It's really hard to tell which version is overrated more.

mugido

@AkaMagi: "Generally that's because it's easier to replicate the PS3 on the 360 with no performance or visual loss than it is the other way around."

Wow, so the XBOX360 actually emulates the PS3, and that's how the porting process works? Very impressive. Maybe I should collect the change from down the back of my sofa and buy one.

BritBloke916

@Sundermania: Yes, you make the best point on here so far in relation to my situation.

No 1080p ability on MY 360.

One thing I will say is that I forgot how cool the intro to that game was. Talk about a nice way to bring you into an underwater world.

shadow763

@AkaMagi: Well the argument i always heard from i guess fanboys is that since games were being made on the 360 then ported over, that the 360 was holding back the ps3's advantages. This is a first time i've heard the ps3 hurting the performance of a 360 game so i inquired further.

Sweetsauce

@Sweetsauce:

And other than PS3 fanboy sites, where exactly have you heard that from.

I've heard many developers say it's easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than it is to port from the 360 to the PS3. Generally that's because it's easier to replicate the PS3 on the 360 with no performance or visual loss than it is the other way around.

AkaMagi

And fanboys have yet another Kotaku article to babysit.

Star A.D.

@AEREC:

Bioshock does have a checkpoint system, you just don't seem to like it and turned it off.

Vita Chambers are the checkpoints.

AkaMagi

Well..... I was really thinking about buying the PS3 version of BioShock, but since I have already played the PC version, it is looking more and more like a good game to rent. Since the PC version doesn't look like it will eclipse the PC version visually, I just want to see the extra content.

homernoy

@Candlejack: "It has come to my attention though, that there have been cases where a 360 build of a multiplatform game could have easily pulled off 60FPS locked while the PS3 had to be locked at 30FPS due to performance constraints - thus the 360 was pulled down too. Inefficient coding, crappy port or lack of GPU power in the end? I can't tell."

Please clarify. Usually we hear this being the other way around, that the 360 is holding back the ps3.

Sweetsauce

@danc4498: "Yeah, we've come such a long way that it takes well over a year to make a PS3 game look as good as it's 360 equivalent..."

I was under the impression that they didn't actually start doing doing the PS3 port until relatively recently.

BritBloke916

@RedSkysatNight:
Amen to that!

WhiskeyJak

Yeah, we've come such a long way that it takes well over a year to make a PS3 game look as good as it's 360 equivalent...

danc4498

Looks nice on both, but Rapture looked a little nicer coming in on the 360, with it's soft bits of light that seemed to make the city just look nicer overall. But otherwise, looks about the same.

Salen

@TheTimeisback: "So, 2006".

Hey, "Aliens" came out in 1986. I still love it.

BritBloke916

So, 2006. @-_-@

TheTimeisback

You know... This 'mandatory install' rants remind me A LOT of my own ranting and the Commodore Amiga vs PC fanboyism back in the day...

I was a proud Amiga owner that eventually bought a PC.

SirM

Well I trust game videos more than game trailers but haven't we already established that these comparisons are worthless when multiplatform games are concerned?

But at any rate I will say that I honestly think that, for the atmosphere of this game, the PS3 looks better. The 360 version is just way too bright for something thats supposed to be deep underwater, lights or not

Sparx

The use of light bloom this gen has been a little over done, but Bioshock was one of the few i thought it worked for. It just seemed to work with the aesthetic of Rapture. So i actually kinda like the 360 version more, being brighter and bloom...ier.

Zenlong

the most important thing learned from this video is this:

despite all the negativity behind the PS3 architecture,a game that was assumed to have only been an exclusive, is now coming to the PS3 and looking nice. the 360 is no slouch, so anyone looking for the PS3 to have a quantum leap over the 360 is fooling themselves. each console has its pluses and minuses, which is why the console war between them is pretty even. talk to me about differences when we see the games that will launch later in both consoles lifetime.

zanzibarlegend

Regardless of visuals the only definitive versions are the Xbox/PC versions as they came out first and people actually got to play them before the game and everything associated with it got run into the ground.

You weren't there man, you don't know what it was like.

Burguois, Teabagger of Olde

I think there's an inevitable degree of laziness when you're developing for a platform that definitely has a hard drive (and an easily upgradeable one at that). No doubt there are all sorts of optimising tricks that could be used to enable non-installed play on the PS3 - but unless the developers honestly believe that mandatory installs will reduce sales, then it's not surprising that they can't be bothered.

BritBloke916

@2SBs: Here's the problem.

Use of the Wii's motion controls is built in on a game by game basis. The waggle in one game doesn't affect the waggle of another.

The RRoD is a hardware issue. It was an undesirable that is being weened out, and can be protected against by a warranty.

The Mandatory Install is neither of these. It is mandatory, and thus cannot be protected from or avoided. Instead of being weened out it is being embraced more and more.

Furthermore, limited HDD space means the mandatory install of one game potentially hinders my enjoyment of other games. Both through DLC and other mandatory installs. Sure I can probably delete installs and do them again later, but that again is an unneccesary annoyance (one that is bashed considerably by those who mock the Wii's limited storage space)

If you're going to compare mandatory installs to features on rival consoles, you need to find a common element. There isn't one on either the Wii or 360, as neither (to the best of my understanding) has this widespread use of an installation on so many big name titles.

TRT-X

@BritBloke916: My feelings are alright, thanks for caring tho kiddo! :)

Teamwork Takedown

@2SBs: Well here's the thing, as I see it.

360- It's annoying, but it's a design flaw. We know what's up.
Wii- It's annoying, but it's a developer and design flaw. Devs are too lazy to be original with the controls and Wii is not yet 1:1.

We know the reasoning behind those two. But I can't see why we eat up hard drive space and have to wait half an hour for installs. Especially when 360 doesn't need them (BioShock/DMC4). So the install complaint is still valid for discussion, eh?

Setzer IIDX

Already have this for the 360, so unless there is some great exclusive content on the PS3, I'm going to avoid the double-dip.

But it is nice that PS3 players get to experience this game for the first time.

Nslick

PS3 version looks darker but thats not a good thing

ZetaCrossfire

@asTer0id:

I fully agree!!! it's nothing but flame bait

Bum_Trumpet

They look the same.
I'm glad that PS3 owners are finally able to enjoy this game.

Horusz

@Teamwork Takedown: "It's pretty dumb of you to call out how bad Kotaku can instigate fanboy debates when you use the term "Xbot", come on now, grow up."

Sorry, I had no intention of hurting your feelings - I was under the impression that this was the accepted terminology. "XBOX360 fanboys" takes longer to type. Incidentally, my first console was an Atari VCS, so I'm already grown up quite a lot.

BritBloke916

Who's going to buy it however? We have too many new games to bother picking it up now. There are new major games coming just about every week until the holidays now. I think Fallout 3 and even Litttle Big Planet will drown out Bioshock sells still. They should've reduced price for an old title with such a huge number of titles this year.

Mongoosekun

Part of me feels that these comments are awfully similar to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion PS3 topic.

Heliophage

@BritBloke916: It's pretty dumb of you to call out how bad Kotaku can instigate fanboy debates when you use the term "Xbot", come on now, grow up.

Teamwork Takedown

there is one major difference: one will have no mandatory install and another will have 5gb install. try guessing which one gets what.

animexplorer

This is silly, if the developer / porter didnt take advantage of hardware, then you wont see a difference.

Twyst

That video is pointless. My PS3 has an HDMI out. My Xbox 360 doesn't. I know which one will look better at home.

Sundermania

@Setzer IIDX: Only the BioShock team can give you a good answer to that ;) My speculation at this point is to minimize texture pop-in and stuttering. Doubt the load times will decrease more than maybe a second. The PS3 was built with streaming in mind anyway, which explains the high theoretical power and throughput or Flops-count of the Cell as well as the mandatory HDD in every machine. Whether this can only counter the performance advantage the 360 GPU, Xenos, has over the PS3 GPU, RSX, or actually surpass it - too early to tell.

After all, this is the generation of parity amongst consoles (at least 360 and PS3), so in effect, exclusive games can't be counted cause they will never run on the other console's hardware. Unless in rare instances like this one, but even then I feel they would not try go too far with bumping up graphics even if they could. Not worth the effort. So until we have a benchmark game on PS3 and 360, no ports, that uses the power it gets and not just tries to achieve parity, we won't know.

It has come to my attention though, that there have been cases where a 360 build of a multiplatform game could have easily pulled off 60FPS locked while the PS3 had to be locked at 30FPS due to performance constraints - thus the 360 was pulled down too. Inefficient coding, crappy port or lack of GPU power in the end? I can't tell.

Candlejack

@Rotmm: Actually, pretty much anything organic - including fruit - does indeed rely heavily on "cells".

BritBloke916

By chance does the PS3 have a checkpoint system instead of a save anywhere feature (I doubt it).

That and the vita chambers are what nearly ruined this game for me...they fixed the vita chambers by giving the option to disable them btu I really wish there was a checkpoint system...otherwise if given the oppurtunity to save anywhere I will end saving every 30 seconds...the least it could do is have a quicksave button.

AEREC

pointless video (especially after they stop doing split screen). i just got a 360 this weekend (price cut FTW!), but i still plan on getting this for PS3 instead ;)

laser beams

Gamevidoes wont let me verify the age, I only get the 'day box', anyone know how to solve this problem?

Complaining/making fun of mandatory installs is the same as complaining/making fun of Wii's waggle controls and complaining/making fun of 360's RRoD. I wish people stopped doing it. All of these systems have been out for a long time and people know what to expect when buying a game for a specific system.

2SBs

Yay so now we get to watch advertisements on 'GameVideos' (even if it's an ad for another game). And then still I have to say I'm over 18 to watch a crazy lady get domed with a wrench.

sigh - what's this world coming to?

amazinglarry

@AxelMinami: That's because Kotaku isn't broadcasting the video in 4-D. Also, it was tough to make a comparison video of a 5GB mandatory install.

TRT-X

@docLEXfisti: The PS3 version looks better because it has the power of the cell running it.

@Auroron: Even though they look exactly the same, the power of the cell makes them a tad better.

@Rampage: Neither apples nor oranges are powered by the cell and therefore fail. God is releasing a new cell-powered kiwi fruit and that will own.

Rotmm

@BritBloke916: I think they did create whole new sections of the game for the ps3 version. Example: a whole new "puzzle mode" that tasks the player with solving certain puzzles.

3inst3in

It would be sweet if there was M&KB support for this game.

def PD

LEFT SIDE: Darker
RIGHT SIDE: Lighter

Uh, ok.

Teamwork Takedown

Where's the PC version comparison :P

FlashIV

@Candlejack: Question though, and I don't really expect a good answer from anyone.

Why am I doing a 5 gig MANDATORY install to play a game using a disc format specifically designed to hold more content when it worked just fine on the older DVD format?

PS3 format FTL right now with these forced installs offering no benefits.

Setzer IIDX

Is it just me, or is every other post on Kotaku designed to try and induce flaming between Xbots and PS3 fanboys? I love my PS3, but I bear no malice towards those with XBOX360s - nor did I object to Genesis (it was the Megadrive over here) owners when I was enjoying my Super NES.

Sure, they're different; but they love their kids too.

BritBloke916

Looks the same to me, Ps3 owners can now enjoy this game which 360 owners have played a year ago..

ndvt

@Candlejack: Good god man either you're a tv tech or yanking chains.

seppukake

Next up: Apples and Oranges comparison video!

Rampage

I'd rather know how the controls feel on the Dual Shock compared to the 'built for an fps' 360 controller.

Cat-Duck

yes, they look exactly the same, except for two things. Ps3 is darker, but I think this can be changed. Also, the ps3 version textures are a tad better. NOT MUCH, but a little bit.

Auroron

@Philantrophy: No they're not. The PS3 can play games from Blu-Ray and the 360 cannot. End of significant differences.

(I was agreeing with you, and stating that other than Blu-Ray for the PS3, no console has any advantage for now and the next 1, maybe 2 years. We'll see what the guys from God of War can get out of the PS3 in time.)

Candlejack

Huh? No. Wait. I found a difference!

In the PS3 version you use the Sixaxis/Dual Shock 3 controller! :D

AxelMinami

Meh, that's a tiny video screen and resolution, and if it's not in still images or hard numbers then it's all up to the eye of the viewer. Read: Pointless comparison.

Wait for the guys from B3D to do pixel counts, specify the AA used, and the size or res of textures - then we'll know which version technically looks/is better ;)

Aside from that you can only notice the reoccurring differences in colour tone/palette from RSX to Xenos. Also, the PS3 footage looks like it comes from a TV with RGB Range set to Limited, which would explain the slightly grey layer over it (at least it looks like that to me). Fewer colours accessible while rendering = less vibrant -> not-as-dark becomes grey and so on.

Candlejack

@RedSkysatNight: Agreed. Though I will say that the only difference I see is that the PS3 is a tad darker. Which is odd.

AngryEddy

I can't imagine that they would have created totally new art assets for the PS3 version, so I'm not expecting it to look any different. I'm just really looking forward to having the chance to play it.

BritBloke916

but, but ... Cell is so more powerful *g*

docLEXfisti

So.......they look exactly the same. Can we move on now?

Gray665

@ilCardinal: At the resolution and quality of this video, any comparison is 100% worthless.

Still, I don't expect it to be any different than the million comparison videos. They show that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are the same.

Philantrophy

it's um... darker?

nyaz

aren't we past the 360/PS3 comparisons by now?

asTer0id

At the resolution and quality of this video, any comparison is 100% worthless.

ilCardinal

Comparisons like this are just stupid. Play the game on whatever system you want and be happy. Period.

RedSkysatNight

Nice that the game looks the same on the PS3, not so nice that the only DLC original PC/360 fans of the game got was a plasmid pack with 1 plasmid.

RaptureScientist

I don't find any difference.

AxelMinami

They are so similar, why even bother comparing them, don't these guys have anything better to do. . .

Sniper_Zegai

@BritBloke916: They announced the PS3 version relatively recently. We (the public) don't know how long they have been working on it, we just have a year as the maximum "extra" time they could have spent on it.

The "Bioshock to the PS3" rumors had been around for a long time before the announcement.

waywardchemist

Here's the big news folks: If you have a PS3 you are forced to install the game to get the same graphical quality as the 360 got, and to get the same loading time. hmmmmmm sounds suspicious doesn't it?

beez1717

It's funny how people claim the devs "didn't take advantage" of PS3's hardware :D

In the real world, simply having this game run at a decent framerate is already quite a task, a feat already using the hardware very efficiently. It's a 360/PC game running on UE3. Now, compare this with 90% of other UE3 games on PS3 and think. Might be a new concept, but still: does it run better? Why is that?

Really, stop living in your dream world of company PR fairytales of untapped divine cell power :)

kryo

it's a port. Not an enhancement. A port. Look at Killzone2 or Metal Gear Solid 4...Gears of War2 or Halo 3 to show what the respective consoles can do. To say a straight port of a PC/360 to PS3 is any indication of what PS3 can do is...to put it simply...

fucking stupid.

Anyways, the 360 versions colors are a bit richer but not by much. Pointless comparison...but okay...whatever. Where are the videos from Killzone2, Resistance 2 and Wipeout HD.

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

Interesting that when the first comparision videos hit the PS3 version always looked a little more "washed out" and now this ps3 looks deeper and darker. hmmm a learning curve maybe?

Herret

Don't take this video seriously -- their Assassin's Creed comparison was a load of bollocks, showing the PS3 version as a washed out piece of junk, when it actually looks slightly better than the 360. Basically they don't calibrate their TVs.

redgopher

@Candlejack: Thanx for the link, reading it now.

Sweetsauce

@2SBs:

That is the sad truth.

risingphoenix

@Setzer IIDX: I found the optional install for the PS3 version of Soul Caliber 4 to be quite beneficial. It loads a lot faster than the 360 version with the install and if you do alot of character customization it really helps.

nitromic

@risingphoenix: "'oh my gosh, it has a manditory instal my 360 is so much better'"

I wonder how many 360 owners will be installing their games on their hds once the fall update hits XBL. That won't change anything though, you will still have people saying: "Oh yeah? But 360 installs are optional, PS3 installs are mandatory."

You are 100% right, console wars are laughable, but they will carry on as long as people will need to justify their purchase.

2SBs

@BritBloke916:

But, but, but.. The Wii isn't the real competition...

they are a toy not a game system...

the wii is a fad..

See what I did there?

risingphoenix

@BritBloke916: Agreed. Core gaming is in the background more than ever. I almost feel like a Linux user these days with PS3 and 360.

Candlejack

It seems like like one has the brightness turned down a tad, and then the other has the brightness turned up. That can be changed. They're identical.

HaydenTenno

@Setzer IIDX: @TRT-X: Did you ever think that the way in which PS3 was designed, requires some games, which use more processing power to be installed onto the hard drive as a hardware issue?

The point I made was that every console will have some hardware issues with it. And that these consoles were out for a long time, this isn't a trial run for a console before it hits the shops, so no matter how much everybody complaints, it's not gonna change anything with the current generation of consoles.

2SBs

@risingphoenix: "The console war is laughable."

The console war is over, and the Wii won. We're really more of a resistance movement.

BritBloke916

@danc4498:

Pretty ignorant comment. They were not in development at the same time. The PS3 version was ported by a different 2K team than the 360.

DigitalHero

@Sweetsauce: [forum.beyond3d.com] Regard the last paragraphs.

Before you ask, yes, he is a dev, and no, he won't tell you which games he worked on, and I don't know myself.

Candlejack

Wow, dumbasses are running rampant on the site these days.

Who the fuck cares. My hell.

So its harder to develop for the PS3.

[yeah, we known that, we knew that a year ago.]

So the 360 and the PS3 are pretty much equal.

[yeah, we knew that a year ago.]

I love how pleased people are when they make comments like
'oh but the cell was supposed to be more powerfull'
'oh my gosh, it has a manditory instal my 360 is so much better'

These comments have been made a thousand times. Just cause you found an old pile of shit and put your name on it doesn't make it new or interesting. The console war is laughable.

risingphoenix

Wow, things have definitely come a long way in terms of ports to the PS3.

It looks like the Xbox 360 version is a little brighter/more colorful though. Not by much, but it seems to have a more vibrant palette. The red on the neon sign at the beginning just looked more intense than the PS3 version.

Not like that is really a huge deal...I mean, Bioshock is my favorite game. It's not like a negligible brightness difference would make me tell someone with a PS3 not to buy it.

In fact, if you have a PS3, buy buy buy buy buy it. It is absolutely amazing.

Apparatus Ex Somnium Design

@Antiterra: That's my FAVORITE. :)

Spoony Bard

@asTer0id: Oh, we'll never be past pissing matches/dick-measuring contests. Remember: as gamers, our intellectual growth has halted at 15 years old.
Also, isn't it fun when everybody suddenly turns into an engineer to explain why this or that system is better?

Antiterra

the only game i think we will see a significant difference with will be FFXIII

omegamalexxx

@Burguois, Teabagger of Olde: I know man, I watched apocalypse now about 2 years ago, and got a very lousy experience. Man! you had to be there when the movie launched! All the.. hum..

What? It makes no sense. Just because some guys watched/played some history back then I won't have the same experience?

This is exactly how I manage to buy lots of games. I buy them new, but after some months. Big savings. Unless it's something that I'm hyped to play. as LittleBigPlanet, then I fork some extra cash for the convenience.

Bunn

@SirM: Hey, same here. Amigas rocked and PCs couldn't touch them. Due to unfortunate circumstances that we all know, I had to buy a PC too but that was a kinder gentler fate than buying an overpriced, overrated Mac that couldn't even match PC processing until Apple finally dumped that shitty Power PC based CPU.

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

Ok, I have both systems so I don't care which one I play it on, but according to the video comparison, the PS3 version is basically the 360 version with the contrast turned down about 5 notches?

I saw nothing improved or even "different" at all. Same exact looking game on both screens, just a fraction darker on the ps3. Isn't making an already dark game darker a bad thing?
Unless you have a calibrated HD big screen tv, you aren't going to notice anything.

Capp

@Sweetsauce:

From Factor5 (Lair developer):

"No unified memory (i.e. the 256 MB memory limitation on the PS3), and no embedded memory (lack of embedded 10MB framebuffer on the PS3), makes it difficult for developers to port from X360 to the PS3.

Unlike X360, the PS3 has 1 out of 3 architecture advantages for developers, and that is multicore (not counting bluray as it's moot point for performance).

Whereas X360 has 3 out of 3 advantages for developers (multicore, embedded memory, and unified memory).

Hence if developers started writing their games utilizing only the multicore advantage (without utilizing the 2 extra advantages the X360 has over the PS3), then things will be fine for both the PS3 and X360.

But if they did utilize the 2 extra architectural advantage of the X360, then obviously the PS3 version will suffer greatly trying to compensate for the lack of those 2 extra X360 exclusive features."

From John Carmack on Rage development:

"The PS3 is not the favorite platform but it's going to run the game just as good. To some degree there's going to be some lowest common denominator effect because we're going to be testing these every day on all of the platforms, and it's going to be "Dammit it's out of memory on the PS3 again, go crunch some things down" "

I could waste a lot more time and space with more quotes from more devs, but the point is that the PS3 is usually the "lowest common denominator" and if a game is going to be held back by the hardware, it's more likely to be held back by PS3 hardware than 360 hardware.

AkaMagi

I think that the Xbox 360 version looks slightly better.

Do not call me a fanboy, I own all three current gen consoles.

Crash McCloud

botched nominal range FTL.

commentotron

@Samicham85: Kotaku just stated a fact..no harm done.

I am not sure what everyone is expecting from this. Its not like they built the game from scratch with new textures and models. It wasn't meant to look better in the first place! they've achieved their target by having an identical version. good job!

.:: Dubdoob ::.

@Bunn: Agreed. I just bought Final Fantasy XII and Valkyrie Profile and a few others. I don't have to deal with the fanboy rant, the hype machine and so forth. I can play the games at my leisure and render an opinion based on my own experience without being hassled by the same hype machine. Also, they're usually much cheaper. It's win win.

@AkaMagi: good points but let me ask this...how are these issues any different from any generation prior? 360 has more developing advantages than the PS3? Really? And? Xbox had more development advantages than PS2 and was easier to code for. Xbox had a unified memory architecture too as well as standard HDD support and a more powerful processor and graphics chip. It wasn't even close between the Xbox and the Ps2. Xbox could run Doom3 and still look great...PS2? never.

But, did anyone care when they played Metal Gear Solid2 or Snake Eater? God of War or Shadow of the Colossus? Developers bitched about how hard it was to code for the PS2 as well if I remember right. But it still put out some kick ass games unless I'm remembering it wrong.

Look at DS and PSP. Ds is getting Phantasy Star 0 and all I can do is cringe. It makes sense on PSP because you have better infrastructure support, more storage, more ram, faster processor, better screen, USB support and addition storage for DLC. The ONLY reason to even do a Phantasy Star0 or any similar game on DS is because of the huge install base. Otherwise, it's pointless because it suffers from the hardware to the point of not being comparable to the competition.

But isn't that the overall point? Developers and fans seem to forget this simple truth. Money or the potential of making it, makes bad development environments good and complexed situations simple. If this wasn't the case, then the entire development community should have abandoned the PS2 en masse in favor of Xbox and Gamecube. Both had superior hardware and easier development environments than the PS2.

DS should have failed in the face of the far superior PSP, Wii should be the console we laugh about as Nintendo works on Mario XIII, Zelda Quest IX and Gran Mario Kart5: Prologue Evolution for PS3 as a software only company.

360 has the better development environment than PS3. This has been established years ago, literally but what difference does it make when Nintendo and the Wii are your new overlords?

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

@AngryEddy: I agree with you, PS3 looks a little darker.

RedSkysatNight

comparison videos = FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

Im sorry i had to make my point

Ackers

The developer for this did a major hiring spree just to get it running on the PS3; my colleague is one of the programmers. Kudos to them for achieving the extremely difficult, which is making the PS3 version equivalent to the 360.

All graphical comparisons aside, business wise, the PS3 is costly to develop for, and publishers are only putting up with it to remain viable across the platforms -- should the PS3 eventually outshine the 360, they have their foot in the door. Until then, they must withstand the cost and pain of keeping up with the trend.

ChiChi_BBQ

"A few discrepancies here and there, but nothing like the glaring difference we saw way back when the PS3 first launched. We've come so far, haven't we?"

Once again Kotaku proves that cannot be professional. Seriously guys. WTF? Must we have this, must we?

Samicham85

I would believe all these 'PS3 being the lowest common denominator' claims if there weren't a few PS3 exclusives that looked better than anything I've ever seen on a 360. When I see a 360 game look as good or even close to Killzone 2, I'll believe it.

threeve

PS3 360 && 360 PS3 || PS3 == 360

Talryyn

Its darker because the Full RGB and Super White has not been turned on. You have to manually set this in your PS3 options.

These videos are always like this, if they want a true comparison they should enable those features.

stoutbear

@shadow763: The game runs at 720p.

UnnDunn

@Candlejack: Lack of HDR lighting on PS3 side, perhaps?

UnnDunn

So is gamevideos adopting the gametrailers comparison tint?

Cakey4242564

Obviously the graphics on the PS3 BioShock are so much better that they dont even look any different.

BONERJAM

I hate this nonsense about "version X looks darker than version Y!"

Here's an idea:" adjuect the brightness and contrast on your TV. Even you don't know how to, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a console.

Ungruntled

@threeve: Ziiiing! going back to the point of..."ports do nothing to show the potential of any hardware platform." The potential of the PS3 and 360 lie in their exclusives. Bioshock doesn't even come close to showing what the PS3 can do when Killzone2 shits on it from a technical perspective, judging from videos that are available.

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

@Ackers: Point made and approved.

@Ali: How can you say something like that?! Are you crazy?!!! :P

Antiterra

@Swift_: You trust GT for a comparison video? After their many times of having proven faked results, like the grid thing and the quicksaving on Orange Box (not that that mattered, OB was horribly optimized on the PS3 anyhow)

You deserve to be deceived if you believe their comparisons anymore.

bobtheduck

Wow... Game videos switched the 360 and PS3 capture cards... Everyone knows you're supposed to use the darger capture for 360 and the more faded capture for the PS3... They're gonna be in trouble when their bosses find out...

bobtheduck

The color in the 360 version looks washed out compared to the PS3 version. The main reason for the PS3 version being better is all of the added content though.

DNAgent

SSDD

Garo

I'll wait for Gametrailers to do one. This seems like a TV-settings disparity only.

Swift_

I think both the PS3 and the XBOX360 are great consoles.

Ali

i dont trust gametrailers anymore with their comparisons ever since the biased alterations with a few of their comparisons.

lonesn1per

Bioshock 3?

Lemonade

@Bunn: It's more like Star Wars.

The DVD versions might be the best you can get in terms of video/audio but it's not a scratch on the experience that was got when they first came out, back when Darth Vader was a ruthless villain who had no redeeming qualities and when Leia seemed like a viable love interest for Luke.

Likewise, some of the experience of Bioshock has been lost. Unless you've been living in a hole then a rather archaic form of request has taken on a whole different meaning and Little Sisters/Big Daddies are still creepy and deplorable.

Burguois, Teabagger of Olde

@UnnDunn:

For this game, i noticed that too. The lighting and hdr seemed blander on the ps3 version. Now, I'm not saying hdr alone is enough to make the 360 version "better", just pointing that out.

Moar_pr0nz

@Talryyn: return 1;

sereal

If you put a 360 and a PS3 in a room and told them to fight who would win?

The answer is none of them, because they are a couple of consoles that are meant to be played on and enjoyed! So get busy and do that instead of pissing on each others consoles.

Bunch of bloody kids you lot!

GOD

Hmmmm.
No, sir. I don't see it.

Jason144

The only differences i noticed in the game, which was the obvious one too, was that the light sources and lighting in general on the 360 version seem to be stonger. As in, the lights shine with more oompf. And the ps3 version is darker.

Moar_pr0nz

@Setzer IIDX: Because support for mandatory hard drive installs is there and developers [especially those who have developed for the PC] will use it to their advantages. What computer game runs off the CD, no install? Not many, even sims have good install files.

If anyone thinks that developers, hardware companies, don't like install files, you've got to be blind. The developers have more space to work with, and eventually the demand for more storage space will be there.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 320 GB PS3s and 4 gb flash memory cards on top of it in about two years be the standard.

blurayforever143

@Burguois, Teabagger of Olde: Eh personally I think that's a load of steaming small animal related shit. People are going to be experiencing Bioshock for the first time ever, and I'm damn sure their experience hasn't been tainted by the game being available last year on the 360/PC. Bioshock is more than good enough to be brilliant a year on.

TearsandScreams

@UnnDunn: They don't scrap HDR lighting on PS3 anymore completely. Not sure if they did previously but it wouldn't be too far out considering the shitty ports of the past. But the RSX is definitely capable of producing very nice HDR equal to the Xenos, only difference the devs need to use FP16 instead of FP10 rendering. Conclusively you suck up more resources when rendering FP16 HDR, so you can see it as a disadvantage although it can lead you to believe the RSX is actually a tad bit more powerful than the Xenos. At ROPs at least. It's just really unfortunate what Sony have constructed if you ask me.

Rumour has it, when NV approached Sony, they offered to build an early 8800 prototype for them to put in the PS3. Sony rejected because at the time they thought they could put 2 Cell processors in the machine and cope without a GPU. As they realized they're fucking everything up, they went to NV, and they were too far ahead with production of the 88 series that all they threw at Sony was a small bone - the slightly slimmed down 78 GTX chip. Take this however you want it, it's probably mostly my take than anybody else's, I just think Sony screwed their setup up and whilst individual parts (sans the GPU ...) are incredibly fast and powerful, all put together it's one huge friggin' bottleneck.

Then again Killzone 2 looks amazing, so does MGS4, Uncharted and so on. I'm happy for that. But with this in mind, what would these games have looked like with a chip as powerful as the 8800GTX and efficient coding for it? See what they can pull out of the G70, imagine what could've been with the G80.......only a tease.

Candlejack

@dagreatest:

You are COMPLETELY correct. I come to Kotaku for some news, but I HATE the writing and completely stupid comments of the writers.

Xemnas

@Candlejack:

You are COMPLETELY correct. I was going to say the same things when I noticed that you've already stated them.

Anyway, I do like the lighting a little better in the PS3 version, but this is an incredibly low-quality video.

Xemnas

This is bullshit. Any dumb f*** can tell you that you can't do comparisons with a resolution this shitty. If you actually watch the game in action on a real HDTV and compare the PS3 and 360 version side-by-side, you will be able to pick up subtle differences.

Here's a quote from IGN:

"The water effects look much slicker, as do many of the environments as they are slowly submerged in water. It's quite obvious that 2K is taking full advantage of the PS3's Blu-ray discs to pack in cleaner high resolution textures for every facet of the game; while we didn't see any pro-pixel leatherization diffusion within our early sections of the title, we wouldn't be surprised if it makes an appearance in the later stages, such as Arcadia or Fort Frolic. "

Just like Oblivion when it was later ported to the PS3, you will have faster loading times, cleaner textures, added content, and in general a more complete package (Although I'm sure the added content will later be available for 360 owners via DLC)

Aside from the bullshit comparison, I have an issue with the Kotaku writers. what's up with:

"A few discrepancies here and there, but nothing like the glaring difference we saw way back when the PS3 first launched. We've come so far, haven't we?"

Really guys? I mean yeah the PS3 has come a long way but so has the 360. It is always the case that when a new console comes out it takes developers some time to become familiar with the harware's archetecture. I mean just compare Kameo with Gears of War2 (or Heavenly Sword with Metal Gear Solid 4) or any other console in history for that matter.

It just seems very unprofessional of you guys to not know this...or maybe you already knew but decided to take a little jab at the PS3 for whatever reason. And this isn't the only time. I've noticed a pattern with your PS3 coverage. Just yesterday you wrote:

"2K just passed this new BioShock PS3 trailer along. Nothing new or terribly exciting here for anyone who owns a 360 or PC"

like yeah sure it's not a big deal for 360 and PC owners but it IS a big deal that one of the 360s biggest exclusives is now available for the PS3...that's one less reason to buy a 360. I mean it's all over the news when the PS3 loses one of its exclusives so how is this not a big deal?

Being a Kotaku reader for a while now I get this vibe that they always try to downplay any positive news for PS3 owners and make a huge deal out of any blow to Sony. And I swear I'm not trying to be a fanboy. I'm just making an observation.

dagreatest

Is this really surprising? The Unreal3 tech has been optimized for both consoles.

And even if it wasn't, the ps3 has been out long enough for programmers to have 'caught up' in graphical finesse. (and this is coming from a 360'er).

OmegaVader

Overall, I'd say it looks pretty good. Other than being maybe a shade darker, which could possible be fixed with a simple tweak to the brightness settings, I'd say it's a pretty good port. The only compliant I could imagine is the 5 gig mandatory HD install, but most PS3 owners are getting kind of used to that by now.

DugDawg

gametrailerz is teh bias.. when criticized why they are not using HDMI or modifying the displaying settings, i heard gametrailers said that they are using the defaults that came with the PS3.. so they are using the regular AV cable, then.. not even component.. i kid

the_answer

PS3 Gamma controls are probable set at -5, with the Contrast level about 30 degrees below the X360 version. How people say they look the same is beyond me.

gencid

@stoutbear: Full RGB is intended for use with monitors, not televisions. Many TVs will not accept Full RGB. In many cases, Full will actually look worse. By calibrating your television and using Limited RGB, you can get an identical picture to a monitor using Full RGB. The moral of the story? Don't use Full RGB on a TV. Adjust everything in your TV's settings.

mind in rewind

Why the hell would 2k retool the graphics and textures for a PS3 version? Of course multi-platform games are going to look nearly identical. This dumbass video just fuels fanboyism, and I really can see how far Kotaku has slid when they post shit like this.

Cole

@TRT-X: If you are going to tell me you would rather have a design flaw that could cost you weeks of gaming than ten minute madatory installs, which come to even less effect with a $60 harddrive upgrade then you are having a laugh.

TotaleeAwesome

@Samicham85: You'll have to excuse me while I take a dump on the PS3 version of F.E.A.R.

Thorax

there's not much difference the only thing that I felt was slightly different was that there is more detail on the PS3 version where he is holding the wrench There was some jaggies on the wrench when it was on the 360 version. That's the only thing that I noticed regarding the comparison video

Thomaticus

@dagreatest: HEAR HEAR!!!!!

linked2thepast06

@Apparatus Ex Somnium Design: that's because they don'y have the "Full White" and "Full RGB" features turned on......

linked2thepast06

The difference in lightning is very likely just caused by the connection to the TV/Recorder...

Harteex

dude i'm tired of these comparisons, it was already proven that whoever is making these comparisons hasn't turned on certain features in the PS3..... :(

linked2thepast06

They're identical.

yargh

With everything looking comparable on both the ps3 and 360 the graphical differences dont really matter to me but this may make me dust off my ps3 for another run through of the game since i enjoyed it the first time.Really its nice not to have to argue for either system when you have them both and you can just have fun

fisho420

well, regardless of the brightness, a video on the internet will never be good enough to compare. it would be better if you actually see both screens with your own eyes.

I don´t have a PS3, but I've seen(with my own eyes) the imense graphical capabilty it has. And I don´t think it´s fair for PS3 owners to see almost the same thing 360 owners do.

Mactheridon

as a sony fan, i am regretting selling my 360 long ago and waiting for the ps3....*sigh*

it just seems like ps3 is an afterthought at this point...example, left 4 dead isn't coming to ps3, shenanigans!

Khatru420

@BritBloke916: i think you've nailed it right there.

laser beams

Those past differences in video quality of games has been proven to be because of something you needed to change in the PS3's video settings.

Apparently you have to set the RGB range from "limited" to "full" when using an HDTV. I only have an SDTV, so I can't confirm this. And it may be the other way around...but I doubt it.

Anyway, that is supposedly why those PS3/360 comparisons of old had the PS3 looking so dark and washed out. As for lag, that is of course just bad porting.

Mobus

I want a PC comparison too, and maybe a wii running it in the top right.

roflwaffles

@Khatru420:
"as a sony fan, i am regretting selling my 360 long ago and waiting for the ps3....*sigh*

it just seems like ps3 is an afterthought at this point...example, left 4 dead isn't coming to ps3, shenanigans!"

That's odd. You sold your 360 before the PS3 even came out? then why did you even buy a 360 to begin with?

In any case I bought my PS3 just a few months ago (MGS4 bundle with 80GB HDD) and I don't regret my purchase at all. I have all the exclusives I want (with the exception of Gears of War and Mass Effect) and I'm getting all the multi-platform games with added content and in some cases better graphics.

The only reason why developers choose the 360 as their primary console is because the 360's archetecture is similar to the PC's so obvioulsy they are more familiar with the hardware. However as developers are becoming more familiar with the PS3' archetecture, they are starting to utilize the extra power and storage of the PS3 (Just compare Resistance 1 with Resistance 2). The 360 on the other hand is starting to hit its peak with Gears of War 2 (as Epic recently admitted). You even have big-name developers like John Carmack (from iD) saying that the 360 is showing it's age.

So maybe you genuinely regret buying a PS3 but in all honesty with great exclusives like MGS4, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance2, Killzon2, Heavy Rain, inFamous, LittleBigPlanet, FF13Versus, Kingdom Hearts 3 (yes it was announced), and most importantly God of War 3, I'm kinda confused as to why you would say that. Especially considering the fact that developers are starting to give the PS3 just as much (if not more) attention as the 360.

On a side note, the 360 is a great console too (with great exclusives like Halo, Gears, and Mass Effect) so I think it was kinda stupid on your part to sell you 360.

dagreatest

@dagreatest: Well said. I have no idea how different these two versions of Bioshock will be at the end of the day, but a few low res grainy videos are completely worthless for comparison purposes. It's hard to view this as anything but flamebait. I'm no fan of IGN, but I can't imagine for a moment they'd outright lie about the differences they saw. I say that as someone who owns the 360 version of Bioshock too.

MattB

Well there goes all the "PS3 version will look better" comments.

Same exact thing on both consoles.

Murderdolls

Gotta play the game side by side to really see if there is any difference. These game comparison videos doesn't do anything besides getting the fanboys riled up.

zerokoolpsx

@psychobaka:

can someone put up a captain obvious picture?
of course the PC version is superior. The PC's hardware is upgradable whereas with consoles, you'll have to wait 5-10 years for the next one to come out.

dagreatest

@psychobaka: I'd agree if it wasn't for the DRM.

MattB

PC >>>>> PS3 & 360 Combined

psychobaka

Only thing you can compare this game is to have both yourself and compare on a HDTV.

Crippen

Eh? People still comparing pen sizes for Sony and Microsoft?

=S

Ultrasinc

sorry for the re-post but apparently some people still don't get it:

This is bullshit. Any dumb f*** can tell you that you can't do comparisons with a resolution this shitty. If you actually watch the game in action on a real HDTV and compare the PS3 and 360 version side-by-side, you will be able to pick up subtle differences.

Here's a quote from IGN:

"The water effects look much slicker, as do many of the environments as they are slowly submerged in water. It's quite obvious that 2K is taking full advantage of the PS3's Blu-ray discs to pack in cleaner high resolution textures for every facet of the game; while we didn't see any pro-pixel leatherization diffusion within our early sections of the title, we wouldn't be surprised if it makes an appearance in the later stages, such as Arcadia or Fort Frolic. "

Just like Oblivion when it was later ported to the PS3, you will have faster loading times, cleaner textures, added content, and in general a more complete package (Although I'm sure the added content will later be available for 360 owners via DLC)

Aside from the bullshit comparison, I have an issue with the Kotaku writers. what's up with:

"A few discrepancies here and there, but nothing like the glaring difference we saw way back when the PS3 first launched. We've come so far, haven't we?"

Really guys? I mean yeah the PS3 has come a long way but so has the 360. It is always the case that when a new console comes out it takes developers some time to become familiar with the harware's archetecture. I mean just compare Kameo with Gears of War2 (or Heavenly Sword with Metal Gear Solid 4) or any other console in history for that matter.

It just seems very unprofessional of you guys to not know this...or maybe you already knew but decided to take a little jab at the PS3 for whatever reason. And this isn't the only time. I've noticed a pattern with your PS3 coverage. Just yesterday you wrote:

"2K just passed this new BioShock PS3 trailer along. Nothing new or terribly exciting here for anyone who owns a 360 or PC"

like yeah sure it's not a big deal for 360 and PC owners but it IS a big deal that one of the 360s biggest exclusives is now available for the PS3...that's one less reason to buy a 360. I mean it's all over the news when the PS3 loses one of its exclusives so how is this not a big deal?

Being a Kotaku reader for a while now I get this vibe that they always try to downplay any positive news for PS3 owners and make a huge deal out of any blow to Sony. And I swear I'm not trying to be a fanboy. I'm just making an observation.

dagreatest

Hey looks just a good, slighty darker, but thats it....what matters, if only slighty is the new content

excel_excel

OK..I will not feed any fanbot-izm in my comment. They both look great like the post says a few very minor tweaks here and there but for the most part equally sexy. I just think (this is just my opinion not speaking for anyone else) that the lighting is leaning just a bit more towards the 360. but in no way is it a deal breaker. Something about the shadows and light sourcing seems more real. But again the video is compressed and doesn't represent the real thing in front of you considering everyone has a different setup. At my house both the PS3 and the 360 look great with neither one being better. I love my PS3 and my 360.... ;-)

JorgieX

@GodKiller0:

...read the comment right above you

dagreatest

I think the x-box version, that came out more then a year ago, looks a little better in that video. But I only played on pc, so they are probably both lesser. I think it's a little sad that the ps3 doesn't do better, before it came out, everyone was talking about how strong that machine would be...look at it now, it doesn't do anything better, I have never seen a multiplatform game that looks better on ps3. Sony should think about gaming when making a console, not benchmarks and complicated calculations the cell can do.

GodKiller0

Once again I see no difference. These videos have been pointless for quite sometime now.

Rinaldus

2k has spent their money well on this port, it is sooo freaking obvious the improvements!! What were they again?

Lyme

Meh.. Just compare the graphics of Killzone 2 and Gears 2, and you'll see the difference of the 2 consoles.

theEnemy

I saw a comparison for Mercenaries 2 and the PS3 version was significantly better (higher resolution textures at least.) I don't play that game though.

Kaneda

@nyaz: i never trust that. i've done my own comparisons. and my PS3 is never that dark. also that is something you can control with your tv menu option. Also, i wonder with some games are they using both systems at top quality meaning HD or SD

INDIGOVENOM

@ilCardinal: agreed the comparison is really only valid with high defintion video. That's why there's screenshots and not video when real comparisons are done.

Xtreme_Hindu_Cow

@theEnemy:

Killzone 2 is the worst thing ever, what we see, is not what we will have at the end, you can count on that!

GodKiller0

Damn it whay dont people just make full use of the PS3 than make a game look like a 360 game. If I want an 360 game I'd get it for 360, but if I want a PS3 game make it a PS3 game in its own right.

adragonfang18

@GodKiller0:

the worst thing ever? wow someone's a jealous little fanboy.

dagreatest