Mutant showdown!

by Ed Stasick { Dec 3rd 2006 at 9:15PM }

Hot on the heels of the MotorStorm comparison, comes another face-off from our friends at Gametrailers.com. This time it's console versus console as footage from all three next-gen versions of Marvel Ultimate Alliance go head-to-head. There is no doubt that the Wii version is inferior from a graphical stand-point. Not quite as clear is who has the upper-hand between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Both look virtually identical, with the PS3 incarnation looking a bit "brighter" and the 360 takes on a "darker" tone. For now, it's a draw.

Tags: ps3

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Lou @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:09PM

Everytime I see these, the Ps3 looks lighter than the 360. I guess this is preference, I think you could spin it both ways.

I think these comparisons make one thing clear. The 360 and Ps3 are a draw for now.

But if the Wii can be really be innovative with gameplay other than just porting current games, the graphics aren't really THAT bad.

Logan @ Dec 3rd 2006 11:09PM

yeah the wii version is really not bad at all compared to the 360 and ps3 versions, its all in the textures really, but due to this games style and POV i dont think it really needs high texture graphics and other graphical tricks for it to be great. It definately looks better than most gamecube games, so that leaves the the imagination what can be done with the wii in a couple of years. And yes the xbox 360 and ps3 versions look identical.

soccerdrew17 @ Dec 3rd 2006 11:48PM

No comment about the wii version, but shouldn't the PS3 and 360 be much better looking? Just a thought.

cheese @ Dec 3rd 2006 11:56PM

it's all up to the devs. I have the ps3 version and the devs have put some really crappy in-engine 'cinemas' into the game that have graphics that are worse than the actual game. It doesn't make any sense other than if you consider they had separate teams working on different parts of the game. Obviously, the intro FMV's and stuff are pre-rendered (not sure why they compared that since it is identical) but I think the in-engine segments were not even improved or tweaked to take advantage of the more powerful platforms and remain in a "last gen" state.

Carlos Rivero @ Dec 4th 2006 12:24AM

you can't compare games that are not optimized to take advantage of the cell processor...

is like running windows XP 32bit on a 64bit processor... it will run... but not better...

chillwill @ Dec 4th 2006 2:40AM

The 360 version had better framerates and runs smoother. I have to see them both at 1080p to compare the graphics.

Burnt Meatloaf @ Dec 4th 2006 2:56AM

This game is a port, and probably a cheap one at that. There's not going to be much difference.

What does disturb me is the lack of framerates on the PS3 version. Yes, Cell requires some care to produce results, but real-world performance is all that matters to end-users, and it really doesn't look to me like this game is particularly CPU hungry.

Spazicon @ Dec 4th 2006 9:05AM

Yea, the "ps3fanboy" onbviously forgot to mention the terrible framerate the PS3 version is suffering from, therefor the 360 version is superior.

The Enlightened @ Dec 5th 2006 7:43PM

One thing that is not stated is the resolution of each of the videos as it's a bit unfair to compare the 360 and PS3 that are both running at 720p to the Wii that is running 480p, is it now? I
It would also be interesting them all running at 480 so we could see how the power of the 360 and PS3 effect the most people.

djphatjive @ Dec 4th 2006 1:46PM

Looks like the 360 is running at 30 frames a second and the PS3 is running at about 15 frames a second and slower at that. Look at the big fan spinning, The 360 is wizzing around and the PS3 is all slow and jumpy. Damn still not a game out there that Sony has the upper hand in. I was thinking Assassins Creed, but even the makers of the 360 version say it looks and the AI is way better on the 360.