Biohazard 5 Demo Comparison

[Amphion]

I m not sure if this was posted already or if anyone cares, but IGN did their Head-to-Head on RE5 and here s the graphical comparison. I noticed that is has zero mention of the QAA technique that s used on PS3. My guess is that IGN being so casual, just doesn t even bother to mention things like that. I doubt that the final version of the PS3 has it removed.


Presentation
Resident Evil 5 is one of the most technically spectacular games of this generation. It's crammed to the gills with environmental detail, elaborate character models, terrific natural lighting, and some fantastic explosion effects. Facial animations and lip-synching are also nuanced and bring out some subtle undertones in cutscenes. From a technical standpoint, you'd be hard pressed to find a more impressive game on either console.

Still, there are some small differences worth noting. The PS3 presents more brightly, and this helps to bring out more visual detail in dark areas. In comparison, the blacks in the 360 version tend to wash out some of the finer details. In brightly lit areas, however, the PS3's brightness adds a slight haziness to the image that makes brighter colors look a touch washed out. The PS3 takes a hit in the framerate department, with noticeable dips into the low 20's in some especially hectic scenes. It's also worth noting the PS3 version appears slightly more aliased than the 360 version. You won't see this without looking closely because environments generally have so much polygonal detail that straight lines never stand out. Still, you'll notice a slight jagginess on gun models and some simpler environmental objects in the PS3 version.

The PS3 version requires a hefty 4.8GB installation that took me upwards of fifteen minutes. Once the game is running, the PS3 version loaded into levels just a second or two more quickly than the 360. The PS3 will have you loaded in from the level select menu in 10-11 seconds while this takes 12-13 seconds on the 360. It's a small difference and shouldn't be an issue either way.

The biggest factor for most hardcore gamers will be the framerate. If you know in advance that framerate drops are an issue for you than the 360 version should be the one to get. Otherwise, both versions look just as good as one another. The 360 gets the win here because of its more stable framerate, but the PS3 version shouldn't be considered inferior by any stretch of the imagination. Both versions look better than almost any other game out there.

Overall
1. Xbox 360
2. PS3


The Verdict
Resident Evil 5 is a lavish production and it's clear that Capcom has put a lot of emphasis on delivering an equivalent experience on the PS3 and 360. Both versions are technically polished and have a level of production value that few games can match. With a wealth of modes, bonuses, and unlockables, you'll be getting a terrific product on both the PS3 and 360. There are some small graphical differences that might matter to some hardcore fans. The PS3's framerate is more prone to dips and has some slight aliasing that's not as noticeable on the 360. The 360 loses some detail with its black levels, but, again, the same happens for the PS3 in brightly lit areas.

While I'm hesitant to say that one version is legitimately "better" than the other, I'm going to recommend the 360 over the PS3. The framerate dips on the PS3 weren't an issue for me, but they might be irritating to some hardcore gamers with a trained eye. If you don't care about framerate, both versions are equally good.

Overall
1. Xbox 360
2. PS3

[A-J]

well, not really anything we didn't already know ..

did they have video or pictures ?

[Dot50Cal]

It doesn't surprise me. In the past, IGN has done terrible head to heads where they completely leave out technical details.

[Umon Daisuke]

I think it's for the best, since they don't really have a technical guy on staff.

The frame rate is much improved in the final PS3 game and having finished the game, I can count the dips on one hand (and there's none in the assembly)... most of which seems that the engine slows down since it's v-locked. The most significant one was during a QTE.

It just depends on how picky you are and controller preference.

[CubedSphere]

^ I agree. Having beaten the game on the PS3 twice, I can count maybe 3 times the framerate dipped noticeably, but it was only for 3-4 seconds each time and didn't hinder my amazing headshot kills at all. No complaints here.

[Dot50Cal]

Great Sounds awesome guys. Looking forward to playing the game a lot now. I guess it finally hit me that its about to release

The comparison may be a bit delayed, I am moving to NY soon, and I can't exactly go spending 300$ before that for a new HDMI capture card. Rest assured, it'll be up eventually

[albert]

pheww... I was starting to get worried about those framerate issues. Thanks for the info!

[Rombie]

Umon - I see from that Blog you linked to, his Twitter feed says he's started his capturing of the HD footage for the comparion and seems to be noting some very interesting choices made by Capcom in regards to the title. I'm looking forward to see the results.

[A-J]

ign have put up the comparison video

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/7...2H_030609.html

i don't think there's any need for this on the main page ..

edit : fuck it, its insider only.

[Rombie]

^ Don't worry about it AJ, it's shit. I just watched it. They State the exact same as the written in video form, yet the only things they could actually show in video form was two things:

a) it's basically identical, and
b) the PS3 edition has a little more detail in the blacks - although that could simply be the fact they had their contrast ratio or settings on the console different.

The only other thing mentioned was the AA on the PS3 which was stated as you'd really have to look close to see the real differences, but they still award the 360 edition the win purely on the odd frame rate drops on the PS3. They never show any examples of the PS3 edition doing that on video. They do note that neither will be a bad choice but expect that people will be picky about the frame rate issues if they do care.

[hellrizer]

allright im getting sick of this so here is this college or whatever that does electronics and here is their research. If you dont understand this then grab a book.

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterm...360_vs_ps3.pdf

[Umon Daisuke]

That's not a research, just a bunch of schematics and specs grabbed off IBM's site and others put neatly in a pdf. There have been some professional comparisons done in the past with as much information available (without having to pay for them).

Hardly relevant to the topic of comparing the two RE5 demos though.

[hellrizer]

i know but like half of this thread everybody is talking about the GPU and everything so i just thought this is discribtive enough.

[Umon Daisuke]

Umon - I see from that Blog you linked to, his Twitter feed says he's started his capturing of the HD footage for the comparion and seems to be noting some very interesting choices made by Capcom in regards to the title. I'm looking forward to see the results.

Didn't notice it until now, and it's apparently out tomorrow at Eurogamer and proper 720p vids at the blog.

Late Edit: As expected, the fluctuations may have never been an issue gameplay wise, even with those few really noticeable instances, a frame rate analysis' numbers show them better. If it revealed 5Hz or so differences between the GTAIV's that no on noticed, you can imagine how it bodes for RE5.

Having beaten the main game in all the difficulties for now, I went through the game and noticed the dips better. Sadly, this isn't another cause like DMC4. Think of it something between the quality of that port and LP.

[SandokTheSlayer]

Yeah I just got done reading the eurogamer comparison. Looks like the QAA is still there and acts funky just like it did in the demo... Looks like I'll be getting the 360 version instead. How come they can't implement the 4xMSAA on the ps3?? Couldn't they tap some of that Cell power to pull it off?? Maybe the developers were just lazy? Hmmm...

[A-J]

so i just read through eurogamer's comparison ..

wow they haven't given a single game in any of their past face off's to the ps3 lol..

[Umon Daisuke]

wow they haven't given a single game in any of their past face off's to the ps3 lol..

Even the ones that are actually better on the PS3. The GTAIV one was particularly funny, but he is a frame rate whore.
Not that the guy is biased or anything, since he thinks of Uncharted and Killzone 2 as the best looking/performing console games out there.

I read through the DMC4 one, and I'm surprised that the better shaders and higher cutscene frame rate weren't mentioned on the PS3 (and even said he thought the 360 one looked better which was funny). What's interesting about their comparisons is the guy's posts and others' analysis on B3D later on since he does have great capturing equipment. They've gotten better now though but purely technical of course, so most don't quite appear as obvious.

Anyway, essentially Dot's demo comparison stands in the final games as well. So from now on, it's hard to not blindly recommend a 360 version of a Capcom game unless their engine is optimized properly for the PS3. Given that LP2 wasn't announced for the PS3 yet, I'd say that the ship has sailed.

EDIT: I found this part interesting, particularly in relation to the engine's PS2 roots:

However, Capcom has made extensive use of the 10MB of 'EDRAM' that is directly attached to the Xenos GPU in order to maximise its visual effects. With virtually unlimited bandwidth, effects can be processed enormously quickly. The Cell/RSX combo doesn't this advantage, although ironically, the PS2's graphics synthesiser does - one of the reasons why full software emulation of the older console is difficult on the PlayStation 3.

[A-J]

here's the IGN head to head video for those who don't have insider. Also available in HD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hv9GiUE3OA

[Dot50Cal]

I've started a game of the PS3 version with Mr. Spencer. Thus far, I've noticed some odd things. One, whenever there is a heat haze effect in the distance, the edge of the screen (like 20 pixels or so) will warp, badly. I'm not sure why its only doing it on the 20 pixels, but you can see it somewhat here. Basically, it looks like its "faking" the 20 pixels on the side by mirroring, and then distorting the previous 20 pixels. Take a look at the right side of the attachment.

Its really bizarre in motion, as in the beginning of the game, I had it tuned on a building. It kept mirroring the windows, then gliding out to sky and so on. Very odd. I'll look into it more and give more impressions.

Thus far though, 360 is obviously the better of the two. The QTE's are very weird on 360 too. For some reason, they don't seem to count a light button press. You have to literally slam the buttons down. This can be very difficult in later difficulties, especially with the triggers which have a wide range. AJ and I damn near repeated a scene 9 times because of this. Nothing like that on PS3 yet.

Concerning the framerate, PS3 is pretty bad at times. 360 has almost no slowdown that I have noticed.

Also, in the "shipping yard" with the crates, the lower precision shadows on the PS3 really become obvious. The crates have diagonal banding which is very distracting. As seen in the second pic, the shadows are lower res as well.

[Umon Daisuke]

There are areas where it's at the top of the screen, but covers a smaller portion. Wherever there is a body of water such at the trains chapter or the marshlands (where the frame rate is at its worst). I'd mention specific areas I've noticed but they're spoilers. I'm not sure what to make of it; the top portion I assumed it was a consistent tear because they're in areas where it dips below 30Hz.

Anyway, the marshlands is where the frame rate stuck out for me, as well as the assembly. Of course, the empty assembly showcased it better but it's still better than the demo.

Keep playing both versions. When you take the time to explore and take things slowly, you'll notice the inconsistencies. Still, as I said, the most severe/noticeable ones are few and dont' affect the gameplay. Once you switch to the 360, you'll just notice how polished the game really is, and the PS3 version shortcomings look bad and disappointing. I wouldn't recommend getting a 360 just for it since the differences ultimately don't really warrant a console purchase.

But distracting shadows? lol

EDIT: I linked your post on B3D to see what their take is.