iclim4 said: .. you do know that VGC doesnt really have fanboys, and we dont really care which visuals looks the best, heck wii is winning... were just arguing for the sake of arguing.. cause.. you know... were bored.... seriously though, were also debating if GT is still a good source for reviews and comparisons and hoping to learn a few new things in the process.

This I agree with.  It being 1 am I am quite bored.

Although MrMafoo has a good point too, ignore the comparison videos and whether or not you find them accurate/inaccurate.  Play the games and if you enjoy them then that is all that matters! 

The PS3 outputs brighter image than the 360, adjust the settings on you're set will make them look the same. Keep in mind that there is no way to adjust brightness on the capture card.

HDMI 1.3 added optional support for some very high bit output - however this will not make any sort of difference for games and is not readily supported by current HD sets.



Hyperbole much? Really, way to get bent out of shape over a simple video comparison.

And you must really have a shitty PC to run crysis at 15fps at those settings. A midrange PC will get you some high at a decent resolution all while running at an acceptable framerate.

iclim4 said: seriously though, were also debating if GT is still a good source for reviews and comparisons and hoping to learn a few new things in the process.

 Ahh, well my 2 cents on that :)

I think GT is great for seeing what a game looks like in general. If a new game is coming out, and I have liitle idea how it plays, I go there and watch a video or two.

As for comparison videos, I think they are useless.  Like I said, it does not determine what console you buy, and if you have both, you will probably buy one over the other for reasons other then video quality that can be gleaned from GT. For example, a lot of people buy CoD4 for the 360 because of XBL. I bought it for the PS3 because I like the controller better.

I look at it the same way I look at TV's, yea, when you are in the store, some look better than others. But when it's the only TV in your living room, it looks amazing. Same goes here. Even if you get the worst PS3 port (almost any EA game :P), it's going to provide you with the same fun factor as the 360 version (and vise-versa). 

azrm2k said: @iclim4: No I don't agree. Specifically with your assertion that the video was 'in no way accurately informative'. Any improvement on the PS3 while using HDMI cable could be similarly achieved on the 360 also using HDMI cables. The Elite has an HDMI 1.2 port which while it can't handle the lossless digital audio codecs HDMI 1.3 can it should be able to access the full RGB range on any HDTV that the PS3 can. I'll give you that superwhites can't be utilized with HDMI 1.2 but as sieanr stated super white has no effect in games and sony's online manual seems to agree with him as it states that video files need to be recorded in a specific color format. From sony's online manual regarding super white "When this function is set to [On], content from AVCHD-format video files recorded in x.v.Color / x.v.Colour can be played with a wide color scale."

the xbox360 looks fine already you would not see a significant increase in quality when using HDMI,
its the ps3 version that got ripped off. im guessing its with the RGB settings being not compatible. either full to limited or vice versa.
 
believe me i played AC on my ps3 and it looked as good as the xbox360 version in their vid.
it didnt look as bad as their ps3 video.
which would make their video not accuarately informative.
plus their comment even seems to point they want fanboys to argue.

"Which system gets the graphical short end of the stick?"

really their AC comparison vid is pretty much is useless except for ammo for fanboy wars...

and if thats the quality of their comparison vids, then wouldnt you agree that its better if they not make anymore.

maybe if they improve.... by A LOT. but from what GT posted they want to stay the same, so thats out of the question.

 

sieanr said: well care to explain why the ps3 version looks like that then? especially when it looks fine on my set i would think HDMI1.3 is well above component but its not being taken advantage of as of right now. The PS3 outputs brighter image than the 360, adjust the settings on you're set will make them look the same. Keep in mind that there is no way to adjust brightness on the capture card. HDMI 1.3 added optional support for some very high bit output - however this will not make any sort of difference for games and is not readily supported by current HD sets. [

and since they cant adjust capture cards, that would give an innaccurate representation of the game's visuals then dont you agree? since it looks way different when run on the customers sets.

funny i heard differently. i heard games would be the first to make use of deep colors (x.v color)
it looks beautiful btw.
the xbr4/5 already supports X.V color

sieanr said: glad i brightened up someones night..... even a vizio would give a better picture than what they showed in the comparison vid. anyway the crysis comparison thing was to show that the game would be able to run optimized, not in medium or low setting with Anti-aliasing turned off, and still running in 15fps. Hyperbole much? Really, way to get bent out of shape over a simple video comparison. And you must really have a shitty PC to run crysis at 15fps at those settings. A midrange PC will get you some high at a decent resolution all while running at an acceptable framerate.

nice way to call my pc shitty........ asshat!!!

haha j/k

 

 

MrMafoo said: iclim4 said: seriously though, were also debating if GT is still a good source for reviews and comparisons and hoping to learn a few new things in the process.  Ahh, well my 2 cents on that :) I think GT is great for seeing what a game looks like in general. If a new game is coming out, and I have liitle idea how it plays, I go there and watch a video or two. As for comparison videos, I think they are useless.  Like I said, it does not determine what console you buy, and if you have both, you will probably buy one over the other for reasons other then video quality that can be gleaned from GT. For example, a lot of people buy CoD4 for the 360 because of XBL. I bought it for the PS3 because I like the controller better. I look at it the same way I look at TV's, yea, when you are in the store, some look better than others. But when it's the only TV in your living room, it looks amazing. Same goes here. Even if you get the worst PS3 port (almost any EA game :P), it's going to provide you with the same fun factor as the 360 version (and vise-versa).

thats what i also do.
i like being able to see the trailers in high quality for free, unlike ign who charges money for it.

azrm2k said: This I agree with.  It being 1 am I am quite bored. Although MrMafoo has a good point too, ignore the comparison videos and whether or not you find them accurate/inaccurate.  Play the games and if you enjoy them then that is all that matters!

yes but im trying to prove a point that GT sucks at comparison videos and should not be trusted,
youre the one who keeps insisting that its still very usefull for comparing games, for framerate and load times.
plus you called me an idiot
and apparently MrMafoo agrees with me the GT sucks at comparison vids!
its 2 against 1 give it up

 

great... i guess they fell asleep on me...... bastards!
well g'night lurkers, or whoevers reading...

iclim4 said: great... i guess they fell asleep on me...... bastards! well g'night lurkers, or whoevers reading...

I'm a lurker, yeay!!! 

GT's comparison videos are useless IMHO.

If you are to compare the same game on 2 different platforms, then you need to show all the elements of the game that you can.  Although you can't effectively show the differences in audio, what you can do is show the differences in graphics, framerate and loading of the game.

All of GT's 360/PS3 comparison videos show the PS3 version washed out compared to the 360, this is solely down to the settings of the video output.  You either make comparisons based on the best available options for both the PS3 and 360 or the basic options for the PS3 and 360.

In the case of the best available and the basic options, the PS3 covers all these options in one unit with HDMI ouptut and hard drive, where as the 360 Core unit does not include HDMI or a hard disk drive, so should show the difference in loads times.

So, it's pretty plain to see that GT and any other comparison site's videos should utilise the best available videos for both to show the differences.