But these two games were already running at 60fps during gameplay. Gears on the other hand boasts much more detail and is at 30fps during gameplay.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Whether or not Gears has any AA or not isn't that big of a deal IMO. AA was usually non-existent due to the post process effects in previous Gears games, and jaggies were never a big issue in the past.
The beta didn't have any AA and for the most part, jaggies weren't a problem. It all depends on the level really as trenches looked pretty clean compared to old town.
They just don't know how to measure frame rates. DF does a much better job at stressing the engine under various circumstances than LoT which is why we see more accurate readings from DF.
Here's the four clips that LoT used to get their analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCH3OpZrxuk
They got some action in those scenes, but the game could get more action packed and those are the areas they should have measured. Same thing happened with Crysis 2 as well, they had much better frame rate results than DF.
No, some of us won't.
The beta didn't have any AA and for the most part, jaggies weren't a problem. It all depends on the level really as trenches looked pretty clean compared to old town.
They just don't know how to measure frame rates. DF does a much better job at stressing the engine under various circumstances than LoT which is why we see more accurate readings from DF.
Here's the four clips that LoT used to get their analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCH3OpZrxuk
They got some action in those scenes, but the game could get more action packed and those are the areas they should have measured. Same thing happened with Crysis 2 as well, they had much better frame rate results than DF.
I agree; it's true that the consoles are getting old, but play GT5 on the london or madrid track on a big 1080p color calibrated screen and you will easily forget that the hardware is from around 2005
No, some of us won't.
Beef Stallmer
Banned
y u no big 1080p color calibrated? ;-)
Kameradschaft
Regular
Deus Ex does not make use of the XGD3 format - Driver: SF is the first XGD3 game.
New face off. Driver San Francisco...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-driver-san-francisco-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-driver-san-francisco-face-off
No need to wait imho... I highly doubt ps3 it's even on 'par' knowing the past history of techland engine; by the way, from what I have seen on youtube walkthrough the level of tearing on the ps3 is really pretty annoying.
But AA looks quite good on both consoles though.
dragonelite
Veteran
Dont know but looks like the 360 gamma level are not well calibrated.
Not depend of this; I have the suspect the cause could be the custom AA combined with a little lower resolution than 720p on 360 imho.
Persistantthug
Newcomer
Actually Lens Of Truth was the first with screen comparisons of Dead Island....and from the shots, it's fairly clear that the PS3 carries more detail as well as a sharper image.
Here's 1 more:
I'm not talking of graphic features but tearing... in a capture screens we can't check these kind of things. I don't have the game, but judging the youtube walkthrough released until now, ps3 version has a lot of problems to maintain a decent vsync for the most of the time; 360 too, but more in particular situations compared to the ps3 version. Honestly, I have prefered a lot to see even a less sharper ps3 version than this level of tearing imho.
Beef Stallmer
Banned
On Dead Island, in the provence of PS3 there is a saying..
"When it tears, it pours"
edit: i am really interested in the DF conclusion;
usually when a PS3 title has better image quality (textures, shadows, aa, v-sync), but the 360 version has tearing with improved framerate, they claim that the improved controller response makes for a better experience.
Now it looks like the PS3 version has the good parts, plus the tearing (="great controller response!") so I think it will win.
"When it tears, it pours"
edit: i am really interested in the DF conclusion;
usually when a PS3 title has better image quality (textures, shadows, aa, v-sync), but the 360 version has tearing with improved framerate, they claim that the improved controller response makes for a better experience.
Now it looks like the PS3 version has the good parts, plus the tearing (="great controller response!") so I think it will win.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you link me these articles?
I doubt it: http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-dead-island-analysis/. The perfomances on the ps3 are simply unacceptable during the gameplay: massive tearing, fps completely unstable, really a disaster. I can't believe this was the best suit for the ps3. A game in these conditions can't be even released on the market imho; game like this deserves more to stay exclusive on 360, but the money doesn't know shame imho.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beef Stallmer
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
Persistantthug
Newcomer
I'm not sure what you're looking at,
But on that site they say the framerates between the 2 versions is almost identical.
What they also said is that the both the XBOX 360 and the PS3 had bad tears, but that the PS3 was worse.
They also went on to lament that the PS3 has greater detail and image quality.
Interestingly, the 2 games load at the same times with both having no mandatory installations.
Overall Lens Of Truth's verdict was a tie.
So again, I'm not sure what you were looking at.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked