Hot Pursuit PS3/360 demo showdown

By Richard Leadbetter Published 28 October, 2010

Pixel perfect.

Yesterday's release of Criterion's Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit demo serves to remind us that when it comes to cross-platform development, the Guildford-based studio is in a class of its own. Everything about the demo suggests that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of the new racer are almost totally identical.

In our Face-Off features we often talk about the social gaming network you have being more important than often minor technical differences, and Hot Pursuit is probably the most dramatic example of how important your friends list is in terms of which version of the game you should purchase.

The more people you're connected to playing the game, the better it gets. The demo craftily introduces you to this by locking out one of the two events, only making it available when someone else on your friends list has downloaded and played the sampler. With times logged, the competition begins in earnest and the ingenuity of Autolog system begins to manifest itself.

The social side of things truly is set to be the big differentiating factor in any purchasing decision, because in every measurable way we've looked at them thus far, the PS3 and 360 versions are one and the same. We did see an odd difference in the introduction sequence to the racer level - a clear blur has been added to the 360 version - but this is actually a pre-rendered video that showcases the level while the game world loads up in the background, so perhaps it is some kind of issue at the video encoding stage? The effect, not surprisingly, disappears once the gameplay itself kicks in.

blur-360
blur-ps3

The intro to the stage is a high-quality FMV that plays out as the game world is loaded into RAM, and it's here that the only real difference can be seen owing, perhaps, to a video encoding bug/issue.

Framebuffer analysis suggests that Hot Pursuit is running at native 720p with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing on both platforms. However, Criterion has some seriously impressive tech going on with regards reducing aliasing over and above the advantages brought about by the MSAA.

Right at the beginning of the racer level in the demo, pay particular attention to the power lines and road markings. Check out that crash barrier that snakes into the distance. These are exactly the kind of world object that usually break down into a sub-pixel mess the further "into" the game world you look. Here, the visual consistency is maintained all the way into the distance.

A small detail you might think, but the NFS game world is all about long roads that stretch into the distance, so reducing artifacting on faraway elements of the environment is a small but important part of the game's visual make-up.

A straight shot-for-shot analysis taken at the exact same point in the two respective demos seems to suggest some difference in the lighting scheme. In actual fact, the lighting is completely identical: the differences are down to the cloud cover overhead, dynamically adjusting the lighting below. In scenes where the 360 lighting looks brighter, it's actually the game itself adjusting the exposure of the scene based in part on the same cloud-cover. Similarly, in the night-time scene, the difference in the windshield lighting isn't a difference between the platforms, again it's a difference in the light bathing the scene owing to what is going on overhead.

lighting1-360
lighting1-ps3
lighting2-360
lighting2-ps3

The shots suggest differences in world lighting, but there are none in actuality - cloud cover dynamically lights the scene and it's constantly shifting.

Performance-wise, the demo once again hints at an entirely like-for-like experience on console. The only time we see any kind of noticeable difference is in the intro movie on the racer stage, which seems to randomly stutter on both consoles, but this is an FMV issue, not an engine problem.

There are two tracks in the demo, and the initially locked racer track is probably the best place to get a like-for-like style of measurement. In this pure racing mode, we can stick to the main road, avoiding the shortcuts to get as close to a like-for-like race as possible. What we see is that during gameplay, Hot Pursuit is locked at 30FPS on both platforms with no tearing whatsoever. Only in the non-interactive intro scene do we get to see any kind of variance from that, and even then it is effectively the same performance level on both consoles.

The racer level unlocks when a Live or PSN friend plays the demo too. This stage gives us an opportunity to compare performance in near like-for-like situations.

Onto the cop stage, and here we find that a like-for-like comparison really isn't possible. Since this is an all-out battle, the feeds from both consoles quickly de-sync, even though our time in the game is roughly the same. However, once again we see that regardless of circumstances Need for Speed remains locked at the 30FPS level at all times during gameplay, allowed to drop only when the camera shifts into Takedown mode.

Criterion allows the frame-rate to lower in these scenes in order to spend time on more impressive effects: the same principle applied in Burnout Paradise, where crash scenes ran at 30FPS - as they were slowed down, running at a very different tempo to gameplay, few people really noticed, especially as they were non-interactive.

The more dynamic Hot Pursuit level doesn't really allow for like-for-like analysis but does clearly demonstrate that both games have the same strengths and weaknesses performance-wise.

Moving on from Digital Foundry-related matters for a moment, there have been some comments about the handling model in the demo being something of a departure from the control system in Paradise, with some people describing it as heavier and less responsive. On the latter point, it's true that in the drop from 60FPS down to 30FPS input latency will be increased - this is something we'll measure at a later date.

However, what should be pointed out is that the demo is only allowing you access to what are effectively the slowest cars available in the whole game. In the full game, directly after the roadster level you play in the demo, you gain preview access to an ultra-limited edition version of the Pagani Zonda which gives some idea of just how fine the handling model is on the higher-end cars.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit is a winner from both a gameplay and technical perspective, so expect something special from Digital Foundry closer to the game's release, and watch out for Eurogamer's full review then too.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (121) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • DavoTheDiv #1 2 years ago

    First. Gay. Lol. Whatever.......

  • TheRook21 #2 2 years ago

    @djronz
    I suspect there will be a face off for GT5... and I'm guessing you will hardly be able to see any detail on the 360 version...

  • defragg #3 2 years ago

    Rock steady frame rate on both platforms plus identical visuals. Win win I guess.

  • edhe #4 2 years ago

    @djronz i think you're missing his.

    Platform parity yay, i guess... 4 years later.

  • karooo #5 2 years ago

    Great job criterion.

  • UKVampire_2010 #6 2 years ago

    Having just finished playing the Demo on the 360 and ps3, Honestly I've got to say I prefer the ps3 version which is really annoying as i've pre-ordered it for the 360. I just find the ps3 version to be more responsive.

  • bell_801 #7 2 years ago

    The detail on the 36 is superior, i find the ps3 version more vaselined for some reason.

  • Beano #8 2 years ago

    This article just confirms my own PS3+360 demo camparisons yesterday - the two demos are completely identical :)
    Any difference will be due to different setup, cabling, etc.

    I'm a huge Burnout fan and was expecting a Burnout game with the NFS-name pasted on, but judged by the demo it's seems more like a true NFS game with a few Burnout elements thrown in. Not complaning, just a positive surprise - really looking forward to this :D
    Only downside is the lover framerate (hoped for 60fps) but at least it's completely locked, no tearing and looking great and colorful.

    Curious how the free roaming element will work... any info on this?
    Edited by Beano at 28/10/10 @ 09:46

  • bloodflowers #9 2 years ago

    30fps :(

    I really wanted this to be 60, arcade racers are so, SO much better when they run smoothly, I guess I'll skip this installment. I loved Need For Speed: Most Wanted and I was hoping this would recapture some of the fun, but 30fps racing just doesn't give you the same adrenaline rush.

    The saddest part is we know from their past games that Criterion does know this, or used to.
    Edited by bloodflowers at 28/10/10 @ 10:22

  • technicianTed #10 2 years ago

    One day the ps3 will get a cross platform game that is noticibly better on their machine.

    Hell would have frozen over by then of course.

  • Widge #11 2 years ago

    Did you play Final Fantasy 13? And what is the weather forecast?
    Edited by Widge at 28/10/10 @ 10:23

  • technicianTed #12 2 years ago

    Widge, Yep i forgot about FF13.

    Slightly different to cross platform games being developed at the same time though, that was well in development on ps3 before microsoft waved their wallet about to bring it speedy style to 360.

    The weather is cold but sunny.

  • funkateer #13 2 years ago

    Ok it's a rather unimportant difference, but it's a bit strange reading that having blurrier videos somehow qualifies as "pixel perfect" in a technical analysis' conclusion.

  • Arwin #14 2 years ago

    Liked the demo, but I have to admit that I too found the handling a little disappointing. I think I'll try and see if the game supports wheel, but right now I can't even find a manual shifting option.

    The social aspect of this game is absolutely fantastic though. I love that it shows how many times you tried to get your best time! Or that I can post to the wall for that challenge and say 'pwned' ... it's the first time I genuinely enjoyed writing 'pwned' anywhere, but I beat the best time posted by my next fastest friend by 34 seconds on my first try (vs 5 attempts by that guy), so I thought it was appropriate.
    Edited by Arwin at 28/10/10 @ 10:51

  • DrDamn #15 2 years ago

    @UKVampire_2010
    I actually felt the same, I prefer the 360 controller - particularly triggers - but felt the controls were a little better on the PS3 despite my hands not feeling as comfortable. I think it may just have been down to which I played first and getting a bit more experience of the game by the time I played on the PS3.
    Edited by DrDamn at 28/10/10 @ 10:54

  • Retro_ #16 2 years ago

    Nice to see 100% like for like, I expected nothing less though from Criterion, paradise was near on identical too.

  • Negotiator #17 2 years ago

    They just said that both versions are the same, and yet the muppets on these forums say that one version is better than the other. Read the article, they are identical, meaning there is no difference.

  • Negotiator #18 2 years ago

    Loving this game and to be honest I thought it was running at 60fps, it is a very smooth 30fps and that lets them do alot more visual effects.

  • RevanNL #19 2 years ago

    Maybe it's me but I thought the game was rather meh. Gameplay was a bit dull and felt like an updated version of Test Drive Unlimited.

  • menage #20 2 years ago

    Was there only one level in the demo? I really didn't see anything else there.

    It was all very exciting until I started driving myself. Nice looking but boring.

  • Arwin #21 2 years ago

    There's a second level as soon as you have someone on your friends list who also played the demo.

  • orangpelupa #22 2 years ago

    wow so same between ps360 :D
    finally a game that good on both version. no bad port :D

    btw this make me become more curious with the PC version. The ps3 and xbox are good. Here i hope the PC also got good port :D

  • sonicyoda #23 2 years ago

    @TechnicianTed

    Castlevania was better on PS3. Mainly because you don't have to swap discs.

    But then again, there is that save bug I keep hearing about. If that gets patched then jobs a good'un.
    Edited by sonicyoda at 28/10/10 @ 12:04

  • Badassbab #24 2 years ago

    UKVampire_2010-

    Burnout Paradise lead on PS3 and was a touch smoother I believe. So not surpirsed.

  • StolenGlory #25 2 years ago

    I did have quite a lot of fun with this. Again, the handling was quite strange to get used to as I mentioned earlier but I can certainly see great things coming from the social aspect that this game so readily offers in spades and from my own personal experience, I was able to settle into the handling model after a little while.

    Additionally, i'll be very much looking forward to getting my hands on the more powerful cars and seeing how the handling model deals with them.

    Will certainly be buying this on day one.

    @DavoTheDiv: Fuck you.

  • RobTheBuilder #26 2 years ago

    I was a little disappointed by the handling intitially, until I made a huge drift round a big corner and grinned!

    This game makes me wish I had a good PC so I could get it running at 60fps+

  • frostcircus #27 2 years ago

    It's either "as regards" or "with regard to." I don't know where this "with regards [x]" thing came from, but my Roman lecturer uses it all the time and I may eat my own face

  • onyxbox #28 2 years ago

    if RL says it's a tie then the PS3 version must be better ;)

  • FuzzyDuck #29 2 years ago

    Criterion shows how it's done again, well done to them.

  • man.the.king #30 2 years ago

    @onyxbox

    "if RL says it's a tie then the PS3 version must be better ;) "

    Actually, in THIS case I suspect Leadbetter is telling the truth, there is nothing to spin here.

    One example of where you can tell he is manipulating the English language is instances where you can see that PS3 version has an advantage, and RL goes beyond his usual criteria for face-offs and starts ADDING criteria that makes the 360 version look good as compared to the PS3 version - for an example of this, see the Vanquish face-off. He did not lie in the conclusion for the Vanquish face-off, but did everything possible to imply that the PS3 advantage was infinitesimal.
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 14:47

  • FenderMaster #31 2 years ago

    Loved Hot Pursuit 2 on PS2, great to hear this is shaping up well! Also great to know nobody will lose out in terms of port quality!

  • FenderMaster #32 2 years ago

    Loved Hot Pursuit 2 on PS2, great to hear this is shaping up well! Also great to know nobody will lose out in terms of port quality!

  • lukaz #33 2 years ago

    @bloodflowers

    You're right. We need more 60fps games. It's sad to see more and more developers going back to 30fps :(.

  • Darren #34 2 years ago

    I tried the PS3 demo last and thought it was a lot of fun. Ten minutes later I pre-ordered it for the PC which I believe will run uncapped so 60 fps will be achievable. Shame there is no demo though for that format but seeing as the PC version of Burnout Paradise was very solid I'd be surprised if NfS: Hot Pursuit wasn't equally as polished. Criterion are decent coders after all.

  • technicianTed #35 2 years ago

    man.the.king, not another Leadbetter loves to spin the facts story.

    Maybe just maybe he's telling the truth, after all it's very rare that a cross platform game is better on the ps3.
    And before people bring up FF13 again, i'm talking about games developed from day one equally across both machines.

    The sony defence force(SDF)just can't seem to accept that the 360 versions are generally better.
    They seem to make up some bizarre accusations of 'bias' 'spin' 'rubbish coding' etc as to why the games aren't performing as well on the sony machine.

    If you looked closer to home like at the poorly designed ps3 which is awkward to work on for the majority of developers, you'll find the real answer as to why the ps3 has had a hard time with cross platform games.
    It's a pain in the arse to work on and expensive to get decent results on.
    Blame sony, they've already admitted the ps4 will be more in line with pc specs, they know the score.

    Now neg me to death cos i love it!

  • Quixz #36 2 years ago

    This game doesnt look 720p to me on my 360 anyways. I compared it to forza and pgr and NFS looked lower resolution.

  • Tinrib72 #37 2 years ago

    Couldnt give a stuff which is better tbh as I only own one of the consoles (How many people own both?). Enjoying the demo a lot by the way, roll on release date!

  • man.the.king #38 2 years ago

    @technicianTed

    "Maybe just maybe he's telling the truth, after all it's very rare that a cross platform game is better on the ps3.
    And before people bring up FF13 again, i'm talking about games developed from day one equally across both machines. "

    And WHY should they not bring up FF13? After all, most multi-platform/cross-platform PS3 games lead on the 360, and 90% of the time are ports to the PS3.

    As for the truth, I never said RL lies, just that he will pick and choose facts, or emphasize or downplay points selectively so as to present his facts in a desired light.

    "not another Leadbetter loves to spin the facts story"

    Before you accuse me of confirmation bias, how about looking at yourself for willful ignorance?

    I have read your posts, and I know which way you lean, and I think I have a good idea of just how objective you are.

    "The sony defence force(SDF)just can't seem to accept that the 360 versions are generally better.
    They seem to make up some bizarre accusations of 'bias' 'spin' 'rubbish coding' etc as to why the games aren't performing as well on the sony machine. "

    Right - so anybody who notices an editorial slant in RL's articles is SDF is it? One might JUST AS EASILY say one who fails to notice it is an XBot.

    So are you one?
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 18:00

  • rojjer #39 2 years ago

    Beware the trolls!

  • Pickster #40 2 years ago

    "This game doesnt look 720p to me on my 360 anyways. I compared it to forza and pgr and NFS looked lower resolution."

    I actually thought the same. Must be the post processing

  • TheMitch #41 2 years ago

    Burnout Paradise, Vanquish and this, examples of why leading on PS3 is a much better option.

  • VandelayIndustries #42 2 years ago

    I'm sure I've read that Burnout Paradise was not 'lead' on PS3 but rather both versions were worked on at the same time. In any case well done to Criterion, and now to poll my mates to see which version to buy :D

  • Doctor_What #43 2 years ago

    @VandelayIndustries: BP was led on the PS3.

    Good work everyone at Criterion. It's good to know your long nights get results.

  • BruiserBear #44 2 years ago

    I'm kind of surprised Richard missed this, but if you look at the reflections on the ground at the car select screen, particularly with the police cars, you'll notice the PS3 has a higher res reflection map. The words reflected from the side of the car are easier to read on the PS3.
    Edited by BruiserBear at 28/10/10 @ 20:56

  • miiiguel #45 2 years ago

    It's clearly much better on the PS3. No one can beat the power of the C3ll. Folks buy the game on the PS3! We have to stay together if we want to beat the Xbox.

  • man.the.king #46 2 years ago

    ^ ^ ^
    Right above me is another troll, and a true-and-tried 360 fanboy :).
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 20:28

  • Calgon #47 2 years ago

    You can deny it all you want but thats what most of you SDF clowns look like, just because you agree with each other doesn't mean you are the majority it means you are all sad enough to think you have any kind of authority on the matter.

    Impartial is not a word anyone would use to describe you, man.the.king(or DjRonz... and before either of you predictably tell me "I have 360 so Im not a troll its just PS3 is better" or any other braindead logic you want to come up with as a poor excuse for your behaviour) it's laughable with your attitude that you are trying to suggest bias in RL and pointing the finger at Miiiguel who was obviously having a joke at the resident SDF trolls... of course they dont exist according to you I guess yet I'll bet anyone randomly visiting who posses no bias would pick up on this on going theme where members feel the need to troll because "everyone loves the 360 more and are jealous Xbots with hidden agendas... so I will bitch and troll and insert PS3 hype even when it has no place whatsoever in the thread"
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/10 @ 20:43

  • AdamAsunder #48 2 years ago

    Parity. Nice. Shame the actual game plays like a diluted Burnout Revenge.

  • man.the.king #49 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    Reading your drivel, I was reminded of flustered, out-of-breath kids who are so rattled they don't stop or pause while speaking.

    "to have mature discussions on gaming that dont get interupted by immature and insecure dullards"

    I'm sure you have lots of "mature discussions on gaming" with like-minded paragons of objectivity such as fable3, hammerhead, tigerstyle, TVR, etc.
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 21:10

  • Calgon #50 2 years ago

    man.the.king Im sure you think you are a respected member here and a shining example of impartiality, wit and maturity, sorry to burst your bubble but you need to get out more and stop crying because you beleive your favourite console or console maker is being picked on. :(

    Get a fucking life. :) *see we can all add smilies to offensive comments or sly potshots at other members to hide our true sentiments/agendas*

    There was nothing immature about it, you and your kind are indeed ruining the site for others and spitting your dummy out at Richard every other week for not replicating your own pro PS3/Sony sentiments, this is insecure and immature behaviour. Do you see me posting Halo Reach or Gears of War comments in unrelated PS3 articles? No because Im not a troll, I'm happy for others to have their own preferences, it makes no difference to me whatsoever I understand that much, Im not at all wrapped up in the "console war" like you seem to be.
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/10 @ 21:28

  • Calgon #51 2 years ago

    The RL bias thing has been maturely discussed in a number of these face off forums

    Oh I see I get your point kind of like how teletubbies is considered mature veiwing... or not.

  • man.the.king #52 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    "I'm happy for others to have their own preferences"

    No you are not - else why would you become so vitriolic?

    I can literally feel the anger, hate and fury bubbling through your words. Maybe it's you who needs to be a little less invested in your 360? Or maybe it's nothing to do with the 360, and everything to do with your ego?

    And here's another :)
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 21:30

  • Calgon #53 2 years ago

    djronz I think the first paragraph covers that nicely you just choose to deny it. The offensive comment was deliberatly used with a smiley just like his potshot at Miiiguel was(I knew you'd try and use that though), who didnt get personal with anyone(there is deffinately a big problem with SDF clogging up 360 articles with bile on EG everybody knows this), it was man.the.king getting defensive.

    edit: I suggest you read my words properly, he got personal with miiiguel because he got defensive have a read up(went something like the person above me is just a big 360 fanboy who needs to STFU... in so many words)... adding a smiley at the end as if he wasn't getting all personal when he most certainly was. So then I made a personal/insulting remark and added a smiley on the end and it wasn't ok, you follow? ;)

    edit: Im not emotionally invested in this situation at all sorry to break it to you man.the.king your level of wit can only invoke pity and perhaps laughter. You do seem to be DESPERATELY trying to save face like theres a big EG audience waiting on our every word(nobody cares you buffoon get over yourself) or something, I think its funny really, which is why I suggested you need to get a life. Another laugh was had when you suggested missplaced ego? Coming from you! :) Haha you are funny, sorry man.the.king but I've got your number. ;)
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/10 @ 21:51

  • man.the.king #54 2 years ago

    @Calgon

    "Haha you are funny, sorry man.the.king but I've got your number"

    Well, I'm happy for you - you must be so much the wiser for that.

    @djronz

    I'm fully expecting Calgon to say "pistols at dawn" in his next post :)
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/10/10 @ 21:42

  • Neikos #55 2 years ago

    i must say! i'm glad that now that EA is looking at us and telling yes PS3 owners are a good part of our industry they are putting some money into making ps3 games they took long but they are here to stay both games looks the game but it seems thats the ps3 version in more sharpen than the x360 version.

  • fm5858 #56 2 years ago

    Its funny that everyones commenting on the LACK of a 360 slant to this feature,
    as if we're so used to a sly lean towards the xbox that the absence of one is worthy
    of comment.

  • Retroid #57 2 years ago

    @man.the.king: "One example of where you can tell he is manipulating the English language is instances where you can see that PS3 version has an advantage, and RL goes beyond his usual criteria for face-offs and starts ADDING criteria that makes the 360 version look good as compared to the PS3 version - for an example of this, see the Vanquish face-off. He did not lie in the conclusion for the Vanquish face-off, but did everything possible to imply that the PS3 advantage was infinitesimal."

    A segment in an article which pondered if there was a difference in input timings - when it was clear each had a different approach to buffering / presenting the images onscreen. Buffering frames can cause lag. That was the issue being tested. These things have discussed in articles devoted to controller lag.

    So, what: things like that shouldn't be tested because they might cause offence?
    Edited by Retroid at 28/10/10 @ 22:41

  • VandelayIndustries #58 2 years ago

    @Doctor What
    Are you ex-Criterion? I think it was in one of the CG podcasts they were asked that question and the producer (I think) said that there was no specific lead and in fact had to move people off the 360 version to the PS3.

    Nevertheless happy to be corrected :)

  • technicianTed #59 2 years ago

    Only difference i could see from the first of the two videos were an added glider effect on the 360 version and somewhere past the 2 min mark you can see some leaves flashing past near the top left hand corner that were missing from the ps3 version(blink and you'll miss them).

    Having not tried the demo's yet it could be the glider plane spawns at different times, but i can only report what i saw in the vid(and the birds spawn in the same place on 360 and ps3).

    I could join the other hopeful fans here and say 'the 360 version looks a tad sharper to me' but both versions look horribly identicle.
    What's the point of producing near identicle games when there's nothing for us fanboys to moan about?
    I can't even moan about the framerate in the first video, it never dropped under 30fps on both versions from what i could see.

  • Badassbab #60 2 years ago

    Ok played both versions now and the main obvious difference is contrast, and as usual 360 is darker and PS3 lighter. Personally prefer the contrast on 360 as I think the PS3 lighter contrast looks washed out. For the record I played it on exactly the same tv settings on the same TV via HDMI and all the settings on both consoles set to the best picture quality output.

    The really odd thing is even though both are locked @ 30fps I thought the PS3 version felt more responsive. I'm sure the PS3 would win in the input lag. Apparently the same was true of Burnout Paradise also by Criterion. Don't like the default control settings for the PS3.

  • Pickster #61 2 years ago

    Now I am interested in what the outcome of the controller lag test will be.

    Not because I want to see some bias/slant on the result, but because Criterion have said they want to minimise controller lag. If there is a difference I hope Criterion can/will tell us why!

  • RobTheBuilder #62 2 years ago

    Sorry to interrupt the system banter. But EA on twitter claim the record for the cop level is under 50 seconds. How on EARTH? As far as I can tell it's literally impossible... anyone here got close to that?

  • womble #63 2 years ago

    @TheRook21: Perhaps a better comparison would be GT5 vs Forza 9.

    That assumes, of course, that GT5 is out by then...

    snicker.

  • RKOwned #64 2 years ago

    Doubt theyll be much difference. Criterion knows what they are doing.

  • man.the.king #65 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "So, what: things like that shouldn't be tested because they might cause offence? "

    Was this always a criteria, or was this hastily introduced for the Vanquish particular face-off?

    I have no problem with things like that being tested, provided they are going to be tested ALWAYS from now on.

    I like how you ignored the point that I made - that this was not a criteria in EARLIER face-offs, but had to be made an IMPORTANT part of the Vanquish face-off as most criteria that RL had used PREVIOUSLY put the 360 at a disadvantage for that particular face-off. So important that he devoted a WHOLE PAGE to a < 15ms difference. And I GUARANTEE that for any other face-offs where the 360 has the advantage in the USUAL criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA, blur) RL will NOT raise an issue of controller latency if it puts the PS3 at an advantage, and even if mentioned, will NEVER devote one WHOLE page for a < 15 ms difference.

    Here's another challenge from me: Show me ONE face-off where the 360 had the advantage in other criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA), and he still harped on for ONE WHOLE PAGE about controller latency.

    My question is, why now? Why this particular face-off?

    Here's another question from me since you again rushed to RL's defence: If RL is a fair chronicler, then he should include this criteria in ALL other face-offs. Don't you agree? So here's me going out on a limb and betting that this is NOT going to be added to the list of usual criteria.

    Are you willing to bet that it WILL be added?

    If you took the bet, let me remind you - that particular criteria is missing in this particular face-off.
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 04:58

  • womble #66 2 years ago

    Gotta love how the SDF are now cheering that they didn't LOSE a showdown.

    After years of telling everyone how awesome TEH CELL is (OMFG don't let the Iranians get hold of the PS3!!!!) and how their pet console is so superior, now they're just happy that a game plays and looks IDENTICALLY to the 360 for once.

    Nice one Sony fantards. Of course, you could have just saved yourselves the effort and bought a 360 as well as your PS3. That way you could have played great games on both consoles without having to be dicks about it.

  • Felwyn #67 2 years ago

    "like theres a big EG audience waiting on our every word"

    Oh you have no idea how entertaining you are :)

    As a neutral PC-gamer who drops in just to feed on troll victims' tears, let me just say mantheking does make a case of what being coherent in such comparisons should be like, if controller lag is an issue it should be tested each and every time.

    @womble As to claims of having to buy a 360 to enjoy great games on it, is this before or after having realized all the decent games get ported onto the PC making having a 360 redundant and the notion of "360 exclusives" to be a lie?
    Edited by Felwyn at 29/10/10 @ 08:06

  • Zebula77 #68 2 years ago

    I, too, was initially put off by the heavy handling of the police car. I felt as if I was driving a boat or something.

    Then I took one of the other car out and I thought "ok, that I like!" and from there on out it was really quite a lot of fun. Also liked the menus and presentational aspects. I'll wait for the reviews but this seems like the first NFS I might get into in ages.

  • dwalker109 #69 2 years ago

    The very idea that some of you SDF and Xbot idiots are taking pot shots at the well reasoned, consistent and technically flawless work of RL makes me chuckle. Your leaps of "logic" are sub 6th form drivel.

    You do not have a clue what you are talking about, any of you. Those of us with a brain cell know this.

    Excellent, informative and interesting reading as ever. And I'm not even interested in this particular game.

  • Retroid #70 2 years ago

    @man.the.king:

    Actually, I *did* address the issue of why the latency test made sense - the difference in screen buffering between the formats on Vanquish. It's there in the article. It's there in my response. And as I mentioned, latency and frame buffering have been referenced before in relation to eachother.

    So: it made perfect sense. If it didn't then I'd agree you might have a point.

  • man.the.king #71 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Actually, I *did* address the issue of why the latency test made sense - the difference in screen buffering between the formats on Vanquish. It's there in the article. It's there in my response. And as I mentioned, latency and frame buffering have been referenced before in relation to eachother. "

    Are you saying this is the first multi-platform game, EVER, with a difference in approach to the console versions that might affect controller lag? If latency & frame buffering have been referenced in earlier face-offs, can you please provide me a link? I have been reading the face-offs on here for a few years now and do not recall any prior mention of lag:buffering.

    If you can (possibly) prove that this is the first game or show me earlier examples, then I WILL concede you have a point. On this thread.
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 12:19

  • Retroid #72 2 years ago

    I'm honestly not sure. Doesn't help that I'm posting with the iPhone app so it makes it much harder to check things!

    But I'd like the test to be a standard feature wherever it makes sense. Same as everything else, really.

  • Beano #73 2 years ago

    "Ok played both versions now and the main obvious difference is contrast, and as usual 360 is darker and PS3 lighter. Personally prefer the contrast on 360 as I think the PS3 lighter contrast looks washed out. For the record I played it on exactly the same tv settings on the same TV via HDMI and all the settings on both consoles set to the best picture quality output. "

    I have also played both demos on my TV thru HDMI and no contrast difference whatsoever. You propably have different HDMI color-range settings on our consoles which cause this - it's not the games. You can also see that there's no contrast difference in the raw-grabbed videos made by DF.
    Edited by Beano at 29/10/10 @ 12:39

  • ATNR1 #74 2 years ago

    I don't know what everyone is on about calling Richard biased. It is common knowledge that the PS3 has limitations. Compared to the 360 GPU its GPU is shit isn't it? Then again anyone with only the simplest of understanding of the two consoles architecture (like me) will know that the PS3 doesn't rely on it's GPU alone for it's graphics. It offloads many of the GPU's functions to the CPU. Functions that the 360 GPU can easily handle.

    Third Party developers has limited time, resources and budgets to produce a game. Therefor they chose to lead on the 360. It had better tools and it is easier to develop for. Meaning less cost and time. That code then gets ported to the PS3. Which in the beginning struggled to reach parity in games, because of its weaker GPU and the Cell not being utilized. Now years on thanks to the Work of the PS3 first party developers, the cpu is being utilized along with the GPU, and better tools are available. Meaning at long last the PS3 can match the 360 in visuals when it comes to third party games. It has nothing to do with power, but the different architectures. So as I see it you can spin those limitations either way, because both consoles have limitations, and Leadbetter does say the PS3 produces some top notch visuals despite of them, he hasn't said the same about the 360 now has he? Could he be indirectly insulting the 360? No of course not. It only shows the bias lies with the reader and not the writer.

    I am not convinced that leading on the PS3 is that much better than on the 360 for parity. Nowadays in most cases no matter who leads, there is only slight wins and minor differences. Which makes it harder for us multi plat owners to decide which version to buy.

    Which is probably why Richard is now looking at things like input lag and sound.
    Edited by ATNR1 at 29/10/10 @ 12:41

  • man.the.king #75 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "But I'd like the test to be a standard feature wherever it makes sense."

    Well then, let me ask you - surely you don't think buffering is the ONLY thing affecting Controller latency? There must be other factors as well.

    As Pickster has said, if Criterion had said they wanted to minimize Controller lag, shouldn't that have been a factor for comparison here as well?

    As I said here, that particular criteria is missing in this particular face-off.

    Why?
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 14:50

  • Retroid #76 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Is there anything to suggest this game (demo) is double/triple buffered on one format but not the other?

    No.

    That was the issue with Vanquish.

    Now, when it comes to the full game I'm hoping DF does a latency test as I'm curious myself with this game with Criterion opting for the extra prettiness of 30fps rather than BOP's 60fps.

  • man.the.king #77 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    You ignored THIS question of mine: "Well then, let me ask you - surely you don't think buffering is the ONLY thing affecting Controller latency? There must be other factors as well."

    Can you please answer that first without repeating that part about the buffering again?

    Because the way I see it, other factors - e.g. frame-rate, v-sync, other console-specific visual tricks used - may also affect lag, in which case Lag SHOULD have been addressed in earlier face-offs and in this one as well, but it WASN'T.

    And since you ignored that question, I'm going to repeat myself:

    As Pickster has said, if Criterion had said they wanted to minimize Controller lag, shouldn't that have been a factor for comparison here as well?

    And as I said, that particular criteria is missing in this particular face-off.
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 17:13

  • helvetica_bold #78 2 years ago

    Im loving the demo, it reminds me of Outrun so much. I dont even have any problems with the controls.
    Also, I think DICE did a great job with the backgrounds. A beautiful sense of scale as well.

    I played both versions a ton and it appears that the 360 does have a lot more contrast as usual.
    Also it looks grainer (maybe?) there's a cleaner look to the PS3 version.
    Perhaps its because my 360 is upscaling the 720p to 1080? Both system are
    output via HDMI. Im leaning toward the PS3 version.

  • Retroid #79 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Anything affecting the the time taken for an image arriving on the screen could cause lag in relation to it. But buffering is going to be a major one if one format uses it and the other doesn't.

    That's the point.

    The 360 version of Vanquish used, according to DF, a type of 'soft v-sync' which lead to some tearing and possible framerate disruption - so again that *IS* actually refering to your point, it's not avoiding it all at.

    I also responded to Pickster.
    Edited by Retroid at 29/10/10 @ 18:25

  • man.the.king #80 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "The 360 version of Vanquish used, according to DF, a type of 'soft v-sync' which lead to some tearing and possible framerate disruption - so again that *IS* actually refering to your point, it's not avoiding it all at. "

    And there have been a large number of games where there were frame-rate differences, differences in resolution, differences in instances & amount of tearing, v-sync between the PS3 and 360 versions, and those ARE major points as well - so WHY was Controller lag not measured then?

    And that is my point.
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 18:59

  • Pickster #81 2 years ago

    I think, what we have to remember right now, is that this is not a full face off. More of a primer for the real thing which will be based on the full game.

    "it's true that in the drop from 60FPS down to 30FPS input latency will be increased - this is something we'll measure at a later date"

    Thats a quote from the artical, and I hope it means we will be seeing some controller lag testing in the full fat face off

  • richyroo #82 2 years ago

    ...and in other news, my penis is bigger than yours!

  • Arwin #83 2 years ago

    If you have your Full RGB settings correct on both consoles, then typically yes there's some additional contrast added on the 360 (ATI card in there does that), which actually crushes the colors a little, but otherwise doesn't hurt much. DF handles this correctly, as one of the few sites (only?) that do, and big props to them.

    Also, badass,

    "For the record I played it on exactly the same tv settings on the same TV via HDMI and all the settings on both consoles set to the best picture quality output. "

    These two things can't both be true.

  • Retroid #84 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    It should be a standard test, it sounds useful.

    And has been pointed out by several people including myself, this isn't a test on the game itself, just the demo.

  • Retroid #85 2 years ago

    @buying1999

    Have you read the article? It says they're effectively identical.

  • man.the.king #86 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "And has been pointed out by several people including myself, this isn't a test on the game itself, just the demo. "

    OK - fair enough (although you did dodge the point I was making that why was it specially introduced for the Vanquish face-off when there have been other instances in the past that would have been just as deserving).

    Let's see if RL analyzes lag in the face-off for the actual game (or whether he skips the face-off for the retail version), and if he analyzes lag, let's see the difference and whether he is again willing to devote another ENTIRE page for something that is as comparatively inconsequential as a varying 10ms difference, if the PS3 version has the advantage.
    Edited by man.the.king at 29/10/10 @ 22:21

  • womble #87 2 years ago

    @Felwyn: "As to claims of having to buy a 360 to enjoy great games on it"

    I didn't make any such claim. It's just something you made up.

    I said that PS3 fanboys should buy a 360 AS WELL. That way, they could enjoy good quality cross-platform games AND PS3 exclusives. And that way, they wouldn't have to whine all the time.

    As for the PC, who cares? It's a PS3-360 showdown.

    So get it right next time.

  • RobTheBuilder #88 2 years ago

    PC is entirely relevant when we are talking about the merits of 30fps versus 60fps.
    I wish more games would do what Motorhead did WAY back on PS1, choose 60fps with low detail or 30fps with high detail. I picked 60fps every time.

  • db3 #89 2 years ago

    Disappointed by the handling, real step back from shift. Would have preferred lots of traffic and realistic handling rather than speed drifts and nitro boosts. Might be fun if I can get over that.

  • Retroid #90 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    I didn't dodge anything, thanks. I've said before that I'll only try to answer things I can, I'm not going to answer for anyone else or when I just don't know.

    I know doing both is a fine internet tradition but that's not one I go in for personally ;p

  • Grayfox32 #91 2 years ago

    the game sucks, who cares about the graphics
    THE CONTROLS were horrible, felt like i was handling a bathtub.

  • man.the.king #92 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "I didn't dodge anything, thanks. I've said before that I'll only try to answer things I can, I'm not going to answer for anyone else or when I just don't know"

    Seems to me as if that particular rule of yours is a bit hit-and-miss - you don't always adhere to it :)

    You seemed willing enough to speak on Richard's behalf here, here and here.

    You seemed very confident that screen buffering is a big enough difference to start measuring associated controller lag. You were presenting your opinion in those instances as if that was, without a doubt, Richard's reasoning in introducing latency in the Vanquish face-off.

    THEN you turned around and said you could not answer for RL or didn't know enough to judge whether differences in frame-rate, screen-tear, v-sync, frame-rate capping, blur were ALSO reasons major enough to measure controller lag as well.

    Well, if you are not sure whether these should be factors as well, let me point you to this DF article, by the very same Richard Leadbetter.

    Edited by man.the.king at 30/10/10 @ 05:44

  • DoctorFouad #93 2 years ago

    Finally a game identical for both platforms ! wow ! what an achievement ! I liked the demo (ps3) maybe I will buy the game after all (eventhough I would have prefered a 60 fps game, the game is not as responsive and fluid as 60 fps games are)

  • jellyBelly #94 2 years ago

    Having played F1 2010 for the last couple of weeks, NFS felt like I was driving a bus/bathtub/tank/submarine, etc. etc

    Was going to buy this but now not so sure. Perhaps the cars available latter on are more responsive, but on the basis of this demo im keeping my wallet shut.

  • moriss #95 2 years ago

    "I'm kind of surprised Richard missed this, but if you look at the reflections on the ground at the car select screen, particularly with the police cars, you'll notice the PS3 has a higher res reflection map. The words reflected from the side of the car are easier to read on the PS3."


    OMG!!!! I ORDERED THE 360 VERSION, MY LIFE IS OVER I HAVE MADE A TRAGIC MISTAKE!!!! WHAT WOZ I THINKNIG?!?! PS3 FTW, 3650 FAIL!!!!!

  • Retroid #96 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    That's how you're choosing to read things. It seems you feel a need to make everything fit a narrative. If something's not answered, then it's dodging. If a new test is brought in, then it must be to try to produce a 'win' for a favourite format, there's no other possible reason.

    I just don't get that kind of approach. It's needlessly confrontational.

  • Retroid #97 2 years ago

    @djronz

    It's an idiot skating on thin ice, that's who it is.

  • man.the.king #98 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "I just don't get that kind of approach. It's needlessly confrontational."

    Surely you agree that different people have different ways of approaching things. When I was in the UK (Yes, I lived in the UK for 2.5 years), one of the managers at the company I worked at in Tolworth used to say I didn't pull my punches :). From my perspective, I just used to say what I thought without beating around the bush. And I'm just as okay with someone else speaking their mind to me.

    Anyway, if you feel offended, sorry.

    And to answer your points:

    "If something's not answered, then it's dodging."

    I would not have said that if you had not replied with such conviction that screen buffering was a major factor for introducing controller lag measurement, and by the same token appeared to imply that other factors such as differences in frame-rate, tearing, capping, etc were not as important. And then, when pushed to reply about other factors, you said you did not know enough or could not answer for RL.

    So honest, genuine question, no accusation: do you not think that when you asserted that screen buffering was a defining factor, that was also an instance of an opinion, seemingly being presented as RL's reasoning, in effect, answering for him?

    Understand, though, that I do not have a problem with opinion being presented. As you have said before, you are not RL, and neither am I. We don't know what goes on in his head - the best we can offer is our opinions. I asked whether the other factors were not also major enough to have introduced controller lag measurement in earlier face-offs, and all I was asking for was your opinion. But you then said you did not know enough about it. And I happened to think that that response was at odds with your earlier conviction about screen buffering - that was all.

    "It seems you feel a need to make everything fit a narrative. If something's not answered, then it's dodging. If a new test is brought in, then it must be to try to produce a 'win' for a favourite format, there's no other possible reason. "

    About the narrative part, sometimes yeah :). But then don't you agree everything has a reason, known or unknown, reasoned or unconscious? I don't believe in co-incidences, I'm more of a "everything in the universe is connected, we just can't catch all the connections" sort of guy. About the dodging part, yes I could have worded that better.As for the new test, it's not just about that face-off - it was based upon a pattern noticed over face-offs for over a hundred games now, where Richard plays linguistic tricks by emphasizing and downplaying points selectively, and at times (such as the Vanquish face-off) goes off on tangents.

    Anyway, I believe this discussion has started veering more towards personalities rather than on-topic - do you mind if we switch to PM? Or do you prefer to continue in the thread itself?

    Or should we just agree to disagree? - I believe Richard is not always straightforward, and employs spin to manipulate the impression being put forward in his articles. You believe that he is honest and without guile. I don't think we are going to be able to convince each other or make the other see things from our points-of-view.
    Edited by man.the.king at 30/10/10 @ 15:16

  • Retroid #99 2 years ago

    I'm fine with agreeing to disagree - life would indeed be very boring if everyone agreed on everything :)

    If you'd prefer to switch to PM then that's fine. Not my intention to switch to the topic of personalities at all - I was just referring to approach.

    Oh, and in talking about latency, buffering etc. - I only said 'buffering frames *can* cause lag'. Not that it definitely did in Vanquishes case, it was a likely reason for that test which made sense to me.

  • man.the.king #100 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Oh, and in talking about latency, buffering etc. - I only said 'buffering frames *can* cause lag'. Not that it definitely did in Vanquishes case, it was a likely reason for that test which made sense to me. "

    Unfortunately, it did not make any sense to me - the PRIMARY reason being that there have been over a hundred face-offs with several other factors JUST AS IMPORTANT, and RL did not see fit to talk about controller lag or devote an entire page to it THEN. And, for THAT reason, the timing seemed suspicious.
    Edited by man.the.king at 30/10/10 @ 16:23

  • Retroid #101 2 years ago

    The timing seemed suspicious *to you*.

    I've also said I think it should be a standard part of the face-offs *but* that it made sense in the context of both formats seemingly getting the visuals onto the screen in slightly different ways which *could* affect latency. And as proven by the test, the differences were very small indeed.

    If the games on both formats performed identically and then he said "hey, let's test latency on the different formats!" - well, THEN I would agree it would seem suspicious.

    Do you see?

  • man.the.king #102 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    I understand what you mean just fine.

    What I'm wondering is whether you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I say - JUST as differences in screen buffering is a factor that can affect latency, differences in frame-rate, capping, resolution, textures, tear, v-sync etc CAN ALSO affect latency.And in a major portion of the face-offs, there have been differences between these two versions as far as these other factors, mentioned above, are concerned. And measuring latency then would have made JUST AS MUCH SENSE as it made now. So why didn't he? It's not as if he was not aware of lag, as the Sep 2009 article proves. He should have done this earlier, why wait until there was a game with the PS3 being marginally better in all aspects to introduce this? And once started, WHY DID HE STOP when NFS demo came out?

    I hope you see what I mean - I suspect you are too caught up in making your point to pay any attention to what I'm saying :)

  • Retroid #103 2 years ago

    I can see the point you're going for perfectly which is why I've already said - several times - that I hope it becomes a standard features in face-offs. My point was just about why, in that particular case, it made perfect sense to add on the test. Rather than the odd conclusion that it was only there because his 'favourite' format wasn't coming out on top.

    Also, this *is* just a quick once-over of the demo. Not the full game.

  • zztopp #104 2 years ago

    Am I missing something here? I tried the demo on the 360 and while the game moves smooth and is fun, there were muddy textures and a whole lot of jaggies as if no anti aliasing was implemented. Compared to Burnout Paradise, Hot Pursuit doesn't look sharp enough.

  • man.the.king #105 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    "Rather than the odd conclusion that it was only there because his 'favourite' format wasn't coming out on top. "

    Odd from your perspective, maybe. From the trend I have observed in the face-offs for the last hundred games or so, it makes perfect sense to me.

  • neems #106 2 years ago

    Sorry to go off topic for a moment, but has anybody here played the demo for Hot Pursuit? Any opinions?

  • fm5858 #107 2 years ago

    Wow!
    You deleted my last post (which 2 people liked) but you haven't even deleted the guy selling trainers and handbags.

    Stay classy!

  • Retroid #108 2 years ago

    This isn't my paying job, you know. I can only attend all this when I've got spare time.

    Stay classy!
    Edited by Retroid at 31/10/10 @ 19:52

  • man.the.king #109 2 years ago

    @neems

    "Sorry to go off topic for a moment, but has anybody here played the demo for Hot Pursuit?"

    That brought a great big smile to my face - a +1 from me :)

  • Retroid #110 2 years ago

    Me too :)

  • fshockz #111 2 years ago

    Criterion, oh dear.

  • man.the.king #112 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    These spammers seem to have become quite aggressive - is it possible to block them?

  • neems #113 2 years ago

    If you mean the guys selling stuff, I kinda like 'em. The ones on Eurogamer really do try (sometimes) - you'll be reading the comments, and somebody will say "I didn't think it was that bad... reads like a seven... buy all the latest sports training gear for great prices!"

    I like a touch of the surreal in my pointless advertising.

  • Retroid #114 2 years ago

    We're trying to block spammers, trust me!

    The difficulty is that they can hit & run and turn up again with new accounts quite quickly. There was a period a few weeks back when I was banning several hundred(!) a day :(

  • BruiserBear #115 2 years ago

    I've spotted two very small differences in the demo so far. As I noted earlier, when choosing your cop car the words reflected on the wet ground from the side of the cop car look better on the PS3. Better reflection mapping?

    Also, when it loads up the overworld map on the 360 there is a slight stutter, which is absent from the PS3 build.

    Even the best multiplatform developers like Criterion can't make their game absolutely 100% identical on different hardware, and the PS3 is always their lead build. So it's not too surprising to see some tiny pluses for the PS3 code.
    Edited by BruiserBear at 01/11/10 @ 14:20

  • BuckEntropy #116 2 years ago

    Breaking News - TEXTURES cause latency!: Should we get rid of them?

    @man.the.king - "differences in frame-rate, capping, resolution, textures, tear, v-sync etc CAN ALSO affect latency. And measuring latency then would have made JUST AS MUCH SENSE as it made now. So why didn't he?"

    I just couldn't resist man. However, though you're painting with a needlessly large brush there, certainly frame drops usually = latency and therefore anything contributing to that may technically be culprit; but I think that's rather the point, if frame-drops are shown doesn't it go without saying then? Going further in depth on comparisons is only relevant if the latency discrepancy is a static issue, as indeed with triple buffering - and no that's not just "opinion" btw, assuming no other unusual discrepancies (as with Vanquish in limited cases it seems, but I'll come back to that) it will add precisely one extra frame of latency in these formats - or (hypothetically) from some other fundamental difference in the game engine, which unlike triple buffering there wouldn't be any conclusive indication just from visual analysis, and DF could only honestly include if the dev graced them with that info.

    On the other hand, I can see how it may be a little suspect at times when it's a chronic and game impacting issue... as in the returning champion Bayonetta face-off, where the always framey PS3 version's added latency would indeed be a chronic factor, yet there was no commentary on that. If it didn't just get lost in the volume of other material to cover, then I suspect it can be chalked up to RL taking pity and not wanting to come across like he was beating up on the PS3 gratuitously. Which is perhaps understandable given the evident fragile psychological disposition of it's fan-base.

    I'll stipulate that last bit's conjecture though, since I can't actually speak for Leadbetter, and you seem inclined to get sticky about such things. But the real axe you're grinding here seems to be all tied to the Vanquish face-off again, and mostly summed up in this post:

    man.the.king - "I have no problem with things like that being tested, provided they are going to be tested ALWAYS from now on.

    I like how you ignored the point that I made - that this was not a criteria in EARLIER face-offs, but had to be made an IMPORTANT part of the Vanquish face-off as most criteria that RL had used PREVIOUSLY put the 360 at a disadvantage for that particular face-off. So important that he devoted a WHOLE PAGE to a < 15ms difference. And I GUARANTEE that for any other face-offs where the 360 has the advantage in the USUAL criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA, blur) RL will NOT raise an issue of controller latency if it puts the PS3 at an advantage, and even if mentioned, will NEVER devote one WHOLE page for a < 15 ms difference.

    Here's another challenge from me: Show me ONE face-off where the 360 had the advantage in other criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA), and he still harped on for ONE WHOLE PAGE about controller latency."

    And there you may have a somewhat valid point, but I'll again try to explore your questions as literal: Perhaps the most pertinent answer is that not many games have shown a difference in input latency in the first place, and half of those were released before the feature article coinciding with DF getting their cool new toy for the job. And I'll remind you what a chore they said it is without that rigged controller. (do they even have a PS3 pad now? I can't recall) But since this has only become an issue since the Vanquish face-off, let's go back to the beginning:

    Controller response is something we talked about in the demo showdown, with the sense that the Xbox 360 game felt a little crisper than its PS3 counterpart. Low-latency controls are something of a must for a shooter and Vanquish is a title that often slips below its target 30FPS, which means there is the potential for additional lag. The fact that Vanquish PS3 doesn't tear at all and effectively matches 360 performance might also suggest a triple-buffer set-up, which again has latency implications.

    The article fundamentally justified itself from the first paragraph, the input response was something already debated from a demo that was around for two months before release, and also because it's a very fast action oriented game it was probably noticeable to more people. But then on top of that, analyzing it is a way to confirm the use of triple buffering in the absence of explicit confirmation from the developer - although in truth all precedent makes even the fact of vsynch+upper-tier performance a virtually certain enough indicator on it's own. Which actually relates to other games that perhaps should have included such analysis...

    The RE5 face-off I think briefly touched on the crisper response of the 360 build, but it also predates the big in depth latency comparisons. However the one I would really have liked to see is for the Red Dead Redemption face-off, even though the article didn't clarify anything about triple buffering I'm certain the PS3 version employs it. Yet then again, it may have been deemed as adding insult to injury for that article. (and on that subject, I liked the fact DF went out of their way to note a few little things such as indoor lighting discrepancies to balance out the umm... angle of the article some, didn't you?) But anyway yeah, I personally felt it was something that should have been clarified in that article, even so.

    But back to Vanquish, here's where your whole perspective falls apart: the entire foundation for your main accusation of bias first presumes to know - in practice even directly implies - that there are examples of games with greater latency on 360 in the first place. Which you clearly don't know or can even mount any credible argument for. And indeed the only established reasons it's ever likely to be the case is from a vastly lower performance level, or triple buffering, two criteria only seen on PS3 so far. So... for argument's sake, if the reality is that no 360 multiplat has, or will ever have higher control latency than it's PS3 counterpart, then by the terms of your "challenge" DF becomes damned just by representing the truth.

    Yet that's not even the full of it, because of that "ONE WHOLE PAGE" (which seriously it was barely more than a half page, so your all caps emphasis seems thricely silly there) about HALF of the WHOLE volume of it was actually attributable to the unusual effect performance drops had for the PS3, actually decreasing latency! Which is patently *not* anti-PS3 spin, and more to the point makes exceptional and intriguing reading for those of us who are actually here to learn something, and not just sift for excuses for why the cruel world wont unquestioningly enable our beliefs.
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 01/11/10 @ 23:16

  • man.the.king #117 2 years ago

    @BuckEntropy

    I don't know too much about how visual performance is achieved (my expertise is with Oracle ERP and Oracle) - I do have common sense though, which tells me - and I agree with that part - that there is always an expense.

    "But back to Vanquish, here's where your whole perspective falls apart: the entire foundation for your main accusation of bias first presumes to know - in practice even directly implies - that there are examples of games with greater latency on 360 in the first place."

    WHERE have I implied that? Show me ONE place where I said that. All I want is a fair and consistent criteria, without varying weight or importance being applied to it depending upon which platform is performing better. That is something which I'm NOT seeing.

    "Which is patently *not* anti-PS3 spin, and more to the point makes exceptional and intriguing reading for those of us who are actually here to learn something, and not just sift for excuses for why the cruel world wont unquestioningly enable our beliefs."

    Love to listen to the sound of your own words, do you? Your points - whatever they may be - fall apart when your basic presumption is that anyone who calls into question RL's fairness is SDF (implied in your post - specifically these portions: "evident fragile psychological disposition of it's fan-base", "not just sift for excuses for why the cruel world wont unquestioningly enable our beliefs"). Should that, by just as much assumptive extension, mean that anyone who stands up for RL, "come what may", is an XBot?

    Everybody likes to think they are fair and right - doesn't make everybody correct.

    If you are willing to leave behind that idiotic assumption of yours about anybody accusing RL of bias being a Sony fanboy, THEN we will talk.
    Edited by man.the.king at 02/11/10 @ 05:41

  • bluetoothion #118 2 years ago

    @Buckentropy

    I have three simple questions for you.

    Has RL been giving a spin only in favor of Xbox360 yes or no?
    Has RL made such a big deal out of Bayonetta PS3 flop as with FF13 on xbox360 yes or no?
    Has RL ever commented in the same manner a developer for not taking advantage of SPE as with eDRAM yes or no ?

    you can not accuse people of being SDF just because they don't like this manipulative point of view. and remember most have both consoles and still have problems with how face offs turn out.

    There are people here that are talking to you with fanboyism and other with facts and details and you run from topic to topic to find inconsistencies between posts....right you may be, but i ll give you the simplest of answers.....people can change their minds and most of all can be proven wrong instead of haunting them with their previous posts ( always in risk of misunderstandings ) find the numbers to prove your point.

    facts and numbers don't need half a page or a whole article to explain.
    e.g
    Developers for the PS3 version opted the triple buffering technique with the risk of some latency that maybe caused due to this and our tests have shown that this has the xxx ms impact to the expected result having minimal/mediocre/noticable effect to the gameplay. End of story

    2 and a half lines were enough weren't they ?
    and make no mistake friend if RL has the exactly opposite attitude the forums would have the exact same things written from different sides....but it would be equally annoying.

    as for ps3 owners thinking of the power of the Cell and other stuff i have another question.

    No one knows what the Cell along with RSX is capable of doing ( not because its SONY rather than being not conventional architecture)....ofcourse that doesn't mean that it will be x times better that 360 or nothing of this sort. NO.and in fact it might already reached its peak and be less powerful than Xenos or whatever.

    Isn't it fair to assume that it has some juice left inside compared to conventional architecture...especially if you remember how PS2 was designed and kept giving for 7+ years games and gfx that were a surprise for a 1999 made console? it how Sony wanted their consoles made ( and paid the price for it if you ask me)

  • BuckEntropy #119 2 years ago

    @man.the.king - [...that there are examples of games with greater latency on 360 in the first place.]

    "WHERE have I implied that? Show me ONE place where I said that. All I want is a fair and consistent criteria, without varying weight or importance being applied to it depending upon which platform is performing better. That is something which I'm NOT seeing."

    Ummm... you're actually implying it again right there, perhaps even more succinctly:

    Throughout this topic, the singular case you've been on is against the "varying weight" given to technical factors in different articles.
    You have plainly claimed that DF's motive in adding or subtracting "criteria" in an article is from "which platform is performing better."
    You have further asserted a one sided bias in that motive, and made the Vanquish face-off your central piece of evidence in your argument.

    So to sum up your case, as represented in this topic: Claim - DF's articles do exhibit a clear pro-360/anti-PS3 bias; Evidence - changing technical criteria only slanted toward one platform's strengths; Example - Vanquish Face-off.

    The only possible merit of your case is then firmly predicated on an assumption that the Vanquish article introduced the input latency criteria from an intent to make the 360 version 'sound' better, and primarily that motive. And here again is how you chose to present the accusation:

    "And I GUARANTEE that for any other face-offs where the 360 has the advantage in the USUAL criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA, blur) RL will NOT raise an issue of controller latency if it puts the PS3 at an advantage, and even if mentioned, will NEVER devote one WHOLE page for a < 15 ms difference.

    Here's another challenge from me: Show me ONE face-off where the 360 had the advantage in other criteria (frame-rate, tearing, AA), and he still harped on for ONE WHOLE PAGE about controller latency."

    So again - and sorry to be so pedantic here but you're leaving me no choice - the only possible validity to your accusation (as you chose to frame it) rests on a presumption that DF has otherwise neglected to include input latency criteria when it would have favored the PS3. But if you want to stick by your claim that you did not intend to imply that it's your choice, just be clear that in doing so you are implicitly admitting that the entirety of your argument in this topic is founded on nothing.

    Your points - whatever they may be - fall apart when your basic presumption is that anyone who calls into question RL's fairness is SDF (implied in your post - specifically these portions: "evident fragile psychological disposition of it's fan-base", "not just sift for excuses for why the cruel world wont unquestioningly enable our beliefs";). Should that, by just as much assumptive extension, mean that anyone who stands up for RL, "come what may", is an XBot?

    Well I hope you didn't strain anything reaching for that one. I fully understand my own implications thank you, and though I am often guilty of rhetorically lumping your faction together, it is pardonable expedience in the face of such a chronic pattern of knee-jerk solidarity. But beyond the rhetoric, no, your attempt at turnabout falls flat on it's ass.

    I'm not just implying anything anymore, I'm fed up and I don't even care; if I can't even attempt an honest discussion/debate about something vaguely pro-360 without being drowned in misinformation (and buried by hate negs) then I may as well play the bad cop, since there's apparently nothing BETTER to be done here. The case *I* have been making, is that if the 'people' calling DF's fairness into question bring nothing but deeply flawed and/or comically inflated arguments to the table, then they aren't representing anything at all akin to fairness themselves, are they?

    And so there is clearly something else behind it...

    Everybody likes to think they are fair and right - doesn't make everybody correct.

    See above: Isn't that like, the purpose of having an argument then? I mean I understand why I'm contributing here, it seems perhaps you do not?

    If you are willing to leave behind that idiotic assumption of yours about anybody accusing RL of bias being a Sony fanboy, THEN we will talk.

    Even aside from the already established fallacy, that's an ironically defensive sentence, seeing as you are yourself implying that Richard Leadbetter is an XBOT.

    @bluetoothion - Well first things first I guess:

    Has RL been giving a spin only in favor of Xbox360 yes or no?
    Has RL made such a big deal out of Bayonetta PS3 flop as with FF13 on xbox360 yes or no?
    Has RL ever commented in the same manner a developer for not taking advantage of SPE as with eDRAM yes or no ?

    1. No, have I been at all ambiguous about that I wonder?
    2. No-ish, irrelevant unless it can be shown he should have, which no one can.
    3. WTF, is that a trick question? Show me an example of where he criticized a dev for not "taking advantage" of eDRAM, then perhaps I'll understand your own criteria there. Certainly DF has been critical of more than a few poor ports on both sides, for various reasons.

    you can not accuse people of being SDF just because they don't like this manipulative point of view. and remember most have both consoles and still have problems with how face offs turn out.

    As covered above, I've never once accused any person of being 'SDF' just because they don't like RL's point of view. I will however continue to assert that if they can never back up their opinion with a credible and objective argument, then they only end up revealing their own bias, not RL's.

    There are people here that are talking to you with fanboyism and other with facts and details and you run from topic to topic to find inconsistencies between posts....right you may be, but i ll give you the simplest of answers.....people can change their minds and most of all can be proven wrong instead of haunting them with their previous posts ( always in risk of misunderstandings ) find the numbers to prove your point.

    My own agenda is not personal, my ultimate dispute is with a status quo. And I'll reply to what I think is your intent there: Yes people may change their minds, and bless them for it. But on the basis that a poster is a routine merchant of misinformation and generally misleading material, it is perfectly valid to call their larger credibility into question. Otherwise, the whole principle of credibility has no meaning right?

    facts and numbers don't need half a page or a whole article to explain.

    Technically you have a semi-solid point there. But it's a point that could be applied with equal relevance to 90% of the material on Digital Foundry. The presentation of the article is 100% congruent with the site's format, so if you truly have such a problem with that format, why do you bother coming back here at all?

    Isn't it fair to assume that it has some juice left inside compared to conventional architecture...

    Sure that's fair, and I personally have never once claimed PS3 is a bad system or outright inferior to 360. I only ever dispute specific claims that I have reason to believe are bullshit. Speaking of which, in such terms I happen to dispute your apparent implication that 360 is actually "conventional" by contrast, because I have reason to consider that bullshit. ;)

    -

    I have no problems with opinions at all, and if anyone wants to just go around saying "PS3 is much better than 360, DF is biased, and you're a fanboy if you disagree" that's their prerogative. And they'll of course earn whatever ridicule or even discipline they get.

    But if someone purports to be presenting a reasoned and credible assertion... if you want to make an argument; then you don't get to try to cry foul when someone else challenges it as such. In the end I'm just putting my own beliefs to the test here, and I welcome anyone else to do the same.

  • bluetoothion #120 2 years ago

    @Buckentropy
    you left many things for me to answer...

    1) i didn't go against the format of DF articles i just stated a simple example of how 3 lines of objective wording can compensate for half a page of analysis that more like reminds me of a pupil trying to have his essay reaching the number of words the teacher asked him. ( I like football very very very very very very very much ) Making an analysis has nothing to do with the extend of the text rather than the concetration of information required and presented in reasonable density.

    Also its a thin line to ask why i keep coming back if i don't like the format... i wouldn't go only to sites that tell me what i want to hear, and the point in forum is to discuss , just like you but with a different point of view i want to share my opinion i have no reason to leave and since regardless of the sites format there is good information a relativelly good flow over the forums.

    Now about the questions i posed...i m afraid that either i didn't state them well enough or you deliberatelly ignored my point.
    I ll assume its the first reason and state somethings in a better manner.

    When RL dedicated a whole article on FFXIII ( i wouldn't argue that it was due to the heavy name and that it could be an exception ) has even unwillingly cause a precedent that he would point out this sort of poor porting and with quite an aggresive stance imo.
    and in that sense he should comment Bayonetta(among others) and what the development team could have done but he didn't. Even if you don't consider it bias its unbalanced. The actual problem is that in context with the sloppy phrasing since you prefer the term on often and various occasions causes people to think RL has an agenda in favor of one side over the other.

    Also i m not keen at playing with words.....conventional has no negative meaning, its how XBOX1 and 360 were made to be developer friendly amongst other conviniences relative pc architechure offers. And in contrast to what Sony did created or invested for PS2 and PS3 on custom made solutions comes the unconventional part.

    allow me to ask you to locate how many times has he stated or implied RSX ineffeciencies and how many times he did the same thing with 360? i would save you time by saying probably none but do check please. because when it comes to bad porting :usually PS3 gets the hardware wise treatment were as 360 gets the software wise treatment

    again if not biased its again unbalanced, how many of those do you need ? some people obviously had enough and personally i find it understandable even if i don't totally agree with them.
    Last thing you used a very heavy sentence : Routine merchant of misinformation ???
    (aside from the fact that its the same accusation most could send directly to RL)

    People who post in here are free to write and claim whatever knowledge they want....personally i can't know which is valid or not.
    that is why i m not taking every post in here as undigested knowledge, So i repeat if you want to make a point against one of those posters stop wasting your time on finding what they posted wrong or misunderstanable the day before...most here follow regular posters so we don't need pointers, Copy n paste won't cut it ....find and share hard number and facts to ridicule and prove them fake.. till you do though...you ll probably get the exact opposite result and keep getting negged.




  • BuckEntropy #121 2 years ago

    @bluetoothion - 1) "i didn't go against the format of DF articles i just stated a simple example of how 3 lines of objective wording can compensate for half a page of analysis..."

    That whole reply is immaterial - though it was my own mistake to give you a rhetorical question to dodge with, I admit - and you did not reply to my own material point: in your claim against the fairness of DF, that particular "essay" in the Vanquish article only stands as evidence if it is an exception, if it's out of normal form for the site. Which it isn't, so no evidence there.

    "When RL dedicated a whole article on FFXIII ( i wouldn't argue that it was due to the heavy name and that it could be an exception ) has even unwillingly cause a precedent that he would point out this sort of poor porting and with quite an aggresive stance imo."

    I cannot in good conscience accept your prejudice of the 'exception rule' there, for a few reasons: First, the oft sited (as more "fair and balanced";) example of Lens of Truth made the very same exception with two FFXIII comparison articles, and represented at least one of the same reasons: FFXIII is a huge content heavy game with a lot more material to analyse; and implicitly both sites seemed to feel such a high profile game deserved the most comprehensive treatment.

    Plus there are other exceptions on DF that yet represent precedent for such exception: such as 'THREE WHOLE ARTICLES' devoted to glorifying the visual achievement of Killzone 2?

    But the most relevant exceptions are manifest: the first FFXIII comparison had even more people than usual out for blood and questioning the results, thus giving DF more reason than usual to set the record straight; and then the discrepancies in the versions was found to be inconsistent and progressive, and to an almost unprecedented degree, justifying more detailed analysis. Which all comes back to the real issue:

    "and in that sense he should comment Bayonetta(among others) and what the development team could have done but he didn't."

    Bayonetta Face-Off: It's at points like this where you have to wonder why the developer didn't capture the Xbox 360 cut-scenes, perform v-sync clean-up and render them out as full-motion video, streamed straight from Blu-ray disc. PS3 has the storage space and oodles of decoding power that would've produced a better look than the 360 game, and no loading would've been required either.

    Given that the game shows all the signs of having big memory-management issues, it's a bit of a head-scratcher as to how SEGA will achieve this, although since loading times were not an issue on the demo the obvious answer would be to implement an optional HDD installation.

    Except he did. The difference is only ever in degree, not in actual form. So at the heart of all of this noise, over and over again, is a belief (as our recurring example) that Bayonetta objectively deserved just as much criticism against the developer as FFXIII did. Which is a belief you all have failed to bring credible evidence for, and as always my own assertion is that none such evidence exists.

    "Even if you don't consider it bias its unbalanced. The actual problem is that in context with the sloppy phrasing since you prefer the term on often and various occasions causes people to think RL has an agenda in favor of one side over the other."

    And there's the problem right there, if reality does not represent a perfect balance, then again, Digital Foundry will always be damned for representing the truth, by your factional criteria.

    "And in contrast to what Sony did created or invested for PS2 and PS3 on custom made solutions comes the unconventional part."

    OK, if you aren't playing with words there then you are effectively stating that MS "by contrast" did not invest in "custom made solutions" for 360 right? Because that is outright false, and as such, if *you* don't also assume that [360] has some juice left inside compared to conventional architecture, just as much as PS3, that will be in reality a double standard on your part.

    "allow me to ask you to locate how many times has he stated or implied RSX ineffeciencies and how many times he did the same thing with 360? i would save you time by saying probably none but do check please. because when it comes to bad porting :usually PS3 gets the hardware wise treatment were as 360 gets the software wise treatment"

    In fact there's nothing "usual" about blaming the developers (software wise) anyway, so it is more the exception, as direct references to the RSX's "deficiencies" are equally an exception. So once more you are condemning DF for failing to impose an arbitrary balance on an unbalanced reality. On the basis that these articles (and in truth this already seems explicit enough, but I apparently can't assume anyone will just work these principles out for themselves here) are comparisons of one platform to another, then the context is always, obviously, that of strengths and weaknesses only relative to the other. And if the Xenos has no clear weaknesses relative to the RSX, wouldn't it be unfair of DF to go around implying that it did?

    I'll throw you one back bluetoothion... has DF ever implied that Cell is weaker than Xenon? Have they ever even implied that Cell isn't more powerful? Of course not.

    Resident Evil 5 Face-Off: In terms of just why Xbox 360 has the edge technically, it seems to be all come down to the set-up of the graphics hardware. Capcom itself rates the triple-core Xenon CPU as being about equal to a dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition CPU. Not a bad processor as such, but no match for the raw computational power of Cell.

    But your argument is basically asking DF to call an apple an orange, and an orange an apple. Or to put it another way, in reality you seem to be upset because DF don't tell lies!

    I'm taking the stance here that Digital Foundry is already a credible source of information, you're the ones bent on making a case that they aren't. As such I have small use for links to corroborate what is already here, since I'm not disputing anything from the site, and again the burden of proof is all yours. If DF actually spread misinformation on any regular basis (and didn't acknowledge their mistakes) do you honestly think other professionals wouldn't have slammed the door on them by now?

    I mean seriously, is that your position or not? Do you actually believe Digital Foundry has willfully hidden PS3 positive technical issues from you?
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 03/11/10 @ 21:36