Ouch. That would be a freakin' tough fight. I really like the get in the ring mode, I really don't find the animations bad in that mode, and it's definitely more immersive.
Fight Night PS3 Screens
- Thread starter Darkon
- Start date
Ouch. That would be a freakin' tough fight. I really like the get in the ring mode, I really don't find the animations bad in that mode, and it's definitely more immersive.
I find it questionable why they would use the picture from the Vancouver stage as comparison and then say the xbox360 version has better "lighting effects", especially when the pictures they used clearly pointed to the opposite, PS3 version doesn't have anywhere nearly as much light flooding from the window as the xbox360 version judging from those two pics, it's like Gamespot is saying LDR is better than HDR, that makes no sense to me when one would want to see more details. The madden comparison and the subsequent correction is simply silly. I don't get the desperation on the part of the media to make these comparisons, why can't people just play and enjoy these games? It's almost like this whole console war thing is much more important to the gaming media than the actual games themselves, this kind of makes me sad.
No man, check the shot more carefully. I agree with you about the overuse of bloom on that stage on X360 SKU, but the differences in lighting extend beyond that.
1. On X360 the stage, crowd, fighters, background poly's are lit by the same light source @ the windows. There seem to be additional point lights inside the hall providing illumination. The players have "rim" lighting, aka phong shading.
2. The PS3 is missing all of the above. Look at how the stage is lit separately from the rest of the background. It is lit by a single lightmap, and what is interesting, is that the players do not seem to be lit by the same light source. It causes for a bit of a weird effect.
2.b. Look at the shorts. No specular. Very flat looking lighting. Either lightmap or single point light.
3. Check the banners. PS3 is missing either polys or normal mapping (or both). Banners are also not nearly as well lit. This holds true for the rest of the background.
There is more but this is all that I could visualize from memory. Check out the comparison again.
And I agree that the PS3 has nicer looking players (especially the skin shader and texture work), but they are more poorly lit.
edit: Why is the Madden comparo silly? The fact that the stadiums don't cast any shadows, and that only X360 casts "time-of day strectchy realistic" shadows (as opposed to PS3 version's simple projection maps) is IMO a big deal wrt to the graphics. The PS3 also uses lower quality textures on the jerseys. Is it game breaking stuff? No, I'm sure PS3 owners will buy and enjoy the game. But is it wrong to compare these versions? Also no, because EA had the same exact amount of time to develop both.
The argument that PS3 has been out for a shorter period of time = x360 games are more mature is ridiculous. Dev kits using cell + 7900 class GPU's (I forget if they were using 6800Ultra Sli or 7800GTX as interim) have been out longer than X360 kits with xenos/xenon. And final PS3 dev kits have been around since January.
So that argument falls flat. If anything, excluding the additional difficulty in programming for PS3, PS3 first gen games should equal X360 2nd gen games in terms of developer experience with the hardware. This is showing how much better the X360 programming model and tools are rather than any contrived hardware release schedule benefits.
And I don't understand why people are suddenly taking the cross-platform argument to invalidate comparisons. In FN3's case, the only x360 assets that were reused were the high-res source model assets and textures. Game code was not just "ported over". This is going to be the case in all cross platform games, unless they share a multi platform engine like UE3 or Renderware, and even those engines have sections coded specifically for said consoles.
It's fruitless to argue that a lead SKU gains the competitive advantage unless resources simply dried up for secondary and tertiary SKU's.
The reason it was an issue with the PS2/Xbox was that the Xbox was quite literally 2-3 generations ahead in terms of graphics tech. So reusing PS2 assets on the Xbox made for crappy looking Xbox games. This time around, Xbox360 and PS3 have quite literally the same (or at least very similar) graphics rendering capability, well at least wrt dx version feature set stuff goes. The x360 is a bit more advanced (memexport stuff as example), but doing cross platform stuff shouldnt produce the same disparity we saw last gen xbox/ps2.
I mean even the RSX is probably not going to bump up against its max shader length limit.
PS: I didn't hear anyone complaining when Virtua Tennis 3 looked better on PS3 (other than X360 not being at the same dev. stage). No PS3 fans were screaming bloody murder even though the PS3 version was the lead SKU. And in that case the lead SKU def. benefited since VT3 was a port from 6800 class hardware.
edit: /end rant. hope somebody actually read all that
Last edited by a moderator:
Its the whole "give the audience what they want" deal. They know people want to read / debate over comparisons so they make them. It generates enormous traffic and publicity for the site. Their comparisons themselves are geared more towards the general public (ie. flashy overdone lighting is more impressive to almost everyone except those at B3D, so they tell people the toned down lighting is better, etc).
I played FNR3 on 360 when it first came out- and to me IMHO- the PS3 has worse crowd effects though not to the extent of what ive seen some pics show on this thread- but there def not as good as i remember them- The lighting to me is more subtle yet acts much more natural and realistic and looks better on the ps3....These are very minor points..........Honestly the game doesnt look ANY different on the two systems really. I cant tell anything apart.
did you read pakotlar's post above wrt the lighting differences?
No, because when I posted, it wasn't there. I made a mistake in my post, but it shouldn't be a leap of logic to figure out what I was saying
(a mistake similar to his VT3 argument I suppose). Apart from some flaws in his other arguments, I don't see from the screenshots how the lighting difference with can't be a design/art change rather than something technical. Until its confirmed by more people with more experience than myself (perferably on the other side of the PS3/X360 fence ), I can't agree with his accessments. For example, going by gameranking reviews, I seem to recall more reviews saying there is an improvement in graphics rather than the opposite.No, because when I posted, it wasn't there. I made a mistake in my post, but it shouldn't be a leap of logic to figure out what I was saying
Heh, yeah I edited my VT3 argument (along with a bunch of my post; it was written hastily). Meant PS3, nice catch. Yeah, I see what you are saying with regard to the design/art vs technical changes. However, in this case, it really is a technical issue and not an art issue. It takes a pretty keen eye to spot the differences though; I'll admit that.
As far as reviews go, they mentioned that the players looked nicer. This is true, EA def. put in some additional time into the player models and textures. The problem is that left out some of the dynamic lighting effects. Basically it looks like they are using fewer light sources, no phong shading on players, and omitted some specular from player models. Its not a huge difference by any means, but it is dissapointing considering that the PS3 version runs worse even with its aqua teen hunger force moon people crowds
.edit: I think the problem with your argument is that you are saying that EA simply used subtler lighting effects wrt to bloom and saturation. This is true, but thats not where the issue lies. If anything, lowering bloom levels would increase performance (though I really doubt there would be anything but a rounding error diff), and the subtler lighting is really a change in light attenuation and color; something completely possible on X360.
So that isn't a technical issue. The problem is all the stuff that was not included. I think the dead giveaway in gamespots comparo is the stage. Look at how its lit. With the X360 SKU you can see that the bloomy window lighting is also lighting the crowd, the surrounding walls, the stage, and the fighters. This is not happening at all on the PS3 version.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see. The weird thing is some reviews such as 1up actually say theres an improvement to lighting and models, etc. I haven't seen the game in motion (I must assume that you have) to see if they lack dynamic lighting effects or any of the things you previously mentioned. There are just some problems I have with seeing some of the other things you mentioned as being technical based. For example, phong shading seems to me something that was possible last gen and was done quite frequently so I personally don't think its something technical.
Supposing for a moment that it was a technical thing, I think EA then deserves credit for making something less technically good look better than the original.
Supposing for a moment that it was a technical thing, I think EA then deserves credit for making something less technically good look better than the original.
Hey. Yeah, I mean I agree with you. I feel that the PS3 can do all of the same things that the X360 does. However, in FN3 a lot of stuff that should be possible was left out. The crowds are a good example. I mean who honestly believes that the PS3 cannot handle the additional load of what cannot be more than 50k additional polys a frame (aka 1.5M polys/s @ 30FPS). The PS3 should be able to handle ~100M/s in 1st gen games. The setup limit is 250M, and dev's should def be able to max that somewhere in the life cycle of the system (vertex shaders aren't going to be doing a whole lot else other than transforming vertices).
No man, check the shot more carefully. I agree with you about the overuse of bloom on that stage on X360 SKU, but the differences in lighting extend beyond that.
1. On X360 the stage, crowd, fighters, background poly's are lit by the same light source @ the windows. There seem to be additional point lights inside the hall providing illumination. The players have "rim" lighting, aka phong shading.
2. The PS3 is missing all of the above. Look at how the stage is lit separately from the rest of the background. It is lit by a single lightmap, and what is interesting, is that the players do not seem to be lit by the same light source. It causes for a bit of a weird effect.
2.b. Look at the shorts. No specular. Very flat looking lighting. Either lightmap or single point light.
3. Check the banners. PS3 is missing either polys or normal mapping (or both). Banners are also not nearly as well lit. This holds true for the rest of the background.
There is more but this is all that I could visualize from memory. Check out the comparison again.
And I agree that the PS3 has nicer looking players (especially the skin shader and texture work), but they are more poorly lit.
edit: /end rant. hope somebody actually read all that
Actually unlike you, I'm not going from memory of the picture comparison as far as the PS3 version is concerned, since I'm PLAYING the PS3 version (the warehouse stage Ali versus Ward
) as we speak, the stage and the fighters are lit from the same light sources (or at least made to look like it, it could very well be that both versions don't have unified lighting, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case). The crowd is crap in both versions. Why would the banners be lit when two of them are between the windows behind the wall in the path of the light source and the other one is rather far away from the windows, and in the PS3 version, the warehouse is NOT being flooded with light from one set of windows like the xbox360 version is? The banners seem to have the same folds except once again the light from the windows isn't flooding the entire room, they're NOT the main light source for every single thing in the warehouse.The lighting in the PS3 version is just more natural and realistic, without the overusage of specular bloom and it seems the HDR quality is higher judging from the lack of flooding, and the room really shouldn't be flooded with light from the windows like in the xbox360 version to begin with. I didn't notice the thing about "no specular" on the shorts which seemed fine to me, wasn't paying much attention to the shorts while I'm fighting but it's more of a result of the lighting difference due to the room not being flooded by the light from the window, since the room should be lit from the windows at the wall AND from the ceiling, and the shorts are clearly in the shadow of a fighter's torso, if you have ONE, VERY STRONG light source from the side, THEN it might make sense that you would see what you described as "specular". The PS3 version does have better lighting, and because of it as well as the extra attention to the details, the fighters simply look more realistic in terms of how the skin looks, I'm not sure why you're arguing against the PS3 version's lack of the overused specular bloom when it makes the fighters look LESS realistic. One can make a case against the framerate slowdowns (which wasn't really noticible in the gitr mode when I was playing it last night and tonight) and perhaps the crappy crowd but to knock the lighting in the PS3 version which is better? That's silly, it's like trying to knock the lighting in Motorstorm instead of going after the 2D grass, come on, pick an easier target, please.
As for Madden, Gamespot already made the correction to their mistake which originally claimed the stadium doesn't cast shadows in the PS3 version (why would the sun be off to one side at 1PM to begin with?), not sure what you're getting at.
All those examples point to the one version being the lead sku and one clearly wasn't with both consoles being very different machines (two memory pools vs. unified memory, 1ppu + 7 spus vs. 3 ppus, etc), to see the best example of the lighting, physics, textures and models each machine is capable off, wouldn't it be better to look at exclusive titles?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
The light on the side is the only light that would illuminate the banner, aside from indirect light in the room. Look at the second gamespot picture. The right end of the warehouse has shadows coming from the left. Of course the left window is the light source, and it doesn't matter how far it is. I will admit that they screwed up the lighting direction on the banners in the 360 version, as it should be from the right (just as the crowd is lit).
Even if you think those bright windows aren't light sources
???, the banners have no shading whatsoever. All they have are a couple of faint highlights to show they are indeed wrinkled, but they're missing everything else. They just don't look real at all.Lighting is more than just the lighting of the two fighters. It's everything that counts.
The light on the side is the only light that would illuminate the banner, aside from indirect light in the room. Look at the second gamespot picture. The right end of the warehouse has shadows coming from the left. Of course the left window is the light source, and it doesn't matter how far it is. I will admit that they screwed up the lighting direction on the banners in the 360 version, as it should be from the right (just as the crowd is lit).
Even if you think those bright windows aren't light sources
Lighting is more than just the lighting of the two fighters. It's everything that counts.
Dude, I don't have to over-analyze a single screenshot which Gamespot chose to put up, I have the game, running in real-time, on my PS3, right now (Ali versus Pacman in this contest, yes I like to pick on smaller guys with no power).
My point is that the banners aren't lit by the light from the side simply because the light from the side windows isn't flooding the room due to the HDR, because the banners are at positions which aren't supposed to be well-lit to begin with (and should NOT be lit by the side windows, they might be if the game is using some sort of LDR). Why would the banners be "shaded" when they are not lit by the light from the side windows and are obviously much further away from the light source from the ceiling? I'm not sure if you can tell from that one gamespot picture but at least I can see when I'm playing the game that the banners do have folds and they do look quite natural, that's what they would look like if there isn't a strong light source, which there is NOT. You're trying to analyze one screenshot from Gamespot but I'm telling you from the perspective of someone actually sitting in front of a TV playing the game, and being able to move around in the first person perspective and looking at everything, that this is the case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol. Ok, I don't want to argue. Since you have the game sitting in front of you, the numerous videos and screenshots of the game floating around online are clearly invalidated
Enjoy your game.Thanks for clearing things up Kittony.
On the one hand, I'm sure the PS3 version of Madden07 was only capable of doing proper stadium shadows because it tapped into the 4D powers of the PS3...everyone knows X360 comparatively inferior in this respect. MS shouldn't have gone cheap on that
On the one hand, I'm sure the PS3 version of Madden07 was only capable of doing proper stadium shadows because it tapped into the 4D powers of the PS3...everyone knows X360 comparatively inferior in this respect. MS shouldn't have gone cheap on that