RE 5 ps3 vs 360

M

Movieesa

Gawd
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
673
In the reviews have they stated if there are differences? I remember fallout the differences turned out to be rather big in the visual department. Thank you
 
I've played both console demos awhile ago and I don't remember any major graphical difference.
 
so ps3 cant be tad better even tho its on blu-ray? seems weird a dvdgame can be identical with a blu-ray game.
 
Mortuus said:
so ps3 cant be tad better even tho its on blu-ray? seems weird a dvdgame can be identical with a blu-ray game.
Click to expand...

Bluray just holds more, doesn't mean they put more information on it.

Another way to look at it is this. If I gave you 2 movies of the dark knight, both DVD quality, one on a standard DVD one that was bit by bit copy of that DVD onto a bluray. Would one be better then the other?

The answer is no.
 
Mortuus said:
so ps3 cant be tad better even tho its on blu-ray? seems weird a dvdgame can be identical with a blu-ray game.
Click to expand...

Blu-ray is just extra storage. Graphical differences will have more to do with the architecture of the systems, memory, and processing power.
 
Both looked the same. I believe the game's Dolby Digital so the audio would be the same, too.
I'm going with the 360 version just because I like the aiming better. Killzone is latest one of several PS3 shooter titles with weird deadzones when aiming with the right stick. I'm not risking that with a game that doesn't let you move and fire at the same time. If the biggest PS3 release in years has aiming issues, I'm afraid RE5 might, too.
 
I wonder how much the install affects the loading times. SF4 had an optional install...but loading takes forever (on both systems) without it. It might has well have been manditory for the PS3. When playing against anyone with no install it drags and drags.
 
Playing SF4 for me wasn't very slow, maybe I have no frame of reference though. I think loading a fight took maybe 8-12 seconds to load a fight...I didn't think that was too bad.
 
I have both systems. If I decide to buy it, it'll be for PS3. Not having to pay for multiplayer trumps any nitpicky technical differences.
 
Domingo said:
If the biggest PS3 release in years has aiming issues, I'm afraid RE5 might, too.
Click to expand...


Did you play the demo ? The only aiming issues are a "feature" of the game.

edit: to be clear I'm talking about the RE5 demo. I wanted to like the game, the atmosphere is good, but the controls and inventory are a hurdle to overcome. Maybe when I can get a used copy for $30.
 
Domingo said:
Both looked the same. I believe the game's Dolby Digital so the audio would be the same, too.
I'm going with the 360 version just because I like the aiming better. Killzone is latest one of several PS3 shooter titles with weird deadzones when aiming with the right stick. I'm not risking that with a game that doesn't let you move and fire at the same time. If the biggest PS3 release in years has aiming issues, I'm afraid RE5 might, too.
Click to expand...

Have you tried it since the patch Domingo? The patch tweaked the deadzone a bit, enough for me to tell a difference. I can actually aim now.

On topic though I'm on the fence about picking it up, the demo seemed really hard like they just threw a shit load of enemies at you with little ammo but maybe I didn't play it enough. It looks great though. But if I get it I'll probably get the 360 version for aiming reasons.
 
Creepingdeath1977 said:
Have you tried it since the patch Domingo? The patch tweaked the deadzone a bit, enough for me to tell a difference. I can actually aim now.

On topic though I'm on the fence about picking it up, the demo seemed really hard like they just threw a shit load of enemies at you with little ammo but maybe I didn't play it enough. It looks great though. But if I get it I'll probably get the 360 version for aiming reasons.
Click to expand...

It's really not very difficult. I can beat the 2nd mission without getting hit in SP, haven't tried it yet in co-op. It's not all about run, shoot, run again, it's about setting up your enemies so you can hit 'em really hard at just the right time (get to where a barrel will explode on the chainsaw guy, blow it, punch him, move back, shoot him in the head a few times, punch him, rinse, repeat). He goes down after only a few repeats.
 
Psychotext said:
Eurogamer to the rescue: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article

PS3 version is jaggytastic in places. Other than that there are only minor differences.
Click to expand...

Its really to the point now that there is no difference while your actually playing a game though. Eurogamer stated they zoomed in by 200% which is more or less pointless for us cuz we're not going to notice it sitting in our chairs playing.

Sites do this shit for hits and that pretty much it.
 
I played the demo of both the ps3 and xbox360. The only thing i noticed about the ps3 copy was its fps struggled at some places. So i ordered it on 360 just to be safe.
 
Creepingdeath1977 said:
Have you tried it since the patch Domingo? The patch tweaked the deadzone a bit, enough for me to tell a difference. I can actually aim now.

On topic though I'm on the fence about picking it up, the demo seemed really hard like they just threw a shit load of enemies at you with little ammo but maybe I didn't play it enough. It looks great though. But if I get it I'll probably get the 360 version for aiming reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the patch helped Killzone's dead-zone a bit...but I still don't care for the turning speed. If anyone or anything comes at you from less than a perfect angle, you're in trouble. Still, the patch definitely helped. RE's actually got a quick turn command that I used a lot in RE4. You can't move while shooting, but with a little finesse, you can run and gun in a disjointed way :)
Either way, the PS3's analogs have been wonky in a few games when it comes to aiming. Killzone was just the latest culprit. The 360's pad was more or less designed with shooters in mind, so I favor the controller.
 
Creepingdeath1977 said:
Its really to the point now that there is no difference while your actually playing a game though. Eurogamer stated they zoomed in by 200% which is more or less pointless for us cuz we're not going to notice it sitting in our chairs playing.
Click to expand...
You couldn't see it before the vid was zoomed in? I wish I had your AA eyes because that stuff drives me nuts!

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/exclusive-resident-evil-5-anti-aliasing-comparison for those wondering what we're talking about.
 
Both versions have dynamic AA.
PS3 is 0 - x2 quincunx
X360 is 0 - x4

I think the PC version will easily be the best. It was developed on PC.
 
Yeah the PC version should be good if your willing to wait. Capcom's more recently PC games have been done good enough. Devil may cry and lost planet are much better then what happened with RE4 on PC.
 
Psychotext said:
Eurogamer to the rescue: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article

PS3 version is jaggytastic in places. Other than that there are only minor differences.
Click to expand...

I love this part

First you'll see the gameplay in typical 1:1 pixel mode, then we'll zoom in 200 per cent. Look at the rooftop and the palm tree in particular and witness the AA turn on and off in quick succession on what is a relatively painless scene.
Click to expand...

I can't believe ppl still swear by shit like this....zoom in 200% to see it? Please....good job I won't play it zoomed in 200% then ain't it!!

Can we get back to playing games now?
 
Psychotext said:
Did you miss my other post? If you've got eyes that can ignore it, good for you... but I can see it in the original 720p source vid pretty clearly: http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=576
Click to expand...

So why zoom in 200%?

Beggars belief. This inane microscopic comparing dick sizes really puts me off gaming nowadays. It's pathetic.

Gaming isn't about how smooth edges are it's about escapism, enjoying a genre....dare I say having fun! Not that I'll get this...needs dragging into the 21st century control wise first...THAT is what should be getting talked about...
 
Ehh... it's a technical comparison. By the same argument you might as well say that there's no point putting in a frame rate meter because no-one will notice the 5fps drop. It's designed to be detailed, and to be honest if they didn't put in the easy to see proof people would just call them liars anyway.

Not that it stops people. :D
 
Psychotext said:
Ehh... it's a technical comparison. By the same argument you might as well say that there's no point putting in a frame rate meter because no-one will notice the 5fps drop. It's designed to be detailed, and to be honest if they didn't put in the easy to see proof people would just call them liars anyway.

Not that it stops people. :D
Click to expand...

Not calling them liars at all, I'm saying it's pathetic they have to zoom in to see differences that Johnny Public will never see.....or even care about. They will care about the controls tho after playing Dead Space. That should be the main issue.

I guess it's all about hits tho. Each to their own.
 
I'm not sure these articles are really aimed at Johnny Public. Nor you for that matter. Those of us with both consoles might find them useful though. :)

(Not in this case for me, I played the RE5 demo. It's shit.)
 
One thing that interests me... to those with both machines, do you really not have a live gold account on the 360? I've seen the "PS3 version because of free online" comment quite a lot, but surely the chances are that you already have a gold account for one of the exclusives (Halo, Gears, L4D, Forza, PGR etc)?

I know I certainly do. Then again at £25 for 13 months I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. :p
 
I actually have both systems, but don't have Live. I did for about two years, but I just used it so infrequently (maybe 10 times total) I decided to cancel. I rarely use my PS3 online either, but if there was a game I might try online, it could make the difference in which I choose. RE is not really my thing though, so I won't get it for either.
 
aw man the ps3 version is gonna look shite on my 110" tv!!!
I dont have live either, i dont plan to for any game in the forseeable future, but thats an argument for other threads....
 
I have both Psycho, and I use both. I always get multiplat games for the 360 because of Live. My only exception was Rainbow Six Vegas 2. It was the first game I got for my PS3, and it was the only game out at the time that I wanted for my PS3 when I bought it.
 
I can understand it if you don't really play online. It just seems strange to me for those that do, given the types of game most people own anyway.
 
Psychotext said:
One thing that interests me... to those with both machines, do you really not have a live gold account on the 360? I've seen the "PS3 version because of free online" comment quite a lot, but surely the chances are that you already have a gold account for one of the exclusives (Halo, Gears, L4D, Forza, PGR etc)?

I know I certainly do. Then again at £25 for 13 months I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. :p
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. People talk about "paying to play one game online!" yet I use Live for pretty much all my games, Netflix, demo's, and (from what I hear...) much better online service than PSN, and for $38/13 months I too am not too worried about it burning a hole in my pocketbook. $2.92/month I can handle, although I am too cheap to pay $15/month to play one game like WoW though.
 
This thread reminds me of the old "OpenGL vs D3D" debates. ... oh wait...

They are different api's, they are going to look different.
 
Psychotext said:
One thing that interests me... to those with both machines, do you really not have a live gold account on the 360? I've seen the "PS3 version because of free online" comment quite a lot, but surely the chances are that you already have a gold account for one of the exclusives (Halo, Gears, L4D, Forza, PGR etc)?

I know I certainly do. Then again at £25 for 13 months I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. :p
Click to expand...

I also have both but I don't have live... I used to have gold and did play occasionally, mainly forza 2 and some other games.. After that if I recall correctly I took a break from gaming and never renewed my gold membership, time passed and I bought PS3 and frankly 360 is collecting dust now, I have gears 2 in my goozex cue but it won't make me renew my gold though, I just want to play it for its SP.

In short PS3 is my preferred console so all multis go there and free online is just a cherry on top eventhough it's not better from gold it has everything that I need.
 
Live is a situation where you get what you pay for. If you really enjoy online play - it IS better than the PSN with every single multiplatform game I've yet seen.
That's not to say that the PSN is lousy, but if they promised Live functionality for a price - I'd happily pay it.
 
For those too lazy to read the Eurogamer article that Psychotext linked...

Eurogamer said:
Special Effects

While the overall look of the game is very close on both machines, the Xbox 360 version wins out with the inclusion of a bit more bling for your money. The most dramatic example of this kicks in on the third chapter, which takes place on a series of small islands in the middle of marshland.

As you might expect, the water is a key element of this particular stage and you'll note that the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 is flatter and duller, with fewer reflections. The Xbox 360 version on the hand has full world reflections, making this stage in particular rather more attractive than its counterpart on the Sony platform. It's a similar compromise to that seen on the PS3 version of Fallout 3, where once again 360 has more detailed and realistic water reflections.

Also evident is that the Xbox 360 version has more in the way of incidental particle effects and transparent alpha textures (i.e. smoke). For example, in the main video edit you saw how Chris Redfield takes down a speeding lorry that's hurtling towards him. On 360, there are friction-esque sparks and a proper exploding windscreen that you don't see on PS3.

None of these make the Sony platform look that much inferior in the heat of the action, but it's a clear indication that Capcom still has some work to do on the Framework engine to bring its performance up to the 360 counterpart. However, what is far more noticeable and with significance for the game's playability is the difference in the refresh rate.

Frame-Rate Analysis

Capcom has taken two entirely different approaches to the frame rate on both platforms with Resident Evil 5. Contrary to early interviews with Capcom, the game isn't running at 60fps, instead operating at the more usual 30fps, albeit with some frame-blending in effect to make it look perceptually smoother. Overall, this effect works well.

The major difference is that Xbox 360 runs with v-lock disengaged, while the PlayStation 3 code has absolutely no tearing whatsoever. However, similar to Grand Theft Auto IV - which operates in the same way - the Xbox 360 version has a tangible advantage here on two fronts. Firstly, it drops far fewer frames than the PS3 code, and secondly, the response from the controls is significantly crisper, particularly when the environments are chockfull of opponents. And again, similar to GTAIV, while the tearing is there, it's pretty much unnoticeable in gameplay (cut-scenes are another matter).
Click to expand...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article?page=2

Sounds like the 360 version is the one to get, at least for those of us with Live and who aren't bothered by tearing. I think I'd live with tearing if it means crisper controls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top