• The_Boz - April 22, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    Whenever the PS3 or Xbox are compared to the PC it has to be a compliment because you are talking dated hardware to an up to date machine that costs many times more. Would you compare a drive in a Skoda Superb to a Toyota Aygo on a same route? What the PC does better is that it not only has better graphics, but it does it all in a higher resolution than the consoles. Then again, the PC is a much more expensive machine. Sometimes on inferior hardware, wonders can be made, look at Myth on the C64 or Streetfighter 2 on the Megadrive which many in the industry thought would be impossible.
  • TURNAAAR - April 21, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    Never played the first one, is it worth getting for Xbox 360?
  • chad-munn - April 20, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    I am officially calling SHENANIGANS on this comparison! I watched it and thought "that looks crazy desaturated and dark compared to what I'm seeing on my TV (speaking of the 360). So I just went back and played those sections again and it looks NOTHING like it does in this video. Sorry, I don't know if you guys are using a crap capture device or what, but I'm playing on a 37" HDMI Westinghouse and my 360 version of Witcher 2 looks 10x better than that crap you're showing. I know it doesn't look as good as the PC- that's not a secret and I'm not trying to dispute that- but it looks worlds better than what you're showing on this little video. It's MUCH, MUCH closer to the PC on the left than the grey box you're showing on the right.
  • ParagonT - April 20, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    I looked this up quite some time ago on youtube, but I really think that although the PC has better details, its actually less cinematic than the 360 version. I'm still at a standstill on which to buy.
  • sirdilznik - April 20, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    You know what would really help for a graphical comparison? A high resolution video. Doing a graphical comparison on a 360p or 480p, I'm not sure which this is but it sure as hell ain't 1080p or even 720p, is kind of half-assed if you ask me.
  • chad-munn - April 20, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    It doesn't matter what they're using. This vid of the 360 is nonsense. It looks 10x better than whatever they're using to capture with. That looks like crap and I just went and replayed the intro section to see if I was nuts or what... no way. This is NOT even remotely close to how it looks in real life. Not even marginally close.
  • codzprc - April 20, 2012 2:39 a.m.

    (read in elderly voice) "Hi, my name is Xbox 360 - I'm 7rs old. That's 54 in PC years. Sure, I've started looking a bit worn, but I still keep up with youths and their ePhones and sexty texts. I got a mid-level camera a few years back, and people yell at me when I mishear them. I'm old, what do you want from me?! (Remember, still old person voice) Damned PC always getting upgrades, new fans, I hear you can open one up and not void the warranty... well, what do you know about that?! Oops, sorry devs, can't run those FPS rates and textures on me, I like my bump map color mode 8bit..." I could go on, but I think the point was made clear in the article's title "Xbox 360/PC graphics comparison" - what a joke. Are you going to compare Dreamcast's graphically best game with one of 360's launch titles next? Based on this, that'd be fair. Dreamcast owners, are you missing out on what NBA 2K1 could be?
  • KnowYourPokemon - April 20, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    While I think graphics comparisons in general are stupid I think a good point this video, and your comment make is that the current console gen stuck around longer than it should have. And it's still going to be a while yet before we actually get our hands on the next XBox or Playstation so it's going to be awkward to see how they'll handle the games coming out in the next couple of years.
  • dragon82 - April 20, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    Sorry I didnt read that in an elderly voice, I read it in a whiny dickish voice, because you are quite obviously a dick.
  • codzprc - April 21, 2012 12:47 a.m.

    It's much more funny in an elderly voice, and I'm not a whiny dick - I'm an opinionated jerk. I play PS3, 360, and PC games - I'm spent much more money on my PC than I have on my consoles. Therein lies the point - consoles have standards set, PCs don't. I upgrade my PC to get the best, and settle for what is given on consoles. @KnowYourPokemon - yes, it will be awhile, maybe a year, year and a half - but the fact remains: the tech we have now is going to be in the console we buy then. It's not like nvidia will come out with a sweet card one month before the next consoles' launch then Microsoft and sony throw them into their consoles. Developers would be pissed. @everyone that didn't get it: all I was trying to point out is that PC graphics will and shoul always look better than console graphics - they are infinity upgradable, and you can't just pop a new graphics card into a console. Xbox is 7yrs old, PS3 is 6yrs old - your PC could have the tech that came out yesterday in it. Guss which one will put out the best images.
  • codzprc - April 21, 2012 12:54 a.m.

    Sidenote: you created an account just to call me a dick...
  • codzprc - April 21, 2012 1:06 a.m.

    Lastly, I love my 360 over the other two - until Diablo 3 comes out. This makes me hated by all 3 gaming factions, they'll say I'm a fairgaming fan. Really though, I just love games. Why go all loyalist on a system? I bought a PS3 so I could play Journey, then picked up the GoW series --- I'm sure Sony loyalists know that means God of War, but 360ers may see it as Gears of War, what a strange commonality. Then you have PC, which has the most ecliptic titles ever made, how can I say no? All right, that's enough defending myself to some douchebox that felt they were funny enough that they needed to create an account to voice their idiocy
  • mockraven - April 21, 2012 6:48 a.m.

    I'm assuming you meant "eclectic" there -- 1st paragraph, last sentence. If that's the case, then I totally agree with you. Also, kudos for getting Journey! I have to say it's my favourite game of the year (or two), so far, and I still replay it now and then even though I've beaten it almost two dozen times now. On topic: The video comparison is terrible, but the video player really doesn't help either since sometimes even pausing the video doesn't even help the buffering issue. Does GR host their own videos? Lately the site itself has been slow loading (while other sites just take a second or two).
  • codzprc - April 22, 2012 6:55 p.m.

    Wow, don't know where "ecliptic" came from, drunken fingers do the darndest things - I did mean "eclectic". As for the video hosting, based on the source code, it looks like they use a video service called brightcove.
  • SGTCOOL - April 19, 2012 8:54 p.m.

    Why does the pc version have such a low frame rate?? Maxing out every single setting on a machine that can't handle it is not the best way to make a comparison. The game still looks magnificent on pc without everything set to ultra.
  • ToThe9thPower - April 19, 2012 9:19 p.m.

    The PC version does not have a low frame rate. The machine they are running this on clearly cannot handle the game while also recording. I would guess that the PC version can actually have higher frame rate counts than the Xbox version anyways. The game isn't going to compare graphically, but game play first right? Still though, if you have a computer that can run it even on mid settings you would probably be better off playing on PC
  • SGTCOOL - April 19, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    I can run this game at around 60 fps on all high settings on my decent pc that is certainly not super high end, is the point I meant to make.
  • minimaxi - April 20, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    Exactly. Not many people brought this up baffles me sometimes. Witcher 2 has far better beauty per hardware price ratio than, ahem, crysis. Those zillion $$$ pc owners dry humps crysis merely because it's one of the most TAXING, not because it's that aesthetically pleasing in the first place (without a mod). I got my witchin' pared down to 1280x720 with mostly medium setting and its still a knockout. But then I'm a Witcher fanboy, so you may dismiss all I just said. Oh, but I'm happy 360only players will get to enjoy this, I also hope this'll come to PS3 as well but I don't know if thats a feasible business decision for cd projekt
  • larkan - April 19, 2012 8:44 p.m.

    I'm not even going to bother watching the video. I've played the game, I know they can't fully replicate the graphics when cranked to ultra, it's just not possible to get that much power out of a machine that is 6 generations behind today's PC video cards.
  • Craza - April 19, 2012 8:34 p.m.

    The PC version looks far superior, and the 360 version just looks so flat and washed out. I mean, it doesn't look bad necessarily, but I'd stick with my PC copy any day.

Showing 1-20 of 48 comments

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


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.