Support NeoGAF

[jimi_dini]

Just Cause 2, for one.

Well, if you like a super large world that looks and is copy+pasted to hell and back, almost the whole gameplay consists of blowing the same shit up over and over again, horrendous voice acting + bad super short story, then I guess you are right.

But I found it quite a boring after a few hours.

On the other hand - this game: I just beat a thug by using a phone from a telephone booth. Feels satisfying.

 

[CadetMahoney]

It's okay. I'll remind you in a couple of years time when we still keep getting sub standard PS3 ports. Maybe your Sony rose tinted googles will have fallen off by then.

It's already *very* late in this gen, at this point if PS3 catches up on parity it won't make any difference on how this gen will be remembered on multi-plats. As it is Sleeping Dogs is superior on 360 for consoles (where most of the sales will be).

I'd ignore DF, they're clearly lying, 360 fan boys. They aren't to be trusted!

I always suspected this.

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Is there any word on a demo for this?

 

[omonimo]

Yeah, that's not what he's saying at all.

Edit: Saw you added to your original post. Of course it's speculation, well part of it anyways. There's no way to know everything for sure without having the game code sitting in front of us. Regardless, he's more knowledgeable than most of GAF, but people question him anyways because they don't agree with his findings.

Not it's not that my point. I don't said I'm not concur in what I'm reading but it's the method completely wrong. DF & Leadbetter 'line' tend to emphasize too much the differences when are in favour of 360 & less when are the opposite, I don't think it's a coincidence here. Their implicit continues criticism about RSX limits & appreciation for Xenos is redundant in every article. I want to remember when here someone posted about Leadbetter & its previous experience in a magazine, where lame about ps3 hardware are so frequent. Now he tries to put his tongue in the teeth but the biasis are so implicit & palpable which they desgusting me. This is why I'm not find the DF so objective more than a time. imho.

 

[Gustav]

Playing the PS3 version right now. It's fine folks. The image is a little washed out but very little aliasing. It's absolutely playable. Worst thing so far is that the framerate sometimes dibs. It happens only twice in a 4 hour play session.

 

[Bittercup]

Is there any word on a demo for this?

PS3 demo will be released next week. I don't know about the other platforms.

 

[HawksWinStanley]

PS3 demo will be released next week. I don't know about the other platforms.

Good stuff, thanks.

 

[thetrin]

Calling it a POS is hyperbole though

Not really. The PS3 version looks like garbage, and performs like garbage. It's really unacceptable. But hey, if you're cool with that, then whatever.

Playing the PS3 version right now. It's fine folks. The image is a little washed out but very little aliasing. It's absolutely playable. Worst thing so far is that the framerate sometimes dibs. It happens only twice in a 4 hour play session.

It's kinda sad that at this point, the threshold for an acceptable port is "playable".

 

[Reiko]

Playing the PS3 version right now. It's fine folks. The image is a little washed out but very little aliasing. It's absolutely playable. Worst thing so far is that the framerate sometimes dibs. It happens only twice in a 4 hour play session.

The PS3 version is fine... That's not the point.

Putting it side by side with the 360 version... The differences are rather apparent.

Put it next to the PC version, and you'll wonder why this console generation is still going.(Besides making more money from an established userbase)

 

[Pezking]

Not really. The PS3 version looks like garbage, and performs like garbage. It's really unacceptable.

The PS3 version is fine. And that is coming from someone who deeply regretted getting "Red Dead Redemption" for the PS3.

This DF comparison is giving me a headache. Before that, no review pointed out that the PS3 version is a bad port, and people on NeoGAF and other message boards seemed very pleased with the performance. On the other hand, buyers instantly complained about the bad quality of RDR or Mafia 2 or Black Ops on the PS3 once these games hit the shelves in 2010, and rightfully so.

Maybe the 360 version looks a bit better, but I'm very pleased with the performance and the gameplay of "Sleeping Dogs" on PS3.

 

[LittleJohnny]

I know they aren't related and I don't really know the ins and outs of PS3 development but it's been out for 6 years, why are sub HD games still being produced?

Maybe people just aren't giving the 360 enough credit, it's just assumed that the PS3 is the superior hardware because of some superior components, but the 360 has it's share of superior components aka GPU and it looks like as a package, the 360 can output sharper textures most of the time becuase it has slightly better memory setup, including an os that uses less of it, the problem is we're never going to see what talented developers like Naughty Dog are able to achieve on 360

KZ2 was one of the first games to use deffered rendering, and seeing that on PS3 and no games on 360 to compare, its normal to assume it's not possible, but now that we have some talented 3rd party devs working on both, we see titles like BF3 using SPU based deffered rendering on the PS3 and the 360 using it's own solution even taking advantage of memexport functions and ALU crunching power of Xenos and the result shows that both systems are very capable, with the PS3 having some advantages in post processing effects while the 360 having a little more memory for sharper textures which is generally what we notice in these head to heads.

 

[Reiko]

The PS3 version is fine. And that is coming from someone who deeply regretted getting "Red Dead Redemption" for the PS3.

This DF comparison is giving me a headache. Before that, no review pointed out that the PS3 version is a bad port, and people on NeoGAF and other message boards seemed very pleased with the performance. On the other hand, buyers instantly complained about the bad quality of RDR or Mafia 2 or Black Ops on the PS3 once these games hit the shelves in 2010, and rightfully so.

Maybe the 360 version looks a bit better, but I'm very pleased with the performance and the gameplay of "Sleeping Dogs" on PS3.

While you say that... I remember quite a few on GAF spreading the word on the horrible port of FFXIII on Xbox 360 which was in the same ballpark of framerate and resolution problems.

It goes both ways.

 

[goodfella]

Not it's not that my point. I don't said I'm not concur in what I'm reading but it's the method completely wrong. DF & Leadbetter 'line' tend to emphasize too much the differences when are in favour of 360 & less when are the opposite, I don't think it's a coincidence here. Their implicit continues criticism about RSX limits & appreciation for Xenos is redundant in every article. I want to remember when here someone posted about Leadbetter & its previous experience in a magazine, where lame about ps3 hardware are so frequent. Now he tries to put his tongue in the teeth but the biasis are so implicit & palpable which they desgusting me. This is why I'm not find the DF so objective more than a time. imho.

Funny how some people think that he is biased toward the xbox, while some think he is biased towards the ps3.

 

[Pezking]

While you say that... I remember quite a few on GAF spreading the word on the horrible port of FFXIII on Xbox 360 which was in the same ballpark of framerate and resolution problems.

It goes both ways.

Of course it does.

 

[Solid warrior]

But I'd ignore DF, they're clearly lying, 360 fan boys. They aren't to be trusted!

??

Not sure if serious?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

??

Not sure if serious?

I'm not, I was taking the piss out of a guy who was adamant that DF were biased.

 

[DonMigs85]

I played through RDR on PS3 and it was fine, but the 360 version definitely looked sharper and more lush. But as long as you don't have them running side by side, you won't really notice or care as much about the differences.

 

[perineumlick]

Whoever said that the PS3 version is a pos is batshit crazy. At no point while playing it did I ever say to myself, "Man, I should have bought the 360 version". It's absolutely fine to play. I'm envious of the PC version, of course, but for consoles it's pretty damn good. The game is a blast, and that is most important overall. I can't play them both at the same time anyway; they both run about the same it seems.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

It does indeed run just fine on PS3. It's just that the resolution, textures, mapping, reflections, effects, etc are noticeably better on 360, it's basically that simple.

 

[perineumlick]

It does indeed run just fine on PS3. It's just that the resolution, textures, mapping, reflections, effects, etc are noticeably better on 360, it's basically that simple.

Yeah, of course, but is it a POS? No, it's not. Just typical GAF hyperbole as usual, granted it was only said by one or two people in the thread. I just found it quite amusing, is all.

 

[Neiteio]

How would this game run with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560M (2GB), 8GB RAM, Windows 7 / Intel Core i7?

 

[Foxix Von]

all i'm seeing is severe black crush on 360 .... edit: and i guess some texture differences.

It's like that with a lot of 360 games thanks to the systems really weird gamma curve. People seem to prefer it though, for whatever reason.

Drives me up a wall though. I can never get 360 games to look right on my set.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Not really. The PS3 version looks like garbage, and performs like garbage. It's really unacceptable. But hey, if you're cool with that, then whatever.

Didn't you get the memo, the goalposts have always been "it's playable" making everything "fine" for a long time now with these detailed performance comparisons.

 

[KePoW]

How would this game run with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560M (2GB), 8GB RAM, Windows 7 / Intel Core i7?

560M, is that a laptop gpu?

 

[Baconsammy]

I've played this on my 360 and on my nephews PS3. Looks noticeably better on 360, but runs GREAT on PS3 and is no less of a wonderful game on that platform. If I'd never played the 360 version, I would have been oblivious to how the game should look on consoles. If all you own is a PS3, buy it with the knowledge that you're getting a wonderful game that runs really well. If you own both consoles, definitely get the 360 version. It's not the usual situation where one game is mildly better. In this case it's quite noticeable. Either way, support this game.

 

[Neiteio]

560M, is that a laptop gpu?

Yep. For what it's worth it runs every game I've tried on it just fine, including Saints Row 3 on Ultra. Resolution is 1600x900. But when I went to "Can you run it" it said I could run it but said the videocard falls below the "recommended" (above the minimum, though). I was wondering if anyone with similar specs has tried it.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

So the PC version is an alright port then right?

Still sporting my I5-750 with 8 gigs of Ram and a 5850, that's still enough to run this game at an acceptable level of graphic fidelity right?

 

[Aaron]

So the PC version is an alright port then right?

Still sporting my I5-750 with 8 gigs of Ram and a 5850, that's still enough to run this game at an acceptable level of graphic fidelity right?

It's tuned for AMD cards so pretty well I would assume.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

It's tuned for AMD cards so pretty well I would assume.

Awesome... will get !

 

[AgentOtaku]

Well, if you like a super large world that looks and is copy+pasted to hell and back, almost the whole gameplay consists of blowing the same shit up over and over again, horrendous voice acting + bad super short story, then I guess you are right.

But I found it quite a boring after a few hours.

On the other hand - this game: I just beat a thug by using a phone from a telephone booth. Feels satisfying.

Sort of the reason I've never gave Just Cause a proper whirl

I love the concept but am completely turned off by the world, story, etc.

 

[cyen]

Yep. For what it's worth it runs every game I've tried on it just fine, including Saints Row 3 on Ultra. Resolution is 1600x900. But when I went to "Can you run it" it said I could run it but said the videocard falls below the "recommended" (above the minimum, though). I was wondering if anyone with similar specs has tried it.

I have i7 2630qm,8gb,6770m and the game plays great at my native res (1366x768) all maxed except AA on normal and vsync off.

Since your GPU is stronger than mine i assume your performance will be even better. Been earing that the game is gratly optimized for ATI cards, dont know if will make a diference since you have a better GPU.

EDIT: Benchmark gives me 42fps average at those settings

 

[Monkeythumbz]

Is there any word on a demo for this?

The demo's out now on PSN, XBLM and Steam.

 

[Cloudy]

I have played 10 hrs on both the ps2 and 360 versions (long story lol). 360 is quite a bit better visually. That said, the dualshock does seem a but more responsive for striking in fights.

Overall, I prefer the 360 controls cos driving feels better and the rumble feature is more solid IMO.