Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

The hacking mini game is hard, I just pay the damn things off.

I can't believe they kept that shit, it is by far the worst idea that has ever leaked into a good game. How that made it to the retail version of the original, let alone this port, is just unthinkable.

Originally there was going to be a plasmid called Sanctuary, it was a bubble shield like in Halo, and you used it to hack cameras and turrets in real time, so the game would carry on playing and you had to hack with the time pressure of the bubble, not the water from the Pipe Dream mini game. I really wish they'd have brought that back and had some sort of electronic/mechanical mini game, something a little less abstract.

 

[aznpxdd]

 

[Jonsoncao]

Here we are...some screens from Overlord, on the 360 and PS3.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/overlord/images.html

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/...convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;header;more

I'm sure I'll find more in a bit.

its just some pix for marketing
:lol :lol :lol :lol

first, the AA difference
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Overlord = 1280x720 (2xAA) on 360
Overlord = 1280x720 (no AA) on PS3

second, from eurogamer face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=163939&page=5

So with all that established, there's little more to add other than to judge the overall quality of the PS3 conversion work. Overlord on Xbox 360 was a beautiful game but its 30fps refresh rate was hardly solid. As is becoming increasingly predictably the case, the PS3 version is stripped of its anti-aliasing and the frame-rate issues of the original 360 code are amplified still further here.

third, from yoda's game compare site
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/20080517#1211085174

decide yourself :lol :lol :lol

 

[Minsc]

A very small taste of things to come in this thread...

Spoiler

FFXIII system wars, the fun

 

[StuBurns]

A very small taste of things to come in this thread...

Spoiler

FFXIII system wars, the fun

Gears of War 3, fall 2010, that is going to be a whole new level of epic.

 

[JRW]

Out of curiosity, is your TV 1080p? And if so, are you using the PS3 to upscale, your TV?


I'm just wondering, because it doesn't appear as blurry on my TV (though I don't have a 360 here to directly compare).

The TV is 720P or 768p / 1365x768 to be exact (Pioneer 5080HD model) and I have both consoles set at 720P. I doubt my camera is capturing the exact level of sharpness seen in person and of course it depends on what pc monitor your viewing the pics on etc. etc.

The difference in sharpness between ps3 / 360 in my pics is about the same vs. what you'd see in person, The 360 version is a lot cleaner or "crisp" looking.

p.s. I dont think this is a poor PS3 video output related issue but rather some sort of filter being applied by some dev's, I say this because other games such as Uncharted or especially Bluray movies look stunning and crisp on the same TV.

Shot I took from the movie Crank on Bluray:

 

[Lord Error]

Gears of War 3, fall 2010, that is going to be a whole new level of epic.

Huh? What are you going to compare it against? PC version?

Also, even though it's probably too late to get to it now, your question about image crispness, in all your multiplatform examples, PS3 version of the game was in some way quantitatively changed, be it with lower textures (CoD4) sub-720p resolution (Skate, GTA4) or some kind of motion blur used (DMC4). I think I remember pretty clearly that from direct feed screen comparisons of games that are quantitatively the same (AA, resolution) they look nigh identical. Burnout Paradise was an example where the only extra 'crispness' of the X360 version could have come only from the dithering problem in rendering on trees and some other objects. Deepbrown's bringing of system exclusive games is perfectly valid btw, as it proves that there isn't some kind of inherent of hardware issue, like you thinking there may be. It's very easy to tell from direct feed screens that the game looks blurry or doesn't look blurry, you don't need to compare two identical games.

blown out of proportion my ass.

It is blow out of proportion as that picture gets posted over and over again as to show some proof of textures being completely mangled, where in fact it seems to be the only texture in the whole demo that exibits that problem.

 

[WickedLaharl]

what about that link that you cut out of my post that shows just how blurry the ps3 ver. is? the blurriness on display in this demo is most certainly not being blown out of proportion.

 

[No Means Nomad]

I think this game is flawed as hell, but you're fucking retarded if you're interested in shooters and don't buy it.

If you buy Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 and not this I will have to send an angry letter to your house, and I'll be pretty upset because postage costs a lot right now.

 

[2real4tv]

We got some angry people here

 

[Raistlin]

The TV is 720P or 768p / 1365x768 to be exact (Pioneer 5080HD model) and I have both consoles set at 720P. I doubt my camera is capturing the exact level of sharpness seen in person and of course it depends on what pc monitor your viewing the pics on etc. etc.

Ah, okay. That rules out scaling issues. A person's TV, 360, and PS3 all employ different scaling algorithms, so unless you force both to use the TV, its hard to get a direct comperison.

The difference in sharpness between ps3 / 360 in my pics is about the same vs. what you'd see in person, The 360 version is a lot cleaner or "crisp" looking.

Hm, that's weird ... as it isn't that blurry on my TV. By chance, have you calibrated the 360 and PS3 to have the same output, as it doesn't look to be the case in your pics.

Once thing a lot of people don't realize is that contrast, saturation, etc. actually do in fact change the apparent levels of fine detail in an image. To be able to directly compare them, they need to be putting out similar video curves.


That certainly isn't to say the PS3 is a crisp ... however, one thing I've noted in basically every comparison pic is that the contrast and saturation appear to favor the 360 version ... which is only going to accentuate the differences.

Spoiler

BTW - nice side-boob silhouette in the screen grab :lol I <3 Amy Smart

blown out of proportion my ass.

Citing what is considered a bug is not blowing things out of proportion? You seem to be implying that is a general comparison of textures in the game.

 

[Loudninja]

I can't believe they kept that shit, it is by far the worst idea that has ever leaked into a good game. How that made it to the retail version of the original, let alone this port, is just unthinkable.

Originally there was going to be a plasmid called Sanctuary, it was a bubble shield like in Halo, and you used it to hack cameras and turrets in real time, so the game would carry on playing and you had to hack with the time pressure of the bubble, not the water from the Pipe Dream mini game. I really wish they'd have brought that back and had some sort of electronic/mechanical mini game, something a little less abstract.

Yeah, I mean the goal is too far away on the hacking, you better off just paying them.

 

[UntoldDreams]

What is wrong with you people?

The demo was fun without any huge issues.

Go play some games and be happy.

 

[Raistlin]

What is wrong with you people?

The demo was fun without any huge issues.

Go play some games and be happy.

I personally don't mind the blur (in some situations, its preferable), but the framerate is a bit disheartening. It's certainly more than playable though, so if that is the extent of the framerate issues, I'm not overly concerned.


However, the stuff shown at the end of the demo ... clips from later levels, showing off more weapons, abilities, enemies, etc ... that stuff has me worried. The framerate was really bad at times, and the amount of tearing was pretty crazy. Hopefully that isn't an issue in the final build.

 

[Neiteio]

I personally don't mind the blur (in some situations, its preferable), but the framerate is a bit disheartening. It's certainly more than playable though, so if that is the extent of the framerate issues, I'm not overly concerned.

However, the stuff shown at the end of the demo ... clips from later levels, showing off more weapons, abilities, enemies, etc ... that stuff has me worried. The framerate was really bad at times, and the amount of tearing was pretty crazy. Hopefully that isn't an issue in the final build.

I'm nearly positive the preview video looks sucky merely because it's over-compressed prerecorded footage. Preview videos almost always look worse; for example, look at the preview videos in the Pure demo, rife with screen-tearing and other problems not found in the actual game.

Also, everyone should check out the new dedicated demo thread on 2K's official website, started by the community manager to address our concerns. You'll notice in the second post that I took the time to restate many of the issues people are experiencing in the hopes that they are fixed in a patch, assuming they're in the final build at all.

I hope it helps.

 

[Lord Error]

I personally don't mind the blur (in some situations, its preferable), but the framerate is a bit disheartening. It's certainly more than playable though, so if that is the extent of the framerate issues, I'm not overly concerned.


However, the stuff shown at the end of the demo ... clips from later levels, showing off more weapons, abilities, enemies, etc ... that stuff has me worried. The framerate was really bad at times, and the amount of tearing was pretty crazy. Hopefully that isn't an issue in the final build.

That's exactly how I feel about the whole thing as well (and this should answer WickedLaharl's question from the above, as well). There wasn't any actual tearing in the demo from what I remember, it was always full frame drops, so who knows, maybe that video at the end was just really badly captured. Just like Neiteio said above, those gameplay videos almost without exception always looks bad compared to the actual games, they never seem to compress them with bitrate high enough, or capture them cleanly enough.

 

[memecomplex]

What is wrong with you people?

The demo was fun without any huge issues.

Go play some games and be happy.

So why aren't you playing your games instead of dropping snarky one liners? Some of us are outraged that such a shoddy PS3 port is allowed to exist and we want to cause enough ruckus that we don't get shafted again by other devs/publishers.

Stubburns, I know what you mean about multiplatform games looking sharper on the 360 and I generally agree. However in terms of hardware visual fidelity (without scaling) I think the PS3 should in theory be able to output a better and clearer picture, it being HDMI 1.3 and Sony designed and all.

 

[CrushDance]

are you blind, ignorant, or in denial?

it doesn't look the same as the 360 version. period. however you can choose to believe that 360 owners are upset that the ps3 is getting a port of a game that they played well over a year ago if that makes this inferior port easier to swallow.

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/20081004#1223141168

blown out of proportion my ass.

That's a bug.

Still looks kind of bad overall.

 

[MWS Natural]

That's pretty much what I mean, virtually all multiplatform games I've experienced have this same sort of difference. By the looks of it BioShock is exactly the same. It does look better then some of the shots in this thread, but the 360 version still looks slightly crisper.

I refer to the phenomenon as the PS3's "Vaseline Filter", I think it actually worked out well for GTAIV.

 

[chespace]

Wow, that texture comparison up there can't be real.

Almost looks photoshopped in there.

 

[Mike Works]

i downloaded the demo, having never played bioshock (don't own a 360), and the game looks gorgeous and has amazing presentation.

i had a lot of fun with it. good games are fun.

you guys can continue your stupid argument about nothing now.

 

[mattiewheels]

jesus, what the hell's going on in here?

i really have faith that the demo was a bad decision to release outdated code. i haven't read but the first and last page, is there really system wars going on in here? jeez.

 

[Surfheart]

Using exclusives makes ZERO sense. Do you not understand that?

We are talking about how sharp an image is in COMPARISON to other platform. You need to be able to compare the same game.

Maybe it's not the PS3, but with every single multiplatform game I've experienced this generation, this phenomena occurs.

So you're suggesting, either I'm lying, which is fair you don't know that I'm not, I'm not but if you think I would, you wouldn't believe my claim I'm not. Or that every developer has for some reason made the same mistake in every game. Which is totally impossible.

So we're back to the hardware. Maybe it's not the output, because you're right, the BluRay and HD vids play in pristine clarity. So maybe it's something else, the GPU, anything inside the machine that deals with the game and not the video playback.

You're claim that this isn't true, that they're all identical, it's bollocks. You must have serious eye problems.

I disagre with this. Using exclusives is perfectly valid because it sets a benchmark for the output of the system. Exclusives don't use some magical graphics library or hidden GPU, they use the exact same hardware to output graphics as do these slightly blurry 3rd party efforts. For Bioshock's output to be like it is would be all down to the developer and not some intrinsic limitation of the PS3's hardware.

 

[MWS Natural]

I disagre with this. Using exclusives is perfectly valid because it sets a benchmark for the output of the system. Exclusives don't use some magical graphics library or hidden GPU, they use the exact same hardware to output graphics as do these slightly blurry 3rd party efforts. For Bioshock's output to be like it is would be all down to the developer and not some intrinsic limitation of the PS3's hardware.

I think exclusives are great to set a benchmark for a system but when it takes 40+million in devs costs to get there you can never expect 3rd party games to be up to par. No 1st/2nd party devs for the PS3 aren't using a hidden GPU but not compnay has hundreds of devs and years to throw at the PS3 exclusively to get quality results.

 

[speculawyer]

WTF . . . system wars for a game released more than a year later? Give it a rest.

 

[StuBurns]

I disagre with this. Using exclusives is perfectly valid because it sets a benchmark for the output of the system. Exclusives don't use some magical graphics library or hidden GPU, they use the exact same hardware to output graphics as do these slightly blurry 3rd party efforts. For Bioshock's output to be like it is would be all down to the developer and not some intrinsic limitation of the PS3's hardware.

I really don't get why people don't see why this isn't valid.

What are you comparing it to when you use exclusives as an example?
This is about how DMC4/GTA4/COD4/BioShock/Assassin's Creed etc look when the 360 versions are compared with the PS3 versions.

If you only saw the PS3 version of DMC4, you would think it was perfectly 'sharp', it's only when in comparison to the 360 version it looks worse. In a game like Uncharted, there is not a second version to compare it with.

It's like music, CD quality is fine, but when compared with higher resolution audio it doesn't sound as quite as good. It is a relative comparison, you can't look at a single example alone, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Shogmaster]

I really don't get why people don't see why this isn't valid.

What are you comparing it to when you use exclusives as an example?
This is about how DMC4/GTA4/COD4/BioShock/Assassin's Creed etc look when the 360 versions are compared with the PS3 versions.

If you only saw the PS3 version of DMC4, you would think it was perfectly 'sharp', it's only when in comparison to the 360 version it looks worse. In a game like Uncharted, there is not a second version to compare it with.

It's like music, CD quality is fine, but when compared with higher resolution audio it doesn't sound as quite as good. It is a relative comparison, you can't look at a single example alone, it doesn't make sense.

Don't waste your time. These guys are in way too deep in their cognitive dissonance.

 

[CrushDance]

I think exclusives are great to set a benchmark for a system but when it takes 40+million in devs costs to get there you can never expect 3rd party games to be up to par. No 1st/2nd party devs for the PS3 aren't using a hidden GPU but not compnay has hundreds of devs and years to throw at the PS3 exclusively to get quality results.

Little Big Planet? WipeOut? Let's not forget that the reason why some of these multiplatform games aren't to par on the PS3 is because of development being started on the 360. Several developers have stated that it's much easier to go the other way around.

UE3 and starting on 360 are the problems, but as some have said, it is now being switched around so that games released on both platforms hold out better. That's the reaosn why games are multiplat, very few have the luxury that some studious have of getting Microsoft and Sony to pump them with cash.

So it has to be solid on both or they risk losing out.

 

[Gully State]

So should we just post PC screen shots of bioshock seeing as how this thread has devolved into a fanboy pissing contest?

The FFXIII comparison thread is going to be epic.

 

[RpgN]

So should we just post PC screen shots of bioshock seeing as how this thread has devolved into a fanboy pissing contest?

The FFXIII comparison thread is going to be epic.

Ugh, I don't want think about it. When that game comes, it's going to be the ultimate system wars comparison thread :X

So let's sum up bioshock's problems:

-There is a bug where Big daddy looks like shit.
-There are some framerate issues

The nitpicks:

-The game isn't that much different from the xbox 360 version.
- The ''Crisp'' image can be caliberated on your tv.
- Some people are overexaggerating here.

These are some problems found on the demo version. Now 2k is aware of the bug and other problems probably. We can assume that they're working on fixing those problems. In the end, the ps3 port won't be 100% the same but probably 90%.

Okay? End of discussion?

 

[Ashhong]

i didnt notice any problems with big daddy or anything. although, unless i played wrong, i only saw him like twice? i dont remember being that close to him.

the main problem i had with bioshock, and really threw me off, were the controls. im not talking about the button placement, but the control sticks. for some reason it was just really difficult to aim, much harder than COD4. i messed around with the sensitivity in the options menu, but couldnt get it to feel right. anybody know what im talking about?

 

[StuBurns]

i didnt notice any problems with big daddy or anything. although, unless i played wrong, i only saw him like twice? i dont remember being that close to him.

the main problem i had with bioshock, and really threw me off, were the controls. im not talking about the button placement, but the control sticks. for some reason it was just really difficult to aim, much harder than COD4. i messed around with the sensitivity in the options menu, but couldnt get it to feel right. anybody know what im talking about?

You see the Big Daddy three times in the demo, all three have the same texture issue. However, the first two are moving, at a distance, and thru filters, the first is thru some sort of dizzy filter because you fell, and the second is behind a sheet of glass.

The third one, is already dead, and you can walk right up to him.

 

[Death Dealer]

Seems exactly like the PC demo (on high) with slightly worse graphics. Although I think the full game gets an extra level that was cut out. Frame rate wasn't perfect but very playable. I thought the controls felt natural except for the odd choice of the triggers for melee and plasmid attacks.

 

[Ashhong]

You see the Big Daddy three times in the demo, all three have the same texture issue. However, the first two are moving, at a distance, and thru filters, the first is thru some sort of dizzy filter because you fell, and the second is behind a sheet of glass.

The third one, is already dead, and you can walk right up to him.

so weird, i must have completely missed the dead one. either that or i forgot :lol

 

[StuBurns]

so weird, i must have completely missed the dead one. either that or i forgot :lol

It's at the stair case near the end of the demo where you zap the two splicers standing in a pool of water, next to them is the dead Daddy.

 

[Surfheart]

I really don't get why people don't see why this isn't valid.

What are you comparing it to when you use exclusives as an example?
This is about how DMC4/GTA4/COD4/BioShock/Assassin's Creed etc look when the 360 versions are compared with the PS3 versions.

If you only saw the PS3 version of DMC4, you would think it was perfectly 'sharp', it's only when in comparison to the 360 version it looks worse. In a game like Uncharted, there is not a second version to compare it with.

It's like music, CD quality is fine, but when compared with higher resolution audio it doesn't sound as quite as good. It is a relative comparison, you can't look at a single example alone, it doesn't make sense.

All those game you mentioned were certainly inferior to their Xbox360 counterparts. But for a number of reasons other than the mystical "3rd party blur"

That Burnout exists as it does on PS3 refutes your arguement.

I can see what you are getting at, I myself buy multiplatform on 360 because most of the time they are generally better. I just don't think it's some fundemental single flaw with the PS3 hardware that causes it. It's (360 lead platform, PS3 harder to code for, Multiplatform titles are ported rather than being written ground up) take your pick.

 

[StuBurns]

All those game you mentioned were certainly inferior to their Xbox360 counterparts. But for a number of reasons other than the mystical "3rd party blur"

That Burnout exists as it does on PS3 refutes your arguement.

I can see what you are getting at, I myself buy multiplatform on 360 because most of the time they are generally better. I just don't think it's some fundemental single flaw with the PS3 hardware that causes it. It's (360 lead platform, PS3 harder to code for, Multiplatform titles are ported rather than being written ground up) take your pick.

You have no idea what I'm getting at, and I buy all my multiplatform games on PS3.

 

[Surfheart]

Don't waste your time. These guys are in way too deep in their cognitive dissonance.

I'm only a fanboy of commonsense Shog.

You have no idea what I'm getting at, and I buy all my multiplatform games on PS3.

I've totally misunderstood your point then.

It could be a big coincidence, it could be just the nature of the video output of the PS3.

Maybe it's not the output, because you're right, the BluRay and HD vids play in pristine clarity. So maybe it's something else, the GPU, anything inside the machine that deals with the game and not the video playback.

It's a strawman arguement. There are games on the ps3 that are crisp, but lets ignore that fact and argue that because multiplatform games aren't (as crisp as the 360 versions) therefore there is something intrinsic to the PS3 hardware, specifically in your words "the nature of the video output", that cause all these thirdparty efforts to be inferior?

You totally ignore the fact that the PS3 is capable of crisp output.

Let me ask you one thing. Do you think that had Bioshock led on PS3 it would look better than what it does today?

 

[Crayon]

Seriously if you guys liked your ps3s so much you'd be stoked to have the game at all.

Go play some rock n roll racing on genesis. It's still fun and it's a much rougher port than bioshock. Better than having to go buy a snes to play the game... or is it?

 

[StuBurns]

I've totally misunderstood your point then.

This is my point, articulated perfectly by Sam Houser, creator of the most popular game in the world, he probably knows what he's talking about, you think?

The 360 games have a certain look to them; PS3 games have a certain look to them. I like the way [the PS3] renders. There's a certain kind of softness without being blurry -- some warmth to it -- and then there's a certain more clinical element to how the 360 looks.

It's a strawman arguement. There are games on the ps3 that are crisp, but lets ignore that fact but argue that because multiplatform games aren't (as crisp as the 360 versions) therefore there is something intrinsic to the PS3 hardware, specifically in your words "the nature of the video output", that cause all these thirdparty efforts to be inferior?

You totally ignore the fact that the PS3 is capable of crisp output.

I'm not ignoring anything, the PS3 never looks as sharp as the 360 on multiplatform games. No one has provided a single example suggesting otherwise. It's not TVs either, because direct capture from machines, like in the DMC4 pics, also shows the difference.

 

[Surfheart]

This is my point, articulated perfectly by Sam Houser, creator of the most popular game in the world, he probably knows what he's talking about, you think?




I'm ignoring anything, the PS3 never looks as sharp as the 360 on multiplatform games. No one has provided a single example suggesting otherwise. It's not TVs either, because direct capture from machines, like in the DMC4 pics, also shows the difference.

That comment from Sam Houser was alluding to the fact the the PS3 version was rendering at a sub HD resolution hence the "softer look"

This is not the case with Bioshock. I agree that PS3 never looks as sharp as 360 on Multiplat stuff. But that's usually because the ports tend to run at a slightly lower resolution than the original version on 360. For whatever reason. I guess if you had to point to one output related hardware shortcoming of the PS3 that causes this is that is has less available memory than the 360.

 

[StuBurns]

That comment from Sam Houser was alluding to the fact the the PS3 version was rendering at a sub HD resolution hence the "softer look"

He's not, he's talking about the PS3 in general, that's why he says 'games' not 'gta4'.

And to your earlier question, about the if 2K Boston had made the PS3 version of BioShock the lead SKU would it look better? Yes it would, but it would still have the same less sharp/crisp/defined/soft, whatever term you wish to attach, look about it. The 360 version would still have the same sharper/crisper/defined/harder/clinical look about it. I really believe that, and have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. DMC4 was lead on PS3 wasn't it?

It's the hardware, like Houser said, I have no doubt.

 

[Lince]

DMC4 was lead on PS3 wasn't it?

I don't remember exactly what was the thread but we had some comments about Capcom itself admitting that just one programmer was in charge of *porting* DMC4 to PS3, as far as I know framework engine console games are optimized ports of the main PC code.

 

[StuBurns]

I don't remember exactly what was the thread but we had some comments about Capcom itself admitting that just one programmer was in charge of *porting* DMC4 to PS3, as far as I know framework engine console games are optimized ports of the main PC code.

One guy? That's actually very impressive, not sure why I thought PS3 was lead SKU then. I guess that was a bad example.

 

[deepbrown]

I disagre with this. Using exclusives is perfectly valid because it sets a benchmark for the output of the system. Exclusives don't use some magical graphics library or hidden GPU, they use the exact same hardware to output graphics as do these slightly blurry 3rd party efforts. For Bioshock's output to be like it is would be all down to the developer and not some intrinsic limitation of the PS3's hardware.

It's a strawman arguement. There are games on the ps3 that are crisp, but lets ignore that fact and argue that because multiplatform games aren't (as crisp as the 360 versions) therefore there is something intrinsic to the PS3 hardware, specifically in your words "the nature of the video output", that cause all these thirdparty efforts to be inferior?

You totally ignore the fact that the PS3 is capable of crisp output.

Let me ask you one thing. Do you think that had Bioshock led on PS3 it would look better than what it does today?

If the game is running at the same res, has the same effects, same texture res, etc ... it will not look 'crisper' on the 360.

What you may however be seeing, is that the 360 does not have a standard output curve for for contrast, color saturation, etc. By default, they are jacked pretty high. That is something that can be calibrated on your TV however.

I'm guessing it is all coincidence. The reasons for the above games is not due to the nature of the output.

DMC4 uses temporal motion blur (on purpose) on the PS3 version

GTA4 is running at a lower res

COD4 has lower res textures

Not sure about Sake and Assassin's Creed, but you get the picture.


One of the most important things is to have a steady surface to set the camera on ... preferably a stand.

For most cameras, any shaking is going to cause blurring, and even if its subtle, its pretty much the kiss of death for TV pics.

What he said.

 

[deepbrown]

He's not, he's talking about the PS3 in general, that's why he says 'games' not 'gta4'.

And to your earlier question, about the if 2K Boston had made the PS3 version of BioShock the lead SKU would it look better? Yes it would, but it would still have the same less sharp/crisp/defined/soft, whatever term you wish to attach, look about it. The 360 version would still have the same sharper/crisper/defined/harder/clinical look about it. I really believe that, and have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. DMC4 was lead on PS3 wasn't it?

It's the hardware, like Houser said, I have no doubt.

Yes you have. You have seen Uncharted. It's simply. The PS3 is capable of Uncharted level sharpness/crispness, just like it's caapable of using the same colours and resolutions of Uncharted, and the same shadows and lighting and textures of Uncharted - they can all be outputted by any other game - if devved properly. There is nothing hardware, we already have ALL the evidence we need.

If we had a whole bunch of multiplatform games that were only 600p, but the PS3 exclusive were 720p - we don't say that the PS3 isn't CAPABLE of outputting 720p. It is capable of 720p, because SOME games do it. The PS3is capable of outputting the same sharp/crisp image in Uncharted for ANY game. End of.

This is my point, articulated perfectly by Sam Houser, creator of the most popular game in the world, he probably knows what he's talking about, you think?




I'm not ignoring anything, the PS3 never looks as sharp as the 360 on multiplatform games. No one has provided a single example suggesting otherwise. It's not TVs either, because direct capture from machines, like in the DMC4 pics, also shows the difference.

DMC4 uses temporal blur for AA - it's faux AA. There's different problems with each.

AND the PS3 and 360 have different default settings for their output - meaning you HAVE to calibrate your tv differently for each console. As someone says - there's the ATI look (contrast pushed way up, and even the sharpness whacked way up, creating an unnatural look) and the Nvidea look - the more natural look...which also comes with better lighting, which I personally turn the contrast up on.

 

[StuBurns]

Yes you have. You have seen Uncharted. It's simply. The PS3 is capable of Uncharted level sharpness/crispness, just like it's caapable of using the same colours and resolutions of Uncharted, and the same shadows and lighting and textures of Uncharted - they can all be outputted by any other game - if devved properly. There is nothing hardware, we already have ALL the evidence we need.

If we had a whole bunch of multiplatform games that were only 600p, but the PS3 exclusive were 720p - we don't say that the PS3 isn't CAPABLE of outputting 720p. It is capable of 720p, because SOME games do it. The PS3is capable of outputting the same sharp/crisp image in Uncharted for ANY game. End of.


DMC4 uses temporal blur for AA - it's faux AA. There's different problems with each.

AND the PS3 and 360 have different default settings for their output - meaning you HAVE to calibrate your tv differently for each console. As someone says - there's the ATI look (contrast pushed way up, and even the sharpness whacked way up, creating an unnatural look) and the Nvidea look - the more natural look...which also comes with better lighting, which I personally turn the contrast up on.

You're ignoring the fact that these pictures are direct from the machine, not via TVs. The TV makes no difference.

And if you don't understand why exclusives are irrelevant to this conversation then you clearly are not intelligent enough to warrant continuing it.

It's strange that Sam Houser, creator of the most popular video game in the world agrees with me, and you, not creator of the worlds most popular video game, don't.

I don't mean to be rude, but I am inclined to think he knows more about the subject then you.

 

[eso76]

iirc, back then people said PC was the lead on for DMC4.
Regardless, i've stated elsewhere, multiplatforms looking softer on ps3 must have to do with the same instructions and video mode behaving differently when ported to nvidia chipset.

It only happens with ports, and ps3 video output itself is as clear and crisp as it can get on my hdtv, i can make out single pixels, something i couldn't be able to do with my x360 hooked through component (though, maybe if i had a newer x360 with hdmi it would look the same). Still, even with a better general IQ and video output, ports tend to look softer and slightly blurrier (dmc4 looks even blurrier because of temporal AA though), it definately isn't ps3 inability to output a clear image though, as proven by other games and applications.

Also, there's no need to get all defensive in threads like this; i believe no one is discussing actual console's strenghts and weaknesses, just the quality of ports themselves, which can be useful for ppl who own both systems.

 

[deepbrown]

You're ignoring the fact that these pictures are direct from the machine, not via TVs. The TV makes no difference.

And if you don't understand why exclusives are irrelevant to this conversation then you clearly are not intelligent enough to warrant continuing it.

No. I'm an embedded member of B3d, so I know what I'm talking about.

When we see a problem with a game, we look for the problem. In DMC4 is was temporal blur. In Bioshock it looks like something similar. In GTA4 is was a lower resolution.

We then also realise that both graphics cards output different default settings...one is harsh and contrast, the other is softer and more natural. We alter this by changing our TV settings to get the optimal picture for both. There is no texture difference, there is no OUTPUT problem.

We also look to other games on the system to find the picture videlity, sharpness, contrast and output, to see the capabilities of the console. We see what it's capable of and so can conclude that anything below this standard is developer/software bound and not hardware, as we have seen what the hardware is capable of outputting.

Like the guy above me is saying - developers have to use the GPU's differently and create the games for that GPU - for the PS3 GPU you should up the contrast - and exclusive developers obviously do this. If there is a problem, it's because multiplatform developers neglect changing their settings for the PS3.

It's simple and it's the only rational conclusion. I want you to stop worrying about output differences. And instead, look at the evidence for each game. No one is denying what you're seeing, but we're denying your reasons.

 

[deepbrown]

iirc, back then people said PC was the lead on for DMC4.
Regardless, i've stated elsewhere, multiplatforms looking softer on ps3 must have to do with the same instructions and video mode behaving differently when ported to nvidia chipset.

It only happens with ports, and ps3 video output itself is as clear and crisp as it can get on my hdtv, i can make out single pixels, something i couldn't be able to do with my x360 hooked through component (though, maybe if i had a newer x360 with hdmi it would look the same). Still, even with a better general IQ and video output, ports tend to look softer and slightly blurrier (dmc4 looks even blurrier because of temporal AA though), it definately isn't ps3 inability to output a clear image though, as proven by other games and applications.

Also, there's no need to get all defensive in threads like this; i believe no one is discussing actual console's strenghts and weaknesses, just the quality of ports themselves, which can be useful for ppl who own both systems.

Give the man a hand.