Assassin's Creed - New Interview

Hdmi full range makes a huge difference.It has to be on if the TV supports it and has to be off it it doesn't.
i don't know if the 360 has this option (maybe it's a hdmi 1.3 feature,i don't know)
and yes (scificube) ,the gammas the game outputs on the 360 DAC or ps3 DAc can make difference in term of contrast or color.
 
Hdmi full range makes a huge difference.It has to be on if the TV supports it and has to be off it it doesn't.
i don't know if the 360 has this option (maybe it's a hdmi 1.3 feature,i don't know)
and yes (scificube) ,the gammas the game outputs on the 360 DAC or ps3 DAc can make difference in term of contrast or color.

I'll put it this way. Who is going to make use of that difference in any meaningful way?

Also, I didn't quite say there is no affect. I said any difference is insignificant especially when calibration can remove it.

//edit //

In full disclosure I do not know whether "full range" is a feature of hdmi spec 1.3. I have not payed much attention to this as I have not seen this as a point to draw distinctions between the X360 and the PS3.

//end edit//

The X360 has HDMI output now although I'm unsure like you if it supports spec 1.3. We should remember that "full range" was added to the PS3's feature set with a firmware update. Even in the case that spec 1.3 isn't currently supported by the X360 there is nothing to say it could not be added in a similar fashion later to its feature set as well. At least I am unaware of any hardware limitation which would prevent it at the moment.

There is no consistent observable advantage in this regard for either console so I simply do not see this as a place where there is any significant difference between the X360 and the PS3.

When differences have only been noted to be slight and inconsistently in favor of either console I would have to ask if you have any example(s) of said huge differences in color and contrast you can point to between the X360 and the PS3?
 
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?

It makes the image worse if your tv doesn't support it. On both my Panasonic plasmas, enabling full range on my PS3's makes the image worse (both via hdmi). Contast at first is improved and my first thought was that the image quality was better. It didn't take long to realize though that all low light area detail was turned totally black. It totally washed out the detail in dark scenes. It's safer for it to be defaulted to off at this point.

I never checked my 360's setting but I assume it also defaults to off since I probably would have noticed the same loss of dark detail.
 
It makes the image worse if your tv doesn't support it. On both my Panasonic plasmas, enabling full range on my PS3's makes the image worse (both via hdmi). Contast at first is improved and my first thought was that the image quality was better. It didn't take long to realize though that all low light area detail was turned totally black. It totally washed out the detail in dark scenes. It's safer for it to be defaulted to off at this point.

I never checked my 360's setting but I assume it also defaults to off since I probably would have noticed the same loss of dark detail.
If they both default to off, why is it that the 360's colours still appear more vibrant? I still don't understand why, on the PS3, it needs to be turned on while it's not an issue on the 360.
 
If they both default to off, why is it that the 360's colours still appear more vibrant?

Not sure, but I assume the output characteristics of each box are inevitably going to be a a bit different due to different components in the video->screen chain. This all strangely reminds me of comparisons between ColecoVision and the Atari 5200. I dug up an old 1983 magazine that compared the two where they stated that ColecoVision had more vibrant colors. So I guess this is an age old argument :)
 
Not sure, but I assume the output characteristics of each box are inevitably going to be a a bit different due to different components in the video->screen chain. This all strangely reminds me of comparisons between ColecoVision and the Atari 5200. I dug up an old 1983 magazine that compared the two where they stated that ColecoVision had more vibrant colors. So I guess this is an age old argument :)

There's no doubt that there is differences in the color output of graphics products from Nvidia and Ati, I see no reason they wouldn't show up in the consoles as well.

I've always preferred the default settings of ATi products, when I use an Nvidia product it seems I have to fiddle with the color some to get it to my liking.
 
There's no doubt that there is differences in the color output of graphics products from Nvidia and Ati, I see no reason they wouldn't show up in the consoles as well.

I've always preferred the default settings of ATi products, when I use an Nvidia product it seems I have to fiddle with the color some to get it to my liking.

I agree with this, with Nvidia GPU's one has to tweak the colors to ~match the default ATi color settings/output.
 
There's no doubt that there is differences in the color output of graphics products from Nvidia and Ati, I see no reason they wouldn't show up in the consoles as well.
Exactly, and not just from ATi and nVidia. Such is the wonder of modern visual electronics, a 'green' from one system on one display can look different to the same numerical 'green' to a different system and display. No-one bothered to standardise output and display...

That's why monitors have all those settings to mess about with, with different profiles that you can switch between. Different output gammas and such need different tweaks to look good. If the PS3 needs settings that lose dynamic range, then it's a problem. If it ends up covering the same colour space, contrast and saturation on the output as XB360 though, which is what you'd expect from display device manufacturers and CE goods manufacturers working together, then it's just a matter of setting the TV to get the best image.

Having seen a fancy, expensive 1080p Sammy rendering DVDs with black=grey, it's cringe-worthy how some people don't make the effort to set things up right, and then can even complain about quality without appreciating the setup that they ought to be doing! The only way PS3 and XB360 game image quality can be compared properly is if someone were to go to the effort to calibrate the systems on a display so they are equal in test cases, and then do the game comparisons. As both support image viewing, testcards could easily be applied to help calibrate the systems. And it wouldn't have to be exact to get a fair comparison that can reveal whether PS3's graphics really are fogged out or not.
 
Who is going to make use of that difference in any meaningful way?
I said any difference is insignificant especially when calibration can remove it.

Authoring multiplateform game output sharing the same assets can be tricky.The more subtle the palete you use the harder it is.For full primary colored games the difference should be minimal.

Concerning RGB range ,if your TV supports it ,the picture will be much more contrasted and vibrant.
if you set it on with a TV that doesn't support it ,basically ,the 16 first levels of black will be displayed as one ,resulting a hard awfull contrast.

Limited: RGB output signal is output in the range from 16 to 235.
Full: RGB output signal is output in the range from 0 to 255.
 
Authoring multiplateform game output sharing the same assets can be tricky.The more subtle the palete you use the harder it is.For full primary colored games the difference should be minimal.

...snip...

I understand the difference between limited and full RGB output. I didn't mean to say I didn't appreciate the difference there.

What I was getting at is that if full range off in both test cases and then on in both test cases there is no great disparity between the X360 or the PS3. Assets can be tweaked in order to obtain a more congruent showing on both platforms but this is something different from being limited on one platform and not the other. Tweaking assets in this way only goes so far when there are so many variables out of a studio's control. Ultimately gamers will adjust their displays to whatever suits their fancy. What's important to me is that so long as the proper equipment is on hand gamers can achieve the results they desire.

If this were not possible then I would see this as something gamers could possibly pay more attention to as this would be a point of distinction between the PS3 and the X360.

--------

I'm not sure we're exactly on different sides of this issue. Perhaps you thought I was suggesting there is not a difference between limited and full range. If so, I apologize as that was not my intention at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While my copy is still to arrive from Hong Kong, I was reading some user impressions. This guy believes that the GPS/map were added to make the game easier, but in the process making many game mechanics superfluous. Apparantly, all the elements that are noted on the map have corresponding clues in-game, if you look for them. This also explains why many reviewers found the game repetitive, as a large part of the game consists of finding clues etc, which - if you use the map - simply means going from A to B, instead of looking around in the city.

Has anyone here played it with all the HUD elements off? It seems much more interesting, and the way the developer originally intended it to be. I know I'll be playing HUDless for sure!

I finally received my copy of the game a few days ago. The first note I'll make is that this is one of the best looking games I've ever played - it's stunning. The first moment I walked up to the first giant city (Darnassus?) on horse via a high-vantage point view and could see the full scale of the rooftops you'll be climbing I was knocked out, murmuring, "you're kidding!" to myself. Everything looks smooth and Atair animated like you'd expect - I've never sat there thinking he looked like a computer model moving in limited range.

I played the first hour or so (prior to being to entering the city) with all of the default options on, and I enjoyed the game, but it was ultimately pretty boring. You basically have a compass on your screen telling you where to go, compete with "distance to target". You get there, the screen pops up telling you what to do, then you do it, and the GPS changes to a different location.

After reading the post linked above, I decided to try without the GPS. The game was hugely better, and I actually felt like I was playing as an assassin, rather than a messenger. I had to climb up to all the highest points, so I climbed a two-storey building and looked to the sky for circling eagles. When there were some near me, I jumped along the rooftops, moving to my destination. As I did so, I'd hear cries from below of people who needed help. So I'd peer down and watch the scenario, looking for the best vantage point, stealth-walked up and assassinated a guard before he know what hit me. The others would all come and attack me, but they were one short thanks to my assassination skills. Go me! Once complete, it was back to the rooftops, and using my Eagle Vision when I needed a little more focus.

It may get repetitive down the line, however for now this game is completely blowing me away. I would compare it more to a sandbox game than an action game, simply because you truly feel like you can go anywhere and do anything.

I'd strongly recommend anyone just about to jump in to the game to get the ropes with GPS assistance and the like, but turn it off and leave it off after entering Darnassus. Read the post linked above, since it gives great tips on how to truly become a knowledge seeker in the game without GPS tips and points on the map that you need to "check off" one by one. Let me game flow naturally as you make your journey, and take your time.
 
im playing my ps3's copy on a hitachi 42" HD plasma. the color and contrast is exactly the same as 360's. while the other day at the egames expo, they put it on a sony bravia LCD and it has that washed out look similar to some comparison video. so maybe it's due to LCD vs plasma? coz usually plasma provides far better color and contrast and shades of grey. and i can confirm there's absolutely no texture differences between the 2 versions, wats been argued was only due to the washed out color which suggests a false impression.
 
In case no one is aware, the patch is out for the PS3 version. Least I got the message to update yesterday.

USA. Tampa Florida.
 
I played about 4 hours and this game is great (PS3). Some tearing and less-than-stellar fps, but great game and no freezes for me either (1.5 hrs before the patch). I need to try the HUD off thing too...
 
I just saw that one of the EGM scores this month for AC was a 4.5. This is terrible, and one of those cases where I honestly feel like reviewers just "don't get it"! I think the last few months have been tough for reviewers, with so many great quality titles coming out, they simply can't spend the time with games they'd want or need to in order to perform a true high quality review.

I'm now just about to complete my third assassination, taking my time. I don't think I'll get the flags in this game since I don't have the patience, however I'm doing all intel and rescue missions without the map. A stunning game so far, and if it's just "more of the same" down the line, then that's fine with me.

I think this game's "review" flaw is that you get out of the game and it's a true sandbox approach. You can rescue, eavesdrop, pickpocket, steal, assassinate, whatever you want immediately. It doesn't try and drip feed you like a Mario/Zelda type experience, where you slip into the mode of "now get this, now do this, ok that's enough of that, here's something else to do". You are dropped into the universe and left there to run amok. Groovy, I say.

I note above I called Damascus "Darnassus". Ugh, another sign of WoW ruining my brain!
 
I finally received the game a week ago. My impressions: it's a really great game! I love the way you are free to do as you like. I'm playing without HUD, which helps both with the immersion and combats the repetitiveness (go to A, B, etc). The way I play it is just by roaming through the active city section, freerunning, walking through the crowd, slaughtering the guards and population if I feel like it (esp. beggars and drunks :devilish:) and doing a mission whenever I encounter one. Scaling the viewpoints is simple and fun, since they're obvious thanks to the eagles. The save citizen ones are also easily stumbled onto, since you hear them call for help. But to find all of the information is quite hard, especially the informants are really well hidden. But then again, when you do spot them based on the clues in the picture it is very rewarding.

I like the plot so far, and don't really feel disturbed by the "interruptions" between the memory blocks. I guess that is because they are few and far between, since I spend so much time in the cities themselves (instead of rushing through). I like the build-up in the story and where it is going. I hope the ending isn't as disappointing as some say.
 
I would give it a 7... Maybe less. I think it's very repetitive. I thought in the beginning that my view towards the game would change as I progresed. The game mechanics seem to be there, the graphics are excellent, but there isn't enough "game"... Maybe if the subquests were more fleshed out (although the main missions should too) and the cities had a bit more character...
Right now it feels like a sandbox game were you have nothing to do or no purpose to do it.
 
Back
Top