Says unavailable. Maybe they re-uploaded:
It is. The first PS3 slim looks really great too. Easily my favorite console designs, even if they are big and bulky.That original 60gb PS3 is a beauty.
It depends what you play on, but too aggressive use of Microsoft's BC compression for textures isn't ideal, and even worse when used with lossy compressed normal maps, or even worse if lossy bumpmaps.Just caught up with both parts, and damn, so many great games, so many great memories.
And I have to say, I just can't fight the feeling PS3 games had better lighting than PS4/5 titles, I can't recall a single game with the so-called "flat lightning" modern games are plagued with.
"Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, MGS4, Last of Us were all UE3 and modified to be their own "engines" even if large money was paid so they never list them as UE."Those nonsense faceoffs - reduced to 2D resolution and 0.5% percentile frame-rate dips - also never mention the difference in 3rd dimension resolution, where in Batman the 360 version uses less depth precision - like most 360 versions of games and was a common cheat on ATI hardware - and has a slightly different near/far frustum plane setup to make it look almost identical, but still results in a more claustrophobic world space than the PC and PS3 versions.
The difference in frustum setup also changes where depth cueing fog starts, so some mid scene textures on the 360 might look sharper - than they should - because they aren't depth cued correctly and may be projected closer to the near plane than on PS3 in comparative shots and either selecting a different mip, or just projected to a large number of pixels on screen.
It never did for quality pixels, and everything from Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, MGS4, Last of Us were all UE3 and modified to be their own "engines" even if large money was paid so they never list them as UE.
Uh Arkham Batman, Bulletstorm the most notorious if I'm not wrong also the reboot of Medal of Honor on UE3, but I assure to you there are many games with soft vsync probably there are more than triple buffered on ps3 multiplat (which most of them are first parties), I can even bet about it and practically all Ubisoft games tear more on ps3.You'll need to list the ones you are referring to. I don't remember the major ones tearing on PS3, instead of occasional slow downs, because why would any competent dev do that on a system that can easily double or triple buffer?
That's a crazy bullshit lol."Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, MGS4, Last of Us were all UE3 and modified to be their own "engines" even if large money was paid so they never list them as UE."
Uh, source?
+ it has PS2 backwards compatibility.It is. The first PS3 slim looks really great too. Easily my favorite console designs, even if they are big and bulky.
Back in the day develop magazine ran adverts for (over a year IIRC for) Sony Cambridge Studio with every job being for Unreal development and was for PlayStation's core technology listed in the adverts. Heavenly Sword would need to have had its development restarted for it not to have been UE3 originally. Interestingly, some of the side parts with catapults from Heavenly Sword later got put in AC3 wholesale."Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, MGS4, Last of Us were all UE3 and modified to be their own "engines" even if large money was paid so they never list them as UE."
Uh, source?
Bulletstorm had an 360 marketing deal IIRC, and as Xenos had to tear, for parity I guess PS3 would too, because clearly the developers are smart enough to know a hard vsync was the better option.Uh Arkham Batman, Bulletstorm the most notorious if I'm not wrong also the reboot of Medal of Honor on UE3, but I assure to you there are many games with soft vsync probably there are more than triple buffered on ps3 multiplat (which most of them are first parties), I can even bet about it and practically all Ubisoft games tear more on ps3.
Sony literally had a PowerPoint slide on stage saying the PS3 has 2 Teraflops of compute power, which is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. even if you combine CPU and GPU and then multiply by 4 you're not at 2TF
then there was that "rumble is a last gen feature" nonsense when the real reason was a patent/licensing issue which also made them release rumbleless PS2 controllers for a period of time lol.
then there were all the fake trailers that were falsely claimed to be in engine when they were literally done by animation studios.
Sony lied like crazy ahead of the PS3's launch
Eurogamer: How representative of what we're actually going to be seeing in PS3 games were those videos?
Phil Harrison: I think very. I think depending on the game, different games took a different approach to their way of expressing what the games are like - but clearly, something like MotorStorm uses more cinematic, replay-like cameras than you would ever enjoy in-game. So that makes a big difference... But everything is done to spec. -- Phil Harrison
I'm sure it was possible, but they couldn't even get their flagships running at decent fps.
Dude Unreal Tournament of Epic has more tearing too on ps3...and yeah both Akham Asylum and Arkham City tearing more on ps3. You should go to check the old comparison. Many games had soft vsync on ps3 if not most of multiplat.Bulletstorm had an 360 marketing deal IIRC, and as Xenos had to tear, for parity I guess PS3 would too, because clearly the developers are smart enough to know a hard vsync was the better option.
As for Batman, IIRC I only played it after the Stereoscopic 3D patch, so I can't say before, but the game wasn't tearing. I'd have to buy a copy to check it again. But tearing in a game with stereoscopic 3D seems like a feature you wouldn't add. If you don't have the performance to render normally, as it was an additional +10% GPU burden, even when they used the technique of just using one frustum to capture both eyes and then post processing into two viewpoints.
That's beside the point. The headline said 'PS3 could run at 120 fps'. I provided a one-off showing that it in fact could. The headline was true; but the claim Eurogamer attributed to Ken Kutaragi that PS3 would run games at 120 fps as if such performance would be commonplace, was false.
I think you are right that I'm misremembering about hardware vsync on ps3 for arkham because so many games had a parity contract for 360, so the PS3 must have had soft vsync too, and now I think about it, I think it was only anaglyph 3D on arkham so didn't have the rendering cost of 3D stereoscopy.Dude Unreal Tournament of Epic has more tearing too on ps3...and yeah both Akham Asylum and Arkham City tearing more on ps3. You should go to check the old comparison. Many games had soft vsync on ps3 if not most of multiplat.
You have really a bad memory. Most of the multiplat have lower resolution on ps3 compared x360. Just first parties games has 720p and not all to be fair. About triple buffering again only first parties have it but for multiplat I would say there are more with soft vsync than triple buffered, but at worst it's a tie. Just to say I owned all the 3 models of the ps3 and I watched regularly videos comparison.I think you are right that I'm misremembering about hardware vsync on ps3 for arkham because so many games had a parity contract for 360, so the PS3 must have had soft vsync too, and now I think about it, I think it was only anaglyph 3D on arkham so didn't have the rendering cost of 3D stereoscopy.
What I would dispute is how much tearing was on PS3 version of Arkham. Richard at DF used to test the 5% demo level experience of games and then extrapolate his conclusion for the full games, and wasn't even consistent in how the games played out, so triggering tearing always seemed misrepresented in his videos. So holding up DF analysis and making blanket statements is still misleading IMO.
I played primarily on PS3 that gen and experienced very little tearing on the console in beating most games I played because in general I didn't buy games that tore on a system that didn't need to @720p, unlike the 360 which had an edram size designed for 1024x768 and was short on polygon rendering so tearing was to be expected even below 720p on the 360 versions of games.
At times it feels like people forget the state of tearing on 360 games in the year prior to it getting hdmi - which was 12months before the PS3 launched - and the amount of tearing and subhd resolutions deemed acceptable on the console first party games even 3-4years on when the PS3 1st party games were all 720p30 double buffered with vsync on, and in KZ3 case, had 3D stereo and move controls too, and split screen support.
You'll need to list the ones you are referring to. I don't remember the major ones tearing on PS3, instead of occasional slow downs, because why would any competent dev do that on a system that can easily double or triple buffer?
Kind of a shame, innit? I think console warring, spec-wise, has become a bore. Sure, we can argue over minute specs, but in reality the differences are quite minimal when it comes to actually playing the games. Where's my blast processing?Just wanted to say I love this type of thread. The comparisons between consoles of these generations and before are always fascinating due to their different approaches in their visions and architectures. The 7th gen consoles truly were the last consoles where things were very different between a manufacturer versus another one.
I'm sure it could, it just wouldn't really matter. The hardware was so gimped the best devs on the planet couldn't pull off acceptable 60fps or 30fps often times.
For my sins I was still using a CRT TV at the time I played UC1 so I didn't see the tearing running at 576i (upscaled to the TVs native 1280x720 panel @ 200Hz) on the Sony KD32-DX200 I had back then, but I take your word for it.While not an UE3 game, Assassin's Creed II come to my mind. It teared massively more on PS3 than its 360 counterpart since its targeted 30 fps wasn't nearly reached as frequently as the 360 version and it did not have double buffering nor triple buffering. I played both versions from start to finish. I started with the PS3 version when it came out. Played it like crazy from A to Z (loved that game). Played the 360 version many years later and this is something I instantly noticed. I then powered on my PS3, inserted the disc just to be sure I wasn't going crazy and sure enough, I wasn't. Make no mistake, the 360 version also drops fps too, but it's able to reach 30 fps much more frequently than the PS3 version and because of that, it has significantly less tearing.
I've also found the old DF article discussing this:
Assassin's Creed II Ps3 vs 360 Face-off
The original Uncharted game is also a tearing fest, but it's not multiplatform so heh...
I have no doubt there's plenty more examples to be found.
Edit: Just wanted to say I love this type of thread. The comparisons between consoles of these generations and before are always fascinating due to their different approaches in their visions and architectures. The 7th gen consoles truly were the last consoles where things were very different between a manufacturer versus another one. Also love the takes of everyone here, whether I agree with you or not. It's fun to talk about theorical performances, revisit their historical performance against each other, etc. Bring in the love!
I didn't say it would matter for games (plural), only that it mattered for one game.
Can you stop to post nonsense console war conspiracies theories. A lot of games tearing on ps3, most of the games runs worse and with worse resolution. We can stop here not trying to rewrite the story of the perfomance of such console?For my sins I was still using a CRT TV at the time I played UC1 so I didn't see the tearing running at 576i (upscaled to the TVs native 1280x720 panel @ 200Hz) on the Sony KD32-DX200 I had back then, but I take your word for it.
As for AC2 - and all the AC games for that matter - the frustum/z precision setups, fog equation and geometry levels, and lighting equations weren't an exact match on 360 - and obviously the incorrect 360 gamma - and there is a stark difference in AC1 where the pseudo HDR on 360 is just flat as a pancake, with zero sense of desert heat like the PS3 version, but then again AC1 was before the parity clause that had been in effect all along, that we all found out about from Ubisoft - in an interview with EG - when PS4 would be required to match XB1's settings of 900p.
So the tearing on PS3 AC2 only exists because the Xenos tears with HD-Ready resolutions IMO.
Are you saying Ubisoft didn't confirm that there was a better-or-equal arrangement with AC on Xbox with the 900p debacle on PS4?Can you stop to post nonsense console war conspiracies theories. A lot of games tearing on ps3, most of the games runs worse and with worse resolution. We can stop here not trying to rewrite the story of the perfomance of such console?
I remember the comments on here and in the gaming media mocking Sony for supporting 1080p for the small percentage of people who had 1080p tvs in 2005. As short sighted as ever.