I thought your post was a long one, but it’s generally just quotes of what I said, so I’ll try my best to respond.

Actually, I thought it was your statements in your thread that were completely under discussed and lacked evidence – hence the article.

Edram and DMC4? All I can say is “perhaps”.

As for my quotation of AA’ed titles on the PS3, it was perfectly relevant since you brought it to hardware with your discussion of edram. Your point was that edram was what gave the 360 DMC4 real 2xAA, I instead said that you needn’t have edram to achieve AA, thus I quoted some examples.

Now, I also said that if you were implying that it was “easier” for a PC dev to achieve AA on the 360 that you may well be right.

I think you miss my point here. You state that the textures appear to be lower res on the PS3 version by looking at screenshots. I here state that the frame blending on the PS3 version is what makes the textures “blurred”. This is a feature (blended frames) that can be seen in screenshots.

However, you can’t in fact see this frame blending occurring in real time, except for motion blur when Nero is running very fast. Thus, the textures are clearer/sharper when playing the game, meaning the screenshots are misrepresentitave; that is, unless you are aware you are looking at two-three frames blended together in one screenshot.

“The developers should aim to improve the already mentioned details to match the Xbox 360 counterpart.” Firstly there have been no reports of the PS3 version struggling to hit 30fps in its cutscenes. It is generally 60fps, but sometimes drops to around 45fps.

If you mean real AA…perhaps, but the PS3 version has eradicated texture shimmer, and does not tear…meaning they have sharpened the graphics to meet a steady locked framerate (except in cutscenes). Nevertheless, I expect the tearing to be gone by the time we see the Xbox 360 retail version.

Finally, you said that you thought it was odd that textures on the 360 were sharper than the PS3 couterpart, even in static scenes. I stated that this is no evidence of lowere-res textures, and that by enabling rgb full, superwhite (PS3 HDMI) and upping the sharpness on your HDTV you could create a similar image – remember these shots were taken via component. However, the 360 textures do have more “pop” and are sharper – this will be in the filtering.

Thanks for responding.

Actually, I’m explaining things to whoever could be reading this since I’ve got the feeling that the title and content of this article can be found misleading to some people. By the way, this is not about anyone disagreeing with me; it’s about people bringing up conclusions that I find not well backed up, especially when they quote something I’ve written as a source to be disproved. =)

“I’m aware of AA, and I’m also aware of the games that have it and the games that do and don’t use it. So far the Xbox 360’s edram has not lived up to it’s expectations, needing tiling to use it (10mb isn’t enough), where some games have had to reduce their resolution to use it.

Now, if you’re trying to say that developers may find it easier to achieve AA with the Xbox 360’s hardware, you may well be right, since learning the ins and outs of the PS3’s cell is what will give developers gains for the PS3 versions. Many developers can’t afford to do so, and if they know how to use edram and the more accessible Xbox 360 hardware they will get gains that they might not get with the PS3 (eg. Virtua Fighter 5 4xAA on 360, 0xAA on PS3)”

Indeed, many developers haven’t taken full advantage of the EdRAM and/or have found problems using it. However, in this particular case (which is the one in discussion) it’s obviously being put to good use. I remember reading those 256MB allow the picture to travel more than once to be Antialiased in the EDRAM, getting rid of the limitation of those 10MB. Probably the technique being used here? I’ll have to do more research on this one though.

“However, claiming the PS3 is less adept at AA when a wide variety of PS3 games have AA (even 4xAA) is untrue, even when citing Edram. Eg. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue 4xAA at 720p, Heavenly Sword 4xAA, Full Auto 2 4xAA”

I think you’re taking this discussion in a way it isn’t meant to. This isn’t Xbox 360 theoretical power vs. Playstation 3’s. This is DMC4 Xbox 360 vs. DMC4 Playstation 3. I’m aware of the Playstation 3 power to make good exclusive games but we’re talking about a particular multiplatform game. Please don’t derail it or it will never meet an end.

“I have explained how they achieve 2xAA for DMC4 – the PS3 way could indeed be called a “work around”, but it is effective. The blending of frames is not visible when playing the game at 60frames per second (think at any one time 3 of these frames are being blended – that’s 0.05 seconds.) Something your eye is hardly going to notice.

Thus, the above article is meant to show that screenshots of the PS3 version are not accurate to what you see when playing the game, since a screenshot will show 3 blended frames together. Plus or minus visually? In screenshots it’s a minor, in motion it’s hardly a negative.”

Actually, very few things are noticeable at 60fps. If you want to judge the game when it’s in full motion then yes, they look very alike. Jaggies are usuallly not that annoying when there’s frenetic action in there and the sames goes for texture detail. I find this a convenient change of perspective for the case in discussion though. Making comparisons is about looking for differences that aren’t that obvious at first sight and while in motion it’s hard to notice them, it isn’t the case when you actually take a glance at the visuals for the sake of enjoying – or judging – them (and not move, or move slowly) I think I know where you’re comming from though. This same argument could be applied for almost every single comparison ever made in both consoles except for games like Assassin’s Creed and The Orange Box where framerate does affect negatively the PS3 version experience. Nevertheless, it’s like saying an Xvid looks the same as an original DVD in terms of picture quality just because the differences are only noticeable if you do pay attention to them and or for the trained eye (the average eye don’t even notice the difference between HD and SD in 32- screens). In one way, that’s correct, but not for the ones that make these comparisons nor for those who actually take their time to read them, like your audience here at ripten.

“Cutscenes – I suggest we wait until the retail to see if they decided to lock the PS3 version down as well.”

I don’t think having not locked down cutscenes are a problem at all. They still struggle at 30FPS in heavy loaded scenes so if they had more time, the developers should aim to improve the already mentioned details to match the Xbox 360 counterpart with locked or not locked framerate (as long as it never drops below 30fps)

“I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role.” I’ve already explained this in the article. You can recreate the sharpness for the PS3 version by upping it on your HDTV. Furthermore, frame blending occurs even when static – the resultant 2xAA will still show, but it is only in very fast motion that you might see “motion blur”.

This is where you lost me completely. Are you saying that you will have more detailed textures in the Playstation version if you change the sharpness settings in the Playstation 3/PS3 Version of the game? Please elaborate here because I’m not sure about what you’re saying. Keep in mind that I’m not only talking about blur in the textures but the detail in them. It could sound as the same but it’s not. Sharpening a blurred texture will not bring more detail into it, it will just make it look “cleaner”.

Further research is being made in this area – not because it matters, but because it’s interesting. I might have been wrong to bring this discussion to the general internet public, but I winged it.

As far as tearing – what I can say is that there are reports of texture shimmering on the 360 version, something which the frame blending on the PS3 appears to eliminate.

Unless you’re talking about vertical/horizantle tearing – that would instead be the result of a slight wavering framerate – with evidence perhaps being the locked 30fps framrate on 360 cutscenes. That is, the PS3 version may have the better framerate – which I think could obviously be attributed to the Xbox 360 rendering with real 2xAA (though frame-blending is not without its challenges to system performance.)

Thanks D.

you are right that my speech of Hardware was out of place, I said so myself; I just got carried away because I am very interested in those kind of things. That is also the reason why I keep posting here, as I love deabeting about these things…

However, whatever it is, the textures look great on the 360 and not so great (actually they look bad in this specific case I photographed) on the PS 3. I checked and rechecked many times, it’s not like it’s going to influence the gameplay in any way (which is superior on the PS 3 thanks to the better suited controller *imo*), but it doesn’t look quite as HD as on the 360. Unfortunatly I do not own the hardware to get HD-direct-feed shots (and I’m not gonna spend another 500+€ for my hobby ^^) out of those consoles, so the best I can offer are those screenshots made while putting the LCD into “Freeze-Picture” mode.

So, as far as it goes for me, the 360 Version IS technically superior, also for the more constant “traditional&real” AA (looks more or less the same in every scene; on PS 3 I have some scenes where there is basically no aliasing visible to me, some which equals the one of the 360 and some where there is no AA visible).
Also you say that it might be connected to higher-precision Normal-maps on 360, but isn’t that basically just another term for “higher-res” normal-maps on the 360 (of course, they might be there in the same resolution but the Shaders and whatnot are calculated in a lower res)? Or do you mean the LOD-Bias? Afaik, as soon as I get close to those walls the texture should adjust to a higher-res then, but even in-game (hard to notice, let alone make a proper pic) the textures are crisper on the 360 version in that arena…

On another note, I didn’t mention it earlier, but was curious if any of you guys noticed tearing on the 360-Version, as I have it there but not on the PS 3 (possibly due to the diffrent connection types? YUV vs. HDMI)

Aqua: You’re explaining things to me that don’t need explaining. I expect this is what you’ve learnt to use against those who disagree with you.

I’m aware of AA, and I’m also aware of the games that have it and the games that do and don’t use it. So far the Xbox 360’s edram has not lived up to it’s expectations, needing tiling to use it (10mb isn’t enough), where some games have had to reduce their resolution to use it.

Now, if you’re trying to say that developers may find it easier to achieve AA with the Xbox 360’s hardware, you may well be right, since learning the ins and outs of the PS3’s cell is what will give developers gains for the PS3 versions. Many developers can’t afford to do so, and if they know how to use edram and the more accessible Xbox 360 hardware they will get gains that they might not get with the PS3 (eg. Virtua Fighter 5 4xAA on 360, 0xAA on PS3)

However, claiming the PS3 is less adept at AA when a wide variety of PS3 games have AA (even 4xAA) is untrue, even when citing Edram. Eg. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue 4xAA at 720p, Heavenly Sword 4xAA, Full Auto 2 4xAA.

I have explained how they achieve 2xAA for DMC4 – the PS3 way could indeed be called a “work around”, but it is effective. The blending of frames is not visible when playing the game at 60frames per second (think at any one time 3 of these frames are being blended – that’s 0.05 seconds.) Something your eye is hardly going to notice.

Thus, the above article is meant to show that screenshots of the PS3 version are not accurate to what you see when playing the game, since a screenshot will show 3 blended frames together. Plus or minus visually? In screenshots it’s a minor, in motion it’s hardly a negative.

Cutscenes – I suggest we wait until the retail to see if they decided to lock the PS3 version down as well.

“I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role.” I’ve already explained this in the article. You can recreate the sharpness for the PS3 version by upping it on your HDTV. Furthermore, frame blending occurs even when static – the resultant 2xAA will still show, but it is only in very fast motion that you might see “motion blur”.

“In the end, the fact remains that the version that overall looks better is the Xbox 360’s.” I get the impression you’re holding back, so please don’t.

Dix: Like Monarky’s comments, your talk about hardware is straying off the topic and also appears to be full of hearsay.

As far as your screenshots – as well as being highly compressed jpegs – I wouldn’t say this is a texture problem, but the normal maps having a higher precision on the Xbox 360 in this case. I’d need to see an HD comparison from further back which I could zoom in on myself.

I do enjoy your comments, so keep them coming. We should be like a happy family that likes to debate. No name calling!

Patrick

Stopped reading right there. If you really think you’re coming accross as anything other than an annoying child fanboy then you’re fooling yourself. Try again, less fanboyism this time.

Also: all you have to do to get around the inability to post a link here, is become a member. Then when you post a link it’s posted immediately.

Also sorry about being harsh. There’s a difference between being a fanboy and having an opinion as you do. That I can respect, but Aquanox is the honorary president of the Xbox 360 Fan Club at PS3 forums and he doesn’t know how to be impartial!

But although you are using a decent camera on these, taking shots at the wrong time is a factor. The fact that it’s been proven that PS3 runs this game at a consistently higher frame rate (as high as 60fps) and Xbox 360 is locked at 30fps, shows these pictures definitely don’t reflect what I see right in front of my face!

For me I just get tired of all these comparisons and attempts by gamers that should be friends, arguing about the games they play. I didn’t like the Wars in the Nintendo vs Sega Wars and now it’s just gotten more viral and caustic. Wish it would end!!!

If you like the game on Xbox 360 buy it. But don’t try to tell me what I’m seeing and not seeing right in front of my face in full motion on a 65″ 1080p screen TV that upscales any signal it’s fed to that res! ;) …I know what I’m seeing and it’s not that!

Obviously you’re just looking at a mirror or maybe you should clean your glasses of that green slime splattered on your face! hehe

Perhaps if you learned to read and check things out more throughly, you might actually learn something before you opened your mouth. But I’m not here to waste my time joisting with you on a few fragments of your imaginative perceptions or merits of one version of a equally stupid game. Or run a tit for tat exchange of belligerent ignorance. The microscopic differences in this POS Multi-platform game aren’t even worth it to me!

Maybe I’ll drop by your home someday and we can continue this wonderful exchange! Bye!!! ;)

you obviously know to some extend what you are saying, but it is not up to debate wheter the PS 3 has the more sophisticated/powerful technology in it or not. I see that exclusive games like Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted proove its worth many times over, but right now we are comparing DMC 4 and I’m in full accordance with aquanox on this one. Besides, no matter what you say, both Systems have 512mb ram, with one crucial and one not so crucial difference: The 360 Dashboard needs around 30mb, the PS3’s XMB needs a whooping 80mb. Also, the 360 has a shared memory-system, meaning both CPU and GPU can directly access the 700mhz GDDR3 Ram (128bit), while on PS3 the RSX has it’s 700mhz GDDR3 ram for himself (256mb and 128bit aswell) and the Cell has his 3.2 Ghz (!) XDR Ram for himself [again 256mb] (although RSX can access it with some bandwidth loss). There are several other differences like the 10mb eDram on the 360-GPU and whatnot that make a difference right now (especially for Anti-Aliasing), but that is all another topic…

Let me get to the point here; I made some comparative screenshots, but unfortunatly my posts including links simply don’t show up. So sorry for trying to circumvent that “safety”-system here; just add a http:// in front of the link.

PS3: img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn1608bp0.jpg

360: img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn1610bs3.jpg

It is quite obvious that 360 textures are higher res here, just like Aquanox said. And it is also possible to see how the AA works better on the 360 if you carefully observe the house’s roof…

Thanks for reading.

*puts on shades*

There we are. The LOLz really made you sound more mature, nice touch with that.

I know the writers are on strike but holy cow, at least TRY and hide it.

How’s that? Better? hehe

It’s a Multi-platform game playing down to the abilities of the Xbox 3fixme….”

Really lost interest in what you said after that point. Come back and try again without the fanboyish nonsense.

It’s a Multi-platform game playing down to the abilities of the Xbox 3fixme. I have both, but if I hadn’t gotten the 3fixme first, I wouldn’t own it. Not because the games are not good, but because the PS3 thrashes the 3fixme in the hardware department and it’s abilities.

When I say multi-platform, I mean both versions of this game having extreme popping of textures that come standard on any Xbox 3fixme game. Objects and characters looking more like decals is another wonderful feature your console of choice loves!

FYI ! PS3 is capable of ?x and I’m not here to prove that the PS3 is far supperior, when games like “Uncharted” which ran 4x anti-aliasing proved it. Oh.. yeah you don’t have both consoles so you’re still busy being a mindless fanboy, believing what M$ tells you instead of the truth!

GT-5 Prologue (a demo no less) is running 4x AA in 720p 60fps segments and 2x AA at 1080p 60fps in certain game where car models are 200,000 polygons with 16 of them on the track at once with LOD of coarse (means polygons are reduced the further away you get). But in any that’s millions of polygons at any given time! …can your box even do that, with that much action on screen? NO! GT-5 full game will be running 1080p 60fps in game with 16 cars in game! …I won’t ask cuz I know the anser. hehe

Xbox 360 version better than Xbox 3fixme? Baugh…balderdash!!! Just another multi-platform game with microscopic differences to keep you feeling good about your purchase, despite the fact your console will end up last over the years to come!

Look up “IBM Power to the People” to confirm their connection to Nvidia and G94 design (end of article). Look up, IBM Cell 45nm cache ASIC, to confirm IBM leads the World in ASIC design. Look up “NVIDIA upcoming 9600GT dailytech” for a look at World Class IBM ASIC with diagonally set silicon on substrate, just like on the RSX! They are pioneers in Low-K technology and have a Bus and cache system with SoI process, that will take 45nm Cell to new levels B3yond Tomorrow next year doubling effective cache sizes and trippling speed!

Why do you think RSX and most of Nvidia parts are now at 65nm process? Hint: SoI (silicon on insulator) not just PS3’s Cell and Super Companion chips. How do you think that GDDR3 memory is applied to the diagonally set silicon on it’s substrate. Soon even Nvidia will bring their chip design up to the standards of RSX w/memory applied to the chip substrate! LOLz

Xbox 3fixme better? That’s a laugh!!! ….if it was true, not for long and in the end it will be PS3 for the 3-Peat, while Wiimpy takes second!!!!

I was just wondering if you posted there because I’ve had a similar debate over there. Just wondering.

On the subject now, I’m not sure if this technique you say they’re using in the Ps3 version is actually aiding in the visual quality. It’s a well known fact that Antialiasing is a power hungry process that has been many times skipped in consoles to achieve better performance (though showing those annoying sharp edges). Fortunately for Xbox 360 owners, it seems that the Embedded EdRam is actually playing in favor of some of its games; this case being an example. What I’m saying is that this effect used in the Ps3 version is more a walkaround to Real Antialiasing, an alternative that doesn’t quite give equally positive results. Not even close.

As for the framerate in cutscenes, the PS3 version drops to 30 fps when things become busy. Aka, on scenes that demand more power. In the Xbox 360 version, it always run at 30 fps by a developing decision not for any limitation. Which one do I prefer? The one version that achieves the best visual results through all the mentioned cutscenes, with real AA and better looking textures.

Now, you say that both versions feature similary sized textures and I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role. The PS3 team might have managed to achieve similar results in some indoor scenes, but it’s outside where the differences are obvious, in the scenes where memory is key to achieve better results, and area where the Xbox 360 outperforms the PS3, and it shows here.

Last but not least, consoles preferences have nothing to do with the content in post at ps3forums. The conclusions aren’t biased in any way nor do they lean to any conclusion without solid proof. Having a preference doesn’t automatically prove you wrong. It’s the basis on which you build your conclusions which do and mines are still intact backed up even by your higher quality .png captures in which you can find the exact same results I’ve mentioned back then, with the only difference that you’re bringing up more technical details that explain these results but don’t have any impact on the final conclusion, except probably for indoor scenes. In the end, the fact remains that the version that overall looks better is the Xbox 360’s.

Aquanox.

Read the update Aqua – blending of frames is a method used to achieve AA, which is quite effective. The Xbox 360 uses “traditional” AA.

The resolutions of the textures are the same.

PS3’s cutscnes run at 60fps, but may drop down to 30fps. The Xbox 360’s cutscenes are locked at 30fps. Which you prefer is up to you.

This article is designed to put things to rest with researched knowledge instead of conclusions met through console preferences.

Dix: On further inspection the frame blending may well also be in the cutscenes – I’m finding more screenshots of cutscnes with similar frame blending.

However, even by looking at the first screenshots – Beriel’s horns – the texture resolution is the same: the very same. There’s no difference except in contrast and sharpness.

You’ll have to capture comparison screenshots for the mountains.

Thanks for commenting both of you.

The fact is simple: Motion Blur is NOT the cause of the lack of detail in the PS3 version. There’s less detail even in slow motion scenes and it’s affecting the background where it doesn’t move?

Check this out:

http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/bscap0011.jpg

Here, the background doesn’t move, yet there are big differences in both versions. Also, the characters move very slowly yet you claim motion blur is what it’s doing the (bad) job. By the way, this technique is applied in both versions, but the quality can’t be appreciated when there’s motion blur in them, so I skipped those images.

As for the Antialiasing, even you captures prove that the Xbox 360 has superior AA. Just check the pictures you’ve brought here, the ones with the fire monster. The Aliasing is noticeable in the hornes whereas in the Xbox 360 version they look much smoother.

I have also read some claims of people saying the PS3 version runs smoother on cutscenes, which is pretty useless since the real deal is in gameplay and this game is butter smooth in both versions.

In conclusion, the Xbox 360 does look better but you will only notice it if you look carefully. The antialiasing might be the only noticeable difference but since this is a game where dark colors are predominant, it’s not such a big deal since the AA is more useful in colorful scenes or those in which white is predominant. Other than the Ice scenes, it’s hard to find the jaggies.

Now please everyone move on and get over this. Burnout paradise has proven the PS3 is a great platform too even for multi games, but it happens that CAPCOM has some experts in Xbox hardware working in the game and it might not take much for them to master the Playstation 3, if they haven’t already.

These pictures are legitimate, and you won’t find any better captures around the web. They lack artifacts, and are taken with the most appropriate technology available. If you want to take captures of a game, this is how you do it.

I didn’t write that it was to do with component lacking in quality over HDMI. Instead, I stated that you may see a different image if you use an HDMI cable to configure your PS3 properly.

“I know for a fact the PS3 version doesn’t blur like that.” No, you don’t. I’ve explained that you may well not notice the “motion blur”. It’s there – the average eye won’t be able to see it in a moving image – what it does is blur the frames so the edges look less jagged, it could even be called a way to achieve AA. This effect is more noticeable in screenshots, than it is while you’re playing the game.

All captures were taken on default settings without any configuration through an HDTV, so the sharpness you see in the Xbox 360 image is the sharpness in the game on this console. It cannot have been added after by settings on a TV.

Of course the pictures don’t do the game justice, but I beg for you to find an HD comparison video that doesn’t have compression artifacts.

-Peter: My conclusion agrees with yours.

-Dix: This may be the case with the AA. The blur effect is not present in the cutscenes, which is why you can see that jagged edge in the first image (it’s from a cutscene).

Peter: It’s not exactly what you’d know as “motion blur”.

A topic like this shouldnt even be debated over pics until those pics are legitimate,. these pics are Bogus. also as far as I can tell from playing this game it doesnt have motion blur at all on the PS3, the images are quite sharp and smooth,. how about someone who knows what their doing with a decent device gets pics then we restart this Topic. To say the pics don’t do the game justice is one heck of an understatement,. i know for a fact the PS3 version doesn’t blur like that,. and I seriously doubt the 360 version is so overly sharp that it would appear Pixelated like in those pics