Support NeoGAF

[Metalmurphy]

I must be blind then. Which means I have to contradict myself because I just read the FFXIII comparison article and didn't see any of the downplaying, etc that you talk about.

Maybe you are just really sensitive to that type of stuff as a PS3 superfan?

Are you serious? That entire article is on how the 360 version should have been and on how Square is to blame.

 

[Risette]

Are you serious? That entire article is on how the 360 version should have been and on how Square is to blame.

Digitalfoundry was writing about how the 360 version might turn out long before it actually came out, and it turned out exactly how they predicted in their "bad" predictions. It's kinda understandable to see why they talk about it so much considering how it could've been much better.

 

[Windom Earle]

Digital Foundry is great for the numbers most of the time. Exception being FFXIII where there were some factual errors in favor of the 360 version (I think they corrected them later). Also they had to do a second face off because they missed out so much stuff in the first one.

The quality of Leadbetter's sermons is questionable from time to time.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

Funny how they don't give a shit and still have the best looking open world game on PS3.

I'll agree with you, however, it does seem slightly skewed in favor of the 360. I play the PS3 version and I really love it and can hardly tell the difference. Same went for PS3/360 versions of GTA 4. Who knows, maybe there's more to it than slightly neglecting the visuals of the PS3 version. I wasn't trying to be insulting of the game, so please don't take it that way.

 

[surly]

I was making a joke.

Read it again in sarcasm mode.

Haha, it's hard to tell on gaming forums mate! There are people that would have said what you said and been entirely serious about it.

 

[mintylurb]

Digital Foundry is great for the numbers most of the time. Exception being FFXIII where there were some factual errors in favor of the 360 version (I think they corrected them later). Also they had to do a second face off because they missed out so much stuff in the first one.

The quality of Leadbetter's sermons is questionable from time to time.

Oh. Didn't know DF did a second ff13 face off..

/me checks the ff13 comparison thread.

Holy..I hope Richard didn't go through too many tissues while writing that piece..Jebus..

 

[mujun]

Are you serious? That entire article is on how the 360 version should have been and on how Square is to blame.

So they are xbots? Just like all the guys in the Red Dead Redemption thread saying that Rockstar is lazy, biased against Sony, etc are Sonybots?

 

[goonergaz]

I think there's a fair point when the games are nigh on identical but it's a X360 win due to slightly better frame-rate and yet no mention of free online play on PS3.

 

[adamsapple]

I think there's a fair point when the games are nigh on identical but it's a X360 win due to slightly better frame-rate and yet no mention of free online play on PS3.

It would be a good point if each game required it's own payment .. people usually pay up once and have Live for 12/13 months.

 

[I'm an expert]

It would be a good point if each game required it's own payment .. people usually pay up once and have Live for 12/13 months.

Doesn't change the fact you paid an extra however much to access certain content on one console.

 

[adamsapple]

Doesn't change the fact you paid an extra however much to access certain content on one console.

It's still irrelevant on a per-game comparison basis since you're never paying online for any one game.

 

[G_Berry]

DF do game comparisons not console comparisons.

Edit: This thread really needs to die, both games are out and if you don't know by now which version to get then there is really something wrong with you. Defending your console to the end won't improve how it looks / plays.

Unless it's staying open to wait for DF's comparison?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I think there's a fair point when the games are nigh on identical but it's a X360 win due to slightly better frame-rate and yet no mention of free online play on PS3.

What does free online play have to do with the game, specifically? Nothing. This is a comparison of games, not necessarily of services or platforms.

 

[DeadCell]

Fix your fucking game Rockstar!

That is all.

 

[Papercuts]

What does free online play have to do with the game, specifically? Nothing. This is a comparison of games, not necessarily of services or platforms.

Yup. It's an out of the box comparison of the game and how it performs...if it got that specific and factored in online costs, they are talking about additional features and then could use the 360 install and swing pretty much ever load in its favor as well.

 

[mujun]

I think there's a fair point when the games are nigh on identical but it's a X360 win due to slightly better frame-rate and yet no mention of free online play on PS3.

How is that part of the game?

 

[goonergaz]

How is that part of the game?

Because you can play online.

 

[goonergaz]

This is a comparison of games,

Both games can be played online...I must have missed the bit in the header that says "Graphical".

Either way, all I'm saying is that when considering it is a factor...if X360 was free online I would have bought that version...but to me the minor graphical differences are a sacrifice I am prepared to pay.

 

[Papercuts]

The comparisons don't need to do it for a bunch of different scenarios. If you have a 360 and a PS3, and you don't have gold + the multiplat game is online, it's pretty obvious that you should get the PS3 version if you care at all to play it online. If you do have gold and a ps3 then this is just a performance comparison that helps some that are on the fence decide.

There's still always things like picking the system with more friends on it or preferring a controller that factor into choosing but obviously can't be put in these.

 

[goonergaz]

I don't disagree, I just think the initial comments like "worst port ever" are massively inacurate. If however it had been the worst port ever I may well have bought the X360 version and paid to play it online.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Both games can be played online...I must have missed the bit in the header that says "Graphical".

Either way, all I'm saying is that when considering it is a factor...if X360 was free online I would have bought that version...but to me the minor graphical differences are a sacrifice I am prepared to pay.

How is it that you fail to understand the point of this thread, I wonder. By expanding the scope of comparison you invite a discussion that goes beyond the game.

 

[El-Suave]

Got the PS3 version, and I find the lack of missing DTS sound to be much more disappointing than any of the slight graphical differences. :-(

 

[mujun]

Because you can play online.

Weren't we talking about DF being xbots? How the hell did you manage to turn this into a console war again with free online vs paid online.

Besides which as hedgehog said, how far do you intend to take it? Controllers? Color of the console? Weight of the console? Wireless vs wired? wired lag vs wireless lag?

They compare games and their performance on the two HD consoles. They are not comparing consoles and their respective +s and -s. Not to mention that that's how they've been doing it for quite a while and was a known quantity long before this thread popped up.

Seems to me that you are grasping at straws, not sure why though. Then again you have been crusading for the PS3 version pretty hard when it seems good enough on it's own merits to not need your help.

 

[goonergaz]

Weren't we talking about DF being xbots?

no I was not, you must be mistaken...all I said was that saying it was the worst port ever was not only wrong but it can make people think someone is biased.

maybe the thread should include the word "graphical" if that's how it's supposed to be...sorry, not meaning to take it OT

 

[Beer Monkey]

no I was not, you must be mistaken...all I said was that saying it was the worst port ever was not only wrong but it can make people think someone is biased.

maybe the thread should include the word "graphical" if that's how it's supposed to be...sorry, not meaning to take it OT

You are talking about platform differences instead of game differences. Your axe grinding belongs in a thread about the 360 versus PS3 platform, not in a thread about a specific game.

 

[Metalmurphy]

So they are xbots? Just like all the guys in the Red Dead Redemption thread saying that Rockstar is lazy, biased against Sony, etc are Sonybots?

There's a little thing called consistency. Which DF doesn't have. Bad PS3 port = complain about how bad the game is. Bad 360 port = complain how bad the developer is.

And that's just one of the problems, but nm, this has been dragged long enough.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Got the ps3 version...the game looks good. In scheme of things, the differences between the versions seem pretty minimal to me...overall graphical effect is similar, with the edge to 360 no doubt

 

[OldJadedGamer]

There's a little thing called consistency. Which DF doesn't have. Bad PS3 port = complain about how bad the game is. Bad 360 port = complain how bad the developer is.

And that's just one of the problems, but nm, this has been dragged long enough.

But isn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Hasn't Sony themselves said that porting from the PS3 as the lead sku makes the 360 better? When up porting from a weaker console to a more powerful console it should be the fault of the system if it can't handle it. When porting down from a more powerful system to a weaker one, it's the fault of the developer for not doing it properly.

Look at last gen with PS2 ports to the Xbox and Xbox ports to the PS2.

Both games can be played online...I must have missed the bit in the header that says "Graphical".

Either way, all I'm saying is that when considering it is a factor...if X360 was free online I would have bought that version...but to me the minor graphical differences are a sacrifice I am prepared to pay.

If you want to nitpick, every Xbox 360 system comes with a free 30 day trail of Xbox Live so "out of the box" the user can play online with the system and the game at no charge.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

no I was not, you must be mistaken...all I said was that saying it was the worst port ever was not only wrong but it can make people think someone is biased.

maybe the thread should include the word "graphical" if that's how it's supposed to be...sorry, not meaning to take it OT

It may not be the worst port ever, but it's definitely a mess. PS3 version is a mess compared to the 360.

Problem is people let their opinions get in the way of cold hard facts and figures.

 

[goonergaz]

It may not be the worst port ever, but it's definitely a mess. PS3 version is a mess compared to the 360.

mess? in what way? lower pixel counts and less shrubbery...hardly a mess

 

[chubigans]

It may not be the worst port ever, but it's definitely a mess. PS3 version is a mess compared to the 360.

Problem is people let their opinions get in the way of cold hard facts and figures.

I am playing the PS3 version, and it's not a mess compared to anything. It's great.

The 360 version might look better, but the PS3 version isn't bad in any way, shape or form. It's just fine.

 

[Wazzim]

I think there's a fair point when the games are nigh on identical but it's a X360 win due to slightly better frame-rate and yet no mention of free online play on PS3.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Oh, man I remember that FFXIII DF article, it was so oddly apologetic and mentioning interesting things like how the 360 should have been programmed and how Bayonetta was randomly thrown in, like it was some visual showcase of superiority.

All I could think of was...er, okay.

 

[Stuggernaut]

I played the PS3 version last night and most of today.

I have no clue what all the whining is about. The game is fun as hell, looks great, plays smooth. I have had no issues.

Have I played the 360 version? Nope. But even if I do, I doubt it will make the game any less fun.

I saw all the comparison shots with missing grass and signs that can't be read from 50ft away. I really don't care though...when I am speeding around on my horse, or watching a cut scene, I am not looking at the backgrounds with such scrutiny.

I will say that I don't like the look of the night sky though...that would probably be my only real complaint. Just looks kind of fake.

Anyway, continue on with your debate....good luck to whoever wins, it surely means so so much. :lol

Gonna go back to play now.

 

[Wazzim]

I played the PS3 version last night and most of today.

I have no clue what all the whining is about. The game is fun as hell, looks great, plays smooth. I have had no issues.

Have I played the 360 version? Nope. But even if I do, I doubt it will make the game any less fun.

I saw all the comparison shots with missing grass and signs that can't be read from 50ft away. I really don't care though...when I am speeding around on my horse, or watching a cut scene, I am not looking at the backgrounds with such scrutiny.

I will say that I don't like the look of the night sky though...that would probably be my only real complaint. Just looks kind of fake.

Anyway, continue on with your debate....good luck to whoever wins, it surely means so so much. :lol

Gonna go back to play now.

Real gamer.

 

[levious]

why does the night sky look fake?

 

[Stuggernaut]

why does the night sky look fake?

Ok maybe fake is the wrong word. It seems...just different from the rest of the graphics, so it stands out to me. I have only run around at night twice, so maybe it changes? It was perfectly clear sky both times.

 

[Windom Earle]

edit: nvm, not worth it

 

[SixStringPsycho]

It may not be the worst port ever, but it's definitely a mess. PS3 version is a mess compared to the 360.

Problem is people let their opinions get in the way of cold hard facts and figures.

cjelly
will gladly bend over and grab ankles for Microsoft
Pure Fanboy talk and should not be taken serious.

 

[Truespeed]

But isn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Hasn't Sony themselves said that porting from the PS3 as the lead sku makes the 360 better? When up porting from a weaker console to a more powerful console it should be the fault of the system if it can't handle it. When porting down from a more powerful system to a weaker one, it's the fault of the developer for not doing it properly.

Hey, here's a radical idea - why not develop your engine to maximize the strengths of both systems without continually gimping one just because your games and engine are primarily developed with the 360 in mind? Seems a lot of multi-platform companies have already achieved this so why can't Gimpstar develop a PS3 game in HD?

 

[InterMoniker]

I was making a joke.

Read it again in sarcasm mode.

DF analysis is 200000000% better. Sometimes they chime in on ways that the developers could have improved the game, like for instance on FFXIII they said they could have used such and such technique instead of butchering resolution. Even if they are right, some people saw that as "defending the Xbox".

But even if you don't like what they have to "say", just read the damn facts which are 100% scientific and irrefutable and make up your own mind. DF is the only analysis that actually gives you real facts to work with. They do an amazing job.

Digitalfoundry was writing about how the 360 version might turn out long before it actually came out, and it turned out exactly how they predicted in their "bad" predictions. It's kinda understandable to see why they talk about it so much considering how it could've been much better.

So did Eurogamer make any suggestions as to how the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption should have been using different techniques to run better?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Hey, here's a radical idea - why not develop your engine to maximize the strengths of both systems without continually gimping one just because your games and engine are primarily developed with the 360 in mind? Seems a lot of multi-platform companies have already achieved this so why can't Gimpstar develop a PS3 game in HD?

I have it on Xbox, and a pal has it on PS3. I don't think the IQ on PlayStation is that much of an issue, it's the horrendous draw distance. Flags on buildings, shadows, wildlife, all appearing 20-30ft in front of you. There is some LOD problems on Xbox, but nothing that bad. The framerate is noticably poorer too.

 

[-DarKaoZ-]

Ok maybe fake is the wrong word. It seems...just different from the rest of the graphics, so it stands out to me. I have only run around at night twice, so maybe it changes? It was perfectly clear sky both times.

If you think seen all the stars at night looks fake, then you must have never been in a Ranch before. If you go to a ranch or to the wildlife with no big light source of light (aka city or town), then you can see all the stars like that. Obviously there could be clouds, but its not impossible not to see a clear sky like that. Well in my experience that is.

 

[mujun]

It may not be the worst port ever, but it's definitely a mess. PS3 version is a mess compared to the 360.

Problem is people let their opinions get in the way of cold hard facts and figures.

Doesn't look like a mess to me. How is "not quite as good as the 360 version" equal to "a mess"?

 

[Metalmurphy]

But isn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Hasn't Sony themselves said that porting from the PS3 as the lead sku makes the 360 better? When up porting from a weaker console to a more powerful console it should be the fault of the system if it can't handle it. When porting down from a more powerful system to a weaker one, it's the fault of the developer for not doing it properly.

And crappy PS3 ports isn't the developers fault? Please... Not to mention that it's exactly the other way around. If a game is made for a more powerfull system then it's HARDER to port to a weaker one. The problem here isn't which one is more powerful, but more like how they structured. Mainly the memory split.

Also they never said it made the 360 version better, they said it would be easier.

Look at last gen with PS2 ports to the Xbox and Xbox ports to the PS2.

 

[V_Arnold]

There's a little thing called consistency. Which DF doesn't have. Bad PS3 port = complain about how bad the game is. Bad 360 port = complain how bad the developer is.

And that's just one of the problems, but nm, this has been dragged long enough.

Dont think so.
Final Fantasy XIII was a special case. When they got the first technical impressions of the PS3's demo version out, they made an article about how they imagine a port, since Square announced one in the making.

So it is not like where you just obviously check two versions for each game, but in this case, you actively set up some standards based on what you think should be done in a porting.

Obviously, the port WAS bad. It is not the case of Square not being technical enough. But stuff like choosing Bink(!), setting it up wrong (seriously, it was fun reading the Edge article of Time Travel or what it is name is, and reading about Munch's developers complaining about the Bink too, but it was in 2002, and for the original xbox), and overcompressing when there was space left. Stuff like this. And the choice of lightning vs res decrease... it was something one can think about if he has the time to.

And DF is not an "official verdict maker" on ports, so they had every right to build up expectaions against certain ports.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I have it on Xbox, and a pal has it on PS3. I don't think the IQ on PlayStation is that much of an issue, it's the horrendous draw distance. Flags on buildings, shadows, wildlife, all appearing 20-30ft in front of you. There is some LOD problems on Xbox, but nothing that bad. The framerate is noticably poorer too.

I don't have said probs with the ps3 version...not sure what his issue is...there is pop in, but not crysis vanilla levels.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

And crappy PS3 ports isn't the developers fault? Please... Not to mention that it's exactly the other way around. If a game is made for a more powerfull system then it's HARDER to port to a weaker one. The problem here isn't which one is more powerful, but more like how they structured. Mainly the memory split.

Also they never said it made the 360 version better, they said it would be easier.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00006IR3X.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Again, last gen the vast.... vast, VAST majority of developers had no problem up porting from the PS2 to the Xbox with very little effort and the Xbox version outside of a few developer fuck ups was 99% always the better version with very minimal effort from the developer. And it wasn't just the PS2-Xbox ports but also PS2-Gamecube ports. And if you blame the memory split then that is still a fault of the machine so you are blaming the machine at that point and not the developer. Burnout Paradise and EDGE has the PS3 platform as the lead and the 360 sku turned out just fine. Down porting wasn't a problem.

That picture you posted is the extreme example of a developer not caring about the port, giving it to another developer to do and just shitting it out to meet a contract. You are kind of proving my point with that pic. That game was and still is the exception to the rule. That would be just like saying every game has mid-game installs just because of one title... come to think of it, those two games share something in common.

 

[MrPliskin]

I'm jaded and don't really know what I should be looking for in videogames.

I think I could replace every post in this thread with the exact phrase above, and it would still feel like the same thread.

Who gives a fuck, buy the version that you're comfortable with based on controller preference and friends lists.


PS: cjelly, if you think this game is a "mess" on either platform you really need to have your head examined. That, or stop spouting childish drivel because you apparently missed the memo of what makes a game good.

But isn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Hasn't Sony themselves said that porting from the PS3 as the lead sku makes the 360 better? When up porting from a weaker console to a more powerful console it should be the fault of the system if it can't handle it. When porting down from a more powerful system to a weaker one, it's the fault of the developer for not doing it properly.

Look at last gen with PS2 ports to the Xbox and Xbox ports to the PS2.

It is always the "fault" of the developer, so to speak. Rarely do games port well between both platforms. However, when engines are designed with both platforms in mind, the results seem to be much better.

It's hit or miss, but given that we're so far into this generation, I think any faults between ports of either system rests on the developers. Especially in the case of Rockstar who knew the limitations of both systems going in and didn't necessarily improve on their engine over the years.

 

[Windom Earle]

Again, last gen the vast.... vast, VAST majority of developers had no problem up porting from the PS2 to the Xbox with very little effort and the Xbox version outside of a few developer fuck ups was 99% always the better version with very minimal effort from the developer. And it wasn't just the PS2-Xbox ports but also PS2-Gamecube ports. And if you blame the memory split then that is still a fault of the machine so you are blaming the machine at that point and not the developer. Burnout Paradise and EDGE has the PS3 platform as the lead and the 360 sku turned out just fine. Down porting wasn't a problem.

That picture you posted is the extreme example of a developer not caring about the port, giving it to another developer to do and just shitting it out to meet a contract. You are kind of proving my point with that pic. That game was and still is the exception to the rule. That would be just like saying every game has mid-game installs just because of one title... come to think of it, those two games share something in common.

So the PS3 is harder to code for but more powerful than the 360, news at eleven.

Comparisons to the Xbox 1 make no sense whatsoever.