@Trezzer

Quote:

Absolute and utter nonsense. I said the video is in 720p just like the other 360 vs PS3 videos on there.

OK, I downloaded that video. The stills clearly show some PS3 enhancements there, for instance if you look at the boxer arms moving from the XBox 360 version towards the PS3 part of the screen, you will notice the arms get more detailed and less blurry. The boxer's gloves look a lot better too, just looks at the light reflection. If you compare the stills the XBox 360 version is blurry and the PS3 version sharp with more details visible on the player skins.

Get in the Ring option is a PS3 exclusive according to EA:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=14845&type=wmv&pl=game

@MikeB

I havent seen these games but the blur you talked about in the 360 version might be a special effect called motion blur.

Motion blur gives a more natural fluid movement, here is a good example of motion blur in the background of this image. http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/686/686515/ea-sports-fight-night-round-3-20060207003324312.jpg

To fully appreciate the improvement motion blur makes you need to see the game and not the blurred screenshots.

Last edited by DaveyD on 22-Dec-2006 at 09:31 AM.
Last edited by DaveyD on 22-Dec-2006 at 09:28 AM.

_________________
Join the Amigaworld.net Supporters Scheme and get your Supporter Tag

@MikeB

ok ive looked at both screenshots and you are right the PS3 version seems much more detailed.

However i have been analyzing the screenshots of both, the 360 screenshots are 60-70KB each and been slight scalled down to fit the page, where as the PS3 screenshots are 120-130KB each and have not been scalled down. Therefore the scalling down and extra compression on the 360 screenshots has caused a loss of detail. So this is an unfair comparison

_________________
Join the Amigaworld.net Supporters Scheme and get your Supporter Tag

@DaveyD

Yes, the XBox 360 IGN images were slightly downscaled. Anyhow with JPEG compression we will always lose a few details, but not enough for a fair comparison.

Full size:

XBox 360:
http://images.elotrolado.net/news2/141205211518_2big.jpg

PS3:

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748455/img_4101190.html

XBox 360

http://xbwproxy.ncode.nl/images/content/37574.jpg

PS3

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/746/746831/fight-night-round-3-20061120104006466.jpg

@MikeB

Quote:

Remember that you were the one who criticized me of sharing some end user photos taken from television sets.

I criticized you for using them as screenshots to show off the graphical quality of the machine, when you couldn't really see anything at all compared to regular screenshots. It would have been better if the comparison had been with regular screenshots as well. And yeah, that's the link I read.

@DaveyD

Quote:

Therefore the scalling down and extra compression on the 360 screenshots has caused a loss of detail. So this is an unfair comparison

Anyone with a 360 can download the demo and see it in action for themselves.

@MikeB

Quote:

if you look at the boxer arms moving from the XBox 360 version towards the PS3 part of the screen, you will notice the arms get more detailed and less blurry.

There might be some areas that are slightly improved. After all they've had a year more to improve things. Like I said there are also some new lighting effects - I wouldn't necessarily call them better, but they're definitely new. It also looks like sweat effects are improved and the boxer textures are better on some of the models. It also seems like they have improved the big arena fights, but the smaller ones looks worse.

At the end of the day the 360 still has more visual effects, there's a consensus that the boxers look better on 360, there are absolutely no frame rate issues on 360 and the PS3 version has most likely been in development for longer than the 360 one - considering that this was one of the earliest tech demos for PS3. Once again I'd say this isn't impressive for a port of a year old title. It's a good port, certainly, but I'd be upset if I had to play this game with frame rate issues. I've tried that in a boxing game and it was *not* fun.

Quote:

Get in the Ring option is a PS3 exclusive according to EA

Yes, and I said that it's correct that there is a new first person mode in it. There was another first person mode in the 360 version - you had to throw a haymaker to get into it - and it was through your opponents eyes. So hey, maybe that's really one of the rare instances of second person when it comes down to it? (can really only think of Project Zero where I've tried that before).

Last edited by Trezzer on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:01 PM.

I did some reading on people\s opinions, regarding Final Night 3 people seem to agree the PS3 version looks better.

Regarding Cal Of Duty 3 and NFS Carbon, it's seems about 50/50, some prefer the PS3 visuals and some the Xbox 360 visuals.

Call of Duty 3
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=24044

NFS Carbon
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=24053

The Xbox 360 version just seems to display darker textures and colors, IMO in NFS Carbon this works well but not so much in CoD 3.

Although these games may make use of only a small percentage of the PS3's capabilities as claimed by EA (I believe them), IMO the mass campaigns to discredit these early launch titles were not justified.

@MikeB

Quote:

I did some reading on people\s opinions, regarding Final Night 3 people seem to agree the PS3 version looks better.

Fight Night.

And that's funny, because when I read there was a small handful who thought PS3 shots looked better and nowhere was it close to 50/50 with Call of Duty 3. Either way I still lend more credibility to a public comparison such as the one at the Apollo where there's likely to be fewer fanboys with time to register multiple accounts and post comments. The reviewers also agree that the 360 versions look better and I'd say that slightly tips the scale as well - maybe not so much gamespot since they seems to be slightly off their rocker these days compared to everyone else, but other reviews have agreed with them.

As for NFS: Carbon I have no idea. It looks like cr*p on 360 and I'm guessing it does on PS3 as well.

@MikeB

Quote:

The Xbox 360 version just seems to display darker textures and colors, IMO in NFS Carbon this works well but not so much in CoD 3.

Don't forget the solid frame rate on 360 as well

Quote:

I believe them

Yes, yes. I'm sure you do. I hear in a secret lab somewhere they have Jurassic Park running in real-time on 360 and it looks much better than the real movie.

Quote:

IMO the mass campaigns to discredit these early launch titles were not justified.

IMO this was brought upon Sony by themselves. They claim they have a hugely superior console, and when it comes out it can barely keep up with 1 year old launch titles on their competitor's platform. Of course fanboys blindly following the hype has only made it so much more satisfying to shoot down these wild claims.

If the PS3 had launched without the hype it would of course have been compared anyway, but people were more likely to let it get away with "Oh, it's just launch titles". But since Sony has claimed that it was more powerful than the 360 by far, it looks rather odd that the titles just don't run as well or look as pretty as on the 360, as I'm sure you'd agree. Clutching at straws like one texture that happens to look better or one image that happens to looks sharper or one that has better contrast (which may not represent what you see on your tv at all) has little to do with the overall impression of a game when you see it in motion - and it's in motion where the PS3 seems to fail most often - that is.. by choppy motion. It shouldn't be so choppy if the cell were as powerful as it was made out to be - regardless of whether the SPEs get in on the action or not.

Last edited by Trezzer on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:13 PM.
Last edited by Trezzer on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:08 PM.

@MikeB

The line came from the famous quote "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics". I only feel strongly about putting forward a balanced argument based in reality.

Nobody has said the PS3 is a weak machine. When you say "I think next year you will be going through much harder times" that comes across as a little bit of spite and a desire to see 360 owners lose out.

I feel that throughout this, you're wishing bad on ordinary users, which is why my own tone has been a little unfriendly - which I apologise for. Don't try and defend every minor point as if Microsoft are storming your battlements, and I'll agree, the PS3 is a nice machine.

Chris

@DaveyD

Quote:

I have a question, at such a highres as 1080 lines will anyone be able to see a difference between interlaced (1080i) and progressive (1080p)? I doubt it.

And rightly so. The thing is that no displays are interlaced, so the signal is converted to progressive by the television. What you can (eventually) get out of 1080p is a higher frame rate, as you have full images where you would normally have fields, but since movies are still filmed at the normal rate it makes little sense so far.

The few places where you might see a slight difference between 1080p output and 1080i output is where you have very fast horizontal movement. The small line displacements you might see in 1080i should be gone in 1080p. But you basically need a huge TV, expensive equipment and eyes that are way above average (and have to care) to think 1080p is an improvement worth paying for.

@Trezzer

Quote:

And that's funny, because when I read there was a small handful who thought PS3 shots looked bettee

Read all the comments here regarding the video you used as an example:

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=24032

Quote:

As for NFS: Carbon I have no idea. It looks like cr*p on 360 and I'm guessing it does on PS3 as well.

I don't agree, neither version looks like crap IMO. Sure I think Formula 1 looks like more fun:
http://games.blog.nl/playstation_3/2006/12/20/formula-one-ps3-gameplay-trailer

Quote:

If the PS3 had launched without the hype it would of course

Marketing hype is normal, in the end though I think most people (probably you included) will agree it was justified.

@MikeB

Quote:

Read all the comments here regarding the video you used as an example

I think I already made it clear what I think of those. The balance must have changed since the initial comments - and that it changes just shows it's not worth much really. There were comments on digg as well if you really want to knock yourself out.

You can keep your F1 games to yourself, though. I've played their previous games and while they all looked from ok to good the gameplay was rotten to the core (as far as F1 racers go). SCEE don't make the best F1 racers in town for sure.

Quote:

Marketing hype is normal, in the end though I think most people (probably you included) will agree it was justified.

If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Thus my point about the one year old titles that don't perform as well today as they did a year ago on supposedly superior hardware.

Last edited by Trezzer on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:27 PM.

@Trezzer

Insomniac, developer of Resistance on 720p vs 1080i:

"it's native 720p, which is much better than 1080i. The funny thing is when you say "1080i," people automatically assume it's better than 720p because it's a bigger number. But, 720p is smoother."

If you don't believe the "PS3 fanboys", then please note even TeamXBox.com agrees:

"Why 720p is better than 1080i in HDTV

What is better, 720p or 1080i? This has been a topic of discussion for a long time. If only taking into account the technical aspects, the answer is simple. 720p is better than 1080i. The reason?

Although 1080i has 1080 lines of vertical resolution (against 720 lines of 720p) and 1920 pixels (against the 1280 pixels of 720p) per line, the fact that 1080i is interlaced, causes an overall lower resolution (in practice) than 720p."

@Trezzer

Things like choppiness should be eradicated as developers get a better understanding of the hardware, but I don't the PS3 pulling ahead. In the last generation, we saw extremely weak early PS2 games, but even as developers exploited every bit of its power, it didn't quite match the more traditional XBox.

This time round, the performance contest is more evenly matched. That's as much a good thing for the 360 as it is for the PS3. Developers can afford to take the lowest common denominator on big design choices and not suffer a big impact like last time round. There's no pressure to completely redesign for indvidual platforms, so you'll see broadly similar games with the PS3 Fight Night team adding a trick here, and the 360 team adding a trick there (doubtlessly spawning pages of debate)

Chris

@MikeB

Why don't you read what I was talking about and what the original question was?

Yes, 1080i is half the vertical resolution at any given time because it's only showing one field instead of two (which any progressive resolution does). It's still showing the previous field on a progressive display, though.

Go read some sites about high definition video where they compare 1080i and p if you want to get the lowdown.

Last edited by Trezzer on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:45 PM.

@MikeB

Dunno, I played Carbon on a high-end PC and the impression it left me was that it was a blurry Most Wanted with better physics. Even without motion blur, the textures looked somewhat dull while in motion.

_________________

@MikeB

I don't have an HD set, but the word interlace sends a shuder down my spine, even if the refresh rates are much higher. However, I tend to think that if you up the resolution too much without improving the graphics by a similar amount, you end up with a very sterile look to the game.

My TV is annoyingly good for a CRT. Just a little bit too good to get rid of....

Chris

Last edited by clebin on 22-Dec-2006 at 01:49 PM.

@clebin

Quote:

even as developers exploited every bit of its power, it didn't quite match the more traditional XBox.

Exactly. I tried firing up some first gen Xbox titles and was amazed at how far it had come considering the relatively standard hardware. I guess the jump from PS2's start titles to current titles is greater, but then again it also had more time on the market. It went from having titles that looked weaker than Dreamcast titles (and who knows what would have happened had the Dreamcast still been on the market today? - Ikaruaga and Shenmue 2 were gorgeous to say the least) to having titles that could at least compete with first gen Xbox titles (well, maybe not Halo but.. still)

But yes, the hardware is more even this time around and I think it will mean that different games will be possible and that multiplatform games will tend to run better on the 360. As for exclusives, the 360 GPU will allow for some things you can't pull off on the RSX+Cell and the Cell will allow for some things you can't do with the Xenon+Xenos. It will be interesting to see how things play out. Either way the gamers win if they just get what's best for them.