1080p Ridge Racer 7 on PS3 looks considerably worse than 720p Ridge Racer 6 on the Xbox 360.

[yllus]

Riiiiiiiiiiidge Racer! Xbox 360 vs. PS3 screens

Sister site Xbox 360 Fanboy visited the same site we did detailing the graphic differences between the Xbox 360's Ridge Racer 6, and the PlayStation 3's new Ridge Racer 7, which is one of the hottest selling titles in Japan right now. The verdict: not that pretty. The site has been farked, so you can translate and read the text but not see the pix. Hopefully they'll get the images back sometime today. In the meantime, check out these comparison shots between the two. There's no cruise ship on the PS3 (does that ship move by and just simply isn't there in that shot?), and check out the details in the water and the lanes on the bridge in the 360. It's a pretty huge difference.

It may just be us, but we're expecting a lot more from a next-gen title that's being released a full year after a previous version on another console. This is also a game that wasn't exactly lauded as a graphical masterpiece when it came out on the 360, so it seems like there's been plenty of time to beat the PS3 version into shape. Not only that, but these PS3 screens are in 1080p, while the Xbox screens are only 720. What happened, Cell processor?

Joystiq is stirring it up quite purposely (they like the site visits that result), but the compromises that seem to be required to render at 1080p instead of 720p seem to be pretty obvious.

However, some things to contemplate:

1) You have to see games in action to really rate them fairly. Screenshots don't mean much. We are, however, rating graphical detail.

2) Ridge Racer 7 is a launch title and may thus have been rushed.

3) The PS3's launch was rushed and the communication with developers may not yet be optimal.

I thought it was an interesting comparison nonetheless.

 

[jpeyton]

YAPS3T

This was already posted in the other PS3/XBOX 360 graphics thread.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: yllus
3) The PS3's launch was rushed and the communication with developers may not yet be optimal.

With multiple delays and rushed shipment because of component part problems....how was the PS3 rushed again?

 

[michaels]

The 360 version does look better, but it's a ****** game so meh.

 

[PCMarine]

*shock*

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: yllus
3) The PS3's launch was rushed and the communication with developers may not yet be optimal.

With multiple delays and rushed shipment because of component part problems....how was the PS3 rushed again?

All those delays added up to a halfassed upcoming launch, even if they did set the launch date back a time or two.

Originally posted by: michaels
The 360 version does look better, but it's a ****** game so meh.

Trudat.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wasn't RR6 also a 360 launch title?

It sounds as though PS3 has a slight edge in terms of hardware capabilities on paper, but is MUCH harder to develop for. It will be interesting to see how the comparison looks a year out. For my part I find the "Sixaxis" controller, missing rumble and non-standard battery, a significant disadvantage for PS3, Xbox Live is almost certain to be riper and more full-featured than its Sony equivant, and it looks increasingly as though HD-DVD will beat Blu-Ray, so to this point I am pleased to have a 360 and have no plans to get a PS3.

 

[Queasy]

Looking at the 360 picture in the second shot, it looks like someone took a picture of a TV instead of doing a straight screen grab. I'm not sure if that makes the comparison valid.

 

[cliftonite]

To me the 2nd shot looks MUCH better on the PS3.

 

[yllus]

The one thing I could never get over about the Sony platform: I hate that controller shape and feel. Hate. This is not 1996, Sony. Analog is #1. This is not a new revelation either. Act like it.

The HD-DVD/Bluray thing could be close though. Sony's own studio support is a big helper in their favour.

 

[Thraxen]

To be fair, the PS3 shot has a ship right in front of the bridge while the 360 shot does not. So it appears both have ships, they are just in difference positions. Other than that, the 360 version does appear to have more detail.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
To me the 2nd shot looks MUCH better on the PS3.

I guess... if you like bright, washed out images. I think the detail is the most important part. The blurry brightness of the PS3 shot and the darkness of the 360 shot are likely due to the way the screen shots were taken and/or how they were converted to their current form.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: cliftonite
To me the 2nd shot looks MUCH better on the PS3.

I guess... if you like bright, washed out images. I think the detail is the most important part. The blurry brightness of the PS3 shot and the darkness of the 360 shot are likely due to the way the screen shots were taken and/or how they were converted to their current form.

Yep, one thing I noticed in these pics and the Tony Hawk Project 8 video comparison from Gametrailers.com is how washed out/overly bright the PS3 versions of games are looking in comparison to the 360 versions.

In the videos I've seen of Lair, it looks the same way because of the overuse of the "Bloom" effect.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Yep, one thing I noticed in these pics and the Tony Hawk Project 8 video comparison from Gametrailers.com is how washed out/overly bright the PS3 versions of games are looking in comparison to the 360 versions.

In the videos I've seen of Lair, it looks the same way because of the overuse of the "Bloom" effect.

I'm a fanboy of neither but developers use darker shades and darker overall images to hide the missing details.

 

[randay]

taken from the other thread

review link from other thread, has more pics

my thoughts taken from other thread:

What a horrible bunch of comparisons as well. And I totally would take the PS3s graphics over the 360s in those pictures. The PS3 caps are so much more pleasing to look at its not even funny. How the hell is the color and lighting so far off in the 360?? Its terrible. Having a couple of extra textures here and there is not enough to make up for the horrible lighting and color.

Also definitely very biased pictures and comparisons. While they did circle a lot of things that look better/exist in the 360 version, you could easily do the same for things that look better/exist in the PS3 version. The one thing that is totally apparent and undisputable in all screens is the differences in resolution, color, and lighting. Those are pretty much the only comparisons worth making with those screencaps.

If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

 

[everman]

I would need to play them both to make a good judgment. It's a racing game, it shouldn't be judged by single screenshots. It does show more jaggies than I'd expect though...

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: randay
If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

I wouldn't get too worked up. The PS3 shot is blurry, too bright, and washed out. It sucks. The 360 shot is too dark, but has better detail than the PS3 shot. I still think something went 'wrong' in either the actual capturing of the images or in the processing afterward. I doubt they actually look like that in person... but the detail isn't a result of these things and the 360 still has the advantage there.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

well they had to sacrifice something to get that all magic 1080p W00T setting.

1080p and 256mb of immediate VRAM are not a good mix.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Looking at the 360 picture in the second shot, it looks like someone took a picture of a TV instead of doing a straight screen grab. I'm not sure if that makes the comparison valid.

surely that only adds to the 360's arguement?

not being a screen grab means its not an optimal image to compare, yet it still looks better. so even tho the 360 is being slightly short changed considering its a photo...it still looks ace.

anyway i can see what u mean, some screens have the gloss coating which makes colours look more rich. that would explain why the 360 looks more vibrant than the PS3

though PS2 also seemed to have dim/washed out lighting and not very vibrant colours at times. most PS2 games for me felt like i was playing with some grubby spectacles on. i hope PS3 isnt the same

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: randay
taken from the other thread

review link from other thread, has more pics

my thoughts taken from other thread:

What a horrible bunch of comparisons as well. And I totally would take the PS3s graphics over the 360s in those pictures. The PS3 caps are so much more pleasing to look at its not even funny. How the hell is the color and lighting so far off in the 360?? Its terrible. Having a couple of extra textures here and there is not enough to make up for the horrible lighting and color.

Also definitely very biased pictures and comparisons. While they did circle a lot of things that look better/exist in the 360 version, you could easily do the same for things that look better/exist in the PS3 version. The one thing that is totally apparent and undisputable in all screens is the differences in resolution, color, and lighting. Those are pretty much the only comparisons worth making with those screencaps.

If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

thats more like it, better comparison there, PS3 looks pretty good but the 360 still gets my vote. the lighting looks more realistic on the PS3 (360 looks overly bright and vivid) but the 360s textures are much much better

i guess the devs dropped the texture quality to obtain the marketing term known as 1080p

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: randay
If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

I wouldn't get too worked up. The PS3 shot is blurry, too bright, and washed out. It sucks. The 360 shot is too dark, but has better detail than the PS3 shot. I still think something went 'wrong' in either the actual capturing of the images or in the processing afterward. I doubt they actually look like that in person... but the detail isn't a result of these things and the 360 still has the advantage there.

I have no idea what you are talking about and pretty much disagree on pretty much all points. The comparison was done by the same people on the same TV. The only variables here are the camera and ambient lighting. Its safe to assume they used the same camera. Now all thats left is the ambient lighting. if you look at the out of frame pictures you can see some details on the TV and in the first picture the little white thing on the bottom left of the TV appears darker on the 360 cap, yet on the bottom picture the same object appears lighter on the 360 cap. Yet in both pictures the PS3 cap comes across as brighter and the 360 comes across as dark, so its safe to say that the ambient lighting had very little affect on the caps. The PS3 does not look "washed out" at all. On the 360 you can see the sky/clouds washing out in both pictures. In the 360 picture the clouds are washed out and pretty much absorb the blue sky and the mountain line, in the PS3 the clouds are clearly defined and the mountain line is also clearly defined. I have no idea what makes you think that the PS3 caps are "washed out".

The water is a little disappointing but it is definitly not completely flat. In the second pic you can see reflections in the pond and in the zoomed in version of the first you can also see some kind of reflection. It is a little weak and hard to see from the caps. The 360s water texture is alright, but reflections are a lot more impressive.

Now if you are talking about post processing of the caps, I don't see why they would darken the 360s pictures when they are trying to make the PS3 look bad. That doesn't really make sense.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

YA1080PVS720PT

seriously.

Stop it.

It's like saying gaming at 800x600 looks better than at 1024x768. Play the same game, same textures, blow the resolution up, and see if your 720p argument still holds. Nope.

Move on. I love my 1080p. You can celebrate your 720p ancient technology.

 

[Koing]

The Xbox360 is also 'stretching' it's 720p to fit on the 1080p display. Never a good thing...
The PS3 is showing it's 1080p on a native 1080p display. Well I'd hope so anyway.

A fairer test would be to show both console on tv of the same brand of at least 46-50" showing their native resolutions.

I know up close the Xbox360 didn't look that great on my 24" Dell running 1920x1200.

Koing

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: randay
taken from the other thread

review link from other thread, has more pics

my thoughts taken from other thread:

What a horrible bunch of comparisons as well. And I totally would take the PS3s graphics over the 360s in those pictures. The PS3 caps are so much more pleasing to look at its not even funny. How the hell is the color and lighting so far off in the 360?? Its terrible. Having a couple of extra textures here and there is not enough to make up for the horrible lighting and color.

Also definitely very biased pictures and comparisons. While they did circle a lot of things that look better/exist in the 360 version, you could easily do the same for things that look better/exist in the PS3 version. The one thing that is totally apparent and undisputable in all screens is the differences in resolution, color, and lighting. Those are pretty much the only comparisons worth making with those screencaps.

If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

thats more like it, better comparison there, PS3 looks pretty good but the 360 still gets my vote. the lighting looks more realistic on the PS3 (360 looks overly bright and vivid) but the 360s textures are much much better

i guess the devs dropped the texture quality to obtain the marketing term known as 1080p

My thoughts exactly.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay
taken from the other thread

review link from other thread, has more pics

my thoughts taken from other thread:

What a horrible bunch of comparisons as well. And I totally would take the PS3s graphics over the 360s in those pictures. The PS3 caps are so much more pleasing to look at its not even funny. How the hell is the color and lighting so far off in the 360?? Its terrible. Having a couple of extra textures here and there is not enough to make up for the horrible lighting and color.

Also definitely very biased pictures and comparisons. While they did circle a lot of things that look better/exist in the 360 version, you could easily do the same for things that look better/exist in the PS3 version. The one thing that is totally apparent and undisputable in all screens is the differences in resolution, color, and lighting. Those are pretty much the only comparisons worth making with those screencaps.

If you look at the pics in the link above, the screens are capped the same way, camera to TV. Same TV, different consoles, a world of difference. The PS3 is by far superior overall because of the resolution and lighting. A totally bogus claim. Propaganda.

I'm calling BS on this comparison, or sony is up to some funny business at 1080p.

They are both at 720p.

Look at the comparison pics - there is exactly the same number of aliasing steps/jaggies on the long cable on the left, and on the girder on the top. If the ps3 version was running at 1080p native, there would be more steps, and finer jagginess on the sony image, bar none.

So either one of many things is happening here:

1) The PS3 is running in 720p mode, and the editors of the site are tards. - Seems most likely to me.
2) The PS3 is running in 1080p, but the TV is running in 720p, and is downscaling. - Doubtful, because you'd think the TV would downscale the image properly, and it would appear to have SSAA...it certainly wouldnt match up pixel for pixel with the 360.
3) "1080p" in RR7 is actually 720p for 3d objects, with perhaps only menus and such at true 1080p - that would be quite diabolical on Sony's part. Can't tell from the pics.

Either way, I prefer the 360's visuals here. The texturing is unquestionably better. The PS3 seems to have more accurate lightmaps, but the lighting of the 360 looks more natural. If anything, it seems like the ps3's gamma is way off, it should not be washed out like that. The water on the 360 also looks a lot better.

Both seem to have similar amounts of objects. The ps3 is missing the ship in the background, but appears to have one that the 360 doesnt have in the foreground.