-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (PS3/360) Comparison Thread
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Well, that explains that at least.Luigiv said:
SlasherJPC
Banned
dark10x said:
See I'm with the people not noticing as much. Which is interesting to me. I notice framerate stuff fairly easily. I've noticed some things but really, unless it gets really bad later on... I'm confused. Even the final boss battle of chapter 1 I thought was running fairly decently. Maybe I'm just thinking the game has that look intentionally or the blur is whats confusing me to think is not that bad? I'm not sure.
I mean I just got done playing Enslaved the whole way and felt like the framerate drops towards the end have been way worse then anything in Castlevania so far. Granted I'm only on chapter 2 right now but still. I'm playing in 720 p btw. installed. Its mind boggling for me personally.
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
dark10x said:
I have a Samsung LN46A650 with 120hz, I keep the motion interpolation on "Medium" full time. At first, the effect is pretty jarring (I got the TV when 120hz was a pretty new thing) and things look downright "weird", and people who don't have 120hz sets that come over are still weirded out by it at first. The most common comment, at least when watching BDs, from guests is that it looks "too real".
Now, there are very few games where the very very slight amount of lag it introduces does get in the way but most of the time I leave it on all the time. It's something I've become accustomed to and when I'm over at someone else's place with a TV that doesn't have it I have to say that it almost feels like playing a game with a bad framerate to me now. I can't stand NOT having it any more.
That being said, I have not tried playinig this game with it off. I find it tends to smooth things over in general and I have had no issues with framerate in Castlevania (that's not to say I don't notice it bogging down sometimes, but in general it's fairly smooth and consistent looking to my eyes and hasn't detracted from the game). I have no idea if it has anything to do with motion smoothing, I usually find the effect much less pronounced in video games vs movies but I'm sure it's doing something to give the game the illusion of not dropping as many frames since it is magically generating many extra phantom frames in between the standard refreshes.
My TV is already a couple of years old so I'm sure that this tech has only gotten better and better. I'll go out on a limb and start wondering if consoles will start including some form of this interpolation in the hardware in the future. It's kind of uncanny that it works at all, in my opinion.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
dark10x said:
Still, it's never quite butter smooth, something that I have started to think of as a natural requirement for any adventure game.
Whether it's Castlevania, Uncharted, Enslaved or even Metroid (in the very broad definition). I mean, fights against a small numbers of enemies should not lead to graphics problems. Enslaved thought me that I find that to be utterly unacceptable in a consolegame.
Maybe Ratchet & Clank: ACiT just jinxed it for me.
Graphics Horse
Member
ScrabbleBanshee said:
Someone's working on it, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-force-unleashed-60fps-tech-article
They have done it in a way where they can morph the previous frame before they've fully drawn the next one, so it ends up not adding any lag.
RoninChaos
Member
ScrabbleBanshee said:
I have one of those sets in my bedroom. How can you stand the 120hz? That shit looks bizarre to me. My set in my TV room has the 240hz thing and it makes me feel sick.
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
RoninChaos said:
Strong stomach? After I got used to it, I think TV looks weird without it now. There is nothing about it that is inherently sickness inducing, I think it's just 30 years of being used to watching choppy TV that makes it seem odd.
It makes it look more natural, that's all, like looking in a window instead of looking at a series of still images. I mean, everyone groans and bitches with this game running at 24 fps but then I hear that watching TV at anything higher makes them sick so I don't get it. I can only attribute it to being different than what we're accustomed to.
keltickennedy
Member
I'm playing the ps3 version. I noticed some framerate drops, but nothing super dramatic that makes the game unplayable or me needing to have a sick bucket by my side. I am still totally enjoying the game and on chapter 9. I was talking to a buddy who was playing on 360 and didn't have it installed. He was describing to me how the cut scenes had pretty bad stuttering. That sucks.
Also, I don't wear glasses and have damn good vision. Maybe I just need a couple more years on this site to develop my "GAF-eye" in which anything under 60fps = game is total shit.
Also, I don't wear glasses and have damn good vision. Maybe I just need a couple more years on this site to develop my "GAF-eye" in which anything under 60fps = game is total shit.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
keltickennedy said:
You need to see an ophthalmologist quickly, you have awful standards and MercurySteam are incompetent.
LowParry
Member
Hrm. I can't decide where this thread is going. On one hand, we have talks of the developer that should of had more time with the game in the cooker to get us a better 30fps experience that most people of wanted. The on the other, we have those placing blame of peoples vision of the game and setting their standards low. Hrm. The fuck...?
Me personally I can see the frame drops through the game as I play. I'd say from what I've played so far....ehhhh, probably around 35% of the game has some bad issues where it stutters. It's not slide show effect as some people are claiming. Obviously don't know what the term means but anyway. People have their own preferences of gaming and shouldn't be tossing the blame on one or the other for them. Let people enjoy the game for what it is. Let people pass on the game for what it is. No fault in either direction. Just hope people from Mercury read what the players are saying and maybe, just maybe do some patch fixes.
Me personally I can see the frame drops through the game as I play. I'd say from what I've played so far....ehhhh, probably around 35% of the game has some bad issues where it stutters. It's not slide show effect as some people are claiming. Obviously don't know what the term means but anyway. People have their own preferences of gaming and shouldn't be tossing the blame on one or the other for them. Let people enjoy the game for what it is. Let people pass on the game for what it is. No fault in either direction. Just hope people from Mercury read what the players are saying and maybe, just maybe do some patch fixes.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
jett said:
totally identical :lol
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Heh, interesting.
Philanthropist
Banned
I wondered if they were taking longer than expected to release their analysis because they probably were actively looking for the areas where the 360 version would turn out better. I guess they didn't really find anything, but the contrary. However, differences such as the lighting seem like something they would have been made a big deal of in other comparisons where the PS3 version turns out worse.
At least they do say that the PS3 version is the one to get.
At least they do say that the PS3 version is the one to get.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
dark10x said:
I was wondering why that scene looked different from the gametrailers review.
Father_Brain
Banned
jett said:
ALLLWAYS
I WANNA BE WITH YOU
AND MAKE BELIEVE WITH YOU
AND LIVE IN HARMONY, HARMONY, HARMONY
CadetMahoney
Member
maybe it was a mistake, but I don't see how. We'll see if they give an explanation.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
jett said:
*clap clap* God job Sherlock, you just discovered a lighting difference in a pre-rendered cutscene... :lol
I just finished that section to do the trial (do not use any health recharge) and I got to see the video. The lighting is there, DF's capture of the 360 just looks darker. Anybody with a 360 version can confirm this in less that 5 minutes, just replay section 2 of the first chapter and see the movie for yourself.
longdi said:
Synless said:
Kagari said:
:lol :lol :lol
The tinfoil hats people always make me laugh.
Synless
Member
Kind of a weird mistake for them to make. I've seen them point out the smallest of lighting details or other effects in other games.CadetMahoney said:
Darker? Those pictures that are right in front of me are clearly showing me that the lighting is non-existent.godhandiscen said:
Also I have no agenda to think otherwise. They made comments for me to think that way of them. I think they do a good job giving me the info I need in deciding which is the best version to buy, but it's clear they have bias.
godhandiscen said:
Go read their FFXIII face-off. It basically spends the whole article complaining about how Square could have done a better job on the port while ignoring real differences between the two versions, until a ton of people complained and they did a follow-up analysis.
That's actually not a pre-rendered scene.
There are quite a few realtime scenes in the game and that is one of them. Easiest way to tell? All pre-renders run at exactly 25 fps throughout the scene while the realtime scenes have extremely variable framerates. That scene has some heavy drops.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
It is a cut-scene. All the cut-scenes in the game were pre-rendered. The game has 7GBs of video FFS. There is absolutely no reason to do a render for the PS3 and a render for the 360. The lighting is there, I just went through the cutscene before making my post.Synless said:
It is, you have the 360 version, watch it for yourself. The lighting is there. Also, you can tell it is a cutscene because of the sudden pan of the camera without any apparent texture pop in. I don't know about the PS3, but the Xbox would struggle with it.dark10x said:
As I just noted, you are absolutely 100% incorrect about this. There are plenty of realtime cutscenes and DF themselves point this out. Again, the framerate tells the story.godhandiscen said:
The realtime scenes have variable framerates, the pre-rendered scenes do not (they run at 25 fps exactly).
They BOTH struggle with that scene. The framerate dips as low as the teens. There is no texture pop-in present in the game because the game doesn't really make heavy use of data streaming (which is why each level is loaded separately and of middling size).
That scene is realtime. At the very end of the scene, after the jump, it jumps to a video and shows Gabriel walking with a map behind him showing his progression. You can see the moment when it switches from realtime to pre-rendered even (quick black screen).
Besides, you can actually SEE compression artifacts in the pre-rendered videos. They can be subtle, fortunately, but they are there.
Also, let me ask you this, if these scenes were video clips, why would the framerate vary so heavily between the two versions? Especially when DF has proven that the file sizes are exactly the same. I shouldn't even need to ask this, really, but it further proves my point.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Play the game, that section feels like a cutscene (AA, softer image, etc). Moreover, the lighting is there.dark10x said:
Windom Earle
Banned
jett said:
Wow... Good job DF, and thanks for the delay!
I HAVE played the game on both platforms. It's not a pre-rendered scene. Good lord.godhandiscen said:
They don't even USE AA during the pre-rendered scenes.
Go watch the video on Digital Foundry. They show that scene and there are significant framerate variations between the two. It doesn't matter what you think you see, but those are realtime. If it were not it would be 25 fps throughout the entire scene just like every other pre-rendered movie on the disc. There are no pre-rendered scenes with variable framerates.
The game does use pre-rendered movies often enough, but there are quite a few realtime scenes as well.
From that chapter there are two pre-rendered scenes.
1) The very beginning of chapter two which depicts Gabriel reflecting on his wife. It is pre-rendered up until the flaming knight slices downward in his vision. There is then a black screen and the following scene is realtime.
2) After Gabriel lands following the horse jump sequence, another black screen flashes and the game switches to a pre-rendered video showing Gabriel superimposed on a 2D map screen.
The rest of the scenes in chapter 2 are real time.
Take a look at this, godhandiscen...
Same scene, different framerate. That entire scene has framerate variations between 16 and 30 fps. All pre-renders are 25 fps exactly. Take a look at that line graph and you can see the variation even more clearly.
Also, there is clearly a difference in the lighting. Not a big deal, but it demonstrates a difference. If this were a movie file, that discrepancy would not exist.
Same scene, different framerate. That entire scene has framerate variations between 16 and 30 fps. All pre-renders are 25 fps exactly. Take a look at that line graph and you can see the variation even more clearly.
Also, there is clearly a difference in the lighting. Not a big deal, but it demonstrates a difference. If this were a movie file, that discrepancy would not exist.
Windom Earle
Banned
godhandiscen said:
Yeah, I think we can trust you on that given your damage control here.
Synless
Member
I don't think anyone way saying anything like that. This is a comparison thread though, and guess what? That's a comparison. People want the best version of a game, I believe your the same way are you not? I don't see you say shit like this when the 360 versions of games are clearly the winners.WrikaWrek said:
Lostconfused
Member
The lighting is there, if you want to see for your self you can just play the demo.dark10x said:
Or you can just check for your self and see that he is right.schennmu said:
Windom Earle
Banned
Lostconfused said:
Maybe it is, but it seems to be more pronounced on PS3, why doesn't DF point that out? And the fact that godhandiscen is obviously wrong but does not feel the need to admit his mistake makes me lose any trust in his comments.
edit: I will be able to play the demo as soon as I get my gold code from gamestop
Lostconfused
Member
Yes its not a pre rendered scene. Yes it looks different in the comparison shot.dark10x said:
Check if you have space on the hard drive first. Its a stupid sized 2GB demo.Synless said:
They said video files are identical in both version so that scene can't be a video with that noticeable difference, and no, difference in brightness can not remove such a glowing lighting effect.
but maybe he just missed it, humans make mistakes sometimes you know
, most of us didn't see that too first time . Calling him out just because of this tiny bit is a bit childish, don't you think?
but maybe he just missed it, humans make mistakes sometimes you know
, most of us didn't see that too first time . Calling him out just because of this tiny bit is a bit childish, don't you think?Lostconfused
Member
Well then I don't know what DF did to remove it from that shot but its there when I played the demo.miladesn said: