assassins creed 360 vs ps3 differences

J

jester1176

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
1,553
When Assassin’s Creed was first announced for the 360, there were some comments made that there might be some differences in that version. Is everything going to be pretty much identical, or will there be any differences between the PS3 version and the 360 version?

Raymond: There shouldn’t be any differences at all. We’re sharing the exact same assets. The engines have the same capabilities. Both systems have different things going for them. With PlayStation 3, currently, you can see maybe a slight difference in some of the textures. With Xbox 360 right now you may see a little bit smoother framerate, maybe a couple more frames per second right now. It’s so negligible right now that unless you’re sitting there looking at them both side by side, you’re not going to see any difference. And that’s our goal—to deliver the exact same experience on both of them

What about the Sixaxis controls? Are you planning on using any of that at all?

Raymond: No.

Why not?

Raymond: There’s still an opportunity if we come up with a great idea. We really wanted to us it first and we thought a lot, and every idea we came up for it ended up feeling a bit like a gadget. We were like, “If it doesn’t fit, if it’s not a great idea, why do it?”

from http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200705/N07.0523.1653.37195.htm?Page=1
 
I'm sure GameTrailers will release another side-by-side video showing the differences between the two versions.
 
Cue the PS3 fanboys saying that they had to compromise for the 360 version and the 360 fanboys saying they had to compromise for the PS3 version!

:D
 
I'm quite interested in this game. If I do end up getting it I'll be getting the 360 version.
 
Here's hoping that the PC version won't suck as spectacularly as Splinter Cell: Double Agent did...
 
Back way back when I heard the 360 version is suppose to have slightly better AI in terms of interaction with the general public. So is that out of it too or was never in it or they managed to do it for the PS3 as well?

any one know?
 
wow...this piece of information is ushering me back towards the 360 side...i swayed to the ps3 side for a bit...
 
Does anyone know if two separate teams are working on a strictly PS3 and 360 version or are they being developed on one system and then ported to another? I've read its easier to develop on the PS3 first and port to the 360 than it is vice versa. Just curious. So since I have a 360, this will be a 360 purchase. Can't wait for it though.
 
deception`` said:
You had me at achievements :)
Click to expand...

*LOL* Definitely one reason for me. The other being I don't even have a PS3 ;) , but if I did... It'd probably still be the 360 version with achievements being a pretty big reason, if the game itself is basically the same.
 
Psychotext said:
Cue the PS3 fanboys saying that they had to compromise for the 360 version and the 360 fanboys saying they had to compromise for the PS3 version!

:D
Click to expand...


Or maybe the developers are just not ambtious enought to utilize the capibilities of each systems.
 
Luke_Skywalker said:
Or maybe the developers are just not ambtious enought to utilize the capibilities of each systems.
Click to expand...

hah, ambitious? you mean they don't have the $$$$ to waste trying to get everything running well for both systems. I think this will be an annoying issue with this generation of consoles...
 
not just *this* generation. it was a "problem" with the last generation as well. Electronic Arts and other companies publically stated that they developed on one system and ported to the others. Which is why even though the Xbox was the more powerful of the 3 consoles last round, the game looked virtually the same on both PS2 and 360.

if you want the game out in any decent amount of time, you're going to have to give the developers a little slack when working on a cross-platform title. take the other Ubi Soft games...GRAW, Splinter Cell etc always take months longer on the PC than they do on consoles for this exact reason.
 
jester1176 said:
if you want the game out in any decent amount of time, you're going to have to give the developers a little slack when working on a cross-platform title. take the other Ubi Soft games...GRAW, Splinter Cell etc always take months longer on the PC than they do on consoles for this exact reason.
Click to expand...

But my point is that it isn't just about time. It's about money; they don't want to spend more than is necessary getting it on another platform. It's why both GRAW and Splinter Cell: DA are abortions on the PC, and countless games on systems that weren't the primary development systems have worse quality graphics, dropped features, poor framerate, etc.

Development costs have increased to astronomical heights for this generation of console systems, and it doesn't bode well...
 
tirminyl said:
Achievements are overrated :D
Click to expand...

...Achievements are overrated?

Look, I'm not an achievement whore [you're welcome to check my tag], but there is nothing more satisfying than beating a level or passing a challenge just to hear the beep and the "achievement unlocked" pop-up.

Sure, the number doesn't mean much, but the bottom line is that achievements really extend the life of games. In many cases you can easily spent countless hours earning points outside of the main story.
 
I personally think achievements are overrated but they are a nice addition. It can raise game life expectancy like the above user said. Since people like to be completists. Not me, so I think they're overrated but its still nice to have around.
 
quadnad said:
But my point is that it isn't just about time. It's about money; they don't want to spend more than is necessary getting it on another platform. It's why both GRAW and Splinter Cell: DA are abortions on the PC, and countless games on systems that weren't the primary development systems have worse quality graphics, dropped features, poor framerate, etc.

Development costs have increased to astronomical heights for this generation of console systems, and it doesn't bode well...
Click to expand...


actually, that's potentially because they're developed in an entirely different studio.
 
pothb said:
I personally think achievements are overrated but they are a nice addition. It can raise game life expectancy like the above user said. Since people like to be completists. Not me, so I think they're overrated but its still nice to have around.
Click to expand...

I see both your points. People just make them out to be something they are really not.

****Achievement Unlocked! 10G Derailed thread from original topic****
 
jester1176 said:
actually, that's potentially because they're developed in an entirely different studio.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here; the big issue is that the more time and effort you spend porting a title, the more money it costs. Sure it's possible that the team porting the code didn't do a good job, but just as they'd like to keep their jobs they're doing the best they can to make a quality port. However when they have a budget target, they aren't going to work any harder than that will allow them.
 
so i assume assassins creed was initially developed for the ps3 right? as it was a ps3 exclusive for a few months, when the game demo materialized (if it stayed exclusive i probably would have bought a ps3:p)...

but it runs faster on the 360?...that means they must have made a good job of the porting process...or they were developed in two different studios...but out of those 2 possibilities, there is one resounding correlation...the 360 has the better hardware (for graphical purposes)

p.s. im not a fan-boy as i dont own any of these consoles and im still debating on which one i will get this summer (i had both last gen consoles at launch from sony and microsoft)...
 
Isn't Home supposed to have some sort of Achievement system?

I guess most of you forget that at least with the PS3... all of them have hard-drives... which can allow for updates and patches. Over time if something (like frame rate issues) is that much of a big deal.... couldn’t they just release a patch? (to make things run smoother//like more efficient programming?) Just a thought.
 
^if the problem was caused due to the incabability of the blu-ray disc at providing sufficient transfer rates then yes...if it is not due to that then it wouldnt help really, i presume.
 
Mayhs said:
so i assume assassins creed was initially developed for the ps3 right? as it was a ps3 exclusive for a few months, when the game demo materialized (if it stayed exclusive i probably would have bought a ps3:p)...

but it runs faster on the 360?...that means they must have made a good job of the porting process...or they were developed in two different studios...but out of those 2 possibilities, there is one resounding correlation...the 360 has the better hardware (for graphical purposes)

p.s. im not a fan-boy as i dont own any of these consoles and im still debating on which one i will get this summer (i had both last gen consoles at launch from sony and microsoft)...
Click to expand...

They've been developing on both for a LONG time. It was announced back in the day for ps3 only, but at the GDC when they showed the first gameplay demos, it was discovered that they were all running on the 360 version.
 
Baker said:
Isn't Home supposed to have some sort of Achievement system?

I guess most of you forget that at least with the PS3... all of them have hard-drives... which can allow for updates and patches. Over time if something (like frame rate issues) is that much of a big deal.... couldn’t they just release a patch? (to make things run smoother//like more efficient programming?) Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Every game I've ever played for my 360 has received some kind of patch or update.
 
Was responding to your implication that an Xbox 360 game cannot have an update or patch because not everyone has a harddrive.
 
Technoob said:
They've been developing on both for a LONG time. It was announced back in the day for ps3 only, but at the GDC when they showed the first gameplay demos, it was discovered that they were all running on the 360 version.
Click to expand...

hmm...i believe that is probable, but why would they do that?...microsoft would have undoubtable known they would be developing it for the 360 so they would not have let them say it is a ps3 exclusive as the game is extremely impressive and was one of the 'big hits' at E3...

this leads me to believe that they were intitially developing for the ps3 exclusively, until they realised that either the ps3 would not provide a feasible means of revenue and microsoft would pay them ££££££ to get it on the 360...
 
Mayhs said:
hmm...i believe that is probable, but why would they do that?...microsoft would have undoubtable known they would be developing it for the 360 so they would not have let them say it is a ps3 exclusive as the game is extremely impressive and was one of the 'big hits' at E3...

this leads me to believe that they were intitially developing for the ps3 exclusively, until they realised that either the ps3 would not provide a feasible means of revenue and microsoft would pay them ££££££ to get it on the 360...
Click to expand...

That's fine conjecture, but not supported by the facts at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top