900°

Exclusive: Mirror's Edge - Ps3 Vs 360 demo gameplay

Eurogamer Portugal published an exclusive gameplay video comparing the two versions from Mirror´s Edge demo. Enjoy!

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.pt
LightningPS3PS35655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

I played the demo, and I think this game blows.

It's a first person building hopper, with cliche cool characters. Like the Asian badass skater girl or something...

jwatt5655d ago

They both look exactly the same except the ps3 is brighter and the 360 is darker. You might actually be able to adjust the lighting so that they look identical.

LightningPS3PS35655d ago

looks like every XBOX 360 game ever made. Shiny and arcade like. PS3 has calmer colors.

tplarkin75655d ago

That's called "washed out".

But I agree that Mirrors Edge makes a nice commercial. The game will flop.

EGM did a massive preview and I think the Editor in Chief is biased in favor of the game for some reason.

Fanboy Slaughter5655d ago

tplarkin7, I take it you're artistically uninclined.

There is such a thing as "calmer colors"....it's called not being so bright they burn into my screen.

next time you decide to be like that, take it to the Open Zone. They'd love you.

sonarus5655d ago

PS3 version looks best and plays best...no sixaxis balancing on 360 version:D

Sixaxis balancing FTW

tplarkin75655d ago

I can't say "washed out"? For some reason, PS3 games are muted when compared to 360. It appears that the 360 can represent colors more accurately. So, if the developer wanted muted colors, on the 360 or PS3, he could achieve that. If he wanted vivid colors, he couldn't achieve that as well on PS3.

Bathyj5655d ago

You know its funny, but I've yet to play a single game on PS3 that looks "washed out."

Thats a myth Boxinites like to perpetuate.

Xbox graphic look like exactly that, GRAPHICS. Bright Colourful and cartoony at times. PS3 game tend to have a subtler, more filmlike quality to it. Seems more realistic.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, its a preference like saying Coke is better than Pepsi (even thou it is, ;) ) decide for yourself. Just stop telling me PS3 games are washed out because they're not.

Plus I've noticed most TV's have this thing nowadays, its called a colour setting.

Enjoyed the demo BTW. The game looks interesting and different. Not really a shooter at all.

RememberThe3575655d ago

That demo was hell of a lot of fun. I love how they did everything. Being someone who plays a lot of first person shooters it took a bit to get used to the controls, but when I did it flowed great. They made platforming from the first person perspective work and work well. This is going to be a day one for me, no doubt.

Legion5655d ago

I don't think it is the color situation as much as the lighting situation with the systems. Seems like the 360 has a true lighting where it is dark in the dark areas and bright in the bright areas. Making things look more vivid. PS3 on the other hand balances out the lighting in what I see and doesn't allow the light to get too dark or too bright to change the over all look of the game.

You really notice this when going through dark areas into bright areas in the stair ways. And also when looking at the sun in the sky... the PS3 shows it calmed down and gives a halo effect while the 360 seems to show a true light that blinds you and the area around.

Interesting...

iamtehpwn5655d ago

why?
Ps3 lead development.

PAY ATTENTION MULTIPLAT DEVELOPERS.
This how you do it--not only right, but flawless.

Rofflecopter5655d ago

hmm i cant figure out which is superior. i know, it must be the gravity! the gravity is better on the kashdsakbcuipqwe version!!!!

power of Green 5655d ago

The PS3 doesn't display color the way devs intended, the PS3 version has inferior contrast and lacks true color.

To say the 360 hardware makes things cartoony is to deffend a HDTV with poor color depth and bash a HDTV with truer color. lol

The PS3 version has some sort of layer of fuzz.

GarandShooter5655d ago

I played the demo and thought it was fun. In a couple of those shots, the 360 lost some cityscape details in some overbright sky areas, but otherwise, and especially from a practical perspective, they are identical.

5654d ago
Tarasque5654d ago

Well i can tell you the Xbox 360 version is not set to expanded which makes the contrast way better and colors way more vibrant. With me playing both version side by side on 2 samsung 40" with 25,000:1 contrast ratio the 360 version has the edge, for some reason every PS3 game has this gay filter that blurs out detail to try to make it look smooth and warm. But you can not go wrong with either version by any means. I am sure i will get 100 disagrees, but seriously i could care less i know which version i will be buying.

5654d ago
Armyless5654d ago

Anyone that knows you (or reads your comment history) doesn't expect you to find fault with anything Microsoft ever does.

Ever.

Pain5654d ago

i cant watch that game ><:;

IdleLeeSiuLung5654d ago

I think the reason people like these comparisons are the same reason people like to be fanboys.

In reality for most people, if you just played the game would you notice anything wrong with it? Most people wouldn't and if you put the games sides by side (not in video with compression artifacts), could you tell a difference? Most people couldn't and it would mostly be subjective things like color.

Only in rare instances do you notice, such as lighting (even that is subtle) and perhaps low res textures like the Bioshock PS3 issue that is now fixed....

Fallen_Angel5654d ago

the game looks the same on both but its a small video so never know what it look like on a 40+ inche. But the game looks boring

Xtremist5654d ago

It is confirmed by the game-resolution thread of Beyond3d that the xbox360 version is 720p-2xAA while in the ps3 version there is not AA and there is more screen tearing.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 5654d ago
Breakfast5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

....the xbox version is the superior one.

Want proof?
Watch 3:47 in the video.

Huge difference between the two. (not to mention all the stutters and screen tears, on the ps3 version throughout the video)

God, im glad im a sole xbox owner...would have wasted my money if i bought the ps3.

:)

socomnick5655d ago

Lol yea I guess this proves that even games that have the ps3 as the lead console end up looking better on the 360. Its understandable the 360 puts its full 512mb of ram to good use. Its not held back by split memory or a resource hog os.

The gaming GOD5655d ago

The moment you said that I kept looking at that same time that you said.

I'm even looking at it again as we speak. If I try to look any harder I'll strain my eyes. I guess fanboys just have better vision than I do.

zdudynot5655d ago

shes looking through the smoke

Bits-N-Kibbles5655d ago

People need to stop justifying why the spend money on a certain system. STFU and play the game and have fun. Jesus Christ...

- Bits-N-Kibbles

0verdrive5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

im sorry, but you are either blatantly lying, a complete fanboy, or blind. either way, you are completely wrong.

i have no idea what you are referring to at 3:47, there is no point of comparison between the two, as they are both being played by a person, and the two screens are not showing the same thing. they both seem to run fine at that point too.

in my opinion, the only REAL way to distinguish how well each of them run is in the in game cutscene in the beginning, because those are on rails and they are showing exactly the same thing. when you watch these two, they both start at the same time, and you can watch the building to see that they cross the plane of the top of the screen at the same time. as the cutscene continues, its obvious that the 360 version is stuttering and dropping in framerate. this is further enforced by the fact that as the cutscene continues, about 20 seconds into the cutscene, the ps3 version is ahead of the 360 version by about a quarter of a second.

on top of that as people have mentioned the color palette of the game is obviously muddled in the 360 demo. there are settings to change this in the beginning of the game, as other people have noted. however, if the color palette is indeed muddled, that would be a shame because the bright, colorful palette is one of the major selling points of the game.

in regards to the stuttering and framerate drop on the 360, in my opinion it really shows the difference between lead consoles versions and ports. everyone makes a big deal about 360 leads and crappy ps3 ports, and i think this goes to show that it goes both ways.

edit:: this post came off a little fanboyish - im not trying to attck either of these games, but just what i observed.

yanikins1115655d ago

bubbles for being good value

Mozilla895655d ago

Breakfast is being sarcastic, in fact I have no idea if he's ever not sarcastic cause there's np way in hell you're gonna find those kinda problems looking at that SD video. And besides the 2 versions are the same.

DRUDOG5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

Total sarcasm. Breakfast has 2 PS3's and spends most of his time playing Sonic as it's his favorite game of all time. I don't even think he owns a 360. :P

He sure does make for a good laugh.

Now, socomnick, that's another story altogether...

sonarus5655d ago

Fool youself into believing whatever you want. 360 overdoes its colors and makes things look fake number one culprit Banjo

PS3 has warm colors that even the developers prefer. PS3 version was lead and developers gave it warm colors they probably tried to get 360 to have warm colors but the extra warmth caused RROD:D

Breakfast5655d ago

...and give a round of applause to Sonarus.
Great comment.

...although you need to work on your timing a wee bit.

:)

On Topic:

After scouring rabidly through the video again, i found this.
4:45

If you didnt believe me before, you will now.
Read em and weep Sony.

:D

solsub5655d ago

lol Breakfast, look at how many you've bagged this time.

spandexxking5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

the only part where the ps3 faults is at the beginning. as soon as you start playing they are pretty much identical. but seriously how you two can post in the gamerzone is beyond me!
edit: breakfast go to 4:57 ps3 version looks alot better! you fail

RememberThe3575655d ago

Thats way you guys are arguing over color tint. You could tell how good that game looked on either system with that kind of video quality.

pumpkinpunker5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

More screen tear in the PS3 version (don't see it at 3:47 though) but of course no one on N4G will admit it. It is really obvious in one part but of course all the sony fanboys that infest this site will disagree. honestly, I wish the PS3 would catch up to the 360 in popularity and critical acclaim so the SDF would just shut up and stop whining and/or disagreeing with the obvious truth. It's really getting obnoxious that people can't have intelligent conversations about games without like 10-15 numbnuts posting their idiocy.

Did it matter to the sony fanboys back in the PS2 days that the original Xbox was running circles around the PS2 as far as graphics and online play were concerned? Some original xbox games still look pretty decent for when they came out.

anyway, this game looks lame. so who cares. The graphics are crap so why bother comparing them.

gambare5655d ago (Edited 5655d ago )

What stutter and what screen tearing???? really, I don't know if my video codecs and card affect the video but I don't see any screen tearing.

Aku5655d ago

God, im glad i own both system...so i dont have to be a fanboy douchebag.

:)

Final_Rpg5655d ago

Breakfast just ate all you defensive guys for... err... Breakfast? You fell into his trap.

Vip3r5654d ago

I think you might find that the OS of the PS3 is only a few more (like 4-5) MB than the 360's.

pushergreen5654d ago

the 360 version does look better, deeper colors and no screen tearing(which was slight on the ps3) It is no doubt that if the 360 were the lead that imho the game would even perform better(LIGHTING AA, FRAMERATE,ETC) Another multiplat that the ps3 has gimped. Having no hardrive to work with on the 360 has made sure games are efficiently coded so it is the ps3 imo that is holding back many or most multiplats.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 5654d ago
DarthTigra 5655d ago

Looks exactly the same. But the PS3 exclusive DLC will have me buying that version,the same with fallout on 360.

MiloGarret5655d ago

Wow, a sensible person. Bubbles for you just for making sense.

Danja5655d ago

Agree DLC sealed the deal....but then again I dont have a choice since I only have a PS3..

either way ppl should be happy both version of the game loks almost identical...so no-one is losing out here

Si-Pie5654d ago

Very sensible comment bubble to you!

Skyreno5655d ago

well it looks same but looking closer pausing video the ps3 is but better than xbox so im getting PS3 version

dktxx25655d ago

Only a slight difference in brightness, other that that, not a thing different.

Show all comments (220)
80°

Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter Egg Surfaces in Season 4 Map

It seems that in Season 4, DICE has snuck in a Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter egg in the new Flashpoint map.

220°

10 Old Games With Outstanding Graphics

GF365: "There are some games with extraordinary visuals that impress us to this day. Here are old games with outstanding graphics."

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
ShwaaMan454d ago

Bioshock still looks fantastic, one of my all time favorites.

Yui_Suzumiya454d ago

Beyond: Two Souls on PS3 can compete with modern day graphics.

SonyStyled454d ago (Edited 454d ago )

Same as Killzone 2 and 3, uncharted 2 and 3, Infamous 2, Heavy Rain, Resistance 3

jasonismoney454d ago

I wish this was entirely true, but you might want to load up Killzone 2 and Resistance 3 again.

SonyStyled454d ago

@jason I watched some gameplay videos of KZ2 and R3 on my full screen. They are on par or succeed graphically to the first person shooters mentioned in the article that also launched on the seventh generation of consoles. Try the same and see what you think

cthulhucultist453d ago

Killzone 3 was super impressive! I could not believe the graphics back then as I was regularly pausing the game to stand in awe looking at the surroundings! Resistance however did not impress me that much. Heavy rain is also another amazing graphically speaking game. It almost felt next gen

Fist4achin454d ago

I always thought the first 3 Gears of War games looked great and still hold up for today.

SonyStyled454d ago

They did for their day. I recently played gears judgement with on the 360 and the draw distance was so blurry. The characters up close look great though

JEECE454d ago

Far Cry 2 was awesome. In addition to having demonstrably better physics and AI than later games in the series, it had a lot of design decisions that, criticized at the time, have since been praised in games like BOTW and Dark Souls.

iNcRiMiNaTi454d ago

It might not be super amazing by today's standard but I thought Mgs3 looked really good

JEECE454d ago

In terms of art style it still holds up.

Show all comments (13)
270°

Mirror's Edge achievement designer: "Achievements have been bad for gaming"

Ubisoft Massive lead gameplay designer Fredrik Thylander, previously of DICE where he worked on Battlefield and Mirror's Edge, has spoken out about achievements and trophies, arguing that they "have been bad for gaming."

Machina471d ago (Edited 471d ago )

The achievements in Mirror's Edge opened my eyes to a whole other way of approaching the game. Since some of the toughest and most rewarding ones are basically whole levels turned into time trials with very strict time requirements, they force you to become much better at the game - in a way that difficulty levels just don't - and made me appreciate the mechanics that much more (especially the momentum-based running and platforming).

They actually made the game better for those like me who really enjoyed the game but wanted more of it, basically adding a new level of difficulty that took a long time to master/overcome. It added some extra longevity to a very short game.

He says "it eats resources that could have made the game better". I'm curious what he thinks the time he spent designing the achievements for the game would've been better spent on, because I expect bang for buck-wise achievements are a pretty efficient way of adding value to a game for the people who end up loving it.

shinoff2183471d ago (Edited 471d ago )

I kinda see his point but I also see your point.

I've been trying to remember what games over the years have had their own trophies inside the game before trophies and such were a thing and all I can think of is the star ocean series

Christopher471d ago

I think his point, though not elucidated upon because of Twitter limitations, is not that they can be bad but that they are used improperly to extend gameplay rather than reward actions.

Nebaku470d ago

Harvest Moon: Magical Melody on the GCN did.

In fact it actually built the game around it.

RpgSama470d ago (Edited 470d ago )

I am very OCD about playing games that I can platinum, in that sense I probably avoided playing games that I knew I would be unable to 100% complete.

I do think there are other people like me and also feel there should be an option for you to individually deactivate getting trophies on specific games, just so you play them and they do not go to your account.

-Foxtrot471d ago (Edited 471d ago )

I don't know. I used to think Achievements / Trophies were ruining games at first but then I saw the positive, if you totally love a game then they would offer you replay value by going after the last achievements to 100% the game. It made you explore every last bit of the game to achieve this and sometimes pushed you into areas or scenarios you probably might have missed.

It was a blast to get them on Oblivion / Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher, God of War, Elden Ring etc

Don't get me wrong, I do think there's achievements which are annoying, the ones where you need to find all collectibles which end up being missable AND are like trying to find a needle in a haystack are a kick to the balls, you know the majority of us are just going to use a guide to find them so what's the point.

Kind of a shame Nintendo haven't gotten a full system in place, they are so behind.

jambola470d ago

Nintendo seem to either be ahead of their time by years
or behind by 10 years
no in between

Rimeskeem470d ago

I enjoy having something to go for and feeling accomplished when doing something hard. I just hate it when achievements are based on things you can't really control. Like when something is for MP and the MP is just dead.

MadLad470d ago (Edited 470d ago )

I used to be a hardcore achievement hunter back in the day, but I couldn't care less nowadays. I just want to play games the way I actually want to play them, and don't care to waste my time just to get a little pop-up.

AzubuFrost470d ago

I envy you sir. I just gotta have every single achievement whenever I play a game. On my Steam profile I have an 83% completion rate out of 35 games, and my OCD is telling me to keep upping that percentage higher.

MadLad469d ago

Yeah. Back then, though I'm not sure what my actual completion rate was, I was mainly an Xbox player. I had close to 80k gamer score during the 360 days.

It just doesn't excite me anymore. I have less than 20% completion on my Steam account, though I have a pretty asinine amount of games there at the same time.
But I don't really bother with any of this anymore. If there's an interesting achievement I might aim for it just because I find it fun, but usually I just get that pop-up, say "cool" and continue with the game.

Outlawzz470d ago

Never been a fan of achievements. I just want to play the game however it may present itself to me, there's an overflow of achievements to seek in real life lol

Great for those that enjoy them though, much respect to the platinum hunters, it ain't easy lol

Show all comments (33)