And just for the record, it wasnt a Revenge comparison I saw, it was one of the games that came before it. I dont recall how many there are now.
EDIT: It was Takedown, I found the Head 2 Head. Xbox still won for Graphics, heres what it says...
QUOTE
Graphics
If we hadn't been writing these Head-to-Heads for so long, we'd have a hard time believing that a PS2 racer could look as good as, if not better in some respects, than the Xbox version. However, this is the case with Burnout 3: Takedown. The talent at Criterion has mastered Sony's PlayStation 2 hardware, which is why Takedown is one of the most visually impressive on the console. While comparing the two builds, a handful of people mistook the PlayStation 2 version of Takedown for an Xbox game; they simply assumed its sharpness, all the reflections and specular lighting tricks, had to be coming from Xbox. They were wrong.
From what we can tell, Criterion developed an incredibly-solid 60 frames per second racer on PS2 and then translated that to Xbox as it went, taking advantage of what it could along the way.
The PlayStation 2 is not excessively jaggy when compared to Xbox. In fact, the two look very similar at first sight. The way reflections are handled varies, but there's no huge differences here as you can see.
Interestingly, though, these menus only run at 30 frames per second on the PlayStation 2 while they keep at 60 (consistent with the rest of the game) on Xbox. We're not sure why Criterion had no problem getting PS2 to run at 60 for the highly complicated races and couldn't get the garage to do the same, but maybe it has something to do with the "dirt mapping" and floor reflections. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter that much. We just thought you'd like to know.
. The two share the same assets, so it's really just a matter of how they're handled. The PlayStation 2, because it has no intense anti-aliasing like the Xbox, has some jagginess on wires and in the like, but the textures go "untouched," so to speak, and benefit from a sharpness, something that Xbox's more powerful anti-aliasing makes blurry.
Of course, Burnout 3 is a very fast racer; both anti-aliasing effects and textures are engulfed by motion blur effects most of the time.
Elsewhere, both show off to reveal some other discrepancies. The PlayStation 2 was the platform that Criterion perfected its blooming effect for specular light reflections. In Burnout 2 it was superior and it stands likewise for Takedown -- you can clearly see the orange bloom that highlights the edges of light reflections on the roads. That's not to say that the bright buildup of light reflections on Xbox's Burnout 3 roadways are "bad," but PS2's better bloom effect is impressive at times and bounces of the car in a similar way.
Finally, we noticed the particles on PlayStation 2 outshined (literally) Xbox in some respects. Again, we suspect that the engine work for particles primarily took place on the PlayStation 2. The result -- as you can see in the picture -- are more "glowy" sparks. They add a little more oomph when you're getting sandwiched between a semi-truck and a wall, for example.
On the whole, none of these minor details change the gameplay much at all. Both versions look amazing, but Xbox's higher-resolution textures combined with a more reliable framerate (although both are exceptional) make it a better choice in the graphics department. Not by much, though!
This post has been edited by Deftech: Feb 3 2006, 03:45 PM
Author
Topic: Alex Ward/burnout 360 Interview... (Read 460 times)