2007-08-09 03:24:17 Xbox 360 & PS3 images of Timeshift

pic 9 on the 360 looks ugly is all i could say. after that. ehh, same stuff

2007-08-09 03:31:58

for me all the pics looks the same.

2007-08-09 03:43:31

From these screens I think the ps3 version looks better, but at the same time I think some of the ps3 screens are more interesting than the 360 ones.

---
Hironobu Sakaguchi is coming back to reclaim the throne :)

October 20th 2007 (A good day)

Don't ask any questions just shut up and buy Halo : Ghosts of the Onyx one of the greatest books ever.

pssh! more like electronic gay-ming monthly! amirite

2007-08-09 03:47:51

I dunno know what looks better than what, would be more interesting if they both showed the same scene.

2007-08-09 03:49:57

there is no significant difference between the two versions

2007-08-09 05:28:36 In reply to otto12 (2007-08-09 03:31:58)

2007-08-09 05:52:35

I don't see any HDR in either version. In general this game looks horrible.

2007-08-09 05:53:05

Looks better on PS3 in my book and also i love the Sixaxis alot more for a console FPS.

---
Owner of Sony PSTwo PSP and PS3.
PSN-Shaka.

2007-08-09 05:54:49

Yeah, I'm not seeing any major differences either. The blood splatter in PS3 image 9 looks really nice.

2007-08-09 06:29:27

this game is so old it looks pretty crappy in both versions.

---
GoW, War3, Halo, MYST, Civilazation

2007-08-09 08:43:31

Graphicswise the main difference between these two versions seems to be that depth of field kicks in earlier in the PS3 version. Backgrounds become blurry far earlier. Best example of this is found on both versions first pic, since the picture of the environment and situation is taken from nearly same point. But the same thing applies to the other pictures as well. Other than that, it seems to be pretty much even-steven.

2007-08-09 09:59:59

no differences at all, only the fact that whoever took the 360 screenshots, is a bit retarded, since theyre so awful and dull

---
http://card.mygamercard.net/acm2000.png

2007-08-09 10:23:33

They're the same - bland and uninteresting.

2007-08-09 12:55:03

I could play this game last week in Valencia´s Campus Party (7000 people lan party) in EA stand and can tell that they could work a little beat in the character´s movement and playability. There´s something about this game that I don´t like :/

2007-08-09 12:59:19

both identical, but i kinda like the forced depth of field on the ps3 more then the 360, completely unrealistic, but better from an artistic standpoint. i like the look of it tho, looks way better then fear (which i compare it to most) but will it be good enough to play and compete against the big boys in the genre? we'll soon see i guess.

2007-08-09 13:36:33

I think both look equally horrible :P. I don't know what it is. The textures are nice, the shadows are nice, it just seems like everything has a lower poly count then it should at this stage. I'm sure some of you graphics terminology junkies out there would know a better way to put it.

2007-08-09 13:38:39 In reply to GrimThorne (2007-08-09 03:49:57)

2007-08-09 14:30:40

they showed the worst pics for 360, they really try hard to find blurry pics; we need to see this on gameplay level anyway

---
hd-dvd games hd-dvd games hd-dvd games

2007-08-09 23:37:08

Cant see any difference to speak of, and since the scenes are not from the same frames/timestamp comparisons either way are baseless.

But what I do see is downscaled supersampling, so both sets of pics look far better than the game actually will.