Darksiders Graphic Comparison: Xbox 360 vs. PS3

Videogameszone is showing a graphic comparison between Xbox 360 and PS3 version of THQ's Darksiders. The alltogether 20 images show nearly no differences. More after the link.

[Flipfito]

Not exactly but i could see the difference

[iceatcs]

then explain what you see the difference.

Look like only AA difference but very tidy.

[gaffyh]

Looks pretty much the same. The game is good, not great. Reminds me of Prototype/Overlord/God of War.

Prototype - Because of the environment
Overlord - Character design and movement
God of War - Most of the gameplay elements

Still a good game though, a LOT better than I expected.

[rucky]

That's funny cause the main character looks exactly like a mix from all lead characters of those three games as well... mainly Alex Mercer's hooded head.

[Ocelot525]

what difference?

the only thing I see is that the 360 is tiny bit more blury

[JsonHenry]

A lot less ailising (sp?) on the X360. I don't care though, this game rocks on both platforms.

Now if I can just wait it out and get it for PC. (assuming they will port it)

[sugard0]

The PS3 version is graphically better, only slightly, but better none the less.

Have a look at the following images:

1. This picture below, look at the difference in facial detail. The PS3 character model has sharper textures and also the fur on his right shoulder (the left side of our screen) shows that the PS3's lighting is better.
http://www.videogameszone.d...

2. In this picture, god knows what happened to the 360's version..... I see alot of artifacting that is only present when things are compressed? Or maybe it isnt... I dont know... you decide:
http://www.videogameszone.d...
Also notice the sharp facial details once again.

3. On this picture you can see motion blur being used on the PS3 version:
http://www.videogameszone.d...

And from what I've heard, the PS3 version of Darksiders also beats the 360 version from a technical standpoint, due to alot of screen tearing.

This may seem like nitpicking to you (or may not), but for a multi-console owning gamer like myself, I certainly would like to know the definitive version of said game.

[Christopher]

Looks fine on both to me.

[Montrealien]

I am playing it on the 360 and enjoying it very much atm. It`s god of war meets Zelda with a dab of panzer dragoon and some very good art direction and character design which is to be expected from Vigil.

I am sure it is very playable and enjoyable on both consoles. I bet the pixel counters of this world that enjoy this kind of crap only see paint and cloth when they look at a painting, sad really.

[darthv72]

otherwise i would be able to formulate my own conclusion as to which is better...to me at least.

[jack_burt0n]

Lol its not slight at all the 360 version tears ALOT again like Red Faction the ps3 version is Def the version to get.

Crazy how ppl are like bayonetta is broken on ps3 well if thats the case then Darksiders is BROKEN on 360.

[Montrealien]

You got the 360 version Mr Burton?

[SilentNegotiator]

But just barely.

Looks like a rental, probably. They even said on IGN live demo that the game wasn't worth playing twice.

[darthv72]

somebody took shots from the same game and posted them as different system versions to see if anyone really notices.

Be a funny way to mess with people.

Come to think of it...I wonder if some site have actually done that...?

[The Happy Baby]

...that this game still sucks, either way.

[mastiffchild]

Again with these comparisons, then eh? As ever these pieces tend to exist purely to justify making the next one by finding little differences and blowing them up to game affecting proportions. They both look pretty much the damn same because multi plats are ALL made with the other version at the back of the mind and parity between versions as one of the primary development goals this generation.

When there are some actual differences then faior enough but even then they get blown up out of proportion. F'rinstance I was expecting the copy of Bayonetta I got early off a mate the other week to be virtually unplayable on PS3 but it was pretty much fine and nowhere near as far behind the 360 version as I was thinking it would be from what'd been spewed on the nets. A little loading issue-which, unless you're uber impatient doesn't make a jot of difference to gameplay experience- and a bit more slowdown and, I found, at wierd times sometiimes-like when there was very little going on onscreen-which puzzled me but certainly wouldn't have made me switch to my 360 over my controller preference for the DS3 at all.

Seriously, the last game bad enough to make me think moving in either direction was needed for me as a multiple console owner was TOB-and even then it really isn't as bad as some would have you believe and neither was the 360 version very close to what I was used to oon my PC and got away with ,much of it's own issues as EA's PS3 port was so poor.

They AIM to make multi plats the same this generation and don't aim to optimise fully for either system and on the whole these days do a job easily good enough for us to choose them on which system we would prefer in an ideal world because of mates, controller etc. these comparison pieces are real;ly not all that important, not in my opinio0n and unless there's real differences like with The Oraneg Box then I don't see much point. Bayonetta and G'busters might be qwise to point out(even IF, imo, the differences aren't what they're made out to be) but by and large we're looking for differences we'd never notice if we weren't told and even then we often have to stop the game to tell! Christ LoT and DF even use bloody programs to spot tearing and other issues that the eye cannot see! WTF? What the hell is the point except giving a few really anal journalists a job and pointlessy fuelling a daft part of the console wars? I, as usual, can't see it!

[DMason]

Am I supposed to see a difference here?

This is how all developers should do it, where it looks consistent across the board. THQ has always managed to be fairly good at what they do. Props to them.

@DaTruth

It's obvious you're blinded by fanboy goggles, because to the human eye there really isnt a noticeable difference. Most people in here agree that it looks exactly the same.

[Persistantthug]

But for the record I can see some subtle differences,

In this shot, I notice the 360 version has more AA and is blurred reducing the jaggies,

But in the PS3 shot, the texture is better because it has less AA....for instance notice his forhead, the popmarks and facial skin texture are more prevalent.

http://www.videogameszone.d...

This is really a toss up as far as the pics are concerned.
We would need a performance test to really seal the deal, if that's what you just HAVE to know (Trolls)lol.

[TheBrit]

On of the easiest differences to spot is the shadows, the 360 version has better shadows.

look at the image where the demon has the white wings for example, look under the top curl of the wings - much more shadow detail on the 360.

Both versions look really nice. I got it yesterday just havnt had time to play it.

[happy_gilmore]

but the crapbox version has worse screen-tearing

ps3 getting the superior version since burnout in 2008.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbo...
"Varied and imaginative, the open world and dungeons look great, though there are some unfortunate graphical issues in the Xbox 360 version. Screen tearing is a huge problem that surfaces almost any time the camera is rotated, and it's bad enough to distract you even when you're just exploring. In addition, battles that get too big make the frame rate suffer, causing graphical slowdown. The PlayStation 3 version suffers neither of these issues."

[LoLerskates]

bayonetta says hi

360 version:
http://xbox360.ign.com/obje...
-9.5

ps3 version:
http://ps3.ign.com/objects/...
-8.2

[happy_gilmore]

comapred to GoW3

kratos will rap3 that witch

[happy_gilmore]

compared to GoW3

kratos will rap3 that witch

[LoLerskates]

and so does darksiders but u seem to be happy about the ps3 version being better

[Udidntlistenpunk]

I love how bots always pretend that the shiatbox is better because some shiatty as multi platform that nobody gives a flying fk about it, was coded somewhat better than its PS3 counterpart.

Who gives a fk. Baynetta? What the hell is that? Can you eat it. Oh, its THAT shiatty game with the freak women. Im still having nightmares about that video "lets dance, boys"

Talk about horror.

[Hellsvacancy]

Wots Bayonetta gotta do wid Dark Void? both games r pooh

[lh_swe]

You guy's need to stop whinning, so what if some games look a little better on one that the other and one or two look a lot better, most games look soo similar that these arguments become redundant. How about this; play the game on the console which it looks best on and/or which console your friends play online (if the game has online).

[gtamike123]

Looks the same

[MmaFanQc]

look the same?

http://www.videogameszone.d...
http://www.videogameszone.d...

...really?

[gtamike123]

Bad graphics for both but they are multi platform games.
Also they have to look the same cause they are multi platform.

[PSWarlord]

Wow thats the biggest comparison difference I've seen for awhile. PS3 has alot better lighting and textures....PS3 FTW!Not that i'd buy it too busy with the exclusives too worry about this

[happy_gilmore]

but the ps3 version is perfect

http://www.gamespot.com/xbo...
"Varied and imaginative, the open world and dungeons look great, though there are some unfortunate graphical issues in the Xbox 360 version. Screen tearing is a huge problem that surfaces almost any time the camera is rotated, and it's bad enough to distract you even when you're just exploring. In addition, battles that get too big make the frame rate suffer, causing graphical slowdown. The PlayStation 3 version suffers neither of these issues."

[Gran Touring]

I'm actually surprised... usually those issues plague PS3 versions of multiplatform games. I wonder if it was the lead console in its development?

[Anon1974]

This should come as no surprise. For over a year now, PS3 versions of multiplats have been at least the same or better as their 360 counterparts with a handful of exceptions, and yet the forums are still filled with fans insisting that all 360 versions are better.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You can even see the trend in review scores. 2007, the majority of multiplats reviewed better on average on the 360. In 2008 that evened out and in 2009 the PS3 pulled ahead.

And, even when rare port does fall flat on the PS3, who's fault is that? It's the developers, of course. The PS3 has example after example of exclusives and multiplats that graphically shine on the console, so we know it's possible. There shouldn't be a single gamer out there that thinks the hardware is to blame when there are so many outstanding games available that prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the PS3 in the right hands is one hell of a capable console.

[edgeofblade]

This still comparison is hard to discern. The brightness difference could easily be swapped. And I have to strain to see any AA advantages. I would honestly give the slight edge to the PS3 version here.

God, won't one of these sites do a blind test?

[keabrown79]

Umm don't get me wrong as i'm more in Sony's camp then Microsoft.. but i can't think of any other games that where sorta better on PS3 then the 360.

- Burnout Paradise, Dead Space, Prince of Persia, Mirrors Edge.. And maybe a few small ones like, Wanted and Bionic Commando... Dragon Age is a wash Textures < Frame rate IMHO (got it for PC anyway)... I still think 80% of the time by a big or small margin the 360 version is better because dev's program for the 360 first.

[joydestroy]

uh Dead Space was hands down better on the PS3. the 360 version was washed out compared to it's PS3 counterpart. i know this from seeing it on the same tv on both consoles. i owned the PS3 version while my brother got it on the 360. so there's one just out of the small list you provided.

@ below oh okay. your post is a little confusing ^_^

[keabrown79]

Those games i listed where ones that I thought are accepted as the better version

[DaTruth]

The difference now is they don't compress the hell out of the PS3 version or port a game after compression! The bad ones for PS3 have to compress and edit to make sure it fits on the DVD, then they port it fully compressed to a console that is designed around streaming uncompressed textures right off the disk.

But even with high compression, Dragon Age PS3 blew away 360 version.

[gamer2010]

Dead Space was not better on the PS3. That's a bald faced lie.

I've compared both versions and the PS3 version had a rougher frame rate and had missing effects in a few parts. Digital Foundry found the same thing. Here is what they said:

"A cursory look at the game itself reveals that although the conversion isn't bad at all, it's very clear indeed that Dead Space is first and foremost an Xbox 360 game.

A run-through of the first act seems to indicate that we're well on our way to platform parity, until we reach the room with the first power-up workbench. For some bizarre reason, this room - devoid of pretty much any activity - suddenly sees the frame-rate drop from 30fps down to 20fps. From then on, where the game starts to produce more interesting and varied environments, along with larger amounts of monsters to fight off at any given moment, the drop in frame rate becomes more frequent. While the 360 version can drop frames when things really get intense, the frame-rate overall tends to stick at the target 30fps with little deviation.

For those with both consoles, the more stable frame-rate makes the 360 build the one to have. There are platform-exclusive downloads - costumes and the like - but the smoother, more responsive 360 gameplay experience gives it the edge."

I can't believe the way some of you will just flat out lie. No shame.
I admit that they did a good job on this game and both versions were relatively close, but it is definitely better on the 360 and to claim the exact opposite is just dishonest. Colors also seemed slightly more saturated on the 360 version, so I don't know what you are talking about the 360 version looking more washed out.

As far as Darksiders, I'll wait for more detailed analysis. Screenshots are the worst way to do a comparison, since they do not show you how the game performs or its more subtle effects.

[OmarJA-N4G]

Yeah the PS3 version is better, next...

[Nitrowolf2]

And now we start the chain of comparison
I see the different in this one
PS3 one has better lighting
but honestly for lighting its easy to get them both to look the same just go adjust it in settings.

[Unicron]

Curious to see Lens of Truth and Gametrailer's take on this.

[CrippleH]

Lens of Truth is much more creditable then Gametrailers.

[StanLee]

Just wait for Digital Foundry's comparison.

[DaTruth]

Digital foundry is Eurogamer; Those guys have no credibility. They only write comparisons after they determine the game looks better on 360.

Batman AA demo looked better on 360 because it was a highly compressed DL! Then when the full game was launched and turned out to be better on PS3 with uncompressed Bluray, Digital Foundry didn't bother with a full game comparison!

[gamer2010]

What are you talking about? Digital Foundry at Eurogamer.net is the most credible. Their comparisons are in-depth and carried out in a very professional manner. Lens of Truth would probably be the next best, but they don't have the same experience or knowledge as Digital Foundry and their analysis is not as in-depth, so they sometimes make some strange statements.

And you are just flat out wrong about Batman AA. At best that game could be said to be equal on both consoles. The 360 version had a better frame rate and less screen tearing. The PS3 version had better resolution on the shadows. Anyway, Digital Foundry do not get around to doing comparisons of every big game, but they simply tell it like it is and they have had very positive things to say about lots of PS3 games. So quit acting like they are biased or something.

[ironmonkey]

just look at the face screentshot xbox looks like it took a dump on itself. bad textures, bad screen tearing its a rent for 360 a buy for ps3

[table]

from these screenshots that look virtually identical and a tiny bit of screen tearing on one over the other, you have come to the conclusion that the 360 version only deserves a rent where as the ps3 version is worth buying? fanboy much?

It's just amusing when people argue for one platform over the other based on screenshots. The very minor insignifant details they appear to show are not noticeable when you are playing the game, nor do you care when you are playing the game.

[kewlkat007]

I'll jump on it after Bayonetta.

[GiantEnemyCrab]

Yeah, I'm hearing good things about this game..

Anyway, isn't this the same site that tried to convince everyone the PS3 and 360 versions of Bayonetta were equal and that it was actually better on the PS3? Yeah, don't think I need any more bad advice like that.

[ironmonkey]

360 bad screen tearing ps3 doesnt just have better lighting bud and its sharper on ps3 but who cares right?

[Ninji]

I don't think I could stand all of the framerate drops & screen tearing in the inferior 360 version.

[solidt12]

Wow look its the same. That was sure worth making an article about. The PS3 is a little brighter but the are the same.

[solidt12]

Did anyone on here buy this game? Im thinking about getting it but i wanted to get some insight from someone whose played it.

[va_bank]

I'm going to buy it, since the PS3 version is equal or as some say, even better. But I'll wait until I see some used copies on eBay or for Amazon's daily special. I'm sure I'll enjoy the game, it just doesn't seem like I'll play it again after I finish it

EDIT: Oh and here's a link to discussion boards (PS3 version):

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boa...

[MicroSony]

I have it on PS3, not a bad games. Didnt pick Bayonetta yet. I usualy wait til the hype goes dont just to be sure. Usually when all the big media are hyping a games like this, its always a mehhh when a buy it(opinion). But for Darksider, its fun, a little easy, good visual but not near what i have seen on the demo of GOWIII. The story is ... simple, but i realy whant to know how framed War. The control are more complex if i compare to the demo of Bayonetta. Not Bad til Dante Inferno and GOW

[Gen0ne]

We're both running on 1080p 52" screens w/HDMI. The 360 does have ample screen tearing, its a bit distracting. How distracting? I own the PS3 version now. If you have both consoles go PS3. The game itself is very good, but not a must have. The combat is cool but it gets repetitive. I'd try it before you buy it. I stopped playing though, Bayonetta has got her hooks into me. And if you're thinking of that game, rock the 360 version. It's just cleaner and it's certainly not doing anything that the PS3 can't handle. Missed opportunity on Platinum's part.

[Wrathman]

same old story..breakstation version looks washed out and no vivid colours.and rubbish lighting.

picture 7 and 18 are perfect exmaples.

either way i wont be buyin this.not my thing.its niche.like GoW1-3

enjoy ur xbox port droids

[OmarJA-N4G]

360 has no games. :)

[Wrathman]

butt hurt iron shiek with a new name.

sad.bet ur bubblin yourself up

[OmarJA-N4G]

360 has no games. :)

[CernaML]

"Varied and imaginative, the open world and dungeons look great, though there are some unfortunate graphical issues in the Xbox 360 version. Screen tearing is a huge problem that surfaces almost any time the camera is rotated, and it's bad enough to distract you even when you're just exploring. In addition, battles that get too big make the frame rate suffer, causing graphical slowdown. The PlayStation 3 version suffers neither of these issues."

lol.. superior 360 version? Right.

[Dev8 ing]

You are looking at the wrong image. The xbox is the washed out image on top of the ps3 one.

[Red Eyed Gamer]

The difference's are very minimal. Not going to affect you from enjoying the game. BTW didn't silicon knights help make this game?

[Sir Ken_Kutaragi]

"Darksiders Graphic Comparison: Xbox 360 vs. PS3" -

'KILLZONE 2' WINS!!! ;-D

[Wrathman]

i have a feelin the ps3 and the ps3 fanboys will be stuck in 2009 for a while.

[ZombieAutopsy]

Oh no, you see we wont be stuck because we always get new games and new IP's throughout the year. You on the other hand must be stuck in '07 because you're actually still supporting M$.

[Dirk Benedict]

Tell that to the ms. Still stuck in 2005, with dated pc guts to match.

Also, why not try asking ms, why they put HDMI into the flopbox.

[SilverSlug]

They look nearly the same, just get it on the console you like.

[smturner68]

There should be no screen tearing on the 360. I blame lazy developers.

[PSWarlord]

Are you blind or something did you look at the images. Im sorry but the PS3 version is superior, every image looks better especially the lighting...And I said its been a while (I mean hardly ever the ps3 multiplat version looks better, usual indentical or worse i.e bayonetta but exclusives make up for that). So stop being a fuk-tard and getting ur knickers in a bunch when I say sommit ps3 positive.

BTW 360 SUCKS LOL

[Gitaroo]

360 version actually has alot of screen tearing, PS3 version has very little if you actually played both.

[Iceman100]

so what do u losers constantly do this for?

[Blitzkid]

I see sharper textures on the PS3 version.

[xg-ei8ht]

PS3 looks cleaner, abit better textures.

But anyone who's arguing about screentearing.

Look at this pic.

You can see the tear at the top of the 360 pic.

http://www.videogameszone.d...

[jalen247]

The PS3 version is obviously better. I think sugard0 did a good job pointing out some differences. Besides GameSpot already stated that the PS3 version was the version to get.

"Varied and imaginative, the open world and dungeons look great, though there are some unfortunate graphical issues in the Xbox 360 version. Screen tearing is a huge problem that surfaces almost any time the camera is rotated, and it's bad enough to distract you even when you're just exploring. In addition, battles that get too big make the frame rate suffer, causing graphical slowdown. The PlayStation 3 version suffers neither of these issues."

[mjolliffe]

I think some look better on PS3, some on 360...

[gamer7804]

There is a patch coming soon to fix the screen tearing on the xbox 360. Xbox 360 has a softer feel than the ps3 version, its like assassin's creed 2, but in reverse this time. Once the screen tearing gets fixed, the versions will be very close, unlike Bayonetta which is a huge difference in quality warranting different scores on reviews.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsS...

[Feral Gamer]

This game is a lot of fun! I just started about 45 minutes ago but I love the gameplay, artistic style, and character/enemy design! Some of the characters look so bad ass!

[inbetweener]

heh heh, this piece was written by Maik Koch...

Sorry.

[RamiHixxy]

360 has no games. :)

[dan_dufferin98]

are you guys for real?!! discussing minute differences, and saying "mine's better than yours!!" jesus christ, what a bunch of dorks the video "hardcore" gaming community is. Go rub a dual shock on your nuts, pull out a pic of Kratos or Marcus and go fanboy crazy, you bunch of losers...

[Meryl]

hey does anyone know if there is a demo i can play on for this (preferably PS3)I would like to try it

[DigitalAnalog]

Platinum games could learn from this company. And supposedly this is their first take on the PS3, no?

-Go Figure!

[gtamike123]

360 has no games, the xbots only talk about multi platform games cause thats all they got.

We have lots of new IPs on PS3 :D plus multi platform games :)

[allplatforms]

Looks like the texturing is slightly better on the 360 version to me. Fanboys always make me laugh with their obvious BS agenda.

[Dev8 ing]

The textures look blurry on the 360 images.

[Dev8 ing]

Look at the reflections and lighting in general. The PS3 has always been better than the 360 at lighting (killzone 2 being the pinnacle). On Kotaku yesterday they said that the 360 version is going to be patched to fix the problems soon.

[dredgewalker]

I don't even care about the comparisons at this point because GOW3 is near. Why should i waste money on this? After GOW3 there's GT5, Last Guardian, Heavy Rain.....I don't think it would take a genius that im going to be very broke and i have no choice but to make these games my priority.

[vader1231231]

They look the same.

[Hallow]

Or is anyone else just sick and tired of these Xbox PS3 graphic comparison's? Seems like every multiplat game has
one of these fanboy flame bait articles, just play the damn game and be happy with your choice console.

[MonkeySS715]

I bought the PS3 version because it's widely known to technically run better. HOWEVER, according to Vigil, the 360 version can be patched up clearing up some of if not all of the tearing problems. Will this patch also keep the frame rate from dipping? The 360 is my primary gaming platform and will gladly sell off my PS3 copy to my friend allowing me to get the 360 version if it runs as good or better, but only after I see the lens of truth comparison (which I guess will run or be altered after the 360 patch). I also got one of those "DO NOT DISCARD" cards and was wondering whether or not those cards are console specific seeing as they have serial numbers. Came in the PS3 copy and don't know if there will be one in the 360 copy by the time I get my hands on it seeing as they were to be released in the first run of the game.

[Jambama]

Not much difference. I picked up the 360 version and have had a blast with it, despite the screen-tearing issues. So far as the PS3 version being sharper, I'm not even sure these screens were taken in the same resolution. The 360 supports 1080p (which, I must say, makes this game look glorious) while the PS3 only supports 720p. So why not compare them in their maximum resolutions and show off the REAL hardware power?

But here is an answer for the screen-tearing issues:

In the 360 version we noticed a fair amount of screen tearing; why did this happen only on the 360, and will we see a fix to this in a patch?

This is just one of those things that managed to slip past the radar. It’s quite extraordinary when you think of all the effort that goes into testing a game: we have studio level testing, corporate level testing, first-party testing, etc. The reason it occurs on the 360 is because the 360 is not v-synched, so the frame-rate will often jump well above 30 (closer to 60 in many places), and it’s in those really high frame-rate areas that you start to notice the screen tearing. The PS3 version is v-synched to 30 fps, so the screen tearing is almost negligible. We are definitely putting out a patch to fix this (and it should hopefully be live by the time anyone reads this!)

Source: http://gameinformer.com/b/f...

There you have it. There IS screen-tearing in the PS3 version. It is just offset by slower (though largely consistant) framerates.

So far as hardware power is concerned, there is little to no discernible difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360. After all, the same guy designed both the Cell and Xenon processors. He himself said that while Sony took a more experimental route and Microsoft was more conservative in their approach, they were basically identical performance wise. There is almost no difference GPU wise as well. You can talk about SPUs in the Cell and Multithreads in the Xenon all you want, but when you do the research into both you will finally see the light. (Check out both the Cell and Xenon articles on Wikipedia.)

So, the Cell has a SINGLE CORE processor and 8 SPUs (or multithreads). (Multithreads are used in processors for multitasking multiple applications.) One of those eight is used to increase overall efficiency and essentially keep the system from being overclocked, so that one isn't used. Another is designated solely towards the OS and isn't available to developers, so that is another down. The other six are available to the developers for use in creating games.

The Xenon is a TRIPLE CORE processor with two multithreads per core, all of which are available to the developers for the creation of games.

So that leaves the Cell having six multithreads available and the Xenon having six multithreads available as well.

See where I'm going with this???

Look, I have both systems, and they are both amazing. (Though I highly prefer the Xbox 360.) But I will quickly correct someone when they automatically assume that the PS3 is more powerful because Sony insisted that it is. And I'll do this by showing them examples of their respective harware capabilities instead of simply telling them some unbelievable drivel.

[ironmonkey]

ok gamespot said the 360 version has bad screeng tearing and framerate drop thats all u need to know thers ur difference

[ironmonkey]

why u try and spin this its clear the 360 version of this game is inferior just like bayonetta for ps3 is inferior deal with it quit trying to make an excuse