FarCry 2 - Smoother graphics on PS3 ?..

JardeL

Regular
The developer says that the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC versions have been developed from the same core build, so they'll all share the same features. While we didn't see the PS3 version, it's claimed that the aliasing on Sony's machine outperforms that of the 360, while on the PC it's all dependent on the specifications of your machine.
[ http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6196418&mode=previews ]

Sounds interesting , especially when you remember X360 has a 10MB eDRAM [ which provides free AA ? ] ...
 
Sounds like a typical MSM misquote/mis-interpretation. I don't honestly believe anyone writing for Gamespot has a clue about any sort of technical aspects of 3d gaming.
 
This the same development studio that said the PS3 'couldnt [handle] AI' in reference to SC Conviction's exclusivity; they are known to spin things for PR purposes.
In this case, this is probably preemptive spinning and apologetics for a shoddy PS3 port. Is there not legitimate info floating around about the PS3 version of FC2 being locked at 25 fps?
Also, the technical mistake is rather funny; 'the aliasing' outperforms....':rolleyes:
 
Well the last we heard from them they said that Cell lets them push higher res textures on the ps3 !

I'm not sure how a processing feature can determine the applicability of a storage-limited option...

In layman's terms: higher-res textures are limited by available memory, not processing power. You could have eighteen quadrillion uberflops and still not have enough memory storage available for "high res textures".
 
I'm not sure how a processing feature can determine the applicability of a storage-limited option...

In layman's terms: higher-res textures are limited by available memory, not processing power. You could have eighteen quadrillion uberflops and still not have enough memory storage available for "high res textures".

Thats the reason I wrote that ;)! Well,on a serious note, they must have had their reasons for saying that.
 
I'm not sure how a processing feature can determine the applicability of a storage-limited option...

In layman's terms: higher-res textures are limited by available memory, not processing power. You could have eighteen quadrillion uberflops and still not have enough memory storage available for "high res textures".

Eighteen quadrillion überflops starts to open some interesting compression options though, which is why laymen shouldn't develop games. ;)
 
Yes I was laughing at the "better aliasing" until i read this trolling comment.
Well the PS3 version of GTAIV was said to be "smoother", and plenty of reviews commented of there being less aliasing in that version. In the end it ran at a much lower resolution without AA.

The FC2 footage posted in the upscale thread is apparently 960x1080 so there could be something to this.
 
In layman's terms: higher-res textures are limited by available memory, not processing power. You could have eighteen quadrillion uberflops and still not have enough memory storage available for "high res textures".
Just playing Devil's Advocate, what if on XB360 they have 1024x1024 dirt and roughness textures, whereas on PS3 the dirt and roughness is added procedurally, calculated per pixel at rendertime? The end result would be higher texture 'resolution'.
 
@Shifty: The way there would also mean much more work for just the PS3 version. Multi platform developers have never shown that kind of interest.

'Sides, don't forget about parity. The devs of FC2 claim they want everything to look almost equal (sans PC due to HW advantage), so why would they make an extra effort to have a better looking PS3 version?
 
I'd just really like to see some unbiased evaluation so I can pick which version to pre-order. Or, hell, maybe I should get back into computer gaming for this title...
 
Back
Top