nelsonroyale
Member
Just got this on ps3...got to just after the demo and the game looks good, but coming off GoW3, is a little jarring...especially on the aliasing front.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
The demo had an atrocious framerate. I really wish there was a PC port so I could play this at 60fps and at higher resolutions.
That said, it was still perfectly playable. It's only once a game dips below 20fps that I struggle to play the darn thing. It's not ideal, it does show a lack of technical competence on the part of the developer, but it doesn't make it unplayable. It's a slow paced game with slow-paced combat. I'll play and enjoy the game in spite of its technical ineptitude.
That said, it was still perfectly playable. It's only once a game dips below 20fps that I struggle to play the darn thing. It's not ideal, it does show a lack of technical competence on the part of the developer, but it doesn't make it unplayable. It's a slow paced game with slow-paced combat. I'll play and enjoy the game in spite of its technical ineptitude.
Trunchisholm
Member
Amir0x said:
Actually, Halo 3/ODST had VERY impressive tech. I suggest you have a look at the DF articles on both games. The problem with those games was the IQ/artstyle killing all their visual appeal.
There were arguably three main areas in which Halo 3 fell short from the point of view of its visuals: human models (with the faces being absolutely horrid), lack of antialising and lack of proper texture filtering. The first one is mostly an art issue, whereas the other two were compromises they had to make accomodate their other effects within their engine. Halo 3 would have looked fantastic with some form of antialiasing and the same anisotropic filtering level (4x?) as Reach. The released game, though, is a jaggy fest, and the excellent textures are just a blurry mess thanks to the bilinear filtering Bungie used.
That sound like the "lazy developer" talk you would hear every now and then. Bungie are very competent when it comes to tech. The fact that the games is (barely) sub-HD means zilch. So are many other games that people consider to look great. You also have to take into account the amount of shit that goes on in Halo, with lots of vehicles, enemy and friendly models, along with their AI. I find it very hard to make any comparisons to other visually outstanding games that might be valid considering that very few of them, if any, have the same scale.
No developer is without flaws. Calling Bungie incompetent from a technical standpoint is quite a stretch. You can argue with some of their decisions and the compromises they've made with their engine, but you seem to forget about all the things that they've done right with it, which are a lot. I am not a Bungie fanboy, and I certainly will be one to say that Halo 3/ODST are among the most visually appealling games out there, but the've managed to do some really impressive stuff with the 360 hardware, pushing the system more than almost any other developer on the platform. The problem with Reach is that they might have pushed the system a bit too far without having enough time to optimize the framerate, which might annoying at times but, for most people, that's hardly game-breaking.
From an artistic point of view, they sure have made strides with Reach, but they're still behind other studios. I for one am looking forward to see what they come up with now that the've gone down the multiplatform route.
Amir0x said:
When you will find an FPS with the scale, the skyboxes, the amount of characters vehicles and (high-res) particles on screen with this good enemy AI and object motion blur, SSAO and beautiful lighting that runs at 720p with no frame drops and still looks better then Reach on the consoles then we'll talk again about Bungie's incompetence...until then leave Reach out of this graphics discussion because you clearly can't see/understand what makes Reach even at it's current state a very impressive achievement.
Basically the New Alexandria level alone is enough to make all this incompetence talk sound even more ignorant and irrational.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
30 fps is a pretty shit standard too. I'm sorry, but adding 5 fps to games doesn't make them feel *that* much better. I would never play a PC game at 30 fps (other than the occasional game that is infuriatingly locked). Thank god I have control over that.
Castlevania would have looked amazing at an actual 1080p+8xAA+60 fps triple-buffered. I would have pre-ordered.
Castlevania would have looked amazing at an actual 1080p+8xAA+60 fps triple-buffered. I would have pre-ordered.
DevilWillcry
Member
Feindflug said:
brain_stew
Member
You know, I have a feeling the framerate in Reach would have been just fine if they implemented triple buffering. Its the harsh drops and inconsistant judder produced by a double buffer vsynced games on the edge of a 30fps framerate that is wreaking havoc, not the actual internal engine tick rate.
I really wish Microsoft did something about the seemingly complete lack of triple buffering support on the 360, its ruining an awful ot of games that would have been just fine on the platform (like Reach, DR2 and Castlevania) if they offered support for triple buffering. From what I understand its a tools and control issue rather than a hardware problem, so the blame lies on Microsoft's sholdours alone. Its as if they're intentionally gimping the system's games, there's a good reason why triple buffering support as become near ubiquitous on the PS3 these days as it gives a tremendous boost in performance without introducing game breaking tearing.
Did they fuck. That overkill HDR implementation (that doesn't even match the results of standard FP16, fyi) doesn't excuse the fact they dropped the ball in damn near every other area. It was a very small upgrade over Halo 2 and still had just about the worst image quality experienced this gen. Technically speaking Halo 3 was an utter disaster and a letdown of epic proportions and the gigantic strides they made with Reach only reinforce that.
I really wish Microsoft did something about the seemingly complete lack of triple buffering support on the 360, its ruining an awful ot of games that would have been just fine on the platform (like Reach, DR2 and Castlevania) if they offered support for triple buffering. From what I understand its a tools and control issue rather than a hardware problem, so the blame lies on Microsoft's sholdours alone. Its as if they're intentionally gimping the system's games, there's a good reason why triple buffering support as become near ubiquitous on the PS3 these days as it gives a tremendous boost in performance without introducing game breaking tearing.
Trunchisholm said:
Did they fuck. That overkill HDR implementation (that doesn't even match the results of standard FP16, fyi) doesn't excuse the fact they dropped the ball in damn near every other area. It was a very small upgrade over Halo 2 and still had just about the worst image quality experienced this gen. Technically speaking Halo 3 was an utter disaster and a letdown of epic proportions and the gigantic strides they made with Reach only reinforce that.
DennisK4 said:
The funny thing is that the 90% of the game runs at silky smooth 30fps with the exception being the end of the 9th level and some spots at the last area of the 10th level where the game drops frames...in general the game runs just fine and considering what the game does and how old is the hardware of the 360 Bungie did an amazing work with Reach's presentation.
Now about Castlevania: LoS I played about an hour yesterday the 360 version and even though the frame-rate is indeed almost always below 30fps the fixed camera helps a lot - if they went with free camera the problem would've been much bigger...still perfectly playable as long as the game's low frame-rate doesn't affect the controls.
Still an amazing looking game with some really beautiful areas.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I thought this game in particular looked prettier than usual. The lighting and the rain effects were damn pretty. The modelling looked great too.DennisK4 said:
DennisK4 said:
What really makes me wonder is, how Mercury system got contact with Konami EU ?
Was there ever a closed contest around some not AAA studios,or
once they tried to find a publisher for their future project which was under initial concept phase,Konami let them join the small race with KCEJ internal studios.
I prefer Reach as an actual game, however, so Bungie wins!ScrabbleBanshee
Member
All I have to add is that I bought GOW3 day one, and still have yet to play it past like the second level... I just lost interest, but it could have been me trying to be cool and starting off at the highest difficulty and getting frustrated early on.
At any rate, I am having a better time with Castlevania so far. There are some areas that have frustrated me already because they have given me really no guidance as to what the hell I should be doing. Particularly frustrating in combat situations that require that you do something other than just hack and slash. There is some "fuck that was unfair" in this game.
There have been a few moments when my wife would come over and ask me "Aren't you supposed to be having fun?" :lol
At any rate, I am having a better time with Castlevania so far. There are some areas that have frustrated me already because they have given me really no guidance as to what the hell I should be doing. Particularly frustrating in combat situations that require that you do something other than just hack and slash. There is some "fuck that was unfair" in this game.
There have been a few moments when my wife would come over and ask me "Aren't you supposed to be having fun?" :lol
brain_stew
Member
Stallion Free said:
Well that might have something to do with the fact that neither console is anywhere near to handling the game at an acceptable performance level! :lol
They overshot the mark, they should have either pared back a lot of stuff or saved them for a PC release if that is the only platform capable of delivering their vision (which these consoles clearly are not). Such a shame the game is going to be forever gimped and always a shadow of what it could have been. At least with titles like Mafia 2 and DR2 where the console hardware wasn't up to the job, there's a PC release that can actually deliver the game as intended. Framerates are definitely getting lower these days it seems, I don't mind it when there's the salvation of an eventual PC release (heck, in those cases bring those consoles to their knees for all I care! :lol ) but when there's not its utterly inexcusable as its a blight the game will forever have to bear.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
....what? I wouldn't call a 1-2 frame difference a tremendous performance boost. And it certainly doesn't give a performance boost over no v-sync which is what you make it sound like due to your wording. Triple-buffering is a great way to get rid of tearing, but don't act like it's a 30 vs 60 fps scale difference.brain_stew said:
Segata Sanshiro
Member
:lol 15 FPS at timesWickedLaharl said:
More like Lords of Slideshow
brain_stew
Member
Stallion Free said:
When it stops the harsh drops to 20fps and the incessant juddering associated with it, then yes, I'll rightly call it a tremendous performance boost. Heavy tearing is never an alternative, no matter how high the supposed FPS count, games with tearing always look like a stuttering, juddering and garbled mess.
I'm not "acting like its a 30 vs 60 fps scale difference" but compared to the alternatives, then yes, it can produce a much more pleasing result in terms of visual consistancy. Constant shifts between a 20 and 30hz refresh or incessant tearing are both deplorable alterantives. If you're damn close to a perfect 30hz refresh, then yes, a soft vsynvc solution can work just fine but when you're not at all close to that (like in some of the games I mentioned) then anything other than triple buffering is going to look like shit.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
DevilWillcry said:
brain_stew
Member
DennisK4 said:
Worth noting that this difference isn't actually caused by the hardware running the engine faster either, its all down to the PS3 version supporting triple buffering which prevents it from having to run large periods of gameplay at a ridiculous locked 20fps.
Get that shit sorted Microsoft, its wrecking the games on your platform.
www.instantrimshot.nlSegata Sanshiro said:
plagiarize
Banned
people will never get it that don't get it.brain_stew said:
tearing doesn't bother me much, for example, but i don't claim that people it bothers are overly picky or whatever.
i couldn't handle a dual gpu setup. i couldn't play the demo for this, and i couldn't play SOTC. I wish I could.
triple buffering SMOOTHS out framerate substantially. even if it didn't give you a performance boost vs double buffering, that'd still make it preferable.
WickedLaharl
Member
mercury steam really fucked up by focusing too much on appearances.
platform parity doesn't really matter that much when it's the equivalent of choosing between two piles of shit.
platform parity doesn't really matter that much when it's the equivalent of choosing between two piles of shit.
brain_stew
Member
I NEED SCISSORS said:
Damn near every PS3 game does that, its not something exclusive to Killzone 2 and honestly, if you're rendering alpha effects at full resolution on the PS3 then its time to quit your job as you're making horrific utilisation of the available hardware. Full resolution alpha is even rare on the 360 despite the gobs of fillrate provided by its eDRAM.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Segata Sanshiro said:
15FPS at times during cut-scenes is not great, but at least it doesn't hit those lows during gameplay.
Digital Foundry said:
Ninja Kn1ght
Member
The two versions seem mostly quite similar, that extra FPS boost on PS3 is nice though.
brain_stew
Member
WickedLaharl said:
I guess all we can do now is hope against hope that Konami see sense and port it to the PC. As otherwise this game is going to be forever gimped and ruined because of the target hardware.
Windom Earle
Banned
WickedLaharl said:
Props to MS for making the visuals totally identical. PS3 framerate advantage and single disc is pretty much what we knew already. And wow, the game hardly ever reaches 30 fps in those videos.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
15???? dear god.. what a trainwreck, especially for a fighting game.
have to agree with the PC masterrace guys here. Won't touch this unless it is on PC.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
But jesus does it look like shit at times. I was playing Resistance 2 recently and there were some effects that looked mindblowingly bad due to that technique. Fucking retarded tech design on Sony's part with that one.brain_stew said:
This is a Konami game and they are bringing the new MGS to PC so their may be some hope.
whatevermort
Member
A bit silly that you can't install then play with the one disc. And by silly I mean irritating.
Windom Earle
Banned
daxter01 said:
Yeah, that's not true.
GitarooMan
Member
Glad I waited on this, PS3 version here I come.
TheGuardian
Member
Stallion Free said:
It really depends on what effects you are rendering at quarter res. Many are nearly impossible to notice during gameplay (although they still come out ugly in screenshots).
You don't have to render every alpha effect at quarter res.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Let me make myself more clear. Some of the effects were glaringly obviously rendered at a quarter of the resolution and it looked incredibly pixellated. It looked fucking atrocious due to the alpha effects being rendered at 1/4 resolution.alr1ghtstart said:
