No.
Only with the Power of the Cell and BluRay, the PS3 has provided us with a vibrant almost 4D image. Why can't you see it damnit!
Assassin's Creed - New Interview
- Thread starter scooby_dooby
- Start date
No.
Only with the Power of the Cell and BluRay, the PS3 has provided us with a vibrant almost 4D image. Why can't you see it damnit!
Eurogamer see the opposite in their comparison.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=88461&page=3
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
I got a question btw:
Once you beat the game and free to use the animus whenever you feel like it, when I access the animus and see the current status of the game, if I decide to go to a specific memory block(ex. mem block #4), do I have to re-do the whole assassination again or do I just go back to that specific timeframe with the guy already dead, and all thats left is to collect the hidden items scattered throughout the city?
Hopefully that wont be too confusing to read
Going back to the memory block, it drops you into the very beginning (i.e., none of the side missions for the assassination, nor the assassination obviously, are completed). However, if you're talking about flags and such, I do believe they're part of the "extra" memories, and as such you can collect them and then drop out anytime (or assassinate the target again, if you're so inclined) I would check to make absolutely certain, but I literally sent it back today (gamefly-> time for super mario galaxy)
No.
Only with the Power of the Cell and BluRay, the PS3 has provided us with a vibrant almost 4D image. Why can't you see it damnit!
Are you implying he's lost his most-precious goggles?
Low blow, sir, low blow!
djskribbles
Legend
if a reviewer talks about contrast, saturation or blacks, i just completely ignore it.
Thanks for the link.
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to me a lot of these screenshot differences are just how the TV is set up. I'm with djsdribbles on this. There's certainly no technical hardware reason why one box should render graphics with better contrast or black levels than the others. These are just software choices.
One thing to note is that we never get the source equipment and setup info for such comparisons. Take my TV for example.
Pioneer 5070 Plasma
Using the same custom user settings on the Premium 360 using component directly to the TV provided a less sharp and flat/washed out colors picture vs hooking the Elite up using HDMI. Before selling off the premium, I connected both units directly to the TV and via the AVR (component out via AVR to avoid scaler for the Premium unit). In both cases, to my eye, there was a noticable difference between the 2 outputs. I blame my TV for handing the different inputs and processing them in the manner it does. Unless we see some major resolution/aa/af/texture differences and know the connection type and display device, I wouldn't put any stock into such.
Pioneer 5070 Plasma
Using the same custom user settings on the Premium 360 using component directly to the TV provided a less sharp and flat/washed out colors picture vs hooking the Elite up using HDMI. Before selling off the premium, I connected both units directly to the TV and via the AVR (component out via AVR to avoid scaler for the Premium unit). In both cases, to my eye, there was a noticable difference between the 2 outputs. I blame my TV for handing the different inputs and processing them in the manner it does. Unless we see some major resolution/aa/af/texture differences and know the connection type and display device, I wouldn't put any stock into such.
Eurogamer uses HDMI for both. That said, it's still important that you also select the Full Color option on the PS3 if the TV supports it (which in most cases it probably does). If you don't that can make a huge difference. And it remains interesting to see how much capture hardware actually supports this option.
archangelmorph
Veteran
So aside from the PS3 version's screen tearing & more frequent frame drops they both are basically identical (in terms of IQ)..?
djskribbles
Legend
its not really just the RGB Full thing... you need to calibrate your set for each device, or even between different cables within the same device. RGB Full vs Limited in the PS3 settings only lowers the brightness a few notches. you can achieve the same PQ if you were to calibrate your set for RGB limited.
i'm not sure how exactly it works, but most gaming sites either have their capturing equipment calibrated wrong, or their displays. most videos i've seen of PS3 games look like they have the brightness (aka black level) set too high, therefore, contrast is reduced, colors are less saturated. blacks seem gray, and it actually makes games look less sharp to some extent. compared to what i see on my PS3, it looks way better. thats why i completely ignore some reviews that say stuff like "the PS3 version is less saturated", or "the ps3 version looks washed out".
i'm not sure how exactly it works, but most gaming sites either have their capturing equipment calibrated wrong, or their displays. most videos i've seen of PS3 games look like they have the brightness (aka black level) set too high, therefore, contrast is reduced, colors are less saturated. blacks seem gray, and it actually makes games look less sharp to some extent. compared to what i see on my PS3, it looks way better. thats why i completely ignore some reviews that say stuff like "the PS3 version is less saturated", or "the ps3 version looks washed out".
I've seen screenshot were texture look more flat on the ps3, can it be due to washed out output (low constart, color, etc.)
EDIT i've also seen comparition video (on tv perso afrench tv channel taht let user provide content) and Flag were also moving more smoothly on 360 (animation were more detailed too me)
EDIT i've also seen comparition video (on tv perso afrench tv channel taht let user provide content) and Flag were also moving more smoothly on 360 (animation were more detailed too me)
Last edited by a moderator:
Can anyone tell me why this isn't on by default on the PS3, if it apparently is on the 360?
You think that they wouldn't lie & say (of course the Full Color option was on) even if they actually didn't have it on?
Late-coming feature and iirc only usable when supported.
Do you think EuroGamer is part of the worldwide conspiracy against the PS3?
How does this relate to the 360's "recent" update that added deeper blacks, etc?
If this isn't an option on the 360 and is unrelated to that, then why is it not a problem if it's always on?
The simple point is the 360 can output the "correct" output by default and without user intervention. I completely do not understand how Sony -- a consumer electronics giant -- can't get something right that "just works" in terms of display fidelity when even MS can do it. So what is the reason?
Good lord. Who said anything about a conspiracy. My point is that EuroGamer is in the business of reviewing games which by default I would expect that EuroGamer at least knows the proper way to set up a 360 & PS3 by now. So if they by accident happen foul up the setting on the PS3 for just AC's review, I would think that's a mistake they wouldn't want to admit. Rather standing by there appearance of all knowing game reviewers.
I've made the decision that the PS3 is going to be my main gaming platform for the near future. Honestly I am starting to wonder if I made a bad decision. Last thing I want is a confirmation that the PS3 isn't very good. So a worldwide conspiracy against the PS3 isn't the side I would be on.
There's no technical reason why the PS3 or X360 would have any significant differences when it comes to contrast or color. No plausible reason exists. None.
The only logical conclusions are A) different testing equipment is in play B) human error is in play when setting up the test equipment C) human perception is in play.
There need not be any great conspiracy to explain anything here. In fact, the logical solutions to explain things are continually being suggested here. Its more curious to me why these reasons have not been accepted yet.
What is also sort of interesting with all this saturation superiority talk is that, truth be known, any differences in output are well within the range most sets can be calibrated to achieve exact results.
So why does this matter? I suppose...there just has to be a winner.
The only logical conclusions are A) different testing equipment is in play B) human error is in play when setting up the test equipment C) human perception is in play.
There need not be any great conspiracy to explain anything here. In fact, the logical solutions to explain things are continually being suggested here. Its more curious to me why these reasons have not been accepted yet.
What is also sort of interesting with all this saturation superiority talk is that, truth be known, any differences in output are well within the range most sets can be calibrated to achieve exact results.
So why does this matter? I suppose...there just has to be a winner.
