PS3 Underdelivers Again – FarCry 2 Gimped?
by Dan Landis on October 23, 2008 at 8:45 pm
After all this hullabaloo about how the PlayStation 3 is the only “true” HD console, here comes the release of FarCry 2 to slap Sony’s PR in the balls. In addition to people complaining about the messed-up widescreen and mandatory 3.5GB install, the PS3 version falls short of its Xbox 360 counterpart by only supporting 720p while the 360 version supports full 1080p.
I noticed this myself by looking at the back of the case for the game, a photo of which I’ve conveniently provided for you:
Obviously, it’s just the developer’s fault for being lazy and stupid and not because the PS3 isn’t living up to what it was promised to be — the only true HD console. After all, we know for a fact that developers love putting out gimped versions of the games they’ve worked so hard to create, simply to prove a point or because Microsoft paid them to.
I’m sure the PS3 version, despite these differences, plays just as well as the 360 version and will no doubt be an enjoyable experience for those of you without options. If you had a choice, however, go with the 360 or PC edition just to be safe. Word.
UPDATE: Some articles about FarCry 2’s resolution have been brought to my attention, but upon reviewing them, I do not believe they present new information that directly contradicts my statements. The articles mentioning the native resolution of the game, on PS3 and 360, as being 720p are only talking about the native resolution, and I made no mention of native resolutions. It is irrelevant.
Yes, both consoles run the game at 720p native resolution. The 360 can upscale it to 1080p, but the PS3 does not do so naturally, and the box implys that it does not do it at all. While it may be possible to “trick” your PS3 into outputting in 1080p, the game itself does not readily support it. Many PS3 games that I have seen clearly show that they support 1080p, either natively or upscaled, on the back of the box — FarCry 2 is not one of them.
I find it odd that if the PS3 could support 1080p on all games that it is not mentioned on the game’s case. Requiring customers to resort to some backdoor trick to achieve what is supposed to be built in to the console and that other games (on both 360 and PS3) more clearly support — it’s ridiculous.
I explicitly said that the game likely plays just as well. Sony has clearly done its job convincing their fanbase that the PS3 is obviously superior, which leaves me wondering they wouldn’t help advertise that on the games themselves.
UPDATE 2: It is also worth noting that in a recent IGN Insider head-to-head comparison of the game, the reviewer had the following to say regarding the differences:
“The only real differences are the PS3’s occasional framerate hitches and the dropping of some sound effects during hectic gunfights. These issues don’t really hurt the experience in any major way, but will be a minor irritation for some. If you’re at all interested in shooters, Far Cry 2 is an experience you will enjoy on any console. If you have the luxury of choice, the 360 version runs just a little bit more smoothly.”
OVERALL:
1st = PC
2nd = 360
3rd = PS3
Translation: gimped?
 |
|
|
Related Posts:
- Far Cry 2 Coming In October
- 360 Controller Gets Redesign, New D-pad Ready For Hardcore Street Fighter IV Action
- Turok Demo Very Soon, Multiplayer Details, Achievements Unvieled
- Top Ten Developers – #5 Ubisoft
- The Life and Times of Too Human
131 Comments » |
on October 23, 2008 8:54 pm
This is why i hate microsoft… they play naughty.
Where’s the honour!?
cough… well americans never had honour to begin with.
on October 23, 2008 8:57 pm
Just so you know, Sony often only advertises 1080p if the game supports it natively.
360 will have 1080p listed on many games that are actually 720p upscaled.
on October 23, 2008 9:00 pm
parapraxis, yeah, ive heard that on many sites… and its true actually…
HALO 3: 1080p??? more like 680p upscaled…
So TBH, microsoft is just fucking around… cause not even their dashboard runs at 1080p!
on October 23, 2008 9:06 pm
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/10/06/far-cry-2-720p-but-no-60-frames-a-second/
To re-inforce how stupid your article is.
on October 23, 2008 9:19 pm
Well then that’s pretty bad advertising on their part, if true. Either way, it doesn’t make the rest of this article any different.
on October 23, 2008 9:24 pm
@Parapraxix,
“Gaetan did confirm, though, that you’re going to get 720p out of the game.” That is not an exact quote from the dev, that is a summarization from the writer. Ever wonder why he chose to summarize instead of include the exact quote? Think about that one for a while.
Dan presented both cases, which is what the average consumer will go by. The PS3 case gives the appearance that 720p is all she wrote, while the 360 case lists two additional options. Being that I have seen (on several occasions) PS3 titles with additional resolutions listed, it strikes me as odd when they are not.
In closing, I have read the links posted here, and while they present summarized statement by each writer, I have yet to see a quote saying anything that contradicts what Dan is saying.
on October 23, 2008 9:28 pm
Yes, and he doesn’t say that you can ONLY get 720p out of the game. We all know that both games can get 720p, so your point is not very well made here.
on October 23, 2008 9:42 pm
THe dev clearly mentioned that FC2 will be 720p on both versions
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/far-cry-2-/890673p1.html
on October 23, 2008 9:54 pm
Both the 360 version and the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 are 720p native. That means that they’re both rendered at 1280×720.
The only reason the 360 has 1080i and 1080p also on its box is because it is able to upscale the 720p to 1080i/p; similar to sticking a DVD player on an HDTV: the HDTV scales the DVD’s resolution, 480p, to the TV’s resolution (either 720p, 1080i, or 1080p) but the native resolution still remains at 480p.
on October 23, 2008 10:00 pm
@Dan Landis
The 360 supports ALL games and upscales them to 1080p because of the 360’s ANA scaler chip?
And the PS3 uses doesn’t use a scaler chip like the 360, hence it automatically defaults to the Native Resolution. If you played a 1080p game like Wipeout HD, it defaults to that resolution.
But Either way, what you’re playing on the 360 at 1080p, 720p, etc. etc. is no different because the NATIVE resolution of the game is 720p anyway. It’s all just upscaled anyway. if Far Cry 2 is NATIVE 1920×1080 resolution on the 360 only and the PS3 is only 1280×720 resolution, which it isn’t. Then we’d have a problem.
And in actuality, Far Cry 2 on the PS3 could be rendered in 960×1080 resolution like Uncharted.
Do some research.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15
Or do you like to go around and post ignorant articles like this all the time?
on October 23, 2008 10:00 pm
I wonder how the 360 manages to output HDCP 1080p on all those consoles that ARE NOT ELITE. (HDCP forcibly downscales 1080p not being put through an HDCP compliant HDMI or DMI connection to 480p.)
Oh right, software upscaling.
on October 23, 2008 10:01 pm
You do realize that the PS3 will upscale 720p games if you go into video settings and disable all options except 1080p.
on October 23, 2008 10:02 pm
Parapraxix said:
“Just so you know, Sony often only advertises 1080p if the game supports it natively.
360 will have 1080p listed on many games that are actually 720p upscaled.”
Thank you for getting this joke of a site totally PWNED!
on October 23, 2008 10:08 pm
Dan- I think you need to do more research before spewing more of MS lies. Except for a few titles that’s actually native 1080p (Virtua Tennis) most 360 games are upscaled from 720p or lower. In the case of PS3, while it doesn’t upscale games automatically, you can force the game, by changing the display setting, to run at 1080p/i (provided that your screen supports the resolution).
on October 23, 2008 10:09 pm
720p is the NATIVE resolution of Far Cry 2 on both consoles.
Both console will only UPSCALE it to 1080p.
Get your Facts right, update your post so you can still keep whatever credibility this site has.
on October 23, 2008 10:10 pm
umm….. they say “1080p” but they forgot to mention that the 360 Upscales the resolution, the game runs in native 720p, but the 360 got a codec that upscales the video to 1080p, it’s not 1080p native.
on October 23, 2008 10:12 pm
The fact they had bad advertising doesn’t excuse your errors either. Errors that could have been avoided with a little research and a restraint on the rush to get to press. What your excuse amounts to is “They published it, I am just blindly repeating it.” Yeah that has journalistic integrity written all over it.
You screwed up Dan. Wipe your soul patch and at least be man enough to step up to the plate and admit you published an inflammatory article with skewed, no make that erred reasoning and no research. Real research would have blown the lid off the advertising issue. Instead some forum posters delivered the facts to you. And when you get the facts do you publish them and investigate like a real journalist? No you dance and try to cover your ass like a politician. Sad, really.
The question is why? I think we know why and we know your agenda. Good luck. You just cost this site plenty of traffic. Hope the hits were worth it.
on October 23, 2008 10:18 pm
look beyond 3d,and learn something about resolutions man
on October 23, 2008 10:24 pm
Morganfell said it very well.
It’s bizarre that working for a video game website that you wouldn’t know what the terms ‘native resolutions’ and ‘upscaling’ actually mean.
Are you sure you aren’t in highschool and this isn’t your blog?
Please don’t publish pointless garbage like this anymore. Nobody wants to see it. You did such a poor job that even fanboys didn’t bother to show up to flame or rejoice. That’s how bad of a job you did. Fanboys won’t even post comments. That’s sad.
on October 23, 2008 10:26 pm
Maybe you should go back and read the article again. At no point did I use the word “native”. Everyone here keeps throwing that argument at me, but I never said it supported 1080p native resolution. Please stop crying to me because you don’t know how to fucking read. And the resolution topic is not the only issue with this game.
on October 23, 2008 10:28 pm
The 360 can do 1080p because it has the HANA Upscaling chip.
The PS3 runs the upscaling through the cell which needs to specifically programmed for it.
on October 23, 2008 10:31 pm
If the PS3 version is gimped then so is the 360’s. Both have native 720p, and both can do upscaled 1080p, it’s just that they actually write it down on the 360’s box.
on October 23, 2008 10:31 pm
“If you had a choice, however, go with the 360 or PC edition just to be safe. Word.”
We can read, Dan Landis, and you are a very sad person.
on October 23, 2008 10:31 pm
Stupid flamebait article. You should at least clarify that the 360 version is 1080P upscaled, not native.
And you make it sound like widescreen issue is PS3 only, when it affects PC and 360 versions, too.
on October 23, 2008 10:35 pm
How much did M$ paid you ?
$50 bucks ?
on October 23, 2008 10:37 pm
Sigh. Used to respect you guys. You had some great articles. Oh well.
on October 23, 2008 10:37 pm
That’s right Chad, circle the wagons. Did you bother to read the article yourself before leaping to flaming defense? Did you look at the title? The article isn’t about box errors and presenting both sides. Where does Dan present the truth?
Dan didn’t present what customers will go by. He took what he read on the box – you know, what he didn’t research and proceeded to attack the PS3. Then he makes some sophomoric remarks about how it must be the devs fault blah blah blah ad nauseum. Attacks on what he thinks will be the response of PS3 fans. He made those comments because he was too shortsighted to see HE WAS WRONG.
And if you can’t back up and adjust the article to fit the facts then you have just sacrificed the last shred of integrity to which this site was desperately clinging. The ball is in your court. Either do the right thing and be a journalist of integrity or viciously defend some erred reporting and watch yourself become the next Kotaku and nothing more than a verbal punching bag of irrelevance at sites like Neogaf.
on October 23, 2008 10:42 pm
1.disable 720p in screen settings of PS3
2.load up far cry 2
3.watch as it upscales it to 1080p
emazing aint it
on October 23, 2008 10:53 pm
Morgan,
“the last shred of integrity to which this site was desperately clinging”
While I understand where you are coming from Morgan, I disagree with the type of blanketed comment you made above.
We are reviewing the facts and taking into consideration the links and comments made above, however, I do not appreciate, nor do I agree with the implied threat in your statement.
Ripten has, and never will be, a giant corporate machine that forces its writers to conform to one voice. Rather, you will find many voices here — some that you agree with, and others that you may not.
Call it circling the wagons, call it whatever you like, it is the vision that I had for this site since day one. If it is not your cup of tea, you are more than welcome to traffic a site that blindly caters to your opinion. That site will never be us.
Again, we are reviewing the facts presented.
Thank you,
Chad-
on October 23, 2008 10:59 pm
Smart Guy, I had to do so with CoD4
on October 23, 2008 11:02 pm
chad the “fact” this article is based on is actually false, so not sure what you’re getting at here. are you saying that the people writing articles for your site just take facts given to them without reviewing them or checking sources?
what i’m referring to is obviously microsoft’s (upscaled) 1080p which is printed on every game, even on halo 3 with it’s 680 resolution. and also the fact that the ps3 does in fact upscale to 1080p (turn off other video settings), making this article completely incorrect.
not sure what erroneous reporting and conjecture has to do with not being controlled by “the man”.
on October 23, 2008 11:15 pm
Wow the ps3 fanboys are out in force today.
Keep fighting the good fight and all that stuff.
on October 23, 2008 11:16 pm
Render resolution =/= display resolution. Both versions == 720p render resolution. Dan Landis == retard.
on October 23, 2008 11:19 pm
smart guy,
I believe that Dan did, and always does, research a topic before posting, however it is also my experience that fanboys, regardless of their allegiance, will almost always be the first to present additional information supporting their case as soon as someone is perceived to be bashing their system.
Your comment regarding users turning off the other video settings seems a bit unnecessary to me, and frankly leads me to question the reality of the situation as other PS3 games do not require this type of trickery.
As I stated in my comment to Morgan, we are looking into the information presented.
Chad-
on October 23, 2008 11:32 pm
Let’s see we made an error so I will just smear some fecal matter all over myself and run at the perceived opposition. Only the public isn’t supposed to be the opposition and when it becomes your enemy you might as well close up shop. When you evolve into an anachronism your days as a site of consequence in the gaming community are at an end.
You re-attacking when you are in blatant error doesn’t work Chad. And no one wants you to be a site that blindly caters. We have 1up for that. Blindly catering would mean taking things at face value and not researching and digging for the truth. Uh oh.
Not catering means not being a corporate mouthpiece, not even in appearance. Uh oh.
You see, in your quest not to become the thing you despise you have become the thing you despise. Should I quote Nietzsche here or are you already familiar with chasms and monsters? Obviously.
No one is threatening you. I don’t make threats. I am a yoda type. There is action or no action.
No threats. Neither does the public make threats when they smell a rat. Just ask metacritic. No one will make a concerted effort to sink you, articles like this and the manner in which you handle your own errors are doing a handy job of torpedoing your site without our help thank you very much Captain Smith.
on October 23, 2008 11:34 pm
Sire Chad Lakis, thou who is brave enough to face the tempest and answer the queries of the demonic horde of fanboys, thou who presents flegm in adversity, please enlighten us as to how it can be considered ‘good’ to defend an opinion masked as a fact?
And dear Dan Landis, why complain about people’s (quoting you here) ‘fucking’ reading skills when you yourself only show insufficient writing skills. If you actually read the semi-article and then read your replies you will find many flaws which turn this whole thing into a joke full of irony.
You obviously did something terribly wrong, why sink in this pool of mediocrity even more? Just admit your error and that you were quick to draw conclusions. Every one makes mistakes, leave your ego behind. A wrong is a wrong and the internet demands your excuses. Fanboy or not fanboy, you are at fault, not those who see the wrong and biased opinion that you put up.
And before anyone asks, this being an open blog, you have exposed yourself and it is entirely normal for people to react and opiniate. This is how things work. Instead of reading from the box cover, maybe a little e-mail to a Ubisoft rep could have made things easier.
on October 23, 2008 11:34 pm
Same thing happened with Call of Duty 4. It sucks.
on October 23, 2008 11:37 pm
There, things are better now. Bravo.
on October 23, 2008 11:40 pm
One other note. You made this comment:
“Your comment regarding users turning off the other video settings seems a bit unnecessary to me, and frankly leads me to question the reality of the situation as other PS3 games do not require this type of trickery.”
You do realize this is in direct contradiction, not to the (lack of) facts presented in the original article but to the snide remarks made by the author. He wrote that it was the devs fault because they were lazy, etc etc. Not that he felt they were but rather it was his way of saying this is the excuse the PS3 fans would make. They didn’t make such excuses but that was his demeaning tone. Of course that also indicates that devs are apparently NEVER lazy, but that is machts nichts.
What matters is you yourself indicate there was improper action (laziness?) by the developers. And that is indeed a contradiction.
on October 23, 2008 11:42 pm
I’m sorry but your article fails bad, and I troll a lot against the PS3 but your article make look the 360 fanboys bad
on October 23, 2008 11:43 pm
I am not a fanboy for either side, but I have to agree that Dan is not posting all the facts and it is short sighted to say “PS3 Under delivers Again – FarCry 2 Gimped” without actually seeing /comparing / reviewing any of the versions.
on October 23, 2008 11:44 pm
“I explicitly said that the game likely plays just as well, so I don’t know what the fuss is about. ”
What the fuss is about? What in the flying traphole does the title say?
“PS3 Underdelivers Again – FarCry 2 Gimped”
Then you go and make a ridiculously immature response
“Everyone here keeps throwing that argument at me, but I never said it supported 1080p native resolution. Please stop crying to me because you don’t know how to fucking read.”
You need to learn to “fucking read” ( No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently).
And People are telling you about native resolutions because you are claiming one version is gimped over the other because of supported video output.
on October 23, 2008 11:45 pm
@Don’t know, no things are not better because the title of the article would disagree with the fact finding. It apparently blames the PS3 when Chad himself says,
“Your comment regarding users turning off the other video settings seems a bit unnecessary to me, and frankly leads me to question the reality of the situation as other PS3 games do not require this type of trickery.”
So if other games do not have this issue how is it that the PS3 under delivers. Rather it should be the developers under delivered.
Despite what the author may want to say in the midst of his Sony hating diatribe, Chad himself said the issue wasn’t in other games so how are the devs not responsible in this incident?
on October 23, 2008 11:47 pm
They (PS3 boxes) don’t mention it because they don’t participate in false advertising like Microsoft. Average Joe isn’t going to know that the “higher” resolutions listed on the back of the Xbox360 case are upscaled resolutions and not true. Why even advertise what isn’t a true resolution, might as well call it SORTA 1080i, and SORTA 1080p. That’s all the Xbox360 is good for these days, misleading the consumer!
on October 23, 2008 11:53 pm
Oh and PS3 version is assumed to be 960×1080 resolution (normal PS3 game resolution like Uncharted) Because the PS3 can upscale horizontal resolution by simply double 960 into 1920. So in a sense you get 960×1080 upscaled to 1920×1080. By far not true 1080p, but a slightly higher resolution than 720p.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1217932&postcount=1097
on October 23, 2008 11:57 pm
Morgan,
You stated the following:
“What matters is you yourself indicate there was improper action (laziness?) by the developers. And that is indeed a contradiction.”
Yes, I believe that complacency on the part of a developer could be the problem, but I also blame Sony for allowing that type of thing to go on. As someone who owns both next-gen consoles, I want the highest quality game I can get for my money on both. Dan’s opinion may very well be different than mine, and he is entitled to it, as you are to yours.
The beauty, and sometimes the downfall, of the site I am trying to build here, is that there may be times when we do disagree with each other, but in the same way we allow our readers to express their opinions (many of which we respond to), I allow my writers to openly express and research theirs.
No site, and no system is perfect. Those who expect constant perfection and are unwilling to accept the fact that we will never religiously see eye to eye on every subject, are not the type of people that I care to debate with, nor entertain in any other manner.
Chad-
on October 24, 2008 12:02 am
Yo Dan Landis. I think you should erase your article cause it makes you look like a jack ass. Did you really think you can play any FPS on ur xbox at true 1080p. Lol. Sony has been doing this from day one with their games you rookie.
on October 24, 2008 12:03 am
Sarcasm,
I know the rules of my own site. Swear words are not hate speech — hate speech is racist or anti-religious. It’s easy to intelligently debate while also cursing. Go watch The Daily Show if you need an example.
on October 24, 2008 12:11 am
Great fanboy article and response! just so you know, sony is not doing so well so just cut the crap say that its all LOST! ps3 is all promises but noting else! i feel for you fools who payed a lot of € or $ or whatever your coin is but you just fall for sony’s slick talks. ps: im still playin’ on my snes & DSL so don’t come sayin’ im an 360 fanboy ^^
on October 24, 2008 12:14 am
1. What other issues did you have with the PS3 version of the game other than the upscaling thing (and yes, I do agree with all the others about the game not being trye 1080 ANYTHING on the 360)? The install would’ve been in the 360 version if that system had a HDD as a standard across ALL consoles, so that is kind of an unfair attack. Wondering what other issues you had.
2. This is not a PS3 fanboy defense or a “SDF” thing, like all 360 fanboys seem to resort to when trying to explain all the outcry for a biased article (who cares about facts, right? As long as the article slams the PS3 in some way, who gives a crap if it’s factual or not?).
3. Regardless of if you were right or wrong, Dan, did you need to respond to the comments like that? That’s no way to get anyone’s trust back (”OMG, believe me, you ain’t allowed to disagree with me?”). You sound more like you’re whining that people are owning you on this issue.
4. While I know the name of the site (this is Ripten, not Kotaku or the Bitbag), and you guys usually do get it right and be unbiased most of the time, this article and how much it whines will make other people think that. I’ve seen you guys call out Chris Buffa on the LBP comment, and defend all sides on a number of things. You could probably understand why the feeling about this one: It gave speculation out as facts (the title should’ve been a question rather than a statement), you’re not even considering the other side of story (as in, you said it, so it must be the way it had to be), and you’re bad mouthing anyone that disagrees with you. So we’re not saying any of this because we’re wanting to see the 360 or this site burn in hell, but we’re sincerely hurt by this because this is NOT what we expected out of Ripten! Trust me, it hurts ME to have to say that about you, because you’re usually more impartial than this.
on October 24, 2008 12:14 am
I forgot to mention Dan, that microsoft fooled you like they fooled millions into thinking they’re playing a 1080p game. And then they make you look stupid when you start running your mouth.
on October 24, 2008 12:18 am
lol what a noob ..are you living under the rock .
on October 24, 2008 12:19 am
I’ve seen this happen before with guys you’d think would know better. I remember a long time back an editor blog entry at 1up.com that made it abundantly clear that the writer had no idea what supported and native resolutions were and that there is a difference between the two. One would think that gaming journalists would know such things but I’ve found that there are plenty of them with very little technical knowledge. For instance, if you go only by what you read in the gaming press you might get the impression that the only thing that determines console power is the CPU, particularly a Cell CPU, ha ha. It’s like many of them don’t realize that there is a GPU in those boxes as well and it is also very important.
on October 24, 2008 12:26 am
You do know that for COD 4 there was only 720p stated @ the back of the box for the 360 as opposed to 720/1080i/1080p on the PS3 version right?
I guess the 360 version of COD 4 was gimped in that case according to your logic that we follow resolutions according to the back of the box….this article is nothing but flame bait…oh and purely idiotic as well.
on October 24, 2008 12:29 am
silly post
on October 24, 2008 12:33 am
Upscaled-Res,
You are a damned liar. I’m looking at the back of the box for the 360 COD4 and it clearly shows 720p/1080i/1080p. Stop making shit up.
As for the rest of you haters, please read update 2 of the post, and if that doesn’t satisfy you, then you need to start hating on IGN’s obviously biased fanboy reviewers.
on October 24, 2008 12:35 am
guy’s do yourself a favour and remove that article. its plain wrong and a shame for your site, stop defending dan for his silly mistake. he has no idea about scaling, rendering and native resolutions.
on October 24, 2008 12:36 am
Darkpower,
I have read your comment and am responding specifically to this.
“So we’re not saying any of this because we’re wanting to see the 360 or this site burn in hell, but we’re sincerely hurt by this because this is NOT what we expected out of Ripten! Trust me, it hurts ME to have to say that about you, because you’re usually more impartial than this.”
First off, I am sorry if you feel let down by our site in anyway, but the fact of the matter is we are a group of gamers, each with our own view and opinion on the gaming space.
You will read, and may have already read, many articles which you agree with on this site already. But, there are bound to be some that you do not. In those instances, it is perfectly fine to state your opinion and have a healthy debate with the writer — something I believe we engage in more than any other site I know of.
Ripten is a mix of personalities. Some are more of the old school “cut and dry, tell it how it is, and wrap it up quickly” type, while others are more opinionated, sarcastic, and personable.
We will never be able to make everyone happy collectively as a site, but that doesn’t mean you can’t follow a specific writer, or group of writers that you think embody your perspective on the industry.
Chad-
on October 24, 2008 12:40 am
Darkpower,
Actually, you are correct in saying that I should not have made this as a statement that was supposed to be taken as fact. I think a question mark at the end of the title is fairly appropriate, so I will be adding that. Thank you for your comment.
on October 24, 2008 12:40 am
wow now YOU are calling readers “damned liars”? again, very very smart – let’s put that on N4G aswell rofl…
on October 24, 2008 12:41 am
ROFL I love how you’re having to give these “updates” to your article dude…drowining men will clutch at straws.
First you go out of your way to highlight the difference in resolution between the two consoles lacing your comments with sarcasm (and also showing that you know absolutely NOTHING about resolution), then you go to another website looking for whatever you can find to supposedly back up ur stance so you now introduce to us framerate issues and sound issues. Class article.
GJ there pal…I now liken Ripten to Kotaku…full of nothing but BS.
on October 24, 2008 12:49 am
Dan,
I think your article was spot on and a good read.
Don’t let the PS3 minions get you down, they are just getting tired of game after game after game that is released and is somewhat better on the 360 and trying to defend their precious PS3.
on October 24, 2008 12:51 am
Chad, thanks for replying, though I have to clear something up here, since it sounds like you thought I was complaining about you postion an anti-PS3 article (that wasn’t my issue): I’m not a fanboy (I get accused of it a LOT, but trust me, when compared to some people, I’m not). I don’t mind bad news as long as it’s objective (hell, I’ve called out Sony on the issue of them not playing hardball with MS more than they should). My main issue was that this particular article wasn’t being fair and not saying the entire story about the upscaling chip in the 360. Also keep in mind that games nowadays CAN be patched in order to support higher resolutions.
I don’t want anyone thinking that any anti-PS3 article (or any anti-360 article) will get bashed. I hope that wasn’t your impression. I do enjoy the site. I just wanted to make sure you guys saw why this article was in the wrong: It was more whining and misinformation and not delivering all the facts rather than the fact that it was dressing the PS3 down (nothing wrong with the latter as long as you’re not doing the former, which is what happened here, to my belief).
on October 24, 2008 12:51 am
Wow, you guys are really foaming at the mouth about this, ha ha. The guy made a mistake and is trying to save face, give it a break already. There are LOTS of people who get confused by the native/supported thing when it comes to resolution. I’ve been hearing things here and there about framerate issues with the PS3 version but nothing confirmed yet. If any of that turns out to be true you guys have more to concern yourselves with than mistaken resolution.
And what’s wrong with kotaku, Upscaled-Res?
on October 24, 2008 12:55 am
Wickerman, read update 2 about IGN’s head-to-head. They seem to be confirming what you are hearing.
I completely understand the difference between native and upscaling. My question is why so many PS3 games showcase their 1080p support right on the box, but Far Cry 2 didn’t. It certainly would indicate that the game does not actively support the resolution, even though you can force your PS3 to upscale it manually.
on October 24, 2008 12:56 am
Oh, I guess he already edited his article and included the thing about the framerate, lol. I was waiting until I saw that in another review before I considered it confirmed.
on October 24, 2008 1:02 am
Hackneyed writer who fails at life, fails at life.
It’s sad that you have to resort to calling people fanboys to defend yourself when they called you out for being a moron.
But still, find a different job.
Working at McDonalds would probably suit you. You don’t have too say much.
on October 24, 2008 1:04 am
Also, I charge 5 rubles to cross the bridge, or else I eat your first born son.
on October 24, 2008 1:23 am
My firstborn son has some sharp teeth. I think he could take you.
on October 24, 2008 1:31 am
I do hope you understood what I meant. I’m just trolling. I don’t even own a console. I got a PC so the whole console war thing is lost on me.
But do be more careful what you say. Or else this happens. *points at above bagillion comments*
on October 24, 2008 1:40 am
Yes, I understood what you meant: I’m a poor writer, I fail at life, I’m a moron, and I would be better suited flipping burgers. Loud and clear, my friend.
on October 24, 2008 1:48 am
Bah, I was just hoping you’d get angry. Not my best work, I know.
I once spent a month as a member of a forum for liberal democrats. After weeks of failed attempts, I was finally hit gold. Through a 10 or so page thread I nudged them enough to the point where one of them thought that the bible implicitly condoned abortion. Several of the forum members that were involved in the thread began to agree. It went 5 pages of self-gratifying slaps-on-the-back of what ‘they’ discovered and how it would change perceptions of abortion, before a moderator locked it and soon after deleted it.
It was truly epic and I wish I still had the saved pages of it.
So anyway, don’t take it to heart. I was just bored.
on October 24, 2008 1:55 am
All 1080P TVs scale all content to 1080P. A 1080P tv does not magically lose pixels when it operates in 720P – it upscales the incoming image, just as a 720P-only tv will downscale an incoming 1080P signal. It’s worth pointing out that the HANA/ANA chip on the 360 is scaling the image in exactly the same way as the onboard TV scaler does – it adds no actual information (detail) to the image. Meanwhile, disabling 720P to force 1080P in PS3 games like far cry 2 does the same thing but in software. This is why I get really annoyed by PS3 fanboy gamers who go to the trouble of deactivating 720P in the display menu just to force the TV to operate in 1080P – THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT!!! It does *nothing*. The upscalers in TVs are often better than the software/hardware ones included in consoles (as they are designed specifically for the TVs) – even then though the difference is so transparent it doesn’t matter. For both consoles – 360 and PS3 – a 720P native game played on a 1080P display will have 720P information on 1080P pixels – IT DOESN’T MATTER A JOT WHETHER OR NOT THE TV OR THE CONSOLE IS DOING THE SCALING!!!
There are upscaling methods that use algorithms to add detail to pictures (eg. upscaling dvd pictures), typically by using techniques similar to antialising on 3d graphics cards. The ps3 doesn’t have a hardware upscaler, and the 360 upscaler doesn’t alter the output image (although the 360 *does* have hardware antialiasing separately – smart move by microsoft there).
This whole article just seems kinda uninformed. It’s amusing watching the ps3 fanboys squirm but at the same time there’s actually nothing about what’s going on with the resolutions that makes a difference to the image. The IGN comments are far more illuminating.
on October 24, 2008 2:16 am
Were as I agree with you Dan on the point in question, In that it looks like its the case that the 360 runs in a higher resolution, upscaled, I cant forgive you for you foul mouth, Granted Dan they are having a go at you and you never said native blah blah blah. When you use the word F£$%ing, all your credibility goes out the window. This article started with a direct assault on the PS3’s video capabilitys, And was worded to flame imediately. when there was no justification for it, You should know that most of the internet know you are 360 fanboys, but decent 360 fanboys can still make honest statements and dont need to post flames like this just to boost seriously dwindling numbers. And IGN aint the most reliable source of non 360 bias either. I actually enjoy this site, but this article has done it no favours DAN
So please dont swear at me Dan, or anyone else for that matter, you’ll end up with as much credibility as VGChartz if yo keep this up.
on October 24, 2008 2:20 am
@Track
Some games when you change the output resolution of the game on PS3, actually affects the rendered resolution. Only the PS3 seems to do this.
Perfect examples would be GT5 Prologue, Uncharted, and now Far Cry 2.
If you disable 720p and force the game in 1080p. Uncharted will actually be truely rendered by the PS3 in 960×1080 resolution. Not upscaling 1280×720 to 960×1080 but actually rendering it in that resolution. Though it might be hard pressed to tell a difference visually, but certainly the good folks at beyond3d.com can tell the difference enough to count the pixels.
And the same goes for GT5P, the game in 1080p mode will render at 1280×1080 2xAA resolution. But if you go into 720p mode, the game will actually render itself at 1280×720 4xAA resolution.
And it seems now it’s the same for Far Cry 2. in 720p mode, it could be rendered in 1280×720 just like the 360 version. But if you force it into 1080p, then the game could actually be rendered in 960×1080 resolution.
http://n4g.com/News-220773.aspx
Then there are games that you mention that has no affect on actual native resolution like COD4, and GTA IV (PS3) regardless if you’re in 720p mode or forced 1080p mode. COD4 will always be 600p and GTA IV will always be 640p.
And as for the native TV pixel display, you’re correct as far as everything being upscaled to whatever the native resolution of the TV is. However, when you match a native signal to the TV’s native resolution, you get less input lag. Which is an entirely different subject so I won’t go on about it.
on October 24, 2008 2:33 am
Hi sarcasm,
Thanks for the information. I knew about GT prologue but I had no idea about Uncharted or Far Cry 2 (note that the article in question here makes no mention of the differences in *native* resolution of FC2 – I maintain that it’s pretty much uninformed flamebait).
Also re. input lag – you’re dead right here. However in theory you could get lag from the hardware chip in the 360 – because it’s essentially independent hardware (not locked to the 360 CPU cycles, can’t be locked to program “frames”) it would have the same propensity to create lag. Although I’ve certainly never noticed any lag on my 360 when playing around with different resolutions (although I’m not such a “leet gamer” that I’d notice). (OT: Although I definitely notice a little lag with some TV features though… 120hz image correction processing in particular – a real pity because it makes games look great, whereas it makes DVD look frickin’ weird.)
on October 24, 2008 3:02 am
Ah looks like I learned a bit myself from you. I didn’t actually “think outside of the box” with the scaler chip. But you’re right, going through the scaler chip could induce a small amount of lag as well. Although I play my 360 on a 40″ XBR4, I do sense there’s probably 15-20ms of lag. Obviously that amount is hardly game breaking at all.
And yeah 120hz Motionflow will create some lag. There’s actually a theory on AVSforums, that 120hz TV’s are always running 120hz refresh rate (even without motion flow). So when you put it in “Game mode” it makes the TV back to 60hz like a PC input which creates less lag.
Still a theory, but it makes sense.
on October 24, 2008 3:07 am
Waiting for “Update 3″ for Dan to try and justify himself that Far Cry 2 is Native 960×1080 oppose to the 360’s 1280×1080.
Obviously, this isn’t even a big difference. But he put enough energy to claim the PS3 is “gimped” by only video output support. Then I’d like to see what he thinks about the actual resolution of the game.
Well this is my last post. Ripten, find a new guy that actually does research on things before he writes an article. And no, looking at the back of the box does not count as “research”
on October 24, 2008 3:08 am
Whoops I meant the 360’s 1280×720^
on October 24, 2008 3:39 am
Wow Ripten…you guys are fucking idiots! You’re little word press blog sucks! This is the second day in a row you guys screwed up with a news story. Yesterday it was Fallout 3 looking “worse than 360 on PS3″ which you then came back to say “oh no, thats not what we meant.” Now today, you take another knock at the PS3 by offering fake news. Just because the 1080p is on the back of the box doesn’t mean it’s native (which you did mention) but the PS3 can upconvert to that. If you have 1080p set as the standard resolution, you’re going to get that on the PS3. Same way 360 would do it. There is no difference at all.
So, good job ripten. You screwed up again. By this time, people over at n4g are already promising not to post anymore of your horrible posts. better go to digg.com to find more gamers because you aren’t welcome at n4g.
on October 24, 2008 4:31 am
for the resolution from beyond3d forum:
Far Cry 2 runs at a higher native resolution on PS3
Quaz51 – the guy from beyond3d forum who found the native resolution of GTA4 (PS3) and Halo 3 (X360), confirmed that the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 is running at 960*1080p as opposed to 1280*720p on X360.
See the links below for the native resolution of PS3 and X360 versions
PS3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p…&postcount=952
When asked if the x360 version runs at 1080i too , QUAZ51 replied :-
X360
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p…postcount=1134
on October 24, 2008 5:30 am
So much fighting over SUCH an OK game, psh. LEAVE DAN ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE! LMAO!
on October 24, 2008 5:48 am
@Sarcasm: yeah as far as i know that’s true about 120hz tvs always running at 120 (at least LCDs, i dunno about the uprate plasmas), it’s similar to TVs always running at their maximum resolution. The electrode grid that triggers the liquid crystals *always* pulses twice as fast in 120hz tvs, the lattice is calibrated for that alone so presumably you’d get luminescence irregularities without it. Of course, 120hz makes no difference if there’s no image processing before it to actually give each frame a distinct image.
Haha you’re right re. the higher PS3 pixel count. I didn’t actually do the maths, but yes 960*1080 is indeed higher than 720*1280 – not that it really matters either way. I don’t even own a PS3 and I think this article is ridiculous. I can’t believe this guy posted a story about something he saw on the back of the box (sorry, two boxes) – unbelievable.
on October 24, 2008 6:14 am
Dan,you’ve made a flaimbait article to prove your point about the inferiority of ps3 vs xbox360 based only a back of case when we all know that every game of Xbox360 are native resolution 720p upscaled to 1080p and not 1080p native .Far cry 2 for ps3 instead is 960×1080p confirmed.You have made an article without any technical references or researches.sorry but this is unprofessional.
on October 24, 2008 6:25 am
The writer made a point of never hearing of a PS3 game that supports 1080p, but doesn’t advertise it on the box, here’s one: Unreal Tournament III. I believe Virtua Fighter 5 is the same (I have the Japanese version, which says 1080p on the back).
For the pople saying you can make the PS3 display any game in 1080p if you disbale 720p -you can’t. Try Uncharted, Resistance, Ratchet, Little Big Planet, Heavenly Sword etc. etc. etc.
In relation to the article itself, what the writer fails to realise that if you actually own a 1080p TV, that the PS3 will only output the game at 720p is totally irellevant – your TV will do a much better job of upscaling the picture to 1080p than the 360’s internal scaler. I have a 1080p Sony Bravia, but my 360 is set to 720p for that very reason.
on October 24, 2008 6:26 am
http://www.n4g.com/News-220773.aspx
Ooops.
on October 24, 2008 6:28 am
Comment awaiting moderation? That really is too funny.
on October 24, 2008 6:44 am
@Morganfell: Which comment are you referring to? Chad S’s? Chad is actually right. Well, he’s not wrong. As I said in my post earlier, TV scalers do EXACTLY the same job as the ANA chip in the 360 – some may do it a little better, some may do it a little worse. Given the high quality of sony components in their TVs (X/XBR series anyway) it’s very plausible that they’d do a better job than the 360 scaler. I’ve played around with letting my tv do the scaling or letting the 360 do it, and I can’t tell the difference so I just let the 360 do it – but that’s just me and my tv, other people may well find otherwise.
on October 24, 2008 6:52 am
Come on,everybody has a little bias,you’re all pretending to hold the true objective view.
And yes,the article was a little yellowish before the question sign,but you’re all acting like mr.Landis pissed on your coffee instead of researching for yourselves.
Besides,you all know that upscaling a 720p or sub 720 natively locked game will gimp the ratio and make the picture look weird,don’t you? i.e. COD4@1080
Stop thinking the more the better,you sound like graphic whores but some of your eyes can’t tell the difference;It’s in your head.Did you know that the framerate in Burnout Paradise improves a little when displayed in SD?
You do know that some/many of you don’t have true 1080p,don’t you? there’s a lot of weird res going on in LCD’s/plasma this days,being the most popular [1366x768]or[1600x1050] and so on.
PS:Before arguing with me or spiting in my face,keep in mind I’m an A/V technician among other things,and a PS3 owner.
on October 24, 2008 7:10 am
I understand that you refer to the box itself (you apparently haven’t played both -or even one – versions, so you can’t compare yourself), but why give props for the lying BS of MS on the packaging of their games?
The packaging should specify native resolution, and the resolution at which the game can be displayed.
In both cases (PS3 and 360) it would then read: Native: 720p. Display: 480p/720p/1080i/1080p
This article only seems to be a flamebait, and to just spew misinformation for the sake of it.
on October 24, 2008 7:11 am
No track, these guys are not correct. I have a post awaiting moderation and it links to a report by Quaz51 over at Beyond3D. It turns out the PS3 version runs in a higher native resolution. He does these tests a lot and I am not surprised he jumped on this.
Had ripten done the right thing and researched the article this wouldn’t have happened. Then when the errors were pointed out last night they backpedaled and blamed everyone else. Now matters are worse.
They printed an inflammatory article. Let’s see if they throw one up saying the 360 version is gimped because it runs at a lower res. Personally I think such matters are pure idiocy. After all we have seen that a game can run in a low res and look great. HALO 3 is an example. Most reviewers that did a comparison felt the the PS3 version of GTAIV looked better but it runs at a slightly lower res and with better frame rates.
You may be sure your sins will find you out. Let’s see what penitence, if any, this site puts forward.
on October 24, 2008 7:14 am
Nevertheless,some of you know what they’re talking about,I just wanted to allude some of the fanboys lurking here.
Oh,and by the way i meant “Researching yourselves” = playing the game.
Not reading what others think,(unless you have a hive mind and share eyes with other people)
on October 24, 2008 7:19 am
Why is it all the experts reside in the comment section. With all this knowledge and time spent typing, they could have spent this time spent arguing here they could have gone somewhere and made their own blog.
on October 24, 2008 7:39 am
i think its hilarious that when you guys post something wrong you get angry at the people bringing up the fact that you are wrong.
it’s also hilarious that apparently turning off an option is “tricking” the ps3, as though upscaling is some easy feature that tricks games into scaling better. pretty sure my xbox has the option to stop upscaling (upscaling causes image blur) but you need to switch the option off as it’s on automatically, so i guess my 360 is a backdoor trickster as well?
none of this has to do with a console being superior, considering the upscaling on both consoles is licensed from another company. you could have had a decent article with just “mandatory install and fps hiccups”, but nope, you had to go off and rant about how the ps3 is apparently inherently gimped and now sony tricks everyone.
on October 24, 2008 7:49 am
H4ters OWNED again XD
Play games, no hate them. You PS3-h4ters sucks with every new comparison that makes no sense. You must be too idiot if you enjoy more comparisons than playing games. XD
on October 24, 2008 7:54 am
The unapologetic and poor attempt at a correction above (it only digs a deeper hole) also needs to question why the developers didn’t avail themselves of a feature that even Chad agrees other PS3 games support. Instead the article is a 100% blame game on the PS3.
I know that blaming developers is a resort often utilized. Sometimes justly, sometimes not. But any decent journalist in this situation would have to ask why a common feature that is in other PS3 games and can be artificially induced by gamers themselves wasn’t naturally included in the PS3 version.
If people can find a way to blame Sony for that matter when it normally works in other titles then they are just out to attack the PS3. In such a case they should just belly up to the bar and honestly reveal the colors everyone else sees already.
In the future the Staff should watch Clear and Present Danger and learn a lesson on how to handle a mistake or faux pax. You step into it immediately and take full responsibility. It ends the controversy instantly, demonstrates character, and saves you from becoming the internet punching bag.
on October 24, 2008 8:08 am
well… it looks like you discovered a way to make hits in your crappy page, start fanboys flame wars. good job, you notice that making good news don’t work and you recurred to dirty tricks to gain hits.
on October 24, 2008 8:20 am
1) The 360 does not output true 1080P in this game
2) The PS3 version is not “gimped”, in fact, it runs at a higher resolution. Just like the 360, it too can upscale to 1080P.
3) Rather than imply that the PS3 version is “gimped” just because the box label does not dishonestly claim 1080P unlike the 360 (which says 1080P when it’s actually just 720P upscaled), you should be complaining about the 360 falsely stating 1080P when it actually renders only at 720P.
For example, if someone sells a game on the 360 that actually renders at 320×240 and uses the internal scaler chip to output at 1080P, Microsoft would happily place a 1080P label on the box. Would you say that’s false labeling?
By not complaining about such false labeling you are aligning yourself with all that’s cynical and negative in marketing.
on October 24, 2008 8:22 am
@MorganFell & Sorry about interfering in your passionate crusade;
I think you’re right in most of your points,but your aggressive,nonstop,paternalistic autofellatio prose makes me want to Puke.
I believe Mr.Landis wont and doesn’t have to apologize.
1-He’s entitled to say your mum has a moustache,he may be wrong,but hey,it’s not your site.
2-He Rectified On Demand
3-As said above,your Attitude and other people’s is more than enough for not bothering with a “Sorry I was mistaken”,Independently of the fact he was right or not.
You see,respect its not about saying “Bitch” in a subtle,kind & educated way.It’s sometimes about giving the benefit of the doubt.
on October 24, 2008 8:51 am
Go throw up and have some Maalox. If you are getting sick over what you are readin then do not let the door hit you.
He is entitled to say what he wants. And when the readership of this site drops off to nothing, when the credibility of Ripten goes into the toilet then of course he is entitled to the sound of crickets chirping as well. of course he has people such as yourself to keep him company which is fine if he is masochistic.
He didn’t rectify on demand and only an imbecile believes that he did. No one with complaints is interested in rectification. They do not want apologies either. They want the facts.
As well they would appreciate that a blatant attack piece designed as web hit inducing flamebait not be so anorexic in it’s supposed supporting information and research. Facts which have been shown to be nothing more than the opinion and whims of a disgruntled individual that tripped backwards into an opportunity to write for a website.
Benefit of the doubt is given where it exists, not snatched out of thin air for the sake of convenience. Respect is provided when earned. Not when someone has shown themselves to be devoid of such warranted action.
on October 24, 2008 9:12 am
“Imbeciles” such as myself often disagree with Landis,because I think he is a little biased towards 360,but that’s ok.
I won’t let the door hit me,for I’m not leaving.You sir are a whining and insulting hamster,and your petty pedantry doesn’t scare me,even though english isn’t my mother language.
You never,Ever,since the beginning of your ego-rant,thought that Landis may be really mistaken,you just blamed him suggesting that there is malicious objectives behind his post.
I approached you with a “sorry” in my first paragraph,agreed that you have the right to say some of the things you are saying,and you spitted in my face and tried to put your boot in my neck.
Don’t worry,I won’t hurt your godly eyes with my dirty words ever again.But I will Not Leave.
You sir,are educated fascist scum.
on October 24, 2008 9:57 am
Indeed it seems this place is incapable of posting a reasoned and factual post and my perfectly reasonale post from earlier has been removed..
The site obviously doesn’t like it if you make too much sense.
Any mention of the REAL resolutions of these two platforms being systematically removed from the site, so that the the glaring inadequacies of this shameless and woeful piece of prose are not highlighted with too much accuracy.
Though I admire Chad for taking the time to write responses, he singularly seems to miss the point about this ‘work’. Opinion pieces are fine and we all have to accept that not everyone agrees with them. Presenting misinformation as fact, is not fine and indefensible, and Chad has clearly evaded taking any responsibility for presenting the truth. As for the author – his earlier responses have show the maturity level he operates at,if the article didn’t have you convinced of that in the first place.
on October 24, 2008 10:13 am
Oops is right, Morganfell. Your n4g article failed. Great job. Your comment was in moderation because it had an outbound link in it, which automatically flags it so that we don’t have people linking to child porn, etc. We approve those comments only if they make sense, and a lot of times they don’t. Sorry if you thought you were being singled out, but it’s just not the case. You are not special.
Also, I wanted to talk about this resolution topic some more. 960×1080 is not widescreen. Even if it were true that this was the resolution of Far Cry 2 on PS3, I don’t see how stretching a non-widescreen resolution into a widescreen picture would actually be a benefit to the visuals, even given the extra number of pixels. Possibly this is what gives some games a “blur” effect, and this is probably what lead IGN to declare 360’s visuals as slightly superior to PS3’s. Just because a game has a higher resolution does not necessarily mean it has a better picture.
I find it kinda funny that everyone is clinging to this resolution deal and ignoring the other issues that the PS3 version is having. Even if I was wrong about the resolutions (which I’m not yet convinced that I was), the rest of the article still does enough to make me think the PS3 version might be gimped, and that is the whole point.
on October 24, 2008 10:20 am
I also wanted to confirm my maturity level by making a fart joke, but then I realized that nobody would actually hear my fart.
I’m sorry my immaturity has been running rampant on this story. This is all because my professional writing fedora with laminated Press card is at the cleaners. Whoops.
on October 24, 2008 11:12 am
No the article failed submission at N4g because it was from a forum post and that does not fall with in the guidelines for submission there. It doesn’t mean the article was invalid. It wasn’t. See how you didn’t get it right…again?
You can’t learn from your mistakes and now you have lost the last shred of respect you had. You must have been boiling all morning over this matter. Were you to have joked at the beginning of this fiasco and and said ‘we goofed’ all would have been forgiven. But you have continued to shovel away. Can you even see the top of the hole above you anymore?
w While 960×1080 isn’t wide screen it is in a higher native resolution than the 360 version. Which takes us back to the gist of your original article. It mentioned nothing about any of the issues IGN had seen but rather was about the fact the 360 ran in a higher resolution. It also made a sharp point of how the devs were devoid of any responsibility in not properly engineering the PS3 version. Yet this is something which even your boss clearly indicated was in other PS3 titles and therefore a mystery here.
Let me break that down. Despite your snide remark about PS3 owners, this was indeed the devs fault. Of course that didn’t suit your PS3 is gimped article and thus isn’t mentioned. Truth in journalism, eh?
I think my work and the work of several other good posters is done here. Not to champion the PS3 but rather to point out the incompetence with which the original article was researched and the bitter hatred against the PS3 with which is was written. Not to mention the vitriol and adolescence with which the erred writing was defended.
Congratulations. In one night of stubbornness you single handedly, well with a little help from Chad, have managed to destroy this site’s reputation for neutrality and independence. Ripten’s days are over. I’m out.
on October 24, 2008 11:18 am
@Morganfell re. your post@my previous post: Sorry, I merely misunderstood who your post was directed at. I thought you were directing it at the post before you in the thread. I know about the Ps3 native res for FC2, the poster i was chatting with earlier in the thread informed me of the superior ps3 native resolution. The effective 1080I resolution on the ps3 version is only marginally superior to the 360 one but it is indeed superior – kinda puts a dent in the ripten article for sure. Judging by the IGN article the 360 version is a little smoother (which is good for me, i don’t have a ps3 and my ol’ laptop would struggle for sure), but, as you said, that’s not what the ripten guy was writing about – he was writing (in a very puffed up manner) about some stuff on the back of the boxes! i say again: pathetic.
Watching fanboys – from both sides – get worked up about stuff that either
a) comes from the back of a ****ing box or
b) is based off something so hard to spot it requires the expert help of a trained eye
is always sad and amusing at the same time… tragically comic, comically tragic. Like you said, a number of fine looking games have come out this generation running sub-hd native and it more-or-less goes by unnoticed: it takes the work of experts like Quaz51 to bring this to people’s attention. I’ve got a lot of respect for people like quaz51 who spot little details which whilst being fundamentally unimportant are still interesting from a tech/development perspective (nobody would’ve noticed the dynamic res buffer on wipeoutHD without people like quaz51, and that stuff is fucking cool – why don’t more games do that?!?), but unfortunately their interesting finds often get turned into retard flamebait.
And, relatedly, I agree completely that this article is mere flamebait – an article based on information taken from the back of the box? C’mon, that’s pathetic by anyone’s standards.
@dan landis: like i said: that’s pathetic by anyone’s standards. And your desperate po-mo inverse self deprecating jokes in the thread are just making it worse. this was a bullshit article to begin with. seriously, if you want to do a comparison then buy both versions, sit down with them, play them both, see how it turns out. What you have here is utter rubbish.
on October 24, 2008 11:39 am
^ Man,how I pity his local newspapers editor.
I can imagine him writing every day:
“Dear sir,I’ve noticed you are a substandard human being”.”Dear sir,I’ve noticed your horoscope does not fit me”.”Dear sir,I’ve got nothing better to do today”
Glad you are out,its more than a hundred comments already.STFU.
on October 24, 2008 11:42 am
You keep digging yourself into a Jenna Jamison hole. The point of the matter is that you were wrong. The native resolution is slightly higher on the ps3. So what issues does the ps3 have, slighty framerate slow downs? So what, doesn’t effect the picture quality. Why don’t you play both versions of the game and then tell us what you think instead of reading the back of the box or reading other peoples reviews.
on October 24, 2008 11:50 am
seriously, there was no problem with this article except the little end rant about how the ps3 is somehow to blame and the durr hurr sony sux LAWL U TELL EM BRO attitude attached to it. to be honest if it didn’t have that little senseless bashing people would have just said “hey it actually can hit 1080p upscaled” and the issue would have been over. instead you go out and try to make other people look like morons for pointing out your own mistakes. “fuck off moron i was talking about upscaled”, “oh it runs upscaled too? fuck off i was talking about uhhhhhhhhh lemme see oh yeah i was talking about issues from another article that has info I didn’t post”.
on October 24, 2008 12:49 pm
Again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge:-
“Also, I wanted to talk about this resolution topic some more. 960×1080 is not widescreen. Even if it were true that this was the resolution of Far Cry 2 on PS3, I don’t see how stretching a non-widescreen resolution into a widescreen picture would actually be a benefit to the visuals”
The PS3 has a hardware scaler for the horizontal width, but not the height component of the picture. Wipeout HD uses this to good effect – if the frame rate was going to drop below 60, it drops the horizontal rez to 960 as the hardware chip will double it to 1920. Grab some frames from Wipeout and you can see some will be full 1920×1080, some will be 960X1080 with hardware width scaling. Its a clever method to keep the game at 60 hz in a 1080P rez.
Obviously the coders of Farcry 2 are well aware of the PS3 architecture and choose the res so that 1080P play can run at full frame rate with the the width doubled by the hardware scaler available.
Even someone with a rudimentary grasp of visuals will understand that having more rendered pixels on screen will give more detail, and there’s less ’stretching’ going on with a 960×1080P signal than there is blowing up a 720P signal.
As for your maturity level,its obviously pre-teen humor and no doubt you think you are witty? I think most people can see straight through it to a kind of ‘teen angst’ that shows through and belies your basic insecurity. You know you’ve written garbage, but you’ve gone to far to climb down now.
Incidentally – I’m a happy 360 owner and a game developer by trade. I’ve got no ‘drum to bang’ except for wanting a reasonable standard of journalism. It’s bad enough we have this kind of trash written on forums all over the web, but I really do take offense when I see such misleading tripe masquerading as journalism peddled on a site that formally had reasonable content.
on October 24, 2008 2:23 pm
The “rant” at the end of the article was a joke making fun of the way fanboys always make excuses for their console, which has more than been proven by some of these comments.
As for “play both versions yourself and then decide” well, do you realize that I took that picture? I do have both versions of the game and I agree with the IGN head-to-head, with the exception of the PC version which I haven’t played. Of course, saying that doesn’t really matter, does it, since I’m such an obvious fanboy.
Everyone has some kind of bias, that’s inevitable. Most multiplatform games will likely not be identical to each other, that’s also inevitable. The bottom line is that there will almost always be an inferior version, no matter how minor, and in this case it seems to be the PS3. I honestly don’t see why people think that if someone says one thing is better, there must be some ulterior motive besides just logical comparison. I also find it ridiculous that our opinions apparently don’t matter since we are not IGN and we speak our minds instead of just spewing out political bullshit.
on October 24, 2008 2:49 pm
1080p @ 360 is always faked (upscaled), the 360 is not able to render true 1080p but the PS3 is able to render even higher resolutions than 1080p.
on October 24, 2008 5:52 pm
@lolek
Sorry, but you’re full of it. Both the 360 and the PS3 can render at 1080P resolution. However, very few games on either platform do. Very, very few PS3 (and 360) games do. Got it?
That said, I have found that on my TV the 360 does a much better job scaling than the PS3. PS3 games always look a little blurry. So, whether it’s native or not, scaling can help an image look better (just as it does in upconverting DVD players) and the 360 does a better job of it.
People trying to pass off the idea that Microsoft is somehow deceiving people by listing all possible output resolutions are being really absurd. In fact, Sony (and other publishers)are making a big mistake by not listing all available output resolutions on the back of the box. Most people don’t go searching for such information on the internet, they basically just go off what information is on the back of the box. And if you have a 1080P HDTV, you are likely going to be looking to see if a game can output at that resolution.
Anyway, most of you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact is, most of Dan Landis’ comments about all the Sony hype with regard to the PS3 supposedly being the only true HD console and all that are true. Far Cry 2 does look and perform better on the 360 (as do most cross-platform titles) and it’s getting really old that so many people have bought into Sony’s hype about the PS3 supposedly being the most powerful console. In terms of 95% of game development out there, it is actually the 360 that is the more powerful.
on October 24, 2008 6:01 pm
SaberEdge, what are you thinking? Haven’t the comments thus far proven to you that there is no place for logic here? Regardless, thank you for your comment.
on October 24, 2008 6:44 pm
Yeah, I should probably know better. I guess I just wanted to add my two cents. I’m getting really tired of people saying that developers are lazy when PS3 versions of multi-platform games turn out worse.
You’re welcome.
on October 24, 2008 11:07 pm
Yo saber, I don’t know if you realize by now that 90% of multiplatform games are ported to ps3 and its not easy. If it was the other way around, it would be a different story. Let’s see them port games like Metal Gear to xbox and see what happens you xbot.
on October 24, 2008 11:20 pm
You see what that was? That was an excuse. What difference does it make? You are making excuses for why the games are worse while at the same time refusing to admit that the games are worse. You fanboys make absolutely no sense at all. Yeah, it’s okay for the PS3 to get a bad port of a game because porting is really hard. It’s okay if the visuals aren’t as good because the resolution is higher, which obviously isn’t helping anything because it still looks worse.
Give me a break.
on October 25, 2008 3:53 am
Every HD television will upscale incoming video to the television’s native resolution. Upscaling does not increase the resolution, it’s just a marketing gimmick like diet-whatever.
if your running a game at ?640×480? on your PC with a 1920×1080 monitor (fullscreen), it’s being upscaled to 1080p. It doesn’t make it any prettier.
So if your blessed with a hd1080 tv, whatever your playing with will be upscaled.
And someone please explain how “minor irritation for some” = gimped?
I think the developers should be praise for trying to create an equal experience on all platforms.
on October 25, 2008 12:09 pm
So they both render at 720, but the PS3 box doesn’t say it can be upscaled?
God the PS3 is so shit.
on October 25, 2008 1:56 pm
Dan, to clarify (at least my point of view), it’s NOT okay that multiplats are often superior visually on 360. Many PS3 owners (owner not to be confused with fanboy) will admit which looks better or plays smoother. I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s okay (if they are, they’re fanboys). It’s also not an “excuse” IMO.
It’s like if Jordan was sick for a game a decade ago, and his stats really suffered, it could be considered an excuse, but it’s also a “reason”. I’ll admit many multiplats are superior in the visual area for 360, but there’s a “reason” for it, and it’s NOT okay. Burnout Paradise, COD 4, Dead Space and many others look great on both, and it’s hard to tell the difference, if at all. Obviously it’s up to the dev’s, because it’s pretty blatant that great visuals can happen on the PS3 (exclusives AND some multiplats prove this). You don’t blame the car for crashing when the guy next to you did fine in the same circumstances, it’s who was at the wheel.
on October 27, 2008 5:59 am
If i give my tv a 720 signal, it doesn’t display it 1:1, or try and upscale it itself, but runs at a lower, interpolated resolution. In other words: horrible jagged edges abound. With that in mind, i notice a clear difference between far cry played with the PS3 set at 720p, than at 1080i (the “best” HD signal my tv will take). One is interpolated by the tv, the other has clearly been upscaled by the console.
So the issue here would seem to be one of marketting. Microsoft would probably argue that they’re just trying to be helpful to the average layman consumer, in specifically telling them the game will display correctly on whatever HD tv they happen to have, and at whatever input standards it supports. Sony, on the other hand, would presumably say that they’re quoting the native resolution of the game, and that to do anything else, would be to misrepresent the game’s actual content.
I’m no fan of sony and their attitude to proprietary hardware/software platforms, but in this case, i favour their approach. MS are clearly hoping that some people will be mislead into buying the game on 360, on the mistaken basis that it runs at a higher resolution.
Either way, this whole article seems to be an unfair and unfounded criticism of the PS3. Both versions of the game run at the same native resolution (which far from being irrelevent as the article suggests, is really the only figure that matters) and both consoles will upscale the signal to 1080i/p. Their capability is the same, they just have different policies on box specs.
on October 27, 2008 11:23 am
How is using a menu option on the PS3 tricking it? Its an option in the menu.
on October 27, 2008 2:26 pm
Yes, it is an option in the menu, but you are forcing the PS3 to output in 1080p by selecting it as the only option. Leaving 720p as an option would result in the game rendering in 720p since that is what the game itself supports, hence the lack of 1080p on the back of the game case. I’m not saying it’s not a perfectly legitimate way to get 1080p out of your system, it’s just the fact that you have to make the PS3 ignore what the game wants to do — that’s the “trick” I was talking about.
on October 27, 2008 2:51 pm
I don’t believe that is true. To get 1080p support on either your Xbox 360 or PS3 you will have to tell the console your preference of output. You cannot “trick” either console. I don’t believe the Xbox 360 knows what resolution your TV outputs without you informing it.
Moreover, upscaling merely means making the image bigger to fit your screen. Neither console is particularily good at smoothing or improving the image for the larger size, with the PS3/Xbox 360 only performing smoothing upscaling for DVD’s. Most TV’s upscale the input image themselves but Microsoft like to let consumers know if their TV is supported (all 1080p Tv’s support 720p/1080i/1080p anyway). Sony prefer to let consumers know the native resolution (except in the case of sub-HD resolutions. eg. Haze/GTAIV)
At the end of the day – there is no difference in the resolution of Far Cry 2 – there is no borking or gimping going on in the resolution. Both are 720p. It will only ever be rendering in 720p (or 1080i for PS3, recommended only for TVs that do not support 720p) – upscaling that image does not improve the rendering, only the size of the image. You will expereince no difference in the Xbox 360/PS3 upscaling to 1080p, than if the HDTV was left to upscale 720p itself. If there is any gimping, it would be in the slightly dodgy framerate on the PS3 version.
on October 27, 2008 3:12 pm
While I am sure Dan is not being intentionally misleading, his ongoing attempts to justify his article rather than learning and understanding his mistake, just point to a lack of knowledge.
It is totally irrelevant what the upscaled output is. The only thing of relevance is the native resolution.
My amplifier upscales to 1080p, so does my television and by all accounts these particular upscalers are superior to one in the Xbox 360. If I plug the PS3 into my computer monitor, I can upscale the output to 2560×1600. woohoo!
But it doesn’t matter. The native resolution that the game is rendered at is 720p. 720p displayed on a native 720p panel can actually look better than upscaled 720p on a 1080p panel. But all this is hypothetical; there are so many factors to consider with upscaling.
I just wish when people are in a position to post articles like this, they also did their research properly. Microsoft are just playing the marketing game one way, Sony the other. The experience for users is the same.
on October 27, 2008 6:08 pm
Again, I don’t understand why everyone is focusing on the resolution as being the sole reason I said what I said. There is much more than the resolution issue. I have played both versions and personally felt, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, that the PS3 version is not as good. Nobody cares about my opinion and just dismisses it, but then I add IGN’s head-to-head and all of a sudden it’s more valid.
It would seem that the resolution is the only point of contention in an article discussing why the PS3 version is not as polished. Even if I am wrong about the resolutions, which majority rules that I am (even though I was just talking about the boxes, jeez), it doesn’t change the point of the article. In fact, people claiming the resolution is actually higher on the PS3 only hurts its case because you are basically saying that even at a higher resolution the PS3 version manages to look slightly worse.
on October 27, 2008 11:36 pm
@Dan Landis: Dan, your article as it was originally written (pre-ign amendment) didn’t mention anything about the quality of the PS3 graphics outside of the resolution – it’s disingenuous to suggest that people are being foolish by focussing on the resolution because YOU focussed on the resolution. Furthermore, nowhere did you state that you’d actually played the PS3 version, and the “i’m sure” qualifier at the beginning of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph makes it sound like you *hadn’t* played it. I think people here regard the ign head-to-head as more valid because they’d CLEARLY played both versions, whereas in your article it was ambiguous at best; furthermore, IGN actually mentioned specifics like the 360 version having a superior framerate, whereas your entire article as it was initially written just focussed on the after-scaling resolution with all your evidence coming from the back of the boxes. After-scaling resolution is meaningless because (as SEVERAL people have already mentioned), 1080P tvs automatically scale any 720P input signals up 1080P (ie. it doesn’t matter whether the 360 HANA chip is doing it or the TV is doing it).
You’ve also claimed that all the people who disagree with you are ps3 fanboys, which isn’t true either: I don’t own a PS3, have no desire to own a PS3, believe that most multiplat games look better on 360 (burnout paradise the only possible exception, and even then you’d be hard pressed to notice the difference) and believe that the 360 has better exclusives (although I must admit I haven’t actually played that many ps3 exclusives, so I can’t really justify that belief). But all of that doesn’t change the fact the HANA chip in the 360 does EXACTLY the same thing as the scaler in a tv set, and as a few people have noted sometimes the scalers in their tv do a better job than the 360 scaler (as i said, i can’t tell the difference so i just let my 360 do it). The 360 is almost certainly the better multiplat console and with the possible exception of one or two games (uncharted, wipeout hD) the PS3 hasn’t really done anything to show itself as a graphically superior console, but all of that doesn’t change the fact they your original article was rubbish based around a total misunderstanding of what scaling is, what it does etc.
on October 27, 2008 11:37 pm
Your topic is still a failure.
Stop being an attention-whore.
on October 27, 2008 11:46 pm
Track,
You are right in that my original post wasn’t clear, and for that I apologize. I still stand by my opinion of the game, regardless of what resolutions they are displaying in. I will have to disagree with your comment that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy. It’s simply not true. I think a logical person reading through the comments can see who the fanboys are and who the people are simply arguing their case. There’s a huge difference.
As for you, theEnemy, if you want me to stop being an attention whore then you should just stop giving me attention.
on October 28, 2008 12:09 am
Dan, When you write an article the way you did, you clearly wanted to get some reactions from Ps3 fan boys. (seems like you accomplished your goal)
With an article like this you not only annoy ps3 fan boys. When your journalistic skills go no further than draw a conclusion based on box art and later on defending it by referring to other websites it’s poor practice.
I just discovered your website, but after reading your article and the subsequent responses to users comments it seems that I have to lower my expectations regarding this websites content.
Ps I agree that x-box 360 has better multi platform games, I am looking forward to a properly conducted article highlighting facts and actual comparisons of multi platform games… or maybe not since I am convinced the xbox 360 will win hands down.
on November 2, 2008 12:20 am
I hope to see a continual trend lean towards a very obscure difference, at best, and even show PS3 really using it’s power in coming years. I think it’s heading that way, we’ve got Mirror’s Edge lead dev’d on PS3 and it’s phenomenal on both platforms, and Dead Space looking excellent as well…As a PS3 owner (neutral owner, mind you, not a narrowminded fanboy), I simply wish Sony would have come up with the same powerful hardware, and made it easier to grasp. I may not be an engineer, but I can tell you from a common sense standpoint, ease of use and horsepower CAN go hand in hand. I am actually quite upset, if you want me to complain (if I have to show my neutrality here) about one aspect that I dislike on my console, and it’s that it’s a b*tch to port to. Games like Killzone 2 and War Devil and White Knight Chronicles, as well as ones already out (Uncharted, MGS4, and more or less Resistance 2, etc…) SHOW the PS3 can be wielded skillfully when grasped, it’s the fact that it takes so much effort to do said grasping that aggravates me.