By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Gamespot: Biased against PS3?

Username2324 on 07 November 2008

Just to prove my point, I present exhibit A:
IGN

Gamespot



Around the Network
Garnett on 07 November 2008
Username2324 said:

Just to prove my point, I present exhibit A:
IGN

Gamespot

I dont see a difference,if anything the monster in IGN is closer than Gamespot,and the pictures are half cut off.

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

leo-j on 07 November 2008

Yea i dont see much of a difference either.. just one is farther away than the other.



 

mM
Username2324 on 07 November 2008
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:

Just so you all know, I did not go looking for a biased site, I discovered it mistakenly.

So I've been checking out the screens for the upcoming big hitters on PS3. Particularly Resitance 2 and Killzone. During my endeveurs I discovered something unusual.... To me it seemed that 2 of the biggest games for the PS3 were...... graphically unpleasing. I thought to myself "surely this can't be, I've seen so many praise these graphics... Are they blind?". These shots I was looking at on Gamespot seemed to be extremely blurry. So I decided to check out some PS3 games I owned and knew how they looked (Warhawk & Uncharted in particular) and I was amazed to see that Warhawk, and game that looks good but is no where near amazing appeared to be better than Resistance 2 and Killzone 2!

So I began to look into it... The file sizes for Warhawk & Uncharted screens generally ranged from 300KB to 450KB while the Killzone and Resitance shots ranged from 200KB to 300KB. I was amazed, the shots for KZ2 and R2 often had 2, or 3 times more going on and the file sizes are drastically lower! Is Gamespot intentionally compressing and distorting PS3 screens to make them look worse?

I figured I needed a second source before I could call foul play, so I referred to IGN. And sure enough, not only were their screenshots of Resistance 2 much sharper and clearer but the file sizes were in that clear and crisp 300-450KB range nearly 33% larger file sizes than Gamespots.

I still wasn't ready to call out Gamespot... I thought to myself, perhaps they've just been compressing their screens too much lately, could be an honest mistake right? So I looked at some Gears of War 2 screens, and sure enough they were in that magical 300-400KB range right on par with IGN. (I found the same thing with LBP screens, IGN screens were clearer, and had larger file sizes)

So, is Gamespot making PS3 screens look worse to turn away potential customers?

I know I will not be going to gamespot for screenshots anymore.

 

You fail!

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboysfg9.jpg

 

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboys2hr2.jpg

 

Another thread on a website is biased against the PS3.

I didn't say there weren't any shots that were out of those size ranges, I said generally speaking that was the average range of the screens. And if you'll compare screens between IGN and Gamespot you will see that the PS3 screens on Gamespot are usually more blurry than IGN.

 

If gamespot is biased why is Halo 3 screen shot only 163,and what does File compression have to do with quality,you said that Gamespot was lowering quality of PS3 screens while 360 remained normal,i showed you thats not true,Maybe Gamespot makes all games screenshot blury,not just PS3 as you said.

Look at the resolution of your Halo 3 shot, look at the picture, it's mostly the same color and nothing is going on. That's why I say generally because not all shots are, but generally thats the case. A picture will less color and fewer objects in it will be more easily compressed and the file size can be much lower while remaining a decent quality. If you knew anything about computers you'd realize the File compression has everything to do with quality.

 



Username2324 on 07 November 2008
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:

Just to prove my point, I present exhibit A:
IGN

Gamespot

I dont see a difference,if anything the monster in IGN is closer than Gamespot,and the pictures are half cut off.

 

Right Click, View image.

Look at the textures of the monster and the buildings, the buildings in Gamespots shot are very blurry while IGN's they are crystal clear, and the textures on the monster are very blurry in the Gamespot shot while clear in IGN's.

I apologize for the pictures being cut off, I told it to constrain them but it didnt.

 



Around the Network
Garnett on 07 November 2008
Username2324 said:
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:

Just so you all know, I did not go looking for a biased site, I discovered it mistakenly.

So I've been checking out the screens for the upcoming big hitters on PS3. Particularly Resitance 2 and Killzone. During my endeveurs I discovered something unusual.... To me it seemed that 2 of the biggest games for the PS3 were...... graphically unpleasing. I thought to myself "surely this can't be, I've seen so many praise these graphics... Are they blind?". These shots I was looking at on Gamespot seemed to be extremely blurry. So I decided to check out some PS3 games I owned and knew how they looked (Warhawk & Uncharted in particular) and I was amazed to see that Warhawk, and game that looks good but is no where near amazing appeared to be better than Resistance 2 and Killzone 2!

So I began to look into it... The file sizes for Warhawk & Uncharted screens generally ranged from 300KB to 450KB while the Killzone and Resitance shots ranged from 200KB to 300KB. I was amazed, the shots for KZ2 and R2 often had 2, or 3 times more going on and the file sizes are drastically lower! Is Gamespot intentionally compressing and distorting PS3 screens to make them look worse?

I figured I needed a second source before I could call foul play, so I referred to IGN. And sure enough, not only were their screenshots of Resistance 2 much sharper and clearer but the file sizes were in that clear and crisp 300-450KB range nearly 33% larger file sizes than Gamespots.

I still wasn't ready to call out Gamespot... I thought to myself, perhaps they've just been compressing their screens too much lately, could be an honest mistake right? So I looked at some Gears of War 2 screens, and sure enough they were in that magical 300-400KB range right on par with IGN. (I found the same thing with LBP screens, IGN screens were clearer, and had larger file sizes)

So, is Gamespot making PS3 screens look worse to turn away potential customers?

I know I will not be going to gamespot for screenshots anymore.

 

You fail!

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboysfg9.jpg

 

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboys2hr2.jpg

 

Another thread on a website is biased against the PS3.

I didn't say there weren't any shots that were out of those size ranges, I said generally speaking that was the average range of the screens. And if you'll compare screens between IGN and Gamespot you will see that the PS3 screens on Gamespot are usually more blurry than IGN.

 

If gamespot is biased why is Halo 3 screen shot only 163,and what does File compression have to do with quality,you said that Gamespot was lowering quality of PS3 screens while 360 remained normal,i showed you thats not true,Maybe Gamespot makes all games screenshot blury,not just PS3 as you said.

Look at the resolution of your Halo 3 shot, look at the picture, it's mostly the same color and nothing is going on. That's why I say generally because not all shots are, but generally thats the case. A picture will less color and fewer objects in it will be more easily compressed and the file size can be much lower while remaining a decent quality. If you knew anything about computers you'd realize the File compression has everything to do with quality.

 

Resoultion = Size of picture,Not Objects on screen= Size..

 

Resoultion = Number of Pixles used to capture the image,Therefore smaller images have less Pixles and smaller in size.

 

Also i cant view picture,when i right click i can only zoom in.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

thejuicingamer on 07 November 2008

Either way gamespots screens have always sucked, IGN is the best most reliable, and respected site on the net.



Username2324 on 07 November 2008
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:
Garnett said:
Username2324 said:

Just so you all know, I did not go looking for a biased site, I discovered it mistakenly.

So I've been checking out the screens for the upcoming big hitters on PS3. Particularly Resitance 2 and Killzone. During my endeveurs I discovered something unusual.... To me it seemed that 2 of the biggest games for the PS3 were...... graphically unpleasing. I thought to myself "surely this can't be, I've seen so many praise these graphics... Are they blind?". These shots I was looking at on Gamespot seemed to be extremely blurry. So I decided to check out some PS3 games I owned and knew how they looked (Warhawk & Uncharted in particular) and I was amazed to see that Warhawk, and game that looks good but is no where near amazing appeared to be better than Resistance 2 and Killzone 2!

So I began to look into it... The file sizes for Warhawk & Uncharted screens generally ranged from 300KB to 450KB while the Killzone and Resitance shots ranged from 200KB to 300KB. I was amazed, the shots for KZ2 and R2 often had 2, or 3 times more going on and the file sizes are drastically lower! Is Gamespot intentionally compressing and distorting PS3 screens to make them look worse?

I figured I needed a second source before I could call foul play, so I referred to IGN. And sure enough, not only were their screenshots of Resistance 2 much sharper and clearer but the file sizes were in that clear and crisp 300-450KB range nearly 33% larger file sizes than Gamespots.

I still wasn't ready to call out Gamespot... I thought to myself, perhaps they've just been compressing their screens too much lately, could be an honest mistake right? So I looked at some Gears of War 2 screens, and sure enough they were in that magical 300-400KB range right on par with IGN. (I found the same thing with LBP screens, IGN screens were clearer, and had larger file sizes)

So, is Gamespot making PS3 screens look worse to turn away potential customers?

I know I will not be going to gamespot for screenshots anymore.

 

You fail!

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboysfg9.jpg

 

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zomgfanboys2hr2.jpg

 

Another thread on a website is biased against the PS3.

I didn't say there weren't any shots that were out of those size ranges, I said generally speaking that was the average range of the screens. And if you'll compare screens between IGN and Gamespot you will see that the PS3 screens on Gamespot are usually more blurry than IGN.

 

If gamespot is biased why is Halo 3 screen shot only 163,and what does File compression have to do with quality,you said that Gamespot was lowering quality of PS3 screens while 360 remained normal,i showed you thats not true,Maybe Gamespot makes all games screenshot blury,not just PS3 as you said.

Look at the resolution of your Halo 3 shot, look at the picture, it's mostly the same color and nothing is going on. That's why I say generally because not all shots are, but generally thats the case. A picture will less color and fewer objects in it will be more easily compressed and the file size can be much lower while remaining a decent quality. If you knew anything about computers you'd realize the File compression has everything to do with quality.

 

Resoultion = Size of picture,Not Objects on screen= Size..

 

Resoultion = Number of Pixles used to capture the image,Therefore smaller images have less Pixles and smaller in size.

 

Also i cant view picture,when i right click i can only zoom in.

If that were true wouldn't all pictures at 1280x720 be the exact same size? Well guess what, they are not, that's because the objects, colors, and clarity of a picture are what determine the size more than resolution. For example have you ever saved a file in JPEG in photoshop? It gives you that little slider that ajust the quality of the picture, the lower quality the lower file size and vice versa.

 



Username2324 on 07 November 2008

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/900/900589/resistance-2-20080820095254417.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/309/reviews/944521_20081105_screen001.jpg

Here's the links for the two images above, like I said the textures of the IGN shot are much sharper than Gamespot.



Username2324 on 07 November 2008

And check out these shots, the exact same picture, yet the IGN's shots textures are sharper and clearer. (Compare the roof tiles, shirts of the guys )

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/912/912564/resistance-2-20080923112852585.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/309/944521_20081105_screen035.jpg