Support NeoGAF

[mr_bishiuk]

This is not true, its PR bluster.

Multiformat games will largely always be developed with the PC/360 combo in mind, it just easier to work (why would you give up the tools MS have created for you?) with and has the biggest install base. The PS3 sku's will lag behind and once the game is finished on PC/360 they'll concentrate on getting the PS3 up to scratch as much as possible.

Why bother doing it any other way when the majority of PS3 owners will never know and PS3 fans simply convience themselves their version is better anyway.

 

[NemesisPrime]

The Dreamcast analogy will be interesting. In 5 years time, will PS3 titles outdo 360 titles the same way PS2 visuals improved over DC? At the moment its still too close to call. We're in the "Dead or Alive 2" period, if anything.

Ask again in 2012.

Not really. If other companies deliver a product that can achieve (almost) peak performance from day one, why can't Sony? Why would we buy a console for some hypothetical future potential? I think next gen Sony will have learned a lesson and will downplay the hyperbole and make sure they deliver to the game devs. No shitty tools and badly documented APIs please. The PS3 is deserving all the flak it is getting. Sony made sure of that.

 

[DCharlie]

There could be aliens and life on other planets, other solar systems as well. When there is overwhelming physical/true proof, then it's accepted. Killzone 2 is true proof. Theory is nice for debating purposes though, and fun. Like, Communism looks good on paper and in theories as well.

I think the burden of proof would be on you to bear more here.

Here's the kicker, i personally thought Killzone 2 at tgs was a disappointment. Could have been a bad demo, but it didn't look as good as COD4. Yeah, i'll get flamed, but it was just another shooter. As i say, could be the demo, but it was pretty bland and i was disappointed in the physics aspect (the destruction of the bridge went totally against what i was personally expecting)

I think the 360 is an awesome machine. The problem here in though is that MS didn't fund enough 1st party stable quality. Instead of buying DLC windows or overall exclusitivity, they should be dumping that more into 1st party studios. That's just IMHO.

Yes, so - we agree - MS's 1st party efforts are hamstringed by what they did whereas the good tech teams are on PS3. So... this is a victory of technical nouse rather than a proof of superior hardware surely.

You can't have it both ways - 1st party can't be proof of a machines superiority if you dismiss 3rd party efforts

(it's much more complex than "My (dad) Machine can (fight) better your (dad) machine"

 

[TEH-CJ]

Here's the kicker, i personally thought Killzone 2 at tgs was a disappointment. Could have been a bad demo, but it didn't look as good as COD4.

 

[DCharlie]

it really didn't.

perhaps people who thought it did played the ps3 version or something?

 

[TEH-CJ]

it really didn't.

perhaps people who thought it did played the ps3 version or something?

lol >_>

 

[f@luS]

Here's the kicker, i personally thought Killzone 2 at tgs was a disappointment. Could have been a bad demo, but it didn't look as good as COD4

:lol holy shit. wow, just wow

 

[DCharlie]

holy shit. wow, just wow

i'm gonna be right again, you can always bet on Xboat !

 

[Hesemonni]

[IMG=http://g.imageshack.us/img113/wathb6.jpg/1/]

[/IMG]

Imageshack lulz.

 

[dark10x]

it really didn't.

perhaps people who thought it did played the ps3 version or something?

I'm kind of surprised to hear that as I thought CoD4 was pretty bland looking (even the superior PC version). I could really feel the Quake 3 engine roots.

To me, it felt as if they sacrificed a lot in order to hit 60 fps on the consoles.

 

[Blimblim]

As documented before in another TGS topic, I totally disagree with DCharlie when it comes to the graphics in KZ2. The main (not that it's the only one) difference between KZ2 and COD4 graphically is that one uses an old-school Quake 3-ish lighting, and the other something much more dynamic. Enemies don't look out of place in the environments of KZ2 because their lighting is the same as what's around them.
I mostly agree when it comes to some of the rather wonky physics (or script here?), but they still have quite some time to fix that.

 

[Paracelsus]

i'm gonna be right again

?

 

[antiloop]

Its pointless discussing these things with people like you, the fact you bring up quick save as some sort of redeeming feature shows your roots, so I'll leave it to the experts...

Calling them experts may be a little much... I think they are just gamers like you and me with an opinion and eyes.

 

[DCharlie]

I mostly agree when it comes to some of the rather wonky physics (or script here?), but they still have quite some time to fix that.

it wasn't so much the wonky part as it felt underused. I mean, when you have to destroy the bridge, i wasted a few rockets actually aiming at the bridge thinking it would destroy in a glorious shower of cell powered bits. But no... shoot the box then bridge destroyed - sure it's probably kicking in rt physics then but doesn't that seem like a massive waste?

And that was how i felt for the whole demo - it was the same as any other generic shooter (get over there, shuffle you here, trigger event, blow up bridge, pull me up there, set explovies on tank - it's not KZ2's fault that that's the genre standard, but hey) and what i thought would set it apart from the crowd didn't because, well, it didn't add what i thought it would.

Again, have to disagree with the graphics. I just didn't see anything that looked beyond COD4 or a few other lesser games for that matter - again , could just be the demo, but after seeing the vids, it just looked pretty plain in person. :/

 

[kbear]

It works in so many ways. Like this one, people arguing like the PS3 can't keep up with the 360 because of multiplatform titles sharing compromises and perhaps lesser talented devs because "Killzone 2" just shits all over these titles and other exclusives on each machine.

I hated the first killzone with a passion, it was a clunky mess, but seems like they fixed that up. And, like it or not, it's superior to everything else out there on consoles visually

It's really not. I think Gears 2 looks better.

Also, we have no idea about how much tech and power these games use. We're not devs. We know a few key buzzwords but we don't really know about this shit.

Look at Far Cry 2, developed by Ubi Montreal. It looks unbelievable and takes place in a huge open world. The lighting, scale, shadows, detail, etc., is simply astounding. It's got the visuals of a much smaller scaled game in a massive world. How do you know for sure that it's not more technically impressive than both Killzone 2 and Gears 2? You don't. Only devs know for sure. That's why talking in absolutes like that is pointless.

edit, there's also RAGE. That game runs at 60 fps and is on consoles. From my eyes, it stomps everything we've seen.

 

[acm2000]

It's really not. I think Gears 2 looks better.

Also, we have no idea about how much tech and power these games use. We're not devs. We know a few key buzzwords but we don't really know about this shit.

Look at Far Cry 2, developed by Ubi Montreal. It looks unbelievable and takes place in a huge open world. The lighting, scale, shadows, detail, etc., is simply astounding. It's got the visuals of a much smaller scaled game in a massive world. How do you know for sure that it's not more technically impressive than both Killzone 2 and Gears 2? You don't. Only devs know for sure. That's why talking in absolutes like that is pointless.

edit, there's also RAGE. That game runs at 60 fps and is on consoles. From my eyes, it stomps everything we've seen.

me too, but this wont end well :lol

 

[shpankey]

I see from most reactions here, Dead Space PS3 looks pretty much identical to the 360 version, despite what Eurogamer says. Which is fine by me since I'm a PS3 only owner. A shame though that more devs don't put more TLC into the PS3 versions of games. The gap is closing though... Crazy the amount of hate and indifference the PS3 gets, though. Last gen, I didn't own a Gamecube but I didn't hate the damn console. It must have been fun around here during those days...

did you even read what they said? they said it looks the same, what they commented negatively on for the ps3 version is the fps (frames per second) dropping much more on ps3. considering your name here, i'm actually surprised you missed that. well, it doesn't surprise me, most of gaf doesn't even read anything, they just throw their lot in wherever their allegiances lay.

 

[Gibb]

I've seen some great multiplatformers lately.. Burnout, Soulcalibur, Force Unleashed, Fifa, PES, Death Space, Pure, Mirrors Edge..

What is Eurogamer trying to prove here? Why the unwarranted backlash at Motorstorm in a "port comparison" article?

Why do I even bother with a reply?

*eject! eject! eject!*

 

[antiloop]

me too, but this wont end well :lol

I haven't played either. I will most likely play Gears 2 this weekend.

So this is much better in the graphics department than Gears 1 or is it another overrated exclusive? I found faults in Gears 1 even though it's praised as one of the best lookers at the time.
Sub 20 FPS in cut-scenes, crazy normal mapping. I just found it to look not as amazing as people made it out to be (compared to other games that is). Rain however was awesome.

 

[Blimblim]

It's really not. I think Gears 2 looks better.

Than KZ2? I completely disagree. Gears 2 has some great set pieces, but damn the lighting is so disappointing. Where is that advanced character lighting we were supposed to get?

 

[FirewalkR]

I came to this thread late and just to congratulate Wrika. :lol

 

[f@luS]

Than KZ2? I completely disagree. Gears 2 has some great set pieces, but damn the lighting is so disappointing. Where is that advanced character lighting we were supposed to get?

When 1st showed, we were promised amazing lightning + fully destructible environnement. In the end we got one hell of a looking game yet gears 1.5 (from a visual standpoint) . Same but just more.

 

[dark10x]

When 1st showed, we were promised amazing lightning + fully destructible environnement. In the end we got one hell of a looking game yet gears 1.5 (from a visual standpoint) . Same but just more.

Epic never promised FULLY destructible environments. They did, however, demonstrate surfaces that reacted to your weapons fire. Is this not present in the final game?

 

[acm2000]

i just hope when you finish GoW2 with all cogs or whatever, you get to play the game again as meat cube, resident evil style (forget which one)

 

[PuppetMaster]

Has the internet betrayed me again? In SD only?

Looking through those ...
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/2/8/2/1/9/5/Dead_Space_PS3_011.jpg.jpg

Weirdly enough, Isaac's outlines seem to have AA applied, but indeed there's plenty of non-AAd polygons in other places (his belt, some of the wall edges).

Will investigate further when I get my copy (should be today or tomorrow).

I think its the DOF effect not AA that makes the edges look blurred like that.

I have the PS3 version. The AA and the overall image quality is just fine for me. One of the best looking games around.

My only problem with is the slow down during big fights. It's not PS3 HL2 level slow down but it is there, and for sensitive people like me it is annoying. But the slow down is only during serious combat with multiple enemies or bosses. So it's usually just fine.

 

[Luckyman]

Gears 2 has very nice textures in but it´s kinda sterile.

 

[Blimblim]

Epic never promised FULLY destructible environments. They did, however, demonstrate surfaces that reacted to your weapons fire. Is this not present in the final game?

I guess there are some instances where they used it, but it's certainly far from what I hoped it would be.

 

[KernelPanic]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

Theses are some of the shots I took with digital camera, the actual difference is even bigger. All shots are taken at the exact same time period.

metal parts are glossy on the PS3, it's completely flat on the 360

this one's the much talked 'access panel', unlike what people have suspected, the base textrue is identical. only difference is that the PS3 version's got normal map, the 360 got none looking totally flat.

the ps3 version of roaches look just beautiful with detailed normal map, 360 version is just flat textured. the giant ants & scorpions are similar, the ps3 version being realistic with high-res normal map.

even rocks are different. the 360 version's got normal map, but it's in much lower res. it's just more detailed and sharp on the ps3

the last but not least. the 360 version look terrible with flat low res texture, where the ps3 version is just beautiful blonde hair with so much detail.

 

[bj00rn_]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

Wat :lol

Man, this thread keeps getting better and better.

Kan someone please hire the large Hadron collider at Cern when the repairs are finished so we can really investigate this issue in-depth?

 

[f@luS]

Epic never promised FULLY destructible environments. They did, however, demonstrate surfaces that reacted to your weapons fire. Is this not present in the final game?

but they did promised that it was going to be an important feature .
I remember early Gow 2 threads with acme or jyettis (?spelling?) or other big fanboys "omg teh lightning its out of this world, it has NOTHING to do with gow1, like night & day", and when saying it looks like gow 1 "wait ull see teh fully destructible environnement it such a big jump from gow 1"
well..

i dont really care since gow 1 is still one of the best looking game imho and so is gear 2 .

 

[AgentOtaku]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

like whoa!

 

[Dre]

This thread will DEFINITELY end well, I guess I should start making popcorn.

I predicted it.

So far we had one meltdown inducing a ban.
Gaf never disappoints.

 

[itxaka]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

Off-screen photos?¿ Seriously?

 

[Flyguy]

I think its the DOF effect not AA that makes the edges look blurred like that.

I have the PS3 version. The AA and the overall image quality is just fine for me. One of the best looking games around.

My only problem with is the slow down during big fights. It's not PS3 HL2 level slow down but it is there, and for sensitive people like me it is annoying. But the slow down is only during serious combat with multiple enemies or bosses. So it's usually just fine.

Funny, that's pretty much what Eurogamer said. Nearly visually identical with some slowdown in some areas. Yet here we are hundreds of posts later talking about 7.1 audio, Killzone 2, Gears 2, and naturally teh bias.

 

[CoG]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

Funny thing is, anyone can write that up in an article Eurogamer-style to "prove" the PS3 version is superior. It's stupid little details like that Richard Leadbetter focuses on with 360 versions of games to build a case that the 360 version is always "superior" (while ignoring any PS3 benefits -- you won't see any of those details in the Fallout 3 face off, I guarantee you that).

The only explanation is that Leadbetter is a 360 fanboy fuckwit and EG keeps churning them out because suckers like us drive the hit count through the roof when they post them.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Graphics whores belong on the PC.

 

[FrankT]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

The two pics over there they have comparing the jaggies says it all. It's like night and day.

When 1st showed, we were promised amazing lightning + fully destructible environnement. In the end we got one hell of a looking game yet gears 1.5 (from a visual standpoint) . Same but just more.

Not quite;

GameSpy
While it's certainly open to debate, we're going to go out on a limb and call Gears of War 2 the most visually impressive game of all-time.

 

[gregor7777]

Graphics whores belong on the PC.

Yah, too late for that shit.

There are fools in the Bioshock PS3 thread claiming they won't play it over a few blurry textures.

 

[Metalmurphy]

The two pics over there they have comparing the jaggies says it all. It's like night and day.

They're not comparing jaggies though, it's a fact already PS3 has no AA and the 360 does. They're comparing textures which are better on the PS3.

360: AA, solid framerate, tearing
PS3: better textures, framedrops, no tearing.

It's not as bad a port as most people claimed to be.


Also, what's with the GameSpy quote? oO

 

[shpankey]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

Yes, but there is a tradeoff. You failed to quote the rest. They say the 360 version uses 4x FSAA and has a better framerate. PS3 version has the things mentioned. In the end, one is not better than the other, just different. If you like better normal mapping and some textures on some things looking better, PS3 is where it's at. If you want 4x anit-aliasing and a locked frame-rate, 360 is where it's at.

Could this be the first multi platform game ever to have better textures on the ps3 version?

It seems like trade off for 4 x AA is rather severe.

As for the frame rate, the 360 is rock solid 30 fps. The PS3 is good at 30, but it just slightly stutters.

When things get heavy, you get screen tearing for the 360 version, where the PS3 remains V-locked with drop in frame rate.

After all, the PS3 version wasn't just another inferior port.

It's just AA vs Better Texture or Screen Tearing vs Frame drop

Each system had to make compromises, probably based on their strength and weakness.

This could very well be a game that's truly handled by 2 seperate teams!! The BS we hear so often as a part of PR

 

[FrankT]

They're not comparing jaggies though, it's a fact already PS3 has no AA and the 360 does. They're comparing textures which are better on the PS3.

360: AA, solid framerate, tearing
PS3: better textures, framedrops, no tearing.

It's not as bad a port as most people claimed to be.


Also, what's with the GameSpy quote? oO

What are you even saying. When I look at those two shots it's night and day. My only real complaint is the occasional screen tear and I've said as much. It needs a lock/unlock mode just like Bioshock. Better textures clearly debatable. I'll take the solid FR plus 4XAA versus none at all. The Gamespy statement is pretty clear not sure what there is to talk about there besides the point it's clearly not Gears 1.5, har, har, har. More like the most visually impressive game of all time, as they say.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

The reason why no one hated the Gamecube but hate the PS3 is simple. No console I know of has underdelivered as much as PS3 did.

PS3, was by and far considered to be a greatly more powerful console than the 360 before its launch. It would be the start of the real next-gen. Its manufacturer hailed it as the bringer of 4D. They made lots of people pay for 'potential' that was never realized. Then it launched, and choked. On pretty much every game out there.

The PS3 may well have closed the gap to hardly noticable levels in most cases, but it *still* lags behind. Cuts are made here and there (resolution, textures, filtering, framerate etc.) and while they do not detract considerably from the experience, they are there and they are noticable.

The fact still remains, years after its launch the PS3 is still struggling to prove that it can actually consistently match the 360 in the IQ department. In the minds of the consumer, it will always lag behind, because the expectation was that it would be vastly superior.

This pretty much sums up the bulk of people's feelings, at least here in the US where it's not blind faith and love for sony forever no matter what and Microsoft is an evil puppy killing machine.

 

[antiloop]

This pretty much sums up the bulk of people's feelings, at least here in the US where it's not blind faith and love for sony forever no matter what and Microsoft is an evil puppy killing machine.

facepalm.gif

 

[WrikaWrek]

They're not comparing jaggies though, it's a fact already PS3 has no AA and the 360 does. They're comparing textures which are better on the PS3.

360: AA, solid framerate, tearing
PS3: better textures, framedrops, no tearing.

It's not as bad a port as most people claimed to be.

PS3 has worse shadows.

And goddamn, the way that dude made the comparison was creeepy.

the last but not least. the 360 version look terrible with flat low res texture, where the ps3 version is just beautiful blonde hair with so much detail.

It looks better, but just because it has a coat of gloss on it, doesn't make it "beautiful hair with so much detail".

 

[KernelPanic]

The two pics over there they have comparing the jaggies says it all. It's like night and day.

Yes PS3 version has jaggies and lower FPS I believe. 360 overall is still better.

I just found it interesting that with all the comparisons done in the reviews and forums, no one brought up normal mapping (or lack thereof) in the 360 version. The pics are bad quality but it's still an apples to apples comparison and there's a noticeable difference.

It's not so black & white and it appears that the PS3 version isn't quite the 11th hour hackjob it was taken to be ?

Eurogamer seems to go to extreme lengths to compare versions so I'm curious if they'll bring it up

 

[Metalmurphy]

Better textures clearly debatable.

:lol

Ok...

Like you said, it's night and day...

 

[FrankT]

:lol

Ok...

Like you said, it's night and day...

With off screen photos, hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. With so much more detail. :lol

That hard to see the difference there ?

Yes, as he says, so much more detail, heh.

 

[KernelPanic]

With off screen photos, hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. With so much more detail. :lol

360

That hard to see the difference there ?

 

[f@luS]

What are you even saying. When I look at those two shots it's night and day. My only real complaint is the occasional screen tear and I've said as much. It needs a lock/unlock mode just like Bioshock. Better textures clearly debatable. I'll take the solid FR plus 4XAA versus none at all. The Gamespy statement is pretty clear not sure what there is to talk about there besides the point it's clearly not Gears 1.5, har, har, har. More like the most visually impressive game of all time, as they say.

dude, whats ur quoting is crap
"GameSpy
While it's certainly open to debate, we're going to go out on a limb and call Gears of War 2 the most visually impressive game of all-time."

well it IS open to debate but it doesnt say gow 2 looks miles beyond gow 1 coz it doesnt
and you KNOW that u were one of the biggest fanboy claiming "it wont look so much better coz blabla physics blabla destructible blabla lightning".

 

[FrankT]

dude, whats ur quoting is crap
"GameSpy
While it's certainly open to debate, we're going to go out on a limb and call Gears of War 2 the most visually impressive game of all-time."

well it IS open to debate but it doesnt say gow 2 looks miles beyond gow 1 coz it doesnt
and you KNOW that u were one of the biggest fanboy claiming "it wont look so much better coz blabla physics blabla destructible blabla lightning".

Give me a break with your Gears 1.5 crap. If it is considered by critics as one of the best if not the best looking game to date I believe I'll take their words over yours any day of the week. You also have no idea what you are even talking about in that last comment what I stated early on was completely previewed by Game Informer. Now if somehow Epic just removed there lighting altogether then you might have a point. Is the occlusion lighting just gone and the character specific lighting?