So why he said both version are quite on par in the verdict? :/ The shadow & texture is basically the same, but it has some odd issue on ps3. About fps difference, it seem obvious on ps3 is unlocked, most of the time, this is why drop more frequently.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Face-Off: Assassin's Creed 3 - Digital Foundry.
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
So why he said both version are quite on par in the verdict? :/ The shadow & texture is basically the same, but it has some odd issue on ps3. About fps difference, it seem obvious on ps3 is unlocked, most of the time, this is why drop more frequently.
CambriaRising
Member
Technically speaking, I guess. But the difference is so minimal that neither of them is a clear "winner".
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
This arguing has me excited for the wiiu version.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
AkimbO_Arcana
Banned
This. Not because I'm interested in the game, but I'm curious if devs will put the extra work into their games to utilize the WiiU's power advantages. This is going to be a good indicator for what to expect during the next year.
Experienced the same after the first few hours of Assassins Creed.
SirIgbyCeaser
Banned
Honestly that picture with shadows on desmond's face looks just like the 360 version except someone forgot to click NO-DRAW Dynamic shadows on face close up, on the ps3 version.
Also, if you watch the fps comparison video like someone said, you'll see the framerate is equally horrific on both.
There was no platform preference in this game only the aim for parity, which on two different architecture platforms is impossible, but they got very damn close.
Nobody is a winner, no platform has preference, they both probably suffered for attempts of achieving parity. The fact they have the same AA solution and Texture resolution(Even if ps3 has split ram) proves this.
PS: Playstation version has uncompressed sound, why the fuck do you never mention that digital foundry?
Also, if you watch the fps comparison video like someone said, you'll see the framerate is equally horrific on both.
There was no platform preference in this game only the aim for parity, which on two different architecture platforms is impossible, but they got very damn close.
Nobody is a winner, no platform has preference, they both probably suffered for attempts of achieving parity. The fact they have the same AA solution and Texture resolution(Even if ps3 has split ram) proves this.
PS: Playstation version has uncompressed sound, why the fuck do you never mention that digital foundry?
Yeah, I'm very interested as well. Will the WiiU hardware be able to provide an actual boost to the game and produce a smoother experience? Since this game has no real framerate limiters in place it seems to run as fast as the hardware can go. If the WiiU version dips as low as these other versions I will be pretty disappointed.
Of course more effort on the WiiU could solve it, but if it is able to power through this game and perform better even with a quick port that would suggest good things about the hardware.
Neuromancer
Member
On a related note what happened to Eurogamer's mobile site? Used to work great, now it looks like a regular web page but I can't even zoom out. It's unusable.
No it suffers because both hardware are ancient today. The parity not worse the performance, I don't see the logic of this statement...:/
Yep, really surprised the article didn't give it the win straight up, maybe Mr. Morgan reads neogaf and wants to avoid Leadbetter like hate, most of his past Face/Off write ups have been diplomatically worded.
Too bad. Regardless of Leadbetter's bias or lack thereof, his articles were good for warning people off of buying ps3 games.
:lol
And if Wii U version also has horrible performance?
Probably because all major changes were done on PS3 first.
Shalashaska161
Member
All these Digital Foundry face offs prove to me is that we need desperately need new consoles. 720p and 20fps is just awful. At least it has some AA...
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Not sure what you're asking. I fully expect it to be underwhelming. It's more the cycle of fighting in the mud that console owners do each generation, squabbling over incredibly meagre differences and claiming superiority.
It is at the top of the article.
I really did. Chances are it was a closed-off demo area where the rest of the city didn't have to stream in.
Windom Earle
Banned
Not surprised by the weak technical performance. This franchise is such a cash-in. The gameplay is so pointless and generic, on top of that a ridiculous story. Why are people still buying it?
funkystudent
Member
What a oddly level and even worded comparison from DF.
Did sony threaten him with liable over the weekend or something?
Did sony threaten him with liable over the weekend or something?
& here we go.
Do they talk about the AA being used in the game? I remember the PPAA used in AC:R being compared to the MLAA used in GoW3.
Is it just just the ps3 version?
Could be a way to earn a little bit of extra memory by using a slightly smaller frame buffer.
Do you have any proof that this is the first game to lead on the ps3? I thought all of them lead on the ps3 because the series originally was a PS3 exclusive.
Also let's not put blame on the ps3 because of how the 360 version turned out. This game looks to be doing a whole lot more than previous games and it should be no surprise that both systems have issues at some spots.
There's a chance that the bottleneck causing the performance issues has nothing to do with v-sync so turning it off would only result in tearing instead of any performance gain.
I thought Brotherhood ran great from what little I played on the 360, but I remember the frame rate on AC:R being dodgy at times.
Edit:
lol I love GAF sometimes.
Is it just just the ps3 version?
Could be a way to earn a little bit of extra memory by using a slightly smaller frame buffer.
Do you have any proof that this is the first game to lead on the ps3? I thought all of them lead on the ps3 because the series originally was a PS3 exclusive.
Also let's not put blame on the ps3 because of how the 360 version turned out. This game looks to be doing a whole lot more than previous games and it should be no surprise that both systems have issues at some spots.
There's a chance that the bottleneck causing the performance issues has nothing to do with v-sync so turning it off would only result in tearing instead of any performance gain.
I thought Brotherhood ran great from what little I played on the 360, but I remember the frame rate on AC:R being dodgy at times.
Edit:
lol I love GAF sometimes.
Part 1 definitely led on Xbox 360 at the time.
I thought AC2 led on Xbox 360.
That game came out in 2009. And in 2010 Ubisoft announced development would be shifted to PS3.
All I have is this:
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/06/24/ubisoft-lead-with-ps3/
Dorfdad
Gold Member
Grabbed this on 360 yesterday got about an hour into it going to play in a few. Looks great and I noticed no screen tearing or anything as well. Patch is up to fix some of the issues mentioned above.
I think its the same on ps3 and 360 just a matter of friends for choice on multiplatform.
I think its the same on ps3 and 360 just a matter of friends for choice on multiplatform.
AC2 led on ps3 from what I remember differently to AC1.
Thanks, I wish that site would have actually quoted the devs saying development is leading on the ps3, but I guess that's as close as we'll get.
Still, I see no point in blaming the PS3 as the lead for the performance of the 360 version. Publishers strive for parity, but not to the detriment of the other platform.
When they say that the frontier areas on the 360 are locked at 30fps, does that mean there is a constant 30fps?
I'm up to sequence 5 on the PS3, and getting a constant locked 30fps in frontier areas sounds like a dream. At any part of the frontier, if I pan the camera around my character is goes between 15 and 25 fps... very occassionally hitting 30 fps.
It's a complete mess. Considering throwing in the towel and getting the 360 version just to get a few more frames or at least some consistency.
I'm up to sequence 5 on the PS3, and getting a constant locked 30fps in frontier areas sounds like a dream. At any part of the frontier, if I pan the camera around my character is goes between 15 and 25 fps... very occassionally hitting 30 fps.
It's a complete mess. Considering throwing in the towel and getting the 360 version just to get a few more frames or at least some consistency.
I just wish Ubisoft uses the extra power from the Wii-U to at least lock the game at 30fps, even with lots of NPCs on screen.
I don't believe any impressions from game journos who say things like "# version looked sharper with crisper textures"
They just sound so vague and ignorant and are always proven wrong when the DF analysis comes out anyway
I don't believe any impressions from game journos who say things like "# version looked sharper with crisper textures"
They just sound so vague and ignorant and are always proven wrong when the DF analysis comes out anyway
Unregistered007
Banned
At this point in the generation PS3 and Xbox360 are unified SHAT... if you catch my drift.
You post is what's pointless.
Yeah, a cash-in? Over 600 people worked on this for chrissakes. It's clearly an ambitious game--probably why it's struggling to run decently on these haggard consoles.
CadetMahoney
Member
Well it's a close call, but I'm getting the 360 version myself.
That's typically what they mean when they say locked. Are the frontier areas not shown in the framerate analysis? Sorry, I'm at work so I can't view the site now.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That's what the article implies, its constantly anchored at 30, while the PS3 version judders because of spikes to 35. It's an odd choice if they went in to lock the frame rate in that one area and not everywhere else.
I would imagine having a locked frame rate would allow them to give some room for performance.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Seriously this game was in development for how long and they couldn't even hit 720p.......ugg will not buy.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
um... the game is 720p .. 360 runs full rez, PS3 just has pixel long horizontal black bars on top and bottom .. basically it's 718p.
This isn't a linear action game. And it's not sub HD actually.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
How is 718p not sub HD quality?
Games that are not native 1:1 720p are a blurfest especially on PS3 since there's no built in hardware scaling, I'd much rather see small black bars around the edge of the screen instead of any scaling.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The game isn't STRETCHING, there's just two pixel wide lines at the top and bottom, the renderer is still putting out the full pixel worth of resolution, there is no stretching or scaling going on.
Think Dragon's Dogma but only one pixel wide.
If the game has a black bar one pixel wide, it's not being scaled or stretched, so that shouldn't be a factor.
It's interesting how some people let the resolution effect their judgement so much. Games that are sub-HD can, and do, look better than full HD games. On top of that, I don't think it's fair to expect every game to be HD when considering what's being rendered.
That's just two lines and the image isn't being stretched. Those areas are simply black.
I mean, 2 lines out of 720 lines is not a big deal when there is no stretching occurring.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
-_-
Anvil 2.0 is apparently worse at draw distance, anti aliasing and better art.
the last one is subjective to my taste.
Anvil 2.0 is apparently worse at draw distance, anti aliasing and better art.
the last one is subjective to my taste.
Boss Man
Member
^That draw distance is pretty nasty. Might just have to wait until I build a PC, ugh.
I think people wondering why 360 doesn't "win" are just looking for something other than what these articles exist for. I don't think they're trying to play console wars, they're just informing people about which version they should get. In this case, there are technical trade-offs (360 does have the upper hand) but they are all so incredibly negligible that they're not worth considering.
If you're deciding between versions, you should consider things like controller, which console is currently plugged in, friend list, DLC, or which console you like touching more before the technical issues in this case. I think that's what is meant by "no clear winner."
I think people wondering why 360 doesn't "win" are just looking for something other than what these articles exist for. I don't think they're trying to play console wars, they're just informing people about which version they should get. In this case, there are technical trade-offs (360 does have the upper hand) but they are all so incredibly negligible that they're not worth considering.
If you're deciding between versions, you should consider things like controller, which console is currently plugged in, friend list, DLC, or which console you like touching more before the technical issues in this case. I think that's what is meant by "no clear winner."
Maybe is better to wait pc version? I doubt you will notice marginal difference on console. It's my suggestion.
I think you might be judging this a bit too harshly. It's very possible that the AC3 shot is simply employing atmospheric fog that is unique to that moment. The game has weather and day/night cycles, after all.-_-
Anvil 2.0 is apparently worse at draw distance, anti aliasing and better art.
No, I think what they are referring to is a framerate limiter, not an actual locked 30 fps. That is, they do not allow the framerate to go beyond 30 fps allowing for a more consistent image on a 60 Hz display. On PS3, the framerate can actually go beyond 30 fps which actually produces additional judder that ultimately makes the image feel a little less consistent. Both versions slow down, however. You won't see a consistent 30 fps on 360 either.
not_so_special
Banned
seventynine
Member
Pretty much. Going PS3 for the extra content and Vita stuff.
Eh. I don't know how can see those 2 lines when sometimes even different resolution are hardly notable.