Dead Space 2 is out and the game recieves very high scores. It rolled out on all three gaming platforms (pc/360/ps3), GameSpot doesnt compare graphics etc anymore, so doesnt IGN, between the platforms the game's on (can anyone explain why this have changed recent years?) So after research on google i couldnt find anything, regarding PC vs Consoles Dead Space 2. Game is just out. So think its a good idea to start a discussion here and perhaps this forum might get some hits on google! Dead Space seems to be popular.
I just checked out Lens of Truth's take on Dead Space 2. And they say that both the 360 & PS3 versions are virtually identical. http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=27114 It's a shame to see them scale back the PS3 version in order to match the 360. But... C'est la vie.
Oooooooh! Them's fighting words there buddy. You better watch yourself, or the Xboxians will boot you in the head.
Yeah, I hate basing everything on LoT. They have very misleading articles and their conclusions are usually way off. But Eurogamer, the best of the bunch, has posted their faceoff too. And they include the PC version in the mix. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dead-space-2-face-off The PC version runs at higher res, but it's missing a lot of downloadable content. If you don't care about add-ons, then the PC version is the best. If you can't live without DL options, then it's the consoles. And between the consoles, the PS3 is the best because of it uses 5.1 and 7.1 uncompressed audio and everything is on one disc.
That assessment I can accept. I do not mind if you say the PS3 version is the better deal, but I think it's incorrect to say that the PS3 version was 'paired down' visually to stay at the same level as the 360. They are both of equal ability.
The inclusion of Extraction in my opinion have nothing to do with Dead Space 2 itself. Purely looking at the game itself, the pc version is the best. Dont know about the sound, i only have 5.1 systems here.
The 360 have a much more powerfull GPU, and CPU-wise theres not that much of a difference. Since the GPU is the most important thing when it comes down to graphics, the 360 should have the most power. Hence, the games all look the same, regarding multiplat games, even the PC version doesnt make that much of a difference on the same resolutions.
Dead Space 2 is an EA game and EA has offically stated that the 360 was being "maxed out" in 09. http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/09/ea-vp-says-the-xbox-360-is-maxed-out/ And that's what I based my previous statement on. A factual quote by EA themselves.
Their GPUs are pretty evenly matched. There's not a huge difference between a Geforce 7800 and a Radeon X1900. The 360 GPU has a slight edge due to having a primitive implementation of unified shaders. But the PS3 has a far more powerful processor. In exclusives that are designed to take advantage of the Cell, like the Uncharted games, the PS3 wins hands down. In multiplatform games, the two consoles are pretty evenly matched. Overall, the PS3 is more powerful.
Yeah, the difference between those two cards is HUGE. The X1900XT gets a whopping 3 to 7 frames more per second over the 7800GTX in actual games. In case, you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. And if I remember correctly, the 360 GPU isn't even as powerful as an X1900XT. I stand by what I said. Their GPUs are pretty evenly matched.
Never said the 360 had an GPU as powerfull as an X1900XT, think its closer to an X1800XT, in terms of performance. Allways thought the X1900 was miles ahead of the 7800 series of gpus, for some reason. Btw, the PS3's GPU is slower then the 7800GTX, if i remember right it compares more to the 7800GT. Which means 7800GT vs X1800XT, not a huge difference either.
Exactly. The Radeon X1800/1900 series and Geforce 7800/7900 series cards are all in the same ballpark of performance. We're talking about subtle differences. This is nothing like the Xbox vs the PS2, where the Xbox had a decisive advantage. And all of this is ancient technology compared to what PCs are packing these days.
Allthough, when the 360 came out, it was somewhat closer to the top of the line GPU's (X1900 series). When PS3 launched, the 8800GTX was released and that thing was way more powerfull then any card before.
The 8800GTX was a monster super high end $500+ GPU back in 2006 that never would have ended up in a console at that point. It was one of the biggest advances in GPU technology in history. The only other leaps that big I can think of are the Radeon 9700 Pro and the original Geforce. It kind of makes me wish Sony and MS had waited another year, as everything pre-8800 series seems very dated now.
Would probally have bin too expensive, and the consoles would have bin released very late. The Geforce Ti 4600 was a big performance leap over the GF3 aswel if am right.