Wind Waker vs Twilight Princess. TP may have better graphics, but TWW had a much more artistic style, and I know a lot of people who say TWW looked far better. That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head, but Wii Sports, having a very stylized approach, I find looks better than these attempts at realism when the sport is already a good deal boring to watch.
DefineReality @ Mar 24th 2007 9:54AM
Trying this again...
1) I am a closeted 360 fanboy. Meaning, I don't want to be (I want to be fair, dammit!) but deep down, I am.
2) The PS3 version does look better. But only by a marginal difference. Arms seem better defined and realistic, the skirt flaps around unrealistically (a lack of developers understanding physics, not the machine's), the colors seem to 'pop' on the PS3 (be through inputs or console, who knows), and general textures seem to be shinier ... texturier (