Face-Off Extra: BioShock frame analysis Comments by Eurogamer staff
100 like-for-like frames compared.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
seasidebaz
04/11/08 @ 14:40
0
A comparison between my interest levels reveals the following:
ns1: diff from ns2 = 0.0000000% at (0, 0) ns2: diff from ns3 = 0.0000001% at (1,0) If this trend continues, I may be interested in approximately 15,204 years time. |
|
DrunkenKillfish
04/11/08 @ 14:48
0
Arghhh! Numbers. Kill 'em. Kiiillll them!!!
On another note...WTF? Muppets! |
|
Moonprince
04/11/08 @ 14:50
0
Eurogamer's Face-Off king Rich Leadbetter likes to do things properly, which means going to unbelievable lengths in his research, sometimes just for the sake of a couple of sentences.
Sounds like one sad motherfucker tbh |
|
Shakey_Jake33
04/11/08 @ 15:02
0
To be honest, I AM interested... but I think this is a little over our heads, with no explanation.
|
|
DrunkenKillfish
04/11/08 @ 15:12
0
Just play the games & let us know what you think of them.
This is boring and so geeky it's kind of scary. |
|
kangarootoo
04/11/08 @ 15:18
0
Whose bloody idea was this? This isn't tomshardware.com ffs.
We clearly have a different opinion of what the word "properly" means. |
|
GamesProgrammer
04/11/08 @ 15:40
0
EG could you start a Vote on the website somewhere to see if the readers would prefer you to spend your time reviewing more games, than wasting your times on these comparison articles. Even tho i completely understand what this one is saying i cant beleive your ED thought it was a good idea to publish this wall of numbers.
|
|
TessaTickle
04/11/08 @ 15:54
0
Disclaimer : I own *neither* the 360 nor the PS3 console.
I'd love to see how games ported from PS3 to X360 fare. It would be a larf if the Xbox 360 could render the same game faster than the PS3. |
|
Madafunkola
04/11/08 @ 15:59
0
@ mingster
It means that the xbox produces a new image every other frame (30 out of 60 per second) whereas the PS3 tends to produce one new frame in every 3 refreshes (20 frames per second). Make sense? |
|
0
So even at 680p, the PS3 version cannot match the 360's framerate? Is that a limitation of the PS3 (i.e. it's a bitch to code for) or just down to a lack of development time? I mean people are claiming the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 but on the evidence of this and many other multiformat games that doesn't seem to be the case. The Xbox came out some 18 months after the PS2 yet its multiformat games were rarely worse technically than the PS2 versions and in a majority of cases better (bar controller differences).
|
|
Monkey_Puncher
04/11/08 @ 16:14
0
I have no idea what any of that means, does anyone actually care?
Go back to enjoying the game people, nothing to see here... |
|
0
"I'd love to see how games ported from PS3 to X360 fare. It would be a larf if the Xbox 360 could render the same game faster than the PS3."
Mirror's Edge and Dead Space say: Yes, the 360 is still better (AA on the first, more consistent framerate on the second) even when the game is developed against the PS3. |
|
0
@TessaTickle
Burnout Paradise led on PS3. Both games are almost identical, with the PS3 maybe having the slight upperhand. Some people complained about dropped frames on the 360 version, so it'd be 'interesting' to see a similar frame-by-frame comparison for that game. I say interesting, but I actually mean incredibly f'ckin tedious. |
|
kangarootoo
04/11/08 @ 17:47
0
Two thoughts.
1. This is the most agreeable face-off related thread I've ever seen. I guess everybody agrees on something at last. 2. Do people really genuinely still write lol at the start of a sentence unless they are being sarcastic? |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
