Not long to go now until we Borderlands 2 ushers us back into the cel-shaded chaos of vault-hunting and procedurally generated weapons. But what if you’ve got both Sony and Microsoft’s consoles in your home? Which should you get?
The fine folks at Computer and Video Games have done a public service and thrown up clips of the same sequences running on both PS3 and Xbox 360. Once you take in the differences between the two console versions, your choice will be clear. And the glorious shooting and looting can finally commence.
[CVG]
Oh damn...the texture difference.... O.O
Can't you just tell me which version to play, it'd be so much easier.
PC
PC :P
Actually the Pc version of borderlands was crap. The control system needed you to edit config files etc. I got it on steam and it was 'all over the shop'. i bought the xbox version -IMO Far superior. i also get the ps3 version for free on psplus recently. the visuals were considerably better on ps3 compared to 360.
PC version of Borderlands of Borderlands 2?
Yes the PC version required INI editting, but guess what... Gearbox designed the PC version for number 2 so you didn't have to do INI edits.
Borderlands. Yes I realise 2 on PC has more (improved) options - I read the previous Kotaku article - But the first game was horrible on PC (inexcusable really) - I changed to 360 and then bought all the DLC i was so impressed by the game.
There is no comparison between the PC and Xbox version of Borderlands 2.
The PC is much better in every way.
1. Mouse Keyboard superior
2. Graphics higher rez with more options
3. Speed, much smoother with no slow down like on 360 version.
Playing FPS with a controller is not nearly as easy as using a mouse. The only people that think this are ones that don't own a PC so they just get use to the shoddy controls.
I have both and for FPS there is no substitute for mouse/keys.
The difficulty on the Xbox seems easier, maybe to make up for lack of controls, not sure why.
Try just using a 360 controller then if you settled for a 360 version dude? 360 controls + PC graphics = pure win for Borderlands.
Yay
Well im not inept at my PC so changing INI settings to get a better look is something i do for every game before i play it, so yeah my Borderlands looked amazing compared to 360 version.
But on topic since this article is about number 2 and the setings are much more indepth for PC now your comment is irrelevent
We must have played different versions of the PC copy...
I was thinking that too, no issues with controls at all.
Exactly. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I didn't have controller issues, I had issues with Tannis' bloody Claptrap...
PC.
Your source link isnt linking.
I don't even see a link at all.
If that image is anything to go by, it would seem that the 360 version is junk.
2 seconds on google: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/videos/borderlands-2-ps3-vs-360-gameplay-comparison-wbk5N5WbadWhI
Hardly the point. It just lazy and sloppy not to provide a link to the source.
Then again, perhaps the joke in on us for thinking Kotaku (U.S.) would have higher standards.
Wow. It's great to see a multi platform game make use of the PS3s power.
That pic looks terrible for the 360 version, but other than that in the clip they look pretty much identical. Borderlands (and UE games in general) have always had problems with texture caching or whatever - textures will often be blurry as for a second or two until you focus on them and they... become not shit. I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
Yeah looks like the 360 screencap was pre-texture loading, which often takes half a second.
It's Unreal Engine sothe texture problem always happen unless you have a fast hard drive. Also I like the PS3 lighting alot more than xbox version. Looks brighter =D
The brighter lighting is not due to the game, but due to the way the Xbox handles colours: it saturates everything and you're left with black crush.
I have both systems. Regardless of what they looked like, I'd be getting the 360 version. Better controller.
Same here, on all counts. Can't stand the PS3 controller for FPS. And they both pretty much look the same - only difference is the lighting, and the 360's textures are ever-so-slightly slower to load.
Ditto on both counts.
If you have both a PS3 and an 360, for the love of GOD why don't you have a PC?
I think it just depends if you like to game in the limp-wristed-toilet-position or prefer the comfortable lounging position :P
Personally, I'm playing Borderlands in co-op with my wife, something I can't do with a PC unless we get a second one. :/
Agreed, even on MW3 the controller just feels laggy after playing the 360.
Both systems run in upscaled 720p which means they both look awful however good the textures are and PC will look better either way.
Unless you're playing on a plasma TV from six feet away, or have poor vision, either of which could be completely possible, in which case, go nuts.
What do you mean upscaled 720p? Upscaled to 720p or upscaled from 720p?
Also, are you sure the game is even upscaled? I ask as most claim automatically the graphics are upscaled just because the game is on a console when both the 360 and PS3 are capable of 1080p games at 60Hz.
Really? The consoles are six years old, and there are still people that think they're 1080p@60Hz? They're 720p capped at 30Hz. The television upscales the 720p signal to fit the display, just like it does for SD digital TV, hence "upscaled 720p", but it's still gonna max out at 30fps on either console.
If the consoles are capped, they would not be able to play HD-DVDs or BluRays at 1080p. And before anyone tries, I have looking into this especially 360. Both are capable but the 360 had to have the features enabled via firmware updates and the revision of the board to accomodate the HDMI port.
Final Fantasy XIII on the PS3 is in 1080p, the 360 1080i if I remember (but the two differ in the FMVs, the 360 only runs at 720p).
My guess is people are only looking at LBP and the Uncharted games as they both only run at 720p.
So to say they are capped - that sounds to me like an irate PC user you has played one to many bad game ports from consoles.
The fact is, 1080p at 24Hz and higher is possible and has been done. It is up to the developers to optimise their engines so they can pull it off.
Oh...that right... most do not do that anymore because it drives up the development costs.
Correction: "So to say they are capped – that sounds to me like an irate PC user *who* has played one to many bad game ports from consoles."
.....
No they are not "capped" at 720p/30hz, os42 is wrong (or at least isn't making his point clearly).
However just because these machines can output at 1080p/60 does not mean their content is native.
Final Fantasy XIII was NOT rendered at 1080p on either platform. The game itself was rendered at 720p with a frame rate cap of 30hz, this content was then scaled at the source and transmitted to the display (as opposed to sending the raw 720p source and allowing the display to perform the up scaling).
More often than not (i.e. 99% of the time) games on the current console platforms are rendered at 1280x720 (or lower) with a 30fps frame rate cap (rare exception's being the Call of Duty franchise and a number of racing and fighting games).
OK, I had better double check then. I remember there being a heavy debate between 360 and PS3 fans over that game.
The main one was the game (graphics and FMVs) would both be 1080p on the PS3 but the 360 would have 1080p graphics and only 720p FMVs.
Though, in what I would call irony, the PS3 version has a save fault that makes the game unplayable (and even damage the console if I remember right).
Personally, I got the PS3 version and after 11 hours in I gave up as I was not having fun. It became my first $60 coffee coaster.
Sorry for the ambiguity of my generalisations. I was referring to games, not DVDs or BDs - they do that just fine at 1080p/60 - that's not a very involved process. Rendering 3D games at 1080p/60 is a completely different matter.
As for my remarks on 720p/30, I was referring to the majority of (retail) games on the system, not the limitations of the consoles themselves. And, yes, there are a couple of games on the PS3 that did actually run 1080p, but I have no recollection of ever seeing a 360 game running at 1080-anything (XBLA games aside). The reason they don't normally, as far as I know, is so that they can use framerate-linked optimisations to make the game run more smoothly. I guess my point was: just because they're capable of doing it doesn't mean they do it well.
Apologies if I'm wrong about where the upscaling actually occurs - I was under the impression that it was done on the display side, as that seems like the most obvious place for it to happen, but after some thought on the matter, it makes sense for the console to do it - after all, the console wouldn't want to change resolution partway through sending content, as that could very easily confuse the display.
The fact is, that retail games on PS3 and 360 are pretty much expected to be 720p/30, and you'd be hard pressed to find ones that aren't. And I'm not an "irate PC gamer"; if anything, I'm an irate console gamer that can't wait for the next generation to end these stupid limitations - this generation has dragged on for far too long.
The standard framerate for film is 24fps anyways. Avatar 2 and 3 will be the first movies filmed at 60fps. (to the best of my knowledge) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
To my knowledge the only games that run at full, non-upscaled 1080p on consoles are MGS4 on PS3, and I believe, some of the 2D arcade games on 360, such as Hexic HD. It's likely that every triple-A title you own for either console that isn't those games runs at upscaled 720p to 1080p, which means it is essentially just 720p whichever way you slice it. CoD, Halo, Battlefield, Bioshock, Skyrim, all of these very popular games run at upscaled 720p, and if you're sitting less than 40 inches from the screen as I am, they look absolutely terrible.
And don't say that it's invalid because of the fact that I'm not playing sitting six feet away from a TV; that's stupid and it shouldn't matter. They should assume that every user can tell the difference just because a handful of people can.
Not trying to sound like an Elitist here, but seriously, boot up Skyrim on 360, and then on the PC running at the highest res on the same monitor, and you can tell the difference easily.
MGS4 was another 720p upscaled to 1080p joint. The only games I know of that did a native 1080p render on the PS3 platform are
- Wipeout HD
- Gran Turismo 5 (they sacrificed AA to get it there as well)
- Ridge Racer 7
There's also probably handful of downloadable titles (Dyad I know is one of them).
Except that 90% of the time no game uses it.
If the overhead for outputting a game in 1080p at 60hz for a console is say 40% of it's power usage(Since it is rendering more) versus say 20% for 720p (1080p has about 2.2 times more pixels so it's not really a stretch.
They are going to go with 720p because they can use more of the processing power in the actual game.
Doesn't matter if you have 2D sprites or hi res textures. The higher the resolution the more pixels required to be rendered the more pixels being rendered the more processing power required.
While it might not be 40% and 20%, since they are just numbers I've used for this example.
I'd take 512 textures over 1024 textures anyday if it meant that there was a higher resolution being rendered. I mean, the textures are blurry as a result of the low rendering res anyway.
And also the fact that textures can be rendered at different resolutions inside the 720p or 1080p frame. An interesting fact that can nail this on the head, for Xbox360, is that Halo 4 will be the 1st 360 game to run in native 720p.
Really? All I can find is saying it's the first Halo game to run 720p native, but not the first 360 game... and according to a pretty exhaustive list on beyond3d forums, Halo Wars was native (rendered at) 720p... (although I doubt anyone actually thinks of that as a "Halo game").
It's in 343 Industries Halo 4 video blogs.
Who gives a fuck which one looks better? Buy the version that your friends will be buying because it'll be boring as batshit in single player.
+1, it's a pretty easy decision to make. ;)
Yeah. There's no terrible looking version of this game. The only ways you can go wrong choosing a platform to play it on is to choose one A) where you won't have anyone to play with or B) you just don't enjoy playing shooters on.
I think i will wait for the digital foundry verdict.
Was the 360 version installed to the harddrive?
^ This. Actually a severely important question... it DID look like the textures weren't loaded in yet?
I haven't installed my copy to the hard drive (yet, though I really should) and I do get some texture pop every now and then especially when going into a new area or a cutscene.
I'm pretty sure if I bothered to install it, that issue would disappear.
Poor image capture.
That's a texture pop in glitch. Just watched the whole video, they look identical.
While I agree the texture hadn't loaded.
Id argue they don't look identical. Though part of that could be due to custom settings on each system
Haven't we all pre-ordered a special edition already?
My friends and I all purchased the 360 version, a few of us don't have a good PC, only 1 of us has a PS3, so the choice was pretty easy in the end. PS3 vs 360 is an irrelevant argument, from what I've seen it's close enough that it doesn't matter unless you sit 10cm away from the TV. Consoles vs PC is the real one IMO and I think PC will win.
You'd hope so considering an GTX690 costs $1200+
Uh yeah... you don't need the worlds fastest graphics card to play Borderlands 2. A 65 dollar Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 will get you better performance than either the Xbox 360 or PS3. I have a pair of Radeon HD 6870's running in Crossfire on my computer. That setup will run you between 300 and 400 dollars and is easily over powered for any AAA title you would want to play (and the system is 2 years old and I expect it to last easily for another 3 or 4).
It appears that many people don't understand it, but most mid range cards (like the ones I own) are collossally overpowered for the video games that are currently being produced. The idea that you have to drop 1200 on a video card setup to play ANYTHING right now is frankly ludicrious. That hardware is reserved for people with more money than common sense.
I never implied an GTX690 is not worth the money. Only the fact you'd expect massive performance increase for an card that costs 10X the amount of an console alone. And after seeing games running at insane levels of detail, how can anyone expect anything less than that level of quality, for PC and Next-Gen Consoles. It is the new standard level for graphics.
Like you even needed to consider the 360 version over the PS3 version. PC version will likely win out over both of them, though.
Really? Are we still doing shit like this?
Goddamn pissing contests.
Actually we do, because majority of the gamers already own both console and would prefer to choose the one that looks best to play on.
Also, it is a good way to show how much the developer put effort into making it work on console :) These comparisons does wonders when it come to bashing games like Bayonetta for PS3
They can have a purpose, mainly to find out if there is a dog version of a game... eg: PS3 versions of Bayonetta and Skyrim.
Aside from that, if they run the same then not so much... besides, pissing contests are fun! Over the wall for bonus points! ;)
PC for bonus points*
Dude, please don't start.
Consoles have specialised architectures instead of standardised commodity components like PCs.
As they are specialised, it is possible for a console of lower hardware to out run a PC. But how is this achieved? You have to code your game engine to utilise and fit perfectly with the hardware.
I think developers these days start with one platform (PC or console, it doesn't matter) get the game running and then do a minimal port just to get the game working on the other. This really irritates me as no matter the direction, the port will turn bad.
Porting from PC to Console: thrashing because the console has smaller memory.
Porting from Console to PC: poor performance because the memory architecture is different and the specialised buses are not there.
There is more to it than the above but not everyone is a coder so I am going to stop there.
You don't need to be a coder to understand this, surely? It's the same reason why iPhones just run and operate better and with more stability than Samsung phones. People always claim the iPhone is holding the industry back but in reality it's the android phones from several years ago that are holding the rest of the phone companies back. When you have to optimise for a huge variation in phone specs, the final product is rarely as strong (without more time than most have) as something that has a specific unity between hardware and software.
I think you find that one does need to be a coder.
Who else would know about the concepts of paging, etc, what exist in operating systems?
if you work in a burger joint and flip burgers all day - sure , you'd be good at flipping burgers. But it doesn't remotely imply that your burgers are the best.
I just meant isn't it common knowledge that the presence of a lowest common denominator holds back everything else?
And I propose the lowest common denominator being the millions of PC owners who do not uprgrade their pre-built PC's for up too 3years or more, because gaming just ain't an priority for them. Majority of PC owners have low to mid-range pre-built computers - and that's an fact!
@letrico +1 to that. I'm not a specific version fanboy. I have both consoles and a good PC rig. So I rely on these topics to put my money towards the one that will give me the best experience. People should favor game versions not consoles. Treat yourself get all three systems if you can afford it. And I'm not rich, I just put aside money every check til I had the loot. So like everyone else, I don't want to regret my purchase because I found out afterwards that "my other" system would have served me better for that particular game. This is an age of options. So if people don't have an option, then they must ask themselves if they are really just willing a version to be better because they lack any other option.
I'm really over this 'better picture' war everyone seems to want to play with games. If the thing has decent graphics who cares, I should be too busy having fun to be upset that my characters hair doesn't look quite as real as I would like. I'm going 360 because I pretty much go that for everything.
Fortunately its looking like the 360 is bad in this shot because textures are still popping in, which isn't a deal breaker for me. Most of my friends have 360s and I played the first on 360, so I'd like to stick to it. :)
Loving the people coming into a consol-comparison article to say the PC version is better.
Yeah, good on ya.
Like you knew it wouldn't happen...
I did, but I'll still call them out on it!
I would buy it on PC if a) I had a better PC and b) my brother played on PC, since he's my main co-op buddy. I know it's the superior version as I'm sure most people do, and it's just a little petty to come into a console article and say so.
What some people think: PC + Game == best gaming.
What most people know: It doesn't matter, a bad game is bad no matter what platform you use.
So you don't like Borderlands?
I'm more of an adventure/RPG guy with the odd FPS for variety.
I might give Borderlands a try one day, but my pile of shame has reached triple digits so I had better start finding time to work on it.
so your saying your a "adventure/RPG guy with the odd FPS for variety" type of gamer, but you dont want to play a adventure/RPG with FPS for variety?
I already got that fix via the Fallout. I got Fallout 3 first and beside additional colours, Borderlands to me felt like a version of Fallout with extra classes so I didn't bother.
Yeah, it was more of an filler game - no story to speak of, and it could become mind numbing comparing the millions of variations of weaponry usually only differing by an 3-class/colour +2/-1/+1 rotation of stats...
Sorry forgot a part.
The point I am making is the graphics do not matter - the essentials to a game are found in the design and overall experience of the game.
Which is why Borderlands was *so damn good*.
that's wrong, a bad console game is a bad console game,
a bad pc game may be a good pc game via heavy modding, you cant do that on a console
No, a bad game is a bad game - irrespective of where it is.
If you have to improve the game via modding, then it speaks ill of the original developers, doesn't it? It means you are doing the job they should have done in the first place.
What about an modded console running an Windows hack.
Also, it is possible on console - just not supported. Same as Mouse and Keyboard. Hopefully Microsoft listens to Bethesda/I.D. and has mouse/keyboard support for Xbox720.
*meant as an reply to Tom
Am I the only person that thinks the monster in the picture looks like a cross between Megabyte from Reboot and Feraligatr from Pokemon?
As has been said, that pic does not do the video justice. The video looked the same apart from that one grab, but you get more page clicks if people think there is a BIG difference.. or am I starting to sound as cynical as others on here>>>
anyway, 360 for me, and im hoping stret date breaks. :(
That screengrab at the top is at least careless, and at worst flamebait. Who knows which it is.
Agreed. Its also likely not installed to the 360 hdd which can dramatically affect texture drawn in rates on games (see ME3 for big instance s...)
It depends on the game. Mass Effect 1 had horrendous texture popping and even when I installed the game to the hard drive it only reduced the effect by a small factor.
Don't get me wrong, Mass Effect 1 is a good game (the strongest of the three environment wise if you ask me) but for every good element it had there was a one massive technical issue.
It's very misleading.
Even if the PS3 version was better, no-one cares about Trophies :P
Always seems that everything on this site is anti-ms... that distorted image says it all.
Ps3 is better then Xbox in hardware if you disagree with this go back and go throgh the article again until you can get it throgh your head out dated this is why it is cheap
Ps pc wins close second ps3 far third Xbox last wii
Geez, I have a PS3, which version should I buy?
PC beats everything :D