• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread

dark10x said:
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.
Click to expand...

The controller is the difference for me. I hate using trigger-heavy games on the PS3. One reason I preferred Batman AA on the 360 controller. LT feels much more comfortable for blocking/evading on the 360 for Castlevania.

Is there an option to swap the L1/L2 buttons on the PS3 version?
 
electroshockwave said:
Originally Posted by schennmu:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

I've receive my promo press copy of Caslevania and i can confirm that we didn't have the GOWIII demo/full game case.

img0725zd.jpg


First level look exactly like the demo. I think that the framerate is also the same. It feels the same.

Of course we should wait DF analysis to confirm if there are any FPS differences between demo and full game. Bit image quality is exactly the same.

btw. The level after the demo don't have any rain and it's actually run evidently better.
 
Only difference I can see is the 360 version looks brighter contrast...ps3 looks a little more washed out...but the contrast in the 360 version looks a little out of wack/over exposed in a couple of the shots.
 
Looks like 360 looks just a little sharper, or maybe it's just me. Maybe MercurySteam used QAA on PS3? Either way, not a difference worth anyone's attention IMO.
 
They look similar to me.

Although the PS3 version seems to have "more" shadows.
 
Deepack said:
Looks like 360 looks just a little sharper, or maybe it's just me. Maybe MercurySteam used QAA on PS3? Either way, not a difference worth anyone's attention IMO.
Click to expand...

In one shot the 360's specular highlights were brighter, though that could have been due to different timing capturing the lightning flash. And in another shot the background looked crisper on 360. Otherwise I couldn't see any differences. In any case, they are so small that I doubt anyone could see them while the game is in motion.
 
Zeitgeister said:
The ground turns into a blurry mess quite quickly on the second screen...


and why on Earth am I even looking at the ground ffs :\ :/
Click to expand...

I don't see any blurry mess.

What I see other than contrast and brightness differences is virtual graphical parity.


alr1ghtstart said:
they seriously used 600px × 338px pictures to try to prove something...
Click to expand...

If you notice, they're cut-outs from full-resolution pictures. They aren't downscaled, they just wanted to focus on certain aspects of the visuals.
 
This isn't a comparison, but I can tell you the PS3 retail version does not run at a constant 30fps.....not even close. It is fucking gorgeous though, this is one good looking game.
 
Hmph, game does not run well at all. The framerate you see in the demo is basically how the game runs. I've completed five levels thus far and it is rarely smooth. It always has a bit of a judder going on. Was hoping it would be smoothed out, but no, it's not.

A damn shame, really, as the game is absolutely amazing looking. One of the most impressive things I've seen yet, really. That quality is spoiled by the poor framerate, though.

Game is pretty solid, though, and surprisingly varied. You really see and do a whole lot of different things in a very short period of time. I'm amazed they are able to hit 20 hours with this much variety. I've already seen enough locations to fill an entire game and, yet, they only keep you there for a fairly short amount of time. Usually, when you arrive in those sorts of areas you end up spending a good hour or two with that type of scenery. Not the case here.

If this were simply a rock solid 30 fps it would be the best looking multiplatform game I've seen to date.
 
dark10x said:
Hmph, game does not run well at all. The framerate you see in the demo is basically how the game runs. I've completed five levels thus far and it is rarely smooth. It always has a bit of a judder going on. Was hoping it would be smoothed out, but no, it's not.

A damn shame, really, as the game is absolutely amazing looking. One of the most impressive things I've seen yet, really. That quality is spoiled by the poor framerate, though.

Game is pretty solid, though, and surprisingly varied. You really see and do a whole lot of different things in a very short period of time. I'm amazed they are able to hit 20 hours with this much variety. I've already seen enough locations to fill an entire game and, yet, they only keep you there for a fairly short amount of time. Usually, when you arrive in those sorts of areas you end up spending a good hour or two with that type of scenery. Not the case here.

If this were simply a rock solid 30 fps it would be the best looking multiplatform game I've seen to date.
Click to expand...

360 or ps3?
 
2&2 said:
360 or ps3?
Click to expand...
PS3.

Based on the demo, however, I expect the 360 version to run even worse due to the lack of triple buffering. The average framerate on 360 is probably going to be 20 fps.

That said, the second chapter does seem to run much smoother than the first for some reason.
 
dark10x said:
PS3.

Based on the demo, however, I expect the 360 version to run even worse due to the lack of triple buffering. The average framerate on 360 is probably going to be 20 fps.

That said, the second chapter does seem to run much smoother than the first for some reason.
Click to expand...

How do you know for sure that PS3 is using triple buffering? Just based on performance?
 
2&2 said:
The controller is the difference for me. I hate using trigger-heavy games on the PS3. One reason I preferred Batman AA on the 360 controller. LT feels much more comfortable for blocking/evading on the 360 for Castlevania.

Is there an option to swap the L1/L2 buttons on the PS3 version?
Click to expand...

I use these, and I like them a lot:

a6yTp.jpg


I bought mine at Gamestop for $4.99. Here's an amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001IAOEXU/?tag=neogaf0e-20
 
Synless said:
This isn't a comparison, but I can tell you the PS3 retail version does not run at a constant 30fps.....not even close. It is fucking gorgeous though, this is one good looking game.
Click to expand...

Insane judder even when there's nothing onscreen. Makes it migraine-inducing for me to run through the environments at top speed. I have to walk... not that I mind too much, the game is beautiful and I like taking it all in. But it sucks when I want to hurry along after falling or something and the framerate makes my eyes hurt.
 
dark10x said:
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?

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.
Click to expand...

My PS3 was essentially brand new when this stuff happened - I had got my Slim in August right the same year Uncharted 2 came out. And it doesn't glitch out for most of my games.

babyghost853 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I forgot the exact sequence of events, but basically I didn't do anything out of the ordinary... I went to jump off a balcony to see if I could reach a ledge (thought maybe an artifact was hidden there, iirc) fter i cleared the room in stealth, and then my character literally just went through the wall and hung outside of the level. There was no way out of it, I had to fucking reload and do that horrific stealth segment again.

And yeah, my entire Uncharted 2 experience was littered with such bugs. Once, I stepped into a puddle and died instantly. I may be unlucky, but, i only report what I experience.

There is literally nothing wrong my PS3. Works flawlessly 99% of the time for all my games.
 
I got the 360 LE in the morning and played at a friend's house until the first real puzzle of the game, close to an hour. The framerate is identical to that of the demo during all action sequences. Whoever said the framerate improved from the demo lied. Halo Reach is a solid 30fps right? This game definitely feels as if its locked at a lower framerate. However, the framerate doesn't jump up or down, which is nice.

I like the game too much, enough to forgive its technical flaws and let myself get inmersed into the story. I would love to play this game at 60fps, but when you have the best graphics of any console game ever (yeah, I said it), I can forgive such a low framerate. Honestly, do yourself a favor and play this game, the graphics are a step above GOW, and the pace at which cutscenes are introduced make for a very cinematic experience.
 
rogue74 said:
How do you know for sure that PS3 is using triple buffering? Just based on performance?
Click to expand...
It's hitting framerates between 20 and 30 fps (mostly 25-ish). That is only possible with triple buffering or v-sync disabled (which it is not). 360 version also uses v-sync but is double buffered and drops straight from 30 to 20 fps (or lower) when slowdown occurs.
 
dark10x said:
It's hitting framerates between 20 and 30 fps (mostly 25-ish). That is only possible with triple buffering or v-sync disabled (which it is not). 360 version also uses v-sync but is double buffered and drops straight from 30 to 20 fps (or lower) when slowdown occurs.
Click to expand...
The fps drops but there is no slowdow. Also, the fps in the 360 version isn't jumpy either, it is just locked at something lower than 30fps.
 
godhandiscen said:
I got the 360 LE in the morning and played at a friend's house until the first real puzzle of the game, close to an hour. The framerate is identical to that of the demo during all action sequences. Whoever said the framerate improved from the demo lied. Halo Reach is a solid 30fps right? This game definitely feels as if its locked at a lower framerate. However, the framerate doesn't jump up or down, which is nice.

I like the game too much, enough to forgive its technical flaws and let myself get inmersed into the story. I would love to play this game at 60fps, but when you have the best graphics of any console game ever (yeah, I said it), I can forgive such a low framerate. Honestly, do yourself a favor and play this game, the graphics are a step above GOW, and the pace at which cutscenes are introduced make for a very cinematic experience.
Click to expand...

Best Looking game of all time?

Well to each there own but I can't say I agree with this.

Outside of that, I really got to say that I am kinda shocked at how many people are willing to be okay with a game that at least to me runs terrible no matter the graphics. Not to mention you got stuff like Vanquish, NFS HP and Crysis 2 coming out that all look great and run at much better frame rates.
 
Lostconfused said:
Rented the ps3 version. Yeah the frame rate seems to be better compared to the 360 demo.
Click to expand...


Yes ps3 framerate seems to be about 2-3 frames above 360 version on average...

and since we are talking already low fps this is actually kind of a big deal imo

PS3 version is definiately the better version (first multiplatform game with better - or not as bad - fps on ps3?)
 
SpokkX said:
Yes ps3 framerate seems to be about 2-3 frames above 360 version on average...

and since we are talking already low fps this is actually kind of a big deal imo

PS3 version is definiately the better version (first multiplatform game with better - or not as bad - fps on ps3?)
Click to expand...
No, FFXIII, Burnout paradise and a couple others are examples as well.
 
SpokkX said:
Yes ps3 framerate seems to be about 2-3 frames above 360 version on average...

and since we are talking already low fps this is actually kind of a big deal imo
Click to expand...
Yeah. The game looks great when it runs at a steady frame rate, wish there was PC release, because like Darksiders its probably the better way to play the game.
 
dark10x said:
It's hitting framerates between 20 and 30 fps (mostly 25-ish). That is only possible with triple buffering or v-sync disabled (which it is not). 360 version also uses v-sync but is double buffered and drops straight from 30 to 20 fps (or lower) when slowdown occurs.
Click to expand...

huh 20....25..man these are crazy numbers , PS3 and 360 are dated as fuck and developers will struggles with them more and more now ( and it bugs me why publishers want to put 3D and other shit when they can't even hit the lower acceptable limit for framerate , that 30fps) , there are more games run like shit by day , 60fps games with decent graphics are like golden dinosaurs now , we seriously need new consoles right now imo.
 
Why are people basing the fps comparisons on an old E3 demo when the developers said that even the review build of the 360 version isn't fully optimized?

Just wait for DF.
 
Truant said:
Why are people basing the fps comparisons on an old E3 demo when the developers said that even the review build of the 360 version isn't fully optimized?

Just wait for DF.
Click to expand...

Not every are basing it on that. There are several people in this thread that have gotten the retail copy and said it runs just as "good" as the demo versions.
 
Truant said:
Why are people basing the fps comparisons on an old E3 demo when the developers said that even the review build of the 360 version isn't fully optimized?

Just wait for DF.
Click to expand...

Read what godhandiscen posted above...
 
Truant said:
Why are people basing the fps comparisons on an old E3 demo when the developers said that even the review build of the 360 version isn't fully optimized?

Just wait for DF.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain we are basing these comparisons off the retail games we bought. Example, PS3 version has a shit framerate.

Ok, maybe shit is a bit harsh. Ill just say it's not a consistent 30fps by any means.
 
Totobeni said:
huh 20....25..man these are crazy numbers , PS3 and 360 are dated as fuck and developers will struggles with them more and more now ( and it bugs me why publishers want to put 3D and other shit when they can't even hit the lower acceptable limit for framerate , that 30fps) , there are more games run like shit by day , 60fps games with decent graphics are like golden dinosaurs now , we seriously need new consoles right now imo.
Click to expand...

Lets not go crazy now , GOW3 look just as good or even better and has twice the frame rate.
 
Looks like the game has no AA on 360 either. Yeah, to compare this to GoW3 in terms of technicals, doesn't make much sense really.

Ledsen said:
What. At least on 360, Enslaved has a waaaay better framerate.
Click to expand...
Based on the DF analysis on the demo it just has less tearing. 15% vs. 1.5%. The average framerate was only something like 1FPS higher on X360.

Amir0x said:
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.
Click to expand...
UC2 platforming is all about terrain traversal when you're not in the platforming sections of the game anyways. I'm thinking about the levels and situations like train and such. No one has yet matched that kind of freedom of movement while retaining the tightness and responsiveness of controls
 
Lord Error said:
Based on the DF analysis on the demo it just has less tearing. 15% vs. 1.5%. The average framerate was only something like 1FPS higher on X360.
Click to expand...
That was the average that was off by 1%, the dips themselves were far more dramatic on the PS3 so it appears like the framerate is worse.
 
got the 360 version because i prefer the controller for the triggers and square button. Let's see if i regret it Xo
 
Truant said:
Why are people basing the fps comparisons on an old E3 demo when the developers said that even the review build of the 360 version isn't fully optimized?

Just wait for DF.
Click to expand...
I got the retail today. The fps is the same as in the demo.
 
Lord Error said:
UC2 platforming is all about terrain traversal when you're not in the platforming sections of the game anyways.
Click to expand...

This comment seriously confused me. UC2's platforming is all about something other than platforming in something other than platforming sections? :lol
 
Totobeni said:
huh 20....25..man these are crazy numbers , PS3 and 360 are dated as fuck and developers will struggles with them more and more now ( and it bugs me why publishers want to put 3D and other shit when they can't even hit the lower acceptable limit for framerate , that 30fps) , there are more games run like shit by day , 60fps games with decent graphics are like golden dinosaurs now , we seriously need new consoles right now imo.
Click to expand...
Well that or you can play on PC.
Always-honest said:
why the fuck do sites keep doing that shit?
Click to expand...
Because as some one else pointed out. The comparison pick is a small part of the actual screen shot, they probably did so that the size of the full image wouldn't screw up the page and would actually fit.
 
cgcg said:
Looks like x360 version's contrast is all jacked up. Not surprising. Probably why some people think it's more vibrant just like how some people think their tv's torch mode is vibrant.
Click to expand...
I know, even the LE art book is the saddest excuse for an art book I have ever seen. Fuck, I just ripped off the OST tracks to my drive and they are not even properly tagged. Seriously, fuck you Konami.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Diablo: IV | The Lord of Hatred Review Thread
Analysis  2
50
805
Joramun replied
LTTP: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
2 3
117
1K
Hudo replied
Metal Gear Solid 4 Remaster | PS3 vs PS5 | Graphics Comparison Trailer
Trailer Platform  2 3
126
2K
AJUMP23 replied
Shadow of the Colossus and control
Opinion Retro Trailer 
15
149
LavitzSlambert replied
Lords of the Fallen II devs debut new female-focused armor sets
2 3 4 5 6
284
729
Moriarty1889 replied
Top Bottom