-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
No, you should trust me because I have proof.schennmu said:
I took these from my 360 version. The lighting is there. DF's capture method of the 360 version is so dark that it completely removes some illumination.
well, you can just take an off-screen shot from the head of that statue and prove your pointLostconfused said:
, if it's present and is like the one on the PS3 screen we will be able to see it even on an offscreen shot, the head is quite bright in that shot.I don't have access to any console right now.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
dark10x said:
uh... I don't see it? PS3 version here, but I could not tell a large difference in framerate in that sequence (but then, it's a cutscene and that is usually not relevant. It's not like it's Mass Effect or something where cutscenes chug and are even cut off entirely
)AsylumBlue
Member
.
godhandiscen said:No, you should trust me because I have proof.
I took these from my 360 version. The lighting is there. DF's capture method of the 360 version is so dark that it completely removes some illumination.
Ahh! a man who actually backs his shit up with proof? You will confuse and anger a great many around here, lad.
Synless said:
No, it's BIAS! You're confusing your B words.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Even if it isn't a video, the lighting is there. I have gone through the scene 10 times by this point and the lighting never dissapears. Also, I can see the aliasing in the image. If a console can pull off so many different scenes in realtime without no apparent loading or texture pop-up whatsoever then I am amazed.dark10x said:
miladesn said:well, you can just take an off-screen shot from the head of that statue and prove your point
I don't have access to any console right now.
I just did it for him, are you happy?
:lol fanboys and their conspiracy theories.
JetBlackPanda
Member
so I want to pick this up for 360.. I played the Demo and the frame rate didn't bother me at all, am I safe to pick it up.. it wont get any worse correct?
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
I am having a great time with the 360 version. Pick it up. The fps is better in the PS3 version, but if you have no choice, like me, the 360 version is one of the best ports in years.JetBlackPanda said:
AsylumBlue
Member
.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
I doubt it is a bug. It looks to be a problem with the capture settings to me.AsylumBlue said:
AsylumBlue
Member
.
I see that now. Someone else just posted a shot from PS3 with the missing lighting. So, it seems like it IS a bug. You can see how some would doubt you, though, as that is a very odd bug. I'm not sure I understand why it appears clearly in some captures and not at all in others.
Still, you were claiming that all of the scenes were pre-rendered and that was wrong.
The reason you see no pop-up likely stems from how they are handling their data. Did you notice how every stage is broken up by a decently long loading screen? It seems that they are loading a lot of the data at level startup and, if they are doing any streaming, it is minimal.
Unreal Engine 3 focuses heavily on presenting long, continuous levels. You see texture pop-in simply because it dynamically loads data based on where you are at a certain point. It seems that CV preloads a lot of data.
The Source engine works in this way still. Each level is broken up by a loading screen and data is pre-loaded rather than dynamically streamed. This is actually a bad design choice, if you ask me, as it segments your levels.
There are some very impressive aspects to Castlevania. The framerate is terrible, but they are doing some really nifty things with it.
Windom Earle
Member
godhandiscen said:
Thanks, yes, that looks very different from the DF capture. Having a PS3 pic from your capture device would be interesting though. Looks definitely like a bug, but I'm still wondering why the "experts" (DF???) did not notice it.
dark10x said:
Designers will often incorporate winding halls often referred to "dog legs" which obscure previous areas and upcoming areas so they can dump the old data and stream in the new data. Metroid often does it using doors and I personally believe that is why many of them take a bit to open. A game like Castlevania, with it's camera type "non-player controlled" could easily pull this off in my opinion. Im sure Mercurystream had good reason based on many factors as to why they chose the design they did.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
I almost always pick up the 360 version of 3rd party games due to controller preference and the fact that they usually win these comparisons but I had to go PS3 on this one, especially after hearing that the install process doesn't prevent disc-swapping.
Therefore, I would expect the NPDs to favor the PS3 version when they come out. In the past when this has happened there has either been PS3 branded marketing for the title or the PS3 version got some kind of bonus content. I haven't seen any marketing for this title but to those who have, is it affiliated with either platform?
If not, I think it will be quite interesting to see how the sales between the two versions break down. I've always felt that the people buying games like this one are far more aware of these kinds of technical differences than many in the NPD threads seem to think.
Therefore, I would expect the NPDs to favor the PS3 version when they come out. In the past when this has happened there has either been PS3 branded marketing for the title or the PS3 version got some kind of bonus content. I haven't seen any marketing for this title but to those who have, is it affiliated with either platform?
If not, I think it will be quite interesting to see how the sales between the two versions break down. I've always felt that the people buying games like this one are far more aware of these kinds of technical differences than many in the NPD threads seem to think.
360 version here, worst I have seen the framerate is by far on the Chapter 3 boss. It never got in the way of my dodge rolls, parries, and combo strikes however. By the time I was able to topple him(Knight difficulty, upwards 20 restarts) I barely even noticed the framerate chugging. It may have been in the twenties, but the entire fight was a beautiful dance of counters, rolls, and strikes. So awesome.
I will say that a big part of anyone's desire to choose a platform should be considered on the controller. MUCH like Ninja Gaiden, defense and dodge rolling is a major part of the experience, so if you dislike the triggers on the Dual Shock, I suggest the 360. I just couldn't imagine my block/parry timing with those mushy triggers being as acceptable as on my 360 pad.
I will say that a big part of anyone's desire to choose a platform should be considered on the controller. MUCH like Ninja Gaiden, defense and dodge rolling is a major part of the experience, so if you dislike the triggers on the Dual Shock, I suggest the 360. I just couldn't imagine my block/parry timing with those mushy triggers being as acceptable as on my 360 pad.
The Faceless Master
Member
god of war 1 & 2 hid some loading times by having you mash buttons to lift doors, etc...nacire said:
WickedLaharl
Member
godhandiscen said:
yup. it's always amusing to see the "DF is biased brigade" descend upon a thread when even the slightest inconsistencies are found in their articles.
according to beyond3d the lighting is still there just not as pronounced.
edit: i see this issue has been resolved already. good job godhandiscen & AsylumBlue!
JetBlackPanda said:
in certain parts the framerate does get worse then how it is in the demo. of course in rare instances it gets better to.
Omotesando
Member
Demo makes me want to go to the northpole and stick my head in the ice cold water.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Amir0x said:
Oh hey you've made the same point again. Super job!
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Well, honestly, I am enjoying the game thouroughly and the frame rate does take a dip but never to the point of frustration (on PS3). The 360 version doesn't look or perform much worse other than the unbelievable swapping of discs BS.
All in all I have to agree with the sentiments of folk saying it is unacceptable to have this kind of performance when games should look good enough to run at least at 30 FPS with vsync. What needs to happen is maybe a scaling back of super duper graphics and more on better performance. Unless you are just programming genuises or working on dedicated HW then you should really never release something with a less than desirable FR. It's definitely not stopping me from enjoying the game but I can't help but wonder why this wasn't at least a solid 30 fps for such a linear experience. Nothing against this but look at Uncharted 2 (I know its a 1st party IP). It looks probably better than anything ever put out on consoles and has polish like hardly anyone else could deliver.
All in all I have to agree with the sentiments of folk saying it is unacceptable to have this kind of performance when games should look good enough to run at least at 30 FPS with vsync. What needs to happen is maybe a scaling back of super duper graphics and more on better performance. Unless you are just programming genuises or working on dedicated HW then you should really never release something with a less than desirable FR. It's definitely not stopping me from enjoying the game but I can't help but wonder why this wasn't at least a solid 30 fps for such a linear experience. Nothing against this but look at Uncharted 2 (I know its a 1st party IP). It looks probably better than anything ever put out on consoles and has polish like hardly anyone else could deliver.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Amir0x said:
Seemed odd you pulled out a quote from at least a couple of pages ago to restate your position on 'standards' when the conversation had moved well on from there. Hey ho, do as you will.
It's not a dig, it's a statement of fact. It's all the more amusing you keep screeching at other people who don't have low standards. If you don't care about framerates, then why are you commenting on them or chiding others for not having abysmal, almost comically low standards?
There's nothing wrong with not caring about framerates. There's something wrong with trying to act like nobody else should either.
There's nothing wrong with not caring about framerates. There's something wrong with trying to act like nobody else should either.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Has anyone either via Twitter or via an interview asked Mercury Steam and Konami why they chose to go with sub 30FPS?
Thats pretty rich coming from you.Amir0x said:
All you seem to be doing in this thread is to try to insult people who aren't filpping out over the framerates. 'low standards', 'no standards' etc.
Its you who can't seem to accept that not everybody is too bothered by the framedrops.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
If there's nothing wrong with not caring about framerates, why do you insult those of us who aren't bothered by the framerate in this game?Amir0x said:
Thunder Monkey said that developers should at least try to hit steady 30fps (because MercuryStream apparently did not, they tried for 24, probably because they live in PAL land and are used to crappy framerate).DenogginizerOS said:
DennisK4 used a "fixed" to say that developers should try for 24, not 30, because 24 is good enough, and drops to 20 are "deal with it".
It has been argued extensively that 24fps is an arbitrary number pulled up by the film industry because it's a simple "two dozen" and because it worked well with the megahurtz of the power companies of the time (no longer a major factor). 24fps works the way it does in live-action film partly because of natural motion blur. 24fps does not work as well in videogames because their images are stationary. At least 30fps is required in videogames to have the same level of immersion that Hollywood thought was acceptable back when "talkies" were an upcoming gimmick.
If you are fine with something that is below even the most antiquated standards, good for you, but you should accept that your standards are low and someone like Amir0x might dismiss your opinions on this matter.
Why are people rambling about the film industry? Nobody here seems to have problems understanding that movie framerates =/= game framerates. Your lecture is wasted.ruby_onix said:
The issue is that Mercury Steam had a choice: downgrade the visuals for 30 fps or not.
I hereby declare that everyone who prefers 30 fps to 24 fps + better graphics have 'low standards'. I laugh at your antiquated standard for how good a game should look and you must accept that someone like me will dismiss your opinions on this matter.
brandonh83
Banned
Amir0x said:
At least I dialed back and admitted defeat!
The framerate could have been higher. No doubt. Even in some parts it needed to be higher, especially at times when the game is trying to show off the amazingly detailed backdrops, but it's strutting along like a soldier who just lost a leg on the battlefield.
Thankfully I still find the game amazing, but even as a previous defender of the framerate, sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and lay down the steel. It does perform good enough during combat, which to me is the most important part and during some boss fights its running incredibly smooth.
There's one fight that impressed me particularly because there's tons going on in the background and the animation of the foe is incredibly stunning, and the framerate was definitely locked at over 30fps the entire duration. If the entire game ran like that, there'd be lesser complaining about it, that's for sure.
The film industry figured out a good set of minimum framerate standards generations ago. It's plenty relevant. You claim to understand that movie =/= game, but do you even know why that is, or is is just "one is spelled with five letters and one is spelled with four" to you?DennisK4 said:
MercuryStream unbalanced their game by making it beautiful at the cost of going below the most commonly accepted framerate guidelines. Nobody is questioning how beautiful Castlevania looks in stills, but a visually unbalanced game is visually ugly and that's a fact. It's like a bodybuilder who can bench press a car, but he neglected his legs so he can't even lift groceries while standing without his knees buckling out from under him. That is not strength or beauty. It's perfectly valid to bitch about the framerate. If you are okay with lower-than-normal framerate standards, good for you, but you should accept that you are an exception to the rule and there is a REASON why people are bitching about the framerate.
It's not a question of adequate vs beautiful. It's a question of adequate vs does not work.
DenogginizerOS said:
It's not an insult to say that someone who thinks "24fps" is now the low acceptable bar developers should hit for games is someone with low standards. That's a factual statement, objective and clear and concise. I'm not going to sugarcoat the truth because people don't like the way it sounds.
He spent this entire thread trying to act like it was so offensive that we were dismissing this game for its terrible framerate, as if there was no possible way we could enjoy any games with such absurdly high standards - yet all we're asking for is a simple 30fps set standard as the low bar. That's not an arbitrary number pulled out of my ass, as Dennis4K's bizarrely self-serving bullshit about 24fps or higher is... it's around the level when people stop getting immense headaches from the horrific jittering crap on the screen.
I've said from the start til now: IT IS OK TO NOT CARE ABOUT FRAMERATES AT ALL. If you don't know how important framerates are, how it impacts the visual quality and the gameplay, that's perfectly ok. Or even if you do, and still just can stomach that shit, that's fine too. Nobody is asking you to get educated on the subject. What we are asking is that you chaps who don't care don't come into threads on TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS with your bullshit, chest all puffed out, in state of holy roller shock that people out there do care about not having a shitbin framerate like Castlevania has.
The clearest cut example of this is the people who kept trying to assert the strawman that "oh it's only acceptable if it's 60fps see how ridiculous their standards are", when all anyone was suggesting is that developer's get competent enough to at least be in HD resolutions and 30fps locked or higher. That's a simple, low bar that any competent developer should be able to hit. And if you can't hit it, it's time to dial some other shit the fuck down.
brandonh83 said:
And I respect you for that. You enjoy the game despite its flaws, you recognize it's a problem, and you moved on and loved it for what it is. That is ok. I have no issues at all with this. You won't get any argument from me.
See how simple this is, DennisK4?
So I am bullshitting, Amir0x? May I remind you about your bullshit about Bungie being incompetent developers. Halo: Reach frequently drops below 30 fps.
Amir0x knows better than Bungie who just put out a million-sellar in Reach with a Metacritic score of 91.
Bullshit of the highest order from you, Amir0x. Jesus Christ at way you are ranting and raving in this thread. You are the one who started slinging insults around.
Amir0x knows better than Bungie who just put out a million-sellar in Reach with a Metacritic score of 91.
Bullshit of the highest order from you, Amir0x. Jesus Christ at way you are ranting and raving in this thread. You are the one who started slinging insults around.
DennisK4 said:
It says a lot about the generally lack of rationality on your end when you believe the height of a rock solid argument is "WELL SEE A GAME SOLD A LOT THAT MEANS A SHIT FRAMERATE IS OK!"
Things that sell millions are frequently not just littered with problems, but are often fucking awful. Popular != good; nor does the collective of game journalists wanking each other off at the latest high profile release from the hype laden studios of the world. GTA4 10/10 lololol.
Reach is not fucking awful, no, but it does have a bad framerate, which makes it difficult for me to enjoy. And it's sub-HD to boot. That is developer incompetence, as far as engine tech goes. Denying that just makes you an apologist. They still make good, quality gameplay, anyone knows that, but it is marred by an engine that has serious issues.
DennisK4 said:
It is not an insult to state a fact. It is a fact that you have low standards. Having low standards is not a negative thing, it's a neutral one... it means you can - in your own words - enjoy things more easy than I can with my critical eye. I won't lower my standards, but you are free to. Just don't come into these technical discussion threads looking to be taken seriously.
