October 3rd, 2011
Posted in 
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This week we take a stroll through the mutant filled wasteland of RAGE on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. There’s been a lot of speculation on how id Software’s latest creation would look on consoles, and here’s your chance to find out.
Rollover to see the Difference. Can you spot any differences?
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference. Notice the Gama levels match 1:1 out of the box!
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Pages: 1 2
Tags: *To ensure color accuracy from the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii U output, the PlayStation 3 has RGB Full Range set to "Full" and Super White "On", and the Xbox 360 has Reference Level set to "Expanded" and HDMI Color Space set to "RGB". Our capture card we have captured segments from the AVS HD 709 . Blu-ray, HD DVD, & MP4 Calibration suite.
As you will see, each system matches each other at the SOURCE LEVEL. No contrast or gamma settings are manipulated before or after capturing our images/videos. We strongly believe that these types of corrections are done on a individuals preference and should not be adjusted by us. Finally, washed out looking images that are due to contrast or gamma differences will not have any influence on our final verdicts. Please Read through our F.A.Q page if you have any questions or concerns.*
first! This is gonna be huge! let the flame wars begin!!!!!!!!
nearly identical, though in the second to last image it is clear xbox wins, but if you factor in the amount of install space and the number of disks, the ps3 wins every time!
not sorry i pre ordered it for ps3, this game’s gunna RULE!!!!!!!!!111
The soft look on the PS3 picture you’re talking about is caused by a post processing effect called depth of field, something that occurs when you aim down sight. If anything, it tells us that it wasn’t used on the xbox 360, giving the PS3 an edge. I think it’s coincident or a timing difference. It’s a very misleading image which might lead to assumptions that are simply not true. The text under the image even hints that a sharper image is better, even though the whole purpose of the depth of field is to cause blurring in the first place. Not impressed LOT, not impressed.
^^^^ I hope some LOT staff see this. This needs to be addressed
+1 im shocked LoT posted it as well, if anything the PS3 looks better in that pic because the depth of field give it a more realistic look.
im pretty dissapointed in the LoT staff on that pic, hopefully they say something.
alot of games use that effect and its usually when aiming down sights and focusing on one thing, it will blur the surroundings
I hate to disagree but the image in question is a zoomed in section of the image, it’s right down the line of sight where it’s supposed to be clear, the PS3 being blurred there doesn’t make sense. still both versions are very close. it’s ganna end up being the load times, screen tearing that decides it.
-10 to all of you and your “not impressed LOT” and “I’m shocked they posted it”, “this needs to be adressed” blah blah blah. You have no idea what depth of field is and are all grasping at straws here protecting the PS3 version, why I don’t know.
Let me ask you this smart guys, if that pic is a so called “depth of field feature” on the PS3 (ridiculous) why is the entire screen slightly blurred and not only objects in the background? I’ll tell you why, it not depth of field! I can’t say for sure if its draw distance, but it certainly isn’t a depth of field feature (lol) on a screen that looks ahead about 15 yards.
I bet we will hear this from this point on other head2heads – “The PS3 version isn’t blurry, its a feature called depth of field” My God I can’t stop laughing!
This site has slowed down to crawl!
@HELGIH88 – Get used to it mate. I have been a long term believer that LOT carefully construct the images shown to create controversy. See all the ads that appear on this page? They pay for the site, and possibly a tidy profit. The more flame war hits and comments they recieve increases their advertising revenue viability. Thats e-economics for you. Don’t get me wrong, I love this site. But like the newspapers, don’t believe everything you see. I have often noticed they use thier rather impressive influence to convince viewers what they WANT you to believe is the definitive version.
@Chris70
>I bet we will hear this from this point on other head2heads – >“The PS3 version isn’t blurry, its a feature called depth of >field” My God I can’t stop laughing!
This is due to dynamic resolution scalling that is hitting PS3 version harder under load resolution drops as low as 640×720…
“Downscaler at work on PS3 shot.
nowgamer.com/siteimage/scale/0/0/296052.png
nowgamer.com/siteimage/scale/0/0/296013.png
”
Anyway that and due to serious texture popup on PS3 and none on X360(even not instaled as in movie bellow) this H2H goes to X360.
X360 vs PS3 texture loading comparison:
youtube.com/v/yHZXCvjZ-_g
@HELGIH88
I agree. Some will assume something wrong and I can see the PS3 version does have the slight advantage in graphics. Can’t wait for the full analysis to
Ok, i just started playing this on the ps3, the first thing i notice is how long it takes for textures to load, its significant and extremely noticeable. This is very disappointing, does anyone notice the same thing on the xbox version?
This game is in no way as good looking as it is being pimped!
Just googling “Rage Texture Loading” will result in people complaining about texture loading across ALL platforms, including the PC. So both console versions, PS3 and 360, have texture loading issues.
On a side note:
Both video reviews for IGN and Gamespot are available, but out of curiosity, if you watch both their reviews, although it’s on their respective PS3 site, they’re videos are of the 360:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/rage/video/6338115/rage-video-review?tag=summary%3Bwatch-review&tag=stitialclk%3Bgamespace
@0:50 mark
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/119/1197935p1.html
@0:55 mark
Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Maybe they got the 360 version before the PS3 first, or what not. So 360 fans shouldn’t take this as a win, and PS3 fans shouldn’t feel snubbed. It was just an interesting observation.
******** U P D A T E ********
From NowGamer:
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1078812/rage_hd_screenshot_comparison_ps3_vs_xbox_360.html
On the surface, there is little to choose between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, although upon closer inspection, the PS3 version has more jaggies; the anti-aliasing is better on the 360 version.
What these screenshots don’t show, however, is the level of pop-in (when textures load in on-screen) and this is one of Rage’s problems visually. Pop-in is bad on both consoles, though the it appears to take longer to load textures on the 360 version.
Fully install the game on Xbox 360, however, and things improve massively; texture pop-in is barely noticeable. But even with the PS3′s manatory install, pop-in is slow to the point of distraction in some areas.
Anyway, don’t take our word for it, take a look at the gallery and let us know what you think.
—-
So basically for best performance it goes:
360HD > PS3 > 360
If I read it correctly, the optional 360HD install is 22GB.
Yeah the 360 versions looks slightly sharper in these pics. I don’t know why the PS3 versions of so many multi-platform games look a little blurry. But they are really close and it’s hard to beat not having to switch discs. Despite the slight edge to the 360 version I’d probably buy the PS3 one just for the Blu-ray capacity.
ow my god,ow my god.ps3 must pack up and leave.an other clearrrrrrrrrr xbox360 win.ow my god
Excuse me, but where are you basing your opinion of the Xbox version of this game being better? If you were to see these images on my pc, then u would be able to clearly see the differential between both versions. Clearly it’s either a tie, or a PlayStation 3 win. Everything that i have seen so far in these images has lead me to conclude that the PlayStation version will be superior. Sorry, but when developers actually take the time to produce a game for both versions with the same amount of time and effort, the PlayStation 3 will always come out victorious. It has been proven many times in the past and the outcome will not change, should the circumstances be kept.
i excuse u.but please open your eyes
Side by side video comparison of 360 and PS3 Rage at this link, provided by CVG
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/video/1197760654001/rage-ps3-vs-360-gameplay-comparison/?mode=hd
In the past, I’ve heard some accuse them of being biased to 360 and PC, but I see nothing in the video that is intentionally skewed or altered to work in favor of 360. good comparison vid imho.
well, looks like the vid comparison loads faster on CVG’s youtube page. view it here and choose “HD”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3FuL27mho
This game looks pretty great whichever console you choose (or PC). But the 360 looks to have slightly sharper textures in this comparison. Might be that it doesn’t play as well as the PS3 version though. Who knows yet…
1.
) that extra compression would cause them to be in lower quality – but smaller and as such faster loading. A nice workaround for that split 256/256 memory pool in Sony console.
Only a little – might be due to a little smaller amount of free RAM in PS3 due to bigger OS and/or maybe due that extra JPEG compression.
Normally textures ARE already always compressed using for example DXTn, DXTC, etc (if you think that textures are uncompressed in graphics RAM or on disc you need to stop
“The extra cores are assigned to work on textures in the background, as there’s tons of visual data on the blu ray and on the hard drive,” he explained. “We load compressed JPG data, and assign those extra cores to work on these textures, and uncompress them in the background so there is no nasty pop up, or blurred textures.”
2.
>”Might be that it doesn’t play as well as the PS3 version though. Who knows yet…”
The YT movies from game showed some popup and screen tear on PS3 and none on X360, so I think that X360 owners are the ones that doesn’t have to worry
From NeoGaf tests:
“Both have dynamic scaling. Looks like it’s just in the horizontal dimension. In these particular shots, the engine has gone down to 1152×720 for 360 and 640×720 on PS3.”
Thats why some screenshots of PS3 version are blurred – they are in LOW resolution due to engine trying to keep 60fps
Uuummm excuse me but did you just say the ps3 in some shots is sporting a 640×720 rez? Oh dear. And then people wonder why it’s called the ps-cripple.
Yes the cell is POWERFUL but with a crappy gpu and 256mb vram (LOL) it’s really limited resulting in a mixed bag.
The ps3 is like Superman with one arm and one leg with the other limbs being chopped off. Yes he’s strong but with one leg and one arm the reality is that he is severely limited and can only do so much.
Serious question for everyone:
WHAT WAS SONY THINKING WHEN THEY THOUGHT THAT 256MB VRAM WITHIN A SPLIT RAM ARCHITECTURE WOULD BE FINE?
The 360 version looks a tiny bit darker,that’s thoe only difference i saw.
Ok, the pics ont he first page were virually identical. On the second page however, the PS3 seems to have a softer look, and not as sharp. Which is good or bad, depending on your preference. This is going to be a great H2H. The game loos to be better than Killxone 3, but I’d have to see it in motion firt. I just hope the campaign is longer!!!!
They look absolutely identical.
Even the gamma is balanced.
Wow look at those gamma levels! This is how multiplatform should be!
Clear tie to me except the draw distance on Page 2. The very last picture on Page 2 looks more like a motion blur from different time capture…but I could be wrong.
Only thing that can settle this for me will be the frame analysis, If it’s a tie or miniscule differences either way then PS3 version for me, 3 discs, kind of annoying if you’re switching playthroughs at different levels etc.
Now to wait for the Dark Souls H2H…If they’re doing one, getting on PS3 but just out of curiosity I wanna see a comparison.
I think the draw distance is just particle effects/ depth of field differences.
Same thing with first image. In the PS3 version, the control panel looks sharp while the the background seems softer, whereas it’s the exact opposite in the Xbox 360 version. Well, it doesn’t matter, everything is more or less identical while the game is in motion anyway.
Well if this isn’t a tie, nothing is.
Pretty much identical here, I guess it will the performance that will decide which version is the better purchase out of the two console versions.
By the way, toward the left side of the third screenshot, textures of the Xbox 360 version seems blurred out in comparison to the PS3 version (but I bet you ain’t gonna notice that during gameplay.)
i thought i was the only one who noticed that :X
now i don’t feel special anymore… why you steal my moment T.T
The truth. In some pictures of xbox 360 is more “smoke” in images of PS3. It’s for the little memory of the PS3.
@Lens of Truth:
Holy crap, man! The site is so slow, it’s almost inaccessible. I initially could not get to the site, had to hit the refresh button fifty times just to access a single page. This always happens whenever there’s a major Head2Head. Any plan to resolve this issue, guys?
I voted tie, The deciding factor is going to be the performance analysis.
DAMN! I am buying this tomorrow. The excitement has been building for me with every video id has released on Rage. Watched the video on Jackal Valley today and was again impressed with the gameplay and sound. Though I have no choice for console buys (don’t have an XBOX), I can see either version being great. Glad to see id did such a great job on this game. You can really tell they poured everything they had into it. It looks killer, sounds killer, and I’ll bet it performs killer.
Side-note: I’ve noticed a huge improvement in conduct since LoT released the zero tolerance policy. Thank you staff, I think it’s been bringing out the best in everyone regarding communication here; including myself.
the site is working like shit right now
In all honesty, this is a nearly perfect tie. Carmack said that Rage would be the same on PS3 and 360, and I think Rage has definitely lived up to those words. Now, I say nearly because I do notice that some textures are sharper on 360 and some on PS3. This really isn’t a “better vs worse” comparison rather than a difference in filtering, texturing, or what not.
The only thing that can really show me that the PS3 version is better is how the computer screen in the first pic is clearer on PS3 (probably due to some better AF), and the only thing that can tell me that the 360 version is better is that the bandit is sharper in one of the pics (probably brought on by motion blur). But those are probably just odd little differences differences brought on by when the screenshot is taken.
I have to say that visually… this is one of the greatest multiplatform jobs I’ve seen in a LONG time. These are nearly perfectly identical from one another. Kudos Carmack, you live up to your name.
I do have to agree 1000 time with you, If I could give your comment 10 * , I’d done that in the first place.
Carmack has gained my respect all the way. this is the best multiplatform job I have ever seen in a long time. good job ID.
now hope we can see the final analyst hoping Both systems preform perfectly.
Spunkeez High 5 man!
The game looks identical on both platforms, with little to no difference. This is how a multi platform game should be with non of the garbage such as timed DLC exclusive, resolution and texture disparity. I personally will be picking it up for the PS3 since it will come on a single blu-ray, but it will be a great game on both platforms.
well i wanna know is LoT installed the 360 version this time?
if not,how long of loading the textures?
Somebody should direct codemasters to id and let them(codemasters) be shown how to do parity on ps3 and 360 after the disaster that is f1 2011 on ps3 compared to 360.
Great job from the guys at ID. Game looks great on both systems and word is that both run beautifully too.
I really don’t see any significant differences, just very minor, nominal differences.
Because this is a virtual tie and depending on how the game looks in motion, I’m leaning toward the PS3 version. Why? Despite what the fanboys say, if all else is equal, 1 disk is always better than 3. Why would I put up with the inconvenience (yes, all the following are inconveniences despite the fanboys) of installing 3 disks, switching between them mid-story, switching back to backtrack, etc., if I don’t have to.
i am disappointed at this website … With abit of research and watching tim willits interview, You are going to know that Not All sharpness means that it is prettier … the soft look of PS3 version shows the Depth of field Techniques that has been done on PS3′s SPUs … The comment under the picture is so confusing … because you are actually confusing people about the definition of sharpness … in here the sharpness of xbox360 version is purely mess and the soft look of PS3 version does not indicated the blurriness of PS3 version … >>>>>>>> That is exactly depth of field that will makes the image looks smooth as it close to reality. IT HAS BEEN SAID BY DEVELOPERS THAT IF THE PROCESSORS ARE POWERFUL, THEY CAN ENJOY THE DEPTH OF FEILD . which means in this case PS3 has this feature … don’t confuse the sharpness of black ops on xbox compare to its blurry version of ps3 … THANKS … AT Last this Game is Identical in both.
Thanks for clarifying that
So if the DoF (Depth of field) is a feature in that screen, tell me why EVERYTHING is blurred?
From the gun in front to the background everything looks more blurry than the XBOX-Shot.
Shouldnt a DoF-Effect have a transition from sharp to blurry? This has nothing to do with the DoF-Effect.
Nice to see how everything a PS3-Version is inferior in is turned to a feature omg…
depth of field, my ass m8. take your fanboy goggles off and look again. its very good on both formats but xbox has the edge no doubt.
face it that the xbox has the best graphics on the new king of graphics game. no other game will compare graphically not even uncharted.its big, open, 60fps, no other game comes close to producing anything this technical on consoles.
It very well could be depth of field. people are laughing at his comment because much of the screen is blurred. but is it occurring to any of you that the gun is not aiming down sights straight ahead but at a downward angle more towards the ground area? if you have working 20/20 vision and are not far sighted you’ll be able to tell that the sharpest and clearest portion of the ps3 shot is in fact the area that the iron sights are directly aimed at.
Secondly, Smooth, you are calling him pretentious for theorizing depth of field when it is in fact your statement that is the most pretentious. Rage looks great on both 360 and PS3 for what it is trying to accomplish: be huge, be 60 fps, use next gen graphics features. But be honest with yourself. By no means is it the best overall graphics on consoles. NOT BY A LONGSHOT. Sure, Uncharted 3 may not be open world and 60 fps but it pretty much blows Rage away in EVERY SINGLE OTHER graphical area that actually matters. Uncharted 3 doesn’t need to downscale its resolution to 1152×720 or 640×720 or anything below 1280×720 just to maintain a stable framerate. Uncharted 3 doesn’t suffer from nasty texture pop-in or texture loading problems. All recent reports show Rage suffers badly from these problems across EVERY platform (PC, PS3, 360). Battlefield 3, judging from the beta, has its share of issues, but overall not only is it more photo-realistic than Rage, it suffers from fewer texture loading issues (and it’s the beta!)
Hell, just got through playing some Crysis 1 on consoles and even it looks overall graphically better and more beautiful than Rage on consoles. Unless Rage gets patched soon, it will be considered a very graphically broken game like how Crysis 2 on consoles was (kinda still is).
And lastly, even KZ3, Resistance 3, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Heavy Rain, are all more graphically stable games than Rage is and thus overall better graphically. Know what’s funny? Resistance 3 may be 960×704 or something like that but it works to its advantage, it not only makes aliasing less obvious, but it adds a visual grime to the picture that fits Resistance 3′s atmosphere. And it maintains its resolution throughout the whole game. It’s just fugly to see Rage downscaling and upscaling back and forth from 1280×720 to 1152×720 here and there.
correction, of course being lower resolution in and of itself won’t effectively combat the obviousness of aliasing. but in the case of Resistance 3, the lower native resolution, when operating in conjunction with the implemented haziness and blur effect that Resistance 3 engine uses, makes for an image that masks aliasing quite well.
sad really, a few cowardly low stars given but no mature attempt to offer an effective counter argument. I’m open to possibility it’s not depth of field. but it could be. just saying. and everything else stated is based on cold hard facts. maybe that’s why some people are just spiteful.
It looks almost identical. But in that second-to-last image, the slightly “sharper draw distance” in the 360 version is actually an extra depth-of-field effect on the PS3 version.
From EG review of 360 copy :
“The technology isn’t perfect, mind you. There’s a noticeable degree of pop-in as you sprint into new locations, alleviated somewhat by installing to your hard disk but disruptive all the same.”
I told you so , is term that comes to mind. I even posted the gamescon interview with carmack talking about how texture loading etc is effected by various things too. In picture on p2 where ps3 looks bit blurred, I’m wondering If texture just hasn’t loaded yet. Someone suggested motion blur, and it’s possible, but think less likely than a texture that’s not fully loaded.
This is literally Identical. apart from the second to last screen.
Eactly identical except PS3 is slightly brighter but not washed out! 100% ties judging by this.
Now bring us what we really want. Dark Souls full H2H >)
It’s not much, but how about taking a look at this in the mean time?
are we sure that’s not flipped footage? usually ps3 is lighter…
No, it’s not, the bonfire lighting part around the thirty-fourth second of the video proves that.
well, after experiencing it… it pretty much sends a chill down my spine. it hit all my fears at the hub; high places, small bridges, tight spaces, real dark…
Graphics is tie for me, but the 1 blu-ray VS 3 DVDs make this one a PS3 win…And the mandatory 8 GB install of the PS3 version doesn’t count now, as John Carmack said that for best experience the Xbox 360 players MUST install their game too…
Exactly the same! But, I prefer the a sharper looks on the 360. It’s a matter of personal taste.
I go for a “Tie” ! Even if my personal feeling tend to the PS3 version, thanks to the Blueray and the soften rendering less aliased than his X360 counterpart.
The final choice will be done after the performance analysis that we are all waiting for !!
computerandvideogames.com/video/1197760654001/rage-ps3-vs-360-gameplay-comparison/?mode=hd
computerandvideogames.com/video/1197062653001/dark-souls-ps3-vs-360-comparison/?mode=hd
computerandvideogames.com/video/1197062653001/dark-souls-ps3-vs-360-comparison/?mode=hd
dark souls comparison
Last two pics on page 2 on the 360 looks sharper but other than that both look really good and it’s 60FPS!
Btw way those who are saying the second to last pic is depth of field, depth of field is based on nearest and furthert distance being of difference in sharpness. In that image the whole scene including the gun looks less sharp on the PS3, not just in the distance. And why would that scene require DOF anyway? Can’t see any purpose to implementing it at that point.
However Carmack did say he made use of the SPU so I do wonder what they are (apart from texture streaming which I know about).
Can’t wait for a proper H2H on LOT and DF. On LOT with their out of the box H2H I’m expecting a PS3 win (unless performance is inferior) but on DF it might be a tie or a slight 360 win.
gotta agree with you bob, doesnt strike me as depth of field at all, maybe it’s noth fully loaded textures within transition, as footage Ive seen, doesnt seem to have any blur on textures or gun, but maybe it’s not. However carmack said the textures are equal across board, and it’s not like him to bs, he tends to dissect every aspect of his work and discusses it openly.
Going purely by the screenshots it’s a slight 360 win.
I see the ps3 fanboys are angry again lol. It has to be said, no one gets upset quite like the ps3 fanboys do.
Nothing to get butthurt about really, it’s just scraping 80% on metacritic.
Looks like another good but not great game.
is definitely getting mixed reviews, some great, others not so much. Its very much an old school fps, with emphasis on shooting mechanics and little on story or expanding upon core gameplay. if you like old school shooters, where the fun is in the weapons and every one of them feeling different, with fast and frantic shooting, then this is for you, if you looking for refined, expansive gameplay, with heavy rpg elements, forget it, as this game doesnt have it.
ps, theres some really flat, low res textures in this game at times too, but overall, it’s lovely to look at, and 60fps.
Ssshhh now.
Can you not see it’s you that is the butt hurt fanboy? This is, based on screenshots, a tie. End of.
On the second to last picture, the guy is aiming down the sight, and like most games it causes everything but what you are aiming at to look blurry.
im more curious how each system will handle the framerate
Oh whatever with the depth of field BS on the PS3!! The difference in texture sharpness on the last pic of page one is obvious. The hand (glove details) and the far structure with skull in the distance is considerably sharper. Argue and lie to yourselves all you want, you know what those eyes are seeing. That depth of field effect is nothing more than a case of 256MB (PS3, and yes the other 256MB in the PS3 does not hold textures so don’t correct me) vs 512MB(x360) of usable texture space which why there will always be a difference in clarity when texture details start getting maxed out.
Again, just think of the PS3 “depth of field” effect as a free side-effect of not having enough texture memory if it makes you feel better.
lol
They are trying so hard to turn this one into a PS3 win.
I really don’t care if it is depth of field, I prefer the clearer image.
Don’t be such a fanboy, this comparison is closer than any i’ve seen in ages.
This comparison is close, but the 360 version looks better to me.
yea, doesnt depth of field happen with your won damn eyes? i dont need a game to simulate what im seeing.
like action figures that have highlight painted on them. .. um, i have real light surrounding my crap, i dont need a painted on lens flair
While I’m also inclind of my disbelief of this “field of depth” BS as well, ONE blurred picture out of many, many other perfectly, match-for-match screen shots does not mean a “case” of anything… You just get used to the idea that, both games are like-for-like, shitbox version is 3 disc instead of one; therefor making it the inferior version, as usual with most games these days…
I smell another happy ending!
For both consoles, wich are perfectly balanced: what one lacks the other has. Limitations only exists on the engines and lazyness of developers.
GOOD JOB CARMACK!
@LENS OF TRUTH
Please fix this site!
Having problems connecting or signing in?
Delete the Lens of Truth cookie – worked for me.
Yeah it is very slow.it like using dial-up connection.
btw i voted tie.Looks pretty much the same.
can’t wait to see performance analysis.
Tie. Nothing else to talk about really.
As someone who is playing the PS3 version, there is NO tie unless the 360 version has terrible texture pop-in issues also. While the game might look identical in still pics, there is an entirely different story when the game is in motion.
Well… is the frame rate rock solid at least? lol
well the sixth axis reviewed the 360 version with the full 21 gig install and said texture pop in was still very noticeable so i would imagine without the install it will be even worse
Seems it will be an issue that blights both versions!!!
As cernal asked how is the frame rate???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3FuL27mho
Looks identical to me.
I am appalled at the level of beauty of this multiplatform game.
I hope it was fun as the old games from id software (Doom and the unforgettable Wolfstain 3D)
That’s it! Hugs and I am waiting on the full analize.
@
Anonim1979
You clearly didn’t read the neogaf posts properly, or follow the links to screenshots,l( now gamer) , where they state that the 360 and ps3 both have pop in issues, but 360 suffers more texture loading issues. Furthermore , the dynamic scaling works across both formats, it’s just at the particular point that shot is taken , they’re suggesting the ps3 had dropped. The 360 may have dropped as low at other points . The issue I have with this theory , is that there’s shots of it exactly same as 360 version . So the dynamic resolution is variable according to what’s happening at time, and screenshots capture at different points. There’s nothing to suggest 360 doesnt drop to that res too at other points. The drop is for fractions of seconds too.
when its this close, it makes me wonder which COULD have been better if they weren’t trying to match each other. like if a texture is stronger on one system they scale it back to match the other system.
ties make me question that too oten
Simple question: does anyone have the 360 version, and are you experiencing major pop-up issues? It’s bad enough on my PS3 version that I’m willing to also get the 360, but I don’t want to if I’ll run into the same problem.
I just got home from my brothers house and after playing the game for a good two hours i can confirm that the 360 does have pop-in. The frame rate is very steady and everything looks good. I’m still shocked that graphics like this were possible on a console and to top it off the game is running at 60fps!
Word, I have the PS3 version and the pop-in is consistent, every-time you move you see textures pop-in. Some textures stay blurry and never pop-in. It is noticeable. Great game though, the 60 FPS and graphics are unreal! The music is bad ass too, epic and creepy.
They both look identical to me so it’s a win-win for all. Tie. IMO.
I’m 4 hours into this game on PS3. It’s definitely killer but I am finding some of the reviewers on the net have been correct on certain things. The quick-save system and load times slow gameplay down quite a bit, I expected much quicker considering an 8GB install. It looks amazing and plays very fluid. I still believe KZ3 looks better though, I’m sure many would debate that but that’s just my opinion. Saw one instance of screen tearing, on “The Well” when you fight a ton of Ghost Bandits…that was the only time though.
Imagine what Carmack could do with 30FPS rendering time.
Rage run at 30 fps on ps3….. so …
I must know what magical ass you pulled that comment from, Esppiral.
I hope you were just being sarcastic otherwise you are very very dumb.
@gregsuarez
By all accounts ( including EG review) pop in occurs on both, and 360 has slightly worse texture loading .
@smooth lmao
Yes this games nice looking at times, and 60fps, but it also has pop in, texture loading issues and lots of flat low res textures in game . Best looking game this gen? Not even best looking game this week lol
Ps ur clearly clueless about game too, as it’s not open world in any way or form, it’s basically quite linear,with almost every review having commented on this fact too.
I’m just going to assume that most of the textures contain the lighting components in some places… also, all every single model is FLAT. the textures make them pop but you get real close and BAM! it’s an ugly mess.
ex. mutant mash tv’s neon arrow sign.