Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

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.

Think about what you're saying... 'It's a giant coincidence', that is essentially your opinion, am I right? That all these games look softer on PS3 then 360, but not because of the hardware, but because every single multiplatform developer has implemented something that is causing this?

That is the most absurd concept I've ever heard. It's like saying, lights to don't emit light, they actually randomly all suck dark. Nothing in common with the physical elements of the bulb.

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Something inside the PS3 is causing a softer image output, or all multiplatform games have different unrelated elements that are causing the same result.

No. Houser is right, it's the hardware, you are wrong.

 

[Lince]

Yes you have. You have seen Uncharted. It's simply. The PS3 is capable of Uncharted level sharpness/crispness, just like it's capable 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 deved properly. There is nothing hardware, we already have ALL the evidence we need.

about Uncharted

We’ve been using the Cell for pretty much all our systems: rendering, particles, physics simulation, collision detection, animation, AI, decompression, water simulation, etc … and to give you an idea of the power of the PS3, we're using only 30 percent of the Cell processor.

about Bioshock PS3

Various parts of the game that could have been optimized for SPUs haven't been and because of that the port will end up with a lower framerate than the 360 version.

All in all I wouldn't go down the road of doubting PS3's ability to technically match the 360 version of Bioshock (be it textures, framerate or resolution), let's just say it's a poor effort for quick money on an already dated product.

 

[CrushDance]

There was someone a while back who stated that th reason PS3 games look softer and brighter to their 360 counterparts which are usually darker is due to the nature of the hardware. When Sony built the machine they built it to do near perfect video playback(BluRay, DVD, CD etc) and as such it apparently puts out a "perfect" colour gamut.

So Deepbrown kind of makes sense in that when coded, since most of these games were 360 first the developers were working on the ouput from that platform and in most cases didn't take that into account.

Look at every multiplat game. The PS3 versions are always lighter and brighter(Oblivion is a good example). The vaseline filter, low res and such are due to development on 360 first.

I won't be buying this game.

 

[longdi]

Think about what you're saying... 'It's a giant coincidence', that is essentially your opinion, am I right? That all these games look softer on PS3 then 360, but not because of the hardware, but because every single multiplatform developer has implemented something that is causing this?

That is the most absurd concept I've ever heard. It's like saying, lights to don't emit light, they actually randomly all suck dark. Nothing in common with the physical elements of the bulb.

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Something inside the PS3 is causing a softer image output, or all multiplatform games have different unrelated elements that are causing the same result.

No. Houser is right, it's the hardware, you are wrong.

then how is he wrong?

In the PC world it is also like this. ATI has colour and edge correction on by default while Nvidia you have to go to the control panel to turn on digital vibrance to get the punchy ATI look. IIRC it is true for 360 and PS3, 360 has this jacked up contrast and edges to compensate average gamers who do not calibrate their tv.

 

[StuBurns]

then how is he wrong?

In the PC world it is also like this. ATI has colour and edge correction on by default while Nvidia you have to go to the control panel to turn on digital vibrance to get the punchy ATI look. IIRC it is true for 360 and PS3, 360 has this jacked up contrast and edges to compensate average gamers who do not calibrate their tv.

Are you saying the reason they look different is because no developers have 'turned on' some option?

There has to be a physical reason none of these games look the same, not a software/programming reason. There is no way all developers are over looking various elements that are causing this to happen. It's too far fetched.

And if it's a case of, they would look identical, but you have to make adjustments on your TV to compensate for the hardware output. Then I'm right, the PS3 is OUTPUTTING a softer image. Just because it can be counteracted post-output, doesn't change the fact it's there. I never claimed it wasn't by design, just that the difference exists.

 

[CrushDance]

Are you saying the reason they look different is because no developers have 'turned on' some option?

There has to be a physical reason none of these games look the same, not a software/programming reason. There is no way all developers are over looking various elements that are causing this to happen. It's too far fetched.

And if it's a case of, they would look identical, but you have to make adjustments on your TV to compensate for the hardware output. Then I'm right, the PS3 is OUTPUTTING a softer image. Just because it can be counteracted post-output, doesn't change the fact it's there. I never claimed it wasn't by design, just that the difference exists.

You're correct. The PS3 does put out a softer image due to the hardware, that's what the games should look like. I believe people have gotten accustomed to the 360's look and think that's what the games should be like. But that is not the case, 360 games are almost always darker than PS3 games.

 

[StuBurns]

You're correct. The PS3 does put out a softer image due to the hardware, that's what the games should look like. I believe people have gotten accustomed to the 360's look and think that's what the games should be like. But that is not the case, 360 games are almost always darker than PS3 games.

To clarify, I never said that I think one is more 'correct' or 'superior' to the other. Just that there was a notable difference, and that I wanted to know what was causing it.

People might associate terms like 'sharp' and 'crisp' to superior, but I certainly don't. Music recored on 16-Track/2" is far less accurate then a modern DigiDesign recording, and I massively prefer tape.

 

[jax (old)]

a mod needs to come in here and clean out that PS3 vs xbox360 graphical shitfest that is completely derailing this thread.

 

[longdi]

maybe it is hardwired to the gpu bios? afaik, ps3 output the correct video levels, so you can say 360 image is "harsher" not ps3 is softer.

 

[deepbrown]

Think about what you're saying... 'It's a giant coincidence', that is essentially your opinion, am I right? That all these games look softer on PS3 then 360, but not because of the hardware, but because every single multiplatform developer has implemented something that is causing this?

That is the most absurd concept I've ever heard. It's like saying, lights to don't emit light, they actually randomly all suck dark. Nothing in common with the physical elements of the bulb.

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Something inside the PS3 is causing a softer image output, or all multiplatform games have different unrelated elements that are causing the same result.

No. Houser is right, it's the hardware, you are wrong.

Listen very carefully:

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.

Read what he says:

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.

And note - all these differences can be changed with yout TV settings.

 

[CrushDance]

maybe it is hardwired to the gpu bios? afaik, ps3 output the correct video levels, so you can say 360 image is "harsher" not ps3 is softer.

From my understanding that's the case.

 

[StuBurns]

Listen very carefully: 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.

Listen very carefully: I think you're wrong.

Uncharted and other PS3 exclusives, don't look 'crisper' then DMC4 on PS3, or most the other multiplatform games. They still have the exact same 'tone' to their display.

 

[deepbrown]

Listen very carefully: I think you're wrong.

Uncharted and other PS3 exclusives, don't look 'crisper' then DMC4 on PS3, or most the other multiplatform games. They still have the exact same 'tone' to their display.

Then change your TV settings! Christ. I up the contrast for PS3 and down the contrast and sharpness for 360 because it is to "gamey," "harsh" and "unnatural".

 

[deepbrown]

From my understanding that's the case.

This is the case. And it's the answer to everything Stubrns is asking. But he doesn't seem to be interested.

 

[StuBurns]

Then change your TV settings! Christ.

Direct feed images of Uncharted show exactly the same thing.
It is nothing to do with TV.

 

[deepbrown]

Direct feed images of Uncharted show exactly the same thing.
It is nothing to do with TV.

Please. We've given you the answer to your question. We've answered the tone difference.

"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."

Here...that's your answer! You couldn't hope for anything better!

 

[StuBurns]

Please. We've given you the answer to your question. We've answered the tone difference.

"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."

Here...that's your answer! You couldn't hope for anything better!

You've provided no evidence whatsoever.

You do know that making a statement isn't the same as proving something don't you?

It does not only happen with ports.

 

[Morph-0]

If the image is softer / blurrier then its most likely due to a game being rendered in a resolution that is lower than 720p before being upscaled to what ever your system output settings have been set to. Does anyone know the native resolution that BioShock PS3 is rendered at?

Also there was talk of lower resolution textures being used, plus not all TVs/monitors are the same and all process image slightly differently. I was playing Little Big Planet on my 1080p monitor and when I compared the image to my bros Bravia I noticed the image on his was a little sharper and richer however the 360 does seem sharper and a little better looking compared to the PS3 running on my monitor.

 

[antiloop]

You've provided no evidence whatsoever.

You do know that making a statement isn't the same as proving something don't you?

The discussion is on B3D, from a year or two back. Now go search and don't derail the thread any further.

 

[deepbrown]

You've provided no evidence whatsoever.

You do know that making a statement isn't the same as proving something don't you?

It does not only happen with ports.

You want evidence about Nvidea and ATI default settings? They are easy to come accross....go read on B3d.

I wonder. Could you repeat what my answer is in your own words to see if you understand what the answer is.

 

[StuBurns]

The discussion is on B3D, from a year or two back. Now go search and don't derail the thread any further.

It's hardly derailing, there was virtually no demo impressions anyway. Only ones that pertained to it not being as good as the 360 version. The discussion as to whether this is the game or the hardware is completely relevant.

But if you wish...
Anyone know how to unlock the harder difficulties on the demo? If it's possible.

You want evidence about Nvidea and ATI default settings? They are easy to come accross....go read on B3d.

I wonder. Could you repeat what my answer is in your own words to see if you understand what the answer is.

I would but complaints of derailment forbid it. I won't discuss it any further, but I'm still convinced you're wrong.

 

[deepbrown]

If the image is softer / blurrier then its most likely due to a game being rendered in a resolution that is lower than 720p before being upscaled to what ever your system output settings have been set to. Does anyone know the native resolution that BioShock PS3 is rendered at?

Also there was talk of lower resolution textures being used, plus not all TVs/monitors are the same and all process image slightly differently. I was playing Little Big Planet on my 1080p monitor and when I compared the image to my bros Bravia I noticed the image on his was a little sharper and richer however the 360 does seem sharper and a little better looking compared to the PS3 running on my monitor.

Bioshock PS3 is 720p 0xAA. There is a blur added, presumably to aid in AA...hence why IGN says the edges are smoother on the PS3 version.

The rest of this discussion is a complete derailment, but I think we're at the conclusion to it.

The discussion is on B3D, from a year or two back. Now go search.

Bravo

 

[CoG]

If the image is softer / blurrier then its most likely due to a game being rendered in a resolution that is lower than 720p before being upscaled to what ever your system output settings have been set to. Does anyone know the native resolution that BioShock PS3 is rendered at?

It's 1280×720 no AA. You don't need to be a Quaz to see the stepping is identical on the 360 and PS3 versions.

 

[deepbrown]

It's hardly derailing, there was virtually no demo impressions anyway. Only ones that pertained to it not being as good as the 360 version. The discussion as to whether this is the game or the hardware is completely relevant.

But if you wish...
Anyone know how to unlock the harder difficulties on the demo? If it's possible.



I would but complaints of derailment forbid it. I won't discuss it any further, but I'm still convinced you're wrong.

No please. We can end this here. Tell me what my (our) answer is. I have a big feeling you're going to say something different.

 

[StuBurns]

No please. We can end this here. Tell me what my (our) answer is. I have a big feeling you're going to say something different.

I'll pm you, people don't want the thread derailed.

EDIT: Sent. If you wish to further derail the thread by pointlessly posting my pm, then do so.

 

[CrushDance]

Which is which?

 

[StuBurns]

Which is which?

Links are broke for me.

And no more derailing the thread.

EDIT: And they have the same address you cheeky bastard.

 

[CrushDance]

Links are broke for me.

And no more derailing the thread.

EDIT: And they have the same address you cheeky bastard.

I fixed it!

But they have the same address on purpose, can you not spot the difference?

 

[StuBurns]

I fixed it!

They aren't loading for me still?
Fix it better ;-)


EDIT: If they have the same address, they must be the same image don't they?
I can't see them to try and see the difference anyway.

EDIT2: Top one is way better, doesn't mean it's 360 though, but I would say if one of them is, it's that one.

But as we've already seen pics from this game, and the guy has a different character model in the PS3 version, I would say something very fishy is going on. But, if one is 360 and one is PS3, top one is 360, bottom one is PS3.

 

[longdi]

both ps3

 

[CrushDance]

both ps3

Nope. Try again.

 

[StuBurns]

Nope. Try again.

http://i36.tinypic.com/11mf9si.png[IMG]

[IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/mtm3wj.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
Dude smaller file sizes.

Same again, 360 Top, PS3 Bottom.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Nope. Try again.

Bottom's PS3?

EDIT:In 99% of the "near identical" comparisons of 360/PS3 games, the only real different is lighting.

 

[CrushDance]

Dude smaller file sizes.

Same again, 360 Top, PS3 Bottom.

Well you're right on the 360 being on the top with both. But as you can see it's quite a tradeoff in most cases, the Star Wars one for example you can see how dark the game and it looks fine until you see the PS3 one where a lot more detail is gained by the light.

GameTrailers had this great Oblivion comparison which is a must see to illustrate the point further.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Well you're right on the 360 being on the top with both. But as you can see it's quite a tradeoff in most cases, the Star Wars one for example you can see how dark the game and it looks fine until you see the PS3 one where a lot more detail is gained by the light.

GameTrailers had this great Oblivion comparison which is a must see to illustrate the point further.

Whoa.

You mean...

Light messes with normal maps, which then change shading?

Who knew?

 

[CrushDance]

Whoa.

You mean...

Light messes with normal maps, which then change shading?

Who knew?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the other Oblivion video where the character is riding the horse shows the difference even clearer. [ur;=http://www.gametrailers.com/player/18084.html]Especially on the bridge[/url]

And this is the final one. Look as the player ascends towards the fire at the sheer difference between the two. It's not texture quality but light.

It really is the PS3's hardware for most of these games. That is not to say though that all the ports have been good or anything, far from it. There have been some downright horrible ones and BioShock while it really was awesome for me playing it, I will not buy unless some things are fixed.

 

[Dever]

I thought the demo was pretty fun, but what's up with the controls? R2 for shooting and R1 for changing the weapon? That's exactly how it shouldn't be, wtf.

Oh wait is this the wrong thread?

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the other Oblivion video where the character is riding the horse shows the difference even clearer. [ur;=http://www.gametrailers.com/player/18084.html]Especially on the bridge[/url]

And this is the final one. Look as the player ascends towards the fire at the sheer difference between the two. It's not texture quality but light.

It really is the PS3's hardware for most of these games. That is not to say though that all the ports have been good or anything, far from it. There have been some downright horrible ones and BioShock while it really was awesome for me playing it, I will not buy unless some things are fixed.

Site's down for maintenance.

I haven't really been paying attention to this thread, but like I said, in most of the comparison videos/pictures I've seen, the only real difference is lighting. There's no higher resolution textures, or different shaders or anything, it's just lighting...

Lighting in games has a major effect on everything.

 

[CrushDance]

Site's down for maintenance.

I haven't really been paying attention to this thread, but like I said, in most of the comparison videos/pictures I've seen, the only real difference is lighting. There's no higher resolution textures, or different shaders or anything, it's just lighting...

Lighting in games has a major effect on everything.

It's back up, watch the last video I posted. It seals what you're saying. You can barely make anything out in the 360 version, really I think it's because the darkness hides the flaws in most games that it looks better.

Now I said most, not all, people.

 

[burgerdog]

Nope. Try again.

What are you trying to prove? Anyway, for TFU the top one is 360 and the bottom is one is PS3.

 

[StuBurns]

What are you trying to prove? Anyway, for TFU the top one is 360 and the bottom is one is PS3.

I think the idea was to show me up by proving I can't tell the difference and it's all in my head.

That fact that I got them both right, and could have got as many right as he posted kind of spoils the illusion though. So don't bring it up ;-)

 

[CrushDance]

What are you trying to prove? Anyway, for TFU the top one is 360 and the bottom is one is PS3.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/18116.html

That.

 

[CrushDance]

I think the idea was to show me up by proving I can't tell the difference and it's all in my head.

That fact that I got them both right, and could have got as many right as he posted kind of spoils the illusion though. So don't bring it up ;-)

The lighting, I wanted you to get it right because it's clearly apparent that the PS3 version was the bottom version due to the lighting. Look at the stone behind the overlord, it's dark on the 360 and loses some detail while on the PS3 it's much brighter and shows more.

That is not talking about texture detail in that case, same with the Star Wars one. You see way more in the PS3 shot.

 

[65536]

Wow, this thread went to shit overnight… but I can't stay away when there are things that need to be corrected.

This is very similar to what I see on my set. My question is, how do you guys get such great pics of your tv screens? I have a pretty good digital camera and a great tv, I want some tips for taking good off-screen photos.

http://sr-388.net/pages/photo-guide/ should hopefully help. (I never got around to finishing the guide, but the first two parts should at least give you a few pointers)

Seriously though, part of the problem with the comparison pics is the contrast and saturation bias the native 360 signal has.

What's making the pic not look 'wet' is in part due to lowered contrast (the highlights appear washed out in comparison).

I've done my best to match the levels on these images without spending a lot of time on it to get the PS3/360 output looking as similar as possible. Note: as I was doing it quickly, it resulted in a darker image overall.

I did not touch the sharpness etc, only the levels and saturation. Can we please stop arguing that it's a contrast/saturation/levels issue?

Uh no. DMC4 uses temporal aliasing - ie. blurring frames on the PS3 to create "fake" AA. The results can be seen in screenshots, but the results are hardly visible in movement at all - the same crispness is visible in both versions. I have experienced both versions of the game.

It should be visible on any good display. Most LCDs blur so much with motion, however, that you probably wouldn't have noticed it on one. I don't know how visible it would have been on Plasmas or DLP displays, but it sure was obvious on my CRT monitor. (which can display everything up to and including 1080p)

/me scratches head, again. See, it's not quite that blurry on my TV as you can see from my screenshots posted a few pages back.

The direct captures that have been posted in this topic are the only way to properly judge sharpness of the image really. Comparing photos of one person's TV to another doesn't work, as you have to factor in the display type, resolution, settings, camera type, resolution, settings etc.

Comparing photos taken by the same person on the same display works, but it's not as good as direct captures and there can be some things that will affect how both photos look. (whether exposure is locked for example)

What you can say though, is that however much sharper the PS3 version looks on your display compared to the screenshots, is also how much sharper the 360 version would look on your display compared to the screenshots.

Name a single game that is sharper on PS3 then 360 (must be multiplatform of course), and provide screenshots. Direct-feed, showing some sort of HUD detail that shows the platform. And provide links to an official source so I know they aren't fixed.

I bet you can't find a single example.

The PS3's HDMI output is just as sharp as the 360s HDMI output.

Any differences between games is purely a software difference. You could say that it is caused by the hardware in the sense that the PS3's graphics card seems to be less capable than the one inside the 360, which results in developers having to lower image quality, but there is nothing about the way it outputs 720p, 1080p etc. that inherently makes it produce a softer image.

In the case of Bioshock, the developers seem to have implemented a blur filter, presumably as a way to fake anti-aliasing. (this technique was more common last generation)
In the case of a game like DMC4, they used temporal anti-aliasing on the PS3 rather than the ‘proper’ anti-aliasing use on the 360 version of the game, instead of using none at all. (personally I would have preferred to see none)
In the case of games like GTA IV, Dark Sector etc. the PS3 version of the game runs at a lower resolution than the 360 version, which causes the image to appear softer. (the same thing applies to MGS4 as well, for example)

As for people that seem to prefer the softer image of Bioshock running on PS3 compared to the 360—I hate you.

It is very easy to blur an image on your TV. You could switch to using component rather than HDMI, lower your sharpness settings, use negative sharpness if your display supports it, use overscan rather than disabling it etc. (note: on some displays like Pioneer/Toshiba, negative settings are not actually negative sharpness and they should be set to the lowest value)

It is absolutely impossible to recover the detail that has been lost by this blur filter, however. The sharpness controls on your display (which should really be disabled) only enhances the edge contrast of the image and almost always add artefacts to the edges of objects. (‘halos’ etc.) They cannot actually add any more detail/sharpness to the picture.

 

[StuBurns]

The lighting, I wanted you to get it right because it's clearly apparent that the PS3 version was the bottom version due to the lighting. Look at the stone behind the overlord, it's dark on the 360 and loses some detail while on the PS3 it's much brighter and shows more.

That is not talking about texture detail in that case, same with the Star Wars one. You see way more in the PS3 shot.

You wanted me to get them right? Then why test me? I said the PS3 and 360 are different, I know there is a difference. So you tested me to prove I could prove what I know?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

But never mind, it's over.

I got moaned at on the last page for derailing, tried to bring it back to the demo. Hopefully we can end it here.

 

[dark10x]

The results are clearly visible for any person who owns a CRT.

The 360 version of DMC4 still has more slowdown, however. That's just how it is.

The blur used in the PS3 version is kind of annoying, but it's actually pretty accurate for the series as the previous 3 PS2 games all did the same kind of thing (intentionally). Seriously, go back and check them out, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

I'm not sure what the reasoning was on PS2, but the DMC games always had this.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Which is which?

Quote of the thread. If Gaffers can't tell the difference between most 360/PS3 multiplatform games do you expect joe sixpack to know?

You guys are so damn jaded sometimes.

 

[StuBurns]

Quote of the thread. If Gaffers can't tell the difference between most 360/PS3 multiplatform games do you expect joe sixpack to know?

You guys are so damn jaded sometimes.

We did tell the difference though, doesn't that make that comment redundant?

 

[Draft]

The 360 version of DMC4 still has more slowdown, however. That's just how it is.

The blur used in the PS3 version is kind of annoying, but it's actually pretty accurate for the series as the previous 3 PS2 games all did the same kind of thing (intentionally). Seriously, go back and check them out, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

I'm not sure what the reasoning was on PS2, but the DMC games always had this.

There's like one camera angle in one zone in the entire game that has slowdown. It's the overgrown courtyard thing in the jungle area.

 

[Worm_Buffet]

I've done my best to match the levels on these images without spending a lot of time on it to get the PS3/360 output looking as similar as possible. Note: as I was doing it quickly, it resulted in a darker image overall.

I did not touch the sharpness etc, only the levels and saturation. Can we please stop arguing that it's a contrast/saturation/levels issue?
...
As for people that seem to prefer the softer image of Bioshock running on PS3 compared to the 360—I hate you.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why in the 360 version, in virtue of being sharper, the water looks more plasticy. The PS3 version does look more natural, and less like the entire floor was poorly laminated/covered in grease.

Don't hate me, the player, but the game.