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

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

Kittonwy said:
WTF is going on in this thread. When did 24fps become the new 30fps?
Indifferent2.gif
Click to expand...

when it served to suit someone's argument.
 
Kittonwy said:
WTF is going on in this thread. When did 24fps become the new 30fps?
Indifferent2.gif
Click to expand...
Since I had the audacity to state I was OK with 24fps with these visulas rather than downgraded 30.


Gravijah said:
can we get back to arguing about which version of the game is superior? ;(
Click to expand...
I say PS3
 
It seems the avg framerate of gameplay in the ps3 demo is 27 and the 360 is 24. I wonder what the ps3 avg would be if the game was capped at 30.
 
I am still wondering why it's okay for this game to be 24fps and under.
GOW3 , DMC4 , NG2 ,Bayonetta are all games with 30fps plus on either system.
Yes Castlevania does look good but any dev can make a good looking game when they don't give fuck about locking the frame rate.
 
gundamkyoukai said:
I am still wondering why it's okay for this game to be 24fps and under.
GOW3 , DMC4 , NG2 ,Bayonetta are all games with 30fps plus on either system.
Yes Castlevania does look good but any dev can make a good looking game when they don't give fuck about the frame rate.
Click to expand...

OK to who?
 
Wait, even bigger news is Reach being sub-hd!!!!! I thought the pixel counters said 720p, I thought something was up. I thought maybe it was just the shitty grain filter at first. Mind = blown.
 
I just finished some epic battles in Capter 2. Never once saw the framerate dip. Is this a Slim thing? I swear, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I thought Uncharted 1's framerate was chuggier than this.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
I just finished some epic battles in Capter 2. Never once saw the framerate dip. Is this a Slim thing? I swear, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I thought Uncharted 1's framerate was chuggier than this.
Click to expand...
I have a PS3 fat and there is definitely fps dips consistently. There is no way Uncharted ran worse, in fact it looks like its running circles around this game. That said I've gotten used to the fps drops in Castlevania and it's not so bad anymore.
 
I remember a poster saying here that the game originally was called Lords of Shadow before the name Castlevania was added. Any truth about this? I want to know more about.

I bought the game yesterday, played a few levels of the 1st chapter up untill the beautifull forest, nice scenery.

Gameplay is good, platforming could be without the highlighting of where to jump too. Patrick Stewart is great voice to listen to. :D

I only encountered a hicup during a fight or cut scene, I can't remember. I have the 360 version installed on the hdd.
 
CadetMahoney said:
in this case regarding the performance i'd say it's like arguing whether you prefer shit over a little more shit. heh.
Click to expand...

Well if you said I could choose between having 3 more years to live, or 6 more years to live, I know which one I would choose.
 
DennisK4 said:
Since I had the audacity to state I was OK with 24fps with these visulas rather than downgraded 30.
Click to expand...

That implies that they had no choice but to decrease the frame rate to have visuals of this quality but as there are games like Uncharted 2 and GoW3 running at a higher frame rate we know that this is not true, which brings us back to developer incompetence as Amir0x said. MS have a lot to be commended for by producing a fantastic looking game with no tearing but the game's frame rate isn't defensible.
 
SHOTEH FOCK OP said:
Well if you said I could choose between having 3 more years to live, or 6 more years to live, I know which one I would choose.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to save my money, the performance is abysmal overall, yes I can live without playing it.
 
StickyFingers said:
I remember a poster saying here that the game originally was called Lords of Shadow before the name Castlevania was added. Any truth about this? I want to know more about.
Click to expand...

This is true. Though the concept was always Castlevania. Just isn't public at the time when it was revealed.

CadetMahoney said:
I'd prefer to save my money, the performance is abysmal overall, yes I can live without playing it.
Click to expand...

Or just pick it up later when the price goes down to your standards of purchasing the game. It's still worth the play through.
 
StickyFingers said:
I remember a poster saying here that the game originally was called Lords of Shadow before the name Castlevania was added. Any truth about this? I want to know more about.

I bought the game yesterday, played a few levels of the 1st chapter up untill the beautifull forest, nice scenery.

Gameplay is good, platforming could be without the highlighting of where to jump too. Patrick Stewart is great voice to listen to. :D

I only encountered a hicup during a fight or cut scene, I can't remember. I have the 360 version installed on the hdd.
Click to expand...

Turns out the game was always intended to be a Castlevania reboot. The CV name wasn't attached originally in order to keep it a secret, possibly in case the project started to go south and Mercurysteam dropped the ball.
 
Out of curiosity, I will try it on my 60GB and see if there is any difference compared to what I have seen thus far on my Slim.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
Has anyone either via Twitter or via an interview asked Mercury Steam and Konami why they chose to go with sub 30FPS?
Click to expand...

Maybe they though that "old movie reel" look made it more authentic?
(ok, that's just what I thought)

I figured during chapter 1 that was just an effect, but good lord does it get exhausting in chapter 2. And gives me a headache to boot. :(


There really is not excuse for a sub-30 framerate. Not in an adventure game and certainly not a typical console game. IF there had been a PC version, at least it would be obvious which one to buy. But I guess now you have the shitty version and the shittier version (with disk swap for the lulz).

And before we get ahead of ourselves: that's in terms of graphical annoyance.
 
Oh hay guys what's up in this thread. Here's my question: if I buy the PS3 version, will it force me to update from 3.3? I ask because I don't want to if I don't have to, I'm interested in the developing homebrew scene on the PS3. So if I need to, I'll go with the X360 version...but it seems rather definitive that the PS3 version is slightly superior, right?
 
DenogginizerOS said:
I just finished some epic battles in Capter 2. Never once saw the framerate dip. Is this a Slim thing? I swear, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I thought Uncharted 1's framerate was chuggier than this.
Click to expand...

No, it just means you're completely insensitive to low framerate and framerate drops.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
I just finished some epic battles in Capter 2. Never once saw the framerate dip. Is this a Slim thing? I swear, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I thought Uncharted 1's framerate was chuggier than this.
Click to expand...


You saw a whole hell of a lot of framerate dips in the 2nd chapter, dude.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
Nope. I didn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it, too.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is going to be provoked by the fact that you're enjoying the game... but if you didn't see framrate drops that means that you can't see them, not that they aren't there.
 
Amir0x said:
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.
Click to expand...
???
Though, it was confirmed is not sub-HD; unless 720p is no longer HD.

Native resolution for the game remains as per the alpha and beta code we previously analysed - 1152x720, with just a mild horizontal scaling up to 1280 pixels wide that is extremely difficult to detect by eye in most circumstances.
Click to expand...
Reach manages to up the resolution to nigh-on full 720p, while retaining HDR and employing an inordinate amount of dynamic lights - every needle from the needler is a bespoke light source, for example.
Click to expand...
Digital Foundry

No techie here, so I don't know.
Jut saying before more people (like Synless :p) think is the truth*.

*: Unless a more recent analysis was done or something; or the word "nigh on" being considered as "nearly HD"..

Getting Castlevania tomorrow, though won't play it till I finish Enslaved. But my friend's impressions are too darn positive to ignore. :lol


EDIT:
Just read about:
However, this time, the resolution has been upped a notch, to almost 720p.

The first run-downs and tests of the beta reveal that the image outputted by Halo Reach is still not a full 720p image, as the resolution is 1152 x 720 pixels — true 720 is 1280 x 720.

If we recall correctly (Wikipedia does), Halo 3 ran at 640p, upscaled to 720p. The native resolution of the game was 1152×640, so it appears that Reach adds another 80 or so lines of horizontal resolution.

However, this is no indication of the image quality, as Reach, judging from the beta, appears to render sharper images, better texture quality and generally display more eye-candy than its predecessor.
Click to expand...
So, I don't know..guess is not after all. :lol :lol


"On-topic"
Any comparisons of Castlevania running installed (360) to from disc?
I remember some games like Fable II running better installed (more stable in framerate, textures, etc.); though if the frame-rate was locked at 24 in some areas, well there's no improvement; right?
 
Are the framerate dips big in boss battles? (PS3 version, since that's the best right?)
Want to buy it but bad framerate could be annoying.
 
So, I don't know..guess is not after all. :lol :lol
Click to expand...

Halo Reach is sub hd, yes.

"On-topic"
Any comparisons of Castlevania running installed (360) to from disc?
I remember some games like Fable II running better installed(more stable in framerate, textures, etc.); though if the frame-rate was locked at 24 in some areas, well there's no improvement; right?
Click to expand...

Source? Isn't this just a mystery? You might get better loading times (worse for some older games), but why would you ever get a better framerate?
 
I have my game installed on the 360: everytime I use holy water on a group of guys it stutters or or I get choppy framerate. There was a few battles near the end
with the Necromancers and his horde of zombies
where it became a slideshow when I tossed holy water at them.

Could PS3 users answer if they got the same issue?
 
Ledsen said:
I don't think anyone is going to be provoked by the fact that you're enjoying the game... but if you didn't see framrate drops that means that you can't see them, not that they aren't there.
Click to expand...
I see framerate drops in other games, especially when they affect the gameplay. I am almost done with Chapter 2 on Hard and I have not encountered any framerates that made me think this game had problems. If there are problems, all I am pointing out is a) they are not seen by everyone and b) they don't break the game.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
I see framerate drops in other games, especially when they affect the gameplay. I am almost done with Chapter 2 on Hard and I have not encountered any framerates that made me think this game had problems. If there are problems, all I am pointing out is a) they are not seen by everyone and b) they don't break the game.
Click to expand...

I'm halfway through chapter 2, so I don't know if I've gotten to the parts everyone thinks are the worst, but I haven't really noticed anything so far. Maybe once or twice its dipped noticeably, but people are making this out to be Shadow of the Colossus level, which is ridiculous. This is one of the most impressive games I have ever played.

Back in my day we put up with NES slowdown and we liked it.
 
Does the framerate fluctuate wildly or is it consistently at around 24fps? If its consistent then that could explain why some people don't notice it. Its more obvious whena game dips by 5+ frames than if its just constantly at a sub 30fps.
 
leng jai said:
Does the framerate fluctuate wildly or is it consistently at around 24fps? If its consistent then that could explain why some people don't notice it. Its more obvious whena game dips by 5+ frames than if its just constantly at a sub 30fps.
Click to expand...

The frame rate is relatively consistent. However, over the course of the game, the framerate will be anywhere from sub 30 to near 60. In the first chapter and a half the framerate never seems to reach 30 and the result is a very choppy and headache enducing experience. However, in later levels the framerate establishes a more consistent 30+ level and only dips during the more intense action sequences.
 
FirstInHell said:
The game looks amazing. The framerate is fine and I have noticed none of the 'issues' everyone is whining about.
Click to expand...
It irritates me when people imply that there is no problem with the game simply because they don't seem to notice. The numbers are there. You can see the framerates in the Eurogamer article. Claiming it is fine simply proves that you are immune to performance issues.
 
Not actually bothered by the framerate, on PS3. The thing that annoys me is the noisy image quality. Kinda reminds me a bit of the first Uncharted. It's mostly a problem in areas with lots of alpha stuff, such as forests.
 
Truant said:
Not actually bothered by the framerate, on PS3. The thing that annoys me is the noisy image quality. Kinda reminds me a bit of the first Uncharted. It's mostly a problem in areas with lots of alpha stuff, such as forests.
Click to expand...
Uncharted actually had 2x MSAA, though.
 
Allow me to bring this thread into greener pastures, by subtly derailing it from its original purpose.

Who the hell are MercurySteam and why are they so awesome? I wonder if it's located in a dungeon somewhere in Spain filled with hundreds of ex-demosceners, working while fearing the whip.

Is the engine tech pre-existent, done by other Konami teams and they just used it?

Was the incredible artwork and art direction conceived in-house or was it done elsewhere (partly at least) by Konami or even outsourced?

Wat!
 
Sometimes I happy that I don't reward lousy developers. Can't maintain a solid 30 nor is the 360 version up to par. It's kind of depressing when visual flair is replacing solid performance.
 
dark10x said:
It irritates me when people imply that there is no problem with the game simply because they don't seem to notice. The numbers are there. You can see the framerates in the Eurogamer article. Claiming it is fine simply proves that you are immune to performance issues.
Click to expand...

If they don't notice, there's no problem for them. I don't see why someone else whining about framerate has to ruin the experience for somebody else.
 
shintoki said:
Sometimes I happy that I don't reward lousy developers. Can't maintain a solid 30 nor is the 360 version up to par. It's kind of depressing when visual flair is replacing solid performance.
Click to expand...

So you haven't bought any multiplatform games, because they are (usually) worse on the PS3?
 
ScrabbleBanshee said:
If they don't notice, there's no problem for them. I don't see why someone else whining about framerate has to ruin the experience for somebody else.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should not enter the thread then, or at least read the OP?
 
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
152
LavitzSlambert replied
Lords of the Fallen II devs debut new female-focused armor sets
2 3 4 5 6
284
738
Moriarty1889 replied
Top Bottom