Print

[Pheidias]

I blame the Germans

[Deftech]

http://dreamgamers.b...s-rr-7-ps3.html

[Pheidias]

Heh I saw that comparison on digg too

Those last highres 360 pics look like shit, Is the game that out of focus or is the screenshot maker a tool?

[incognegro]

I dont think the 360 shots were taken properly....I mean why are the black levels so high?

[incognegro]

Call of duty review

Once again frame rate issues on the ps3 version. I guess the less ram really bothered them.

It seems to have some minor unimpressive texture as well......where have I heard that before ?

[cerberus414]

I doubt its the resolution though. I mean let's break it down. Call of Duty 3 was made with textures being at some native resolution. I say that because with all the comments about sub-720p, I'm confused, so we'll assume that it is lower than 720p for a sec. Why would a company reduce the resolution for the 360 for better frame rate as opposed to PS3. I mean any idiot knows that frame rate is a lot more important than the resolution of the textures. So, if this is the case and Xbox 360 is benefiting from the smoother frame rate, then why PS3 isn't?. I think there is a bit more to this whole frame rate issue. You see, I have a feeling that the games with this gen will be made on the Xbox 360 (as of now, easier to develop for) from the ground up and then ported to the PS3 (for the multi-platform titles at least). Since their hardware architectures are so different, not as many optimizations can be made to the PS3 once the game is already built on some code. Unless, a company wants to spend an extra year and money to start from scratch and rebuilt the whole game just for the PS3.

After all, maybe there are benefits of being the first one in the market, I mean you get the game and the other console gets the port.

NOW LISTEN, I am not bashing the PS3, it is a powerful system, I'm just trying to show how it can't always mean superior graphics, frame rate, etc. Most games that are made for PCs and Xbox 360 are usually developed on the PC first and then ported to the 360. Why do you think Prey, Oblivion and Quake 4 are so choppy and laggy? I mean it is the truth, porting is bad and it barely takes advantage of the console's hardware.

All the exclusive 360 titles I've seen are smooth and flawless. Dead rising has a bazillion people on the screen at once, yet 360 can cope with it and yet still have a smooth frame rate, same with Lost Planet, Gears of War, etc...

Any follow-up thought on my argument?

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Nov 15 2006, 01:25 AM)

I doubt its the resolution though. I mean let's break it down. Call of Duty 3 was made with textures being at some native resolution. I say that because with all the comments about sub-720p, I'm confused, so we'll assume that it is lower than 720p for a sec. Why would a company reduce the resolution for the 360 for better frame rate as opposed to PS3. I mean any idiot knows that frame rate is a lot more important than the resolution of the textures. So, if this is the case and Xbox 360 is benefiting from the smoother frame rate, then why PS3 isn't?. I think there is a bit more to this whole frame rate issue. You see, I have a feeling that the games with this gen will be made on the Xbox 360 (as of now, easier to develop for) from the ground up and then ported to the PS3 (for the multi-platform titles at least). Since their hardware architectures are so different, not as many optimizations can be made to the PS3 once the game is already built on some code. Unless, a company wants to spend an extra year and money to start from scratch and rebuilt the whole game just for the PS3.

After all, maybe there are benefits of being the first one in the market, I mean you get the game and the other console gets the port.

NOW LISTEN, I am not bashing the PS3, it is a powerful system, I'm just trying to show how it can't always mean superior graphics, frame rate, etc. Most games that are made for PCs and Xbox 360 are usually developed on the PC first and then ported to the 360. Why do you think Prey, Oblivion and Quake 4 are so choppy and laggy? I mean it is the truth, porting is bad and it barely takes advantage of the console's hardware.

All the exclusive 360 titles I've seen are smooth and flawless. Dead rising has a bazillion people on the screen at once, yet 360 can cope with it and yet still have a smooth frame rate, same with Lost Planet, Gears of War, etc...

Any follow-up thought on my argument?

I agree it could be port issue as well. We know RFOM runs rock solid as well.  The worst ports go to GTA3 and up on th PC, IMO.
Here are twisted's thoughts on the resolution issue.
http://thoughthead.com/?p=19

I really don't care if a game were to use lower resolution to achieve a better framerate if it looks as good or better, in some respects of course.  MS said all games 720 and Sony said the same.  Then the games should run at 720P, on both systems, smoothly.  If that can't get that without the game looking too " bad" then give me smooth.

I don't know what Treyarch did for the 360 and the PS3 and why they might do something to one and not the other.

My only point in my original response was that problems exist on both versions and it is not a completly level comparo.  I also thought the texture comments being the same for both systems was kind of funny.  Both machines are powerful, on that I think we can all agree.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:46 PM)

"The textures feature a lot of detail and look nice when viewed up close. "...."Even though most of the textures are quite good, some of them aren't all that impressive and some of the indoor environments, houses in particular, are repetitive."

Sounds like ther are some other issues as well, both the PS3 and 360;
"It never happened to a soldier that was alive, but after you kill them, dead soldiers will occasionally get stuck in walls and even float in midair. It's also possible to see the sparks from weapons fire through solid walls."

The good:
"The textures feature a lot of detail and look nice when viewed up close. It's hard to appreciate every little detail when you're trying to escape death, but the cutscenes offer a chance to enjoy the improved presentation without having to worry about getting shot because you stopped to admire the falling rain, planes flying overhead, or a puddle that has collected in a hole left by a grenade. The game's effects are outstanding. Throwing a smoke grenade results in a thick cloud of smoke so dense and so realistic you'll sometimes find yourself squinting in an effort to see better. Explosions from grenades, rockets, and bombs are similarly impressive."
lol I just read the 360 reveiw and it's almost a carbon copy, thought it was funny.

360 version:
"Even though the textures are better than last year, some of them aren't all that impressive and some of the indoor environments, houses in particular, are repetitive."  Sound familar?

"The textures are an area of the game's graphics that have been vastly improved, as they're more detailed than ever. It's hard to appreciate every little detail when you're trying to escape death, but the cutscenes offer a chance to enjoy the improved presentation without having to worry about getting shot because you stopped to admire the falling rain, planes flying overhead, or a puddle that has collected in a hole left by a grenade.  Once again, the game's effects are outstanding. Throwing a smoke grenade results in a thick cloud of smoke so dense and so realistic you'll sometimes find yourself squinting in an effort to see better. Explosions from grenades, rockets, and bombs are similarly impressive."

360 also has some framerate issues:
"The frame rate isn't locked at 60 frames per second all of the time, but outside of some occasional slowdown, it's fast and smooth even during some of the most intense firefights. Every once in a while there will be a hitch in the frame rate as the game loads new areas of a level. While this hiccup is certainly noticeable, it only lasts a few seconds and it rarely affects gameplay since it usually happens after you've accomplished an objective and there's a lull in the fighting."

Honestly I know I will be pegged a fanboy, but perhaps the reduction in resolution has some credence.  Two titles have more framerate issues on the PS3. but also have framerate issues, albeit less, with reduced resolutions.  I agree with twisted , this is unaccpetable from either camp.  If you are going to release a game, do it correctly.

 

Now for the non 'watered down' version:

QUOTE

Call of Duty 3's visuals are great, though a problematic frame rate leaves the game looking decidedly less impressive than it does on the Xbox 360.

QUOTE

There are a couple of visual issues that mar the otherwise great graphics. Key amongst these is the erratic frame rate. It was fast and mostly smooth on the 360, but the game's extremely choppy on the PlayStation 3. This problem isn't limited to hectic battle sequences either--it'll chug in rooms that are completely empty.

QUOTE

Call of Duty 3's online component is more robust on the Xbox 360, but there's still a lot to like on the PlayStation 3. Twenty-four people can play online, but whereas four players per Xbox 360 could go online, just one person can play on a single PS3, and there's no ranked play.

QUOTE

However, an inconsistent frame rate and fewer multiplayer options make the PlayStation 3 version slightly inferior to the Xbox 360 version.

Also what makes you think that if it be true that the 360's versions are at a lower res then 720p, that the ps3 will not be as well?  If the ps3's version is already suffering from EXTREME framerate issues, then do you honestly think they would bump up the resolution?  Highly unlikely.

[Pheidias]

Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?

I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...

And they aren't bumping up they are bumping down the resolution. I think this all comes down to activision aiming to high or being presurred by MS to try and put some extra umpfh in the 360 versions.

[nickthegreat]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 08:45 AM)

I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...

well when you have someone as honest as sony in the market you have to resort to devious behaviour such as lying..............  

[incognegro]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 07:45 AM)

Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?

I'm not really sure how to put this but, Microsoft FUCKIN LIED and are still doing it after the console is out...

And they aren't bumping up they are bumping down the resolution. I think this all comes down to activision aiming to high or being presurred by MS to try and put some extra umpfh in the 360 versions.

Yes because MS are the ones that made the game.

Why do ppl think the resolution is higher on the ps3? If that was the case, it should've been mentioned in the review.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 15 2006, 01:45 AM)

Wow so the fact that you can only play 1-player online is worthy of size 25 and bold?

playing only 1 player is actually a big deal. It's quite common this generation to drop split screen modes because they're incredibly resource intensive, if such a mode is dropped in a particular version of the game it speaks to the console's ability to handle such a game type.

MS pressuring Activition is pure speculation on your part. For all we know Activision held them hostage basically saying they had to run at that resolution or the other consoles would get a release date advantage. These are dealings behind closed door and any speculation as to who said what to who is just that.. SPECULATION.

QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 15 2006, 04:32 AM)

Yes because MS are the ones that made the game.

Why do ppl think the resolution is higher on the ps3? If that was the case, it should have been mentioned in the review.

To be fair it is MS to blame here as well. 720p is supposedly a requirement of their certification process by allowing the game to ship at a resolution below 720p broke their "guarantee" (their word not mine) that all games would be "optimized for" and run at "a minimum of 720p".

If I had to guess I'd say that the resolution is actually higher on the PS3... simply because it doesn't have an internal scaler meaning the game actually has to render at the desired output resolution (though I suppose the game developers could have pulled together a software scaler, it's doubtful).

While this keeps PS3 resolution figures honest I still think the built in scaler is one of the Xbox 360's best features.

For the best picture possible resolution take a 4th place back seat to a number of other figures dealing with contrast and color, meaning in the gaming world things like shadows, lighting effects, and in some aspects textures are more important then the output resolution.

obviously someone somewhere in this situation decided that these details were more important then the resolution as well. I'm sure it would have been just as easy to drop a few intensive effects and get the resolution up to a real 720p.

But here we have the problem MS and Sony have been playing a numbers game with resolution, when that isn't as big a contributer to picture quality when compared to many other factors... the dilemma
 ends up being
1. make the game look better but break my guarantee of 720p resolutions or
2. keep my promise of 720p resolutions but let the game graphics and or playability suffer.

neither situation is very good. but by breaking their own guarantee they lower their credibility and loose clout when pointing out their competitor's shortcomings.

I think the COD3 game comparison is a good example of what can happen if you place RESOLUTION above other factors
you risk
-lower frame rates
-lack of features like split-screen multiplayer
-lower detail in the textures
-simpler 3D models (X shaped trees instead of fully modeled ones etc.) or removed 3D models
-less lighting effects/less impressive lighting effects

the PS3 version didn't have the benefit of running at a lower resolution and it's clear where it can suffer as a result

HD resolutions are there so you can see more of the details on the screen, if you have to remove those details for the sake of gaining HD resolutions then it's pointless because you'll be exemplifying all of the LACK of details on the screen and the game suffers as a result. Think of it as a pretty woman in a bar. From across the bar she's not in HD, but sitting next to you she's in HD... I'd rather have her be beautiful and sit across the bar then ugly and sitting next to me. the non-HD resolutions Activision went with was a compromise. She walked half way too you but stayed beautiful. meanwhile on the PS3 she's sitting next to you and you begin to notice her lazy eye, and blemished skin etc.

To be perfectly honest I'd rather have a slightly lower resolution if it means the graphical details and gameplay will be salvaged as a result. Though it still doesn't change the fact that MS had to break their guarantee to deliver that.

[incognegro]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 15 2006, 04:02 PM)

Good response twisted.  To the other repsones.....I give you guys an 8.2  

yea that pretty woman analogy was pretty funny.

Oh well i could give a shit. Don't like COD and could careless if they missed the res by a hair. Its really not that serious...

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(nickthegreat @ Nov 15 2006, 03:30 AM)

well when you have someone as honest as sony in the market you have to resort to devious behaviour such as lying..............  

uuh, i've haven't been paying attention to the forums since gears of war came out, and i seem to be lost.

How did microsoft lie?

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 15 2006, 01:53 PM)

uuh, i've haven't been paying attention to the forums since gears of war came out, and i seem to be lost.

How did microsoft lie?

Tony Hawk Project 8 and COD8 were found to be running at less then 720p (about 30-33% less the resolution to be exact)

I've covered it in detail here http://thoughthead.com/?p=19 or you can just re-read this thread.