Today's comparingest game video: Virtua Tennis 3 360/PS3

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 (

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.

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 (

Screw it. ;)

The point? DID ANYONE /NOT/ READ THE PART POSTED SIX MONTHS AGO AND NOW HERE THAT THE GAME IS MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES?

You can't compare them. Two seperate resources. Two seperate teams. Two seperate experience levels. The only thing they have in common is the license, guidelines, and minimal expectation levels. Oh, and motivation. For all we know, the PS3 or 360 development team was simply lazy and never utilized their console of choice's full potential.

When DMC4 comes out, a game that I personally think was developed for the PS3 first, then we can compare. It'll either be dumbed down or it'll be equal or it'll be better on the 360. That's a far better comparison of capabilities.

Oh...One more thing: I've never played DMC 1, 2, or 3. Super-duper acrobatics and unbelieveable combos are hard to immerse myself in, especially when it's split between cutscenes and gameplay. But, I can appreciate how popular it is...

In yo' face, Sony boys! When 360 gets FFXIII, something you might think is impossible (Didn't you say that about DMC, too?), I'll be back to rub it in. ;)

PS3 exclusives (or reasons to spend $600): Resistance: FoM (Wait, it wasn't all that? Take it off the list), Devil May Cry 4 (Oh...It's not an exclusive? Take it off the list.), FFXIII (Please don't bail on us!), MGS4 (Please stay or they'll all carry out seppuku.), LittleBigPlanet (Okay...This really does look like a fun game. I am utterly jealous of PS3 owners).

Reasons to get a 360 (or why I saved $200): Oblivion a year early (C'mon, y' gotta give it to me there.), Gears of War ('nuff said),... We're still waiting on the good 360 exclusives to arrive later this year and next (Please don't fail me or I'll have to commit seppuku!), all the former PS3 exclusives.


Ooh, that was longer and far more biased than I had intended.

-DefineReality

Neither looks real. A standard-definition television broadcast of a tennis game feels more "real" than this high-definition video game. More resolution doesn't make a game more "lifelike", the character animations do. The characters in this game are too stoic, there's no life in them!

The graphics appear identical to one another, with the most noticable differences being...

1) The words Exhibition Match are Capital letter and lower case on the 360 version, where they're all caps in the PS3 version.

2) Lighting. The PS3 version seems brighter but washed out, and the 360 version has vivid colors but is darker. This is most apparent when looking at the sky, where you can clealy see clouds in the 360 version, but they're barely visible in the PS3 version. Also the top of the venue is clearly seen in the PS3 version, and barely noticeable in the 360 version. If you look at the back wall at the three color squares behind the player with the words Australia repeated, you'll notice the 360 version has colors that pop. The PS3 version seems dimmer but brighter at the same spot.

It's unclear if each version is being played at different times of the day, where the sun may be in a different position and may atribute to the differences in lighting.

In the end, even though different teams were involved, I'm concluding both games are nearly indentical to one another. I didn't see anything overwhelming different.

oh yeah, the HDMI, Blu-Ray and Cell really pop out here.

definitely $200 worth of difference.

/sarcasm


.

and rfom, sigh, last time i checked $450 is still cheaper than $600. wait 2 more years before you try and use that argument mkay?


.

It's difficult to catch any sufficiently significant detail in these videos to compare the two. What would be interesting is if reviewers began reviewing multi-platform games on each platform simultaneously. They could roll it into a single review that would talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each--including visuals and gameplay.

Wow... Sony fanboys obviously take history lessons from the Third Reich.. if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, eventually people will believe it. As for the comparison video, the two major concessions given to the PS3 version in terms of graphical superiority are the crowd and the character model.

For starters, why anyone over the age 12 doesn't understand how camera focus works is beyond me. The "blurry" crowd people are talking about in the 360 screenshot is a true-to-life close-up shot, where the image in the foreground is brought into tight focus, which takes the background out of focus. I just played the demo on XBOX Live and I don't see any blurriness in the crowd except in these close-up shots.

As for the character models, those polygon seams people talk about in the 360 that supposedly aren't in the PS3 version sure look the same to me. They show slightly different camera angles in the PS3 version, but in the camera angles that are most similar to the 360 footage the polygon seams in the PS3 look just as bad (or good, in my opinion) as the 360 version.

The only discernable difference in the footage that cannot be blamed on shoddy video or awkward camera angles are the onscreen colors. In the 360 version you can clearly see that the bright greens, reds, and blues are darker and less washed out, more like the primary colors you'd expect them to represent. In the PS3 version those colors appear as pastels. This could be a result of the brightness and contrast in the PS3 game being turned up higher, or perhaps an odd color temp. setting on the display it's running on.

I certainly won't say the 360 version looks better, but there's nothing in that footage that should lead anyone to believe the PS3 version looks better. I will say this... review after review after review from the most reputable of game pundits has proven that by and large, 360 games look at least marginally better than their PS3 counterparts, and in some cases the difference is described as being dramatic (how can anyone forget those Ridge Race 6 vs. 7 comparison shots?).

Let's face it, the PS3 has yet to produce a game that rivals even Lost Planet in visuals dept., let alone Gears of War, which stands in a class by itself. But even IF the PS3 was the bigger graphics powerhouse now (which it's not), Sony's faithful have a lot more to worry about than some minor graphical differences.

What sets the PS3 apart now that all of the A-list exclusives that made the PS2 great are going to be released simultaneously on the 360 (and in some cases the PC)? The only big-name exclusives left for Sony are MGS and Final Fantasy, and even those have rumors flying.

I'll tell you this much... the fragile psyche of the Sony fanboy CANNOT handle the loss of MGS and Final Fantasy to the 360. There isn't enough Prozac in the world. But I will admit that as a home theater entertainment piece the PS3 is an attractive buy. It plays great games, browses the internet, and plays high-def movies. I just don't see Sony surviving the inevitable drop in HD player prices. When someone can buy a Blu-ray player for under 200 bucks.. game over for PS3.

wow anyone who thinks the blurred crowd is bad is a retard. It takes more power to render something and then blur it, than it does to just render it. If you are focused on a person 20 feet from you and then there is a crowd 100 ft behind them, they are going to be out of focus (blurred).

It takes more power to render and it was included by choice. Graphics cards don't just create blur when they suck or something. lol.

But honestly, in that low resolution video, they looked identical.

Like the Armored Core 4 comparison, everything seems a bit brighter in the PS3 version, and, especially with AC4, this makes the game look better to me.

Reasons to get a 360 (or why I saved $200):
And for that USD200 less you get NO MULTIPLAYER and NEAR ZERO backward comaptibility

"Oblivion a year early"
In other words, you got 2-3 years less gaming out of XBOX1 versus PS2 - and the same will repeat when the 360 becomes obselete by 2008 while the PS3 goes on and on
For instance - PS2 had Okami, GH2, Bully, FF12, GoW2, Mercenaries 2, KH3, etc etc
Hope you enjoy your "PS3 grade" 361 in 2009.


"Gears of War "
Good exclusive in the entire first year 360: ONE (Gears) or Two if you count Dead Rising
PS3 Exclusives in year 1: RFOM, Motorstorm, Lair, Heavenly, Killzone, White knight, FF13, MGS4)\

"PS3 exclusives (or reasons to spend $600)"
Its funny how, because M$ is incapable of creating anything other than shootes, 360 fans are begging and pleading for some good old PS2 franchises
While the PS3 is going ahead and creating the next gen of great franchises

It is weird how a lot of the regular PS3 and 360 fanboys can see such a huge difference in the two videos. I just sat back and watched them as if I were playing and noticed no difference.

rfom

I find it amusing that you give the PS3 a 1 year handicap. You probably don't notice it, but you are basically admitting that you don't think the PS3 is or will be as fun as a 360 over the course of the next year. You have to compare last year's 360 to this year's PS3, as if we are limited to only playing year old games. Only PS3 fanboys are limited to mostly playing year old games, lol.

I'm just saying if you truly were secure about your PS3-only decision, you would be comparing it with this year's 360.

As for your "list of exclusives" (which leaves out several solid 360 console exclusives and counts unreleased PS3 games and not unreleased 360 games), all I have to say is every single 360 game in HD glory last year was a game that you couldn't be playing on the PS3 because Sony delayed their system to add a $200 hi-def player to it.

The 360 games list crushes the PS3 list big time. Just face it, you're wrong. In 2-3 years, the PS3 may be the best thing out there. But currently, it is just a 1st rate blu-ray player and second rate gaming console. It is losing exclusives while the 360 is gaining them. Pull your head out of your ass and do the math.

Barely noticeable graphic difference when comparing them side to side, specifically looking for the difference vs. online component...

The choice is clear...

"It takes more power to render and it was included by choice. Graphics cards don't just create blur when they suck or something."

LOL

Man, I totally bought into Sony's hype about how powerful the PS3 would be. I even laughed and said "Haha! It's just Xbox 1.5!" Now look. How disappointing. Fucking liars.

"I find it amusing that you give the PS3 a 1 year handicap."
Good. Did you also find it amusing when your XBOX1 lost ALL support lasy year while the PS2 got 10 AAA titles.
FACT: The 360 has a very small advantage in games (maybe 2-3 "great" titles) DESPITE a 1-year advantage
FACT: Because of the same 1-year advantage, the 360 was brought out with key technologies missing. THEREFORE the life of 360 < Life of PS3, as in the last generation.
You can just imagine a console with 12GB, no HD/HDMI in 2009, right?



"every single 360 game in HD glory last year"
Gears, Dead Rising and..ummmm...name one other "great" exclusive (doubt whether even Dead Rising can be called "great")

"Sony delayed their system to add a $200 hi-def player to it."
You forgot to add 60GB, HDMI, wifi and free multiplayer..other than the BR. Sony delayed their system one year, so that it lasts 4 years longer than the 360.

WHAT THE FUCK is "after the break"? What fucking break? There are no commercials on gaming blogs.

Goddamn that annoys the PISS out of me.

AJ -

Blurring may take more power (well, only if the stuff up close is crisp) it doesn't mean it looks good. Blurring functions are absolutely retarded. Since the dawn of the industry, film makers have been looking for ways to eliminate distance and motion blur (along with lense flare) yet here we have gaming companies making it a point to put those in. I can see why directors absolutely have no respect for game makers. Video game makers have been given this holy grail that completely eliminates the flaws of the camera yet they go through all this time and effort to recreate the same flaws. Hell, war games make it a point to have mud stick to the television screen, another issue film makers have been struggling to get rid of. Ever notice why Pixar doesn't bother with blur? It looks bad. They know it, these guys don't.

Motion blur, distance blur, lense flare, etc is not even close to being as pronounced as it is in games or through a camera lense. Yes, I hear the BS arguments all the time that the eye is a lense, but it doesn't flare like glass.

Blur effects look especially bad when the game assumes you're focusing in a particular location. When playing the game, VT3 doesn't know you're focusing on the crowd. It just assumes you focus on the player's face and blurs everything else around it. Bad idea. If I look behind the player, I expect to see something clear, not hazed straight to hell. Same with motion blur. If I'm following the blurred object then it should be clear, but it isn't. It just looks bad.

Wasting processing power on all these flaw effects is obscene. The power is better used to do other things, not make it a point to tell everyone that we're just playing a game. It is impossible to be immersed in the action when you suddenly go nearsighted when checking out the backgrounds when the game dictates you look at the foreground.

@OTAM

LOL, it just means you have to click to read the whole article.

"You can just imagine a console with 12GB, no HD/HDMI in 2009, right?"

Well, it looks like the PS3 is going to be the only console in 2009, right?

The blahblahblah'est game video annoys me more than "after the break"....it's never been clever to make up words....and these posts always have the crappiest titles.

Enough already!!!!!1111111

"Since the dawn of the industry, film makers have been looking for ways to eliminate distance and motion blur (along with lense flare) yet here we have gaming companies making it a point to put those in. I can see why directors absolutely have no respect for game makers. Video game makers have been given this holy grail that completely eliminates the flaws of the camera yet they go through all this time and effort to recreate the same flaws. Hell, war games make it a point to have mud stick to the television screen, another issue film makers have been struggling to get rid of. Ever notice why Pixar doesn't bother with blur? It looks bad. They know it, these guys don't.

Motion blur, distance blur, lense flare, etc is not even close to being as pronounced as it is in games or through a camera lense. Yes, I hear the BS arguments all the time that the eye is a lense, but it doesn't flare like glass."

That's incorrect, no two ways about it. When you don't have the background and foreground out of focus, everything looks flat. That's the problem filmmakers are having now with movies being shot in HD. They have to move the camera back and use a longer lens just to get the background out of focus.

And with lens flare, you're right to a point. Usually you want to prevent any light source from hitting the lens directly. But sometimes it's used on purpose, it's up to the director. Just like in games, it's a stylistic choice up to the creators.

And your Pixar example is flawed. It's a cartoon done in CG. Cartoons have never had anything out of focus. A better example would be a CG movie, like Final Fantasy, where it is actually meant to look like it was shot on film. And it has shots out of focus, motion blur, and lens flare "flaws". And most would agree, it looks better for it.

Just because you shoot on film does not mean you have to have everything but the subject out of focus. Most sitcoms are shot on film, yet everything is crisp. How you ask? Use a little bit more light, a wider lens, and there you go.

The eye is a lens, and the arguments aren't BS. You don't get lens flare in your eye because all you notice is your retina getting burned because you're staring at a light. Also, having everything in focus is unnatural. Hold up your finger about a foot away from your face and close one eye. Look at your finger. Now look at your monitor. Huh, looks a lot like racking focus to me.

If film and video games didn't have these "flaws" as you say, everything would look like it was shot by a bunch of teenagers with their dad's hi8 camcorder.

You've just roundabout confirmed my suggestions. Because we can't predict what the viewer is looking at, we don't want blur. Yes, if we can come up with a system where we can 100% be perfect and blur only which is not being focused on, then we can start using it. It may be unnatural, but in our daily lives we don't pay attention to the surroundings of what we're focusing on. By blurring stuff in the background and we decide to look at it, it just looks bad. Game makers can't come back and say "you shouldn't be looking there". If I'm not supposed to look there, don't put it there. Its better to have no blur than blur in the wrong places, and it is mostly in the wrong places as noted by the 100% valid complaints that it looked bad.

And yes, film makers hate lense flare. This limites their lighting choices. Zeiss didn't spend time and money on the R&D for a chemical coating to reduce lense flare because they just thought it would be cool. Photographers and film makers hate lense flare. No ways around it. The only "style" I've ever seen in any game using lense flare is "check out our graphics engine, we use lense flare, it is awesome." Every game from 1998 to 2002 had to make it obtrusive. Every light source streaked a massive flare across the screen. That is no style. Like you said, we don't see lense flare, it just burns the retina, so why put it in the game when it is something we fail to notice in reality? Lense flare isn't artistic and needs to be removed from games. We get it, your engine can make lense flares, who cares? It doesn't add anything on any fascet. It just sticks light on the screen so I can't see what is going on behind it. Light doesn't behave like that. I can understand if we're in a FPS and have a visor, but it is too pronounced and any form of realism with it would make it pointless to put the effort in.

I could go on with other crap like bloom effects and HDR stuff that is pronounced beyond any form of reality, but I've decided to just write up a full article on this junk.

Q:PS3 virtua tennis or xbox 360 virtua tennis?
A:Wii Sports.

Why do people insist on using Internet videos for these kinds of comparrisons? Even HD video isn't good enough for the details.

Framerates are almost always ignored, too. Does this run at 60FPS or 30FPS or does it choke once in a while? We can't tell.

@LaughingTarget

All I'm saying about lens flare is that when shooting a film, there are steps that can be taken to remove it from a shot. Usually the only time it can't be removed is when the light is actually in the frame. But if the director wants to flare the camera, he can. So maybe they shouldn't put flare in all games. But in some, it can add to the cinematics. "Every game from 1998 to 2002 had to make it obtrusive." Which is definitely true, but that doesn't mean no game should have it. It can still be used tastefully. Like when the camera is supposed to be imitating a real camera. Though you're right, if it's not supposed to be a real camera, there should be no lens flare. Maybe HDR or something, I dunno.

"...if we can come up with a system where we can 100% be perfect and blur only which is not being focused on, then we can start using it. It may be unnatural, but in our daily lives we don't pay attention to the surroundings of what we're focusing on. By blurring stuff in the background and we decide to look at it, it just looks bad."

It's not unnatural. The only time the background is blurry in this game is when the camera is zoomed in. That's what happens in real life when you zoom in with a lens. It doesn't do this when you're actually playing the game, because the camera is at more of a spectator's point of view. But as soon as it's between shots, and it cuts to a view that is similar to a TV camera's, it tries to imitate what the TV camera would see if it were real life. Maybe they could have done a better job, but you can't say they aren't trying to be realistic. When you're watching a match on TV, and they show a close up and the background is blurry, and you look at the backgound, do you still think it looks bad? You probably don't even notice.

"And yes, film makers hate lense flare. This limites their lighting choices."

Have you seen Die Hard?

What about Hunt for Red October?

Thomas Crown Affair?

All contain lens flares. John McTiernan directed each of them, and he purposes shoots into the light. Rent any of his films.

And he's not alone in doing this.

lol - the 360 crowd cannot admit that there is a noticeable difference with the PS3 looking better than the Xbox. Too funny! Btw $200 difference is not that much considering what you get for it. If you don't know how much more there is inside the PS3, then you are obviously not a techie or interested in high end video/audio. If you were, HDMI would be highly desirable to you.

Another great feature of the PS3 is that you get a console that doesn't brick itself once every 12 months because you breathed on it wrong or pay $50/year for a call center that gives up your identity and credit card info to some social engineers. lol

Does it matter which one looks better. Right now its all about bragging rights. Most of you won't even touch the game.

"If you don't know how much more there is inside the PS3, then you are obviously not a techie or interested in high end video/audio. If you were, HDMI would be highly desirable to you."

I don't get gamers like you, D. Does all this extra shit that the PS3 supposedly has make their games better than the 360's? Or does the difficulty in developing for all this tech simply take time away from the developers working on the actual game? I'll answer for you, it's the latter. And I'm not anti PS3 at all. I just want to play good games regardless of system. I guess I'm not into high end audio/visual. And I'm glad. If I were, the last twenty years of gaming would have really sucked for me.

lol - the PS3 crowd cannot admit that there is a noticeable difference with the 360 looking better than the washed out Playstation 3 graphics and the 360 is far cheaper, has more games, all games have achievements, the controllers support rumble from the get-go, have replacable or rechargable batteries, the 360 can be controlled with a universal IR remote which can work with other AV equipment, and almost all games support online play with voice communication on a mature online network that also features a lot of downloadable games, demos, movies, and TV shows. Too funny!

Works both ways, but with benefits on the 360.

rfom, you're a mindless parrot. you have said every single thing Sony has told you, its amazing. they're not even your arguments, they're Sony's. do YOU have an informed opinion or is it purely based on what you read on Sony's site?

i already explained to you why the GOAL of any console is to last a long time. the xbox1 disappeared because it had already lost that round and they couldnt make their investment back with that generation. if 360 get the mass appeal the PS2 did, which is likely considering its $200 cheaper, then the 360 won't be replaced until they absolutely have to.

and no, upgrading storage space and an a/v connector doesn't count. HDMI is just an a/v connector, it doesn't change any resolutions the 360 supports. the Elite is just a black limited edition for christsakes, what are you going to say when the PS3 comes out in silver and a bigger hard drive?

dude, you are dreaming if you think the PS3 will be around or even desirable in 2009. you what to know what's outdated ALREADY?

the PS3's video card is already outdated by a year older machine. who cares what connector it goes through. your controllers are already outdated, enjoy buying new ones whenever rumble comes back (or did you believe Sony when they called it 'last gen' as well?

next time you feel like enlightening us with what's on the back of your PS3's box, don't. i have my box right here. if you want to discuss something you might've thought of yourself, give it another go.



.

sorry, strike that, forgot it was already 2007 (considering the 360 came out in 2005). the PS3 should definitely be around in 2009, considering its best games come out in 2008. and it should be cheaper too, more in line it's real worth.

point remains, if enough people buy the 360 it's in microsoft's best interest to keep it going as long as possible. the xbox1 joined too late, and they sacrificed it for a jump ahead on this generation. so far, it's been working.



,

to rfom:

I pay $50 per year to play all games on my 360 online, not just one. It would be nice if it were free, but the time I spend on Halo 2 alone is enough to justify the $4.17 per month. I'm sure I'll continue to get my money's worth as the new Halo 2 maps and then Halo 3 come out. That amount of money is like one movie rental. You can't see a new movie at the theater for that. It's half the cost of one 360/Wii/PS3 game rental at Blockbuster. How much would the gas cost to drive to your friend's house to play multiplayer or co-op games every other day?

OMG look at that superior hardware the PS3 has compared to the lowly 360! It's such a HUUUUUGE difference, it's sooooo worth the extra money!

the difference is 360 has online play, the ps3 version doesnt , 360 = winner

re: blurring,

it's useful to bring your attention to the thing in focus and/or for you to refocus on a new subject. It's commonly used in shots with two people placed near and far.

I don't think it's an issue of hardware, I think it has to do withthe fact that the PS3 has a diffrent developer then the Xbox 360. They will never been exactly the same with 2 diffrent developers.