Took some comparison screenshots between the 360 and PS3 versions of Enchanted Arms since I couldn't find much info about the visual differences.

[CaptainToad]

Page 5 | X360 v PS3 Multiformat Face-Off, Round Two

It's early days in the great next gen console war, and the commercial reality of development is very simple - the cost …

www.eurogamer.net

The above image/article by Richard Leadbetter is the only comparison I can find. It's pretty crazy how different the games look. I ended up using two let's plays on YouTube to try to compare. Which was still tricky because videos of the PS3 version of the game are numerous while 360 is quite rare. I'm assuming because PS3 had emulation more quickly, and also maybe because JRPG fans are more likely to play PS3. The PS3 version is touted as the better version since it has 131 golems (30-ish more than the 360 version). At least one speedrun I found said the PS3 version is actually harder with debuffed golems and higher HP enemies although there are other changes like a shortened dungeon later on to supposedly make the game a little easier.

Anyway, here are my comparison screenshots I made of the starker differences. I actually prefer the PS3's general aesthetic since it bakes in more appealing shadows and stuff into textures so characters look less plastic doll-like, but otherwise the 360 version seems to look and run better generally.

PS3

360

PS3

360

PS3

360

PS3

360 (screenshot got low-res accidentally)

PS3

360

PS3

360

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

While I don't particularly care for either game, I think it's wonderful that you went through the effort of comparing the two, and I thank you for it.

 

[TruxtonTatsujin TruxtonTatsujin]

90% of the time the 360 version looks and runs better, especially if it's a game that came out in the first half of the generation. It's not that it was more powerful, its just that it was much easier to develop for.

 

[nobitakun]

View attachment 119767

Page 5 | X360 v PS3 Multiformat Face-Off, Round Two

It's early days in the great next gen console war, and the commercial reality of development is very simple - the cost …

www.eurogamer.net

The above image/article by Richard Leadbetter is the only comparison I can find. It's pretty crazy how different the games look. I ended up using two let's plays on YouTube to try to compare. Which was still tricky because videos of the PS3 version of the game are numerous while 360 is quite rare. I'm assuming because PS3 had emulation more quickly, and also maybe because JRPG fans are more likely to play PS3. The PS3 version is touted as the better version since it has 131 golems (30-ish more than the 360 version). At least one speedrun I found said the PS3 version is actually harder with debuffed golems and higher HP enemies although there are other changes like a shortened dungeon later on to supposedly make the game a little easier.

Anyway, here are my comparison screenshots I made of the starker differences. I actually prefer the PS3's general aesthetic since it bakes in more appealing shadows and stuff into textures so characters look less plastic doll-like, but otherwise the 360 version seems to look and run better generally.

PS3
View attachment 119769
360
View attachment 119770
PS3
View attachment 119771
360
View attachment 119772
PS3
View attachment 119773
360
View attachment 119774
PS3
View attachment 119775
360 (screenshot got low-res accidentally)
View attachment 119776
PS3
View attachment 119777
360
View attachment 119778
PS3View attachment 119779
360
View attachment 119780

The screenshots from PS3 version are clearly messed up. I don't know where did you find them but the resolution matches the AV cable, not HDMI. That is not a good way of comparing both, specially if you want to say something negative about the 360 version.

But as matter of fact and as has been said here, 90% of the time 360 version was clearly superior because the hardware was well done. Microsoft included eDRAM for helping on some effects that otherwise were stored on XRDRAM on PS3's. XRDRAM is very fast but the latency is huge, that has a big impact on performance for some graphical effects that 360 could do easily.

A lot of people always praises Cell as a very powerful CPU, but PS3 as a whole was a complete mess.

 

[TruxtonTatsujin TruxtonTatsujin]

The screenshots from PS3 version are clearly messed up. I don't know where did you find them but the resolution matches the AV cable, not HDMI. That is not a good way of comparing both, specially if you want to say something negative about the 360 version.

But as matter of fact and as has been said here, 90% of the time 360 version was clearly superior because the hardware was well done. Microsoft included eDRAM for helping on some effects that otherwise were stored on XRDRAM on PS3's. XRDRAM is very fast but the latency is huge, that has a big impact on performance for some graphical effects that 360 could do easily.

A lot of people always praises Cell as a very powerful CPU, but PS3 as a whole was a complete mess.

Near the end of the generation it was clear the PS3 was more powerful, but it took devs a long time to get there because of how cumbersome the Cell processor was.

 

[nobitakun]

Near the end of the generation it was clear the PS3 was more powerful, but it took devs a long time to get there because of how cumbersome the Cell processor was.

Yeah, but some grapical effects were impossible to create without performance penalty on PS3, like trilinear buffering. You can clearly notice the difference in FFXIII, when the cut scenes were showing the hair of Lightning close. On PS3 the framerate could go down up to 10-12fps while on 360 it was just rendered at the same framerate. Also, you can notice the huge performance impact on Bayonetta, when multiple particles were on screen.

 

[Danieru-Emanyueru]

View attachment 119767

Page 5 | X360 v PS3 Multiformat Face-Off, Round Two

It's early days in the great next gen console war, and the commercial reality of development is very simple - the cost …

www.eurogamer.net

The above image/article by Richard Leadbetter is the only comparison I can find. It's pretty crazy how different the games look. I ended up using two let's plays on YouTube to try to compare. Which was still tricky because videos of the PS3 version of the game are numerous while 360 is quite rare. I'm assuming because PS3 had emulation more quickly, and also maybe because JRPG fans are more likely to play PS3. The PS3 version is touted as the better version since it has 131 golems (30-ish more than the 360 version). At least one speedrun I found said the PS3 version is actually harder with debuffed golems and higher HP enemies although there are other changes like a shortened dungeon later on to supposedly make the game a little easier.

Anyway, here are my comparison screenshots I made of the starker differences. I actually prefer the PS3's general aesthetic since it bakes in more appealing shadows and stuff into textures so characters look less plastic doll-like, but otherwise the 360 version seems to look and run better generally.

PS3
View attachment 119769
360
View attachment 119770
PS3
View attachment 119771
360
View attachment 119772
PS3
View attachment 119773
360
View attachment 119774
PS3
View attachment 119775
360 (screenshot got low-res accidentally)
View attachment 119776
PS3
View attachment 119777
360
View attachment 119778
PS3View attachment 119779
360
View attachment 119780

The PS3 sees the graphics a little better but otherwise there is not much difference between the games.

 

[CaptainToad]

90% of the time the 360 version looks and runs better, especially if it's a game that came out in the first half of the generation. It's not that it was more powerful, its just that it was much easier to develop for.

Yeah. Although can anyone think of games that changed this much from 360 to PS3 (or vice versa)? Some zones are totally reconfigured to cut down on geometry. PS3 has bump mapping and a bunch of other effects removed too.

Edit: Deadly Premonition is the only other one I can think of that comes close and that PS3 port was done by a hack studio.

Post automatically merged: Today at 9:28 PM

The screenshots from PS3 version are clearly messed up. I don't know where did you find them but the resolution matches the AV cable, not HDMI. That is not a good way of comparing both, specially if you want to say something negative about the 360 version.

It was hard to find a confirmed non-emulated let's play of the PS3 version because all the ones I skimmed through were emulated or I had suspicions they were and I didn't want to spend too much time on this. Also, the changes are so drastic that it's apparent the differences. I don't really care about console war stuff, I just wanted to show people online the differences since it's hard to find info.

The top screenshot is from Eurogamer and that's presumably being done at 720p via HDMI. So it's a good baseline that shows the differences I care about displaying.

 

[Tortuga]

Those ps3 pics looks quite strange
I made many ps3 screenshots and never seen them end up like that

Also i kind of wish we had a big thread about ps3 vs x360 performance/visuals since this is the topic i'm a little interested in