-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
RAGE |OT| "It's done when it's done"
- Thread starter Salsa
- Start date
perineumlick
Member
Okay, now I figured out what I was doing wrong. Why waste ammo on charging enemies when I can just knock them the fuck out with my Fists of Rage? Silly me; they're dropping with one shot.
Always-honest
Banned
in the other screens the 360 version also looks sharper
Because some people here define "art styles" differently than you do. Deus Ex and Syndicate not only share a similar setting, but their interpretations of those settings as well as some earmarks of the visual design (lighting, graphic design, palette) are also similar, so the comparisons have merit. Rage and Borderlands also share a similar setting - a post-apocalyptic wasteland - so they will naturally share some broad visual elements that universally define that setting such as brown cliffs and crudely built structures. But the actual artistic presentation of the world and the execution of the visuals are very different.dmshaposv said:
Borderlands had black outlines around everything and a very flat, graphic approach to the textures. The characters were stylized and caricatured as well; this is a game that is going for a distinct graphic style - not realism.
Rage is clearly going for idealized realism, with sprawling vistas, luminous skyboxes and lots of detail to make the world feel lived-in. From my perspective, id's visual take is as different from Gearbox's as one could realistically expect considering they share the same setting.
plagiarize
Banned
the only thing i'd disagree with you on is colour pallette. certain areas and structures seem to share colour schemes, but other than that i fully agree.eshwaaz said:
you wouldn't confuse the colour palette of Fallout 3 with Rage and Borderlands, but colour palette choices are quite similar in some of the screens of Rage and Borderlands... but again i think focusing on just that does both games a disservice. both look nice in their own very different way.
still it's worth remembering that a lot of people on GAF called Dead Space a Bioshock rip off when the first screen was unveiled, basically because both games had bronze coloured helmets in them.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190080
then of course it was just a generic Doom 3 ripoff when the second set of screens were shown off.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193242
actually makes for some hilarious reading now.
Dead Prince
Banned
6/10. not innovative enough.DevelopmentArrested said:
plagiarize
Banned
to my eyes it's equal detail and different blur.Vire said:Comparisons of detail on PS3 vs 360:
PS3:
360:
360 looks considerably more detailed and less blurry in this comparison...
did LOT forget that the game has dynamic resolution when they took their screenshots? hahahah. oh, LOT, how i laugh at you.
Vire
Member
Look at the circles on the left upper side of the glove, you can easily tell the difference in clarity.plagiarize said:
As for dynamic resolution, the screenshots were taken in the exact same place in the game with the exact same conditions. Not sure what you are going on about there.
NullPointer
Member
$60 games without demos will do that to some people.Pimpbaa said:
plagiarize
Banned
and we know for a fact that both versions always run at the same resolution in every area, and that there aren't areas that better suit one console over the other?Vire said:
or do we not know that at all, because nothing in this LOT comparison even acknowledges dynamic resolution?
*everything* looks softer in that PS3 screenshot. that's why i said i see varying degrees of blur, not varying texture resolutions. also, i don't think ID were lying when they said both games have the same texture detail. not seen a single thing in the screens to support otherwise.
indigo-cyclops
Member
I'm so torn, I just don't know if I should spend 60 bucks on this right yet...
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
If one random person can sway your opinion on a game that easily, you probably weren't going to buy it anyways. Also, a demo can be as damaging as it can be helpful.NullPointer said:
wait for reviews? what would convince you?INDIGO_CYCLOPS said:
plagiarize
Banned
the demo would be bigger than most retail games. i'd almost like them to release one just for that reason.NullPointer said:
Vire
Member
plagiarize said:
You clearly don't understand how it works.
Dynamic resolution wouldn't change based off walking into an area with no enemies or particles going off. Nothing in the screenshot of the area shown is particularly taxing to a system - It's an empty room aiming at the floor. The only time the resolution changes is when numerous explosions, multiple enemies and other factors are all on screen at once. The PS3 version looks much softer not just in that comparison but in other screens they provided also. This isn't some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy theory or secret agenda by LOT. Christ...
indigo-cyclops
Member
DevelopmentArrested said:
At this point, I'd rather just wait it out as I've got Dark Souls to occupy my time. However, the game caught my attention but I just can't see paying full price for it at this time.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
PS3 version inferior? You think I be used to that, but I'm not. I want my damn trophies :/
plagiarize
Banned
i don't think it's an agenda, or a tin foil hat conspiracy. i think LOT have completely forgotten, or are completely unaware of the fact that the game does dynamic resolution changing to maintain 60 fps. are all of the PS3 screens softer? no they aren't.Vire said:
why might that be? could it be dynamic resolution differences? of course it could. does that mean the PS3 version is ALWAYS softer? does that mean the Xbox 360 version is never softer? we have no clue. posting, some ten comparison pictures is nothing like a detailed enough comparison to get to the bottom of which version looks better.
i'm not saying the 360 version looks the same am i? i just think it's disingenuous to say the 360 version looks more 'detailed', because when i think of detail i'm thinking of texture resolution and poly counts and such. the PS3 version looks blurrier, or softer in that screen.
is it because of dynamic resolution changing? maybe, maybe not.
i'm NOT saying the PS3 version is equal or better. i'm saying this comparison completely ignores one of the MAJOR reasons that we could see a difference in IQ between screens, and without an analysis of HOW OFTEN that happens in one version vs the other, we can't basically draw a conclusion based on the IQ of a handful of screenshots.
the output resolution doesn't change. what changes is the resolution the game is rendered at before it's scaled to whatever output you have your PS3 set at. Wipeout HD uses the same technique if you've played that. it's a lot less blatant than frame drops, imho, and i'd love for more devs to go this route.Gvaz said:
slidewinder
Banned
It would render to different resolutions, but always scale to the same res before outputting to your monitor.Gvaz said:
Karak
Gold Member
PS3 version is using some kind of bluring or AA thats for sure. Once you get to see them side you side you can tell. Not that I have an issue with that, it still looks good. It just has a couple small issues and a different or adjusted res is one of them on the PS3 that on output causes just a tiny bit of blurring not as bad as some games in the past.Vire said:
Besides the game is fucking fun as hell get it
The 360 verison looks cripser, but all ps3 games have some minor level of blur on them so it's not surprising. If it wasn't so blurry you can tell the textures would be the same. You can kind of tell on the thumb thing the textures look similar.
I'd probably play it on my ps3 though, since I already have that hooked up.
I'd probably play it on my ps3 though, since I already have that hooked up.
plagiarize
Banned
so... in the third comparison in LOT, the rendering resolution is clearly the same, but some of the textures show MORE detail in the PS3 screen and yet some look less detailed.
sixth comparison. equal detail, though slight differences in gamma/contrast.
eighth comparison. detail on glove looks the same. face in 360 version is less blurry. right arm in PS3 version is less blurry, almost certainly due to them not being equivalent frames, though potentially due to the two versions have differences in motion blur.
shall i keep nitpicking or should we focus on ONE close up of ONE screenshot comparison?
or shall we wait for Digital Foundry to do proper analysis of how often the two versions maintain 720p to find out if one version loses resolution more often than the other.
sixth comparison. equal detail, though slight differences in gamma/contrast.
eighth comparison. detail on glove looks the same. face in 360 version is less blurry. right arm in PS3 version is less blurry, almost certainly due to them not being equivalent frames, though potentially due to the two versions have differences in motion blur.
shall i keep nitpicking or should we focus on ONE close up of ONE screenshot comparison?
or shall we wait for Digital Foundry to do proper analysis of how often the two versions maintain 720p to find out if one version loses resolution more often than the other.
it's not sure at all. look at the third comparison. no AA. equally sharp between the two versions.Karak said:PS3 version is using some kind of bluring or AA thats for sure. Once you get to see them side you side you can tell. Not that I have an issue with that, it still looks good. It just has a couple small issues and a different or adjusted res is one of them on the PS3 that on output causes just a tiny bit of blurring not as bad as some games in the past.
Besides the game is fucking fun as hell get it
Danne-Danger
Member
It's Steamworks, so you can buy it from wherever and activate it on Steam. Don't pay $60 unless you enjoy wasting money for no reason.Ryuuga said:
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Wallach said:
Gotta rebuild that readership.
Karak
Gold Member
plagiarize said:
It is sure, I own them both and had them side to side. And it is. Sorry to inform you. Its not something that will piss people off, but its something the PS3 is known for to be honest. Again it isn't even noticeable all the time unless you have them side to side. But it's there *shrugs*. Doesn't make the game bad or anything, it rocks.
But people should buy either. Its not like its going to steal your birthday if you get one or the other it just is what it is.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I've been interested in PS3 vs. 360 comparisons from day one, pretty much. I've owned both systems since 2007 and have sought out the best version 90% of the time (and usually it's the 360). That said I've never gone on Lens of Truth's word. That site is amateur hour.
Compare DigitalFoundry's early stuff to now and they are wayyyy better. Better tools, more details, videos, knowledge, everything. LOT is the same junk it was on day one.
Compare DigitalFoundry's early stuff to now and they are wayyyy better. Better tools, more details, videos, knowledge, everything. LOT is the same junk it was on day one.
Grinchy
Banned
I agree that some people put way too much stock into reviews, but I also feel like GAF is much better about it than most forums.Solo said:
I've been on other gaming forums for years. I would call just about every one of them a cesspool of immature shitheads. At least here, it seems like people with undeveloped opinions are the minority.