http://gameinformer.com/News/Story/200606/N06.0629...

First off this is the rig they are running for the pc version.That gpu is 2 gpus in one. They got around 25-45 fps the 360 got around 25-30fps no noticeable drops from their play through. The pc version is sharper in terms of textures etc which is to be expected 1 gig of ram a gpu like that and the 360 version is just a port, but from what they say its one of the best ports on the 360 aside from Call of Duty 2.

Yea I read that already, but it is a port afterall done by a different team, but even so the pc has alot more ram among other things.

Having seen prey being played during E3 on g4tv blown up on my hdtv I'm sure the game looks awesome either way and runs flawlessly. As we know not everyone will have those powerful pcs, so the 360 version could get most of the sales.

Come to think of it the comparison's aren't even fair considering I can activate adaptive antialiasing (a much better form of antialiasing) and High Quality AF a much improved version of AF which improves the sharpness of textures etc on my x1900xtx.

Its no wonder the pc version would look better. I was going to bed, but figured i'd test the prey pc demo first. Tomorrow i'll finish downloading the 360 version and see.

I wasn't that impressed graphically by the demo, it was ok i suppose.

Actually enjoyed the gameplay though, i prefer slow FPS games like this.

I have played both the PC and 360 demos, and they are pretty close. The PC version offers higher resolutions and AF, but other than that they are about the same. I enjoyed both demos very much, and I can't decide which version I will get.

I very much doubt that , Halo is too fast for me (especially with a controller) give me a keyboard and mouse and i may consider it.

Well I was running it on my x1900xtx last night. To be as unfair to the 360 version as possible I enabled adaptive antialiasing which is a much better form of AA and High Quality AF.

I'll say this the AA is definetly better on the pc version (well of course with adaptive AA) The textures to me on the 360 and pc version seem very similar except everything is sharper on the pc probably due to the better AA to get a better indication of pc vs 360 textures and all I'd have to play the game at night too much sunlight getting in here. The pc version is DEFINETLY the more smoother of the 2, but seeing this game played on the 360 at E3 on g4tv I know thats just an issue with the demo the final build definitly will run smoother than the demo did.

All in all I give the advantage to the pc version, but the 360 version is doing a pretty damn good job as well for a port. Its very close to the pc version. The fact that not many might have a pc powerful enough the 360 version could get more mileage, but only time will tell, but the game is doing pretty well on the 360.

Again this game is no graphical powerhouse its just showing great use of the doom3 engine. Graphically even Blue Dragon looks better or even Ghost Recon or Lost Planet which everyone probably could've guessed. The doom3 engine doesn't look as impressive as it use to.

i heard somewhere that 360 has "adoptive aa", i think dave mentioned this. All this is prolly the issue of bandwith and streaming textures from dvd, overall good show from 360 (though it could be better with efficient texture managment)

edit: not adoptive "aa", but "af", yeah rock and roll

I haven't read what you people have said so far, but let me say that the x360 demo during multiplayer, if there are more than 6 people the lag is uncontrollable, it simply is unplayable, it's awful, my worst experience with lag ever.

The game seems to always be lagging, I created a server with a limit of 6, that way I would not get that much lag, but other people do get lag. I then created another match with 4 and while the game always has this tendency to lag, it was "playable", so in other words, unless they fix that by release (the game has gone gold, so who knows), the multiplayer will be limited to 4 player matches and I think that's horrible. Hell, 8 players only is horrible to begin with.

The weapons work well and the spirit walk adds to the multiplayer, but it's a shame it's so short on players, and a shame that there's so much lag.

I dunno, I only played with 6 last night, but had no problems with lag at all.

Thats really weird. When i played the PC demo on multiprey I didn't get any lag what-so-ever. Even with the full 8 players for the whole time. A lot of people seem to have been complaining about how the 360 version lags a lot online. But my experience with the PC version has been really good.

Hmm, i don't know, maybe i picked a dedicated server. *shrugs*

btw, from what i read on an IGN preview, the game gets better looking as it goes on.

And i still like wall-walking ;)

Is it just me..

But when comparing a PC game to a 360 game would it not be wise to use the same resolutions ? (both 720p)

It's obvious that the PC version (with higher resolution settings) will look better because the first thing you notice is the clarity difference.

Blah ... in fact why compare them at all ..

It's a ported game then doesn't really take advantage of the 360.

My point was that resolution is probably the most obvious improvement and with good reason because your eyes pick up on it first.

I meant leave all the settings on high and put the resoultion to 720p, the PC version would look better obviously but it would give a more realistic example in terms of a comparison. (at least in my eyes)