Bayonetta's PS3 and 360 iterations compared on video
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Oct 12th 2009 at 3:30PM } 
For a more in-depth look at the game's graphical non-parity, check out Digital Foundry's collection of comparison videos as well. After studying up, let us know what you think in the comments -- provided "what you think" doesn't include any inappropriate musings on these videos' lustier segments.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Jimmyjimjim @ Oct 12th 2009 3:36PM
Honestly, I don't think that looks different enough to complain about. A couple lighting effects, a little sheen... whatever.
CzAr @ Oct 12th 2009 3:44PM
I never use GT to compare games, and from what I can see... The PS3 version just looks like it has the brightness turned up, just like most GT comparison videos.
Aguiluz @ Oct 12th 2009 3:57PM
I don't know, but every single time I see a GT comparison, the PS3 has it's brightness ALWAYS turned up. As if to gimp the system.
Ramifications @ Oct 12th 2009 4:40PM
It has nothing to do with a brightness setting. They dont hook it up to a TV and record it. GT uses capture cards to capture the direct feed from the system.
What you see here is directly coming out of the system.
DigTheDoug @ Oct 12th 2009 5:13PM
@Ramifications
That is true, but GT has said in the past that they do not enable RGB Full-range on the PS3 (or any other non-default settings) which is why it always appears brighter and to have not as high of contrast as the 360 version. it's a bit misleading that they do not choose the best display options, but their reasons are that they 'want to show an out of the box experience'. Anyone who's ever bought an HD TV know what it looks like out of the box...
CzAr @ Oct 12th 2009 5:13PM
When they had the Assassin's Creed comparison, and after playing it on my PS3, it looked a lot better than the PS3 version they were showing.
drdre74 @ Oct 12th 2009 5:20PM
well I have the demo off the Japan Store and mine isnt faded out like that at all. Just change your Tv settings. The game looks and plays great and is worth getting once you get past all the Japanese text but the audio is in English.
Brodo @ Oct 12th 2009 5:30PM
The only time crap like this would ever matter is if you are playing the ps3 version with someone right beside you playing the xbox version.
Its like dvd and blu ray for me... ive tried watching blu ray and I dont even notice any difference
Levi @ Oct 12th 2009 6:42PM
brodo is right, except for the Blu-Ray thing. Blu-Ray is still awesome, as long as the original footage was captured in a format that can be translated to 1080p without loss.
The two versions of this game are so insignificant that it really wouldn't be noticeable unless you played them side by side. There are slight differences between Fallout3 on PS3 and 360, shown by videos and screenshots. However, we played each version back to back on my friend's TV and didn't notice any difference at all due to the 1 or 2 minute gap between games.
Now, games like Ghostbusters totally got raped on the PS3. Shot end of the stick.
Either way, whatever system, I'm just glad it's not exclusive, cause it looks so good. Everybody see that giant boot??
phinnvr6 @ Oct 12th 2009 10:44PM
Well I do think the 360 does look a bit better than PS3 in this case. Some reviewers don't realize the PS3's video settings should be set to "Full" color range rather than the default "Limited". It always makes the colors much more vivid once in this is changed. That been said the 360 looks a bit cleaner too.
Oh well, certainly all games can't look like Uncharted 2, God of War 3, and Gran Turismo 5.
shadow763 @ Oct 13th 2009 12:57AM
Well I played through the demo three times today, and my PS3 is set to full for RGB. It looks great on my Pany plasma. Nice rich colors, played really well, and was a lot more fun then I thought it had any right to be. So I don't see a reason so far to not get it on the PS3. Even though I have both systems, I would probably buy the PS3 version after enjoying the demo.
Jeff @ Oct 13th 2009 12:33PM
I thought the difference was insignificant until that chunk near the end where hair witch was running toward a door. The PS3 version looked laughably bad. Odd that it stood out so much in that one bit.
CheeziePotato [Has finally become a Super Saiyan] @ Oct 12th 2009 3:36PM
The PS3 version is definitely inferior, but not as much as I thought it would be.
gordo @ Oct 12th 2009 3:40PM
CheeziePotato the Soothsayer
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 12th 2009 3:52PM
Correction, the DEMO version is better.
As has been said countless times, performance is always the last thing to be tweaked before release, the fact that this game has been done by two different developers only compounds this.
Until the final code hits, both version, this "story" is nothing more than fanboy-bait.
BananaBoat @ Oct 12th 2009 4:55PM
I thought it supposedly looked fine, but that the framerate suffered. That is what I've been hearing anyway. I didn't run into any problems like that playing the Japanese demo off of the PSN, so I don't know if those problems are at some later point in the game, or what.
Either way, the difference is probably negligible.
Oh, and the hair monster is awesome (not sure if it's sexy though. Kinda? Sorta? )
PN04 @ Oct 12th 2009 5:57PM
When you actually PLAY the PS3 version the last thing you worry about is whether it looks better than someone elses version. It looks fine on my screen. Slight tearing but it's no where near as bad as many other games. Not once did I find it slowing down except for summoning the hair dragon to kill the giant boss, which I'd be surprised to NOT see a few lost frames, otherwise it was a full 60fps for every moment I was in control. There's nothing here for any PS3 owner to be ashamed of, which ever system you buy it for it's going to be a worth while purchase.
Matt @ Oct 12th 2009 7:19PM
Ghostbusters and now this - sorry, but are we detecting a pattern?
Either the PS3 is that big a piece of shit in comparison, or developers are lazy.
Either way, that's somewhat depressing given I plan on picking up a PS3 in the next few months regardless. D:
Everready @ Oct 12th 2009 3:36PM
the wii version looks better
Solace @ Oct 12th 2009 3:37PM
I'm not going to lie but when I was playing the PS3 demo without ever seeing footage of the 360 version I though the game had its problems and looked blurry on my HDTV.
pibs @ Oct 12th 2009 3:50PM
eNrique's post on the bottom included a screenshot and it sure looks that way.
pibs @ Oct 12th 2009 3:55PM
Wait nvm I fail, that was wolverine... why the fuck is he comparing two completely different games?
As long as the game is fun, graphics shouldn't really matter. Plus they can always patch the game like how they did with Ghostbusters if its such a huge concern.
eNrique @ Oct 12th 2009 4:41PM
Because gt comparisons are bullshit, they modify the screens so the 360 verisons look better, but they aren't really very smart.
See;
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg24/bleux7/wolverine.jpg
Levi @ Oct 12th 2009 6:43PM
where is everyone getting this demo from? Did it hit the US store and I just missed it?? Or is it a preorder/international PSN thing?
ElStefio @ Oct 12th 2009 8:37PM
@ eNrique
Is that for real? That's one of the funniest things I've seen all week.
Don't know why I'm acting surprised though - I stopped visiting GT like 2 years ago because they had a habit of talking out of their arses...
psxman @ Oct 12th 2009 11:32PM
I figured something was "off" during the slow-down during cut-scenes that use the character models.
Dr. Bradwart [100% Reagan Conservative!] @ Oct 12th 2009 3:37PM
Give em a little more time and they should be able to polish it up. Not too worried at this point.
fffunfarm06 @ Oct 12th 2009 3:39PM
naw. they wont.
Dr. Bradwart [100% Reagan Conservative!] @ Oct 12th 2009 3:40PM
If they don't, then that's why I own both systems. I bought both for the exclusives, and I pick and choose for the multi-platform.
mahouneko @ Oct 12th 2009 4:32PM
It's coming in a little over 2 weeks. I'd say that it'll be pretty hard to fix this without requiring some sort of patch for the PS3.
Hedgeson @ Oct 12th 2009 9:24PM
Doesn't it come out in Japan only for 2009? I thought the release date in NA was in 2010.
fffunfarm06 @ Oct 12th 2009 3:38PM
GT is still trying to prove, 3 years later, that PS3 continues to produce shitty looking ports. We get it; porting xbox built games takes a hit converting it to the other system. whatever. idcare
Doreo (Psn-doreo503) @ Oct 12th 2009 3:51PM
Weird how developing a game for 360 then porting it to the ps3 causes the game to take a hit, but developing a game with the ps3 as the lead system then porting it to the 360 makes a better game... Why can't companies just start on the ps3 then port it to the 360, it will result in a better game for both systems...
copa @ Oct 12th 2009 3:54PM
I don't think they are trying to hurt your feelings. But for people who are trying to choose a multiplatform release, this is helpful information.
Three years later, and we are still seeing the pattern: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Bayonetta, Ghostbusters, etc... Major multiplatform releases where developers are turning out better-looking games on the 360.
sonicspike41 @ Oct 12th 2009 4:02PM
@Doreo
Much like in the PS2 days, the PS3 is harder to develop for than it's console brethren.
If you start on the PS3, development costs are higher, but you get a more consistent look across both platforms.
If you start on the 360, it's a whole lot cheaper since you can build it around DirectX, something most devs are used to thinks to Microsoft Windows being the dominant OS for the last 15 or so years.
It's more than possible to make breath taking games on the PS3, just look at games like Flower, God of War, Killzone 2, and a lot of the other more graphics oriented games. It just requires a different approach, and more CPU use from what I understand.
It's just a lot cheaper to port a game than it is to rewrite the entire engine from scratch for a new platform, and it makes future games running the engine a lot cheaper as well if you make it port-able from the start.
atrimus @ Oct 12th 2009 4:02PM
@copa
adding Batman to the fray invalidates your argument. save for the exclusive dlc, there's virtually no difference between either version of that game. and even if you noticed something with a magnifying glass, it's certainly not at the level of difference between Ghostbusters or Bayonetta.
Sly @ Oct 12th 2009 4:19PM
yeah, seriously, my PS3 version of batman looks amazing...
johnnynumber5 @ Oct 12th 2009 4:23PM
Yeah it's not as big a deal as it used to be ... look at EA for example - leading all their stuff on the PS3 then switching platforms during the development cycle. As a result both versions are damn near identical with cmall advantages to either side some of the time.
The platforms are just so different that developers need to lead on the ps3 or they risk this type of bad publicity and people thinking they don't care. Bayonetta is a bad example because this port wasn't even done in house as it was actually shipped off to be ported by another developer. So in this case you can certainly say it was laziness.
Seriously, Arkham Asylum? Thats grasping for straws. Hell even though Ghostbusters looked way worse it's not sooooooo baaaaaaad that it's going to kill the experience.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 12th 2009 4:39PM
even if you could notice something wrong with the ps3 version of batman, the ps3 version is still better to own if you have both consoles...
mahouneko @ Oct 12th 2009 5:00PM
I didn't see anything wrong with Arkham Asylum, but then again, that's probably because The Joker Challenge was sucking up my time and attention. Since I've started playing Demon's Souls again (my Amazon pre-order finally arrived!), it'll be a long time before I'll have the time to take another look at Arkham.
DarkNessBear @ Oct 12th 2009 8:23PM
My copy of Uncharted 2 makes every statement that, "The 360 just looks better" invalid.
eNrique @ Oct 12th 2009 3:38PM
A gt comparison video...
They are complete bullshit guys, totally microsft biased;
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg24/bleux7/wolverine.jpg
Enzemo @ Oct 12th 2009 7:20PM
Is it me, or does it say "press a" on the PS3 side?
Marius @ Oct 12th 2009 3:50PM
^^^Thats the point, GT was lying, take that as you will
johnnynumber5 @ Oct 12th 2009 3:51PM
wow ... thats pretty blatant.
[ArchiGamer] [80% ENTERTAINMENT BY VOLUME] @ Oct 12th 2009 4:01PM
I knew Gt was a bit bias, but really?!
Traceur_Ryuk [All Digital until December] (PSN: Ryuk_shinigami) @ Oct 12th 2009 4:11PM
So what exactly did they do? Play one side in SD and one side in HD?
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 12th 2009 4:20PM
enrique- so they were wrong when they pointed out the fact that Ghostbusters was graphically inferior on the ps3 ?
they do usually get this stuff right. its not hard to put 2 versions of the same game side by side especially when that is a part of your business.
it would be much easier to prove they were MS conspirators if what you are claiming is true. but it probably is not along with all the other fanboy conspiracies..
no doubting a fact if a game is graphically inferior on 1 version. it has happened more than 20 times this generation alone with the ps3. developers do not always spend the extra time and money making the ps3 version as good or better than the 360 version for many reasons.
Brandon @ Oct 12th 2009 4:26PM
Lol... is that a real pic from GT or is that fake?
Also, I remember when Ghostbusters was released there were some comparisons from PS3 to 360 as well. The PS3 pics looked like crap, but the 2nd day that the demo for Ghostbusters came out I dl'ed the demo on PS3 and it didn't look bad at all...
johnnynumber5 @ Oct 12th 2009 4:29PM
Yeah how they can call that a comparison video and call one side PS3 and one 360 when you can obviously tell that neither versions are from the PS3 because of banner across the screen.
They must have done one with HD and one with SD ... my tv can't do 1080p unless it has HDMI ... any component signal can only be 720p (I have no understanding why thats the case) so maybe it's something like that?
Thats just wrong.
@Captain Planet
Did you even view the link? Look at it and then try and explain off as anything but some type of bias.