The Joystiq Challenge: Xbox 360 versus PlayStation 3

97 Comments by Ben Striegel Oct 30th 2005 8:40PM
Filed under: Culture, Features, Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox 360

Armored Core 4 Comparison
Ever since E3 2005, the internet has been beset by Microsoft, Sony, and yes, even Nintendo fanboys arguing the graphical capabilities of their respective next-gen coffin. Of course, without any verifiable evidence one way or the other, who's to say which argument is right? At last, IGN gives average Joe Gamer the opportunity to judge the graphical superiority of two next-gen consoles for himself. They've posted two direct-feed trailers of the upcoming Armored Core 4, one rendered on the Xbox 360, the other, PlayStation 3.

Now for the hard part: the truth of the matter is, neither trailer is immediately discernible as superior to the other. Barring adequate precautions, we assume that fanboys will be fanboys and argue that their favorite platform blows the other one out of the water, without presumambly having watched either trailer. Thus, we're tasking our readers with taking The Joystiq Challenge (which is in no way affiliated with nor inspired by The Pepsi Challenge). One of these videos can be found right here, and the other one's right here. Check them both out, make an informed decision, and then tell us which is more impressive in the poll below. More importantly, is there enough of a difference between the two to sway the casual gamer, and are the graphics representative of what you'd expect from a next-generation game? Let us know!

Which trailer is graphically superior?
	The first one, by a long shot
	The second one, by a long shot
	The first one, but not by much
	The second one, but not by much
	Neither one, I can't tell the difference
	Neither one, they're both unimpressive
	They're both awesome, who cares?

Technical mumbo jumbo: this is not a scientific or rigorous poll and is only intended to capture the general consensus of Joystiq readers. Results will be posted approximately one week after the poll is opened for votes. Sure, you probably could hack this poll if you worked at it, but it's more fun for everyone if poll results accurately reflect the opinions of all readers, so please refrain from tampering with poll results.

Read

(Page 1) Reader Comments

OTAM: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

They�re both awesome, who cares?

OTAM: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

BTW Joystiq,one of the links is broken.

OTAM: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Sorry to TRIPLE POST,but if you want to hide what the URL is then use Fyad.org and it'll just be a forward link to it and hide the URL.

madc0w: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

the second one is a much better trailer overall, and looks way cooler

MumbleyJoe: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

I voted second one, not by much. It's mostly that it showed more action than the first, and a more detailed cityscape, but it's hard to know if there's any real difference.

Honestly, they both look great, and I expect that this is the level of difference we can expect between the two consoles... I expect the graphics capability to be essentially equivalent.

Xeres: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The first one looks slightly better indeed but not by much really.

Sean: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The first one is slightly more colorful since it's sunset. Both are pretty plain and boring though. Giant robots in a non-descript city isn't a very good example.. the textures are incredibly flat and grey.

Einhanderkiller: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The first one looks like it has richer colors.

striegs: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Good call, OTAM. I'll keep this in mind the next time we perform a massive banning sweep.

J: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

You guys probably should add the caveat that its NOT about which is more entertaining ... the second obviously is. Weighing just which is graphically superior, though, they look the damn same.

fat_bunnies: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

lighting and particle effects in the first one looked much better, other then that the mechs looked about equal and i didn't care for the city scape in the second one but i suppose that thats just art direction.

Beanie: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

I don't see anything that resembles real gameplay, so is this to see which system plays back pre-rendered cut scenes the best? Doesn't make sense at all.

Adam: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The content of the second trailer was much more interesting to watch, but the graphics of both trailers looked the same to me. Not that you can really tell from low bitrate, low resolution QuickTime files anyways.

Charles: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Doesn't matter... The company adimtted that neither version was actualy running from the actual hardware itself.

Oshi: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Where's the "they both suck" option? :P

SilverWA: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The second one was smoother with better texture resolution and had more stuff on screen, while the other one had prettier lighting, though I doubt that has anything to do with graphical fidelity.

Sceptre: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Wow, Joystiq has really gone down a notch in my books. These endless attempts to keep a fanboy war going are getting tiresome.

Grow up. If you wanted to weigh the technical merits of the PS3 and 360, this would be one of the stupidest ways of doing so. This would be something thought up by some high-school students.

b: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

This sucks. The second one has better music (LOL).

I think the first one looked better (slightly) but the scenes of the second one looked more interesting. I mean, it would be easier to judge if they were both the same video of the same scenes for the different systems (and I heard the one played on "PS3 Hardware" isn't actual PS3 hardware, but it's a PC that has resembling hardware to the PS3, but not quite as powerful). This doesn't look like gameplay anyway.

waysa: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Sceptre -- it's a fair basis for comparison because it's the same content being handled by two systems. Don't hate, mate.

Skibble: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Oh yes, this is definitely a shameful attempt at a fanboy war. Hiding the URLs? This only proves Joystiq's aptitude at blatant deception.

slashsarcasm, eh?

LaughingTarget: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Since they are not running the same scene, it is not possible to say which is better.

The second film had more effects than the first, skewing favoratism to the second. When the exact same scenes are run, it is better to make a decision.

vc: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Just watched -- I really can't tell. I think they both look good and exciting. That game looks like it'll be fun to play.

Nodnetni: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

seriously how could there even be comparisions between the two. How do you get a game demo from something that has never actually proved it could play a game.(PS3) I have Yet to see a PS3 actually play anything, I have on the other hand seen an xbox 360. Maybe both versions are running of dev kits, ok then still not final machines, so whos to say what it will really look like.
Who wrote this crap "even Nintendo fanboys arguing the graphical capabilities of their respective next-gen coffin" Only once all the machines have been released will you be able to compare. So come 2007(when the ps3 is actually released) lets do the comparision.

JPRacer: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

"They�ve posted two direct-feed trailers of the upcoming Armored Core 4, one rendered on the Xbox 360, the other, PlayStation 3."

Should be : "They�ve posted two direct-feed pre-rendered trailers of the upcoming Armored Core 4, one playing on the Xbox 360, the other, playing on the PlayStation 3."

HEY, they're both pre-rendered, so this 360 vs PS3 is bullshit.

RyanH: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The think that the first trailer was definitely graphically superior. The detail and colour on the mech was much better. But then again, the second trailer was a much better trailer over all.
Who really cares though? I hoped that with this generation of consoles the whole "console war" and fan-boy era would die. Clearly each of the big three are going after different things with their respected consoles.
Microsoft: total media experience with excellent online integration.
Sony: pure graphical powerhouse attempting to deliver the best possible games of all three [probably going to end up like the PSone and two in that its going to take 2 or 3 years for developers to actually figure out how to get the full potential of the system]
Nintendo: innovative and engaging gameplay.

sheik124: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The second was better IMO, but only slightly. The first one's colors were more vibrant, but the second one seemed to have better shadows.

Back_Lit: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

I think the 2nd one is a BIT higher quality.

dingdong: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

i dont care which one is better im still gonna buy a 360 o and i dont like robot games

Kuyu: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Just think, in 4 weeks this dumb fanboy war will be over. The PS3 fans will logon to download the new PS3 trailer for AnimeRPG XII. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be drooling over the xbox 360 in our living rooms and will be far too busy to argue with the Sony crowd anymore. This will continue for the better part of a year, maybe more.

Remember: The PS3 is 10% more powerful and 90% late for the dance.

Just kidding;) But seriously...

I had the trailers backwards. What I thought was the PS3 one was the 360 one and visa versa. Go figure.

Falkenad: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

What you guys should have done is made it so people have no idea which trailer was on which system- that way, no bias whatsoever. Even though I believe the first one was a bit graphically superior, it might be a bit unfair to have on trailer with beautiful sunset lighting and one being overcast. It's probably not enough of a difference to sway the casual consumer gamer, though.

Soothsayer: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Doesn't matter. We're not going to see anything close to either until 2007, when developers figure out how to utilize multiple threads.

I hope Nintendo isn't too far behind. I just can't see a next-gen Revolution looking like this.

Hachi_roku: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Cant watch either so there both crappy. One cause an error in Windows Media Player, the other one needed a Codec. I havent need a codec to play a video in a wile

Mike: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

The one i thought looked better turned out to be the Xbox360 version. I'm leaning toward the PS3 primarily because i love the PSP. I have an Xbox now. I don't have any ill-will toward either system. But i've been sick of Nintendo half-way through the N64's life.

darryl: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

"Cant watch either so there both crappy."

Maybe Windows or Windows Media Player is crappy? Run Linux, it just works.

This is a stupid comparision because it's a cross-platform game. Compare two exclusive titles designed to run on each platform, then compare... AC4 is going to look pretty much the same on all comparable platforms... taking little advantage of each one's unique attributes.

Arch-360: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

and when i meant those things above i mean by slightly. but enough to notice.

Arch-360: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

..........if you stare at it.....lol. sorry.

wbz: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

There are so many problems with this comparison that they just cannot be compared.

They are two totally different trailers, with different video and music. I believe the second one to be obviously more entertaining (choral theme is much better than some monotone old guy reading), which is likely to skew any opinion of the reader. The reader will either a) vote for the second one even if it is graphically inferior, or b) say the first one is better to compensate for it having a much weaker presentation.

Then comes the problem that these trailers are not in full resolution. Therefore, the videos had to be encoded at a much lower resolution and bitrate. The quality of the codec can greatly undermine the graphical quality. (for example, Xvid is better than divX IMO )#31 claimed that ONE needed a codec, which means that they are possibly encoded in two different codecs. (not sure...)

Finally, there is the problem that these trailers are FAKE. Jeez, does no one understand what a pre-rendered video is? If we were comparing which pre-rendered video is better, then even the PS1 would be considered some pretty hawt stuff.

Link: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Tough choice, I honestly think you can't accurately compare because they do and show off different things.

Both use different effects (the first has a nice evening sky, the 2nd has a dull gray). The second seems to boast a higher geometry for the city and nice particles effects as well as that sweet efect when shielding and smoke trails.

Both had a chunk of slowdown too so neither is flawless obviously. I'd have to say the 2nd was slightly cooler in terms of eye candy but the 1st seemed prettier because of the lighting.

Arch-360: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

like since the beggining of the console wars when devs were saying that they look the same and each has its own ups and downs..............well they were right.

Tighty Whities: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

One looked average and the other made my player crash. Guess that tells us which one was from Microsoft. Hehe.

Either way, they were both far too compressed by quicktime or for download or whatever that they both looked like Sh()* in my opinion. If this is what you get for $400 then I'll wait out this generation altogether. Those trailers sucked. Fanboys fighting over which trailer looked less shitty is retarded. Neither had good color, lighting nor surface detail.

If I don't see some good games for 360 soon, I'll just wait and check in again next fall when PS3 and Rev launch. Maybe then there will be some better games for 360 and the price will be down a bit. The 360 launch titles blow and barely look better than this gen from what I saw at my walmart kiosk.

I tell you what, if this is what Sonys games are going to look like, they are smart not to show any. What a disappointment. All this hype about the cell and they can't come up with a better trailer than that?

It would seem we have reached the end of the line for "blistering" graphics until we get some more firepower in our consoles. Maybe somebody should start thinking about making games fun again. Who wants a game that looks like the bullshit you have to watch when you are running 3DMARK? Bring us something fresh!

Alex: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Not a good example at all. The second video was much more interesting... more action sequences, etc - So it demonstrated graphical abilities a bit more thoroughly. In either case, I would just set both of these videos aside and Not Give a Crap about the whole graphical debate... Though, with the xbox 360 release approaching I'm willing to bet that the more content intesive- obviously the second- was for the xbox 360. ... Thus making this an insignificant comparison.

Gaming-Setups: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Xbox Live rocks. Go for 360!!

Cerberus: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

This is just silly. You're asking us to compare the graphical capabilities of the PS3 and the Xbox360 based on the differences in two DIFFERENT ads. Not two identical ads that were rendered on different systems. Not even ads that we know are based on actual gameplay footage, as opposed to prerendered videos (which wouldn't tell us jack about the system they're running on).

I personally liked the second trailer better, but only because I liked the PRESENTATION better. I can't tell how the graphics differ, especially in these low-res clips. If we want to know which system trumps the other, why not ask the game developer (From Software?) whether the graphics engine is, first of all, even different for the two systems, and secondly, which system is better at what.

Fortunately, this is all pretty moot, since this looks like one damned sexy game, regardless of which cash vacuum it's played on. I just hope I can afford one of em.

http:financenstuff.blogspot.com: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

PS3 kicks all asses. The higher fps really improves the quality of the video. Also I can tell that you can see more detail in the ps3 demo.

1: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

link to the hd versions

ps3
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2168

thegrey: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

Comparing badly compressed videos is not cool.

b: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

"*waits for B to say "ohhh ummmmm did i say the second was better? i meant the first..........offcourse....." ----Arch-360

Hey dipshit, why don't you scroll up and read the comment I posted before you? I clearly said that the first one looks slightly better, and that the second one has better music (added to subtract the effect of having a shitty fps rate). The difference between my opinion and yours was that I didn't know which was which, until I read your moronic post. Tough shit, huh?

Desiri: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

An ex-Gamestop employee told me that his boss told him that Ken Katuragi stopped by the store this summer and let him know that the trailer was created with Abobe Premiere on a Power Mac G5.

some guy: Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

I don't care.

I'm buying a Rev and a PS3 no matter how much graphical horsepower they have.

I think the Rev is going to be graphically inferior ..... on a HD television but I don't have one so, meh .....

J (The other one): Dec 18th 2005; 10:05PM

They are the same. WOuldn't the company make the game for both systems exactly the same (or very similar looking). Its not like there is going to be that much of a difference. The same company makes the same game for both systems. Its not like comparing a PSP 3D game to a DS 3D game (and no I am not dissing the DS). Teraflop dees nuts beotch!!!!!!

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments