All comments

looks promising. but, yeah - the difference between the two versions is very clear. Don't thing I've seen such a big difference before between x360 and ps3. wierd.

Wow. Uh.

Why would they release PR shots in which one version looks waaaay better than the other? Wouldn't it just be better practice to only show one version and not tell what console it was on?

Oh well.

amazing , for the first time there is one image that is showing the same scene , and you can really tell that the XBox360 version has more color while the PS3 version is more grey.

wow, they need to sort out their levels in capturing lol

the xbox360 version looks better!!!!

Is that a bear in one of the 360 pics?!!?

Half of those shots are prerendered FMV, by the way. All the cinematics in this game are prerendered.

Thus, any comparisons between the two versions are invalid and premature.

Wow they must hate the PS3, because thats the only reason for releasing those crappy pics, besides the clearly better 360 ones, why not just release the 360 pics if its the lead platform?

if they are "pre-rendered" which i must say they look like ingame cinematics, they shouldn't be different then , but they are. which means that they aren't pre-rendered but ingame and one of the two versions is superior to the other. and that superior version happens to be the XBox360 version.

hahahahaha just another jaggy piece of shyt (.again) go ahead tell me its ok so sony can make another jaggy piece of shyt and call it groundbreaking .its not funny anymore

They can be different as a result of different video output brightness, and level of video compression.

They are not pre-rendered.

amen . now repeat after me NO MORE BLURRY ,JAGGY piece of shyt games for my beloved console!

Didn't the developers say the game would use it's engine for cinematics, not pre-rendered stuff? so that eliminates any excuses.

360 version is far better than the PS3 version, why they didn't just release the 360 screens is beyond me!

I recently saw a video on you toob that stated how ignorant some developers can be with regards to their capturing techniques. The guy in question went into his settings on the Ps3, enabled the true-white setting and `Full Range RGB` setting and then ran a new video comparison between the Ps3 and 360`s versions of Assassins Creed and boy did it make the Ps3 better!.

Initial video/screenshot comparisons were done without using any type of system enabled `tweek`, so because the 360 has all it`s full range RGB etc turned up by default, these comparisons seem way over the top IMO.

I bet any money that these screens were taken from a Ps3 that hadn`t had any of it`s `Tweeks` enabled, thus rendering this particular comparison arguably laughable.

I am a huge fan of both consoles, but the Ps3 should at least be allowed some slack because with all the juicy games and ideas that are coming out on the system this year, the 360 has ALOT of catching up to do!.

To prove my point:

h t t p:// w w w . youtube.com/watch?v=5HvdRfUmoqQ

(Sorry again for the spacing lol).

SORRY FOR USING CAPS BUT...

THE PS3 IMAGES LOOKS BLAND BECAUSE THEY TOOK SCREENSHOTS WITHOUT USING FULL RANGE RGB. YOU HAVE TO USE THE RIGHT CAPTURING TOOL TOO. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DON'T BOTHER TO CHECK FACTS BEFORE YELLING XBOX 360 VERSION LOOKS BETTER BLA BLA BLA.

exactly, 90% of multiplat games become far more comparable in colour and contrast witht he 360 when full RGB is switched on. some game however get TOO contrasted however, such as uncharted.

The contrast and colors aren't the only things that are different. Check the AA, the AF, and the texture resolution as well. No excuses, full RGB or not.

why the hell do the PS3 shots have different black levels and conrast exactly? still looks decent enough, and the gameplay is looking even better then the first

No. You're 110% absolutely WRONG. These are all in game screens. Why lie?

The engine is showing it's date for sure, but the atmosphere seems to be spot on again. One thing I don't like is the look of Ethan and especially his voice! What the hell have they done!?! He now sounds like your generic "action-hero". Extremely lame!

The action is brutal, some awesome new moves in there, but they need to fix the tearing. It's really annoying when you hit a guy and this huge tear appears right as you make a swing.

Also, the game better not suffer from the '5-hour-campaign-syndrome' like so many other high-profile titles out there. I don't care if it has MP or not. 10 Hours is the bare minimum.

So what you guys are saying is that Sega dont want the ps3 owners to buy the game, so they mess up the settings to make it look worse than the 360 and release the screenshots to the press?

How about they are further along in dev on the 360 version?, or they were just lazy or out of money/resources and they just did not do a good job on the ps3 version game? sounds more like it to me.

I think the whole 'full RGB' trend is just hilarious. What are the odds that there's some major conspiracy and all the media and developers and publishers are all turning off full RGB on PS3 but leaving it on on 360s?

Are they all taking shots off of HDMI 360s... and they are all using video output instead of taking pics right from a dev kit...

As for the game, I'm still not sure about it, I liked the first, but I hope this one isn't just cheap slasher stuff, I like the scary hiding AI in the first game and the sound effects.

It's a trend going on in almost every multi-platform game. Some people need to wake up and realize 360 has a better GPU/memory architecture and is easier to develop for so mutli-platform games are going to look better on it. It's not just the "full RGB" causing the PS3 screens to look worse, you can tell the 360 version AA's set higher and the textures look better.