Fallout 3 head-to-head comparison from IGN.

Overall
1. PC
2. 360
3. PS3

Now see here is the thing, PS3 fanboys will want you to ignore the fact that the PS3 version of the game is the worst version meaning it will give you the worst experience of the rest. How can something that isn't a big deal be mentioned many times from basically every site, every magazine that matters? As you can see, the pc version wins obviously but it's quite to see a super computer such as the PS3 lose to a simplistic product such as the 360. Bad port? I don't care. Lazy dev? I don't care, that's not going to explain all the pissed off early ps3 adopters who went ahead and believed Sony's ridiculous hype for the system. If I own a PS3, I want to believe that I will get to play the better versions of any game...so why can't I? Why am I always playing the dumbed down version?

Why did Sony have to release the odd console? The console that no dev wants to make games for? Why would any dev want to put in twice the amount of time, effort and resources into something that could have easily been done on the 360 and many times with much more satisfying outcome? Lazy devs, that's just an excuse. Why the hell would Sony expect that every dev suddenly converts for their liking? Why does it make Valve lazy if they don't want to waste their time on something that could easily have been done? This is why the PS3 sucks and will always suck. While Sony caters to the first party devs so much, they give the rest a cold shoulder.

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

JackDaniels121

[QUOTE="JackDaniels121"]

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

paullywog

For cereal dude.

I don't notice differences that are a simple mix of contrast and some slightly extra detail.

truth is if they took all of these pics from the same exact position during the same exact hour you wouldn't notice much at all. People in general thing that the dark, but still daylight pics have better graphics.

It really doesn't look that different, you need a side by side comparison

The difference isn't there enough, I play it on PC on ultra high, and the textures and draw distance is better on mine. 110million

And this is what I mean- have you even played the console versions?
No, you haven't.

They're pretty much all identical

Remember when people were saying that one of these versions is completely superior?

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29151.html

yea, sure...

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

TheCraving

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

[QUOTE="110million"]The difference isn't there enough, I play it on PC on ultra high, and the textures and draw distance is better on mine. JackDaniels121

And this is what I mean- have you even played the console versions?
No, you haven't.

They're pretty much all identical

Remember when people were saying that one of these versions is completely superior?

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29151.html

yea, sure...

Yeah the PC one.. since I'm playing it in a much higher resolution, at a higher frame rate, with 8x AA, it doesn't matter what the game is, PC is always ahead by miles.

[QUOTE="110million"]The difference isn't there enough, I play it on PC on ultra high, and the textures and draw distance is better on mine. JackDaniels121

And this is what I mean- have you even played the console versions?
No, you haven't.

They're pretty much all identical

Your blind dude, I will remember your name to never listen to your opinion about graphics in the future. No offence or anything man but seriously everything in back on the ps3 is blury. And just look at the ground, textures are lacking. PC looks the best easliy. I am not saying the PS3 is not capable of Fallout 3, I just don't think the devs wanted to put more money into the development. PC to 360 and vice versa is easy but PS3 hardware is completely different.

[QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

Ilived

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

3 year old tech is easier to get used to, especially when your developing on an old media.

[QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

Ilived

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

I see your point, alot of the games ported from 360 can he kinda half-arsed. And while the PS3 is hard to get around for the developers, some ports and be done brilliantly. For example, Bioshock had an awesome port (IMO). I think that if the developers tried a little harder they could get their heads around it. Besides, Fallout 3 was in the making for 4 years, and fair enough it was originally being made for 360 but once the PS3 was out they still had plenty of time to get to grips with it.

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

TheCraving

It cost money dude and this is a business. Why put more money into a console that is in last place at the moment and it is harder to develop for. I can understand if it was just one company but a lot of people are having trouble with the PS3, quit blaming devs.

i barley notice a difference, the PS3 version's draw distance seems sharper and less blurry the lighting seems a bit more lighter and washed out...but nothing major.

Why did GS make it seem like it was a night and day difference?

There is no noticable difference that I can discern in image quality.

I'm being honest. Textures, aliasing, resolution....I don't see it.

360 does have obviously more bloom.

[QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

110million

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

3 year old tech is easier to get used to, especially when your developing on an old media.

What does the media have to do with anything????

[QUOTE="110million"][QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

kingtito

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

3 year old tech is easier to get used to, especially when your developing on an old media.

What does the media have to do with anything????

Nothing.

The problem is that they have a different CPU architecture. That's the only problem that I'm aware of. That and the fact that it's a 360-to-PS3 port, and that has long been the problem across genres for years.

Again, I reiterate, I don't see the difference in image quality. I take the reviewer's word on performance and bugs however.

[QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

Ilived

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

And yet Dead Space, a multiplatform game just like Fallout 3, looks identical on both the PS3 and 360. Why is it that EA Redwood Shores was able to develop a game that looks and plays the same on each system, but Bethesda could not? It must be the PS3, right?

Plus, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill anyway. Yes, the PS3 version is inferior and that's too bad, but according to critics and others who have played the game, it still doesn't destroy the great experience Fallout 3 gives you. That's what matters, right?

TC from your words I can see you hate the PS3 alot and therefore why should I take in your thoughts on this or anything involving PS3. If its not lazy or that the devs just messed up how do you explain something like dead space or other good looking PS3 ports.

[QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="TheCraving"]

I am a PS3 owner and I am dissapointed with the bad port of Fallout 3. But while reading all your point and yes, PS3 is a console with flaws, but with Fallout 3, is that not the developers fault? I mean, the game is apprently glitchy and full of bugs on the PS3 version but isn't that dwon to the developers for being lazy?

TreyoftheDead

It can also be Sony's fault for making such a developer unfriendly system. People always blame it on the devs in situations like this, but how come they can do a great job on the 360?

And yet Dead Space, a multiplatform game just like Fallout 3, looks identical on both the PS3 and 360. Why is it that EA Redwood Shores was able to develop a game that looks and plays the same on each system, but Bethesda could not? It must be the PS3, right?

Plus, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill anyway. Yes, the PS3 version is inferior and that's too bad, but according to critics and others who have played the game, it still doesn't destroy the great experience Fallout 3 gives you. That's what matters, right?

^this!

Woa, they look almost identical, the difference in Oblivion seemed far greater.

At first I thought the PC version can't be on high, but I searched xfire for a similar pic, this is taken on 4870 so I'd pressume it's on highest settings. I have to say I'm a bit dissapointed in how it looks.

And yet Dead Space, a multiplatform game just like Fallout 3, looks identical on both the PS3 and 360. Why is it that EA Redwood Shores was able to develop a game that looks and plays the same on each system, but Bethesda could not? It must be the PS3, right?

Plus, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill anyway. Yes, the PS3 version is inferior and that's too bad, but according to critics and others who have played the game, it still doesn't destroy the great experience Fallout 3 gives you. That's what matters, right?

TreyoftheDead

Agreed. This is just getting blown completely out of proportion by cows and lemmings alike.

There is no noticable difference that I can discern in image quality.

I'm being honest. Textures, aliasing, resolution....I don't see it.

360 does have obviously more bloom.

BobHipJames

From the pictures here... it's clearly noticeable...

Woa, they look almost identical, the difference in Oblivion seemed far greater.

At first I thought the PC version can't be on high, but I searched xfire for a similar pic, this is taken on 4870 so I'd pressume it's on highest settings. I have to say I'm a bit dissapointed in how it looks.

mr_mozilla

It's nothing like Crysis, if that's what you were expecting...

Shocking screens.

The PC version looks far better than that.

Can easily say that after playing it a moment ago.

Ok this is reserved for a screenshot of the PC version.

Ill take an out doors one, and uploaded it a decent image service, that doesent ruin jpegs.

lol those textures look like medium setting on pc version. also, from that screenshot, the ps3 has sharper textures and better polygon count, but the hdr is missing.papi_lekker

Are you series? I really dont understand how anyone could possibly look at those pictures and say the third is the best, in any way.

WOW,both the console versions have some serious textures issues and jaggies !

Good thing i purchased the PC version.

The PC version clearly looks better, which is stated in the H2H review.

"This category is clearly dominated by the PC. Even a quick glance reveals that the PC version is cleaner, runs at a higher resolution, has more detail, better character models, and better texture clarity. Many of the little details of the ruined DC area were not immediately apparent until viewed them on our AlienWare rig. For example, buzzards circle high above the town of Megaton. They exist on all three versions of the game but they didn't catch our eye on the consoles.

If you want a great example of how the PC outperforms the other two options take a close look at any of the character models in the game. You can see all three versions running side-by-side-by-side in our Video Head-to-Head. For now you can see what we're talking about in screenshots."

Okaies just grabbed a few new screens and found an earlier one:

Mind you these are in full rez.

Honestly the textures are fine. Not uber high rez, but just fine....

Okay, those look way better and kinda what I was expecting from the PC version. Tho what's up with the gray mat under the bridge, is that like FO3 version of the Oblivion "pea soup effect"?mr_mozilla

Sony took a risk with the PS3 and I commend them for it. They could have just released another run-of-the-mill, PC compatible and easily sellable console like the Xbox, but they went out on a limb and tried something different with console hardware.LightReflection

The PS3 has been a disaster from Sony.

The arrogance leading up to its launch was like no other, and reality hit them - and their hip pockets hard. Other than that, the console has under performed all gen, especially considering its former.

What has this got to do with the thread anyway?

[QUOTE="LightReflection"]Sony took a risk with the PS3 and I commend them for it. They could have just released another run-of-the-mill, PC compatible and easily sellable console like the Xbox, but they went out on a limb and tried something different with console hardware.skrat_01

The PS3 has been a disaster from Sony.

The arrogance leading up to its launch was like no other, and reality hit them - and their hip pockets hard. Other than that, the console has under performed all gen, especially considering its former.

What has this got to do with the thread anyway?

The issues I expressed in my post came up in the first post, maybe you should read it again.

To be honest, despite Fallout (which hardly looks different anyway), the PS3 is killing the 360 at the moment when it comes to games. We are getting exclusive after exclusive... and recent multiplats have all been identical (Far cry, DeadSpace, Mirrors Edge, COD4 etc.).

I used to have a 360, but I am so glad I swapped to the ps3.

wow pc version really rocks..

as for ps3 vs. xbox..ill be getting it for ps3 (b/c i dont have a working xbox where im at)...

however, yeh, xbox version does look better...but thats not a deal breaker for it...its not going to be a .5 point difference in rating (dunno wth gamespots talking about)..

Although i disagree with ps3 ratings...you are right,....xbox version looks better.

Wow, this difference is insignificant, who gives a crap?

The only thing that is bad is that the ps3 version has some weird tech glitches. Aside from this, it's not really that much of a difference, just slight changes. They really don't look much different.

Funny part is that I thought that pic 1 looked the worst, then pic 3, then pic 2.

JackDaniels121

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="LightReflection"]Sony took a risk with the PS3 and I commend them for it. They could have just released another run-of-the-mill, PC compatible and easily sellable console like the Xbox, but they went out on a limb and tried something different with console hardware.LightReflection

The PS3 has been a disaster from Sony.

The arrogance leading up to its launch was like no other, and reality hit them - and their hip pockets hard. Other than that, the console has under performed all gen, especially considering its former.

What has this got to do with the thread anyway?

The issues I expressed in my post came up in the first post, maybe you should read it again.

Um, i can't tell a difference except that they have different lightings about them. The graphics look exactly the same on all three. In fact I thought that the distant lands looked a lot clearer in the ps3 version.n_kors