-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
I compared the demos last night. I have quite a bit experience judging fps since i played competed in Quake and fps was everything.
Clearly the ps3 version is smoother.
Not by much but i would guess 2-3 fps on an average. Ps3 version seems to run at about 25-28 fps where the 360 version runs at about 22-25.
Small difference but it is really noticable since the game is an action game.
I will be getting the ps3 version for sure.
Clearly the ps3 version is smoother.
Not by much but i would guess 2-3 fps on an average. Ps3 version seems to run at about 25-28 fps where the 360 version runs at about 22-25.
Small difference but it is really noticable since the game is an action game.
I will be getting the ps3 version for sure.
cjtiger300
Member
Snapshot King said:
Seriously, its two disc? I will be borrowing it from a friend after he finishes it on PS3. Hes a huge Castlevania fanboy probably found a way to get it tonight, lol! I did enjoy the demo, but my Oct money is on MOH and Fallout New Vegas!
The PS3 version of the demo has an average FPS of 25 (low of 17 FPS, high of 33.5 FPS) as shown by this analysis: -SpokkX said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjxmMEDuBZQ
They haven't done a similar video for the 360 version yet though.
NemesisPrime
Banned
surly said:
25? That isn't very good.
I find it very hard to play games like this when they don't have a smooth locked framerate. It seems like they haven't really bothered to get this sorted out. 360 version will probably suffer the same fate. I will wait and see. Anyway... Enslaved seems to be the hot game of the moment, I might get that one instead.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Unreal Engine 3. Unless the developer takes care (lol Ninja Theory taking care), the 360 version of UE3 games are always going to come out better. This is certainly the case with Enslaved, and you can see it in the Metacritic - the 360 version is in the mid-80s while the PS3 version is in the high 70s.Ledsen said:
Castlevania is using a proprietary engine apparently developed with the PS3 as lead platform. And indeed, in gameplay, CV's demo runs better than Enslaved's on the PS3. The reverse is likely true on the 360.
Eliciel
Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
True and sad at the same time. If this is a so well known difference beteween these two Consoles (and it definitely is) than I am of the opinion that there should be a price drop on the PS3 version day 1 for Enslaved and a price drop on the 360 day 1 for Castlevania.
I mean the fact that the UE3 Engine runs distinctly smoother on the 360 than on the PS3, should be clear as daylight by now. I found it rather hard to understand that developers can't get through that barrier and deliver a game that's identical on both consoles. It just can't be that hard to figure out how to improve UE3 on PS3.
And in this case it is a game that's quite dependent on the FPS.
Vice versa for Castlevania on 360.
textures weren't that bad, it's poor texture filtering that makes ground textures look so flat, AF could make worlds of difference if it was present in that game, this pic from wiki is very good for showing this:Y2Kev said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering
cjtiger300
Member
voady said:
Then there are games like Batman Arkham Asylum that completely debunk this. In the end I think its about the amount of polish that each game it given.
. 
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
cjtiger300 said:
Except for the fact that Batman: AA runs with SSAO and 2xMSAA on the Xbox 360 where the PS3 version lacks both, runs at a marginally lower average frame rate and has lower LOD normal maps. Apart from that Batman: AA completely debunks that myth.
You make it sound as if those are significant differences, but even when directly compared, it is very subtle. The game looks and runs very well on PS3.LabouredSubterfuge said:
If developers could achieve that sort of performance with UE3 games on PS3, I don't think anyone would complain. Epic really needs to lend a hand here. UT3 ran like butter on PS3 (and it can become quite demanding with a full lineup of players), so it's obvious that they put in some time to make it work well.
I suspect that many developers are using the PS3 hardware in the same way as the 360, which is going to produce inferior results. That approach just isn't going to work.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
Played the demo on 360. It was awful for many reasons.
But my biggest issue is the framerate. The game is absolutely gorgeous, but why make graphics of that quality if it's going to bog down the gameplay with a ridiculously low framerate? Give me a fucking break.
But my biggest issue is the framerate. The game is absolutely gorgeous, but why make graphics of that quality if it's going to bog down the gameplay with a ridiculously low framerate? Give me a fucking break.
Windom Earle
Banned
brobban said:
Fixed. There is nothing in the demo that warrants this kind of performance. Both consoles should be able to lift this title with at least a rock solid 30fps. And the combat? Clearly they went through a troubled development...
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
dark10x said:
Only in the context of Batman: AA though because it had mostly very dark environments with less colour contrast between edges which meant that aliasing was less obvious and SSAO wasn't as noticeable either. This is clever use of art design assets to soften the impact. However, it doesn't change the raw performance difference.
I believe the 360 game is double buffered with v-sync, which means it is synchronized to the monitors refresh rate (60 hz in this case). If the system cannot deliver 60 fps, for example, you will drop to 30 fps. If you cannot hold 30 fps, you drop to 20 fps. This causes some pretty abrupt performance drops.Polk said:
The PS3 demo uses triple buffering, however, which has the effect of allowing the system to display exactly as fast as it can render. As a result, you can have framerates in the mid-20s without any problems. If the renderer dips by just a bit you might only lose 1-2 fps. With double buffering, that same drop will result in a loss of 10 frames per second.
This is basically the problem at hand. I suspect they are rendering at similar speeds internally, but the double buffered output of the 360 version is limiting the output. As usual, the 10mb of framebuffer memory is probably the issue here. Triple buffering has become increasingly common on PS3, but nobody uses it on 360.
That said, there is hope that the full game will be able to hit 30 fps and hold it much more often. The rainy scene at the beginning seems quite demanding AND is taken from an old build. As long as the 360 version can hold 30 fps, it will feel perfectly fine. Any hiccups, however, result in a huge performance loss.
As there are no obvious visual differences aside from this, however, there is no reason to go with the 360 version over the PS3 version if you have a choice.
Nothing? I dunno, the extremely heavy rain combined with heavy shader usage and high quality motion blur seems pretty demanding. The motion blur is particularly fantastic and probably does not come cheap. Don't forget, the demo is taken from an old build. The final could be much smoother.
That's very true, but again, these differences are minor compared to most UE3 powered games on the two platforms. Do you not agree that this level of quality would be sufficient for most PS3 ports of UE3 games?
The core design of this engine just seems to be at odds with the PS3 architecture. They do not play nice together. It's not as if other developers have not implemented those effects in other ways.
metareferential
Member
Switched my preorder to ps3 version.
There's still time to change that again, just in case :lol
There's still time to change that again, just in case :lol
cjtiger300
Member
dark10x said:
Agreed, side by side there was little to no difference. Hell, the contrast on the PS3 version was better at times.
I will also be interested in Bulletstorm. From what I am hearing, there is no difference between the 360 and PS3 versions. Hell, they have stage demoed both versions which is different than what most companies do. It would lead me to believe that they are pretty much the same at this stage in development.
cjtiger300
Member
schennmu said:
There are all kinds of Post Processing effects going on. I would think that the heavy rain and Motion Blur (which are implemented quite well) would be pretty taxing on both the PS3 and 360 engines. You gotta remember that this in Multiplatform.
The ties to Epic should result in a very solid version of Bulletstorm for PS3.cjtiger300 said:
I'm not sure who is to blame for the poor performance issue in PS3 games. Are developers simply not seeking out the necessary information to improve performance? Are Epic failing to share? It really seems as if the games are simply being created for 360 and then a smaller team is told to make it work on PS3 without leveraging its strengths. The GPU is slower and using it like a 360 seems to produce poor results.
I don't presume any of this to be easy, but when you're selling the product on two platforms at the same price, I feel that this sort of difference shouldn't really exist. At the very least, focus on getting solid performance even if it means sacrificing certain visual elements.
cjtiger300
Member
dark10x said:
I think its just teams not having the time or resources to maximize the SPU's. Truth is, that is the strength of the PS3. That is why the 360 version is the one that is demoed early. It is usually further ahead on the polish scale. That being said, if you don't maximize the engine, I shouldn't have to play $60 dollars for the game. If the 360 version runs 20% better, I should only be paying $50 for the game.
I guess what makes it frustrating is the potential to have identical games is there if the right resources are allocated. As far as we are into the Current Gen, debacles like Mafia 2 and to a lessor extent RDR, shouldn't be happening. I'm sure there are recent UE3 games too, but I can't think of any at the moment.
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
I'm going to try to get the PS3 version today, the hype has got me... 
Why PS3? Because it's all I've got or care to own so, easy choice. I specifically avoid reading agonizing about the differences between platforms and I always find that games always play just fine and I have a great time even with titles that people are bitching to no end about it being inferior on the PS3.
I don't know how many of you remember the old 8-bit and 16-bit days, now that was a time when multiplatform releases really needed comparisons done because the differences were vast and were immediately noticeable to even somebody who doesn't give a shit about videogames. The differences being discussed here for the most part are just fanboy ammo.
Why PS3? Because it's all I've got or care to own so, easy choice. I specifically avoid reading agonizing about the differences between platforms and I always find that games always play just fine and I have a great time even with titles that people are bitching to no end about it being inferior on the PS3.
I don't know how many of you remember the old 8-bit and 16-bit days, now that was a time when multiplatform releases really needed comparisons done because the differences were vast and were immediately noticeable to even somebody who doesn't give a shit about videogames. The differences being discussed here for the most part are just fanboy ammo.
Windom Earle
Banned
dark10x said:
cjtiger300 said:
While I agree that those effects are not easy to stem for the hardware, I'm still not seeing anything particularly mindblowing. Everything is taking place in a small constricted area!
60fps might be too rough, but the visuals do not warrant 24/25fps average. Just imagine what rock solid 60fps games like DMC4 or Dante's Inferno (also multiplat!) could look like at 30.
Lets hope for an improved retail version, but we know how this usually goes. From my memory there is ONE game where that was actually the case (Motorstorm
R).That's definitely true. This generation offers the absolute best multiplatform releases we've ever had. This has never been the case in the past. Even last generation, there was always a pretty significant difference between a PS2 release and an XBOX version of the same game. Prior to that, the differences were even more profoundScrabbleBanshee said:I'm going to try to get the PS3 version today, the hype has got me...
Why PS3? Because it's all I've got or care to own so, easy choice. I specifically avoid reading agonizing about the differences between platforms and I always find that games always play just fine and I have a great time even with titles that people are bitching to no end about it being inferior on the PS3.
I don't know how many of you remember the old 8-bit and 16-bit days, now that was a time when multiplatform releases really needed comparisons done because the differences were vast and were immediately noticeable to even somebody who doesn't give a shit about videogames. The differences being discussed here for the most part are just fanboy ammo.
There is another more recent case as well (God of War 3). The difference between the demo and the final game was quite astounding. The final included vastly superior post processing (the demo had no motion blur), superior lighting, a much higher framerate, and more.While I agree that those effects are not easy to stem for the hardware, I'm still not seeing anything particularly mindblowing. Everything is taking place in a small constricted area!
60fps might be too rough, but the visuals do not warrant 24/25fps average. Just imagine what rock solid 60fps games like DMC4 or Dante's Inferno (also multiplat!) could look like at 30.
Lets hope for an improved retail version, but we know how this usually goes. From my memory there is ONE game where that was actually the case (Motorstorm
babyghost853
Member
Amir0x said:Well, i'm overenthusiastic about Uncharted 2's visuals, but as anyone from the Uncharted 2 thread can tell you, the product itself... while I liked it enough, I had some serious issues with the game. Mainly, I ran into a new bug or glitch every thirty minutes or so:
I also had some issues with the gameplay, specifically the ongoing debate about the mechanical, robotic "auto win" nature of Uncharted 2's platforming... which while a staple of the series at this point, is still a bone of contention with me.
Ok it's official now, you should just change your tag to "got game, will brake" at one point I though you just wanted to troll certain games, but now I see you have the worst luck in the entire gaming industry. How the fuck did you pull that off in uncharted?
Maybe it's his PS3? I've seen this kind of stuff happen with systems on the fritz. I loaded up Scott Pilgrim on a friends PS3, for instance, and it had serious problems. Despite being a simple 2D game, it took a long time to load, the music was broken, and the game ran at half the framerate. It's a console game, why did this happen?babyghost853 said:
I've seen stuff with characters simply falling through geometry or entire pieces of geometry disappearing (with a dying 360). Weird shit like this just happens when a system is having issues, it seems.
Windom Earle
Banned
dark10x said:
Yeah, the difference between GoW demo and release was HUGE. I wasn't impressed by the demo but the final game is gorgeous! But it doesn't really count because it was an extremely old E3 build and people knew there would be improvements with so much dev time left. Is the Castlevania build old? We don't know, but I would be surprised if it was.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
That would be a good explanation if it were only Ami's PS3 games that broke, haha.dark10x said:
Windom Earle
Banned
I've played through Uncharted 2 three times and I don't remember a single glitch!
electroshockwave
Member
Seriously Ami, I've platinumed U2 and played through it 3 times and not encountered a single bug(EDIT: in single-player that is, I've been victim to the invisible player glitch and people deliberately glitching in multi-player). Either something's wrong your PS3 or you've been marked by a gypsy curse.
I think the Castlevania demo is from E3 too. It's not as big a time difference as there was between the GoW3 demo and it's release but hopefully it's enough to make the frame rate more consistent.
schennmu said:
I think the Castlevania demo is from E3 too. It's not as big a time difference as there was between the GoW3 demo and it's release but hopefully it's enough to make the frame rate more consistent.
cjtiger300
Member
gogogow said:
Pretty sure I saw a demo with Cliff playing and he had a PS3 controller in hand. Can't remember where I saw it, but I remember being a little shocked that they were showing it on PS3.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
UC2 crashed on me once, but in its defence, there was a pretty decent earthquake shaking everything at the time.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Sure, you can go first, though. Tell us all about the differences between the two versions.MMaRsu said:
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
I just picked up my copy from EB/Gamestop. I powertraded Civilization Revolution and Demon's Souls (I wanted to love that game, but it was just too much work and not enough reward for my schedule). I got ~$21 for Civ (I think I paid $15 for it like a year ago), and ~$29 for Demon's Souls (I paid $30 for it from edge credit months and months ago).
So I'm happy, I got Castlevania for only around $15. Rarely do I actually feel like I'm getting a good deal out of trades to GS. PS3 version -- will try it soon (working from home office has it's perks).
So I'm happy, I got Castlevania for only around $15. Rarely do I actually feel like I'm getting a good deal out of trades to GS. PS3 version -- will try it soon (working from home office has it's perks).
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
I....uh played the demo of UC2.
It's pretty fun.
It's pretty fun.
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
I have nothing to compare against, but the retail PS3 version looks and runs great to my eyes. I don't know if any cutscene stuttering is being smoothed over a bit by the 120hz interpolation on my set or not -- I'm usually too lazy to bother switching it off when gaming.
The sound is particularly impressive so far, I have a fairly hefty home theater setup so I tend to notice these things more than the visuals. I'm still on the fence about the captain's voice in the game, though.
The sound is particularly impressive so far, I have a fairly hefty home theater setup so I tend to notice these things more than the visuals. I'm still on the fence about the captain's voice in the game, though.