Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2013]
- Thread starter helio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
(((interference)))
Veteran
PS4 had an upgrade from 2GB of RAM to 4GB, and CPU changed from 4 Steamroller cores to 8 Jaguar cores.
Durango hasnt changed much, if at all, from the earliest leaks.
Durango hasnt changed much, if at all, from the earliest leaks.
Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed analysis: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sonic-all-star-racing-transformed-face-off
Averagejoe
Regular
That is your opinion. Unless they changed the article, they say it's so close as to be a tie.
That doesn't include 7.1, 2 DVDs vs 1 BR, and the crush of oversatuation on 360. At least accurately reflect the article and point out where their analysis ends and your opinion begins.
From the article: "the two console releases are essentially identical in one of the closest games we've seen"
Alucardx23
Regular
Face-Off: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-metal-gear-rising-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-metal-gear-rising-face-off
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Interesting!!
shadows are still a mess on both platforms, was hoping to see that change.
PS3
360
I haven't picked up the game yet but i'm expecting the ratio of MGR's footage to be 99% pre-rendered. considering even the slowest going cutscenes are not in game either.
Outcome
360 - faster gameplay (with a 10-20 fps lead at times.) VS. PS3 with sharper pre-rendered cutscenes.
---------------------------
Looking at the finished product of Metal Gear Rising it still looks pretty fun though I'm still disappointed in it because it still falls compared to bayonetta's polish. (which had very good lighting in their sequences and were in-game.)
pic 1
pic 2
pic 3
Imo anything In game trumps pre-rendered, even if there is a drop in performance. why they couldn't match in game for in game is a shame. Still picking it up though to be honest.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alucardx23
Regular
Considering that PS3 was the lead platform, it's weird that there is a 10 fps difference.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/12/15/ps3-lead-platform-for-metal-gear-rising-revengeance
http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/12/15/ps3-lead-platform-for-metal-gear-rising-revengeance
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Ps3 development has gotten better over the time, at least it has little to do with sega even though it's no port. To gamers who played sega's port of bayonetta this is an improvident, though having played more or less what platinumgames did them selves; MGR could have gone for a few more revisions to the graphics. Plants in the game are static whereas with bayonetta they moved.
they are close to a tie, but you can see the hair line scratches clearer in some of the shots in the 360 version.
PS3
360
PS3
360
Last edited by a moderator:
Alucardx23
Regular
Agree, it's a lot better than the 30 frame difference with Bayonetta, but then again I also find that MGR has simpler graphics, but I will reserve my final opinion until I finish the game.
Yes, for me overall the 360 IQ is a little bit sharper, must be a difference with how the AA works on each game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Digital Foundry said:
Does it talk about any other point, besides QTEs, of having that kind of FPS lead?
Alucardx23
Regular
"This isn't an issue for scripted scenes, given that player input basically boils down to mashing a single button to proceed. However, similar results during open battle affect the run of play more drastically. In comparing eight different combat scenarios, we see the frame-rate wavering between 40 and 60FPS marks on both consoles with the 360 typically ahead of the two."
You can also see the gameplay comparison video, the 360 version maintains a higher average framerate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u3xynugwVCU#at=53
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
So, that kind (10 fps) of a lead seems to be on QTE. However, X360 does lead in framerate (just not all the time).
Edit: Why does it seem like the PS3 version has a much wider FOV (in the office building)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
At the :32 second mark, when they are doing the same thing, there is a bigger difference than 10fps for all those following frames. Am I the only one seeing that? The X360 FPS actually drops to 18 fps while PS3 FPS is in the 40s.
Edit: At the 3:58 mark, there are other lighting/particle effects going on (eyes, etc) the PS3 version.
Edit: At the 3:58 mark, there are other lighting/particle effects going on (eyes, etc) the PS3 version.
Last edited by a moderator:
djskribbles
Legend
It's hard to fairly compare gameplay frame rate, so saying the 360 version has a 10fps advantage isn't exactly true. Personally, I like how ps360 includes the average frame rate in their analysis'. For the most part, it does seem like the 360 version has the edge in frame rate. So it comes down to a small performance edge vs a small visual edge.
Alucardx23
Regular
Sorry, I didn't know that you really wanted to know if the 360 version had that exact 10 fps advantage for the complete game under all circumstances, when compared to the PS3 version. In that case I wouldn't know.
At least for the video that Digital foundry published the difference seems to be around that number on average.Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I think the problem is getting them doing the same things at nearly the same time, so you can see the framerate for those. :31 and 3:58 are such points. Crushing the spine with one hand and Raiden's eyes light up in the PS3 version.
- Status
Similar threads
