Google+

Final Fantasy XIII-2 video: How do the PS3 and 360 versions compare?

This week marked the release of the English-language demo for Final Fantasy XIII-2, which we gave a playthrough in a recent video. But we only played it on the 360, so you might be wondering how the different versions of the game compare on the PlayStation 3 and 360. That’s why we have this video that takes you through the first few minutes of the demo on both systems. Do they look different to you or incredibly similar? We’re honestly having trouble seeing any difference, but maybe you keen-eyed readers will see something and let us know in the comments.

52 comments

  • azariaspice - January 28, 2012 11:12 p.m.

    The PS3 version has smoother graphics, it's noticeable mostly in the hair. Otherwise, I think they did a really good job making the XBOX360 version nearly identical to the PS3 version. I'm glad fans with either console can enjoy it in all it's glory.
  • Adalwulf - January 23, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    Honestly im more of a fan of the 360 but there are some very minute differences between the 360 and ps3 versions just have to look really close
  • SAComplex - January 16, 2012 5:06 a.m.

    not much of a difference there if at all. Can we all go back to our lives now?
  • Funkzillabot - January 13, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    There is a slight difference, but it's so minute. It's certainly not worth buying another system for.
  • Whoissheandwhydidshesayit - January 13, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    I don't see any real difference. I think Square has probably gotten better at using the crystal tools engine on x360 by now, so that could be why the differences are less obvious than with the original XIII (I own the 360 version of XIII and while I don't like it, the graphics are SLIGHTLY worse).
  • therawski - January 13, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    Look, the PS3 version actually cares about contrast and lighting!
  • raidramon0 - January 13, 2012 4:03 a.m.

    Is it just me, or does the xbox 360 version look a little on the janky side?
  • GhostNappa2k10 - January 13, 2012 1:07 a.m.

    There's abosolutely no difference between either platform, but i'm sure some stupid fanboy will come along claiming their platform looks better xD
  • Bladex206 - January 13, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    therawski - 54 minutes ago - Report Look, the PS3 version actually cares about contrast and lighting! --- Looks like your wish had been granted.
  • forestfire55 - January 12, 2012 8:04 p.m.

    I think Sony and Microsoft should work together, I mean its for the good if gamer kind! Imagine all that could be done, because honestly when you think about it its silly. 2 almost entirely identical consoles fighting a war agenst each other with us caught in the crossfire, "that's my exclusive!" ""This is mine!" "We'll I'm free!" "Well my multiplayer is better" blah blah blah, what's the harm of two great companies working together. Call me crazy, but I think this just plain silly.
  • TheVoid - January 12, 2012 8:39 p.m.

    Because competition keeps you sharp! Lack of competition = Fast track to complacency. No one would be there to truly raise the bar against you, inciting you to raise it even higher in return. It just doesn't work as well when everyone is on the same team. Do you think if Nintendo and Sony teamed up years ago we would have ever seen the Wii? Nintendo was in a "desperate times call for desperate measures" corner against some STEEP competition. You can thank Microsoft and Sony for Nintendo's huddle and brainstorm. They knew that in order to survive, they would have to break free of trying to be in step with the other guys. And love it or hate it, the Wii was an absolute hit. No doubt about it. Better still, look at the Atari 2600. Talk about complacency! They were the only game on the block for the most part, and their catalog often shows. Sure, some games delivered some very bright sparks, but typical those were third party titles (especially Activision, believe it or not). Meanwhile the first-party big dogs themselves, Atari broke banks buying up the rights to Pac Man and ET while serving up pure, unadulterated gaming CRAP. And while ET flopped in a spectacular fashion (with some faith in humanity restored as in those days it was mostly "word of mouth" over everything), Pac Man broke through for no other reason than including a box containing the words "Pac" and "Man" during the peak of that craze. And to actually say "with us caught in the crossfire"!? I mean, c'mon! OPEN YOUR EYES. YOU are the CONSUMER. YOU have all the POWER. Sigh. OK, here: Think of it less in terms of two giants swinging recklessly above you, more in terms of you and the rest of us all watching a fierce battle in an arena of our making between fighters of our choosing. We are the ones having all the fun in ALL of this. They are the ones sweating over who is going to be left standing. And they are taking their cues from US. Never forget that.
  • forestfire55 - January 12, 2012 9:23 p.m.

    We should let game companies do that, like EA vs activision, not ps3 vs xbox. I think exclusives are killing the gaming community. I want to play halo and uncharted but I don't want to buy a ps3 AND xbox. Also, we as gamers don't dealt know what we want, if we always get what wanted then games would be so BORING! We would know everything that happens in the game, nothing would be new. Like mw3. Not to mention that its not fair to mention ET and pacman, I could mention disappointing games like halo odst, halo reach, cabelas survivel, and duke nukem that had massive competition. I respect your opinion but it just feels like its a pointless war, and when I say that we are in the crossfire I mean that if I only can buy an xbox and want to play uncharted, and Sony owns naughtydog, I just got shot in the leg with a stray bullet. Like I said, you make a good point, but I think its a war in a war in a war I would like to hear what u think...
  • forestfire55 - January 12, 2012 9:25 p.m.

    "Delt" is know, cumin spell check
  • forestfire55 - January 12, 2012 9:26 p.m.

    Cumin is supost to be FUCKING!
  • TrAnMu - January 12, 2012 9:47 p.m.

    lol.
  • TheVoid - January 17, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    You keep calling it "pointless" but I think you are failing to see that without the competitiion, there is no point. Although does it suck that someone who can only afford one platform gets screwed out of playing the other platform's exclusives? Certainly. But something tells me if the game were good enough that person would find a way to get that system, or said exclusive won't remain so for long... Look at the original XBox vs PS2 vs Gamecube. The minute GTA3 hit shelves as a PS exclusive PS2s were flying off the shelves over everything else. Meanwhile, Microsoft starting rolling together a TON of money to get Rockstar to commit to multi-platform rights (going as far as to secure first dibs on GTA4). Nintendo quietly folded and settled for third, leaning heavily on their first party licenses. And then Resident Evil 4 came out as a Gamecube exclusive which made the Gamecube relevant again. Until PS bankrolled a ton of cash to convince Capcom that it would be worthwhile to break that exclusivity agreement, at which point PS2 owners rejoiced. And so it goes, although you make a good point regarding the likes of Naughty Dog, Bungie, and even Nintendo's you'll-never-see-them-anywhere-else first party franchises. But just remember, no competition = monopoly = stand-alone company gets to charge and do what they want. Of course, at that point they'll be subject to basic laws of supply and demand, but that doesn't benefit the consumer as much as a healthy competitive market would. Look at Activision with their wildly overpriced COD map packs. So long as gamers keep forking over $15 every time, Activision will keep selling them as such. And why shouldn't they? It's their right and the market is basically telling them it's OK to do so. But what if a different developer invested heavily in the rights to produce their own COD map packs with the freedom to price and distribute as they see fit? I guarantee their first order of business would be "better maps for cheaper", which would tip the scales against Activision, forcing Activision to increase map quality and reduce pricing in effort to regain some footing with its target audience. The same holds true with consoles across every console war ever. If it was a single console it would cost a fortune and forever call it's own shots. One could argue the PC fits this description but not so because competitively priced hardware and a variety of gaming distribution choices levels the playing field. Personally, I'd rather miss out on the occassional exclusive (never forgetting that if it mattered that much to me, I still have the choice to buy that system/game) than to be even more limited in terms of options available and buying power. And I should also qualify my stance with the fact that I am a middle aged gamer who remembers a time when multiplats were the exception, not the rule. I banked on my Genesis being better than the SNES, only to have my hat handed to me by the end of those system's life cycle. Does that mean I didn't squeeze tons of fun out of my Genesis before it was over? Of course not, but I'd be lying if I said I was never jealous of my friend's SNES catalog, which was by and large SNES exclusive. These days I'm loving life with the shift towards exclusives being the exception rather than the rule. You may feel like you are getting beaten down by the current console war but in my opinion there has never been a better time to be a gamer.
  • forestfire55 - January 20, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    I agree, don't get me wrong, I just think people get too caught up in the whole console war thing, including the companies of the consoles. They shouldn't keep thinking of ways of beating the other console(getting dlcs faster, exclusive maps, Eda.) they should think of ways to better the satisfaction of the gamer. But I digress, I don't find what they are doing wrong, I just think they could do much better if they just focus on bettering their products, not their compiticion
  • TheVoid - January 25, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    I do agree with you there. Just because the other guys are doing it doesn't mean it's right, which is why I applaud Nintendo for breaking away from the norm with the Wii, which obviously waa a huge success for them. What I don't appreciate is the crap-ass shovelware that now dominates the Wii catalog, but I'm still too busy with Monster Hunter 3 and Metroid Prime Trilogy to care. And once those are done I've got Skyward Sword and Xenoblade Chronicles to look forward to. Anyone who says Wii doesn't cater to hardcore gamers is remiss or are flat-out graphics whores. There's plenty of gaming goodness on the Wii despite it's last gen hardware, which brings me back to point: You are dead-on when you say that the companies should be looking at gamer satisfaction first and foremost and not worry so much about new hardware being the priority. Sure, it's nice that my PS3 appears to be on the up-and-up compared to the 360 with BluRay capabilites and greater "horsepower", but at the end of the day it doesn't mean a thing if the games are crap. Fortunately I feel that in addition to PS3 being stronger, it also has taken more chances with out-there titles like Valkyrie Chronicles, Demons Souls and Shadows of the Damned while XB360 tends to play it for more "safe". Being a fan of niche titles, I feel like I backed the right horse in this race, although I know plenty of people who are extremely happy with their 360, primarily because they tend to be far more interested in multiplayer games than myself. So to each their own, I suppose. And while I may chide 360 users from time to time, it's all in good fun. It's when flame wars get ugly and fanboys get crazy and manufactures start to think that they should be paying attention to that nonsense that the beauty of it all starts to break down.
  • TrAnMu - January 12, 2012 9:31 p.m.

    Beautifully put.
  • inkyspot - January 12, 2012 7:07 p.m.

    People fell for the flame war baiting stuff. I actually thought a little higher from the people who visit here. I think both consoles have their weaknesses, look at the specs, especially in RAM, and all you techies out there will understand what console is truly lower on the totem pole. Anyway who really cares, It's not much of a difference to really buy one console over the other, except when it comes to exclusives, or online access, pick your poison,

Showing 1-20 of 52 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000