After the shocking port of Bayonetta to the PS3,good to see the PS3 got the edge this time. Fair play to the team for taking the time and making the effort.360 has always been lead platform for multi platform games.It would cost to much and kill the time span if cross platform games were made ground up on both.PS3 has in the past got shoddy ports,although its been much better the last year or so,with the PS3 exclusive for the most part showing qualities way beyond the 360.It needed to change..
the thing is the 360 soft-turns off v sync i think while ps3 keeps it. if you stand under the tank while it's freaking out at 2:30 in the ps3 demo, unfortunately, it gets pretty choppy.
They did state that ps3 would be this games leading system like 360 was bayonettas leading system but its all up to what the players prefer more, Regardless of the platform I believe this game will do well regardless
@LD1990 no, actually, the ps3 being the lead usually means it's going to end up as good or better which is a big thing considering platinum games did shit on the ps3 port of bayonetta. it was an atrocity which was being sold at the same price as the 360 version.
@AudioCorps I understand exactly what you mean I was just being a little open minded as far as a business stand point either way the company is profiting from both platforms lol so that just means more money for more quality products that they are going to be putting out in the future I just try to view things with a little bit of an unbiased equallity
@AudioCorps: I just think that's kind of stupid for developers like them & the ones who did the Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow game to start on PS3 development first, mainly because the 360 has such a higher fanbase & that most of the games sell much better on 360 than they do on PS3.
@WizardOfWor because hes gay but i have to say i think ths game is much better on ps3 havinfg played it on both consoes the reasons why are on the ps3 verion its alot clearer but whereas on the xbox version its quite fuzzy and hard to follow
@WizardOfWor priorities of development and any other form of work. knock down the hard stuff and then move on to the easy stuff, a horrible game/port warrants little value in purchasing.
@WizardOfWor Depends on the game. The PS3 has a much more powerful graphics engine, and the disc holds much more media storage than the 360 disc. So if a developer wants to make a large scale game like Castlevania, theyre going to develope it on PS3 so they dont have to design the game on seperate disc.
By the way... Both Castlevania and Vanquish sold better on PS3.
@DialgaMarine3: More powerful graphics engine? I just think that's a load of garbage. I'm certainly not buying another system just so I could play some multiplats that are better on PS3.
@DialgaMarine3: "Wrong console?" Buddy, there are tons of games that I like on the 360, & they have a more diverse selection of games. You're such a fanboy by stating that remark.
@WizardOfWor Lol, diverse selection? I have a secret: In 2011, Ps3 has a whole shitload of games lined up. KZ3, R3, Infamous 2, LBP 2, Uncharted 3, Sly 4, and Twisted Metal. What does 360 have on the line lol.
@DialgaMarine3: There will be a huge surprise of more exclusives coming out in 2011 at E3 2011. Microsoft are probably just waiting until that time to reveal them.
Sly Collection: Ooh, wow, remakes of PS2 games.
Twisted Metal: Been there, done that.
Killzone 3: Bleh. The 2nd one was a pile of poop.
Infamous 2: Doesn't excite me in the least.
Uncharted: A Gears of War ripoff with boring gameplay.
@DialgaMarine3: Yet, the sales of the PS3 are still behind, & the sales of the 360 will be even higher come Christmas time. Sony had to do many price cuts from the beginning of their launch until 2009 of September just for them to get where they are. Shows how desperate they were. Only morons would buy gaming consoles at $500 or at $600. The 360 didn't even have their first price cut until 2 years after their launch.
Plus some of those developers aren't multiplatform.
@WizardOfWor When in doubt turn to sales, that's all 360 fanboys do. How do sales make your gaming experience on the 360 better? Are sales going to keep you entertained for a year until Gears 3 comes out?
@Dendu77: Hey, DialgaMarine3 was the one who brung up sales first by bragging about the PS3 selling year to year, so don't blame me for countering him on that part. What do you expect me to say?
@WizardOfWor Oh, and youre forgetting. The first 360 models were merely the core systems. They didnt come with headsets yet. No HDMI cable, no Wireless controllers, and the graphics were total shit then (not that theyve improved much since then). As a matter of fact, the original 360s didnt even have an HDMI port. You had to spend $200 on an external HD drive, which was worthless any way since the Blu-ray was going to kill the HD DVD. Fail.
@DialgaMarine3: Don't you think that I know what the core model was? Also, the HD-DVD was only a add-on, not as being standard. If MS were to have it implemented into the system, then the 360's price were to be around the same price as the PS3's prices at launch.
@WizardOfWor Exactly my point. Sony offered a Next-gen system that was the most advanced console ever seen. It gave gamers everything they needed, which for the 360, you had to spend hundreds of extra dollars on accessories to get the same quality. Not only did the PS3 come with alot more in one console, it also offered free online and didnt break down after a week.
So, no shit the PS3 was more expensive. It was a new console that brought alot to the table.
@DialgaMarine3: The question is, did anyone give a crap about Blu-Ray back then? No. You can have a lot of things inside a system all you want, but the number one thing which helps certain console or handheld succeed is the price tag. $600 was too much for a gaming console.
Plus without Xbox Live, PSN just wouldn't exist. Sony, like Microsoft, are good companies, but stop trying to make Sony look like a saint, because they used to overcharge people for accessories back in the PS1 & PS2 days.
@WizardOfWor So...... Youre telling me that you dont mind spending money on a console that gives you little to nothing for your money, unless youre willing to spend hundreds more on accessories. But a console that brings you all that the other console doesnt give you, for a couple hundred dollars more without the accessories and some extra is bad to you? Sony wanted to create a real next-gen console, not simply recycle the last gen but give it prettier graphics.
@WizardOfWor Oh and theres a flaw to that XBL comment. XBL was not the first online service in a console. It was actually Seganet on the Dreamcast, so what you meant to say is that neither XBL nor PSN would have existed without Seganet. Thats not true however. Online play in gaming has existed for a long time, and it was known years ahead of time that Sony and MS would be implementing it sooner or later.
One more thing: The original Xbox was more expensive than the PS2. Care to comment?
@DialgaMarine3: Sega may have "started" online gaming on consoles, but MS did it better. Plus you are such a fanboy for saying that the 360 is not a real next gen console. If anything, it's the Wii that's not a real next gen console. Plus only a moron would shell out $600 for a home gaming console.
Plus the Xbox wasn't THAT expensive, as it was at the same price as the PS2 at launch. And seriously, STOP trying to look for an argument, because I know what you're trying to do.
@DialgaMarine3: If I was going to spend money on a home gaming console, I would NOT spend more than $400 bucks on it. That's my limit. If anything, I would wait for the price to come down. Only diehards would consider spending $500-$600 on a gaming console. That's like your rent money right there.
very small difference, a few more overall fps on the xbox 360, the graphic looks the same.. nice to see a game where the difference between consoles are very small.
Looks the same on both. Has more stable framerates on 360.
sinnnerfree6666 2 months ago
ps3 win
basajaun87 8 months ago
look so better on ps3
lobtroter 1 year ago
After the shocking port of Bayonetta to the PS3,good to see the PS3 got the edge this time. Fair play to the team for taking the time and making the effort.360 has always been lead platform for multi platform games.It would cost to much and kill the time span if cross platform games were made ground up on both.PS3 has in the past got shoddy ports,although its been much better the last year or so,with the PS3 exclusive for the most part showing qualities way beyond the 360.It needed to change..
Mezzergb 1 year ago
Both look the same. Only difference is 360 looks brighter while PS3 looks darker
HomieBreeze 1 year ago
the thing is the 360 soft-turns off v sync i think while ps3 keeps it. if you stand under the tank while it's freaking out at 2:30 in the ps3 demo, unfortunately, it gets pretty choppy.
muzapstar 1 year ago
the thing is the 360 turns off v sync i think while ps3 keeps it.
muzapstar 1 year ago
I believe Vanquish is one of the few games that will look better on PS3 simply because It's a PS3 game being ported to 360, just like FF13.
JCrescini87 1 year ago
PS3 graphic/color looks much better than xbox 360 ps3 wins
LiLiuMGG 1 year ago
ps3 looks better actualy :/ better colors :o
misterhoobomaster 1 year ago
they're still making these videos and people are still PS3/360 bashing???
lol anyways EVERYTHING looks good on my 57'INCH!!!
TheWatcherPt2 1 year ago
360p...the quality is so bad you can't tell the difference.
Five500Hundred 1 year ago
@Five500Hundred Yes, I got the video off of Eurogamer site. Its a bit better there. Will try to get it in HD and re-upload.
SEGAbits 1 year ago
They did state that ps3 would be this games leading system like 360 was bayonettas leading system but its all up to what the players prefer more, Regardless of the platform I believe this game will do well regardless
LD1990 1 year ago
@LD1990 no, actually, the ps3 being the lead usually means it's going to end up as good or better which is a big thing considering platinum games did shit on the ps3 port of bayonetta. it was an atrocity which was being sold at the same price as the 360 version.
AudioCorps 1 year ago
@AudioCorps I understand exactly what you mean I was just being a little open minded as far as a business stand point either way the company is profiting from both platforms lol so that just means more money for more quality products that they are going to be putting out in the future I just try to view things with a little bit of an unbiased equallity
LD1990 1 year ago
@AudioCorps: I just think that's kind of stupid for developers like them & the ones who did the Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow game to start on PS3 development first, mainly because the 360 has such a higher fanbase & that most of the games sell much better on 360 than they do on PS3.
That's just my opinion.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor How about no.
That's just my opinion.
AudioCorps 1 year ago
@AudioCorps: And why did you say that, may I ask?
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor because hes gay but i have to say i think ths game is much better on ps3 havinfg played it on both consoes the reasons why are on the ps3 verion its alot clearer but whereas on the xbox version its quite fuzzy and hard to follow
mountainman1414 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor priorities of development and any other form of work. knock down the hard stuff and then move on to the easy stuff, a horrible game/port warrants little value in purchasing.
AudioCorps 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Depends on the game. The PS3 has a much more powerful graphics engine, and the disc holds much more media storage than the 360 disc. So if a developer wants to make a large scale game like Castlevania, theyre going to develope it on PS3 so they dont have to design the game on seperate disc.
By the way... Both Castlevania and Vanquish sold better on PS3.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: More powerful graphics engine? I just think that's a load of garbage. I'm certainly not buying another system just so I could play some multiplats that are better on PS3.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Noone ever said you had to. Its your fault for buying the wrong console in the first place lol.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: "Wrong console?" Buddy, there are tons of games that I like on the 360, & they have a more diverse selection of games. You're such a fanboy by stating that remark.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Lol, diverse selection? I have a secret: In 2011, Ps3 has a whole shitload of games lined up. KZ3, R3, Infamous 2, LBP 2, Uncharted 3, Sly 4, and Twisted Metal. What does 360 have on the line lol.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: There will be a huge surprise of more exclusives coming out in 2011 at E3 2011. Microsoft are probably just waiting until that time to reveal them.
Sly Collection: Ooh, wow, remakes of PS2 games.
Twisted Metal: Been there, done that.
Killzone 3: Bleh. The 2nd one was a pile of poop.
Infamous 2: Doesn't excite me in the least.
Uncharted: A Gears of War ripoff with boring gameplay.
Only LBP 2 is of interest from that list.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Lol, what exckusives? Theyve lost pretty much all of their exclusive developers to Sony.
Sly 4, not sly collection dumbass
Youre just mad because 360 is getting TM
Killzone 2 was ok, but KZ3 is epic (Beta alone kicked ass)
Imfamous kicks ass
Uncharted = 50+ game of the year awards (a record, never seen Gears do that)
LBP 2, we agree upon
You forgot Resistance 3, the game to kick Gears ass.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: If the PS3 was so great, everyone would be buying one just like with the PS1 & the PS2 instead of buying more Wii's & more 360's.
Plus I'm not mad about not getting TM, it's so 90's. It may be great, but who hasn't played the series back in the PS1 & PS2 days?
Resistance 2 was quite inferior to the 1st one. As for studios, let's see here:
Firebrand Studios, 343 Industries, Lionhead Studios, Turn 10 Studios, Wingnut Interactive, etc.
Ya.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Funny how the PS3 has been having better world-wide sales then the 360 over the last year.
TM is timeless, especially since this is its first time on the next gen.
Resistance 2 was epic
Some of developers are multiplatform.
Keep trying lol.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: Yet, the sales of the PS3 are still behind, & the sales of the 360 will be even higher come Christmas time. Sony had to do many price cuts from the beginning of their launch until 2009 of September just for them to get where they are. Shows how desperate they were. Only morons would buy gaming consoles at $500 or at $600. The 360 didn't even have their first price cut until 2 years after their launch.
Plus some of those developers aren't multiplatform.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor When in doubt turn to sales, that's all 360 fanboys do. How do sales make your gaming experience on the 360 better? Are sales going to keep you entertained for a year until Gears 3 comes out?
Dendu77 1 year ago
@Dendu77: Hey, DialgaMarine3 was the one who brung up sales first by bragging about the PS3 selling year to year, so don't blame me for countering him on that part. What do you expect me to say?
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@Dendu77 Lol! Wassup Dendu!!
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Ps3 had better sales at christmas in 2008 and 2009, just saying....
The 360 actually cost $400 and $500 upon release.
But some of those Devs are.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: Wrong, the 360 was at $300 & $400 at launch.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor $350 and $450 at launch, not including tax. Try again.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: It has always been at $300 & at $400 from the beginning, you buffoon. YOU try again.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Oh, and youre forgetting. The first 360 models were merely the core systems. They didnt come with headsets yet. No HDMI cable, no Wireless controllers, and the graphics were total shit then (not that theyve improved much since then). As a matter of fact, the original 360s didnt even have an HDMI port. You had to spend $200 on an external HD drive, which was worthless any way since the Blu-ray was going to kill the HD DVD. Fail.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: Don't you think that I know what the core model was? Also, the HD-DVD was only a add-on, not as being standard. If MS were to have it implemented into the system, then the 360's price were to be around the same price as the PS3's prices at launch.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Exactly my point. Sony offered a Next-gen system that was the most advanced console ever seen. It gave gamers everything they needed, which for the 360, you had to spend hundreds of extra dollars on accessories to get the same quality. Not only did the PS3 come with alot more in one console, it also offered free online and didnt break down after a week.
So, no shit the PS3 was more expensive. It was a new console that brought alot to the table.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: The question is, did anyone give a crap about Blu-Ray back then? No. You can have a lot of things inside a system all you want, but the number one thing which helps certain console or handheld succeed is the price tag. $600 was too much for a gaming console.
Plus without Xbox Live, PSN just wouldn't exist. Sony, like Microsoft, are good companies, but stop trying to make Sony look like a saint, because they used to overcharge people for accessories back in the PS1 & PS2 days.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor So...... Youre telling me that you dont mind spending money on a console that gives you little to nothing for your money, unless youre willing to spend hundreds more on accessories. But a console that brings you all that the other console doesnt give you, for a couple hundred dollars more without the accessories and some extra is bad to you? Sony wanted to create a real next-gen console, not simply recycle the last gen but give it prettier graphics.
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@WizardOfWor Oh and theres a flaw to that XBL comment. XBL was not the first online service in a console. It was actually Seganet on the Dreamcast, so what you meant to say is that neither XBL nor PSN would have existed without Seganet. Thats not true however. Online play in gaming has existed for a long time, and it was known years ahead of time that Sony and MS would be implementing it sooner or later.
One more thing: The original Xbox was more expensive than the PS2. Care to comment?
DialgaMarine3 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: Sega may have "started" online gaming on consoles, but MS did it better. Plus you are such a fanboy for saying that the 360 is not a real next gen console. If anything, it's the Wii that's not a real next gen console. Plus only a moron would shell out $600 for a home gaming console.
Plus the Xbox wasn't THAT expensive, as it was at the same price as the PS2 at launch. And seriously, STOP trying to look for an argument, because I know what you're trying to do.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@DialgaMarine3: If I was going to spend money on a home gaming console, I would NOT spend more than $400 bucks on it. That's my limit. If anything, I would wait for the price to come down. Only diehards would consider spending $500-$600 on a gaming console. That's like your rent money right there.
WizardOfWor 1 year ago
@LD1990 who stated? the developers?
hackman71 1 year ago
PS3 has better lighting and graphics
PS3 BB ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!
sonicguy180 1 year ago
FAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
WhitArrow18 1 year ago
@WhitArrow18 No.
ThePhantomnaut 1 year ago
Nice find guys!
segashiro 1 year ago
very very VERY god Job!!!! i like the PS3 version a little bit more, looks littlelittle sharper an more effect´s?
MrBaeXter 1 year ago
same thing but the ps3 is a little sharper
reggae1188 1 year ago
very small difference, a few more overall fps on the xbox 360, the graphic looks the same.. nice to see a game where the difference between consoles are very small.
lumicron22 1 year ago
@lumicron22 Looks almost as in night and day with colors, but we have to see HD version or PICS to really compare all teh pixels.
NoxNoctisUmbra 1 year ago