The aptly named website, LensOfTruth.com, did a head to head comparison of Marvel vs. Capcom 3's two versions on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, looking for differences in the graphics.
Matt
Good try. Go check Fallout 3 and ME2 and try again.
PS3 has a stronger blurry filter than Xbox. But some character details look sharper on PS3. That's always the only difference on most of the games that I see this comparison. Or it's the same that saying, no difference.
I highly disagree with you matt, and fully agree with you Ninja
I've never understood why people do this. The visual differences in each version are extremely subtle. Are you really going to notice every single pixel on the screen, or tell which console is being used when looking at a screenshot or watching a video.
The question is: why does this matter?
"PS3 has a stronger blurry filter than Xbox."
That's some real tech speak.
Also, Fallout 3 looks and performs much better on 360. Just saying. Mass Effect 2 was released a year later on PS3, so you could pretty much expect some improvements in that time span (even though there are quite a few glitches from what I've heard; dunno, I played it a year ago).
Many more multiplatform games do look better on 360 than PS3 if you're looking at it objectively. But, if we're being honest, there's no reason to care either way. Only experience-inhibiting graphical errors and framerate issues (as was the case with Bayonetta on PS3 when it launched, which I believe has now been solved) are worth worrying about. Get it for the system you have and/or like most, and get on with your life.
So which console's fault was it that Human Torch was scrapped..?
Wait, I'll keep it relevant. Which console's fault was it that the Human Torch is unavailable for a side-by-side graphic comparison such as this?
The playstation version has better shading I find. I've always liked how the contrast on PS games is deeper than Xbox.
However, Xbox seems to have less pixelation, a good example is easily seen on the Haggar picture...look at his hand's shadow.
Difference is so minimal its not even worth arguing over specially in a fast action game such as this. Maybe if the fanboys want to nitpick over it in a game like mass effect or fallout where you can stand still for a half hour at a time so be it, let them have their epeen contest. But for this game? Waste of space. On topic, i did enjoy seeing the comparisons from a tech point of view. Thanks for posting this.
@14
That's a new one. "The contrast is deeper on PS3 games." Usually it's everyone bitching because screens taken by comparison sites like these, always have the PS3 looking blurry and washed out. But really, saying a game has better contrast? It's a setting on your TV. Turn it up if it isn't deep enough for you.
Don't usually the games are ported from XBox 360 to the PS3, cause if they made the game from scratch for PS3, wouldn't it look even more detailed? That's what I heard around, but I wouldn't blame people thinking the Xbox 360 graphics looks better if it was ported over but PS3 not made to it's full potential like PS3 exclusive games.
What did I do on Roll Over? I used the lens to examine Poison :P
As usual the Playstation 3 version looks better.
Why is a comparison even needed lol.
Let the 360 ppl be happy they got their MvC3 on their platform.
They know whats up in the graphics department already.
LOL you just made me fell old there Johns. Thinking about "THE" pixel. Had a flashback of playing Atari Adventure where you were nothing but a big orange square.
And I STILL hate that freakin' bat. Always stealing my keys... *salty face
Anyways back on topic. If you want to talk tech comparisons, yes the xbox ATI chip DOES have more processing power than the Nvidia chipset in the ps3. It has more pixel pipelines (when the game developed actually uses them all), and also wins in a few other categories such as fill rates, multisampling, vertex shading, and a bunch of other terms you probably dont know what they mean.
What Ps3 does better is a much smaller die (40nm vs 90nm in xbox) which means lower power consumption and LESS HEAT (red ring anyone problem anyone?)
So it's apples to oranges here, and more the age-old battle of ATI vs Nvidia so if you're going to argue over something, at least know what you're arguing about.
Nigh-indistinguishable. Though it seems the PS3 has SLIGHTLY better detailing on some backgrounds. SLIGHTLY.
Mourne
yes, Fallout 3 performs better on Xbox 360, less bugs. But the graphics are hugely improved on the PS3 version. It's shocking.
And yeah, ME2 on PS3 uses the ME3 engine. What about it? Still doesn't change my statement. It looks better on PS3.
Just saying tho. It's a myth that Xbox 360 looks better on most games, a myth spread mostly by americans. Now figure that out...
@NINJA: The anti-American sentiment on this site still humors me. Firstly, the graphical gap in the two console versions of Fallout 3 are not as great as you like to imply. I mean, apparently even Sony supports the 360 version: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/...
It isn't a bad game on PS3 (it's where I played it), but the "amazing" difference you mentioned really just isn't there. Supporting one system over the other is fine, it really is. It's when you speak in platitudes that are clearly not true and are more likely soundbites picked up on forums supporting your cause that you fall into that typical fanboy trap. If the PS3 really always looks better, it will defend itself. You don't have to post falsities and hope that they're true. (To help you a bit: Fallout New Vegas actually does look quite a bit better on PS3 than it does on 360, so cite that one next time)
"Americans" (and most people with sensibility and access to both consoles, to be honest with you) know that the majority of multiplatform games look better on 360 than they do on PS3 simply because the 360 is the lead platform for many of them. It doesn't mean the PS3 is a bad system or anything of the sort--it just means that the lead platform will generally prevail in any comparison, even if the games perform up to expectation on both systems. Even just speaking of recent games, those like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, Red Dead Redemption, and Dead Rising 2 all are noticably better on 360 than on PS3 (in both the graphics department and that of performance). Lens of Truth lists 41 "winners" for 360 and 14 "winners" for PS3, in case you aren't really familiar with the matter and are just saying what comes to mind. Occasionally, we'll have bad ports that swing the "argument" in favor of either camp (Bayonetta on PS3 and Final Fantasy XIII for 360), but that's because people are prone to formulating opinions before assimilating sufficient data (we all are, to be fair).
So, if the "Americans" are those that are genuinely waiting for data in order to form their opinions instead of instantly opting for the console plugged into their television at that moment, I will certainly side with them.
Oh whoopdeedo, barely crap all of a difference between the two versions. If fanboys use this to justify why one version is better than the other then don't expect me to have sympathy for them.
they are the same, people are just seeing what they want to see.
@46: There are some multiplats that were the lead platform on PS3, like the Assassin's Creed series, & yet, they STILL came out to be better on 360. It doesn't matter which platform you lead on first, there isn't any real guarantee that the PS3 versions of games would automatically be better.
And why is that, do you ask? Because the PS3 has a complicated architecture in their system comparison to 360, which is a LOT easier for 3rd party devs to make games for. It takes more time, money, & effort, JUST to get PS3 versions of games being on par with the 360 versions (or even better than the 360 versions of games, if at all).
Plus I trust Eurogamer & B3D for comparisons A LOT BETTER than Lens of Truth. Sometimes they would be biased in their opinions. For example, they gave Batman: AA the win on PS3 over 360 all because for extra content, & are missing some details for the 360 version (such as better AA & better shadowing). Here's the link to most of Eurogamer/Digital Foundry's comparisons. Go to this link below & click on the Eurogamer icon to each title you see below there.
Never understood the major point in this the only thing that matters the most is framerate not visual enhancments. If you want to compare fighting games for what it is, try comparing to seee if it REALLY moves 60 frames per second like it claims which they both do, both have same features. Done, end of story. This is not news.
lol, the only reason this was posted is because of all the 360 glitch videos that were posted yesterday
I don't really see any difference, except I kinda see the Xbox is a bit brighter... But I don't know if it's just me
Mass Effect 2 look great on the ps3 because it's was not a port like Dragon age was a port from the pc to the console(That why the game looked and played like crap on console)
Capcom being a japanese corporation and having a team for the west(North America) .. You can assume they worked on both ps3 and 360 individualy.
Ps3 it's a sad thing because they're mostly port from the 360 in the west . Considering that the 360 it's the *North american thing* that does not surprise me.Also the fact it's easier working on the 360 and thus less espensive..It's make it the best choice for developper to make their game on that platform first when they plan for a console release and after porting it to the PS3 .
What?have you ever played a bad port from a console to a PC?It's horrible no?Same happens on console . The 360 it's the most obvious choice .. Sadly ..but Happily we have developper like Capcom and Bioware that seem to care .. Or start to care.
@17
I'm saying if you had 2 TVs, the same, with the same settings on each one, with an xbox on one and a PS on the other, the PS would look darker. OBVIOUSLY contrast is a setting on your TV you can adjust, but when these comparisons are made, it's under the above conditions where everything is equal, because you're judging the game only and not the screen it's on.... I'm glad I could teach you what equal comparison means.
ima make vids on youtube like this so i can get easy views and comments. fanboys ftw :)
Sorry people, the few diffrences are so insignificant, they mean nothing. Its fine to say 360 can handle AA better, but in the grand scheme of things, hardly anyone will care because everyone will just be playing the game. Graphics snobs can snob all they want, I'll still be playing & enjoying the game. Plain & simple.
That comparison was so derp. You can barely tell any difference. "Notice how the 360 version looks blurrier."
...Right...
The system renders out colors slightly differently. Big deal.
omg the difference is insanely small. this is probably the closest a multiplat has come to looking the same
360 looks better as usual.