*Game Tech*

[Statix]

Could this be fixed with a patch just like 2k did with the ps3 version of bioshock concerning some textures?
edit: shouldn't that discussion be in the "multiplatform development issues" thread rather than here?

I honestly don't think so. These could be rigid performance and/or memory related compromises specific to the 360 version. From what I've seen in comparison videos, the PS3 and 360 versions of Oblivion had similar graphical differences between them. Plus, with the Bioshock situation, 2K basically had to just address ONE single texture (the Big Daddy prop in the demo level). With Fallout 3, Bethesda would have to patch an ENTIRE GAME's worth of new textures.

I'm thinking that these textural differences can be chalked up to the universal presence of a hard drive in every PS3 system, so that developers (especially developers of open-world type games like Bethesda) can fully use the hard drive for memory management and virtual memory and stuff like that to optimize for the limited memory of consoles. Better memory management could potentially result in things like better quality textures.

 

[liolio]

I agree that this should be moved in the afforementioned thread

Between I see Bethesda unlikely to fix the issue, in UK the 360 took 55% of the sales, why spend more time on something not percieved as broken?

 

[grandmaster]

This is truly a breakthrough comparison (despite the fact it's comprised of low-quality off-screen camera shots). The conventional hype recently has been how awful and inferior the PS3 version is; the screens indicate the exact opposite. Much more detail in the PS3 version's textures; as well as better specularity (gloss) effects.

You clearly haven't played it then Technically fascinating as it is, staring at textures close-up and looking for 'gloss' doesn't impact the gameplay experience - a variable frame rate and zero AA on an immensly complex game does.

 

[Sigfried1977]

You clearly haven't played it then Technically fascinating as it is, staring at textures close-up and looking for 'gloss' doesn't impact the gameplay experience - a variable frame rate and zero AA on an immensly complex game does.

Matter of opinion really. I love to examine stuff from up close, but a not quite perfect framerate rarely bothers me (hell, I played Strike Commander on a 486 DX 50 at approximately 10-15 fps and still enjoyed it), especially in slower paced games. Same with aliasing and/or tearing: tons of console games suffer from both, even the ones widely considered the best looking ones: Uncharted and Ass Creed tear constantly, while Gears or Kameo have zero AA, but it rarely affects my enjoyment of the titles.

I'm not talking specifically about Fallout 3 by the way (haven't played either of the 3 versions), but console games in general.

 

[Statix]

You clearly haven't played it then Technically fascinating as it is, staring at textures close-up and looking for 'gloss' doesn't impact the gameplay experience - a variable frame rate and zero AA on an immensly complex game does.

I was completely with you until the last line. You appear to be selectively picking and choosing what graphical qualities are important or have an actual "impact on gameplay." I pointed out some ways in which the PS3 version was graphically superior, but ultimately I would have to say that none of the things you or I mentioned would significantly impact any average person's enjoyment of the game. However, I haven't played Fallout 3 on the PS3 to know exactly how "variable" its framerate really is.

 

[betan]

Better textures on a system with split and overall less available memory? Hmm, I wonder why this could be.
Arwin, any ideas?

 

[grandmaster]

I was completely with you until the last line. You appear to be selectively picking and choosing what graphical qualities are important or have an actual "impact on gameplay." I pointed out some ways in which the PS3 version was graphically superior, but ultimately I would have to say that none of the things you or I mentioned would significantly impact any average person's enjoyment of the game. However, I haven't played Fallout 3 on the PS3 to know exactly how "variable" its framerate really is.

Frame rate has a very clear impact on gameplay. In the case of Fallout 3, targetting without the VATS system is painful enough without keyboard and mouse whether it's on 360 or PS3. A lower frame rate affects perceived response from the controls, therefore making a key part of game harder. That's affecting the gameplay experience.

Similarly the game's visual impact is derived from the 'realness' of the world it is creating. There's so much detail in this game that a huge amount of shimmering jaggies makes the world less real, less immersive - likewise with an ever-changing frame rate that really collapses in key places.

I honestly can't say that a bit of gloss or lower resolution textures when you walk up right next to a rock makes anywhere near as much difference in these regards.

 

[obonicus]

Frame rate has a very clear impact on gameplay. In the case of Fallout 3, targetting without the VATS system is painful enough without keyboard and mouse whether it's on 360 or PS3. A lower frame rate affects perceived response from the controls, therefore making a key part of game harder. That's affecting the gameplay experience.

Similarly the game's visual impact is derived from the 'realness' of the world it is creating. There's so much detail in this game that a huge amount of shimmering jaggies makes the world less real, less immersive - likewise with an ever-changing frame rate that really collapses in key places.

I honestly can't say that a bit of gloss or lower resolution textures when you walk up right next to a rock makes anywhere near as much difference in these regards.

We're still just discussing preferences at this point, though. Naturally, your preferences have a greater impact than most, since you pass them on during your 'graphics roundups' (which in my case ruins my enjoyment of the otherwise objective comparison, but again, preference).

I mean, I agree, I think that more AA and framerate make it an objectively better port, but I can't tell a dissenter that their opinion is wrong.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Better textures on a system with split and overall less available memory? Hmm, I wonder why this could be.
Arwin, any ideas?

Considering how Oblivion 360 had shorter draw distance, on screen loading, and frame drop due to the slower DVD streaming, they could have made compromises on the graphical assets to reduce the work load. (like having more stuff preload onto the ram, leaving little space for extra texture maps) Fallout PS3 on the other hand, is one of the biggest HDD installed game with use of whopping 5GB HDD space.

 

[betan]

Considering how Oblivion 360 had shorter draw distance, on screen loading, and frame drop due to the slower DVD streaming, they could have made compromises on the graphical assets to reduce the work load. (like having more stuff preload onto the ram, leaving little space for extra texture maps) Fallout PS3 on the other hand, is one of the biggest HDD installed game with use of whopping 5GB HDD space.

I'm not sure how much PS3 version benefits from HDD streaming compared to BD (or DVD) streaming. Caching certainly helps for shortening subsequent loading screens, but if it also caches during Wasteland streaming, it not only streams initially from BD but also writes to HDD at the same time.

Regarding the "install" size, I could swear at one point my PS3 reported it as 6000+ MB, and sometime later it was around ~4500 MB which made me think that game has rather high granularity for its cache replacement policy.

For comparison, apparently NXE install size for Fallout 3 is 5.9 GB (Oblivion was apparently 6.7 GB) according to this:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/xbox-360/854738-nxe-installation-sizes.html

 

[Nesh]

I spent some time comparing PS3 & 360 version of Fallout 3, and the findings are rather interesting.
[...]

I find your comparison extremely interesting. It now makes me wonder why the reports were pointing towards the higher inferiority on the PS3, when both seem to have their ups and downs.

One of the things pointed if I remember correctly towards the PS3's inferiority was the worse texture quality. But what you show is the complete opposite.

 

[Neb]

I find your comparison extremely interesting. It now makes me wonder why the reports were pointing towards the higher inferiority on the PS3, when both seem to have their ups and downs.

One of the things pointed if I remember correctly towards the PS3's inferiority was the worse texture quality. But what you show is the complete opposite.

AA and slightly better distance LOD might have been the first and most noticable impression some reviewers got.

Im also interested if PS3 also got more glossy mapping on other surfaces like inside interiors/underground/etc in comparision to the xbox360 one. Was there also AF in one of the versions becouse that would make quite a differecne (8xAF or more)?

 

[Richard]

The lack of prominent specular reflectivity could very be a deliberate omission in the 360 version for performance considerations. You mention the presence of "some" very faint/soft specularity in the 360 version, but that could just be the way it's supposed to be, as opposed to a glitch or oversight. Some games have used this style of soft "gloss mapping" (instead of regular specular lighting) before, such as DOOM 3 for instance.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here but the D3 comparison is not apt. D3 used a fixed specularity factor and clamped falloff tables. When Humus replaced the fragment program's table look-up with a power-function performance increased for AF-limited situations (and almost brought down B3D in the process) so in D3's case the tradeoff was not the same you mention here.

As for which of the PS3 or Xbox 360 versions looks better/is what the devs intended, I suppose a comparison with the PC version is probably the safest way to tell.

 

[Betanumerical]

It would be awesome if someone could get some good proper grabs from bother versions of the game, so we can see th extent of the differences in both versions, but even going off those captures the ps3 version looks better in certain areas.

 

[Neb]

It would be awesome if someone could get some good proper grabs from bother versions of the game, so we can see th extent of the differences in both versions, but even going off those captures the ps3 version looks better in certain areas.

It would need to be outdoor and indoor to cover the graphics effect scope.

Megaton/Rivet City, wasteland, Metro underground/cave.

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

I'm not seeing a difference in any of the comparison pics that have been posted. Different compression schemes maybe? LOD?

 

[Betanumerical]

I'm not seeing a difference in any of the comparison pics that have been posted. Different compression schemes maybe? LOD?

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/FO5360.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/FO5PS3.jpg

Thats one hell of a compression scheme, .

 

[betan]

It would be awesome if someone could get some good proper grabs from bother versions of the game, so we can see th extent of the differences in both versions,

I believe grandmaster is preparing special edition head-to-head for Fallout 3, including PC.

ps: Maybe, we should ban the word "better" altogether.

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

Didn't see that one. Much higher detail in the hair. I wonder what the story is there.

 

[Turok]

Is the 360 version missing specular mapping in its entirety? For Fallout 3 I mean.