Face-Off: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

By Richard Leadbetter Published 7 October, 2010

Platform parity?

Page 1 of 2
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.5GB (disc one), 6.1GB (disc two) 11.9GB
Install 6.5GB (disc one), 6.1GB (disc two) -
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 7.1LPCM, 5.1LPCM, DTS

There's something of an aura - a level of profound expectation - surrounding Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. Maybe because it's been so long since the last truly classic game in the series. Perhaps because the pre-release trailers and screenshots have looked so pretty, and the game features some seriously impressive engine tech. Or maybe it's the curiosity factor of a Western developer taking on the epoch-making series under the watchful eye of Kojima Productions.

More pertinently for this feature, this is a cross-platform project where Konami and developer Mercury Steam haven't been afraid to use the strengths of the PlayStation 3. The game ships on one Blu-ray disc, but requires two DVDs to get the job done on Xbox 360. Producer Dave Cox is on the record as saying that PS3 is the lead platform for Castlevania, but also promises the game will be "identical" on the 360. Now's the time to put these claims to the test.

Let's get straight onto the initial comparison. As per the norm, there's a well-stocked 720p comparison gallery to mull over, and of course the requisite head-to-head video.

All of our split-screen vids are hand-encoded directly from the lossless source to ensure optimum quality, but Castlevania gave us real headaches. The game is so detail-rich that even the x264 compressor has real issues in retaining quality in a streaming video without the bandwidth requirement going stratospheric. We had to slow the video down to one-third speed, and really go to town on the encoding itself to get the full quality retained in the final presentation. Hopefully the effort has been worth it.

Retaining as much of the detail as possible is a must for a couple of reasons. First of all, if you've not played the demo, you've really got to see it to believe it. Even if you're not particularly interested in the comparison aspect, we really want to showcase the quality of the visuals being pumped out by this engine.

Secondly, hopefully the video will accurately represent the stunning quality of the cross-platform achievement: it really is exceptionally close between both platforms and we wanted to make sure that every pixel was represented, so be sure to use the full-screen button to get full HD resolution.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow PS3/360 comparison video.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow operates at native 720p on both systems, but neither uses any anti-aliasing. This level of parity extends to all aspects of the game's visual make-up: lighting is effectively identical, shadowing is exactly like-for-like right down to the filtering technique used, and the texture quality and filtering are the same.

Developer Mercury Steam appears to have opted for a zero-compromise approach to its work here: it's basically impossible to find fault with either version as they truly are almost completely identical. The fact that the team has managed to achieve this while creating an engine technology that is state of the art in so many ways is even more impressive, and that's something we hope to look at in more depth in the near future.

360-comp1
ps3-comp1
360-comp3
ps3-comp3
360-comp4
ps3-comp4

Visually, this is one of the closest cross-platform games we've ever looked at. Art and effects are a complete match. Even minor effects where we would expect some variance (such as shadow filtering) are the same on both systems.

Happy that the game looks the same, the next set of tests are all about performance. If you've played the Lords of Shadow demo you'll know that the game has a somewhat changeable frame-rate. Our initial impression was that the PS3 demo offered marginally superior performance compared to its 360 sibling, but more prolonged testing with the full game was required.

First up, we stress-test the game tech by comparing a range of engine-driven cut-scenes - these seem to feature a wildly variable frame-rate so it would curious to see how the tech manages to perform on both platforms when asked to produce exactly the same visuals.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow engine performance tests.

The results are intriguing, and somewhat unique. It's usually the case that even in the best cross-platform projects there are specific effects, levels or scenarios that favour one console's architecture over the other's. What we find in Castlevania is something different - almost identical frame-rate graph lines, with almost equal variances in the same scenes at the same times. Where the readouts do separate it is without exception in favour of the PS3 version of the game.

It's also apparent that Mercury Steam values image integrity, because Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is completely v-synced on both platforms, without a single torn frame in sight. On the one hand, when you have visuals on the level that the developer has achieved here, you don't really want to see them blighted with screen-tear. On the other, you do have to wonder if running with a soft v-sync could have produced a smoother look - there's no doubt that Castlevania is often noticeably jerky, and not just in the cut-scenes.

Frame-rate in these cut-scenes is somewhat variable to say the least, and it's clear that Mercury Steam pushed the visuals to the limit often at the expense of frame-rate (15FPS at certain points is something we never like to see in-game). So next up we took a series of like-for-like gameplay scenes from the first couple chapters, and compared overall performance levels.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow PS3/360 gameplay performance.

We don't see the same extreme performance lows in actual gameplay that we occasionally find in the cut-scenes, but the shifting frame-rate is still a problem - changing between anything from the low 20s to the low 30s. There doesn't seem to be any kind of frame-rate capping going on with either platform, but any journeys above the usual 30FPS console threshold are few and far between, although there is a nice section in chapter four where frame-rate goes through the roof in comparison to the rest of the game.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (156) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bradley-strider #1 2 years ago

    Where is the article? it says January 1st 1970 lol...

    Edit: sorry there it is...finally. Thank you DF!!! Now i can go buy it...
    Edited by bradley-strider at 07/10/10 @ 14:42

  • DoctorFouad #2 2 years ago

    Finally ! I was awaiting this faceoff ! thanks

    2 conclusions for me :
    1. the ps3 wins this time but with a slight margin (logical it wins, it is the leading platform and the engine plays rather to its strenghs)
    2. this is maybe the game where the parity between the 2 graphics engines is almost 100%, impressive work from konami
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 07/10/10 @ 21:33

  • Jlmadyson #3 2 years ago

    So you used the review code, smh. Anyhow it is nice the video quality is exactly the same in both. Disc swapping ain't really defining at this point with the same assets. But it would have been proper had you used retail copy since the developer mentioned the issues in review code. Also can't understand why both of these suffer for pre-rendered video. 360 version certainly looks noticeably sharper at what looks to be the cost of a few extra fps though neither is great in that department.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 07/10/10 @ 14:55

  • yoomazir #4 2 years ago

    @Roy_Batty

    We will, when the next Xbox comes.
    oh wait you mean we should get a PS3? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Edited by yoomazir at 07/10/10 @ 14:51

  • Spydy #5 2 years ago

    Disc-swapping reminds me of the old Amiga...

  • Psychotext #6 2 years ago

    "It can't have been an easy decision for Konami in deciding to put the Xbox 360 version of Lords of Shadow onto two DVDs - for starters, the basic cost of manufacture is likely to be very much higher, impacting its profit margin"

    The cost of two dvds comes out around the same as the cost for one blu-ray in mass replication, so they wouldn't have really lost out there. Perhaps the box would have cost a little more though. ;)

  • Vanmunt #7 2 years ago

    good work konami, goes to show how with a bit of effort everybody can play the same game with parity... hopefully effort like this in the future will kill the fanboi wars.

  • FreakyZoid #8 2 years ago

    > perhaps Konami didn't want friends going halves on buying the game?

    Well obviously.

  • aidey6 #9 2 years ago

    Is BINK cheaper for developers to use as it's been around for years and is also used on PS3 titles. The most pleasing surprise is that there is no large mandatory install for PS3 owners to maintain parity with the 360. Nice work Mercury Steam..

  • Jlmadyson #10 2 years ago

    I was about say. These guys don't really know what they are talking about on disc costs because the two are very likely close to the same with 2 DVDs versus 1 Blu Ray. Good point Psycho, not so good Digital Foundry. I would have to agree this is one of the best looking console games to date. Some reviewers have mentioned this as well. Though it comes at a cost of fps. Perhaps they can patch that issue.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 07/10/10 @ 15:00

  • darkmorgado #11 2 years ago

    So, the differences are incredibly minor and come down to a couple of frames here and there in very busy scenes, and disc swapping.

    Well, disc swapping doesn't bother me and neither does the odd framerate drop (as long as it isn't consistently jerky I can live with it). It is interesting though about the video encoding. So basically they could have actually fitted the game on a single Xbox disc if they had used a more efficient codec? Bit bizarre that they didn't, really.

  • spekkeh #12 2 years ago

    Interesting to see DigitalFoundry felt the need to comment on the game itself. It also echoes the sentiment of my rage in the forum (and the review comment thread): if this game had been playtested a bit more, they would've easily picked up some of the glaring mistakes in usability issues, and the game would've been a lot better for it.

  • Jlmadyson #13 2 years ago

    No way they should have gone 1 disc. It would suffered just like FFXIII. I'm not sure why they would argue this because Castlevania doesn't have that blocky mess like FF does in the videos. The video here is clean and no way should have they tried to super compress it otherwise.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 07/10/10 @ 15:05

  • TopKatt #14 2 years ago

    I'm guessing that the point DF was making about the costs of producing two DVDs for the Xbox was comparing it to the cost of fitting the game on one DVD for that platform, not to the cost of producing the bluray.

  • spekkeh #15 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado: wouldn't it be a money issue? I could easily see Konami doing the math on the costs of using another codec or using two discs, and then choosing the Bink codec.

  • Lord_Gremlin #16 2 years ago

    This game is a good example of how PS3 compares to 360. PS3 is slightly more powerful than 360 indeed, but not as much as some people think.
    2 discs on 360 are the real issue.

  • TheJuriel #17 2 years ago

    It's really interesting that DF points out gameplay things in this one, not just the technical aspects.

  • Blerk #18 2 years ago

    Wasn't there supposed to be a 'special' install for the 360 version which cut out the need for swapping the discs? What happened to that?

    Regardless, I'm a little surprised to see DF gushing so much about the visuals. Yes, they're very high quality but they're absolutely ruined for me by the lack of AA, depth of field effects, etc. Everything's so sharp and jaggy and nasty that it just ends up looking cheap. Plus their 'wet' effect makes everything look like it's made out of rubber.

  • malmer #19 2 years ago

    I think there are two reasons why developers use Bink video. 1) I slower decompression overhead, leaving room to load the next scene in the background. 2) They already have a site license in-house. Other codecs might have some additional licensing fees.

  • darkmorgado #20 2 years ago

    You never know, they might release a patch that bypasses the need for disc swapping on installed copies.

  • Ravage27 #21 2 years ago

    24fps and no AA...i'm don't buy games based on graphics alone but it's massively disappointing to say the least. But it's a definite win for the ps3 version here, controller response time and framerate are absolutely critical in action games and i wouldn't settle for anything less. Still wish it uses MLAA and locked 30fps though...
    Edited by Ravage27 at 07/10/10 @ 15:15

  • neems #22 2 years ago

    Christ knows I'm no expert, but surely the cost issue of 2 DVDs versus 1 Bluray goes beyond the actual cost of the disk itself? You need two seperate pressings for the 360, plus the case as somebody else mentioned. Minor costs per item soon build up to be major expenditures over an entire production run.

  • ro-kurorai #23 2 years ago

    Nice. It's pleasing to see developers with balls to develop a 2 disc 360 game rather than cutting content/quality to cram the whole game into 6.8 GB.

    Good face/off Richard. But I would've liked to see some loading comparisons. Apparently LoS doesn't require a mandatory install on PS3 thus I'd like to know how much of an impact the slower disc speed has on loading times.

    Regarding the manufacturing costs Richard's right: MS charges devs more for each additional game disc, because it makes the 360 version look more inconvenient to play than its PS3 counterpart.


    Looking forward to my PS3 copy, should arrive any minute =)

    cheers fellas
    Edited by ro-kurorai at 07/10/10 @ 15:22

  • the_th0r #24 2 years ago

    I really enjoy reading these face-off features. Looking forward to an Enslaved comparison too... The comment thread afterwards has the same retarded tendencies as usual though... I also like the special version of fanboys, the ps3 had them for years now, and now its the 360s turn; The Apologist, twisting and turning to excuse certain obvious flaws in their version...

    Castlevania seems to be a nice game,Ill most certainly pick it up. When I tried it at a conference a couple of weeks ago it did not look like it could outclass GOW3 though...

  • malmer #25 2 years ago

    The producer of the game said this in a tweet ([link url=http://twitter.com/#!/CastlevaniaLOS/status/25974512564)
    ]http://twitter.com/#!/CastlevaniaLOS/sta...[/link]

    "The games are identical. The 360 review code had some issues with frame rates but not major and they are not in the final"

    Apparently DF used the review version in the face-off, so the slight frame-rate advantage of the PS3 is probably not in the final copies you buy. As for the disc swapping they wanted to put in so you could install and simply run from one disc, but Microsoft guidelines didn't allow it.
    Edited by malmer at 07/10/10 @ 15:21

  • muscleblade #26 2 years ago

    Good thing for the PS3 owners that it wasnt another Bayonetta situation.

  • neems #27 2 years ago

    He's just winding you up. PS3 is only one year older, and in its own way is just as tired and creaky as the 360. If the developers (maybe it's the consumers? I'm not so sure though) weren't so obsessed with graphics it wouldn't matter. Both consoles are more than capable of running at native 1080p60 - just not with the level of graphics that we have become accustomed to.

    If they bring out some new uber console with amazing specs, you'll get games with full hd and blinding frame rates for a while, but then developers will start to find new ways of taxing the system, and before you know it resolutions and performance will start creeping downwards again.

  • aphexstwin #28 2 years ago

    it does cost extra for the dvd's beyond the pressing and writing, ms add extra license fees the more disks you use. plus blur rays are easier to produce anyway with them being one piece

  • Jlmadyson #29 2 years ago

    Yea they should have compared retail copies, but alas they didn't. The FR may have seen a bump there, but likely not great. It's the only real issue in the review copies. It’s obvious they pushed the visuals to the top of this gen, but at a cost. It doesn't cost an extra license per disc Aspex. This has been cleared up for a very long time. Only whoever said these things go 100/1 to 360 is right. Interesting to see the one if ever so slight. Lead platforimg has it's advantages I guess. Retail copies still would have been nice.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 07/10/10 @ 15:29

  • Nadimalam #30 2 years ago

    PS3 ONE DISC AND HAS DTS SOUND! Instant Win, after looking at the table on first page at the top didnt even need to read the rest.

  • chessboxer #31 2 years ago

    @Warden80

    "The game is not locked to 24fps. It runs almost identical between versions and looks same and both have triple buffering."

    The 360 doesn't use triple buffering because the 10MB of eDRAM isn't big enough to hold the frame buffer, unless the native resolution for the game is very, very low (much lower than Alan Wake's native res).
    Maybe you should look up what MLAA is before you start spouting even more nonesense.

  • GamesConnoisseur #32 2 years ago

    I m going for PS3 version, as I m not gonna let MS get away with not ALLOWING for hdd installations to get around disk swapping, I ve always gone for the better version in these head to heads. Which is why majority of multi platform titles has been X360.

    Harder is where online element involved as my mates are on XBL, but easy one this game as SP is what this game about.

    Can't understand why Bink is still used as proven irrelevant and an issue for X360, Publishers are in it to make money, and more games would be rated/sells better with different video compression used?

    PS3 edges it as the led platform again, visually very close, but DVD swapping is the major issue. Not a problem for me with ME2 but MS needs to sort themselves out for ME3!

    Re PS3 having more power as Lord Gremlin said, it's may be so in grunt processing, but not always meant got the best version, look at Dead Rising 2 a very recent big multi platform title. Rival consoles are much closer in actual multi platform games performance than it was last gen!

  • orangpelupa #33 2 years ago

    ugh why bink again...
    if i remember correctly, WMV9 is already "standart" on XDK.

    <strong>
    Perhaps it's an issue with the review code we had (highly unlikely), but it seems to be that the 360 itself is doing a hardware check before it allows you to access the data. Certainly, once the disk has been inserted the game continues to run from HDD as per normal. It's not exactly a game-breaker but it is a bit strange. Both discs can be booted to run the code, so perhaps Konami didn't want friends going halves on buying the game?</strong>

    Its not konami, the disc check is designed to be like that by MS. The only way to bypass it is by jtagging the xbox :(
    But if doing Jtag, LIVE wont be able to be used (will be instant banned in a few hours). Ugh..

    or wait until MS release it on GoD..
    i wish MS change this dvd check behavior on the next NXE, but i tried the NXE Kinect beta, and it is still need the correct DVD number in drive even i have installed the other discs. (SO TLH)

    if MS willing to just tie the authorization in our Profile with LIVE, it will be good. No DVD needed, just like GoD games.
    Edited by orangpelupa at 07/10/10 @ 16:10

  • GusRaven #34 2 years ago

    @Cheesboxer

    "The 360 doesn't use triple buffering because the 10MB of eDRAM isn't big enough to hold the frame buffer, unless the native resolution for the game is very, very low (much lower than Alan Wake's native res).
    Maybe you should look up what MLAA is before you start spouting even more nonesense."

    But it doesn have AA so it is enough. It is not enough when it does AA but this game has no AA. So stop spouting nonsense becosue that guy is right and see that it has changing framerate beyond 20 or 30fps.
    Edited by GusRaven at 07/10/10 @ 15:29

  • darkmorgado #35 2 years ago

    Yea they should have compared retail copies, but alas they didn't.

    That's reminded me - didn't the devs say that framerate issues in the demo and review code had been ironed out for retail copies?

  • Warden80 #36 2 years ago

    The game is not locked to 24fps. It runs almost identical between versions and looks same and both have triple buffering. Suck dick amir0x and dark10x!

  • des #37 2 years ago

    hahahaha...a 20 fps fighting action game,that even dips below 20fps,cutscenes locked at 25 fps...
    Developers should be ashamed...what a travesty

    But the game sucks anyway so it doesn't matter...i will finish it anyway...chapter 6 and i'm fighting a spider,lol

  • Darren #38 2 years ago

    So if there are virtually no differences between the games in terms of graphics and performance - which is great news - then what about the audio quality? I notice that the PS3 has more audio support with DD 7.1, PCM and DTS yet no mention is made of the sound in this feature. Is it absolutely identical or what? :?

  • byron_hinson #39 2 years ago

    Malmer I've had the final code for over a week and the xbox version still has frame rate issues
    Edited by byron_hinson at 07/10/10 @ 15:51

  • ro-kurorai #40 2 years ago

    @the_thor
    Enslaved's gonna win on 360 'coz NT slapped their PS3 fans in the face by going with UE3 despite not having any experience on it.
    I'm still waiting for my CE - should arrive tomorrow - because I love good stories in games and Andy (Serkis) is fu***n' awesome in each game he's performing.

    Nevertheless I'm kinda pissed at NT and Enslaved's the last Ninja Theory game I'm buying.

    I'm a PS3/PC gamer and I don't wanna play a fast paced action game like DmC with 18-30 fps with screen tearing, which will most likely be the case on the PS3 version. Our 360 playing friends will receive a mint, stable, v-synced action experience whereas we get a gimped port -_-.
    Edited by ro-kurorai at 07/10/10 @ 16:28

  • byron_hinson #41 2 years ago

    Darren. The sound is slightly better on the ps3. I run it in lpcm and voices are clearer in some cutscenes etc

  • Clover4ever #42 2 years ago

    Are we sure that the PS3 was the lead plateform ? David Cox denied that fact in a recent comment on the playstation blog. He said both versions were developed at the same time.
    Edited by Clover4ever at 07/10/10 @ 15:37

  • byron_hinson #43 2 years ago

    I have Both xbox and ps3 final code TSB. Read the forums ;0)

  • thubie #44 2 years ago

    @clover4ever

    It's probably not a port but that they make stuff on ps 3 and then they can implement it easier on the 360.
    Now Mercury Steam release a No Vsync option like bioshock or a softvsync option.

  • richarddavies #45 2 years ago

    Thta the first DF article i've read in ages that I didn't think was a load of rambling bollocks. They actually went into the game a bit and made the article alot more interesting to read. Good one!

  • byron_hinson #46 2 years ago

    I believe I said seemed to. In the end it must have just been the VGA setting for the 360 on my tv. Still frame rate is lower on xbox better on ps3. Nothing going to change that for any foolish fanboy.

  • layleeloo #47 2 years ago

    Was predicable thankfully. As we know the 360 gets most of these but as Castllevania has a history with Sony I would have been amazed if the result was any different

  • nova82 #48 2 years ago

    when publishing a game 2 disc cost more than 1 blu ray.licensing taxes come with each unit.

  • Jlmadyson #49 2 years ago

    In-re Enslaved. Yea well if they don't give the nod to Enslaved for the 360 then there would be a serious issue with DF and this one too. The FR and other issues say it all on that one. As far as triple buffering yea not even worth arguing with that guy since there is no AA here.

  • byron_hinson #50 2 years ago

    Agree about Enslaved. No way that will come out higher on the ps3.

  • AnsemsApprentice #51 2 years ago

    I didn't need special equipment to see the 360 version wasn't as good. . .and neither did many others. No matter how minor the differences, I just want to get the best possible experience I can from a game I think looks great.

    Makes no sense that I would buy the 360 version this time. It's the same price, but has a generally poorer frame-rate and requires disc swapping. Why would I? Achievements/Trophies certainly don't affect my purchasing choices, and I'm comfortable with both controllers so, I'm sticking with the PS3 version here.

    All of my PS3 games have been exclusives so far, can't believe I'm getting a multi-plat on it to be honest. Hopefully we can expect more games in the future to be as close as this across the board.

  • byron_hinson #52 2 years ago

    Android. You can check the American forums and see the final still has those issues. Doesn't make much difference if you own both machines though

  • layleeloo #53 2 years ago

    Who cares about what system Encharted, sorry - Enslaved will be best on. Cant help mistaking it for being Uncharted 2 with a big puffa jacket on.

  • nova82 #54 2 years ago

    "The 360 can handle ps3 ported games without any real cutbacks, the ps3 on the other hand doesn't seem to be able to handle a majority of 360 ports without things scaled back a bit.
    The vanquish face off will be exactly the same as this, nigh on identicle. "

    Yes because it's easier to port on the 360 than the ps3.FFXIII says hi though,it had some major cutbacks on the 360 even gameplay wise.Still when you hear a developer say they're going with the ps3 as the lead platfrom for their multiplatform titles don't expect uncharted2 or GoW 3 level of quality.they restrict the game for both consoles.Some mention that LoS has better graphics than GoW3,which isn't the case,the game has very good art design but the textures are of lower quality than of GoW3.
    Ps3 can handle 360 ports easily the drawback is the lack of skill and extra time from the developer doing the porting job

  • HisDudness #55 2 years ago

    Ahh I thought I smelt irrational brand loyalty! Gotta love these face-offs for bringing out the best of the gaming community. Looking forward to next week's conclusion, which will invariably follow the same recipe: winners (losers) exaggerate (downplay) the advantages (drawbacks) of their marginally superior (inferior) video game. Stay tuned!

  • karooo #56 2 years ago

    "wow...ps3 wins one and the fanboys act like suddenly the ps3 is master. LOL...hello winner on out or 1000 isn't that impressive LOL. Excuse me while I play RED DEAD REDEMPTION. LOL "

    Where did they say that you insecure cunt?

    They have exclusives that overshadow the entire 360 library graphically.

  • Dismiss #57 2 years ago

    All in all, it would be nice if this and Enslaved did well sales-wise, no matter the format. I'm fed up with soccer games, party nonsense and military shooters dominating the charts.

    On the subject of the face-off, nice getting a multiformat game I want on the PS3 for once. My X360 is nice and all, but it's nice to have support for sound formats that don't drown everything in a sea of bass.
    Edited by Dismiss at 07/10/10 @ 16:28

  • darkmorgado #58 2 years ago

    As i thought, both versions run the same with possibly a 2fps advantage given to the ps3 version on some scenes(lol is that it?).

    As you thought? It was only a couple of days ago that you said the PS3 was going to be "slaughtered" by the 360 in this faceoff.
    Revisionist history, eh?

  • riseer #59 2 years ago

    Jlmadyson,your such a fanboy both look the same.The ps3 version runs about 4 fps better and no disk swap and less lag on the controls.This means if you own both systems the ps3 gets the nod.That being said if you only own a 360 the game is still the same game with minor issues.I hate when xbots say the 360 is sharper,thats bullshit i played the ps3 demo it's very sharp and runs at a good fps.It still does'nt hold a candle to Gow3 'god of war 3' but it has great art to make up for it.So get over yourself and don't take these face-off so serious.

  • karooo #60 2 years ago

    "As i thought, both versions run the same with possibly a 2fps advantage given to the ps3 version on some scenes(lol is that it?).
    Considering the ps3 was the lead machine in development of this game, i'd say that's a pretty decent port to 360(especially with nothing cut out graphics wise).

    Compare it to 360 > ps3 ports when the ps3 version possibly has to run at a lower res, may have missing effects(usually does)and still runs at a worse framerate sometimes."

    its easier to port the game to the 360 due to its simple architecture and harder to port to ps3 since they have to work harder to distribute all the tasks properly. They usually dont put in the effort and ends up inferior on the PS3.

  • riseer #61 2 years ago

    buying1999,Ps3 exclusives kill 360 exclusives people like you make no sense to me butthurt much?RDR has more grass then the ps3 version Cgs.Devs don't use the spe's of cell their for the game lacks.

  • riseer #62 2 years ago

    Warden80, sorry dude it lacks AA their for makes the game look rough.Gow3 has way more scale uses MLAA also runs about 20 fps more then LoS and some of the best motion blur this side of pixar.Nice try tho Gow3 still is king.

  • miiiguel #63 2 years ago

    Ps3 exclusives kill 360 exclusives people like you make no sense to me butthurt much?

    Why, oh why... :(
    Fuck me....

  • Negotiator #64 2 years ago

    The problem for the 360 version is that the PS3 was the lead platform, so it plays more to its strength. It is testament to how good the 360 is, that it is almost as good, even though less time was spent on the 360 version. We all know that if the rolls were reversed and the 360 was the lead platform, the PS3 would fall some way behind. In the end it was the right choice, but the 360 version could have been better.

  • des #65 2 years ago

    PS3 Bayonetta runs far better than this crap...

    Buy Enslaved,it's far better designed game and it runs much better than this travesty...on both platforms

  • dfua #66 2 years ago

    I mentioned sound in the F1 2010 face off. I'd really like to know what format the audio is actually stored in for the PS3. The disc sizes are almost identical so it seems unlikely to me you would have multiple encodes on it. It could be a real advantage or it could just be ticks on the boxes like 1080p support.

  • riseer #67 2 years ago

    Micheal-myers,That isn't true at all the 360 is alot easier to code for.Even when ps3 is lead the 360 can run nearly as well.The deal is when they make games for both system they can't go overboard with the ps3.This will lead to disk space issues for the 360.A game like uncharted 2 can't be done the same way on 360.Theirs just way to much memory limitations with dvd's.Mgs 4 can't be done on 360 along with Gow3,Uncharted1/2,Killzone2,and about anything sony makes in house.The point is the ps3 has a bit more power under the hood but devs have to dig into it to bring it out.

  • Warden80 #68 2 years ago

    This game looks greatly superior to GOW3. Undeniable the best looking console game to this date.

  • riseer #69 2 years ago

    Nova82,Agreed

  • TaniumZX #70 2 years ago

    Why does everyone want 'cross platform parity'? Sod that! I want MY consoles version to be better than the other version!

  • drumbaby #71 2 years ago

    @ro-kurorai....if you're right then that will be the first DMC game I won't have bought. A real shame if so. As with PS3 Bayonetta, you can't endorse the creation of gimped action games, where framerate and controller responsiveness are vital to the genre's gameplay.

  • GusRaven #72 2 years ago

    Wow!

    Castlevania is the new graphic king!

  • TopKatt #73 2 years ago

    Amazing, the two versions are virtually identical and the fanbois are still arguing with each other! lol

  • riseer #74 2 years ago

    Ahh Warden80 you must be blind buddy,seriously Gow 3 pushes the hell outta Ps3.If you read the reviews for Gow 3 you will see most if not all the reviewers say it's right their with uncharted 2 as the best looking console game.Imho it wins because of the sheer scale of the awesome titan's.Some of the best boss fights ever in a videogame..hate to even call Gow3 a videogame it's so much more just like Uc2.

  • darkmorgado #75 2 years ago

    Some of the best boss fights ever in a videogame

    I really enjoyed GoW3, but the best boss fights ever? Really? A load of QTE sequences and one stupidly long, drawn-out crappy "learn the pattern and dodge a lot" final battle against Zeus? Which again culminates in a cutscene?

  • spekkeh #76 2 years ago

    I wonder how many people that negged me for saying something bad about this game actually played it. Probably none.

  • Dizzy #77 2 years ago

    15 FPS?????

    I will have the PC version thank you.

  • jimboton #78 2 years ago

    "...it's also fair to add that it can be frustrating and annoying. It's obvious the game is somewhat unpolished
    in areas and could have done with more playtesting. The developers seem to give you advice for dealing with the
    obvious things, but then leave you high and dry when you can really use the help. Something akin to the hint
    system in Uncharted 2 would have made a hell of a lot of difference.

    It also seems that the developers are intent on performing many cruel and unusual punishments on the player, often taking you around in circles rather than subtly guiding you where to go next, or putting you back at the beginning of a puzzle and making you repeat a range of time-consuming activities to get back to where you were.."

    There is already some pretty heavy hand holding in this game and the possibility to have the solution to all
    puzzles given to you at a small experience penalty. what exactly are you asking for? to be told the solution to everything without even having to ask? for every puzzle complex enough that there is a possibility that someone gets stuck for more than five minutes to disappear from the game?

    I understand DF work would be much easier if every game played itself like Batman, Uncharted or Enslaved. But a game doesn't automatically need more playtesting or 'polishing' just because you got 'frustrated' at some point. It's nice to play a game a game that gives you pause and presents you with a situation that isn't entirely obvious every now and then as some of us play for fun, not in order to encode and analyze every last drop of video output and be done with it.

  • Pasco #79 2 years ago

    "hahahaha...a 20 fps fighting action game,that even dips below 20fps,cutscenes locked at 25 fps...
    Developers should be ashamed...what a travesty"

    Why is this getting negged? Castlevania has the worst framerate of every commercial fighting game I know of. How low do they have to go for people to start complaining?

  • Sabreman64 #80 2 years ago

    Hmm. I bet this latest Castlevania (either on the 360 or on the PS3) still isn't as good as Symphony of the Night (one of the best games in history).

  • Machiavellian #81 2 years ago

    The cost of two dvds comes out around the same as the cost for one blu-ray in mass replication, so they wouldn't have really lost out there. Perhaps the box would have cost a little more though. ;)

    Do not forget you have to pay MS a fiver for each disk included. Ok maybe not a fiver but I do remember ID saying that you have to pay a cost to MS for each included disk.

  • CernaML #82 2 years ago

    "seriously impressive engine tech"? "technology that is state of the art"? "best looking console game to date"?

    Just another game to add to my theory that when you lead on the PS3, games look much better on both consoles. :)

    But although it sounds like they used many of the strengths of the PS3, it still seems like the 360 held this game back. *sigh*

    At least they didn't use the Unreal Engine 3 like a certain other game did that supposedly led on the PS3.

  • GusRaven #83 2 years ago

    SDF is rolling on da nuts. As usuall insecure 30 year old kids that only insult and talk about some previous graphic king games that are now just mediocre looking.

  • Machiavellian #84 2 years ago

    No way they should have gone 1 disc. It would suffered just like FFXIII. I'm not sure why they would argue this because Castlevania doesn't have that blocky mess like FF does in the videos. The video here is clean and no way should have they tried to super compress it otherwise.

    You missed the point. The article says that the 7+GB is a lot for just over an hour of video. There are much better technology that allows you to keep the same fidelity in the image with much better compression. VC-1 and h.264 with the later probably the better come to mind and both the PS3 and 360 supports both.

  • CernaML #85 2 years ago

    Oh man look at all this spinning and damage control from the 360 fanboys. Can't take it that the PS3 really is the more powerful console when used by talented developers? :p

  • VandelayIndustries #86 2 years ago

    I figured that the two disc thing was to do with royalty payments to Microsoft, maybe that's stopped now?

    To the person asking about the difference in sound quality between platforms, I found on the demo that the LPCM track on the PS3 to be deeper, had more impact and had a greater dynamic range than the DD 5.1 track on 360.

    So the slight performance increase, the greater sound quality and the lack of disc swapping means I'm going for the PS3 version. I also prefer the pad for this type of game too.

    As for the review/retail copies difference, I'm not putting too much stock in it. Judging from the amount of bitching over at Neogaf retail copies seem on par with the demo.
    Edited by VandelayIndustries at 07/10/10 @ 17:41

  • Der_tolle_Emil #87 2 years ago

    No compromises when it comes to graphical details? Not even a mandatory install?

    Nice, very nice. Hats off to the developers. Seems like they really took their work on the PS3 code very seriously and did a fantastic job.

  • jimmyhill11 #88 2 years ago

    Warden80
    "This game looks greatly superior to GOW3. Undeniable the best looking console game to this date."

    that's wrong. I've only played the LOS demo, but what I saw were graphics, that whilst good, had an odd rubbery sheen to them. This deadens the visuals in comparison to the much more vibrant GoW3 & Uncharted2

  • Retroid #89 2 years ago

    The only thing sadder than trolls on these comments is a troll who has multiple accounts so he can bitch slight differently under different usernames.

    /Banhammer

  • CernaML #90 2 years ago


    @Micheal-myers
    "best looking multiplat games...MW2"

    Man... I can't take anyone seriously who thinks MW2 is one of the "best looking multiplat games on any console." And no, I'm not being facetious.

  • Retroid #91 2 years ago

    Also, the DVD-swapping is avoidable: Forza 3 did it by having the second disk install itself as 'DLC' (I presume) to the hard drive. The 360 was perfectly happy to access that extra stuff while playing from the main game disk, even if that disk was installed to HDD aswell.

    But who knows; perhaps that was a special arrangement since Microsoft own Turn10...

  • MeBrains #92 2 years ago

    why is audio never taken into account? I prefer great audio above slightly better visuals... oh well...

  • varsas #93 2 years ago

    @Micheal-myers: Doesn't noticeably poorer versions on PS3 with UE3 indicate the poor optimisation of that engine when it's clear as in Castlevania that the PS3 isn't inferior?

  • Warden80 #94 2 years ago

    @Jimmyhill

    "that's wrong. I've only played the LOS demo, but what I saw were graphics, that whilst good, had an odd rubbery sheen to them. This deadens the visuals in comparison to the much more vibrant GoW3 & Uncharted2 "

    I see no problem with colors LOS has. Just take a look at the rain and wet effect and lighting for some stunning visuals.

  • jag10 #95 2 years ago

    looks like PS3 version is the one to get.

  • Badassbab #96 2 years ago

    I was reading comments for the last week or two from PS3 fanboys how the PS3 version was going to rinse the 360 one. Despite being lead on PS3 it's virtually identical.

  • carlosdfn #97 2 years ago

    After watching the videos again the PS3 version's average framerate seems to be 3-4 fps higher. It might not seem much but it keeps the PS3 version from going below 20 while the 360 sometimes goes all the way down to 16.
    The disc swapping wouldn't be an issue if you only had to do it once but the game encourages backtracking to unlock new areas with the powers you get later in the game so it sucks, no way around it.

    Also, though the game isn't as impressive as uncharted 2 or GoW 3 you can't expect a third party developer to create something that surpasses sony's first party efforts, those guys get all the resources they need to make the PS3 shine as much as it can, it's not really fair to compare them.
    Edited by carlosdfn at 07/10/10 @ 19:39

  • neems #98 2 years ago

    /Bangs head on desk

    I'm sure I shall regret wading back in to this, but what the hell, it's the internet.

    * I only have an Xbox 360. I will buy the Xbox 360 version.
    * I only have a PS3. I will buy the PS3 version.
    * I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I will buy whichever version is best. Or cheapest. Or whatever, nobody gives a shit.

    Delete as applicable.

  • makeamazing #99 2 years ago

    Edit -= noticed that the disk cost issue had been mentioned lateron in the comments section.. too many comments :D

    On to the game, the demo was fun, not sure if i am going to get it yet... difficult decisions :)
    Edited by makeamazing at 07/10/10 @ 19:41

  • spekkeh #100 2 years ago

    @jimboton
    There is already some pretty heavy hand holding in this game and the possibility to have the solution to all
    puzzles given to you at a small experience penalty. what exactly are you asking for? to be told the solution to everything without even having to ask? for every puzzle complex enough that there is a possibility that someone gets stuck for more than five minutes to disappear from the game?

    Read what he says FFS. It's not that the puzzles are too complex, it's that they're needlessly laborious. That you have to endlessly redo stuff you already know the solution to before you get to the part where you failed before. That there's control issues that shouldn't be there, that running around in circles is plain not fun because you've already been there. These are not difficulty issues, they are usability issues. They frustrate, instead of challenge.

  • Scimarad #101 2 years ago

    lol, the one time PS3 comes out ahead I've already got the 360 version;)

  • bladdard #102 2 years ago

    Good to hear a developer working hard to produce platform parity. Sega, Crapcom talk to Konami they'll tell you how it's done.

  • lukaz #103 2 years ago

    @Retroid
    All games are required to run on units without a HDD or large flash storage.

    Installing a big part of the game as Forza 3 does is not possible for a game like Castlevania.
    Edited by lukaz at 07/10/10 @ 21:02

  • HokutoNoKen #104 2 years ago

    A small but noticeable difference that I noticed. Check out about 12 sec. in the first video when the hero jumps over the chasm with the horse. On the PS3 version we can see some iluminating light on the statues head and the body which results in some more detail visible. The effect is even visible on the werewolves. On the 360 version this effect is totally absent.

    / Ken

  • MeBrains #105 2 years ago

    ken indeed. why didn't richard mention this? it is so blatantly visible that even the untrained I can see it.

    edit: richard, can you give us an explanation?
    Edited by MeBrains at 07/10/10 @ 21:40

  • edhe #106 2 years ago

    So is this evidence that the ps3 is holding the 360 back now? Mean the ps3's so much more powerful, it was the lead platform, it got ported to 360 and is...

    what? It's exactly the same except for the timewasting cut scenes?

  • DoctorFraud #107 2 years ago

    Looks better than gow3 and that had constant framerate problems too.

  • McWilly #108 2 years ago

    The missing illumination is actually a bug and seems to happen in both versions randomly as a matter of fact. I have the PS3 version and it happened to me - [link url=http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6397/11863327.png
    ]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6397/...[/link]

    Also since this is based on the review build and since Castlevania's producer said that the framerate of the 360 version would be improved in retail (which was in response to IGN's mention of a lower 360 framerate which was also based on.. yep you guessed it: the review build) then I think it would be best to wait for someone to do a more relevant analysis such as lens of truth who I don't think even get review builds in the first place.

  • malmer #109 2 years ago

    Played the first chapter now on 360. Absolutely stunning game. Apart from the ice and, which looks a bit flat now that we've been used to Uncharted 2, I can't say I've seen a more beautiful game. The arti-driection is so beautiful that almost every single scene so far is one of the most amazing things I've seen in a game. Uncharted 2 might own it in the technical department, but can't come close to how this looks from an artistic viewpoint. Amazing is all I can say.

    Oh, and the framerate is nothing to worry about. It plays wonderfully.

  • carlosdfn #110 2 years ago

    People who say this looks better than GoW3 don't know what they're talking about. GoW3's average framerate is double the one of LoS, GoW3 has MLAA versus no AA in LoS, lighting, shadows and textures are all more impressive in GoW. Basically the game does more with twice the framerate.
    That being said, LoS is a very impressive game and the art is amazing, probably even more than in the GoW series and there's a bigger variety of environments too.
    Just enjoy this game people, it's definitely worth your time.

  • bradley-strider #111 2 years ago

    I have a question i could use help with:

    I have a 720p LCD monitor connected via DVI to the ps3. Castlevania produces some judder as we now know and as i have seen myself. Since me and my father (whos almost 60) play often videogames together lately, i'd like to know if someone knows if it helps getting an hdtv with motion blur or some special technique that hides the judder/stutter ( i know hdtv shouldnt blur normally but its just about the "watchability";) would be very helpful. Because we switch after chapters for example...and so long the other watches...but in this case (castlevania:los) its just not possible to watch for the other person...its just too much...

    I wonder if its my monitor that even pushes the stuttery image even more in that direction...maybe just a new tv would help. But seriously this is not enjoyable for someone who is watching.

    I hope someone knows what could help.

  • malmer #112 2 years ago

    I've only played the demo of GoW3, but even though it looks good and is fluid, I'd say the art-direction isn't very tasteful. Most of it looks kinda tacky. Impressive though from technical standpoint, wheras LoS is candy to the eyes, full of beautiful art. But that is my opinion from only playing the demo of GoW3 and the first chapter of LoS.

  • Cider-X #113 2 years ago

    The framerate is atrocious (on both systems) for a hack and slash game, I can't believe it's getting a pass on that.

  • orangpelupa #114 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    about the forza second disc "DLC" install.

    Just curious, Can that second disc be used as a boot disc? or it is only for install disc?
    thanks

  • Retroid #115 2 years ago

    @orangpelupa

    Pretty sure the second disk is just an 'installer' disk. I think the deal was that the game could be played without those extra tracks, events etc. but would use them if they installed to the HDD. A work-around to the whole requirement of working without an HDD present on the 360.

    Whether that rule and HDD-less (or, in this day and age, large storage-less) 360s should ever have been given the go-ahead is a different matter entirely :)

  • RKOwned #116 2 years ago

    Im sad because early today when i saw this it started to renew my hope that Devs finaly have this multiplatform thing down, then I reminded myself that this is probaly one of those handful of games that really look the same on both, and well go back to normal. So every other Comparison will probaly go back to favoring 360 again. Its depresses me. Its obvious it can be done.

  • orangpelupa #117 2 years ago

    thanks the reply ^^
    so maybe thats the reason why castlevania need the correct disc inserted even if both disc installed.

    if Caslevania 2nd disc is set as a DLC mode, we only need 1st disc to play. But the 4GB and arcade xbox owner wont be able to play the game at all because the 2nd disc cant be used as a boot disc.

    MS really need to re evaluate the rules for this "disc check" thing.....
    or maybe at a later time the developer will come to a workarounds, able to make the 2nd disc can act as "DLC install" and also boot :D

  • Dave52 #118 2 years ago

    MeBrains: "why is audio never taken into account? I prefer great audio above slightly better visuals... oh well..."

    Shhh... don't mention the audio. We all know the PS3 is superior here, but we're not allowed to talk about it.

    Badassbab: "Despite being lead on PS3 it's virtually identical."

    Swap out "PS3" for "Xbox" and you have a statement that I see a lot from PS3 owners (including myself). I can hardly ever see much of a difference between the consoles. Only on shit games that have shit ports, but I care not for GI Joe et al...

  • orangpelupa #119 2 years ago

    for audio,

    maybe because so many gamer just use Stereo built-in on the TV?
    (maybe its not like that in your country, but in my country most gamer just use starndart or very bad 2.0 speaker/headphone....)

  • DjFlex52 #120 2 years ago

    "Swap out "PS3" for "Xbox" and you have a statement that I see a lot from PS3 owners (including myself). I can hardly ever see much of a difference between the consoles. Only on shit games that have shit ports, but I care not for GI Joe et al... "

    @Dave52

    Well, Orange Box & Bayonetta (et al...) are not shit games but have shit PS3 ports...so your point is...?

  • TRUTH #121 2 years ago

    the leading platormwas PS3 and yet the inferior 360 still 99% with the PS3.

  • Dave52 #122 2 years ago

    "so your point is"

    2 Games. Well done. Go look back at the face offs. The good games get good ports (granted Bayonetta was shocking, but hey). All the good ports are practically identical, with minor performance or screen tearing problems that you would only see if you ran them next to each other.

    The shoe is only the other foot today, and I'm actually attempting to back you Xbox boys up by agreeing, the differences are very minor which is good as the PS3 is the lead platform. More often than not it's the other way round, I can hardly ever see a difference.

    That was my point. If you'd rather me be a twat and say that Xbox sucks - I can, but that would be disingenuous...

  • DjFlex52 #123 2 years ago

    2 Games. Well done. Go look back at the face offs. The good games get good ports (granted Bayonetta was shocking, but hey). All the good ports are practically identical, with minor performance or screen tearing problems that you would only see if you ran them next to each other.

    @Dave52

    You only mentioned 1 game et al.... :p

    And you do know your statement is either false or redundant depending on how one reads it. "All the "good" ports are practically identical"?? That would make sense if you've already labeled them as "good" ports. There are more than 2 quality multi-console games that have bad PS3 ports.

  • sfp_noodle #124 2 years ago

    This might sound strange. but I choose my console titles based on which controller would be more comfortable to play with. For 360, it gets pretty much every FPS game since the triggers are far more comfortable to use. Plus I have a lot more FPS playing friends on the 360 as opposed to my PS3. For sports and adventure games it's usually the PS3 that gets the nod as I grew up playing games like that with the Playstation controller and it's second nature to me. Racers are the only games where my console decision is dependent on which set of friends I'll be able to play with more. Again, it might sound strange, but I'm up for making new friends with racers but I tend to stick with a select group of FPS players that I already know.

    *shrugs* At least I know I'm enjoying the hell out of both consoles and their exclusives instead of bitching about pixels on a website. The only time a DF article has influenced my purchasing decision is with Bayonetta. Even before the DF article was published I knew it was terrible as I played the demo from the Japanese store. Apart from that one game, every other supposedly inferior game I've bought on my PS3 has been an absolute blast to play.

  • uzivatel #125 2 years ago

    Hour of cutscenes, poor framerate and QTEs? I guess i wont waste my time reading the review.

  • Dave52 #126 2 years ago

    "There are more than 2 quality multi-console games that have bad PS3 ports."

    Which ones...

  • Retroid #127 2 years ago

    @Dave52: "Shhh... don't mention the audio. We all know the PS3 is superior here, but we're not allowed to talk about it."

    /Detects slight paranoia

  • Dave52 #128 2 years ago

    Retroid: "/Detects slight paranoia"

    It's hardly ever mentioned though is it...? ;-)

  • Clover4ever #129 2 years ago

    I don't think GOW3 (which has superior lighting, textures, twice the framerate and MLAA), can be reproduced on 360 without making compromises. Lords of Shadow looks stunning but despite its technical flaws (no AA, very low framerate), they weren't able to make a perfect port (is that even possible knowing that PS3 and 360 have different architectures ?).
    Edited by Clover4ever at 08/10/10 @ 12:34

  • Badassbab #130 2 years ago

    To those comparing- Uncharted 2 and GOW3 are still the graphical kings and have much better framerates.

  • brod #131 2 years ago

    It's disappointing to see that the framerate is all over the place on both versions. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a good PC port a la Darksiders, so I can play at a steady 60fps.
    Edited by brod at 08/10/10 @ 14:37

  • DoctorFouad #132 2 years ago

    I totally agree with a lot of posters about the sound comparison issue.

    Sound is very important fo me (sometimes more important than graphics especially when you attain a certain minimum quality of image in movies), I spent a lot of money to build my impressive 7.1 system, and HD soundtracks of blu rays make a huge difference when I watch movies...

    Killzone 2 impressive 7.1 system is incredible (the best 7.1 sound on ps3) ! it added a lit to gameplay immersion ! you can hear where enemies are coming from and shoot without even looking to the screen (which is a 1080p projected toa big screen, so yes anti aliasing and higher res are also important)

    Maybe leadbetter just doesent have a 7.1 system to test the difference in sound quality between ps3 and xbox360 ? or he does have a good sound system but its not a priority for him to test sound (this takes time ? its a subjective experience ? or he needs some new microphones or hardware to test objectively the quality of sound and analyse the waves ?

    Hopefully richard will listen to us and test sound in future face offs...

  • GusRaven #133 2 years ago

    So this confirms the 360 is a atleast as powerfull as the PS3. It can do same graphic, almost exactly same framerates and PS3 is development platform nr1. So 360 wins when it is nr1 development platform by often big margins and is almost perfectly same as PS3 version when PS3 is nr1 development platform. And on to pof that this looks better than exclusives like REACH, GOW 3.

  • Jlmadyson #134 2 years ago

    So David Cox retweeted this article so with the comments in here saying the issues are the same with the retail version I suppose that the 42 million+ 360 population should give the big finger right back to em over this big lie. Looks like Enslaved is the better bet(Eurogamer agrees this week) even though this is one of the best looking console titles to date. Had he kept his mouth shut and not lied about it maybe it wouldn't look so bad. Both have shoddy framerates and both deserve a patch for it, but don't lie about it dude.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 08/10/10 @ 20:04

  • Dave52 #135 2 years ago

    @buying1999

    Actually, you missed the whole point. The interesting thing was the fact that the Xbox Fanboys said they could hardly see the difference. Something the PS boys always say when the Xbox "comes out on top". And that was the point I was trying to make - these ports are so close (with the exception of some shit games that no-one cares about). Your best bet is to go for the console you prefer (either because of sound, joy pad preference, on-line preference) etc...

    These things are always too close to call when you're sat in your living room.

  • Grayfox32 #136 2 years ago

    The PS3 is slightly more powerful than the xbox 360, not a generation ahead, but definitely more processing power, I expect the DF write up for Gran Turismo 5 to be EPIC

  • darkmorgado #137 2 years ago

    GOW3 are still the graphical kings

    Sometimes I feel like I am the only one that actually thought the graphics in GoW3 were deeply "meh". Stiff character animation, generic art design, and the so-called "zipper tech" wasn't impressive.
    Great game, I just don't understand why it's held in such high regard when it comes to graphics.

  • Grayfox32 #138 2 years ago

    God of War 3's graphics are right up there with uncharted 2, they might even be better in some instances, so no castlevania doesnt match it, it also runs at around 20-30 fps, while god of war 3 ran between 30-60

  • martin1841 #139 2 years ago

    Why they just cant use h264 codec? Why Bink? H264 is so much better. Can someone explain this to me?

  • NightAntilli #140 2 years ago

    @Psychotext #6: Microsoft has a licensing fee for every additional DVD that is used for certain games, which probably would make the cost higher than putting it on a Blu-Ray disc.

  • bladdard #141 2 years ago

    I just had my first big play of this and it's a great game but the visuals are much more on a par with PS3 UE3 games but no where near the PS3's big 3. Still doesn't stop it being a great looking game though.

  • Jlmadyson #142 2 years ago

    Not true Night and Tim Willits corrected Carmack on that statement. MS does not charge an extra fee per disc. This is right up there with UC2, but it simply doesn't keep the FR.

  • MegaCadet #143 2 years ago

    "Ps3 is slightly more powerful"

    I beg to differ. The only advantage it has is Blu-ray, which doesn't directly mean it is capable of better graphics.

    EDIT

    Lol at the negs. Anything negative towards any console labels one as a fanboy apparently. And my post wasn't even negative.
    Edited by MegaCadet at 10/10/10 @ 16:11

  • Ilusiil18 #144 2 years ago

    "I beg to differ. The only advantage it has is Blu-ray, which doesn't directly mean it is capable of better graphics. "

    Actually I beg to differ,and I own both consoles and a kickass Samsung LED.

    I'm not going to say that one console is better than the other,but isolating graphics I'd certainly say the PS3 has undoubtedly proven itself to be the more capable in that department.Just look at the 5 star exclusives on both consoles,unless you believe that devs are holding back on tapping into the true power of the 360 (and have been holding out on doing so for 5 plus years).

  • Badassbab #145 2 years ago

    cannot understand why the sacrificed frame rate for visual fidelity. Frame rate is so important, what were they thinking.

  • Jlmadyson #146 2 years ago

    Game isn't doing so hot first week. I guess 360 gamers voted with their wallets with Enslaved. A patch shouldn't even be a question at this point. Also there is no Big 3 on PS3. There are maybe 2, and this is right up there with UC2, with some parts of the texture work even greater(though 2XAA is needed), but sacrifices the FR for it. Also there is nothing UE3 PS3 that is great it's always been great on 360 as SSAO says hi even if LoT has a problem seeing such.
    Edited by Jlmadyson at 11/10/10 @ 19:01

  • MegaCadet #147 2 years ago

    I never said PS3 was weaker. I think they both have their advantages. X360 has the powerful GPU with a better fillrate and high-bandwidth eDRAM. PS3 has the Cell which can pretty much make for the less than stellar RSX GPU and can create amazing post-processing effects. The true advantage of the PS3 though (and I only say this because you brought up exclusives) is in the fact that Sony has double the 1st party studios. Many of the PS3 exclusives run on 1st party engine built from the ground up to take advantage of the Cell architecture. Other than Halo Reach, the best looking X360 exclusives usually run on multiplatform engines like the Unreal Engine...which don't necessarily bring the best out of the X360. I mean the Reach engine is sheer evidence that the X360 can produce much higher quality graphics than a UE3 multiplat game. 30+ enemies on screen, advanced AI, large draw distances, great texture quality and full res particle effects..... I don't think the PS3 is holding back the X360. I think Microsoft is, since they are reluctant to give the X360 more 1st party support that it deserves.

    I just don't see what the hype is about though. Bla Bla can't be done on X360, how do we actually know that? We aren't professional game developers.. That's all I meant by it, sorry if I came off as an Xbox fanboy or something.

  • man.the.king #148 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "/Detects slight paranoia "

    Detects slight defensiveness from staunch 360 and Leadbetter supporter.

    The ONLY time Leadbetter has EVER made a song and dance about the audio is for the Enslaved Face-off when the lack of Dolby Digital 5.1 put the PS3 at a disadvantage, otherwise it only gets a slight forgetful mention, easy to miss.

    I DARE you to prove me wrong by pointing out ONE face-off where Leadbetter has PROMINENTLY mentioned superior audio on the PS3, the way he did for 360 for Enslaved. I know you will avoid this by shifting goalposts and talking about something else.

  • bladdard #149 2 years ago

    @Jlmadyson

    The big 3 I described in my previous post were UC2, KZ2 and GOW3 and by big 3 I meant the best graphical gaming examples on the PS3. I also wasn't comparing them to anything on the Xbox, I was simply comparing them to this game on the PS3 which I own and have been playing extensively. I think since I've played and seen this game on the PS3 and I've completed all the "big 3" I know which looks best and Castlevania looks great and plays great it still isn't quite up there. I'd compare it far more favourably to Batman AA on the PS3 which is also a great looking game that utilises the UE3 engine.
    Edited by bladdard at 12/10/10 @ 09:57

  • man.the.king #150 2 years ago

    @Umbriel

    "The problem isnt about if he lies or no, you hardly catch him in a lie, its more how he tells the story. With words you can change a victory in defeat and viceversa: you can reinforce strong points, weaken weak points, avoid sensitive issues, etc... Ritchie does this often. "

    Exactly - Rich Leadbetter NEVER lies, but he ALWAYS spins his sentences in favor of the 360. Most people never understand how powerful words can be, and how they can be used or abused.

    People like Retroid, because of their preference for the 360, never seem to notice this, always dashing in to vehemently try to prove people wrong when they question Richard's motivations. I've questioned him about this in the past, and at one point, when he ran out of answers, he just basically said "Ask Richard, I'm not him". But then in the following posts he started up again with somebody else who dared to question Leadbetter's motives. I've given up on having a debate with him, when he has already decided Leadbetter's words are gospel BECAUSE of the spin in 360's favor, or (in the case of FFXIII) BECAUSE Leadbetter basically acted like a 360 apologist.
    Edited by man.the.king at 17/10/10 @ 01:46

  • Ilusiil18 #151 2 years ago

    @MegaCadet:

    I never understood why it seems to be so hard for those whom swear by the xbox 360 to admit to the PS3's superior graphical capabilities...I mean,better graphics doesn't translate into better console.

    Even back when my PS3 was mostly used as a dedicated Blu-ray player and I did 99% of my gaming on my 360 I still understood and acknowledged that the PS3 was capable of superior visuals,but perhaps that's due to being a tech junkie thus actually understanding what's going on under the hood.

    Halo: REACH,Ninja Gaiden 2,Fable 2,and Forza Motorsport 3are perfect examples of xbox 360 exclusives that use game engines build from the ground up exclusively for said title running exclusively on the xbox 360 console,not middleware like UE3.So why is it that these titles can't hold a candle to the visuals found within Playstation 3's top exclusives?

    Also:The claim that one can only speculate that the PS3 is capable of better visuals is like saying one could only speculate that a Ferrari 599 GTB is faster than a Toyota Corolla...we know the Ferrari is faster because it's benchmarking at 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and the Toyota isn't even coming close.Same thing with PS3 graphics vs 360 graphics.We're 5 years into the 360's lifespan,even multi-platform titles have been designed with the 360's architecture in mind for the better part of this generation,and 1st party devs with 1st party engines for 1st party titles have been unable to pull this off. If the 360 could do this (what the PS3 has done visually in titles like Killzone 2,Heavy Rain,Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2,Uncharted,Uncharted 2,GOW 3,Gran Turismo prologue,and even Heavenly Sword despite excessive screen tearing ) then it would have already done it.

    Edited by Ilusiil18 at 14/10/10 @ 19:28

  • man.the.king #152 2 years ago

    @Warden80

    "Undeniable the best looking console game to this date. "

    True, but ONLY as far as the XBox 360 is concerned.

  • man.the.king #153 2 years ago

    @GusRaven

    "Castlevania is the new graphic king! "

    Yes, on the 360 :)

  • man.the.king #154 2 years ago

    RICHARD LEADBETTER on Face-off for Game A: Yes, better framerate and better textures for 360, mumble-mumble hope-you-don't-notice-this better shading, better blur and sound on PS3 not important, 360 wins!
    360 FANBOYS: YAY 360 wins!

    RICHARD LEADBETTER on Face-off for Game B: Yes, better shading and blur for 360, mumble-mumble hope-you-don't-notice-this better framerate , better textures and sound on PS3 not important, 360 wins!
    360 FANBOYS: YAY 360 wins!
    Edited by man.the.king at 15/10/10 @ 22:54

  • Average_joe #155 2 years ago

    "Umbriel:Reach is subHD 1152×720 without AA (it uses a trick to blend elements from the one frame into the next one to avoid jaggies,this adds image ghosting issues) and has tearing. It isnt an engine to be proud of, Mass Effect 2 with Unreal3 had much better gfx quality: more resolution 1280x720, true aliasing and better framerate"

    Why is this guy allways bad mouthing 360? Reach is full 720p with 2xAA (when stressed turned off) the ghosting issue is really pared back since beta but is still evident AND IT DOESNT TEAR AT ALL its triple buffered but reach engine can drop frames when it is tasked, only one really significant issue with the engine and funny you were mentioning ME2 because its coming ps3 as well...

    I just cant believe this guy, why is talking this kind of crap?

    And to everyone else, I think castlevania is looking great and in my opinion frame rate level isnt so much different on 360 but the 2 disc set is kinda downer. Did anyone else notice the gamma difference betweeb platforms?

    btw Halo:Reach is engine something really to be proud of!

    EDIT: heh.. lol at the negs but seriously? why? i just straighten words here, and umbriel was incorrect on his statement! if i say uncharted 2 was 640p would you give + for me? its not true and i like uc2 but just to point it out..
    Edited by Average_joe at 23/10/10 @ 15:36

  • MegaCadet #156 1 year ago

    Umbriel you are an idiot. I'm sorry. Resolution isn't the way to determine how technically impressive an engine is. Halo Reach has far more things going on than a typical UE3 game. Instead of pretending to know how game technology works and always undermining the 360, why don't you research up a bit.