That is some really weird banding in the shadows for screenshots 4 and 5 on PS3.
*Game Tech*
- Thread starter zaftxx
- Start date
- Status
That is some really weird banding in the shadows for screenshots 4 and 5 on PS3.
Well, I was gonna buy this for PS3 until I read your post, grandmaster! MS just called and they said the money should be in your bank account soonest.
(unless, of course, there is any trade-off to compensate for the framerate loss...)
Anyway, I recently bought Far Cry 2 for the PS3 and it's got quite some tearing (I stopped minding it much already, even so the game is quite beautiful). Do you know how the 360 version compares?
So vsync is enabled? On both versions or just PS3?
Aside, has anybody heard of demo plans for PS3 or 360?
I have played it into the 2nd act, and the framerate has only dropped once when i was attacked by 2 'zombies' ( ?). After reloading my savegame, in that same scene the framerate stayed smooth. Also, in the 2nd act, i was attacked by several 'zombies' at the same time (hospital, on hard) And it stayed smooth.
The problems reported by grandmaster are not in my Pal retail version. I do have to add that i play on pal-sdtv resolution.
As far as i know, there are no demo plans, aside from some video demo's and backstory videos.
I'm running at 720p. Haven't tried forcing 1080p yet, my 226BW displays that annoying "non optimal resolution" warning so I tend to deactivate 1080p.
You can buy little pads or even some sticky felt and put it on your 360 drive tray and the scratched discs will stop.
As for KZ2 vs UE3 . Well one is a dedicated game that has had tens of millions invested in it and the other is a multiplatform engine that has known issues with features of the 360 gpu. I hardly think its fair to compare those.
Remember the 360 still has more memory compared to the ps3 and thus textures should look better on it . The 360 still has easier tools and thus its easier to get more out of it. The 360 also has the larger install base that is known for buying tons of games. So it will still get the lion share of dev budgets.
Back on topic: Your points seem valid. I used UE3 because a lot of people claim that these games are the best looking games on the system. I understand the better tools. And you cannot expect devs to be as good as say criterion or the previous bethesda.
I still think EA did a great job however, aside from some lighting implementation and some bump mapped surfaces, the games looks identical and it plays very smooth also.
grandmaster
Veteran
V-Sync is enabled on both PS3 and 360. Both versions drop frames, but PS3 does so far more frequently. You really have to work hard (ie use a frame rate detector) to see where it drops on 360, but with PS3 it's readily apparent to the human eye. But as I mentioned, unless you've played the 360 game, you're not really going to notice the difference. It's still a cracking game on both systems as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sure there'll be a lot more "well it doesn't drop frames on my console" comments - as if EA would deliberately release a sub-optimal build in one region - but it's not really surprising bearing in mind developer comments like this one.
Actually considering the cost of chipping it etc, why not hold off on the chipping (Therefore saving your warranty) buying a 60gb HDD (Selling the old one if applicable) and just playing the disks off the HDD?
1. Removes the noise from the drive, making the system substantually quieter
2. Fixes the issues with scratching disks
3. Improves load times.
4. Shouldn't cost much more than actually chipping the thing.
5. Saves your RROD warranty.
I understand you may be upset, but IMO you should seriously consider the above. It'll help you get over the issues and start enjoying the games/system more.
Yes, now that HDD installation is an option (or at least will be very soon) that's a sensible choice.
Two points:
1) I just recently purchased a 360 (mid Sept) and with my purchase got a Turtle Beach X4 wireless 5.1 (simulated) headset. I was skeptical at first about the quality, but am convinced it makes me a better gamer. I live in the city in a flat with thin floors/walls. I can't keep my neighbors up with a booming subwoofer and 5 channel speakers. This was a compromise, but I think it's actually given me an advantage in certain games. I can actually hear players sneaking up on me or walking above/next to me much better than when I initially had the console connected to my AV receiver. There's a lot of extraneous noise in my environment that is subdued by the headsets. There's usually a car alarm, emergency sirens, car/bus/truck noises, people talking, etc coming from the street where I live. It's been a real joy with the headset. This headset has XBox live support, so you can also chat online without issue. If noise is an issue for you, you should seriously think about this option. The only drawback is a hissing/white noise that comes from the infrared wireless technology they use, but it sure beats the other noise I'd normally hear.
2) I believe games like Oblivion benefited from the extra time allotted to the developers to improve it. I can tell you that on my software projects, there isn't a single application that I've worked on that wouldn't have been better given more time. I once even had an issue where I forgot to checkin some code, accidentally clobbered my code (a completely new module -- with no old versions to go off), and after the initial angst, anger, frustration, proceeded to recreate a better version that ended up compiling and running with no bugs, and better performance. On the first compile/run! It hasn't happened again, and I won't be trying to simulate this again, but it's amazing how a second revision of code comes out better.
Often this is thrown around, but how do you (or anyone other than Bethesda) know they spent a whole year of extra dev time on it?
Maybe the entire year was spent just getting it to run, maybe they only spent 6 months of the year actually porting the game.
Just because there was a year in between doesn't mean that's "extra dev time".
Never said anyone should or that anyone has for that matter.
Although it's just a Wiki entry, there are referenced articles that indicate there was more development time. The fact that some of the same improvements were patched into the 360 seems to also imply this. Obviously, some changes are harder to implement as patches or just too risky in terms of regression risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=12164267
As for the Killzone/PS2/Xbox->Killzone 2 engine progression. It is purely conjecture that I associate any history between the two engines, but a google search on "killzone guerilla games ps2 xbox shell shock" brings up some more references from gaming websites and wikipedia.
Ps3 version has better lighting and texture and drop frame randomly like 360 version.
I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke... looking at actual comparisons, the 360 version comes out on top in lighting and shadowing, while maintaining a better frame rate. Refer to this earlier post.
By the way, if you want to post a one-liner like that, B3D really isn't the place to do it. Try using some evidence to back up your claims rather than posting "x > y" then leaving the thread.
One other interesting point that I heard on 1Up Yours is that the PS3 version isn't quite as immersive since the save points pull you out of the game into the generic PS3 menu system to save, where the 360 version is done fully in game using the menu system. That's interesting, and I wonder if Sony have some sort of plan to amend their current dev systems to allow future games to use a custom save menu for the sake of immersion. If not, they may miss out on some more cinematic offerings moving forward.
Bring forth the "Bethsada lazy devs!" comments, faithful ones. Fallout 3 exerpt from gamestop:
Gamespot says "It's a shame, in light of these impressive design elements, that the PlayStation 3 version is shockingly inferior to the others from a technical perspective. Although the Xbox 360 and PC versions display the occasional visual oddity and bland texture, these nitpicks are easy to overlook. Sadly, the jagged edges, washed-out lighting, and slightly diminished draw distance of the PS3 release aren't so easy to dismiss. We also experienced a number of visual bugs on the PS3. Character faces disappeared several times, leaving only eyeballs and hair; limbs on robots went missing; some character models had an odd outline around them as if they were cel-shaded; and the day-to-night transition may cause odd streaks on the screen as you move the camera around."
Gamespot says "It's a shame, in light of these impressive design elements, that the PlayStation 3 version is shockingly inferior to the others from a technical perspective. Although the Xbox 360 and PC versions display the occasional visual oddity and bland texture, these nitpicks are easy to overlook. Sadly, the jagged edges, washed-out lighting, and slightly diminished draw distance of the PS3 release aren't so easy to dismiss. We also experienced a number of visual bugs on the PS3. Character faces disappeared several times, leaving only eyeballs and hair; limbs on robots went missing; some character models had an odd outline around them as if they were cel-shaded; and the day-to-night transition may cause odd streaks on the screen as you move the camera around."
hm... Without seeing examples, I could be entirely wrong (
), mind you, but just for the purpose of discussion, it sounds like:1.they weren't able to get acceptable performance with AA or were using FP16, but...
2. are seeing the washed out lighting because a) Bethesda might be using FP10 on 360 vs INT8 on PS3 or b) the Gamespot crew have not calibrated the two systems properly or c) both...
3. z-culling issues for pop-out/disappearing faces. A screwed up SPE implementation
The character outline sounds like something funky is going on with the depth buffer, but I'm guessing...4. No idea on the odd streaks during the day/night transition... (How did this miss testing?)
- Status
Similar threads
