Support NeoGAF

[CrushDance]

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

You really have to look to notice it though in most cases, when the system first came out it was easily apparent. But nowadays people use 200x zoom and so forth to point out the differences. If a game is good people will buy it regardless at the end of the day, if 2K can iron out these issues then they have a sale from me at $59.99, if not, maybe at $39.

What difference is there really but lighting? I notice slightly better AA or AA in the Overlord shot but it's because we're looking for it.

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.

I swear that was in the PS3 version to when I played it.

 

[TONX]

So... how 'bout that Bioshock demo?!

Whoops wrong thread.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

So... how 'bout that Bioshock demo?!

Whoops wrong thread.

Let's get on point now. This is about every other game except Bioshock, shame on you :O

 

[Fersis]

I think that this is really simple : Bioshock in PS3 is a lousy port.

 

[StuBurns]

You really have to look to notice it though in most cases, when the system first came out it was easily apparent. But nowadays people use 200x zoom and so forth to point out the differences. If a game is good people will buy it regardless at the end of the day, if 2K can iron out these issues then they have a sale from me at $59.99, if not, maybe at $39.

What difference is there really but lighting? I notice slightly better AA or AA in the Overlord shot but it's because we're looking for it.

There are a load of differences. It's most just the PS3's 'softerness' things though. If I could be bothered to do a photoshop thing, highlighting things I wouldn't, but I'll give a few examples in text, hopefully they won't be too hard to see in the pics.

In the thing with the knight guy, look at the rock at the far left, above and below oddly placed patches of grass. The texture appears more defined on the 360 pic, it's stands out there in particular, but it's the same all over the image, it really stands out on the small thing on the guy's belt, not the skull buckle, the pointy upside down triangle.

In the star wars pic it's the same thing, check out the 'arms' of that turret thing on the ship, the texture is more sharper on the 360. Same thing at the part of the building showing some sort of windows, it's just at the end of the arms of the turret, you can can see the individual beams clearly, on the PS3 version, not so much.

It might be nitpicking, but it really stands out to me, they were clear from the second they loaded (which took forever because I'm in student halls and the net is ass).



Okay, more derailing, I didn't mean to do this again.
Demo talk commence.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I think that this is really simple : Bioshock in PS3 is a lousy port.

So no one should buy it because it looks great but not as good as the 360 version?

 

[Fersis]

So no one should buy it because it looks great but not as good as the 360 version?

:lol no no,i dont say that.
What i tried (And failed miserably) to say was that its not a PS3 hardware limitation or whatever, its just that 2K didnt put a lot of resources on the port, which is understandable.
I do believe that 2K chosen a wrong week to release it.

Sorry for my english.

 

[Raistlin]

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

:lol

Did you even read the post you're replying to? My god.

 

[StuBurns]

:lol

Did you even read the post you're replying to? My god.

You misunderstand.

The output is before the TV. If you can 'fix' the picture with the TV is irrelevant. The discussion is about what comes out the machine, not what can be achieved when altering what comes out the machine.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

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

My post completely few over your head, huh?

 

[StuBurns]

My post completely few over your head, huh?

I guess it did.

The difference is really quite clear, your comment seemed to imply the difference wasn't. I guess I misunderstood, please, feel free to put me right.

 

[Raistlin]

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.

Except that the specific reasons why it happens where detailed by all of us ... several times.

 

[JRW]

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.

Eh well when I was switching back and forth between 360 / PS3 on my TV the floor still looks more impressive on 360 IMO... also the problem is this extra softness / blur on PS3's version is noticeable everywhere, Not just on the floor. distant textures on PS3 end up being blurred out while 360's maintain detailed.

 

[StuBurns]

Except that the specific reasons why it happens where detailed by all of us ... several times.

No it wasn't, there was some comments about COD4, GTA4 and DMC4.
Explain every single game, because it's there, in every single one.

The fact that people are changing, why they think this is happening just goes to show none of you know. It's the AA, it's the Filter, it's the poor adaption for the new GPU. I don't believe you.

 

[Raistlin]

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.

The problem is, many people apply the terms 'sharp' and 'crisp' with actual resolution and actual detail levels ... which there are no differences between the consoles.


The difference between standard outputs is in regards to contrast, color saturation, brightness, etc. Those are things that can effect the 'apparent' look of detail sutbtely, but not real detail ... and its something that can be calibrated. You can make the 360 look like the PS3, and vice versa.


You then further confused the discussion by picking comparison title that have known different feature sets between the two systems, be it resolution, textures, filters, etc ... and arguing that it was some native architecture difference between the respective consoles.

 

[StuBurns]

The problem is, people apply the terms 'sharp' and 'crisp' with actual resolution and actual detail levels ... which there are no differences between the consoles.


The difference between standard outputs is in regards to contrast, color saturation, brightness, etc. Those are things that can effect the 'apparent' look of detail sutbtely, but not real detail ... and its something that can be calibrated. You can make the 360 look like the PS3, and vice versa.


You then further confused the discussion by picking comparison title that have known different feature sets between the two systems, be it resolution, textures, filters, etc ... and arguing that it was some native architecture difference between the respective consoles.

Okay, name a multiplatform game that you think is identical technically across both platforms. I didn't because I don't know any. But when comparing, you have to compare something. These are just the multiplatform games I have played both versions of enough to feel comfortable discussing.

If you call it crisp, sharp, tone, hard/soft, clinical or whatever. I think most people know what I mean.

I never said the textures were any different. There is something between the raw texture and the output that makes every PS3 game have that PS3 tone to it, and the same for the 360.

Sam Houser says the PS3 'renders' softer. Maybe he's lying, but I've noticed it a lot, and hardware is the only thing I believe it could be, because I don't see any reason why it would be on every game I've played if it were software based.

 

[Raistlin]

No it wasn't, there was some comments about COD4, GTA4 and DMC4.
Explain every single game, because it's there, in every single one.

Read my post above.


You are mixing two different issues ... and confusing the fuck out of this thread.

The 3 games you just listed have specific feature differences, regardless of the GPU's standard output curves.

The fact that people are changing, why they think this is happening just goes to show none of you know. It's the AA, it's the Filter, it's the poor adaption for the new GPU. I don't believe you.

I and several others have been consistent throughout this entire thread.

I have mentioned since like 10 pages back about the fact the 360's output defaults are different (constrast, saturation, etc) .... and when you listed those games, I noted the other specific differences between them that have NOTHING to do with the GPU's standard 'look'.


Please don't resort to obvious lying when your argument is falling apart.

 

[StuBurns]

Read my post above.

You are mixing two different issues ... and confusing the fuck out of this thread.

The 3 games you just listed have specific feature differences, regardless of the GPU's standard output curves.

I and several others have been consistent throughout this entire thread.

I have mentioned since like 10 pages back about the fact the 360's output defaults are different (constrast, saturation, etc) .... and when you listed those games, I noted the other specific differences between them that have NOTHING to do with the GPU's standard 'look'.

Please don't resort to obvious lying when your argument is falling apart.

I didn't lie. I said 'people' are changing their opinions. Are you really happy to consider you know every post in this thread well enough to say no one changed their opinion, and call me a liar? I know you're wrong.

Explain to me Sam Housers comment. He is a professional in the field. Do you think you know better?

 

[Karma]

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?

The game is released in 15 days. Does 2k have time to fix any bugs?

 

[StuBurns]

The game is released in 15 days. Does 2k have time to fix any bugs?

It's gone gold, but they could get a patched thru pretty quick I think.

 

[Raistlin]

Okay, name a multiplatform game that you think is identical technically across both platforms. I didn't because I don't know any.

There probably aren't.

But when comparing, you have to compare something. These are just the multiplatform games I have played both versions of enough to feel comfortable discussing.

That's fine, but even when people where explaining KNOWN differences in them, you disregarded it ... and claim 'I don't believe you'. How the hell is that constructive?

If you call it crisp, sharp, tone, hard/soft, clinical or whatever. I think most people know what I mean.

No ... a lot people didn't know what you mean. We are in a thread talking about Bioshock, which has something going on in the PS3 rev that makes it look blurrier.

You then come in and start talking about how all games look softer on the PS3 versus 360 ... and how its HW related. Pretty much everyone in this thread was under the impression that you are stating the PS3 cannot output the same cripsness as the 360.

I never said the textures were any different.

*facepalm.gif*

No shit ... we're saying that some of the games you were comparing DO have different textures.

There is something between the raw texture and the output that makes every PS3 game have that PS3 tone to it, and the same for the 360.

*facewall.gif*

I'm not sure how many times we can tell you that the constrast, saturation, gamma, brightness, etc. are defaulted differently in the consoles.

Sam Houser says the PS3 'renders' softer. Maybe he's lying, but I've noticed it a lot, and hardware is the only thing I believe it could be, because I don't see any reason why it would be on every game I've played if it were software based.

Its like we're not even here.

 

[Raistlin]

I didn't lie. I said 'people' are changing their opinions. Are you really happy to consider you know every post in this thread well enough to say no one changed their opinion, and call me a liar? I know you're wrong.

I'm referring to the group of us that have been repeating the same info over and over in this thread.


Standard English conventions state that if you are directly responding to someone, and then cite 'people' in reference to some point of the discusion that the person you're responding to was arguing along with others in a unifed voice about ...

... then that person should assume he is being referenced, along with the people that he shared a unified voice with.

Explain to me Sam Housers comment. He is a professional in the field. Do you think you know better?

My god ... its been explained a hundred times.

 

[65536]

Explain to me Sam Housers comment. He is a professional in the field. Do you think you know better?

It was clearly marketing spin to turn the PS3's lower resolution into an asset for the game.

 

[StuBurns]

massive post

I believe there are the differences you, and others have mentioned such as the AA and lower native res, but it's not an explanation for every game looking that way.
If the PS3's standard output has lower contrast, is brighter etc. Then that does explain it. But I don't see how that's not the hardware. Which is what I claimed.

My god ... its been explained a hundred times.

No it hasn't, it hasn't been explained once.
People have explained why GTA4 looks softer. Houser said PS3 GAMES, not GTA4.
Explain why he thinks PS3 games look softer.

And no, I don't buy 'marketing spin', he can say whatever the fuck he likes.
It would have been the biggest game of the year if he'd have put signs in every major city claiming he'd fucked all our mothers.

 

[DrXym]

The game is released in 15 days. Does 2k have time to fix any bugs?

Demos don't necessarily run the same code as the final product. The demo could have been done and dusted for months while the code has moved on, bugs fixed etc.

 

[StuBurns]

Demos don't necessarily run the same code as the final product. The demo could have been done and dusted for months while the code has moved on, bugs fixed etc.

They said they were working on the problem though.
Maybe they mean they'll fix the demo build and replace it on the store, but I took it to mean the bug was in the game as well.

 

[okrim]

This thread is a prove how a topic becomes a console war...thousands and thousand of post ot only to comparison our p@nis...console I mean...

 

[StuBurns]

This thread is a prove how a topic becomes a console war...thousands and thousand of post ot only to comparison our p@nis...console I mean...

How? Has anyone claimed either system is better? Not to my knowledge. How is it a system war if they aren't competing for one to be 'superior'?

 

[Raistlin]

I believe there are the differences you've and others have mentioned such as the AA and lower native res, but it's not an explanation for every game looking that way.
If the PS3's standard output has lower contrast, is brighter etc. Then that does explain it. But I don't see how that's not the hardware. Which is what I claimed.


No it hasn't, it hasn't been explained once.
People have explained why GTA4 looks softer. Houser said PS3 GAMES, not GTA4.
Explain why he thinks PS3 games look softer.

And no, I don't buy 'marketing spin', he can say whatever the fuck he likes.
It would have been the biggest game of the year if he'd have put signs in every major city claiming he'd fucked all our mothers.

I'm starting to wonder if you're some sort of autoreply bot. :lol


If we are to assume Houser was referring to general PS3 output (and not to his specific game that runs at a lower resolution, therefore output a physically 'softer' image) ...

... its because of the difference in standard contrast, saturation, gamma, etc. output between the two consoles ... that many of us have talked about ad ad nauseam. I'm not sure why you aren't 'getting it'.

 

[okrim]

How? Has anyone claimed either system is better? Not to my knowledge. How is it a system war is they aren't competing for one to be 'superior'?

OK, version war...

 

[StuBurns]

I'm starting to wonder if you're some sort of autoreply bot. :lol


If we are to assume Houser was referring to general PS3 output (and not to his specific game that runs at a lower resolution, therefore output a physically 'softer' image) ...

... its because of the difference in standard contrast, saturation, gamma, etc. output between the two consoles ... that many of us have talked about ad ad nauseam. I'm not sure why you aren't 'getting it'.

No, I do, I totally get that.

I said, the PS3 outputs a softer image. That was my whole point from the start. Everyone disagrees and you've just said the exact same thing.

I never said it was intentional or not, I never claimed one was better then the other, just that they came out the boxes different, the PS3 version looking softer/less crisp, whatever term I used.

 

[UntoldDreams]

Good lord what a shit-fest of a thread.

 

[okrim]

I'm starting to wonder if you're some sort of autoreply bot. :lol


If we are to assume Houser was referring to general PS3 output (and not to his specific game that runs at a lower resolution, therefore output a physically 'softer' image) ...

... its because of the difference in standard contrast, saturation, gamma, etc. output between the two consoles ... that many of us have talked about ad ad nauseam. I'm not sure why you aren't 'getting it'.

I don't want to scredit eurogamer test or beyond3d for the question of low resolution but rockstar reported ps3 and 360 GTA IV version is the same, paradox, hits in some areas in ps3 version, so I prefer to believe to developers...however OT.

 

[UntoldDreams]

No, I do, I totally get that.

I said, the PS3 outputs a softer image. That was my whole point from the start. Everyone disagrees and you've just said the exact same thing.

I never said it was intentional or not, I never claimed one was better then the other, just that they came out the boxes different, the PS3 version looking softer/less crisp, whatever term I used.

You sir. Take your football and go home. Its over.

 

[Raistlin]

No, I do, I totally get that.

I said, the PS3 outputs a softer image. That was my whole point from the start. Everyone disagrees and you've just said the exact same thing.

What you fail to realize is:

1) 'softer', 'less crisp', etc. are ambiguous terms.

2) We're in a thread comparing pics of a game that is actually using some sort of blur filter, and you then started discussing how in general terms PS3 games aren't as crisp.


Couple those two together, and that's why this discussion has fallen apart. Most people here are of the impression you're stating the PS3 cannot output the same image quality ... which in fact it can.

 

[Raistlin]

I don't want to scredit eurogamer test or beyond3d for the question of low resolution but rockstar reported ps3 and 360 GTA IV version is the same, paradox, hits in some areas in ps3 version, so I prefer to believe to developers...however OT.

I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure they did end up later acknowledging it runs at a lower resolution.

 

[Surfheart]

Bioshock is Awesome! PS3 only people should definately pick this up. It's a fantastic experience.

 

[okrim]

I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure they did end up later acknowledging it runs at a lower resolution.

So the developers don't know the spec of theirs product? OK.

 

[Shogmaster]

Bish or someone nuke this thread from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

 

[StuBurns]

What you fail to realize is:

1) 'softer', 'less crisp', etc. are ambiguous terms.

2) We're in a thread comparing pics of a game that is actually using some sort of blur filter, and you then started discussing how in general terms PS3 games aren't as crisp.


Couple those two together, and that's why this discussion has fallen apart. Most people here are of the impression you're stating the PS3 cannot output the same image quality ... which in fact it can.

Well I said the exact opposite to that, more then once in this thread. I can't control which posts of mine people choose to read and not.

As for BioShock, yes, I do think it's mostly the standard PS3 difference. Some of the comparison pics users posted are very close, the only difference being some definition, so I thought it could be the standard difference between the consoles.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Bish or someone nuke this thread from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

The tone was set hundreds of posts ago. Lock indeed.

 

[andycapps]

I have no idea what is going on with this thread since the first couple of pages, but I just have to say that I played the US PSN demo over the weekend at 720p and I didn't notice any framerate drops, and I thought the game looked pretty good. Don't have a 360 to view the games side by side, and I don't really care, but I thought it was definitely perfectly playable and seemed to look pretty nice. Didn't see any reason why if people like the game, that they shouldn't be playing it on PS3 upon release. I know I will.

 

[dark10x]

Okay, name a multiplatform game that you think is identical technically across both platforms. I didn't because I don't know any.

I would say that the closest we've ever come to this would be Burnout Paradise. The game is 99.9% identical on both platforms. There was some additional slowdown in the 360 version initially, but I've heard that was cleaned up in patchs. The image quality, framerate, textures, etc. are all exactly the same in both versions of the game.

That's pretty much it, though. There are plenty of other ports that are very similar, but each have a slightly different appearance depending on the platform.

The tone was set hundreds of posts ago. Lock indeed.

Why? People are obviously enjoying this argument and nobody is becoming overly rowdy either. If the thread annoys you then simply avoid reading it.

 

[StuBurns]

I would say that the closest we've ever come to this would be Burnout Paradise. The game is 99.9% identical on both platforms. There was some additional slowdown in the 360 version initially, but I've heard that was cleaned up in patchs. The image quality, framerate, textures, etc. are all exactly the same in both versions of the game.

That's pretty much it, though. There are plenty of other ports that are very similar, but each have a slightly different appearance depending on the platform.


Why? People are obviously enjoying this argument and nobody is becoming overly rowdy either. If the thread annoys you then simply avoid looking at it.

I only played the demo of the 360 one, I heard someone on 1up Yours saying the 360 one had some lower res textures, but I couldn't really tell from the demo, it looked the same.
EDIT: I had the PS3 one as well, I just meant that I never played the retail version of the 360 one.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I have no idea what is going on with this thread since the first couple of pages, but I just have to say that I played the US PSN demo over the weekend at 720p and I didn't notice any framerate drops, and I thought the game looked pretty good. Don't have a 360 to view the games side by side, and I don't really care, but I thought it was definitely perfectly playable and seemed to look pretty nice. Didn't see any reason why if people like the game, that they shouldn't be playing it on PS3 upon release. I know I will.

This is true but there are some who are intent on telling you that because it looks slightly "inferior" then it somehow won't be as good as the 360 version. It was tiring when it first started and I'm surprised this thread is still going in the comparison direction. Talk about how awesome this game will be people!

 

[SabinFigaro]

I had fun playing the demo, and I will buy this to support good games. Hooray for me.

 

[dark10x]

I only played the demo of the 360 one, I heard someone on 1up Yours saying the 360 one had some lower res textures, but I couldn't really tell from the demo, it looked the same.
EDIT: I had the PS3 one as well, I just meant that I never played the retail version of the 360 one.

I don't think that was the case. If you look at them closely, I'm pretty positive that the textures are the same in both versions. It really is about as good a port that has ever existed.

This is true but there are some who are intent on telling you that because it looks slightly "inferior" then it somehow won't be as good as the 360 version. It was tiring when it first started and I'm surprised this thread is still going in the comparison direction. Talk about how awesome this game will be people!

What the hell kind of discussion would that even be? I mean, if you haven't played the game, do you really want people that have finished it discussing things in detail? Furthermore, those that HAVE played it likely participated in the original thread back when the game was first released. There's nothing more to discuss! Everyone that has played Bioshock has already discussed it while those that have not wouldn't want to be spoiled.

The whole point of a thread like this IS to discuss platform differences. For some of us, that type of thread is actually rather interesting.

 

[StuBurns]

I don't think that was the case. If you look at them closely, I'm pretty positive that the textures are the same in both versions. It really is about as good a port that has ever existed.

I don't doubt it, the demos were pretty much identical to me, both buttery smooth.
I don't like the game, but I think it's probably the most 'next-gen' game I've played. Everything is so cohesive, very impressive.

 

[belvedere]

Well I just got done comparing 360 / PS3 versions, I made sure my TV was set identical between the two and both consoles are using HDMI, I adjusted the brightness on each version for best results using Bioshocks built in adjustment.

This guys' comparison and all the ones like it, the PS3 version is set to ONLY 720p right?

 

[msmma]

Can anyone confirm that the white splotches that are present on the right side of the screen when you play the game in 1080p will NOT be present in the retail build?

Yeah, yeah, I know i can manually deselect 1080p before I start to play, but I shouldn't have to, and therefore I wont.