digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Madden '08 Xbox 360 vs. PS3 comparison video

joystiq.com — Here we have GameTrailers presenting a side-by-side comparison video of Madden '08 on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. We know what USA Today thinks is better -- they went with the Xbox 360. Judge for yourself.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • webcure, on 10/10/2007, -19/+84Besides slightly different visual FX, the Xbox 360 has a deeper color and seems to have a higher quality picture resolution too.
    • charlescheese, on 10/10/2007, -13/+22I'm fairly certain that once again these shots are probably captured differently, and the main difference seems to be one has more contrast than the other. Given that they probably weren't captured in the same way, this is a likely scenario. This seems to happen all the time with PS3 and 360 comparisons, and sometimes the PS3 versions look more washed out, and sometimes they don't. I don't think you can judge it on the contrast. The frame rate on the PS3 version is the real problem, and it definitely showed. EA better have that fixed next year.
      • truspector, on 10/10/2007, -22/+12Sorry, but no. You guys are going to be getting 360 ports until the PS4 (if the PS3 survives).
        • slimthps, on 10/10/2007, -23/+12Yeah, because developers have to dumb down games for the 360 version, and then port them to the PS3. That is why the PS3 version of this game is behind a little bit. If EA had been developing for the PS3 version the whole time, Madden 2008 for PS3 would have ended up much better than the current Madden 2008 for 360, not to mention the game wouldn't be limited by the 360's hardware and disc space.
          • truspector, on 10/10/2007, -14/+19Oh really. VF5 which was built for the PS3 and ported to the 360 but on the 360 it looks much better visually and has more features. The PS3, almost a year later, still doesn't have a game on par graphically with Gears and it's about to be outdone by bioshock. GTAIV is being built from the ground up identically on both systems. It's supposedly already done on the 360, but now we have to wait until next year for them to finish the PS3 version due to contracts. Face it, the PS3 sucks to program for. I hope a couple of years down the road it finally gets some decent games, but if Sony doesn't break the 6M barrier by Christmas, there might not be a PS3 in '08.
          • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8He's right about VF5, Gears of War, and Bioshock
          • supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Actually the Bioshock graphics are fairly lame done with the Unreal engine... but that aside, developers have admitted hating programming for the PS3... it's F-ed. I'm sure even if capturing was done perfectly, the PS3 version is going to suck... but speaking of sucking, perhaps we can focus on the fact that EA bullied control of the NFL franchise away from 2K, which was making far superior NFL titles, and this one is still baby steps towards what they made about 4 years ago.

            Anyway, the main problem with Sony is they should have done a Bungie type thing and just bought a game company.... and made a killer app... they haven't, and they are kinda screwed. It's a cool design for a console, but it's doomed.
          • slimthps, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Rockstar has admitted that the 360's disc space is limiting GTA4.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Says the guy with the Gears of War icon. I can guess you are extremely biased in your words.
        • DarkPrince11, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5he's biased because he has a Gears of War icon? That's got to be the most retarded thing I've heard today. Maybe he just likes the icon.
        • black|math, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6He could be right. The reason the framerate on PS3 is not as good is because of the cell processor. So unless Sony steps up and helps EA port it they may be stuck with sub-360 ports. Besides, I would guess 90% of Madden fans would not care about 30 vs 60 fps.
        • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The real reason? Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult. The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

          The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

          The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming. Hence low fps issues.
        • staticneuron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah your right slcsu..... because every other console in the past few video gaming generations was based off of general purpose programing. No, you say?!?!
          Then what have the developers been doing all along?

          The term general purpose programing makes sense if you are talking about applications on a PC. Or even programming games on a PC. It is just down right odd when reffering to consoles. Something that rode MS's back into the industry... alone with the term killer app and AAA title. How many japanese devs do you hear complaing about general purpose programming? Scince they have been doing it longer ill be concerened when a japanese dev speaks on the issue.
        • johnIRL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah...who would make a successor to a failed console that maybe say...never turned a profit...?
      • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2What the hell are you talking about??? Damn Fanboy *****!

        I'll bet they were captured the exact same way from the same TV. It isn't hard to set up a capture system and change the video input. All videos of PS3 games are washed out like that. Even MGS is washed out you just cannot tell that well because of the environments in the game being already dusty and such.
        • mattcoady, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Its unlikely it was captured on a TV at all. Most likely Game Trailers directly connects the inputs to the recorder, probably a computer. Which makes the whole "captured differently" argument completely moot.
      • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I was like "Turn down the contrast!" on the PS3 version, then again EA has never been that nice in video games period (read: Can't correctly port a game), nor has sports games been the focus of Sony's.

        Anyway however, I prefer the XBox in general to sports games, dunno why, most sports games I play with friends are done on a Xbox.
      • FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This makes me think: The people who test the PS3, providing they are testing using an HDMI connection, they ARE remembering to turn the RGB range under the display settings from "Limited" to "Full" right? That clears up black-level issues since the full color spectrum [known as xvYCC] gets sent out instead of the standard limited [known as NTSC.]

        The 360 handles this almost automatically, but sometimes you may have to kick it up a notch under what they call "Reference Levels."
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Well, I may be totally wrong on this. From my experience, using component cables makes the color and saturation look a whole lot better, where the brightness level is higher and color isn't as great when you use HDMI. Maybe that's the reason, maybe they were using HDMI for the PS3, and components or VGA for the 360. I could be totally wrong though.

      Other than that, I really can't tell the difference, as far as frame rate goes. 360 does look like it has a little bit of an advantage.
      • MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Or you could learn how to adjust the color and saturation levels for the hdmi input for your TV. HDMI looks MUCH better.

        And the frame rate is 60 fps on the 360 and 30 fps on the PS3. More than a "little bit of an advantage"
        • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the frame rate on the PS3 isn't necessarily 30FPS. It's just not 60FPS. I saw a post somewhere (don't have the URL handy) where someone clocked the video in question for the PS3 and the frame rate was somewhere around 40+FPS.
    • thecheatah, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10People really don't know how to use technology. If you go under settings -> display -> full range, That is an option that makes the colors use proper contrast. They obviously did not enable that.

      http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/rgbfullrange.html
      http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/superwhite.html

      And yes it make A LOT of difference.
      • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He's actually right...it's called RGB full and Super White...and it does make a world of a difference.
      • FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3thecheetah: Yeah there's no reason for his comment to be dug down, this is something a lot of people do NOT know about.

        The Full RGB range is known as xvYCC, and it's a new color standard for HDTV's, LCD especially.
        The old standards, known as NTSC and PAL only sent out a narrower range of colors to make up for the overshoot CRT TV's suffered from due to the rapid changing of the electron beam. Since LCD's pixels operate completely independant from one another, the RGB range can be broadened and displayed to its full range without overshoot.

        Some TV's have the xvYCC option available to be turned on under more detailed settings. This will override the signal and force it to be broadened to xvYCC standards. Warning though, if you have xvYCC enabled on your TV, be sure to have the RGB setting set to "Limited" on your PS3. If the PS3 sends out an xvYCC signal and your TV's xvYCC converter is enabled, the picture will become extremely dark and super-contrasted. Most new TV's don't have this xvYCC option since HDMI devices are capable of outputting it, instead of the TV forcing it through post-processing.

        Remember: An only good HDTV is a properly calibrated HDTV.
      • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1They also did not enable 60fps mode either.
    • black|math, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13They both look the same as last years ::shrugs::
      • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Visually they are. The physics and game play are a huge different. Real physics in tackles... digga please.
      • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7EA Sports...it's in the game.....you bought last year
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You can tell the resolution of an HD game from a 400x300 movie?

      Pull the other one.

      For one, I can't see a frame rate difference either. This is likely because the video isn't even 30fps, let alone 60.
      • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I only noticed a marked difference when both were slowed down to 25% speed. Other than that, they looked pretty similar (washed out picture and contrast issues aside - problems I've NEVER had with games on the PS3).
    • spankaccount, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As more are correctly pointing out, making these types of comparisons, with poor quality video, really lame. Anyhow, I have to get the PS3 version anyway because my second (and last) 360 just died.
  • truspector, on 10/10/2007, -33/+44The framerate on the PS3 version looks as jittery as an old lady with parkinsons.
    • slimthps, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23You can't tell in that video.
      • truspector, on 10/10/2007, -27/+10I don't need videos. I've played them both.

        For PS3 owners, this isn't as exciting. Madden 08 runs (sometimes) at 30 frames per second. It makes a huge difference, as you lose a lot of the subtleties in the animations. There are plenty of framerate hitches that will likely frustrate players. This can cause a lag in the Hit Stick sometimes. And, let's face it, no one wants to see a runningback pause for a second in mid air as the framerate stutters. You can still play and mostly enjoy Madden, but beware that on PS3 the game does not run smoothly.

        Madden NFL 08 on PS3 is not a great game. It is a shadow of its cousin on 360. Though the feature set is identical, the drop to an unstable 30fps hurts considerably. The visuals and the gameplay suffer. If you are a real Madden nut and think you can fight through the framerate issues, Madden is an overall good game. It just doesn't run very well. If you only own a PS3 and live for Sundays, then there really is no other choice than to give Madden 08 a shot.

        The details are good, but Madden is ugly in motion. It's optimistic to call this a game that runs at 30fps. The animations don't look that great because of the lower framerate.
      • black|math, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The most telling part is when they show the camera swing around during the interceptions.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8What do you mean "you can't tell? It stutters like hell on the PS3 side while the 360 version looks smooth. That's the main difference between them.
      • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2We have the PS3 Madden 08 Demo at Best Buy and it runs just fine
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7The PS3 runs at 30 fps, and the 360 version runs at 60. There is a huge difference there.
      • kingfoot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2visually to the human eye, no, not much. normal visioned people wouldnt be able to tell 64 from 120. but you are right in that there is a 30 to 60 difference. btu its not as great as people say.
      • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the PS3 was running at a steady 30fps, you would barely be able to tell the difference, but it's not. The frame rate keeps dropping and rising again. This is laziness on EA's part. Even the Wii version can do a steady 30fps without twitching.
        • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Laziness on EA's part? Or the fact that the PS3 hardware is a pain in the ars and designed all backwards?

          Game devs do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

          The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

          The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.

          Read on: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
          • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2COD4 runs at a solid 60FPS on the PS3. Yes, it's laziness on EA's part. Fortunately, the PS3 will be the lead SKU for EA games starting next cycle, so this should be less an issue.
    • ptaylor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wat arr yu trin' to say, sonny? I may have Park-sons, but I'll wup, yu!
      • darkyplasma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you can't talk to meh like that sonny boy! Don' make meh pull out o' whippy da belt, you young whipper snappers!
    • black|math, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5FredFredrickson is right, because of the cell processor EA didn't take the time to port it properly and they settled for 30fps. But I am curious if a patch release could fix it in the future.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I don't think it would be that simple, and I doubt EA is going to put that much work into a free patch when they can just release the patched engine ias Madden 09 for $60.
      • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1EA didn't take the time to port it properly because it would've been Madden09. Could the PS3 be any more of a pain for devs?

        Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.

        The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

        The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

        The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's bad: The GT video is playing at 30 fps
    • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Doesn't streaming video on the internet only run at 20FPS anyway? I mean, how would you be able to tell?
  • errictshunn, on 10/10/2007, -28/+12Ok we get it, the PS3 version is worse. Everyone has said it everyone knows. No need for more threads about it.
    • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10We didn't need the "The 360 can't fit games without BR story" today either. But there you have it.
  • kyrre, on 10/10/2007, -21/+10I do not think the difference here matter much for anyone but sensation seeking journalists and people who like to argue about consoles. It might be the small video, it might be the sun on my screen, or even my eyes. I could not tell much of a difference.
    • charlescheese, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8I agree, the average Joe won't even know there is a difference.
      • mageofdeath, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28oh but you ps3 fanboys detect a difference between compressed and uncompressed audio right?
        • johnmalc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually, there's a pretty huge difference. Not everyone has the equipment to hear it, but it's a pretty friggin huge difference.
      • madoc12349, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13The average Joe isn't buying a PS3, so yeah it is a let down for PS3 owners.
      • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9mageofdeath's got you there. The Wii version scored higher than PS3 even.
      • staticneuron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2http://myhalonews.com/qjnet/enraged-gamer-reveals-madden-nfl-08-glitches/

        So, as always the lower framerate hits the front page.... how lung until the glitches hit the front page? Funny thing...... I haven't heard any PS3 users complaining about the same issues. Maybe it'll take a while, huh.
    • Incom, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8theres a big difference between 30 and 60 fps.
      • robdiggity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes. And that difference is 30 fps.
  • DamageInc, on 10/10/2007, -11/+52Seeing both of those makes me realize just how terrible the Wii version is. Aside from the ps2 era graphics and frequent glitches, a ton of stuff is missing (among other things, no create-a-player or team, and no extra presentation stuff like the team intro's in the beginning of the video - I thought those were video edits, then realized its just another thing the Wii version is missing). And the online mode is just awful. If you get lucky enough to actually connect to your opponent, the lag is so bad you'd rather quit than suffer through 4 quarters of it.

    PS. Anyone wanna buy a copy of Madden 08 for the Wii?
    • Myko, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I do, how much will you sell it for to ship to 43235?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31Finally the light has shown through. You have realized a simple fact: The Wii is underpowered.
      • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4In which its still outscoring the other versions on Xbox and PS3.
        • iceperson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Yeah. I always rate things by how many sales they get. That's why I have all these Britany Spears and Justin Timberlake CDs...
          • robdiggity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The man DID bring sexy back.
          • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Outscoring, not outselling, try reading next time. The Wii is also outselling the PS3 and catching up to the 360. You can talk ***** on the Wii all you want but you can't ignore its massive success.
        • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2and most are just playing Wii Sports
          • Nitescape, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So, are you denying Wii Sports is fun?
            I pick it up and play after owning the console for some 8 months now.
            It's still *fun* and thats the whole point - fun.
            Now if we can get a Wii Sports 2 with a little more to each of the sports games!
      • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7No one has ever said that it could compete in the graphics area of the current gen of consoles. No one smart anyway. The Wii succeeds using what it has smartly - so yea on a pure graphic test the 360(and moreover the ps3) stomp it. The wii though, is really fun for what it is. Sports games, the lot of them, seem to thrive on graphics so I can see where the Wii would fail. After the original tecmo bowl and blades of steel I haven't really played any sports games - just seems the same rehashes to me.
        • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Except for Wii Sports. Kind of a funny oversight.
        • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Yeah because Wii Sports is a serious ***** EA level title and all. Madden 07 is fun on the Wii, I don't care if its not in super hi res and all that *****. It was fun with the controls and that was worth the price alone.
        • X18999, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1EA level? Thats not so good.
      • MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3So the 360 version runs at a higher frame rate because the 360 is more powerful than the ps3. *****. EA did a half-ass job porting the game to the Wii. Same thing happened with Spiderman 2. Some developers just do half-ass jobs porting games to the Wii.
    • Veurruckte, on 10/10/2007, -16/+16When did digg become a bunch of graphics whores? Personally, I think the Wii version is more fun than the 360 version because of the controls.
      • mokkos, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I haven't played Madden on Wii yet but I think controls can make up for lack of graphics. For example, PS2 RE4 on 480p actually looks better than Wii RE4 on 480p but I enjoy the Wii version better because the controls feels more natural.
      • merdiesel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...and your the reason why almost every game I put into my Wii makes me cringe. Am I the only one who thinks graphics do matter just a little bit? *****, come on Nintendo.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I don't think I'd buy a Wii to play any serious games like this.. Wii is for more playful gaming such as Mario and Warioware..
      • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Which Nintendo could have just released a motion controller for the game cube
    • JE255J, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I do. Madden '07 for the Wii rocks. I didn't buy a Wii so my games would look good, and I never expected them to. I don't know why you did. I do, however, love the motion controls in '07, and since I've read they're nothing but improved in '08, yeah, I absolutely want to buy it. Too bad the question was rhetorical. Well, fwiw, my answer was not.
    • beerunifies, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Don't sell that version just yet! EA's currently working on strenthening their network so connections on Wii should stabilize within the next week or so.

      source: http://gonintendo.com/?p=23086
  • Nano17, on 10/10/2007, -18/+13Fix the brightness and contrast, then compare
    • AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16For some reason, all games on the PS3 are brighter. I don't think it's the TV or Video capture, it's just that the PS3 gives a brighter image for some reason.
      • incognit0, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9and by brighter you mean washed out and faded
        • ptaylor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5No, he mean a brighter, crisper picture. I have access to both systems and have noticed the same thing. Now that HDMI is more mainstream on the 360 (HDMI can carry more colors than component) the 360 and PS3 pics should look similar color-wise...
    • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11The PS3 seems to always output a low contrast ratio. Many people see this as a brighter image, and in some senses it is. But it is actually a lower contrast ratio and makes dark areas not as dark as they should be. For me, I don't like that, makes your high-end TV or monitor with a high contrast ratio look like it has a crappy contrast ratio whent he problem is the source input, not the TV or monitor.
      • skunkworker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well you can easily turn on Full RGB HDMI which brings back alot of the blacks
      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The last thing in the world I would want to do is to is bring back alot of the blacks, I just got them out of my neighborhood!
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How would that fix the framerate issue, its half that of Xbox.
  • badwithcomputer, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6So do you get a red super bowl ring if your team takes it all the way?
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you know, even though I have never got those rings, I would rather risk that then play games at 1/2 framerate and 1/2 the realism.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1red ring > root canal > 30fps on $600 "next gen" console
  • PhilipHigson, on 10/10/2007, -27/+9Doesn't mean a thing. The biggest difference is the contrast/brightness/hue. what system was the game even originally coded for?? can't a blu-ray hold much more data and output 1080p? I think ps3 games will definitely be superior. Judging consoles based upon one game is ***** (besides who even likes american football.. its all about FIFA)
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Who likes American football? About 12 million++ boneheads who rebuy the same game of Madden every year, with a few new things here and there, thats who.
    • saltinekracka20, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4the frame rate for ps3 is crapper in madden. its not just the brightness...
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The 360 can also output 1080p...
      • skunkworker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Show me a 360 game that looks as good as Ninja Gaiden Sigma for ps3, running 1080p60fps with self shadowing
        • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Ok. Gears of War. Just because it's a higher res, doesn't instantly make it better looking. If ***** pong is running 1080p60fps with self shadowing doesn't make it awesome.
        • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3But I played and beat Ninja Gaiden in 2004.
        • insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Myonosken, pong IS nonetheless awesome.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It's high time you re-educated yourself from the Sony propaganda and learn the truth about hardware: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
  • Cyberbladewolf, on 10/10/2007, -15/+60Honestly, I can't understand why people even bother with Madden games. Any second hand store will have some random Madden game from last year all the way back to the beginning. Every year theres another Madden game with a few little new features, a few new players, and a graphics update. It's even worse then the pimping of Mario Party. Get back to me when the game can be played in true VR, then maybe I'll talk, but until then, if I really, honestly have nothing better to do then play a Madden game, I'll just pick up the previous years version used from a second hand shop for less then $10.
    • kilmer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Very good point, but the online play is what gets me buying the new version every year. It's what makes Madden a year long game. Who doesn't love talking trash to a 10 y/o.
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5"Get back to me when the game can be played in true VR" lol outside. Go outside. The last Madden game I played and enjoyed was Madden 94 on SNES.
    • bilbravo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Thanks for that, you opened everyone's eyes.
    • TheCaterpillar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I agree, but any sports nut is totally slobbering for whatever they can get ("a few little new features, a few new players, and a graphics update", lets not forget upgraded stats) whether it is FIFA or Madden or whatever. I find it pretty perplexing, but alas, I am not a sports nut.
    • Rethcir, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Wow, I've NEVER heard someone point this out before! Not once has ANYONE ever made this point, never in the history of internet Madden release coverage after so many years! You're truly an insightful individual!
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I can always tell when I am in the realm of video NERDS. I am sorry to put you all out, but nobody would expect a bunch of dorito-eating dungeon masters to understand the hype about Madden. However, had you ever stepped onto a football field, or if you had a dynamic understanding of the game of football, you would realize that Madden is a unique game franchise because of the amount of evolution the game undergoes with each subsequent release. Every year, I think that the game has reached an unbelievable level of realism that will be hard to improve upon, and every year I am amazed to find that the new release is even closer to strapping on the pads for yourself. For any of you to even pass judgement on the game is like a freaking rap star trying to tell you how to build your next PC. If you don't know what you are talking about, just keep your mouth shut please. The world would be a much more pleasant place.
      • jizzon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2My thoughts exactly! I made a new account right now just so I can digg up this comment!
        • thewhoopimen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I digg you... you two are like some of those Three Kingdom nerds who've played all 9 previous versions! So that makes you video nerds... doesn't it? Go outside and play rl football.
        • jizzon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Three Kingdoms? I don't know what that is, so I guess I'm not too nerdy. But if a nerd is someone who likes beer, women, sports and buying the newest madden right when it comes out, then yes! I'm a nerd!
      • TheCaterpillar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For even more football realism... go outside and play football!!! Contrary to popular belief playing sports games does not magically change you from a video game nerd to a jock. Personally I find the unrealistic sports games to be the most fun (Mario Srikers anyone). Not to say there aren't good sports games, its just that trying to make a video game realistically replicate what you can easily do in real life does not make much sense.
        • representDLV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0One of the reasons why Video Game football has such a following is that once you are done with high school (or if your good enough to play in college) it is pretty much impossible to play a REAL game of football. Two-hand touch is fun. Flag Football is fun. But it's not the same. The strategy is completely different. It's practically a different sport. While it's true that nothing compares to putting the pads on and playing actual football, video game football is the only way to experience certain aspects of REAL football . Just going outside and throwing the ball around doesn't cut it.
      • manicjunkee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What Madden games are you playing each year? They sure as hell haven't been the same ones I have been playing.
    • supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The 2K titles were superior, hopefully they can get rights to make more NFL titles.. their animation and gameplay (and randomness such as fumbles and hits) was far better than the tired EA franchise.
    • gimlik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I bought Madden 07 yesterday for 4 bucks at GameStop :)
      • ptaylor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The only reason why I hold on to 07 is that Tiki is in it. I hope the Giants doesn't suck too much in 08 without him...
    • dethsesh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you missed one point, they dont add new features every year, the trend seems to be to take them out
    • dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Madden and any similar games must have the highest profit margins in the indestry. A little tweak on the graphics, change some stats, change some player names, produce the intro trailer and voila, new version. 60$ please, tank you come again.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just a question... Did you ever play NFL2k5? It had the 1st person mode gameplay (as close to VR as you can get). It was interesting but nothing to make a game out of.
    • Rayonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you're a big football fan, then a yearly Madden game isn't a bad investment. It probably gets played a lot, year round, with friends, etc.

      Even if you could download new roster updates for free, you'd need yearly releases to prevent the game from becoming too stale. Each new iteration might seem the same to us on Digg, but there are always a plethora of changes (good and bad, intentional and accidental) that change the how the game is played for the more hardcore fans.
  • tuxidomasx, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6I've generally been disappointed with the whole next-gen games thing. Across the board, for all systems.

    I was just expecting more. And i dont know if its because i've been a gamer for years and i've gotten desensitized... but i'm just not as excited about new games as i was when i first saw Super Mario World on the SNES...
    • Macshiba, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6That's because no games compare to Super Mario World or A Link to the Past.

      Nothing.
    • ptaylor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That may be true but you forget two main things...

      1) You were younger then so you had nothing to compare anything to not to mention those games were very fun to play. So, they will always have a place in your gaming heart (kinda like how older folks say our music is crap compared to the oldies)

      2) The gaming scene has changed considerably since then. I'm a fan of 2D fighting games but those are nearly non-existant now. Just have to change with the times. Now I'm a FPS nut (Vegas, Res, FEAR) and I'm feeling action (Sigma) and sports (Madden, MLB07) games, mainly becasue they look and play better (you can do much more in games now than in yesteryear).

      But we know the games that started it all...
    • Mulvidon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'm relieved to hear someone else voice their disappointment about the much-touted "next generation" video games: I feel the same way. I'm seeing the same old stuff with some pepped-up graphics. I'm hoping GTAIV will turn that all around. Lets see the GAMEPLAY actually change. I know we're waiting on devs to get the new systems understood better but that's just it: I'm still waiting!

      This reminds me of how stale music got in the late 80's and then Nirvana (and all the "grunge" bands riding on their coattails) came in and changed it all (for the better).
      • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm wondering what games you actually play. There have been lots of games that have changed things. How about Gears of War or some of the XBLA titles out there? There were plenty of last gen games that brought new gameplay: Shadow of the Collossus, Katamari, Tiger Woods games, Indigo Prophecy, Resident Evil 4. How about games that are coming out: Bioshock, Lair, MGS4? How about the Nintendo Wii????

        I don't really understand what you are looking for in games? There has been lots of change in the gaming industry like a lot of the online stuff like XBL. The ability to play co-op games across the internet or to jump in and out of games seamlessly etc.

        I agree that the whole "next gen" tag may have been a little misleading however there has still been a BIG difference in games from last gen to this gen. Another example would be the vast worlds (think oblivion) or the amount of enemies they can put in games against you now (think N3 or Heavenly Sword). It hasn't been a huge "leap" in difference, it has been more than just a pebble in an ocean.
    • DarQraven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0From your comment it's obvious that you haven't played Bioshock yet;)
      Try it, it's awesome, and IMO does differ from the usual stuff we used to see in the previous generation.
  • AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25Overall, if they were not side by side, you would think they look exactly the same... which they basically do.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3they look the same? you need glasses, big ones.
      • dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the only difference is colour and that can be compensated for in the brightness/colour settings on a tv
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0There's a reason for that... it's called Myopia.
  • alpinweiss88, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0Is it the same game? I mean, I know it has the same name. But is it the same source code? Otherwise, they really are different games and can't really be compared.
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're right. We should only compare things that are exactly the same.

      Do you understand the word "compare"?
      • alpinweiss88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Uhh, gee.. I think so.

        The implication is that this is a way to show the differences between the consoles, supposedly to assess which is better. It's a flawed comparison from the start, and throwing in a game with the same title but that isn't the same doesn't prove anything. Now, if the games had the same codebase, that would be different.
        • HolyChimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But for that to work they'd have to be the same console. We could compare the 360 code on the 360 and PS3, but I doubt the PS3 would even run it, with it being a PS3 and not a 360....
  • waterdrop, on 10/10/2007, -6/+34Considering the Xbox 360 version runs at a stable 60 fps and the PS3 version runs at an unstable 30 fps, its obvious the Xbox 360 version would be smoother and more fluid in real life. Visually they look the same. But 60 fps really helps make it look fluid and smooth.
    • dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1wait a minute.....

      visually the look the same but the 60fps really helps make it look fluid and smooth!

      do you mean it looks fluid and smooth on both if not how is it the same?

      to me, a random 360 owner who was hoping to say

      "in your face ps3 owners" even tho i want a ps3

      the games look just the same but with a colour change in 360s favour, almost asif the ps3 version had the contrast turned up
  • Binarydemon, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1Maybe EA should have considered capping the Xbox360 version at 30fps help prevent overheating issues.
    • gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't you mean I wish they would cap the 360 version at 30 fps so my beloved PS3 didn't look so bad.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe they should cap people's comments so they don't look like idiots too.
  • GoGoChinchilla, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2They both look the same to me: yet another EA sports sim.
  • Macshiba, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1My copy I got from Blackcats runs pretty well for me. That's all I care about. I don't care about PS3.
  • Virtualtaco, on 10/10/2007, -7/+121. The EA dev teams have more experience with 360.
    2. Time is money. And to keep costs down they ported it instead of doing proper rewrites to the code for PS3.
    3. It's the same with all their games, cause they do this with all their games.

    How does EA being a ***** game dev that just happens to have the money for some exclusivity contracts have any basis on the hardware of these two video game systems?
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You can think that if you want... but here's the real reason. Game devs do not want to spread their code over 8 processors, especially when 7 of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across 8 processors is extremely difficult. The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

      The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

      The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming. Hence crappy frame-rates.
      • shadowcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree with slcsu.
        IF you take the route and spread your code (note, CODE. Not systems, as is typically done for the X360, which is part of the problem as both systems prefer a different way the engine is structured) over the SPEs, there's no going back.
        Only titles that will be exclusive for the PS3 and of which the developers and publisher(s) have no intention of porting to another platform in the future will truly utilize the Cell processor. And, to be honest, the number of publishers and studios that are prepared for such a commitment is dwindling.

        I'm not saying that the PS3 won't have a great library, on the contrary, developer support is picking up again. However, people shouldn't expect that any multi-platform title will look a lot better on the PS3 than on the other platforms. Some games will be optimized by the time they get ported to the PS3, other games will actually perform worse, while some games will perform about the same on both systems.
  • cryptomystic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39Wow looks just like Madden 04 and 05 and 06 and 07......
  • Adgeman, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Way I figure my PS3 version is better than my 360 version since I can play the PS3 version while I wait for the 360 to come back from it's Red Light trip to 360 Heaven.
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7LOL ROFLMAO Those jokes just never get old!
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I'd rather have my 360 repaired/upgraded for free than have to live with my over-priced, subpar machine that came with a Blu-ray Trojan Horse. But if u need the old jokes to make it more bearable, I understand. *pats head*
  • adam07, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16The 360 has much better color. But, in general, Madden looks like ***** anyways.
    • skunkworker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Its called adjusting the contrast stupid. I can make the 360 look that bad easily
  • NiGHTSChao, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Even with the HD version of the video its still to ***** blurry to tell which is better
    Buried, the only difference is the brightness and contrast, which can easily be adjusted via your ***** TV, they were probably cap'd on different setups
  • Matrix_Prime, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21***** Madden, bring back 2K
    • logiksan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22k is back. It's called All-Pro Football 2k8, released a few weeks ago.
      • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have no idea why you are getting dugg down... You are right. Just because they cannot have real teams or stadiums or current players doesn't mean that it isn't 2k. IMO the game is a bit behind as far as controls and gameplay are concerned and I wish they would have came back with their $19.99 price point or $29.99 but the game literally picks up where 2k5 left off.
        • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I never plaid 2k5, but I just got APF2k8 and it is the best football game I've played (although, have not and will not play Madden 08, but Madden doesn't look better)...the graphics could use some smoothing and more human faces. In all honesty, I love watching football but am not so much of a fan that I need the latest roster, but that's just me
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The last and only football game I have ever bought was NFL 2k5 for the Xbox...it was only 19.99 and was by far a superiour game to Madden 05 that was $30 more.

      I was ***** to find out that Madden got the exclusive rights
    • nelsonuwp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't say ***** Madden, I would say like NgrHader(....hmm) ***** the exclusive rights that Madden got so they can keep putting out the same game each year without competition.
  • Scrappy1850, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5PC version trumps both PS3 and 360. 1080 resolution is for losers! Hi-Res PC games FTW!
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Who the heck buys sports games for the PC?
    • SSCrow, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11920×1080 is a great resolution to play, especially at 60 fps.
  • Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14This does not mean the 360 is better then a ps3.
    It means its was a sloppy port.
    Something EA is good at .

    And its normal the first gen games for ps3 gonna be a little off the 360 cause most ports were made with the 360 in mind at the time .

    I'm sure this will change in due course.
  • quannumkid, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Buried. All this Madden 08 comparison junk needs to end.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why?
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Because he's a PS3 fanboy whose self-worth revolves around his console.
  • csulok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11what the ***** do you expect from EA games that they port to EVERY single platform they can get their hands on? it will look more or less the same on every platform and since they do absolutely no optimization (hence the ability to ***** 60 different games every year) there ought to be screw ups..

    please dont make useless comparisons just to try convincing yourself your x360 purchase was a good one. NOONE CARES.
  • cavie2002, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4why do ps3 games always have a washed out look
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Honestly I would really love a "technical" explination of this because I have wondered the same thing.

      IMO in the end it will be the 360 has the slight edge with the graphics (I love the way ATI handles textures... it's just amazing sometimes) and the PS3 will be able to do "more" in the game (physics, larger environments with living things etc.).

      But I have wondered why all the PS3 games have that hazy "washed out" look to them.
      It's kind of like the way I never liked the N64 because I always felt the color pallet was too cartooney when compared to the PS2 or Xbox.
  • fossilnews, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Techmo Bowl - FTW
  • fossilnews, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Techmo Bowl - FTW
    • fossilnews, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0My apologies for the double comment.
  • EvilMoose, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2YEA DIGGERS! Let's focus on the issue at hand, the way the game looks. I mean, screw the simulation bugs, the RE and DE bug, the offense vs. defense progression bug. The voice/action bug and all those other bugs listed on Madden Wishlist. Let's make them worry about how the game looks cause graphics > gameplay right?
  • icsbase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The difference isnt that big. As always, ATI/AMD chip produces bit more darker image than NVidia chip. There are some slight details in images that you can spot but the difference is not that major. Perhaps you can see it ingame better.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea you can see the same thing ATI vs. NVidia when looking at PC games like HL2. It seems to be the way it handles textures.
  • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That settles that. The Falcons definitely suck.
  • gweedo767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Yeah, this is a great comparision. PS3 = 30fps, 360 = 60fps, flash video on a website is probably 20fps max...great way to loss any and all comparision...
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't say ***** like that until you download the damn 720p version of the video from the link on the bottom.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's why it was slowed to 25%... so you can notice the difference in frame-rate.
  • sk545, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bleh, graphics hardly look next gen in either case. Its all cartoony...with crap lighting thrown in.

    But then again, people will buy this in millions, and next year it will be the same thing and so on. What a shame.
  • doshindude, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Wii version FTW.
  • raeanin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Contrast aside(easily fixed by 5 seconds of adjusting your TV) the PS3 version is substantially better in realism and picture quality. The 360 seems to lack any sort of post processing effects(atmospherics, depth of field, etc), making it look pretty much like a high res version of an xbox/ps2 game. However, the 360 version looks much smoother, but I would have to see it on the tv to tell for sure.
  • GuJu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7omfg, enough of these ***** comparisons, Joystiq has been giving head to xbox for ages. they always post this that demises the ps3 and thinks the 360 is a sent from god.

    im tired of this, i thought it would be over by now its been a year since the ps3 has come out, stop bashing it if you dont like it the internet dosnt want to hear it. Just play your 360 and but the insane price ***** for it.
  • madskillzdotcom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2What I find funniest is ... if the 360 version looked like crap, the B$3 fanboys would be rejoicing like a heavenly host of angels.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0so true. deny it... but you know he's right.
  • readme, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So dumb to make a video that renders in 30fps to compare this. They both look the same in the video because of the video's framerate.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0That's why they slowed the video to 25%... did you sleep thru class?
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Seriously, the difference is tiny. You can see more shininess on the leg pads on the 360.

    Other than that, it looks the same to me (other than adjustments in contrast).

    You can't see 30 vs 60 fps in this video, it's not a 60fps video. And if you watch football on NBC, you're seeing that in 30fps, you can't tell me that's jerky. Hell, movies are 24fps, and they're barely jerky.

    Much ado about nothing. Someone turned the hype train on this big time, and I'm guessing it was the guy who worked at MS 2 months ago and works in EA Sports now. The company who sponsored the Madden party in Times Square.
    • soapsuds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Broadcast SDTV in the US and Japan is 60 fields per second; while it's technically 30 "frames" per second due to interlacing (two fields make a frame), it's more useful to think of it as 60 fps, interlaced, since the two fields are captured at different times. So motion is much, much more fluid than film which is good for sports. However, many TV shows (especially higher-budget dramas) are shot on film at 24 fps (24p) and then converted to 60i. When film is shown at a theater, they display each frame twice, so it flickers at 48 Hz, but the motion is still only at 24 fps.

      While 60 fps is hard for casual users to distinguish from 30 fps, it does have the added benefit of reducing the response time of the game.
    • slcsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0That's why they slowed the video to 25%, so it would be more obvious. Can't see the difference?

      There's a reason for this... it's called Myopia.

  • vesa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The grass IS greener on the other side.
  • xjeffx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I rented it last night and already returned it. The players run around the field like mexican jumping beans. I'll keep All Pro Football 2K8 thank you.
  • PhillAholic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now, I'm going to buy a PS3 for Ratchet and Clank anyway...but the way everyone was talking about I was thinking of skipping Madden and bumming it off my roommate who has a 360 because of the framerate. But to be honest, I didn't think it looked bad. So If Anything, that video might have made the choice to buy it for me. It doesn't have to look better then the 360, I just has to look playable, and I think it does.
  • adventchild08, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Too bad Madden sucks balls... but it does look better on the 360 the framerate difference is massive and cannot be shown by this video....
  • SirChaos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://www.controlf12.com for the best Madden reviews!
  • slstudios, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe Sony should revert back to this tactic: http://www.unscleric.com/news/2007/02/15/sony-reps-at-it-again/
  • MoisesRisser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Inferiority is what you enjoy in your best friends.
  • DrThunder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+130 fps 60 fps who cares Madden has been the same game for 5 years with just slight improvements each year. I wanted to see the madden from the commercial a couple years ago with the player in the snow. Either the 360 or the PS3 is even close to that.
  • dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1OK from reading the reviews and hering about how disapointing madden was on the ps3 I was gutted. im a 360 owner that loves the ps3 and thinks its the superior console and defo worth the money. My reluctancy to choose the 360 side is based on long term knowledge that bluray is the future and 360 just dont cut it.

    Any way I had accepted without seeing this video that the 360's version was better, i was glad (owning a 360 an all) but I see no (other than colour which could be the tv settings) obvious difference, i suggest that this is because i am not actually playing the gfame though and from what IGN said , the ps3 version sucks.

    I would still buy it if i owned a ps3 but id like to see em both properly side by side cos this vid sucked ass big time -man im ***** (ps3 FTW)
  • kruzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So i have played the game on both systems, on HDTVs. and without doubt the the xbox 360 version is far superior. and i own a ps3, and do not own an xbox. It hard to tell from the videos, but the fps issues do make a huge difference in gameplay. the graphics on the ps3 certainly do not feel like a next generation game, and the gameplay just isn't as smooth... it feels like im playing on the ps2. So i basically just play the game at my friends place, simply cause it ***** me off too much to play the ps3 version after playing the xbox version. I am definitely not an xbox fanboy mind you. If anything, Im a ps3 fanboy... but the differences in this game really ticks me off, and my friend who owns the xbox is loving it. In fact, the only reason i found this forum was cause i typed in "why does the ps3 suck compared to xbox for madden" in google and it took me here. other games, like nba 2k7, the differences aren't really noticable, but in madden it's like night and day. and again, you cant tell from the videos.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.