Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame

By Richard Leadbetter Published 16 April, 2010

Digital Foundry vs. FFXIII. The final analysis.

Page 1 of 3

Final Fantasy XIII on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 was one of the biggest Face-Offs we've produced, but more than that it was an analysis of one of the biggest games - in terms of actual scope - that we've ever had to cover. In putting together the original piece, we were about a week ahead of the release: enough to do the game justice in terms of the comparison coverage, but not enough to see the whole game through to its conclusion, let alone on both platforms.

Over a month on, we're now ready to cover the entirety of the game, reporting additional technical differences we didn't in our original piece, while at the same time providing new insight and better understanding of the basic logistical challenges that Square Enix undertook in converting the game across to the Xbox 360.

Having now unlocked the entirety of the game on both systems, one thing we'll say right from the off is that none of our original conclusions have been invalidated. The only real modifiers to add to the first Face-Off come down to the consistency of the experience across the entirety of the game.

We talked in the original piece about the sense that the Xbox 360 rendition of FFXIII felt like a rushed conversion. Needless to say, all the additional analysis simply confirms that, if any further proof were really necessary. So yes, PlayStation 3 remains the clear favourite from start to finish, and yes, Xbox 360 players have every right to feel upset over a conversion that is far from what it could, and should, have been.

Readers of the original Face-Off will know that just about the only advantage of the Xbox 360 code came from the frame-rate analyses, whereby performance dips were marginally lower and engine-driven cut-scenes managed to handle higher-poly renditions of multiple characters more effectively. This advantage is actually so small that it's barely perceptible to the human eye, and completely falls by the wayside when you factor in the performance level in two later stages: chapters eight and 11 respectively.

These areas of FFXIII have somewhat unique properties that set them apart from the majority of the game's levels. Much of chapter eight is set within a crowd, pretty much the only time we ever see this sort of thing throughout the entire adventure. PlayStation 3 has some issues in some scenes, but frame-rate plummets throughout the duration of the stage on the Xbox 360 rendition.

Chapter eight's crowd scenes can stress both platforms, but it's Xbox 360 that shows the consistent performance penalty.

It's an annoyance for sure, but at least the linear aspect of this part of the game is such that once it's over, you'll never need to return to it again. Chapter 11, Gran Pulse, is a completely different kettle of fish. Not only is it an important level of the basic quest, it's also the main area from which the game draws its lastability.

Even after the final stage has been defeated, Gran Pulse remains open, offering masses of additional, optional gameplay. We spent more than 20 hours there on our playthrough of the PS3 version and reckon there's probably 15-25 hours of fun to enjoy in total, depending on how quickly and effectively you figure out the fight strategies.

It's fair to say that we didn't spend anything like 20 hours on the Xbox 360 version, and from this performance analysis video you can see why.

Onto chapter 11, the epic Gran Pulse, and we see that frame-rate on 360 drops by to up 30 per cent compared to the PS3 version.

While the corridor-style elements are pegged at the usual 30FPS, the openworld gameplay found in Gran Pulse is pretty arduous on Xbox 360. There are horribly uneven frame-rates from start to finish with only limited respite.

The clear suggestion is that what optimisation effort there was concentrated on the more usual FFXIII gameplay in the other levels. These two chapters are indicative of the Crystal Tools engine being challenged with a series of different tasks - a crowd full of detailed NPCs in chapter eight, and a vast, sprawling openworld landscape in Gran Pulse.

Neither of these challenges, taken solus, is much of a big deal in the grander scheme of things when compared to other titles (Gran Pulse is majestic, but in common with much of the game, hardly a massive ask from a technical perspective), but it speaks volumes that the "different" levels are where the game suffers most on Xbox 360.

One element we didn't cover in the original Face-Off concerns the shadowing system employed by FFXIII. On the face of it, when you look at comparison shots like this, the conclusion is self-evident: Xbox 360 has scaled back, or non-existent shadowing.

'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot noshadow1-360
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot noshadow1-ps3
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot noshadow2-360
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot noshadow2-ps3

A cursory examination of FFXIII's shadowing setup suggests that the effect is dialled back or indeed non-existent in certain cases.

Our contention is somewhat different. The shadowing system is the same, but with a horrible offset that looks for all the world like a bug. Crazy talk, clearly, but let's try to get a handle on the setup with some exact like-for-like images across the two platforms where we do see shadowing.

'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot shadow1-360
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot shadow1-ps3
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot shadow2-360
'Final Fantasy XIII: Endgame' Screenshot shadow2-ps3

A closer look at the effect gives the strong impression that the shadows are merely offset, being clipped by the elements supposedly casting the shadows.

It's the same shadow, but on Xbox 360 it's offset, it's deeper. Shadow maps are rendered from the light point of view and re-projected or transformed to the camera space. Differences in resolution or buffer format can throw off the re-projection calculation, so the shadow receiving plane can shift, thus necessitating an offset correction. If the plane is pushed further, the shadows can disappear into an object. If it the plane is pulled back, the entire view might be shadowed.

Chances are that the shadows are the same, but they're simply being remapped incorrectly, pushing their way behind the objects they're supposed to cast from, once again suggesting a flaw in the porting process - the offset may have been introduced by the reduction in resolution from 720p to 1024x576.

If true, there wouldn't be any actual performance increase for adopting this approach making its appearance in the shipped 360 version very bizarre indeed. A more dramatic example of the impact of incorrectly projected shadow-mapping can be seen with the tennis player example early on in this AMD paper on GPU shadow-mapping from GDC 2006.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (112) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Hunam #1 2 years ago

    I've never understood the industries reliance on bink video of late, it really is a horrible codec. Some of the scenes in Batman get really crushed by it. I guess it must just be cheap or something.

  • womble #2 2 years ago

    Very good article DF.

    Yes, I agree that the 360 version was a rush job. There's nothing in this game that can't be replicated on both consoles, with the obvious exception of the FMV sequences, a topic adequately covered.

    The decision to use Bink was truly baffling, given all the other options available.

    This has been a big mistake by SE. If they want to improve their cross-platform sales, they need to do better.

  • balflear_pkt #3 2 years ago

    Typical bias... like always, instead of telling us why it is so great on PS3, you are all the time explaining us why should it be a lot better than it is already on 360.

  • superjag86 #4 2 years ago

    @Hunam: I noticed the same thing in Batman too, gameplay looked superb at 1080P on my PC but the videos looked so much better on the PS3.

    Still interesting article, I do think it's a shame that 360 owners were given such a shoddy port in the same way it sucks when the PS3 gets the raw deal.

  • Bagpuss #5 2 years ago

    All goes to show that these consoles need replacing with something better now, 5yrs on and too many compromises are having to be made in order to put on screen what the devs have envisioned.

    Its depressing to think that this years E3, under normal circumstances, would almost certainly have seen a new gen of consoles being unveiled, but thanks to that toy company pretending to be a videogames company Nintendo, selling its outdated, underpowered tat to the masses, its not happening.

    As it is, we are probably going to have to wait until E3 2012 or 2013 for that now.....just sucks.

  • KillerMonkey #6 2 years ago

    balflear_pkt: "Typical bias... like always, instead of telling us why it is so great on PS3, you are all the time explaining us why should it be a lot better than it is already on 360."

    He also mentioned why it is so great on the PS3 in the article. Or did you not read it?

  • webcider #7 2 years ago

    There are lot of potential in the already existing technology, no need to upgrade, buy a pc instead :)
    Xbox 360 and PS3 hasn't even shown its potential yet, to much shovelware is getting released on both forms to make the technology matter anyway.

  • womble #8 2 years ago

    @balflear_pkt "Typical bias". Please, do everyone a favour and STFU. This "bias" stuff is BS. How many more amazing things do you want DF to say about games like Uncharted 2 and Wipeout HD?

    PS3 Fanboys are an embarrassment to gamers. From one PS3 owner to another, please just shut up.

  • Retroid #9 2 years ago

    It's definitely not a game I'll even consider for 360.

    Thankfully, as the article points out, such horrible lazy conversion jobs from one to the other are getting rarer and rarer these days.

  • Doctor_What #10 2 years ago

    Biggsy: In the (remote) possibility that was a serious question - get the PS3 version.

    Webcider: When you can buy a PC for a few hundred pounds with hardware that all the top developers optimise for specifically to and that remains the benchmark for the next four years, then I'll get myself a PC to game on. Oh, and it will have to be comfortably playable from the sofa too ;D

    Womble: Do you think people are still serious about that 'bias' nonsense? Everyone's got their favourite machines, but you'd hope that readers realise that it's in a writer's interest to be open minded about all titles on all platforms.

  • ParanoidZombie #11 2 years ago

    Good read - but IMO the most important thing that can be said about FF13 is that Resonance Of Fate is a better game.

  • WMain00 #12 2 years ago

    DF felt the need to stir the fanboy rage again? ;)

  • HornsDino #13 2 years ago

    Bayonetta is particularly ironic for the devs in that it sold much better in Japan than any other territory, meaning that overall more PS3 copies were sold than 360, so more people ended up playing the inferior version!

  • KillerMonkey #14 2 years ago

    @Doctor_What : "Webcider: When you can buy a PC for a few hundred pounds with hardware that all the top developers optimise for specifically to and that remains the benchmark for the next four years, then I'll get myself a PC to game on. Oh, and it will have to be comfortably playable from the sofa too ;D"

    Are you kidding? The XBox 360 and the PS3 were never benchmarks, even when they were released. For a few hundred pounds you can get a pretty sweet CPU and GPU and you'll be able to play all the newest games at high resolution with proper texture filtering and AA. With mods/community additions, the ability to tweak things and use whatever peripheral you want. You can even sit on the sofa if you so desire! Really, nobody will arrest you!
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 12:20

  • Bagpuss #15 2 years ago

    "There are lot of potential in the already existing technology, no need to upgrade, buy a pc instead :) "


    I already have a nice PC, but this gen of consoles is holding back development, Pc games nowdays are just ports of console games which are using 2004-2005 era PC Gfx technology.

    Which is why today even a £400 budget Pc can comfortably outperform a 360 or Ps3

    Until new consoles arrive which start using DX11, nothing is really going to improve...and thats why i want new consoles...NOW GODDAMMIT..

  • balflear_pkt #16 2 years ago

    @womble yeah, but he doesn't explain very well how this game uses PS3 capabalities, that probably all those filters FFXIII have are done by SPUs and that's why it could been hard to port it to 360, he just says "looks good" and nothing else, with Bayonetta we got a whole explanation

  • KillerMonkey #17 2 years ago

    @Bagpuss: Aww, look at that, the fanboys are negging us! So cute..

    @womble: "yeah, but he doesn't explain very well how this game uses PS3 capabalities, that probably all those filters FFXIII have are done by SPUs and that's why it could been hard to port it to 360, he just says "looks good" and nothing else, with Bayonetta we got a whole explanation"

    He explains perfectly well why the port fails. And perhaps he doesn't explain very well in this article how the game uses PS3 capabilities because that's not within its scope? And post-processing is very easily portable, btw.
    Edited by 2 at 17/04/10 @ 12:42

  • GamesConnoisseur #18 2 years ago

    Very good article and I m hoping all devs read DF articles and so going forward we wont see any repeats of porting disasters like Bayonetta on PS3 or FFXIII on X360.

    Interesting that the preferred solution is to leads on PS3 simply not that its better system but where the result of the work across two platforms or more would be much more comparable. Of course the inherit disadvangtages for X360 is that its hardware would unlikely be maxxed out as it was under Bayonetta.

    However as a gamer, I would far prefer a game that plays equally well on any platform rather than be dogged with having to choose one game on certain platform by a certain developer on a certain week!

  • patchbox360 #19 2 years ago

    there's little the RSX solus can do that Xenos can't - uncharted 2, killzone 2, god of war 3

  • Bagpuss #20 2 years ago

    "there's little the RSX solus can do that Xenos can't - uncharted 2, killzone 2, god of war 3 "

    You Fail....both the 360 and Ps3 are DX9 class PC based architecture, they can both do the same stuff.

    Those titles you mention take advantage of the difference in CPU's more than GPU's....

  • Manbeast10 #21 2 years ago

    The thing that gets me about ff13 isnt how badly its ported to xbox but how gimped it is on the ps3 because of the xbox version. Linear so that there doesnt have to be disk changing and the one developer said they cut like 7 gigs of stuff that was up and running on the ps3. So in actual fact this isnt a proper comparison of the two machines for that reason alone.

  • KillerMonkey #22 2 years ago

    @Manbeast10: "The thing that gets me about ff13 isnt how badly its ported to xbox but how gimped it is on the ps3 because of the xbox version. Linear so that there doesnt have to be disk changing and the one developer said they cut like 7 gigs of stuff that was up and running on the ps3. So in actual fact this isnt a proper comparison of the two machines for that reason alone."

    The comparison is invalid because the developers cut content from both the games? Wut? That means they still have equal content. This isn't even about the content though, it's about shiny graphics.

  • Manbeast10 #23 2 years ago

    True, I'am just venting because of the game slightly disapointing me. Content should be involved to though because the blu ray drive is one of ps3 biggest advantages.

  • Retroid #24 2 years ago

    Given how long FFXIII was in development before the 360 deal was even struck I don't think the blame for linearity can be put on that version.

  • TheBrow #25 2 years ago

    The PS3 and the 360 are holding back PC games? Speaking with my selfish hat on, this is a good thing, as it means I don't have to go upgrading my pooter any time soon. (Hopefully)

  • Wolverfrog #26 2 years ago

    Well I have to say, Final Fantasy moves so fast that I really can't tell the difference. As far as I'm concerned, the 360 version looks perfectly fine.

  • CaptainQuint #27 2 years ago

    I don't play the FF series, but if I did I'd still have gotten it for the 360, regardless of the underperformace. My problem is I'm an achievement whore.

  • Geordiemp #28 2 years ago

    Ps3 lead or Xbox lead, I think devs need to do 2 versions to get best out of both, 360 concentratng on utilising edram and its cores and 360 on SPU's.

    DF no need to explain the benefits of both consoles, we kinda know by now, you can reword it for the bad Ps3 ports only used 1 of 7 SPU's'.... same story...

    What would be more interesting is how much easier Sony and MS make the hardware accessible - you would think by now the tools and kits would have grown to a good level by now.

    Eventually devs will have engines that do utilise EDRAM / SPOU and all teh efficiencies of both hardware, so they develop one game and the engine uses the hardware efficiently - maybe a bit like the crytek 3 engine by the looks of things.

    Wish they had a demo of FF, not sure about it...
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 14:40

  • devilmyarse #29 2 years ago

    @Womble @balflear_pkt "Typical bias". Please, do everyone a favour and STFU. This "bias" stuff is BS. How many more amazing things do you want DF to say about games like Uncharted 2 and Wipeout HD?

    PS3 Fanboys are an embarrassment to gamers. From one PS3 owner to another, please just shut up.

    Well said. I'm sick to death of PS3 owners calling me a 360 fanboy because I prefer buying games based on which looks better according to DF's always informative comparison articles. I own both platforms and can get the best of both worlds but having over 70 games for my 360 and only 30+ titles for my PS3 speaks volumes for the deficit in quality that comes from this lax attitude towards cross platform development.

    Regarding the article it just shows how SE have literally just not cared about the quality of the 360 port, it's such a shame because SE could have dispelled the myth that having bluray automatically means that the 360 can't do what the PS3 can do. It's complete crap as DF have shown, with a little bit of extra time and money they could have used the h264 codec and had video just as comparable to the bluray alternative. A missed opportunity.

  • mkreku #30 2 years ago

    I also happen to feel a certain bias from these two articles. I mean, we've had like 20 face-offs, where the PS3 has been subjected to a lot of horrible ports (since the Xbox 360 is the lead platform in most cases). Yet I have never seen TWO huge articles for any of those games. It's been more of a "this is the way it is, get over it" attitude from Rich.

    Then along comes FFXIII, which originally was a PS3 exclusive and happens to be ported to the Xbox 360. And we're subjected to two of the longest explanations ever why it's slightly worse on the Xbox 360. Why weren't any of those dozens of PS3 games that suffered the same porting fate ever this thoroughly explained? It just seems weird to me.

  • smelly #31 2 years ago

    (sarcasm)

    I think the framerate in a game like FF13 is REALLY important!

    (/sarcasm)

  • messiahtj #32 2 years ago

    Then along comes FFXIII, which originally was a PS3 exclusive and happens to be ported to the Xbox 360. And we're subjected to two of the longest explanations ever why it's slightly worse on the Xbox 360. Why weren't any of those dozens of PS3 games that suffered the same porting fate ever this thoroughly explained? It just seems weird to me.

    It's quite simple, they feel the need to make us understand to all coast that this is Square Enix's fault, not 360's.

    P.S. To the guys in DF about this "Yeah, FFXIII looks "slightly" worse in 360 but blame Square, not 360": QQ more...

    (BTW I really think that 360 is just as capable as PS3 but c'mon, another article trying to explain again why FFXIII look worse in 360 because Square Enix sucks at porting? Damn...)
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 16:07

  • patchbox360 #33 2 years ago

    @Bagpuss

    'You Fail....both the 360 and Ps3 are DX9 class PC based architecture, they can both do the same stuff.'

    then match the games i've mentioned with 360 equivalents

  • Bagpuss #34 2 years ago

    At the end of the day the thing keeping those three games off the 360 are exclusive license rights that Sony paid alot of money for..

    The Ps3 and 360 both use the exact same set of dx9 features, with just some differences in how they are implemented....gfx wise it wouldnt take much to get them running on the 360, but like i said they may need some extensive re-coding on the CPU side as the 360 and Ps3 are very different in that regard.

    Any shortcomings in 360 versions of those games would be down to CPU limitations on the 360, not the GPU, as it is generally accepted that the 360 has a better GPU and the PS3 a better CPU.
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 16:26

  • butler` #35 2 years ago

    Why weren't any of those dozens of PS3 games that suffered the same porting fate ever this thoroughly explained? It just seems weird to me.

    It's called blatent preference for 360 over PS3. Though can you blame them? (9 times in 10)

  • RobotRocker #36 2 years ago

    I've never understood the industries reliance on bink video of late, it really is a horrible codec. Some of the scenes in Batman get really crushed by it. I guess it must just be cheap or something.

    From what I heard, its much cheaper because its a complete package with its own codecs and executables and saves companies a lot of time and money screwing around and looking for different licences for audio and video codecs while putting in their own streaming solution. It also gives credence to the 360 port being a rush job as well since it was nearly entirely reliant on middleware to shoehorn things in though I guess the deal they signed with MS was for a simultaneous release so I don't think Square are completely blameless in this case.

  • Murton #37 2 years ago

    "Xbox 360 players have every right to feel upset over a conversion that is far from what it could, and should, have been."

    I don't think I've ever seen that line used on DF before when they find things the other way round. Instead we hear all about the "blurring effect from the quincunx AA" or the "limitations of the RSX" or some other hardware or devkit based answer. Could it not also be the case that theses other games were poorly ported? Do PS3 owners not have the same right to shake our fists at a developer who could have, and should have done better?

  • Collymilad #38 2 years ago

    What you people who seem to only own PS3's fail to realise is that no, you do not have AS MUCH right to be pissed at developers for poor coversions, due to the fact that Sony made the PS3 far more difficult to develop for than the 360 - which is much closer to developing for a PC.

  • GreyBeard #39 2 years ago

    The only thing I'd argue with in this article is that the Archlyte Steppe (Ch 11 and postgame) zone isn't particularly taxing on the hardware. Its unusual to see an area of such size and openness running so perfectly smoothly on PS3, there's clearly been a lot of spot optimization done to polish it into that state. All of which takes time, and so would stand hard against the 360 build which was put together relatively quickly.

  • patchbox360 #40 2 years ago

    At the end of the day there are things keeping many games off the ps3 - exclusive license rights that Microsoft paid alot of money for..

    i'll make it easy - match uncharted 1

  • patchbox360 #41 2 years ago

    ok the concept of matching has been established

    now going back to my initial point - 360 equivalents to uncharted 2, killzone 2, god of war 3

  • smelly #42 2 years ago

    Im interested if anyone actually ENJOYED the game. I dont care for this tech bullcrap.

    I played for the first 20 hrs on the promise it "got better" when i got to pulse.. then 20 more hours waiting for it to get better before giving up and wondering why on earth microsoft paid so much money for this boring mediocre turd.

    (and IM a SE fanboy!)

    Back to tech - I seriously dont care about frame rate - as it's NOT that sort of game.. Its not a fps or a racer where "twitch" response are needed and a bad frame rate kills the game play.

    Im playing on 360 so - Video artifacts, well, i'm onto the final dvd - about 40 hrs in.. and i've yet to notice any - i'm sure there ARE some there, but i havent noticed any. No doubt if you play it back in slow mo side-by-side with the ps3 version you'll notice them. But really if you're doing that, you REALLY need a girlfriend.

    Cant do 1080p comparision, the 360 microsoft returned to me after my last (10th) repair didnt have a hdmi port. I complained, and they offered to send me a new one back as a replacement if i sent this back. But from where i live it take 3 weeks to get a replacement and i couldnt be arsed... So I played at 720p.. Not that it makes bugger all difference to me anyhows.

    But regardless of which.. The game could run at 120fps, with no video artifacts, and the best graphics IN THE WORLD.. it wont stop the game itself from being dull as ditch water and the worst FF i've played (and i'm including FF10 in that!)




  • FIGHT #43 2 years ago

    x360 games use h264 ??? give me some example pls.
    Almost all x360 & pc games use bink.
    FF13 has 100% x360 and bink video quality standard.

  • Retroid #44 2 years ago

    Murton: "Do PS3 owners not have the same right to shake our fists at a developer who could have, and should have done better?"

    Everyone does, that's the point! If publishers think they can just hand over a game for a quick and dirty conversion with little care taken with regards to the end result then we should kick up a fuss. Otherwise we'll be stuck with them.

  • T3TSUO #45 2 years ago

    Dear lord let it go.
    You've focused so long on the positives within 360 titles but how about focusing on the PS3 now it has hit its stride instead of playing the "what could have been card"
    And you wonder why people think this is a bias site

  • Retroid #46 2 years ago

    T3TSUO: "Dear lord let it go.
    You've focused so long on the positives within 360 titles but how about focusing on the PS3 now it has hit its stride instead of playing the "what could have been card"
    And you wonder why people think this is a bias site"

    Ahem:

    God of War 3 demo versus retail, How Naughty Dog built Uncharted 2, and Making God of War 3.

    There you go. That was just a quick look in the DF Features section.

    BTW, the word is "biased".
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 18:48

  • pollux #47 2 years ago

    In other words, the PS3 version is now superior in everything?
    Sharpness (higher resolution), shadowing, stable framerate, lighting, much better cutscenes, no disc swapping.
    Did I miss anything? Audio probably better too?

  • Retroid #48 2 years ago

    I'd say audio would be better on PS3 too. It'd be mental if it wasn't due to BR.

  • T3TSUO #49 2 years ago

    As has this site has been also taking a good look at 360 exclusives recently but when it comes to cross platform, DF tends to promote one platforms strengths above the others weakness'.
    You know I do like this site for the news articles but there simply isn't any need for these "face-offs" but I know why you do it.
    It does push a lot more of traffic through the site when people have their backs up about something.

    I'll take no further part in these discussions as I think most people have garnered just what this site is about now. You've kind of dug your own hole.
    Maybe I'll be back for the Splinter Cell Conviction in depth look especially the part about the same low resolution used as 360 FF13 and that wasn't even a "shoddy port"

    By the way the word really is "Bias"

    <a href="http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Bias
    ">http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Bias
    </a>
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 19:33

  • Retroid #50 2 years ago

    From the page you link to: "The term biased refers to a person or group who is judged to exhibit bias."

  • spish #51 2 years ago

    DF's tone at the end of the article clearly favours the xbox 360. In the Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 comparison they also advocate that the PS3 couldn't keep up with the extra geometry in Ninja Gaiden 2 due to the shader setup. That's an assumption that DF are making, but at the same time another assumption could be that optimized vertex shaders on the SPU would be more than capable at the task. There's no benchmark or real analysis of what the 360s shaders are doing during the scene, so really there's no concrete reason to believe that it's impossible on the PS3. However, it's comments like these that seep into many of DFs comparisons usually favouring some idealized 360 setup that somehow an idealized optimized PS3 can't match.

    Linking DFs Uncharted 2 article isn't evidence of lack of bias. There's never the implication in any of those PS3 specific articles that feature X can't be done on the Xbox360, there are however several instances of the opposite. The important question is whether or not DFs bias is supported by reality, and obviously DF believes that to be the case. Maybe one of these days DF will stop beating around the bush and do the straight console face-off everyone is really waiting for.

  • DUFFKING #52 2 years ago

    Retroid, leave him alone, it's not his fault he was born an utter tool.

    I wish I was enough of a twat to spend ages pouring through articles trying to find meaning between lines that simply doesn't exist, but I'm not quite there yet. Shame.
    Edited by 2 at 17/04/10 @ 20:03

  • Retroid #53 2 years ago

    Saying one result or another couldn't be done on the other machine's hardware in the same way is not the same as saying it couldn't be done. Just that it would have to be done differently.

  • spish #54 2 years ago

    "Saying one result or another couldn't be done on the other machine's hardware in the same way is not the same as saying it couldn't be done. Just that it would have to be done differently."

    Actually in the Ninja Gaiden comparison what DF claims is that the Xbox360's result cannot be duplicated on the PS3 like for like, therefore the game must change to fit the game engine. So far DF has cited strengths such as unified shading, EDRAM bandwidth, higher fillrate, and an overall RAM advantage on the 360, but not much in the way of disadvantages when compared to the PS3. Like I said, the bias is there, and DF believe it's one with a factual basis.
    Edited by 2 at 17/04/10 @ 20:39

  • Retroid #55 2 years ago

    The hardware is different, though, no harm pointing that out. They each have their plusses and minuses depending on what precisely you're wanting to do with them and how.

  • TRUTH #56 2 years ago

    Didn't NGS 2 on PS3 have the limbs being cut off & remaining onscreen removed and also less characters onscreen then XB360 version.

  • bing #57 2 years ago

    Eurogamer 1: Hits are down, what can we do?
    Eurogamer 2: I know why don't we have another article comparing FF13 again?
    Eurogamer 1: Genius!
    Me: Sigh...

  • PatTheMav #58 2 years ago

    So basically Squenix developed a PS3 game that wasn't really utilising the full power of the PS3 like - say - Uncharted 2 does and then rushed the porting of a technologically crappy and inferior PS3-game to the Xbox 360..

    Somehow I can't shake the feeling that Japanese developers are overwhelmed by the pure processing prowess of the X360 and PS3 - the best looking games seem to come from western developers and if they're able to match the graphical fidelity, they need years of development time and a gazillian dollars of money (GT5 anyone?) just to match what western teams do within 2 years (Forza 3). Either that or they're incredibly lazy and not very accustomed to the deep optimisation work of graphics engines that are required in this day and age.

    Just looking at FFXIII makes one think "So much hype for a game looking this average on its target platform and containing hours of video instead of gameplay" - if you ask me, they should dump their own engine and license CryEngine, Unreal Engine or whatever else is on the market and apparently running way better than their own stuff.

  • Murton #59 2 years ago

    Retroid: "Everyone does, that's the point! If publishers think they can just hand over a game for a quick and dirty conversion with little care taken with regards to the end result then we should kick up a fuss. Otherwise we'll be stuck with them."

    Yet Richard/DF always blames the hardware or other PS3 specific issues rather than the developer who made the game. Funny that.
    Edited by 1 at 17/04/10 @ 21:28

  • Retroid #60 2 years ago

    On machines as similar in capability as these, any deficiencies are *always* down to development.

    The only issue is really whether the developers were skilled enough / given enough time to tweak the games for the "other" platform.

  • Retroid #61 2 years ago

    Also, I do think some people confuse "explanation" and "blame" when it comes to talking about the different hardware. Saying that a technique can't / isn't being used on one machine is simply explaining that issue, surely?

  • Cloud-Strife #62 2 years ago

    I got the 360 version, and I couldn't care less about any of this. I enjoyed the game from start to finish and thought the graphics were amazing. I thank SE for bringing it out on 360 in the first place.

  • womble #63 2 years ago

    @bing "Eurogamer 1: Hits are down, what can we do? "

    But you're still reading the articles, and still commenting? So who has the problem here, you or Eurogamer?

  • Pwnsweet #64 2 years ago

    What I would like to know is, would it be possible (within reason) to inject the VC-1 encodes of the FMV's into the Xbox 360 disc iso's and then burn those iso's to play them on a modified Xbox 360?
    Edited by 1 at 18/04/10 @ 05:13

  • Pwnsweet #65 2 years ago

    "(sarcasm)

    I think the framerate in a game like FF13 is REALLY important!

    (/sarcasm)"

    I believe the framerate in any game IS really important, including FFXIII. Framerate, to me, fully affects my perception of the quality of a game. If I pick up a game and it's a constant 30fps or 60fps v-synced I instantly 'feel' like the game is of high quality. I'm also more likely to play the game if this is the case. Choppy, low-fps games 'feel' disgusting to me. I'd much prefer a game that is less graphically impressive but runs at the aforementioned framerate.

    Take MGS2 on PS2 for example. The game runs 60fps throughout and maintains v-sync the whole way through. As a result, the game 'feels' nice to play. It's smooth, responsive and the there's never a torn frame to be seen. MGS3, on the other hand, is disgusting. 30fps when it feels like it, v-sync non-existent. To see what I mean head to Chyornyj Prud (the zone with the large swamp with crocodiles). Screen tearing all over the place and framerates as low as 15-20fps. Combine that with a lagged forward roll attack and a dependence on 1st-person shooting to shoot anything effectively and you have a recipe for painful, disgusting gameplay (story was good though).

  • messiahtj #66 2 years ago

    the best looking games seem to come from western developers and if they're able to match the graphical fidelity, they need years of development time and a gazillian dollars of money (GT5 anyone?) just to match what western teams do within 2 years (Forza 3)

    Now you are full of shit man.

  • bing #67 2 years ago

    @Womble
    'But you're still reading the articles, and still commenting? So who has the problem here, you or Eurogamer?'

    Eurogamer, as a lowly commentor on a gaming sight I really don't have to have standards, a so called professional gaming news website should.

    (Also FYI I've never read either of the comparisons that have been posted merely add a single post to them)

  • des #68 2 years ago

    This game is garbage,total waste of time...worst "RPG" in ages.
    Square is finished...totally talentless

  • HokutoNoKen #69 2 years ago

    Last year an article showed up on the net saying that the developers on the 360 no longer had to run their games in 720p (a little strange as we already know that some of the older games on 360 where rendered in sub HD e.g. Perfect Dark, Project Gotham Racing 3, Call of Duty 3, Oblivion, Halo 3 etc).

    Lets take a look at the recent trend and some old stuff...

    Final Fantasy XIII (1024x576 with 2xAA)
    Splinter Cell : Conviction (1024X576 with 2xAA)
    Alan Wake (960x547 with 4xAA, NOT yet 100% confirmed but probably true)
    and on Tekken 6 they where unable to get the game running with 2xMSAA instead they opted for a higher resolution without any AA (resulting in a lower frame buffer when commpared to the PS3 version) and then down sampled it to get some faked AA.
    Ninja Gaiden 2 (1120x585 with 2xAA).

    ...and this doesn't come as an surpise.

    The problem is the limitation of the 10Mb edram. Accourding to Microsofts own words you should avoid exceed this limit if your game is shader or polygon intensive/complex or using something like HDR.
    When running a game in 720p with 2xAA you will get a frame buffer that is something like 14Mb which doesn't fit the edram, therefore you will need to tile the buffer often resulting in some ugly tearing on the screen.
    On PS3 we don't have this kind of limitation as we can see on some of the exclusivly made games such as God of War III, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and more...

    / Ken

  • Retroid #70 2 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen: I think the deal was that developers had to specifically ask that the 720p requirement was dropped for certification. The current situation is that they no longer have to do that.

    Each platform has its plusses and minuses depending on what devs want to do with them.
    Edited by 1 at 18/04/10 @ 13:05

  • DoctorFouad #71 2 years ago

    Its actually very strange ! after all those DF face-off and technical articles I am still not convinced with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) messages and conclusions of those articles :

    1-that the XBOX 360 GPU is "more than slightly superior than the PS3 GPU"
    2- If any ps3 title is achieving technical marvels ahead of other 360 titles (killzone 2, uncharted 2, god of war 3), it is simply due to the efficient use of the superior CELL processor and it has nothing to do with a powerful GPU !

    1- I am still not even convinced that the Xenos is slightly superior to the RSX let alone "more than slightly" or "far superior"...
    I think the multitude of Sub HD titles on 360 are a good source of my doubt...(espeically exclusive titles like Halo3 or Splinter cell conviction)...if sony dropped the edram thing with the ps3 compared to ps2 (remember dreamcast GPU vs ps2 gpu ?) it is for a reason...this reason is that : with edram you have a lot of difficult choices to decide upon, using 4X tiles ofr example permits you almost free 4X MSAA, but with the price of a decreased fill rate...so FF13 on 360 being a sub hd game is not that surprising when we see exclusive 360 titles running sub hd, for the sake of using only 2X tiles or no tiles at all (instead of 4 tiles) to avoid the negative impact on fill rate...

    2- How the RSX is not as powerful as the xenos, yet it permits, for example, uncharted 2 : 4X Anti Aliasing (MSAA), Full 720p resolution, crazy Texture Resolution and quality (relatively for consoles), great HDR lighting, excellent shadows and shaders, incredible fill rate and draw distance...everything with almost stable 30 v-synched fps...and all those things are done within the GPU and not with the CELL...ok the cell is helping when calculating vertices and post processing effetcs...but my point is that it is the GPU doing the obvious crazy stuff we see on our screens (textures, anti aliasing, shaders)

    I dont even know if i could be one day convinced or not with the superiority of xenos...(we will see resistance 3, or killzone 3 or uncharted 3 vs gears of war 3)

  • owl #72 2 years ago

    So much hype for a game looking this average on its target platform

    seriously? a lot of things can be said about the game but this is definitely not one of them. this game is stunning, graphically and in terms of visual design. did you stop to look at the patterned floors of the gapra whitewood? drank in the billowing clouds whilst on the palamecia? noticed how lightning's hair starts to move realistically as the air changes at the opening of the drainage tunnel in palumporum? even how intricate snow's neck jewellery is? nothing about this game is visually average.

    i sometimes can't believe how people can just dismiss things so easily, "this game looks shit" and that's that. it really boggles my mind.

  • Retroid #73 2 years ago

    I don't think anyone has said the 360's GPU was "much" more powerful than the PS3's, just that it's slightly ahead in one or two areas of design. The PS3 can do some tasty things using the SPUs to balance it / outperform it, though.

  • Murton #74 2 years ago

    Retroid: "On machines as similar in capability as these, any deficiencies are *always* down to development.
    The only issue is really whether the developers were skilled enough / given enough time to tweak the games for the "other" platform."

    I repeat: "Yet Richard/DF always blames the hardware or other PS3 specific issues rather than the developer who made the game."

    "Also, I do think some people confuse "explanation" and "blame" when it comes to talking about the different hardware."

    That's the point though, hardware. Until this point Rich has for some bizarre reason commented almost solely on hardware specific issues, but with FF13 it' different. The 360 version isn't as good as the PS3 version so it must be a bad port. The software is key all of a sudden. A side of things which is all but ignored when it's the PS3 version that reads as inferior using the DF tools.

  • NightAntilli #75 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad:

    The X360 GPU is superior in almost every way, except for HDR rendering. It's less bandwidth limited, the lanes are almost never idle, and it has more theoretical power. In other words, not only is the X360 GPU more powerful, it's also more efficient because of its architecture.
    In UC2, the Cell takes over stuff that usually is done by the GPU. SSAO is one of them. It also does water simulation, particle simulation, vertex processing, depth of field etc. Those are all stuff that a GPU would usually do, and a GPU handles those faster, but, if the CPU (or the SPUs in this case..) is idling and the GPU is having trouble, why not use the CPU to offload the GPU? And that's exactly what they do. It's no secret that the Cell reduces the load on the GPU.

    And remember, the Cell has SIX available SPUs for calculation, and has the PPU for general purpose processing. That's enough to offload any GPU.. The RSX has a 128-bit memory interface and that really bottlenecks it. If it had 256-bit, like the GPU it was derived from, it could be on par or even superior to the X360 GPU, but as of now, it clearly is slightly inferior.

    On a sidenote, UC2 has 2xAA, not 4xAA, and the draw distance is not that great actually. That's deceiving the eye, though that's the job of developers.. The draw distance is relatively weak.. And before you show me a picture of that vista with the city and mountain in the backgrounds, that's low poly geometry with low res textures, but since they're so far away, you can't notice it. People often think that the detail of all that stuff far away is the same as all the stuff up close, but that's clearly false and deceiving. Still, the whole game is impressive, probably the best overall package, but if there's one thing that is not impressive or special, it's the draw distance in UC2..
    Edited by 1 at 18/04/10 @ 23:13

  • Oceans1999 #76 2 years ago

    lol

  • Bander #77 2 years ago

    patchbox360: "then match the games i've mentioned with 360 equivalents"

    Find a PS3 game that looks like Viva Piñata.

    One of the best engines on the 360 is in Banjo- Kazooie - Nuts and Bolts. In terms of effects, the amount of stuff it can shift around, and avoiding linear gameplay, I don't think it's matched. It's a shame that most Rare stuff is made to entertain kids before adults though. I'm not sure if Rare are capable of pursuing realism anymore.

  • Neezaamr #78 2 years ago

    This article was extremely irritating.I find it clearly bias and of course the writer will not see it this way because it is his own views but if so many other people do then clearly there has to be some truth to this.They cannot blame this on being only comments from ps3 fan boys as well.This trend has been coming on for really long now with digital foundry and to me they have lost all credibility.

  • PatTheMav #79 2 years ago

    owl: "a lot of things can be said about the game but this is definitely not one of them. this game is stunning, graphically and in terms of visual design. did you stop to look at the patterned floors of the gapra whitewood? drank in the billowing clouds whilst on the palamecia? noticed how lightning's hair starts to move realistically as the air changes at the opening of the drainage tunnel in palumporum? even how intricate snow's neck jewellery is? nothing about this game is visually average"

    Well it all comes down to taste sooner or later and that's something one should not start arguing about. I never understood the appeal of most games made in Japan - I tried, I really did, but I found them to be bland, boring, angsty - simply not my taste (hell, I despise GoW for its stupid gameplay - sue me! ;)). All power to you if you like 'em, won't challenge your tastes.

    To me the graphics are comparably blocky, blurry and the design doesn't meet my taste; however I got the feeling that Naughty Dog got more out of the machine than Squenix did - just read above (or around the site) how much they resorted to loading off work to the SPUs to achieve the effect they wanted and I'm under the impression that's what it takes to get graphically expensive titles running at stable 30fps on the PS3 in this day and age - utilise the SPUs for GPU-work. And I didn't get the impression that this is what Squenix has done - thus my assessment that they're not even using the PS3 to its full extent. Just imagine "what could've been" - that's what I'm saying and I'm willing to say that I'm openly 360-biased.
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/10 @ 09:47

  • juuken #80 2 years ago

    Cry moar. Seriously. Where the hell were you people when the PS3 received bad ports? You just had one article and that was it. You convinced people the 360 version was the way to go. Now this game gets ported and you're crying?

    GET OVER IT.

    Should have never been made for the 360 in the first place. Microsoft should have kept their dirty money and not bribe Square over a rushed port.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #81 2 years ago

    I find it very difficult to understand why people on the internet don't seem to understand the adjective form of 'bias'.

    In your opinion, this article exhibits bias.

    You believe that this article is biased


    "Why don't you build your self a word.
    Build yourself a word with an 'ed'
    To show it's happened.."

    youtube only has the 'ing' version.
    http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vg9Ws_D...

  • DoctorFouad #82 2 years ago

    @ NightAntilli :

    Thanks for your comment,

    But I am still not convinced lol

    I mean :

    1/ you are talking about the 256 MO, 128 bit memory bandwidth limitation of the RSX (22.4 GO/s) making the RSX less capable than the Xenos with its 256 GO/S of 10 MO edram. I would agree with you if the 360 had 14 mo of edram or more to accept a framebuffer of 720p with almost free 2X Anti Aliasing, thats not the case. with only 10 MO of edram, you must tile yur framebuffer (like the 4 tiles of the Dirt engine, or virtua tennis sega engine) to get 720p with almost 4X anti aliasing, but this comes at a price : tiling = negative impact on fill rate. (the more tiles you use, the less number of pixels the GPU could calculate, because of the timing delay penalty and bottlenecks you are creating within the GPU when using tiles) thats why a lot of developers avoid the 4X tiles, and use only 2X tiles or no tiles at all.

    what I mean is that if the bandwidth of RAM limits the RSX, the 10 MO of edram limits the xenos, so in this respect I dont see why the xenos would be more powerful ?!! each GPU has its own limits.

    2/ The unified shader architecture is theoritically more efficient, I agree, each of the 48 pipelines of the xenos is not idle and its used, in the case of RSX, your game must use an equilibrium of the availaible pixel pipelines + the vertex pipelines, or else you get some idle pipelines....thats in theory, in practice : we must not forgot that we are talking about a first generation unified shader architecture for xenos, so it cant be as efficient as in theory...+ we are talking about an efficient proven GPU architecture (geforce 7), not geforce 256, 2,3, 4 or 5...

    and we must not forgot this fact : 300 million transistors for calculations in RSX vs less than 200 million transistors for xenos (because of the edram)

    it is really difficult to know if the 10mo 256 go/s edram of the xenos + unified shader architecture are more than enough to compensate the deficit of those calculation transistors...let alone being more powerful...

    I dont know the answer, and I didnt see any 360 game that could prove the superiority of the xenos...

  • Dave52 #83 2 years ago

    Pollux: "Audio probably better too?"

    Way, way better...!

  • viper_h #84 2 years ago

    Another pointless article. Yeah, I'm gonna spend £250 on a PS3 for 30% better framerate on a 30fps game.

    Piss off.

  • DoctorFouad #85 2 years ago

    Taken from the bayonetta face-off article :

    "As it is, the layering of transparencies, the sheer amount of them all over the screen, plus the added overhead of post-processing - it's the sort of thing that you shouldn't really be making central to the game experience in a multi-platform release, because the PS3 hardware just doesn't compete in this regard.

    Short of completely rewriting the game in the way that Tecmo did for the PS3 rendition of Ninja Gaiden 2, Bayonetta is always going to have problems.

    Even if the overdraw (transparency upon transparency) levels were reduced, the sheer amount of effects on-screen at any given point is never going to favour the RSX."

    Taken from the FF13 face off article :

    "Some areas are fairly low-poly, certainly the characters themselves, which concentrate detail on the head while the bodies of a comparatively modest detail. The corridor-like nature of most of the game also suggests that it shouldn't have been too difficult to port:

    geometry levels on many chapters don't look too arduous, high-quality 2D art in the background often takes the place of full 3D models, and even then, textures on 3D objects themselves are often fairly flat.

    So with all those factors in mind, why should the Xbox 360 port be sub-HD? What happened? "


    NO COMMENT


    I have just two questions :
    bayonetta is it really graphically more beautiful than FF13 ? and Is it really technically more advanced ?

    I dont know I havent play yet the two games...I must play those two games (bayonetta on 360) and FF13 on ps3 to judge by myself...but from the scores of bayonetta it didnt seem to be a very beautiful very technically advanced video game...strange...

  • geeza2020 #86 2 years ago

    looks pretty, but underneath its at best average. FF13 or my last girlfriend?

  • technotica #87 2 years ago

    Is it legal to rip movies from a game and distribute them? (because of the download links for the videos) :p
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/10 @ 14:13

  • NightAntilli #88 2 years ago

    DoctorFouad:

    On another note, the RSX is actually running at 500MHz, not 550MHz like a lot of people believe. Yes even Wikipedia is wrong on this one. It was down-clocked by 50MHz, and so was the memory. Probably to improve yields or something? The PS3 was having some issues before it came out. I think that's the reason, though that's speculation. Anyway, someone with Linux on their PS3 can retrieve that data and it'll show the frequency is 50MHz lower than in the specs for GPU clock and mem clock. So that would reduce the fill rate of the RSX. I'm too lazy to calculate how much right now lol.

  • darc #89 2 years ago

    Maybe the devs intentionally gimped the XBox 360 graphics so that this very discussion would distract us from what an embarrassing bore the gameplay is.

  • Bander #90 2 years ago

    DoctorFouad: "bayonetta is it really graphically more beautiful than FF13 ? and Is it really technically more advanced ?"

    Beautiful? Probably not, though it's in the eye of the beholder and I thought some of the Paradiso stages looked amazing. Technically it does shift a similar amount of textures, effects and geometry at a faster frame rate (on 360) than FFXIII though.

    It does appear there's no doubt that at least some aspects of FFXIII were rushed. Certainly in the case of the FMV. It just makes no sense that the DVD-ROMs were not filled to enable a higher bit rate. SquareEnix not even bothering to get a better codec to work largely confirms that very little time or care was spent porting this aspect of the game across. It's a bit surprising that MS didn't step in to help correct this relatively small but noticeable issue. Adding tiling would have taken more time since it would shake up how memory and bandwidth is allocated. It's still odd that Square choose to keep the dithered transparency effects on 360.

  • PatTheMav #91 2 years ago

    In this day and age I think it's useless to compare raw specs as developers on both platforms have shown that there's always some way to work around limitations and create awesome graphics.

    What it boils down to then is how lazy a developer is with porting a game from PS3->360 or vice versa. And from how I read this article, the assumption is that porting from PS3 to xbox 360 should be easier than the other way around due to the multi-purpose architecture of the 360's CPUs compared to the PPU+SPU-architecture of the PS3 and the perceived "superiority" of the Xenos over the RSX.

    From my experience developing mobile games for several platforms, the more you optimize for one platform, the more time is spent on this platform - the concurring system will always suffer from this. So what's it gonna be: Performing mediocre or not-fully-optimized on both platforms or giving one platform the edge (and thus introducing optimizations that can't be "ported";). I bet most publishers (and devs) will opt for the latter.

  • harlekein #92 2 years ago

    Wow... And here I thought this was going to be a review of the Final Fantasy XIII endgame... You know, after you went through the story and go max out and kill the other bosses.

    Instead it's another boring comparison article. Is this what gaming is about now?

  • telboy007 #93 2 years ago

    EG, you are offering a good service here. I recommend you convert the rest of the PS3 FMV files and write a guide for us xbox 360 only owners, to watch what film and at what point in the game. Cheers!

  • E2K #94 2 years ago

    "Thankfully we have reached a point where games like Bayonetta PS3 and FFXIII 360 are the exceptions rather than the rule. These are releases where the vast bulk of the developmental time was spent on just the one console, before the other was shoehorned into the schedule."

    Okay, the bullshit ends here, I will finish this once and for all.

    PS3 versus 360:
    - when comparing a single component; GPU, the 360 GPU is slightly better.
    that is the only thing 360 fans have left.
    maybe also this:
    -when a game is ported poorly to the PS3, it will look better on the 360.

    So the xbox only has the advantage of 1 component, the GPU, and the advantage of sloppy, noob-developers.
    There is nothing more to it.
    Resulting graphics are the sum of an entire system, this includes HDD cache, disc space, memory bandwidth, the processor and of course, the gpu also

    Lets look at recent games that were supposedly made 100% for the ground up for the 360:
    Halo3: Reach, Alan Wake, Spinter Cell, Forza 3.
    Aside from Forza 3, all 360 exclusives have been sub-HD. Also, all these games don't even use proper alpha blending. A2C all the way. Forza 3 doesn't even look good to begin with, I am comparing to forza2 and PGR3.
    Where is the magical 10MB Edram now?
    These games aren't ports, they were made with enormous budgets, also tailored specifically for 360.

    Eurogamer is focussing on old FUD, that the 360 is able to produce better overall graphics. But for the last 2 or 3 years, people can see with their own eyes that this is fanboy bullshit, that does not apply to the real world anymore.


    Ontopic: I knew the 360 framerate had to suck, because you used it as the only 360 defense in comparison to the vastly superior PS3 version.
    Also don't try to downplay the FF XIII graphics, it is one of the best looking PS3 games out there.

  • Guitarnerd87 #95 2 years ago

    Is it not that the 360 is using the crappy bink codec because the game switches from cutscene to ingame so quickly they need a codec which will play the video with no delay? I know when I play an mkv file theres usually a 3-4 second delay to play the video properly. Could be with the better codec square would have to recode the entire game to incorporate a different video buffereing system to compensate. Whereas using bink the videos could be quickly and simply switched.

  • XxHyperspudxX #96 2 years ago

    Another excellent article. Really interesting throughout. Appreciated!

  • darc #97 2 years ago

    "So the xbox only has the advantage of 1 component, the GPU, and the advantage of sloppy, noob-developers.
    There is nothing more to it."

    Yeah, poor XBox 360 sods. All they have are the better versions of 99% of all the multi-platform releases. :o

    Sorry to troll, and honestly I'm not biased (I own and appreciate both systems) but the proof's in the pudding. You can argue the theoretical advantages/disadvantages of each all day long but if the end results are consistently better on one platform, well that's just the way it is. And frankly, there isn't a single variable that's more important than the ability for developers to work effectively with the system, regardless of whom you want to blame for their skewed proficiencies/sloppiness/noobiness/whatever. The software is what you'll ultimately be playing, not the chips that MS/Sony selected.

    P.S. Final Fantasy XIII does look flat amazing on PS3. I wish I had a single other kind word for the game.

    P.P.S. I didn't neg you, by the way, because I totally see your point. But there's no "fair play" in this. Even if one of these platforms is superior to the other in some regard, that doesn't mean its games will necessarily excel accordingly. If you want proof, run out and build a $4000 gaming PC, then come back and tell me whether you're having 20X as much fun as the rest of us. :D
    Edited by 2 at 21/04/10 @ 20:41

  • Jojo51 #98 2 years ago

    I will just add a comment to the real good intervention made by Spish and DoctorFound.

    Yes DF always make supposition about the "inferior" RSX or "superior" Xenos, but they always forget too that the base of what make the big difference between too games, identicals or not, is so the developers efficiency and capability to master the hardware used to "run" their programs. By the way, due his more simple architecture and "like PC" programming languages (refering Microsoft DX), it's far more easy for a "average" developer to make something good with the X360. For the PS3, the situation is totally different, according his very specific architecture and the unknown cell processor. Yes, the PS3 is an kind of horse more difficult to tame up than the usual, but in the correct hands, we can see how far this machine can go ! Be aware of that the developpers learn their job on PC first, not on the PS3 SDK... Since his launch, they have gained the correct competence to manage with the Sony's third console and the productions, even multiplate, are more and more reliable.

    My opinion is that we have actually reach the limit of what the x360 can offer, very easy to prove this fact by comparing the exclusive title that cannot support the comparaison with the PS3 exclusive. More than this, we can see that the new X360 games are not really more superior than the opus launched the last year.

    The situation is really different with the PS3, his full potential has not been reached and we've seen this last year how the production quality have increased ! The more spectacular is again in front of use, for sure. :D

    My last words is for DF, please stop telling that the PS3 cannot do because of a pseudo lack of memory, RSX or what even else. It's just a subjective and false speech and affect your credebility. The Bayonetta Analyse is a great example of the worst you can do. Insinuate that this kind of game cannot be correctly ported on PS3 is an incredible stupid affirmation, like many base fanboys can tell. The game is good, but not more than a Devil My Cry HD (the 4 is a good comparaison), just very simple GFX, short environnements, poor geometry, basic texture, no HDR, lack of post processing effects etc etc... It's a pitty because of the good quality of the most part of your article. Keep it in mind for your next analysis !

    Regards,
    Edited by 1 at 22/04/10 @ 15:14

  • Josh128 #99 2 years ago

    The graphics capabilities of these 2 consoles are closer than any competing consoles in history, with the possible exception of the PS2/GC/Xbox generation whose differences may have been comparable (ie pretty insignificant). Such bickering over which is more powerful is relatively pointless. Buy the one that has the exclusives you dig, or buy both for that matter.



    Edited by 1 at 22/04/10 @ 15:32

  • BuckEntropy #100 2 years ago

    @E2K ... actually you kicked the bullshit into full gear there! lol

    And @Jojo51, the substance of your whole little rant there is that your own PURELY SUBJECTIVE (and also false, it must be said) understanding of the relative capabilities of these two consoles, is at odds with the information presented by this site... so of course: Richard Leadbetter and anyone else who clearly know infinitely more about the subject than yourself MUST BE WRONG.
    Brilliant. Bravo.

    This is how it seems to go...

    DF presents clear and qualified examples, with explanations of the known technical factors that support the evidence, of why one game is a problem for one console. EG Bayonetta.

    DF presents equally clear and qualified examples, with explanations of the relevant technical factors that support the evidence, of why one game is a problem for the other console. EG Final Fantasy XIII

    In both cases it's made clear the port was rushed, and certainly cold have (and really should have) been better. And examples are given for better solutions to some of the most obvious problems.

    But here's where these SDF types get all bent out of shape: the FFXIII port gets more criticism because it's ALSO much worse in areas that ALL PRECEDENT would indicate the 360 should have no problems with. By contrast, Bayonetta is focused on elements that ALL PRECEDENT has shown the PS3 to have a disadvantage in. And that's what some of you just refuse to accept.

    But I love it, a follow up article making it clear that the 360 version is EVEN WORSE THAN INITIALLY REPORTED... is somehow still proof that DF are XBOTS?!? rofl

    But I know what it's really about. They thought they could get away with bitching about the 'unfounded conclusions' of the original article, and now they're crying cause DF further punctured their own subjective reality bubble.

  • Jojo51 #101 2 years ago

    @BuckEntropy

    At the evidence, you don't even know of what we are speaking about. Beside this, your attitude is very rude and I would like to know how you can affirme that this people can know "infinitely more about the subject" than me ??? Do we already met us ? Good joke...

    You have to become aware of that all the analysis made by DF are only supositions, just and simple because they compare a rendered results, not the program themselfs. It's like a pseudo specialist of engine car would explain why this or this car is more efficient than another just because he know how horse power they have... What a basic and simple vision of what must be a real analysis !

    By the way, the fact are the fact no more no less. And all people can see that the PS3 can render superior result than his concurrent, and insinuate that a game like Bayonetta cannot be correctly ported to the PS3 due the hardware incapacity is a big nonsense ! Just need to open your eyes and compare Bayonetta vs Gow3 to see the technical gulf that separe this two games. With this kind of example, how can a man (note a fanboy) trust the affirmations about the pseudo hardware issue of the PS3 made by DF... Such nonsense one more time !

    The biggest difference between this two console does not concern the hardware, but HOW the developpers use it ! Like I have already said, developpers can easy take advantages of the x360 power, thanks to her "very similar" concept and programming rules dicted by the PC and Microsoft sight. Yes, you will easy find a developer capable to exploit very correctly the X360, this fact isn't true with the PS3. Keep this things in mind, and you will understand your own mistake.

    And to finish, if a lot of players arguing about the FFXIII analysis, it's specialy for the good reasons ! In this article, FD try to explain why the X360 version of FFXIII is inferior, and their arguments are more reliable because they focus the manner of how the devs have coded their port, they don't bother us with hypotetic hardware issues... Sadly, we cannot see this kind of argument when the comparaison isn't favorable for the PS3 ; that's why many people think that DF/Eurogamer are Microsoft fanpress.

    Have a good read,

    Regards,
    Edited by 2 at 23/04/10 @ 14:09

  • BuckEntropy #102 2 years ago

    @Jojo51

    "I would like to know how you can affirme that this people can know "infinitely more about the subject" than me ??? Do we already met us ?"

    OK, that's a fair question...

    "You have to become aware of that all the analysis made by DF are only supositions, just and simple because they compare a rendered results, not the program themselfs."

    Since, as you said, I know virtually nothing about you... what reason can I possibly have to regard your initial assertion:

    "My last words is for DF, please stop telling that the PS3 cannot do because of a pseudo lack of memory, RSX or what even else. It's just a subjective and false speech and affect your credebility. The Bayonetta Analyse is a great example of the worst you can do. Insinuate that this kind of game cannot be correctly ported on PS3 is an incredible stupid affirmation, like many base fanboys can tell."

    As any less of a SUPPOSITION, I mean, did *you* actually compare the programs themselves? If you did then by all means elaborate for us, so we may know your full credibility.

    But in the meantime, based on what you have represented so far:

    "The game [Bayonetta] is good, but not more than a Devil My Cry HD (the 4 is a good comparaison), just very simple GFX, short environnements, poor geometry, basic texture, no HDR, lack of post processing effects etc etc..."

    "By the way, the fact are the fact no more no less. And all people can see that the PS3 can render superior result than his concurrent, and insinuate that a game like Bayonetta cannot be correctly ported to the PS3 due the hardware incapacity is a big nonsense ! Just need to open your eyes and compare Bayonetta vs Gow3 to see the technical gulf that separe this two games."

    I am left with no other alternative to concluding that you really have no clue about what you're looking at. In essence you are admitting that your entire conviction rests on the 'fact' that GoW3 "looks like, WAY better" to yourself than Bayonetta. As in, your argument is nothing but SUBJECTIVE.

    You want me to use my eyes? OK, I'll tell one of my very first impressions about GoW3: the amount of gratuitous transparencies is conspicuously toned down from the PS2 games. And even with the compromises made in that area, the game apparently rarely ever reaches 60fps, whereas the original games hit that mark most of the time. And so does Bayonetta, on the 360.

    But I'm not trying to slag on God of War 3 at all, it's a stunning game, everyone agrees. But if *you* have ever really played Bayonetta on the 360, you'll know that it's positively CARELESS about the overdraw effects. To the point where the performace still takes a huge hit in a few places, but PlatinumGames' attitude was clearly "because we can" about all the blending going on. I've deliberately looked for culling in the transparencies, and couldn't find any, if there's 5 or 6 transparency layers all on top of one another... then that's just how it is.

    This is the point, with a lot more work, or at least REwork, Bayonetta could undoubtedly have come across a lot better on PS3. But by pointing to GoW3 as a DIRECT comparison to Bayoneta, you only reveal how complete is your ignorance of the different technical issues of the games.

    "Looks Better" =/= "Doing all the same things Better".

  • Jojo51 #103 2 years ago

    @BuckEntropy
    Well, go for another discution.

    I am left with no other alternative to concluding that you really have no clue about what you're looking at. In essence you are admitting that your entire conviction rests on the 'fact' that GoW3 "looks like, WAY better" to yourself than Bayonetta. As in, your argument is nothing but SUBJECTIVE.

    I'm sorry but no, I don't compare only the graphic quality of this games, but their technical level to and mostly it ! On my first post, I've have explained that the Bayonetta is not more than a Devil May Cry 4, technicaly in the words. Sorry for not being sufficiently precise. In detail, you have to admit that Bayonetta engine is really common features, like the old UT3 engine for example. In that game, we can notice that the environnement are very limited in size, the geometry is common or less, the texture are very normal too, and we can't see a great variety of processing effects. In top of all, the game doesn't offer advanced lightning effect, understand no HDR ! The engine of Gow 3 is far far more efficient and complex because he can offer a lot of more possibility than the Bayonetta's engine. Just few example, like advanced anti-aliasing managed by the cell for a 16x quality, outstanding texture processing, very complex geometry, advanced post processing effects like DOF or Motion Blur, and as the cherry, render in HDR ! Agree with that, I don't compare the graphical "beauty", but really the technical question. If you can't admit it, I can't be more expressive and our discution is useless.

    I took Gow 3 for example because it's the more recent exclusive PS3 game, but if you want, the comparaison can be made with Uncharted 2, the result will be the same.

    After that, try to compare the technicals spec of Bayonetta vs Devil may Cry 4 ; you will quickly see how their are almost identical.

    But I'm not trying to slag on God of War 3 at all, it's a stunning game, everyone agrees. But if *you* have ever really played Bayonetta on the 360, you'll know that it's positively CARELESS about the overdraw effects...

    Yes, I've been played both version of Bayonetta, and about 30 hours just on my PS3 (win the ultimate platinium trophy). Thanks to that, I can tell that I perfectly know what this game can done. Same way with God of War 3 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2. All are my favorites BAT on this generation.

    This is the point, with a lot more work, or at least REwork, Bayonetta could undoubtedly have come across a lot better on PS3. But by pointing to GoW3 as a DIRECT comparison to Bayoneta, you only reveal how complete is your ignorance of the different technical issues of the games.

    Not really a "lot of more work", but an adapted work. The PS3 isn't easy to deal with it, a big majority of developers already said it. Sadly, the team in charge of the PS3 port don't manage correctly the PS3 specificities, and the purpose is in front our eyes. Be sure that the result would not be the same if a team like Santa Monica or Naughty Dogs had care about this thing... It's my opinion and why I can't admit some kind of suposition made by DF about some ghost PS3 hardware issues.

    I hope my supposed "ignorance" that you mention will be enough to change some bad idea...

    Regards,
    Edited by 1 at 24/04/10 @ 15:21

  • Kestana #104 2 years ago

    @ to those people talking about resolution, GPUs, etc. empirical evidence of X360 games, blah blah blah

    Post-processing. That's the trend now. Just about any developer working on the PS3 with half a brain will off-load most of the post-processing to the Cell. The RSX isn't cut out for that work unlike the Xenos which uses a unified shader architecture.

    While the Xenos is a strong, talented, hard-working lad. The RSX is a weak and untalented kid who has the aid of 7 helpers.

    You can only make the Xenos do so much of everything else. It is the greatest strength of the Xbox 360 yet its weakest link.

    Post-processing is everything in "graphics" nowadays, rather, visuals. They're the chiascuro and sfumato of today's gaming visuals. Yet funnily enough people care too much about the numbers behind the visuals. The number of pixels, the amount of anti-aliasing, etc. It's as if they want their eyes to lie to them.

    Unfortunately, they only resort to the numbers side of things when it's convenient. I've had it with people too blinded by the photorealistic visuals in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue to realize that the graphics itself isn't actually excellent, with 2D polygonal trees and foliage, extremely low-geometry landscapes, low resolution environment textures without any advanced form of texture mapping, etc. Or with people who think Killzone 2's graphics are so much better than Crysis' yet still wondering why a PC that costs five times a PS3 is down on its knees when settings are cranked up "just to match or get close to Killzone 2's graphics". Make that visuals, dear. Not graphics.

    Fortunately though, this is the case because it's easier to quantify with all the numbers. The art direction, the assets, the art itself and anything qualitative that supports the visuals, few dabble on that. I wonder why.

    P.S. If anyone has Race Driver GRID on the PC, try tweaking on the config files to remove the game's post processing. It's quite surprising. Heck, choosing 'motion blur: off' alone within the in-game graphics settings is enough of an eye-opener.

  • BuckEntropy #105 2 years ago

    @Jojo51

    You really think I'll be impressed by a retread and elaboration of the same vague nonsense from your first post? I'll ask you again, why are these SUPPOSITIONS of yours superior to DF's? Bayonetta isn't HDR... do you know this for a fact then? Since I don't know it for a fact I'd like a link or something, because that would be very interesting to me, as the lighting model is one of the most impressive aspects of the game IMO.

    And what do you mean by "very complex geometry" in GoW3, in terms of performance that's basically just polygons so... do you know the peak polygons per second each game is capable of? You still haven't answered any of my questions, have *you* "compared the programs themselves"? Again I'd be fascinated if you can back up your claims in ANY WAY, because my bet would be on Bayonetta for higher basic geometry output, but I'm always happy to learn something.

    Yet those details are irrelevant to where this argument stands. You've stubbornly ignored my central point twice now, all the wonderful things GoW3 may be doing that Bayonetta isn't... don't magically prove PS3 can do the things Bayonetta IS doing that GoW3 simply ISN'T.

    Since you conspicuously avoided responding to them, I'm going to quote the only points of my previous post that you didn't already...

    'You want me to use my eyes? OK, I'll tell one of my very first impressions about GoW3: the amount of gratuitous transparencies is conspicuously toned down from the PS2 games.'

    'Bayonetta on the 360, you'll know that it's positively CARELESS about the overdraw effects. To the point where the performace still takes a huge hit in a few places, but PlatinumGames' attitude was clearly "because we can" about all the blending going on.'

    "Looks Better" =/= "Doing all the same things Better".


    Either respond directly to my own point, or provide some credible support for your own. Or if you can't then admit your argument is all SUBJECTIVE.

  • Kestana #106 2 years ago

    @ BuckEntropy

    Re GOW3.

    Methinks that the geometry in GOW3 isn't impressive at all. What I'm impressed with is the LOD management and the streaming especially when the camera zooms in/out or when it pans. The perception of vastness and magnitude is obviously what's great in this game in terms of visuals. When displaying very large objects, the opposite is rather happening. Instead of objects with better geometry, it lessens it. It's common practice in just about every other game that performs strict LOD management because maintaining or adding detail not perceivable by the viewer isn't efficient. I can't see Jojo's point why GOW3 should be different, because it would be counter-intuitive. If anything, it's the game's assets, especially the awesome textures, that give credence to the visuals. Parallax and specular mapping furthers the visuals by removing that flat look. The careful placement of prebaked lighting in addition to some dynamic lighting tops the cake of visual goodness.

    I really wish we could see a wireframe view of GOW3.

    I think the point Jojo is trying to make is that the technical details behind the visuals should be as impressive as the visuals themselves. Some can't accept that some games aren't as graphically impressive as they are visually. If you ask me, it doesn't take anything away from the game if we highlight some of the "cheap" executions they did because everyone does it. Brute force is stupid.

  • BuckEntropy #107 2 years ago

    @Kestana

    If that seemed to be the point Jojo was making I would have felt no motivation to reply as I have, because as such I can agree without reservation. But Jojo51 has literally used GoW3 as an example for calling the assessment of Bayonetta's performance characteristics into question. In defiance of the fact said performance characteristics do not define GoW3 to any significant degree. I just had enough, as Jojo's post kind of summed up all the reactionary BS (from that faction) of this whole thread.

    Going off topic here, but it's topical in the larger sense. All the furor over Alan Wake being sub-720p... it's essentially a matter of expectations. And to my mind God of War 3 is a somewhat parallel case, since we have two games that were generally 60fps, and a third game that is basically NOT AT ALL 60fps. And this very site was rather diplomatic about that little discrepancy, referring to the framerate of GoW3 as "in the same ballpark" as the PS2 games... I mean, REALLY?

    I'm all about the end result, and I'm permanently tired of all these people echoing tech specs they know nothing about. In that respect I think I'm on the same page as you Kestana. But how much regard will the SDF show the END RESULT of Alan Wake now do you think? ;)


  • Jojo51 #108 2 years ago

    I'm desappointed to see that when I try to find more simple example, you continue to not understand what I'm trying to explain you. I dont know if you really dont understand or otherwise that an stubborn attitude resulting of a lack argumentation. Well, to please you, I going to respond part at part at your futile question.

    You really think I'll be impressed by a retread and elaboration of the same vague nonsense from your first post? I'll ask you again, why are these SUPPOSITIONS of yours superior to DF's? Bayonetta isn't HDR... do you know this for a fact then? Since I don't know it for a fact I'd like a link or something, because that would be very interesting to me, as the lighting model is one of the most impressive aspects of the game IMO.

    I'm never told my supposition are superior of DF's one, just try to show how their declarations of some hypotetic hardware issues of the PS3 are real nonsense. The example that I chose with Gow 3 are very usefull to prove it ! Yes, Gow 3 is full HDR rendering and no Bayonetta. If you little notion in 3D rasterised, you will easy agree that this kind of technologie is much more effective and very complexe to generate in place of the "basic" rendering technic mostly used in the biggest part of games designed even for this generation. If you want to learn what kind of difference, just read the DF's article published on this same website, about Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2. You will find a good analyse of Gow 3 engine with everything that I've already spoke in my precedent post at this link :

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-makin g-of-god-of-war-iii?page=4
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/the-ma...[/link]

    The lightning effect of Bayonetta have nothing technicaly spectacular, it's just a overdose of light effects, if you find this ligntning model is one of the cmost impressive, good news for you, but he cannot be compared to what we can see in Gow 3. Reread the DF's article upper link, if you haven't understood yet... Regarding this situation how a "normal" man can trust an article telling that the PS3 cannot do the same job for Bayonetta, if with another example we can admire how this machine can make a lot of more efficient, complexe and realistic render ! If you cannot agree with that, I cannot do more to help you, my advise is : just take a meeting with a psy...

    And what do you mean by "very complex geometry" in GoW3, in terms of performance that's basically just polygons so... do you know the peak polygons per second each game is capable of? You still haven't answered any of my questions, have *you* "compared the programs themselves"? Again I'd be fascinated if you can back up your claims in ANY WAY, because my bet would be on Bayonetta for higher basic geometry output, but I'm always happy to learn something.

    For the course, polygones are 3D element not programming code. To compare the number of polygon in a scene, analysing the program code will not give you the answer... Well, it is a very simple exercice to compare the geometry of this two games, just opening eyes. Example, take a screenshot with a view of Kratos and compare the same type of picture with Bayonetta. you will see the gulf that separing this two 3D models. Same way for the level design, in Bayonetta the environnement are composed the big part of time, of flate or cubic and simplistic 3D element like monument, houses, indoor or outdoor the result is the same. Another example with the other 3D model, the ennemis are basicaly designed too and don't use a lot of polygones. beside this, the battle scenes in Bayonetta doesn't purpose an hight number of ennemis at the same time, max 10 of it maybe, but in very the most part, you fight 4 or 5 ennemis together. Gow 3 offer gorgeous environnement with very complex 3D model, their are 3D modelised, not simple object multitextured like Bayonetta does, battle with 5 time more ennemis, the 3D models of them are more complex too, all of that with motion blur, DOF, HDR, High-end anti-aliasing etc etc... Sorry to repeat it, but open your eyes and admit (admire) the gulf between this two game engines.

    Yet those details are irrelevant to where this argument stands. You've stubbornly ignored my central point twice now, all the wonderful things GoW3 may be doing that Bayonetta isn't... don't magically prove PS3 can do the things Bayonetta IS doing that GoW3 simply ISN'T.

    Your ignorance or your lies (pick the right choice) is quite unbelievable ! Yes those very complexe and advanced technics prove that the PS3 can make much much better that we can see with the Bayonetta's engine. Simply because those effects are more difficult to code and need more and an huge amount of power ! For the image, don't you think that Hussein Bolt can run the 100m under 10,5s when he already proved that he beat it in less than 9,60s... I'm enough clear now, or do I need to explain more and more this evidence ??? Hope you will, at last, admit it...

    See that I'm not avoiding to respond your question, not even during the two first post. I've spent enough time trying to make you understand your bad idea with a lot of and right examples, explanations, arguments. Beside this, where are yours ?

    At last, if you cannot understand the answers, I cannot do more (on more time). Go read some good article on wikipedia (some are very good) or try to take some course in 3D modeling / Programing. On my side, that's a part of my job, so...

    Regards,

  • BuckEntropy #109 2 years ago

    @Jojo51

    *melodramatic sigh*

    I've already given a much more precise example than almost anything in that... pile of subjectivity there. The one example I've been trying to get across all along, the OVERDRAW in Bayonetta, which GoW3 does not exhibit anything close to that level. And yet again you have indeed evaded direct response, instead just pointing your finger, insistently, at OTHER things GoW3 is doing.

    Plus you still haven't given any new evidence, other than a yet larger shovel of subjective assertions, for how pitifully low grade Bayonetta is. I yet have no reason to trust your opinion that Bayoneta isn't HDR. (which is a loose term anyway, there are many grades and implementations of high dynamic range lighting)

    The original Bayoetta face-off only presents one main judgment about it's... implausibility on PS3. The overdraw / bandwidth issue. Everything else, like memory related issues, is inferred as further hassles of the actual porting. GoW3, made by a team at least twice the size, and something like five times the budget, as a prestige title for Sony... is obviously going to make far better use of the specific resources of PS3. And to phenomenal result.

    But again, it doesn't do all the SAME THINGS as Bayonetta. Specifically it doesn't do anything close to all that blending... which was RL/DF's only precluding criteria for Bayonetta's chances on PS3. And it's the only point I've been making all along, the example of GoW3 does nothing that pertains to that one issue, so there remains nothing on PS3 that looks as accomplished as Bayonetta FOR WHAT IT'S DOING.

  • Kestana #110 2 years ago

    Is it just me or is Jojo going around in circles?

    Also, I'm beginning to believe that Jojo's English isn't up to scrap. Particularly reading comprehension.

    I still can't see why he insists GOW3 employs brute force (aka insane polygon) counts for the environment. It's a waste of resource. You can achieve the same visual effect with far fewer polygons and parallax occlusion. And you get much more GPU time and a much smaller frame buffer rendering less polygons. Hence, they're able to concentrate where detail is necessary like Kratos himself where parallax mapping won't do much. It's either tesselation or brute polygon count for characters. There's only the latter though as the PS3 doesn't have a tesselator.

  • darc #111 2 years ago

    Wow. Jojo, in the time you spent typing all of that, you could have mowed enough lawns to pay for an XBox 360. ;)

  • pyronite #112 1 year ago

    Someone deserves to be fired for those boneheaded choices. You can literally do a better job with VirtualDub and a free codec.