-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
brandonh83
Banned
RavenFox said:
I may have removed it from the OT but that didn't remove it from the game :lol
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Amir0x said:
I'd actually rather it was consistent than dropping to 24. At least with a consistent shitty frame rate, you can play accordingly and work with it.
Is it confirmed that the PS3 version is THE version to get? I'm happy to get it in that case.
RoninChaos
Member
24 frames a second, if constant, isn't bad. Most movies are at 24 frames a second. Frame hiccups will ruin the game, but there isn't that much of a difference between 24 and 30 fps if it's constant, imo. I just hope the game is good.
RoninChaos
Member
What's the problem? I said if the frame rate was constant, it shouldn't be a problem and offered a comparison. Frame rates skipping is what makes things unplayable, not a game sticking at 24 frames a second rather than 30. Now, if you turn the character and the game drops to 10, I could see that being a valid complaint.
But since I'm obviously don't have a college degree in frame rate analysis, maybe you could enlighten me?
But since I'm obviously don't have a college degree in frame rate analysis, maybe you could enlighten me?
RoninChaos said:
the problem is the bolded argument. relative to your position that it's "ok" to you, that's your personal preference even if it's an embarrassingly low standard to set for games
but saying movies are at 24fps that makes it fine for games is just a ridiculous argument that betrays your knowledge of framerates
um, although the game is playable and runs fine, comparing 24 (for movies) to 30 fps (today's gaming standard) is not a winning argument. most games don't run at 24fps for a reason, dude. it's kinda like how some people try to argue that there's no noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p. i say get your eyes checked.
but whatever, i hate when threads turn into a technical pissing contest.
but whatever, i hate when threads turn into a technical pissing contest.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Even when the thread topic is a technical pissing contest?Zeal said:
Segata Sanshiro said:
thought we were just comparing how the 360 and ps3 versions run. i'm actually gonna throw down a little money and get both versions of this game though, something i normally never do. just a big castlevania fan and wanna support a smaller developer after enjoying the game so much.
wish the US version came with the badass God Mask thing or whatever. i'd let my dog wear it for halloween. (cat wears the Spartan helmet)
I really wish more powerful hardware was announced and coming soon. Games this gem look good but are already pushing the limits of the hardware and have no room to grow. I'd love to see 60 FPS games at the graphical fidelity we have in games like Castlevania. I'll wait for more opinions before choosing a version but I wish it would run at a higher FPS on both consoles because it looks amazing.
Frostburn said:
This topic probably deserves it's own thread, but consumers are partly to blame unfortunately
60+fps looks incredible in motion and plays better (literally, faster response time)
But 30fps usually allows for more graphical effects
Most people will go for the 'ooh shiny' over the slightly less tangible benefits of a higher framerate. Try to explain input lag and your average gamer bro's eyes are going to glaze over (shit, I'd argue a fair number of developers could learn a thing or two about this)
Insomniac's decision to drop 60fps for the next Ratchet was a real bummer
But yes, I personally hate it. 60fps or death.
On some PC/console cross platform titles, I end up having to weigh my preference for razor sharp precision mouse control and 60fps vs 30fps and a wider group of friends to play the game with (not a knock on analog sticks incidently, I'm fine with either input in multiplayer games, because we're all on the same level playing field - I am quite curious to see if Move starts spanking regular controller users though!)
While there are some high profile 60fps games, they're painfully rare, and in terms of competitive multiplayer games, Call of Duty is one of the few that keeps the framerate up and the input lag down.
But to avoid derailing this entirely, I'll say that I can _generally_ accept 30fps for single player games a bit more readily. The fact that this game is part action game is a bummer though, given that I just finished playing through Bayonetta on every difficulty level
Bring on the comparisons, I could get either build, so I'd like to know which version to pick up, or if I can just get whatever version I prefer the controller for if they're close.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
One early observation of the PS3 demo that I haven't seen mentioned yet in the other thread is that the cutscenes are indeed video files, rendered using their engine. Macroblocking is not very bad, but it can be seen in shadow areas.
Also the XMB highlight music for this demo is stupidly loud!
Framerate is a little disappointing in this demo, after playing GoW3 (I can definitely tell it's a constant sub-30FPS, even if not by much) and the controls are not the best either. There's a weird feeling of character having an 8-direction lock when you run around with him. It doesn't really have direction lock, but it looks like it does.
It's a level with rain though, so maybe the framerate is constant 30 where there's no atmospheric effects.
Not all the cutscenes are videos - those that happen in the breaks of the action, like the giant wolf breaking through, are rendered realtime. The one where hero is leaving the village is realtime as well. The intro and the one where he sits by the fire are videos though.
Demo has no AA, but I guess shaders and texture filtering are done in such a way that it doesn't seem like a big deal. The graphics are in fact quite impressive.
Also the XMB highlight music for this demo is stupidly loud!
Framerate is a little disappointing in this demo, after playing GoW3 (I can definitely tell it's a constant sub-30FPS, even if not by much) and the controls are not the best either. There's a weird feeling of character having an 8-direction lock when you run around with him. It doesn't really have direction lock, but it looks like it does.
It's a level with rain though, so maybe the framerate is constant 30 where there's no atmospheric effects.
Not all the cutscenes are videos - those that happen in the breaks of the action, like the giant wolf breaking through, are rendered realtime. The one where hero is leaving the village is realtime as well. The intro and the one where he sits by the fire are videos though.
Demo has no AA, but I guess shaders and texture filtering are done in such a way that it doesn't seem like a big deal. The graphics are in fact quite impressive.
AlStrong said:
They all have their pecadillos. Digital Foundry articles often mix editorializing in with the more objective analysis, without making much of a distinction for their readers. Which an issue since most of the analysis isn't (wasn't?) done by the guy writing the articles.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Combichristoffersen said:
REALLY? :lol
Wolves Evolve
Member
I don't like games to be over 30fps, in fact - if a game is 60fps, I won't buy it. I've retrofitted my gaming tastes to this arbitrary notion and so I now argue its a major force in game design. 60 frames a second; no attempt at proper level pacing.
Oh don't mind me, just trying out irrational madness and seeing how it fits.
Its not that I don't believe you all think its important, its just that I think you all suffer from graphics poisoning. It is possible to enjoy the look of a lower framerate, too. It may not suit the games culture narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that some people do.
I'm not saying the game won't suck, it might well, but come awn fellahs.
Oh don't mind me, just trying out irrational madness and seeing how it fits.
Its not that I don't believe you all think its important, its just that I think you all suffer from graphics poisoning. It is possible to enjoy the look of a lower framerate, too. It may not suit the games culture narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that some people do.
I'm not saying the game won't suck, it might well, but come awn fellahs.
Wolves Evolve said:
hm judging from the serious parts of your post, seems like you never stopped trying out that irrational madness
Alt: Visuals are a major, massive part of any gaming package, and the framerate being one of the most important parts of that. A 24fps framerate is unacceptable. Lower your standards any further and your face will be eating shit in some Deadwood Gutter.
Fun Factor
Formerly FTWer
Amir0x said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this game has a fixed non controllable camera throughout & has high quality motion blur?
This would pretty much negate the negative things about if it is 24fps.
It's not like a FPS or TPS.
manzo
Member
The only thing keeping me buying the PS3 version is the fucking Playstation joypad, which really is in a need of a redesign.
Hate the position of the left stick. Hate the mushy R2/L2 even with RealTriggers.
Is there an adapter that I can use with the PS3 that allows me to use a wired 360 controller?
Hate the position of the left stick. Hate the mushy R2/L2 even with RealTriggers.
Is there an adapter that I can use with the PS3 that allows me to use a wired 360 controller?
24 frames per second, when done right, isn't a real problem. The main issue here is that your console is still outputting a 60 fps video stream (that's all it can do), and so you get this pattern:RoninChaos said:
Display a frame twice, display the next one three times, then 2, then 3.
It's called judder, and it's very annoying.
It will be interesting to see if they did a proper 2:3 pulldown telecine (assuming the game is really locked at 24 fps) when running at 1080i resolution, but I doubt they did.
shouamabane
Member
shouamabane
Member
ZeroRay said:
According to the Arcade Stick Thread it works fine.
I'm not really bothered by occasional framedrops. I play on consoles, and it's the way it goes most of the time. I have no problems with it. If a game has 60 fps on a console, great!
But, I played the LoS demo and was blown away by the audiovisual presentation, the only thing bothering me was te constant low framerate... it did not drop though, but it was noticably low at all times.
I await Digital Foundry's analysis for my final purchase. If the average framerate is higher in the 360 build, then I'll go for that version. Right now I'm leaning towards PS3, because I like the dual shock better for these kind of games.
But, I played the LoS demo and was blown away by the audiovisual presentation, the only thing bothering me was te constant low framerate... it did not drop though, but it was noticably low at all times.
I await Digital Foundry's analysis for my final purchase. If the average framerate is higher in the 360 build, then I'll go for that version. Right now I'm leaning towards PS3, because I like the dual shock better for these kind of games.
Blimblim said:
This would be nice, if it is in fact locked at 24 fps
I'm assuming it _does_ have motion blur at all times?
Actually if they did that, I could live stream the game at 1080i to show it off.
In any case, I will be streaming this game live come Tues/Wed whenever it comes out, so for anyone who wants to see it in action before making a decision, you can just tune in and watch.
RoninChaos said:
You do know that movies have built in motion blur, making the low framerate pretty much unnoticeable, right? Example: Take a screenshot of a moving object in a movie. It will be blurred, since it's filmed from a real object that doesn't update 24 times/second but an infinite number of times. Now take a screenshot from a moving object in a game. It won't be blurred (unless the dev implemented motion blur) because this time, the thing being "filmed" has the same framerate as the "camera" (24 fps). So unless your game has the same amount of motion blur that a movie has naturally, it won't look even close to as smooth.
RoninChaos
Member
Thanks for a response that actually told me something rather than "OMG YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT FRAME RATES" because I obviously don't have the knowledge that most here do. Or maybe others are just jumping on the bandwagon and are just as in the dark as me but don't want to appear that way.Blimblim said:
I wasn't aware that kind of thing caused judder. Preciate it.
And to Ledson, I appreciate that response too. I wasn't aware of that.
PjotrStroganov
Member
The first thing that struck me in the demo was the lack of aa. This is one cerated looking game. Then I though, is this realtime? It looks gorgeous! Framerate never bothered me tbh.
Wolves Evolve
Member
Amir0x said:
I notice terrible textures more than I do framerate problems. One recent example, I have Dragon Age on both 360 and PS3, one has quite terrible textures, the other has quite unstable framerate.
I don't disagree that I would prefer 60fps, in fact my ideal is Douglas Trumbull's 72fps for any source, he experimented with hundreds of speeds and found that beyond 72, the human eye was only ever gaining imperceptible quality of vision and therefore it should be considered a practical plateau.
My point is this - in an era with shocking textures still abound, with horrific colour palettes, with badly done motion blurring ... there's a lot of other things to be concerned about visually.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
In some instances, I think 60 is TOO smooth. Sure, many of you will laugh and commit suicide (OMFG at some of your comments) but it's my opinion. But of course I wouldn't NOT buy a game nor would I rather die if a game were 60fps. I'd like to know what caused some of you to suffer this much over stuff like this.
If I played a game that featured a giant, hulking beast swinging up some rafters and dropping down onto the battlefield, I'd prefer that scene be 30fps over 60fps anyday. Seeing something like that with (too) crisp and fluid animations would look so jarring. I wish I had the sources to post side by side footage of a scene similar to that in both 30 and 60 to better defend my POV but I don't. Does anyone have access to SotC 30 and 60fps footage of the same battle?
For gameplay reasons, i get your point. But Castlevania works perfectly fine the way it is for what it is trying to do. Edit: But something like DMC which requires specific frames to access specific moves... yeah, 60 is necessary.
If I played a game that featured a giant, hulking beast swinging up some rafters and dropping down onto the battlefield, I'd prefer that scene be 30fps over 60fps anyday. Seeing something like that with (too) crisp and fluid animations would look so jarring. I wish I had the sources to post side by side footage of a scene similar to that in both 30 and 60 to better defend my POV but I don't. Does anyone have access to SotC 30 and 60fps footage of the same battle?
For gameplay reasons, i get your point. But Castlevania works perfectly fine the way it is for what it is trying to do. Edit: But something like DMC which requires specific frames to access specific moves... yeah, 60 is necessary.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Framerate is more than just a visual thing. It's a gameplay responsiveness and fluidity thing, too.Wolves Evolve said:
brandonh83
Banned
As much as Ami is going to hate and flame and tear this post asunder, I'm going to make it anyway. That said this is just a general opinion about the matter that I feel like getting out.
I think there is validity to the opinion that a lower framerate (30, maybe just a bit under even) does give a game a much different feel than one that runs at super silky framerates. I don't know that I would say it makes something more "cinematic" but I don't know that I would want this game to be butter smooth; I think the lower framerate accommodates the atmosphere for Castlevania-- it's a very dark and medieval and by that very nature I don't think it should be ultra-smooth. I know the counter argument to that is that the game doesn't necessarily need to be 60fps as long as it runs fine and doesn't hinder the gameplay and I understand that. I think there's a difference between a game having a good, solid framerate and a game where the framerate issues conflicts with the gameplay.
I remember when Ocarina of Time came out and I played the demo at Wal-Mart (good times!) and even at age 14 I was like "this doesn't really run as smoothly as I'd hoped." But when I got the game, the framerate clicked with me especially when I got to the Forest Temple. Wait, I know, it's an old N64 game so expectations are different, but it still applies to this debate because when I got to the Forest Temple and the very haunting, dark and just insanely great atmosphere made me really appreciate the lower framerate. I just think that there's a difference between low framerates and bad framerates. Ocarina of Time had a lower framerate that helped accentuate its atmosphere and I feel the same way about Castlevania. Playing the demo and watching the numerous gameplay videos have not given me the impression that the framerate is bad, it's just low to accommodate the atmosphere. Now, as I mentioned in the other thread, I was watching a live stream of the 360 version and it slowed down considerably during combat with dozens of enemies-- that's bad framerate. However, most of the time, it ran very steadily and did not impede gameplay in any fashion.
This may sound silly to you (not just you Ami, not really trying to single you out here because I know others will find the argument just as dumb) but I absolutely do feel that way. Always have; I'm not lowering my framerate standards just to defend this game. If I played the demo and the framerate was bad enough to notice I would be complaining about it just as much as the next person, but it didn't, and again I don't think this is a game where Call of Duty framerates are necessary. To me the way the game runs is simply hand-in-hand with the mood of the the game. And considering the amount of detail and really, really good texture work, I'm very pleased with how it runs.
I think there is validity to the opinion that a lower framerate (30, maybe just a bit under even) does give a game a much different feel than one that runs at super silky framerates. I don't know that I would say it makes something more "cinematic" but I don't know that I would want this game to be butter smooth; I think the lower framerate accommodates the atmosphere for Castlevania-- it's a very dark and medieval and by that very nature I don't think it should be ultra-smooth. I know the counter argument to that is that the game doesn't necessarily need to be 60fps as long as it runs fine and doesn't hinder the gameplay and I understand that. I think there's a difference between a game having a good, solid framerate and a game where the framerate issues conflicts with the gameplay.
I remember when Ocarina of Time came out and I played the demo at Wal-Mart (good times!) and even at age 14 I was like "this doesn't really run as smoothly as I'd hoped." But when I got the game, the framerate clicked with me especially when I got to the Forest Temple. Wait, I know, it's an old N64 game so expectations are different, but it still applies to this debate because when I got to the Forest Temple and the very haunting, dark and just insanely great atmosphere made me really appreciate the lower framerate. I just think that there's a difference between low framerates and bad framerates. Ocarina of Time had a lower framerate that helped accentuate its atmosphere and I feel the same way about Castlevania. Playing the demo and watching the numerous gameplay videos have not given me the impression that the framerate is bad, it's just low to accommodate the atmosphere. Now, as I mentioned in the other thread, I was watching a live stream of the 360 version and it slowed down considerably during combat with dozens of enemies-- that's bad framerate. However, most of the time, it ran very steadily and did not impede gameplay in any fashion.
This may sound silly to you (not just you Ami, not really trying to single you out here because I know others will find the argument just as dumb) but I absolutely do feel that way. Always have; I'm not lowering my framerate standards just to defend this game. If I played the demo and the framerate was bad enough to notice I would be complaining about it just as much as the next person, but it didn't, and again I don't think this is a game where Call of Duty framerates are necessary. To me the way the game runs is simply hand-in-hand with the mood of the the game. And considering the amount of detail and really, really good texture work, I'm very pleased with how it runs.