Massiveterra Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 At least the 360 version labels the character :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 19, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted February 19, 2010 Well, if you look back on here, there were rumors posted by a certain MS employee regarding exclusivity and the multiplatform nature of the engine almost three years ago. They've had time to get their **** straight on this port. It's not a port, it was confirmed both games were built on separate graphics engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tablet_user Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 As long as the story is the same i dont care if they look like a nes game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted February 19, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2010 The difference seems to lie mostly in the hair, not enough AA I suppose? The rest is minor when it comes down to it. I think in motion it'd be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 What people should be asking is the following: Is this due to the poor port done by SE or is it because of the 360's hardware?It wouldn't be the performance or power of the 360 of course, but it is probably the DVD hardware limitation vs. Blu-Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderermy Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 New pictures http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19866039&postcount=12243 looks much better now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted February 20, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2010 New pictures http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19866039&postcount=12243 looks much better now You're right, they do look better than the first ones out there. Maybe someone doesn't know how to get good screencaps from a 360? Honestly the difference in these new shots from the spanish version are pretty minor, mostly over AA I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I don't understand how the Xbox360 could be having AA issues. I'm pretty sure the 10 of EDRAM (not sure if that was the correct type of RAM) had enough memory bandwidth to give the 360 "free" AA? And when I mean "free" I mean the performance hit was very little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I would certainly hope the PS3 version is better, after all they have better hardware, lol. :punk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted February 21, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 21, 2010 I don't understand how the Xbox360 could be having AA issues. I'm pretty sure the 10 of EDRAM (not sure if that was the correct type of RAM) had enough memory bandwidth to give the 360 "free" AA? And when I mean "free" I mean the performance hit was very little? I can't say for sure, but the shots show that it's mostly isolated to specific textures like hair. I think the newest batch posted above from the spanish 360 version look way better than the original comparison shots, which makes you wonder anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I understand the AA is free, based on comments that ATI have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Yeah, the AA is 'free', but it's only 2x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 People seem to be forgetting this this isn't SE's first 360 game...they actually made and released The Last Remnant and Final Fantasy XI. So it's not as if this is there first attempt at the 360. Graphically, it's either a limitation of the engine of this is all they can get out of the 360 at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Wasn't Last Remnant using the Unreal engine though? Yeah, the AA is 'free', but it's only 2x. And ATI stated that it's about a 2% hit on performance to jump to 4x AA. Alan Wake is running at 4x AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey B. Veteran Posted February 22, 2010 Veteran Share Posted February 22, 2010 Honestly I do not feel that it matters the difference in quailty. If you purchase the one you will not need to know about the other one. The game is the same so who cares. Shadrack 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDX Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I would certainly hope the PS3 version is better, after all they have better hardware, lol. That's only half true afaik. The 360s GFX system outperforms the PS3 one, however the PS3 has a better CPU. (I wont bother to go into details...) As for myself, I will probably get it on my 360 and then XIII VS on my PS3 so I have a even split :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKAngel Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 this will be the first prolly the only game ill buy for my 360 =] very muchly looking foreward to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted February 22, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2010 The Last Reminent did run on the Unreal engine, and while it was made by square devs, uhh, they totally screwed that one over. It was bad on the 360 and it was still bad on the PC. Not an issue of hardware, they just didn't code well for it at all. Now this could just be the difference in space yet again, in the attempt to gain just a bit more room on the DVD's, cuz, you know, a 4th would really kill them (and the extra dvd costs mean little, seriously how did mistwalker make LO on 4 DVD's without any care and they're not some huge well known studio.) so they probably just compressed the textures a tad bit more than the PS3's. It's nothing so bad that you'd feel cheated if you got it for the 360, I'm still getting it, the difference is minor, and you probably can't tell most of the time when it's in motion anyways. If you have a good TV for gaming that also helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furyshinobi Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 The Last Reminent did run on the Unreal engine, and while it was made by square devs, uhh, they totally screwed that one over. It was bad on the 360 and it was still bad on the PC. Not an issue of hardware, they just didn't code well for it at all. I thought the PC version runs pretty smooth though I played the 360 version and have no problems with it despite the lag ;) Now this could just be the difference in space yet again, in the attempt to gain just a bit more room on the DVD's, cuz, you know, a 4th would really kill them (and the extra dvd costs mean little, seriously how did mistwalker make LO on 4 DVD's without any care and they're not some huge well known studio.) so they probably just compressed the textures a tad bit more than the PS3's. LO is a game published by MS so it is very likely that MS allowed or paid for the extra disks used. It's nothing so bad that you'd feel cheated if you got it for the 360, I'm still getting it, the difference is minor, and you probably can't tell most of the time when it's in motion anyways. If you have a good TV for gaming that also helps. I am also getting it on 360 and have no problems on how it looks... still looks good to me :) I even played the 'inferior' version graphics-wise of Mirror's Edge and enjoyed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted February 22, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2010 All good points, the fact MS published it might have helped with the extra costs, but really, what are the extra costs for one more DVD? The cases don't change at all, LO for me had the 3 DVD's sharing the case and the 4th on it's own in a plastic/paper container thingy, you know the ones. I think the real cost is probably minor in the end. Case in point, multidisc games have never cost more than single disc games, even back in the PSX days of 3 and 4 CD versions for rpgs. Now about TLR, the lag was the problem, frame rates dropping down too low, but as square has said itself, they didn't put enough work into the game, they just grabbed the unreal engine and did a quick job more as a test case than anything else. In the end TLR is a good game if you don't care about the lag really, I know a good number of people who liked it and it's pretty long, the sidequests are alot and they're not short either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 New pictures http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19866039&postcount=12243 looks much better now I see absolutely nothing wrong with these images. What's the issue again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 What people should be asking is the following: Is this due to the poor port done by SE or is it because of the 360's hardware? I was going to saying combination of both but the screenshots are screaming "louzy port" (even if it's built separately, I am pretty sure they share the assets = port). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I was going to saying combination of both but the screenshots are screaming "louzy port" (even if it's built separately, I am pretty sure they share the assets = port). Usually I equate poor port to performance but just basing it off of screenshots I quoted above, I really don't see anything even closely related to a "lousy port" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 i figured the same thing. blu rays have WAYYYY more space for textures, audios and FMVs. Sticking with regular dual layers dvd is definitely beggining to hurt the 360. and if they plan on keeping this console for 10 years, it's only going to get worse and worse. It's not hurting anyone really.. this is one or two games.. it's not like every game is like that.. considering how many games looked and were done bugfree on Xbox 360 one or two games spanning on multiple DVDs is not really an issue as much as some people are trying to make it out to be. These guys are using different engines and that's why games look different. I think people don't get what games are about. No amount of gigabytes makes up for a mediocre game, we've seen that on PS3. So many games with ultra high res but that doesn't mean squat when PS3 can't render them fast enough at those resolutions or what have you and the bottom line is game's success. We will see but games on Blu-ray on PS3 didn't really bring them sales as opposed to some games that were made on regular DVDs really. MW2, AC2, Bioshock 2, Batman, Mass Effect 2 all of these games are done without Blu-ray and achieve amazing sales but mostly because they were nicely done games and still looked great. The only thing I can see on 1 or 2 titles that Blu-ray really brought were no switching of discs but that's why we have hard drives in consoles these days as well. It's really not such a huge issue as people present it to be. I think the only advantage that PS3 has in terms of Blu-ray when compared to Xbox 360 is that publishers can pack up demos and similar on dual purpose Blu-rays like they did with District 9 and GoW3 demo but it again comes down to whether or not we will consume games on discs as time goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Both versions look good enough, but if you're a multi-console owner you'd probably want the PS3 version. With that said, was there any doubt though that the PS3 version would look best? Uncharted 2 showed off how great a PS3 game could look, no way Square Enix would do less with their AAA title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts