Face-Off: Dragon Age II

By Richard Leadbetter Published 12 March, 2011

A sense of scale.

Page 1 of 3
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.1GB 6.2GB
Install 6.1GB -
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM

After the disappointing console versions of Dragon Age: Origins, BioWare has plenty to prove with the sequel and based on our experiences with the game over the last few days, the studio has delivered. The enormous gulf between the PC and PS3/360 versions has been bridged, and despite the computer version's support for cutting edge DirectX 11 rendering tech, plus a downloadable artwork upgrade, the console SKUs are still very competitive from a visual perspective.

Of course, the chances are that you've already played the recently released Dragon Age II demo. The good news is that the PC and PS3 versions have been significantly tweaked, changed and improved from the code that's out there, and only the Xbox 360 download really represents the quality of the final product. In a sense then, this feature isn't just about comparing the three games, it's also about informing you about how much things have improved from the sampler code you've already played.

As per the norm, let's kick off with a straight comparison between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Dragon Age II, supplemented with a triple-format comparison gallery.

Dragon Age II: Xbox 360 vs. PS3. Use the full-screen button for 720p res, or click on the link below for a larger window.

Just like the Dragon Age II demo, the Xbox 360 version of the game runs at native 720p with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (2x MSAA), which in combination with the artistic style produces a very clean-looking game. PlayStation 3 benefits from what looks like a very good implementation of morphological anti-aliasing (MLAA), similar to what we've seen in God of War III, Killzone 3 and LittleBigPlanet 2, making an already pristine-looking game look even smoother. MLAA suffers pixel popping and other artifacts when applied to sub-pixel edges, but there don't appear to be so many visible in Dragon Age II; the implementation is an excellent fit for BioWare's art design.

In our Dragon Age II demo analysis we highlighted a number of visual differences between the two console downloads - most notably differences in self-shadowing, halo effects surrounding characters when depth of field was in play, and differences in the lighting.

It now seems to be the case that the PlayStation 3 demo was based on unfinished code as there have been a number of minor refinements in terms of both looks and performance. The depth of field halo is now implemented on PS3, making it a match for both PC and 360, and while there are still some differences in shadow implementation (basic bilinear percentage closer filtering on PS3, with noisy penumbra on PC and 360), self-shadowing looks to be much closer. Indeed, in this latter aspect, the PS3 game actually seems to be closer to the PC version.

There still seems to be a different lighting implementation on PS3 that doesn't match either 360 or PC versions, and there's most definitely a change in the way specular maps (the "shine" you see on mostly metallic materials) are handled, but this isn't really a big deal at all - it may be down to something as simple as a different pixel shader implementation. Visually, these games are very, very close - more so than the demo code suggested.

specular-360
specular-ps3
selfshadow-360
selfshadow-ps3

Most of the graphical differences seen in the console demo code (DOF 'haze' and self-shadowing) appear to have been resolved or improved (bottom), and the only really notable difference we saw in the make-up of the visuals is the different specular map.

Performance was a pretty major issue in the Dragon Age II demo. There we saw that both Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game implemented v-sync, ensuring image consistency but resulting in some very noticeable performance dips. The Sony platform appeared to be marginally smoother in the cut-scenes, but in-game, roles were reversed. During intense gameplay with lots of magic being executed, the PS3 in particular suffered up against the 360 version operating in very similar circumstances. However, the Microsoft console could struggle too, and we could see performance drops to a sustained 20FPS in stressful scenes. Not good.

The same basic set-up remains in the final version of the Xbox 360 game, but it's clear that BioWare wasn't happy with the way things were running and made some pretty fundamental changes to the way frames are refreshed on PlayStation 3. To cut a long story short, frame-rate is now unlocked and v-sync has been turned off, resulting in noticeable screen-tear.

To see how this affects the gameplay experience, it's worth breaking it down into its component parts: environment traversal, combat, and cut-scenes. Let's check out that latter element first since it accounts for so much of the game.

An analysis of cut-scene performance essentially comes down to the difference between v-sync and no v-sync. Note the impact on frame-rate when 360 struggles on the same scenes.

There's no doubt that cut-scenes are noticeably smoother on the PlayStation 3 version of Dragon Age II, and because the talking head sections are mostly static in nature, screen-tear is much more difficult to pick up with the human eye. The flipside of this is that on really heavy scenes (for example, crowded townscapes) where the camera pans across the scene, the lack of v-sync really hits home with some very off-putting tearing.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (73) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • slivir #1 1 year ago

    Would that I could run this on my crappy laptop... I guess I'll go for the PS3 version.

  • NotSoSlim #2 1 year ago

    Crap just got the 360 version :( Signature edition tho so cannot really complain

  • Rack #3 1 year ago

    Is the PC the one to get? I mean you only test it on what might as be some theoretical future PC which, being 40x as powerful as a 360 bloody well should be the one to get. But how about on something that only outstrips the 360 by a lesser amount? Something that is far better on an optimised game but worse on an unoptimised one? Something that people might even have?

  • miiiguel #4 1 year ago

    Richard and his 360 bias again. It's unbeliveable.

  • richyroo #5 1 year ago

    ^^ Before you neg him, I think hes being ironic.

    For once, the PS3 version is recommended over the 360, although as ever, you wouldn't know the difference if you bought either.

  • StooMonster #6 1 year ago

    Rack: I mean you only test it on what might as be some theoretical future PC which, being 40x as powerful as a 360

    DigitalFoundry tests on pretty low spec PCs, I expect even budget PCs with dedicated GPUs and not some shared memory crappy graphics chip would do a reasonable job of producing better graphics than both "HD" consoles at 720p.

    You'll only need a "future PC" if you want to run properly high resolution graphics, but even a mid-spec usually does 1080p with ease.

    But how about on something that only outstrips the 360 by a lesser amount?

    That would have to very old and cheap PC hardware that couldn't outstrip a five year old console.

  • jynxce #7 1 year ago

    I was along for the ride up to page 2 until "Exploration is a key element in Dragon Age II..."

    The milk couldn't come out of my nose fast enough. Is this guy kidding? The game has more to do with exploration like Pac-Man has to do with saving a princess in the next castle. I spent more time throwing junk away and loading between reused set pieces instead of any sort of exploration.

    Unfortunately, all I got out of these comparisons is that Bioware did a rush job. Just seeing how worthless an upgrade the PC version is over its ilk shows that they went with the lowest common denominator of a game to spread it across all platforms. Refusing to take advantage of any of their strengths.

    Skyrim cannot come fast enough...

  • trmaster #8 1 year ago

    I'm on a laptop with a good quad-core and a below average graphics card and it runs the game on high 1600*900 around 45 fps, never going below 30. The game shouldn't make high end graphics card choke no matter the graphics options selected for sure.

  • matrim83 #9 1 year ago

    This is like comparing 3 pieces of vomit.

    "Ok that one is chunkier but I do like the splash pattern of this one. Its almost like it was thrown up casually."

  • spudsbuckley #10 1 year ago

    Yeah, my PC is nearly 4 or 5 years old components wise with a slightly newer el-cheapo graphics card and it runs DA2 at almost full settings. It's not a particularly taxing game hardware wise.
    Edited by spudsbuckley at 12/03/11 @ 18:42

  • Rack #11 1 year ago

    Not really, take the mode PC from the Steam hardware surveys and you get something like a C2D 6600 Geforce 9800 4gb RAM. That's a PC that can demolish the 360 version of a game if well optimised (Devil May Cry 4, Dead Rising 2, Mirror's Edge) or be far worse if badly optimised (Saints Row 2, GTAIV, Bulletstorm). That's surely where the most useful comparisons are made.

    Edit: Comment @ Stoomonster. Boards move fast!
    Edited by Rack at 12/03/11 @ 18:44

  • Whizzo #12 1 year ago

    I think the fact the PC version is an AMD Gaming Evolved title may be a hint of why it's not performing as well as it could on Nvidia hardware.

  • djed #13 1 year ago

    Maybe you should've used a graphics card that has dedicated tesselator units instead of the "EVERYTHING CAN DO EVERYTHING" approach of Nvidia.

    Then again, I think tesselation made the most difference to any graphical fidelity showcased in this article.

  • uzivatel #14 1 year ago

    Seems like Bioware games are the very opposite of MT Framework games. On the plus side the static camera in BioWare games is much more tear friendly compared to the cinematic camera of games like RE5 (not that the static camera is a plus on its own, mind you).
    PS3 gets imo the better deal with DA2 - the 360 version seems too eager to drop to locked 20fps.

  • ForozM #15 1 year ago

    The framerate was at times very bad in the PS3 demo, but still a whole lot better than Origins. Anyway, PS3 version is the one I'll get.

    On a side note, anyone know where the picture which links to this article from the main page is taken from? Just a CG image or is it from some kind of cinematic/trailer.

  • Widge #16 1 year ago

    I hate screen tear, I really do. I think part of me would prefer the lower framerate. Depends on how bad the tearing is.

  • technicianTed #17 1 year ago

    I really don't want this game, but i wonder how many ps3 fans who always go on about their hatred for screen tearing will now back that up by saying they're disappointed with the tearing on the ps3 version? :p

    All joking aside, it's a strange reversal here between the console versions. It's usually the ps3 one that has the slightly lower framerate but is completely vsynced, this time it's the other way around.
    Weird!

  • technicianTed #18 1 year ago

    Widge you beat me too it by seconds.. Good to see you stuck by your hatred of tearing.

  • super_monty #19 1 year ago

    I got the 360 version last time, this time I am going for the 360 version because of the horrendously overpriced downloadable only extra content on the ps3.

  • GamesConnoisseur #20 1 year ago

    Glad got X360 as screen tearings is a big immersion breaker compared to frame drops, as you may occassionally stutters in action or thinking in real world, but to have whole world view broken in half....off putting gor me!

    Next gen, they need to make V Sync the normal permanently plus 60 fps ll be cool!

  • lockload #21 1 year ago

    I find screen tear very off putting, decides it for me

  • carlosdfn #22 1 year ago

    MLAA was a real breakthrough for sony, to think that it holds up well even against 8MSAA but is cheaper than 2MSAA is really impressive. I'm glad third parties are finally starting to use it, no need for the blur inducing quincux now.

  • Torkin #23 1 year ago

    I tried the two demos, and had decided to go for the 360 version since the frame rate in PS3 was terrible. But after this I'm getting the game for the PS3.

    It really comes down to personal preference, I can't stand constant frame drops in the middle of a fight.

  • Retroid #24 1 year ago

    Mrs Retroid has been playing this to death since Tuesday on 360 and I've not noticed much in the way of framerate drops at all, seems to do it when you wouldn't notice much anyway. It's certainly not the 'chug' effect seen in Fable 3 where the game actually SLOWS DOWN until the engine can cope.

    It looks a hell of a lot nicer than the original DA:o, anyway.

  • Torkin #25 1 year ago

    It bothered me in the demo.

    I never played Origins. I want to, but keep reading a lot of discouraging comments about the console versions.
    Edited by Torkin at 12/03/11 @ 21:03

  • Widge #26 1 year ago

    I really can't stand tearing! I think my brain just accepts a drop in framerate and is fine with it, see a big fuck off line go across the picture and I'm less happy. PC games seem to fluctuate a bit more in framerate, like when you get that one bit near the end of Crysis your graphics card effectively gives up, and I can roll with that. However I can't bring myself to put PS3 Alpha Protocol on because the picture savages my eyes, makes me wish I'd got it on PC instead.

    They should have it as a graphics option in the game, Bioshock 1 & 2 have it. I have never seen one instance of tearing on PS3 Bioshock with v-sync turned off so it was a win there, but to have the flexibility of the option just in case would be a massive benefit.

  • Darren #27 1 year ago

    Good feature.

    Nice that you highlighted the borked DX11 mode for NVIDIA cards too. I have a GTX 580 and a Core i7-920 with 6 GB of memory running Windows 7 64-bit and it should be handle this game at 1920x1200 on DX11 Very High settings with ease (other DX11 with far better graphics run better after all) but it doesn't: it *is* playable on my system admittedly but, outside of the cutscenes which seem to hover between 40-60 fps, I'm getting around 25-30 fps on average during gameplay. It feels smooth enough (except for the odd drop to 15 fps) and doesn't in anyway impair the gameplay in general but it's disappointing to see such low framerates with visuals that certainly look pleasant but are in no way, shape or form exceptional.

    I'm using the latest 267.46 beta drivers and even with those when I use 8xAA under DX11 I get block black pixel corruption to the top-left which appears to be misplaced shadows plus it kills the performance: dropping AA down to 4xAA gets rid of the glitch and also makes the game playable. This is the same issue that appeared in the demo so I'm unsure whether it's a game issue or a problem with the drivers.

    BioWare have promised that they're looking into the NVIDIA card performance issues but there's no excuse for them releasing the game in the state it currently is. There was a demo with reported DX11 issues and within hours of the games release there were many threads from NVIDIA card owners reporting performance issues. How on earth did that escape testing? The answer is that BioWare worked with AMD to optimise DX11 for their cards but this kind of practice, which usually affects AMD card owners with NVIDIA's The Way It's Meant To Be Played program, just outright sucks IMO.

    DA2 is definitely a great game and ignoring the mediocre performance it is otherwise polished and pretty much bug-free so far as I've played. It's just a shame that this is yet another PC game that has been released without proper QA such that we have to (again!) wait for a patch before it'll run as it should do. And that is disappointing for a developer of BioWare's calibre, especially as they were once *THE* RPG developer for the PC.

  • Darren #28 1 year ago

    P.S. I found the screen tearing in the PS3 videos to be a constant distraction so I'm glad I didn't buy that version! The 360 version though seems pretty decent and since I'm playing the game on the PC at the moment at 25 fps on average the framerate wouldn't have bothered me that much either! I wouldn't expect it to run at 60 fps anyway given the 360's age. :)

  • Gastrian #29 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • strangerism #30 1 year ago

    "Exploration is a key element in Dragon Age II..."

    EG still doing marketing to this average game?

  • WJF #31 1 year ago

    'or a GTS450 which aren't designed for high end DX11 titles.'

    I'll second that. My GTS450 just wheezes and waves the white flag the moment it sees DX11 specific effects turned on (Metro 2033 a good example)

    EDIT: 'red flag'? Race suspended?
    Edited by WJF at 12/03/11 @ 22:01

  • septimus #32 1 year ago

    Are the controls as hideous on console as they are on the PC?

    Odd performance as well. Mass Effect 2 runs great on my system at 1080P with full AA. Yet this piece of crap can barely keep a steady 720P + 2xAA when battles get above 8 characters.

  • Hei #33 1 year ago

    Whoa... i bet if 360 version was the one getting smother FPS it would be the winner :)

  • metallicorphan #34 1 year ago

    doesn't this game let you transfer your DA:o save across?...if so,360 version only for me

  • Gastrian #35 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • technicianTed #36 1 year ago

    He called the console versions a draw, but prefered the ps3's way of doing things on this certain title(slightly more fps over bad tearing).

    It's all down to personal preference, but i have to admit as long as the screen tearing isn't that noticeable, i prefer the method of dropping vsync at times when the engine is stressed as well. I've never worried about tearing unless it's very easy to spot(like on mafia 2).
    It depends how bad it is on the ps3 version of dragon age 2.

  • frazzl #37 1 year ago

    Installed DA2 on my 360's HDD and haven't noticed any real slowdown even with pretty busy battle scenes. Would be nice if Richard mentioned whether or not the face off looked at what differences installing the game makes on performance.

  • trmaster #38 1 year ago

    @frazzl Does the HDD in your Xbox perform magic? It suddenly turns the components tasked with generating graphics in real time more powerful? That's new to me..

    Couldn't resist, sorry...

  • jackdoe #39 1 year ago

    PC version was completely borked in regards to DX11. Not to mention the fact that the game is not pretty enough to tax your system to the level of a game like Crysis or Metro 2033.

  • Badassbab #40 1 year ago

    Bioware should release a patch for both console version enabling an option for v-sync on or off ala Bioshock.

  • MDL199 #41 1 year ago

    Richard always favours the version with the higher frame rate even if it means more tearing but i'm completely the opposite. I hate screen tearing with a passion!

    That's why I took back the 360 version of Resident Evil 5 that I had bought on the recommendation of one of these face off's and exchanged it for the v-synch enabled PS3 version which had a lower frame rate but zero tearing.

    People should remember these face off's are not definitive proof of one version being better than another a lot of the time it's subjective.

  • brod #42 1 year ago

    @MDL199

    Should've gotten the Live enabled PC version of RE5 for 60fps with no tearing, and the benefit of mouse aiming.

  • Daikon #43 1 year ago

    Refreshing - I'd gotten into the habit of blindly pre-ordering the 360 version of multi-platform games.
    Looks like also the PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the one to get.

  • MegaCadet #44 1 year ago

    Well screen tear or no screen tear, frame dips or no frame dips; the PS3 version uses FAR better anti-aliasing than the 360 version. MLAA can stack up well even against 8xMSAA. And you can clearly see in the PS3 screengrabs that there is virtually no aliasing. I'm an Xbox guy but this should have been a PS3 win (though a slight one, since every other graphical aspect seems to be identical).

  • des #45 1 year ago

    Game looks awful on any platform,why is EG pimping this disaster?

  • neems #46 1 year ago

    @Darren - as you mentioned, they may have messed up on the SSAO settings. It's not an absolute thing, you can have different levels of sampling - high levels can bring virtually any system to its kness. Amnesia The Dark Descent is a good test for this, as it allows you to alter the strength of the SSAO effect.

    I bought this on a whim (hadn't played the demo) so I was slightly bemused to discover that I can only access Medium settings on dx9 - I currently have 155 fps @ 1680x1050, 4xAA. I actually think the game looks quite nice though.

  • HokutoNoKen #47 1 year ago

    I am not sure, but anybody that agrees with me shall let the developers know that we really like them to patch this game really fast for the PS3 version and enable vsync during the cutscenes. Tearing during the cutscens litterly destroys the emersion of the game. Mass Effect 2 on PS3 felt much more polished than this and I get the impression that all three versions of DA2 feel a little rushed because they wanted to get all versions out on the market at the same time. The PC version is most likely to improve with patches and hopefully we see the same with the PS3-version (Lost Planet 2 and Fallout 3 is good examples on how framerate can improve with patches on PS3).

    / Ken

  • RevanNL #48 1 year ago

    Been playing the 360 version and so far the framerate has been fine. I'm still at the very beginning of the game, but I prefer a lower framerare to screentearing. I traded the 360 version of RW5 for the PS3 version because the amount of tearing in cutscenes were too much of an immersion breaker, even though the 360 version looked a bit better during gameplay.

  • E2K #49 1 year ago

    lol, not a single word about image quality in the conclusion. that was meant as a joke, right?

    Anyway, looks like even the most of avid 360 fans are silently beginning to realize what PS3-optimization will do to 3rd party games..

    As a true gamer and technology expert, I always knew that the PS3 was superior. It's just that you noobs needed a few years of PS3 exclusives to realize that also ;-)

  • miiiguel #50 1 year ago

    Yes. Noobs? Realy, is that word even legal ? Fucking uncool people around here, for fuck sake...

  • T3TSUO #51 1 year ago

    hmmm. Been playing Dao2 on ps3 since friday's launch. Not seen any screen tear yet. It's defo smoother but I didn't have an issue with the demo.
    If screen tear is to kick in it must only do it on the real taxing areas.
    So far I couldn't care less. Games great for a console rpg.
    Spoilt for games..too many games.
    Killzone, Motorstorm, Mortal Kombat, Crysis2 and now Dragon age.

  • technicianTed #52 1 year ago

    I don't think any ps3 only owning fan can take too much from this face off.

    If you read between the lines, it suggests the ps3 version couldn't handle it with vsync enabled.
    The performance drop was too great compared to the 360 version, so they dropped vsync on the ps3 version to keep up.
    It's not very flattering that towards the ps3.

    I think they've taken the right option though, but haters of screen tearing seem to say otherwise.

  • pantherjag #53 1 year ago

    @technician Ted

    "If you read between the lines, it suggests the ps3 version couldn't handle it with vsync enabled.
    The performance drop was too great compared to the 360 version, so they dropped vsync on the ps3 version to keep up.
    It's not very flattering that towards the ps3."

    That the hit on performance would be too great on PS3 with v-sync enabled is only the writers suggested explanation for PS3 not having it. In the Demo the PS3 version was still very playable with v-sync enabled allbeit not quite as good as the 360 but your right they may have just gone for the lesser off 2 evils with taking the screen tear hit.

    The same could also be said of the 360 version. It could very well be that they tried it without v-sync enabled but that the screen tearing was just too excessive(360 has been quite prone to tearing in the past) so the lesser off the 2 evils was too take the frame rate hit.

    Most probably its just a case off a good developer probing the strengths and weaknesses off both systems and at the end off the day coming up was equally goodversions off the game. Both have a comprimise made and what it really comes down too is personal prefrence if you have both systems.

    I myself would take the screen tearing over frame rate dips as im just one off these people that doesnt notice it, even in Gran Turismo 5 which had excessive screen tearing on release(It seems far less now since various updates) i didnt really notice it until i started really looking properly............As i said its down to personal prefrence.

  • Retroid #54 1 year ago

    I'm a bit baffled (as usual) as to why my comment on the first page has been voted down by anyone. I wasn't disputing DA2 dropped frames on 360, I simply said it wasn't particularly noticeable and coped far better (and actually looks better in general) than Fable 3, a 360 exclusive, which actually slows down in areas, let alone drops frames.

    /Sigh

  • NewbieZilla #55 1 year ago

    Just after finishing playthrough 1 about a half hour ago. Didn't notice the frame rate get bad at any point. Did notice the glitched achievements for the DLC though.

  • Subquest #56 1 year ago

    @Retroid - why a mod would give a shit his comments are voted down I have no idea. The whole marking up/down system is frankly a waste of space, giving the misguided a false sense of power. Get rid.

  • Clover4ever #57 1 year ago

    It's good to see third party developers starting to use MLAA. The implementation in DAII is indeed impressive.

    I hope Mass Effect 3 will use it too.

  • Savatage #58 1 year ago

    @Retroid - Overzealous Fable 3 fanboys maybe? : )

  • intpleeus #59 1 year ago

    Console games should start letting players alter basic graphics settings to satisfy their preferred trade-off between fidelity and performance.

  • bladdard #60 1 year ago

    @Retroid

    I can't see why anyone would neg you either but the [-] button was just sitting there looming large so I thought what the hell it can't do any harm. ;o)

    Personally I hate choppy framerates and cannot stand tearing so it's either PC version or flip a coin.

    PS. The reason I think DF produced this article for a so called "average" game is because Dragon Age was well loved and well received and provided the franchise with the required clout to move it from the also ran face off articles.

    PPS. It's great to see non first party developers utilising MLAA on the PS3 at long last.

  • Caimbeul #61 1 year ago

    To me it feels like Bioware have done something rare and unique with this series an that is drop the ball in almost all areas! I REALLY wanted to want and like this and the first one but it is just so hard to. Everywhere you read when the first one was announced was "Spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate" etc. That could not be further from the truth. And the D&D universe is infinately more interesting and diverse than this game universe.

    /Sigh...waits for Skyrim

  • Dave52 #62 1 year ago

    MegaCadet: "I'm an Xbox guy but this should have been a PS3 win"

    It was a PS3 win, as was Origins. And the sound - don't forget the sound.

  • Zerobob #63 1 year ago

    I thought in conclusion neither console version is the better version, and it's down to personal preference whether you want no torn frames whatsoever (360 version) or a slightly smoother experiencewith tearing (PS3 version).

    Personally I think a smoother experience with tearing is probably the better of two evils, but tearing does keep reminding you how artificial the game world is, constantly taking you out of the experience. Tough decision.

    To be fair to the 360 version, there also seems to be the odd lower resolution texture in the PS3 version, such as the one on the castle as the boat is coming in in the PS3 vs PC / 360 vs PC comparison vids, for example.

  • Retroid #64 1 year ago

    @Subquest: "why a mod would give a shit his comments are voted down I have no idea."

    Not particularly giving "a shit", just wondering why! Didn't slag off a format (THEY ARE JUST MACHINES MADE BY CORPORATIONS, PEOPLE, THEY AREN'T YOUR FRIENDS / LOVED ONES) or the game. Some people simply vote *very* oddly, others based on assumed bias (which is wrong, cheers), others for shits and giggles. I have no say on the Karma system but it *is* interesting (sometimes) seeing who uses it and how.

    @Savatage I liked Fable 3! :D

    Regardless, it's great that this one is much closer across the formats. DA:o was very much six of one and half a dozen of the other with the consoles with one looking better but having a far worse frame rate at times and the other looking ropier but being more consistent. :/

  • kraenk12 #65 1 year ago

    no wonder ps3 can nearly match the pc version. pc version looks like crap, maily because of the ridiculously ugly artwork.

  • pantherjag #66 1 year ago

    I find the comments strange regarding people saying screen tearing ruins the immersion or reminds you your in an artificial world!!!

    Now im as passionate a gamer as anyone else but iv never believed for one second whilst playing a game that im anywhere but in the real world..............As for being immersed in the game, if you were truely immersed in the game you wouldnt notice screen tearing.

    Just seems strange to me that a lot off people are comenting on the screen tearing as being a deal breaker when in the past in face offs it barely registers a mention.

    Call me a cynic but it just strikes off a few miffed xbox360 fanboys feeling a little miffed that the PS3 version got the nod in this game

  • IneptPercy #67 1 year ago

    I do also believe screen tearing is the worse sin, with that I do most gaming on PC so its not a issue these days.

    I will say after looking at the MLAA on my PC (ATI 5850) it can work some magic as it doesn't tax the system much and can give a good effect (or just add AA to titles which don't support it annoyingly).

  • frazzl #68 1 year ago

    @trmaster

    Are you suggesting that only processing is involved here? That access to the required resources isn't important? Really? That's news to me too :). Why would most professional review sites recommend that gamers install Last Remnant to improve frame rate (amongst other things)? For that matter the Gamespot review of DA2 also recommends installing it to reduce the amount of in-game stutter. I haven't encountered any slowdown in the 11 or so hours I have played so far, even in pretty busy battles with a dozen characters on screen and numerous spell effects littering the battlefield.

    Perhaps you should think a tad more before being such a fuckwit. Couldn't resist. Sorry :).
    Edited by frazzl at 14/03/11 @ 12:07

  • Darren #69 1 year ago

    @pantherjag - Given that screen tearing can go from being virtually unnoticeable ("oh, was that a tear or did I just blink?";) to horrendous levels of downright ugliness ("oh, sweet jesus, have mercy on my poor eyes!!!";), depending on how observant you are and how good your eyesight is, I personally find it a distraction that breaks games completely for me, far more so than framerate issues or jaggies.

    Yes, I'm one of those who notices even slight tearing and, no, I do not intentionally look for it. The abundance of screen tearing on the Xbox 360 in particular is what has driven me toward playing pretty much all multiformat games on the PC.

  • Pasco #70 1 year ago

    Can someone explain why parity between 360 and PS3 is a good thing? I have both and I would like the strengths of the platforms to be used disregarding if something will work well on the other console. With platform parity we get the lowest common denominator.

  • SaberEdge #71 1 year ago

    I hate screen tearing, but I also hate slowdown. They both slow down, though, only the 360 version more so. I would probably go with the 360 version if I was going to get this game. I guess in cases like these it is just a matter of preference.

  • HokutoNoKen #72 1 year ago

    Lens of Truth Analysis:

    [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/verdicttie/head2head-dragon-age-ii-analysis/
    ]http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/ver...[/link]

    / Ken

  • weedar #73 1 year ago

    I haven't noticed any screen tearing during gameplay so far (PS3). Measurable does not mean bothersome. The anti-aliasing is absolutely fantastic, as good as The Saboteur (PS3), and a slightly better framerate. I think this is a good looking game, certainly much better looking than Origins. For those who say the v-sync had to be disabled because the PS3 couldn't handle it, I would point out that the 360 version doesn't feature MLAA because the CPU is to weak, so don't be so hasty in condemning the performance of the PS3-version.

    Finally, I wonder why Digital Foundry never mentions HD-SOUND in the text of the review! If you have a decent home cinema system, the difference between the compressed-to-fit DVD sound in many games on the 360 and the uncompressed 5.1LPCM or 7.1LPCM on the PS3 can be VAST! If this was taken into account when evaluating games, I think comparisons would be more fair.