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

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

S1kkZ said:
just played trough the 360 demo. biggest difference is the contrast. the picture of my ps3 demo is much brighter but i have trouble seeing the werewolfs in the rain fight. the 360 demo has better/deeper contrast. it looks darker but you dont loose picture information (details lost in the "black"). i can see the enemies much better in the 360 demo.

thats the only difference so far.
Click to expand...

I loved the darkness on the PS3 demo, I think its a design choice of having enemies disapear into the shadows, you can clearly see the wolfes seeking out shadows.

I love it,you can only see their eyes
 
Plywood said:
and if it ran at 60 fps you wouldve came bricks!!1

Also 30 fps is not butter smooth.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you obviously haven't played the game if you don't think Uncharted 2 runs butter smooth. I wouldn't trade less effects on screen for 60 fps with that game any day.

That being sad, it is a shame when a game can't lock there framerate at 30. Honestly, I think that should be the bare minimum when designing a game. If you can't achieve 30 locked, you need to take away some effects. Simple as that. Jumping from 20 to 30 is extremely jarring and should be avoided at all cost.
 
Graphics Horse said:
It's different these days but a lot of games did seem to get uglier the more you increased the resolution to me. Placing textures onto giant slabs of geometry has mixed results, and low resolution could hide some art problems and the boxy nature of the geometry.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree here. High resolutions work beautifully today, but there was a time when it simply revealed the simplistic nature of graphics. Games like MGS2 running at lower resolutions with lots of post processing appeared smoother and more detailed than they really were simply because fine details were obscured. A high resolution look at the game reveals blurry textures and other similar flaws.

We're beyond that point now and lower resolutions actually hide a lot of detail which is actually present. Definitely was not always the case, however.
 
Phloxy really doesn't know what he's talking about, even in the demo the game runs at 30fps in the sections where you fall off your horse.
 
Aside from the framerate discussions, does someone know which version is the better one?
edit: F it, I just ordered the PS3 version.
 
Purely going by the demo Xbox 360 and PS3 demo's play entirely the same. Framerate is the same (Gets stuttery during the cutscenes on both 360 and PS3), but the contrast seems much deeper/richer on 360.
 
I'm probably holding out for the digital foundry comparison before getting my copy. The only thing i dont like about playing with the dual shock is that my thumb usually brushes against the right analog stick a lot when i'm trying to hit the square button Xo It's annoying.
 
Horsebite said:
Purely going by the demo Xbox 360 and PS3 demo's play entirely the same. Framerate is the same (Gets stuttery during the cutscenes on both 360 and PS3), but the contrast seems much deeper/richer on 360.
Click to expand...
keep in mind PS3 is the leading platform and this studio making this game seems no so competent in terms of refining graphics (its last game was Jericho)
 
Horsebite said:
Purely going by the demo Xbox 360 and PS3 demo's play entirely the same. Framerate is the same (Gets stuttery during the cutscenes on both 360 and PS3), but the contrast seems much deeper/richer on 360.
Click to expand...

You can usually adjust your TV to get that "360 look" on PS3. I heavily noticed then when I ran Batman:AA side by side. Can't check 360 demo because it's the usual Gold membership bullshit.
 
If both versions run pretty close I think i'm just gonna side with the 360 version for better controller and achievements
 
Played the 360 demo. Seemed like it was constantly running at a lower average framerate. Understand this is fixed in the retail though?
 
AgentOtaku said:
Played the 360 demo. Seemed like it was constantly running at a lower average framerate. Understand this is fixed in the retail though?
Click to expand...
You seem to always try to talk yourself out of the 360 version :P
 
Tiduz said:
*euro rage*

i wish it was out now, one site says 15th and one where i preordered says 7th
Click to expand...

Should be 7th, I preordered it today and it's being prepared for shipment, so I assume it'll ship tomorrow.
 
I was kinda positive on buying this, but damn the demo sucks!

Funny thing, the complete opposite goes for Enslaved. That game is heavily on my radar after playing the demo.
 
Erasus said:
Seen this? PS3 Demo Framterate mapped out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjxmMEDuBZQ

Around 24-27 when in combat. 25 seems to be avarage
Click to expand...
A very odd video.

The scene with Gabriel sitting near the fire, for instance, comes in at 25 fps. It just so happens that it is also a pre-rendered video. 25 fps for a video? Very strange indeed.

This video makes it seem as if hte framerate is quite terrible, but in reality, it feels much smoother than this.

Game definitely seems to be triple buffered, which is why it hits those uneven framerates. I'm still not sure I understand why the pre-rendered stuff is coming up as 25 fps. It doesn't appear to have any significant judder either. Are we sure this analyzer is working properly?

Also, perhaps it's just youtube, but that video plays back much less smoothly than it should. It does not look as choppy in person as that video suggests.
 
schennmu said:
I was kinda positive on buying this, but damn the demo sucks!

Funny thing, the complete opposite goes for Enslaved. That game is heavily on my radar after playing the demo.
Click to expand...
Enslaved demo was shit.
 
Played the 360 demo, Noticed no framerate issues. If its a low framerate its atleast not jumping around or else i would notice.

It didnt effect gameplay at all.
 
dark10x said:
The scene with Gabriel sitting near the fire, for instance, comes in at 25 fps. It just so happens that it is also a pre-rendered video. 25 fps for a video? Very strange indeed.
Click to expand...

PAL is 25 fps. Mercury Steam is located in Europe. They probably encoded at 25 fps.
 
S1kkZ said:
just played trough the 360 demo. biggest difference is the contrast. the picture of my ps3 demo is much brighter but i have trouble seeing the werewolfs in the rain fight. the 360 demo has better/deeper contrast. it looks darker but you dont loose picture information (details lost in the "black"). i can see the enemies much better in the 360 demo.

thats the only difference so far.
Click to expand...
I don't have a PS3 anymore but I played the 360 demo and I had the same problem with the werewolves. I couldn't see them in the dark. It probably comes down to being the TV settings.
 
i just played each version of the demo back to back. they are really close. if anything, people should be giving props to mercury steam for delivering a solid running game on both platforms.

i'm a bit torn about which version to get myself. i prefer the 360's controller and the achievements would be cool, but the ps3 version appears to run a few frames per second higher. however, i prefer the 360's video output to the ps3. maybe i'll wait for the digital foundry comparison. i won't have time to dig into this for a few days anyway.

either way, single system owners shouldn't worry based on the demo. both versions appear to up to snuff. i don't think anyone is getting the short end of the stick on this one.
 
dark10x said:
A very odd video.

The scene with Gabriel sitting near the fire, for instance, comes in at 25 fps. It just so happens that it is also a pre-rendered video. 25 fps for a video? Very strange indeed.

This video makes it seem as if hte framerate is quite terrible, but in reality, it feels much smoother than this.

Game definitely seems to be triple buffered, which is why it hits those uneven framerates. I'm still not sure I understand why the pre-rendered stuff is coming up as 25 fps. It doesn't appear to have any significant judder either. Are we sure this analyzer is working properly?

Also, perhaps it's just youtube, but that video plays back much less smoothly than it should. It does not look as choppy in person as that video suggests.
Click to expand...

Im not really sure why the framerate overall is so low, I mean you have scenes in GoWIII which average far higher and look more impressive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCQGI-nULY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8Ydrmpb7c&feature=related
 
dark10x said:
A very odd video.

The scene with Gabriel sitting near the fire, for instance, comes in at 25 fps. It just so happens that it is also a pre-rendered video. 25 fps for a video? Very strange indeed.

This video makes it seem as if hte framerate is quite terrible, but in reality, it feels much smoother than this.

Game definitely seems to be triple buffered, which is why it hits those uneven framerates. I'm still not sure I understand why the pre-rendered stuff is coming up as 25 fps. It doesn't appear to have any significant judder either. Are we sure this analyzer is working properly?

Also, perhaps it's just youtube, but that video plays back much less smoothly than it should. It does not look as choppy in person as that video suggests.
Click to expand...
You still waving that flag eh :-)
brandonh83 said:
Not to mention it's not nearly as long and thus doesn't have as much content as LOS.
Click to expand...
GOW pushes the PS3 much harder than LOS so...
 
RavenFox said:
GOW pushes the PS3 much harder than LOS so...
Click to expand...

Not everything can be GOW3 or Uncharted 2, those I think are by far the two best looking games of the gen and they're both PS3 exclusives, utilizing the hardware. LOS has great texturing and incredible art direction and for me that goes a very long way.

GOW3 had its moments and while its more technically spectacular the entire time than LOS probably is, I thought GOW3 got creatively bankrupt starting about halfway through and the environments began to feel less and less impressive to me as I went.

So despite GOW3 looking technically better all-around and having a better framerate, I personally get more excited about the overall design of an environment and for me GOW3 got to be very lacking in that department, particularly the last couple of hours.

GOW3 had great texturing as well, better even, but when I look at LOS screenshots and watch videos, to me I find a more visually pleasing game because the art direction simply appeals to me more.
 
I am laughing at all the framerate bitching. As long as it stays at 24 or above, its fine.

I am glad they chose to make the game look good instead of aiming for a high framerate.


brandonh83 said:
Not everything can be GOW3 or Uncharted 2
Click to expand...
Bingo. Looking at the developer, this is a great effort and I hope they are rewarded.
 
DennisK4 said:
I am laughing at all the framerate bitching. As long as it stays at 24 or above, its fine.

I am glad they chose to make the game look good instead of aiming for a high framerate.



Bingo. Looking at the developer, this is a great effort and I hope they are rewarded.
Click to expand...

I'd say its right up with blue castle(?) and Dead Rising 2 (looks really nice, but has some framerate issues here and there, yet still well designed).
 
Teknoman said:
I'd say its right up with blue castle(?) and Dead Rising 2 (looks really nice, but has some framerate issues here and there, yet still well designed).
Click to expand...
What is blue castle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Diablo: IV | The Lord of Hatred Review Thread
Analysis  2
50
808
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
153
LavitzSlambert replied
Lords of the Fallen II devs debut new female-focused armor sets
2 3 4 5 6
284
753
Moriarty1889 replied
Top Bottom