XBOX 360 vs. Playstation 3: Rainbow Six Vegas 2
March 23 Carl Nelson
Subscribe to our FULL RSS feed!
GameTrailers has done us a service by recording some footage of Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on both the XBOX 360 and PS3, comparing them in split-screen.
The verdict? Well first of all the game doesn’t look that great to begin with. However, the PS3 version is lacking many of the shadow effects of the 360 version, and the framerate looks to be a bit lower in some areas (although you can’t really use a crappy flash video or even HD flash video for this, it’s really apparent in the helicopter scene that the PS3 is chugging away at 30 fps at most). Also, the PS3 appears to be adding some motion blur to keep framerate up, and the lighting is… well… crap.
Again, it’s not like the 360 looks that much better, considering we’re over 2 years into the console’s life span. But if you have both consoles, the 360 version is clearly the one to get.
Filed under: Video Game Hardware, Video Games
Tags: Comparison, Playstation 3, XBOX 360
Wasn’t it shown that GT doesn’t set up the PS3 properly? As in, they use the default settings, don’t enable full RGB, nor adjust the white levels? I’m not sure if they’ve corrected this, but that may explain why it looks crappier?
I’m pretty sure they would have corrected that by now. In any case, those things wouldn’t have any effect on the things I noticed, such as heavy motion blur, really low framerate in the helicopter scene, and poor shadowing (and lack of shadowing in some cases).
Ubisoft obviously had to shorten their PS3 development time to get both versions out at once.
The lack of shadows was the only thing that detracted from the PS3 video. To me, the HDR looked better on the PS3 and the textures seems to look better, as well. Other than that, I’d call it even.
Question: are the graphical differences due to the capabilities of the ps3 vs 360? or is it due to the particular developer not putting forth the effort to harness the power of the ps3? I’ve heard it both ways just want your input.
I’d say a bit of both. If the PS3 wasn’t hard to develop for, we wouldn’t be seeing this type of disparity between the two versions.
The graphical capabilities are indisputable though; the PS3’s GPU is literally not as powerful as the XBOX 360’s. There is no way to argue this.
Some would point to the games where the PS3 is the lead development platform, but to that one could argue that doing so ‘holds the game back’ to PS3’s specs. In other words, a game developed on PS3 first might have more potential on the 360, but that potential is unseen.
So we know for a fact that the PS3 has lower graphics capabilities, and we know for a fact that it is difficult to work with. These two facts should answer your questions ;)
Again, that’s not saying that one console is better than the other. I really hate to add any fuel to the fire. Especially when 90% of my console gaming now is on the PS3 - including multiplatform games like DMC4 and Burnout Paradise. I just prefer playing on the PS3.
But if I was going to buy R6 Vegas 2, it would definitely be on the 360. The same goes for GH3 and Rock Band (because of guitar compatibility).
I actually thought the PS3 looked better textures were defiantly better. with regards too the dev work MS has so much programing experience behind them it was always a given there dev kit would be easier to work with.
Still would buy the 360 version purely for XBL