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

Forums - Gaming - Its not developers, its Sony. I hate quincunx AA and heres why: 360 vs PS3

TKC-Muzzer on 03 January 2009
misteromar mk4 said:
I think its time Sony fanboys move on and accept the fact the ps3 is never going to blow away the xbox 360 in terms of graphics. All the shit Sony spouted pre launch about the "power of the CELL" is bullshit. Much like when Sony said "The ps2 will have Toy Story 2 graphics".

Its been 2 years now, so if there was magic power to be unlocked developers would have started unlocking some of it by now. Sure they will get better at using the hardware but they will improve on the 360 also, negating much of the improvement the ps3 makes.

Its time to stop blaming "lazy devs", Sony should be blamed for designing the thing in the first place.

I have both machines my firend and can assure you that Killzone 2 looks better than anything i have seen on my 360 (including Gears2). Gears 2 looks nice but in terms of on screen activity does not come close. When i play Uncharted i still get a better WOW factor than when i play Gears 2 which says it all. The power of the console soes not atomatically mean which has better graphics but which can handle more. Gears 2 was hyped as hell about how the new unreal engine could have loads more on screen, really, well i did not see this in gears 2. 

 



Around the Network
jkimball on 03 January 2009
Squilliam said:

I love the smell of blurred uncompressed textures in the morning!

Its horribly ironic that they use a media format that allows for uncompressed textures (at a terrible price) and then they go ahead and make their preferred method for AA a texture blurring scandal.

These are two different scenes from the same game (Saints Row II) and they are pretty much identical except for the type of Anti Aliasing used on the different consoles. Sony 1st party use this form of AA as well, so if there were comparable Xbox 360 versions of those games the same complaints could be raised as well.

When I look at these shots, the PS3 versions make me feel like my character isn't wearing his prescription lenses. Its not horrible by any means, but it does annoy me and it irritates my eyes a little when I look at the PS3 examples in comparison to the Xbox 360 examples. In the end I wish that Sony had sprung for a better GPU which can handle a similar MSAA spec to the Xbox 360, rather than relying on this technology. I do appreciate its subjective, many people will prefer the PS3 version and thats perfectly fine, there are pros and cons for both techniques but my personal preferrence is definately MSAA when possible.

PS3: Shot 1 : Shot 2

360: Shot 1 : Shot 2

Disclaimer: These are lossless images taken from a professional capture card so they can be considered accurate and representative. Also the systems in question ARE set up correctly.

 

The PS3 looks more realistic. The x360 looks more like a video game. I opened all 4 in tabs, did an informal poll with family and fried (who know nothing about video games) and there were 'oohs and aahs' when they saw the PS3 version ("look how real the nurses hair looks! thats amazing" and "the guys are wearing square pants in the first one" (the 360 shot).

IN the real world you don't see every single hair on a persons head, you just see hair.  Look at the clothes, the beer bottles, the grain  on the bar.  The PS3 is clearly attempting to model real life, while the 360 looks like a really high res video game - but a video game nonetheless. 

 

 

 



Trying to convince me the Wii is a real adult game machine 'if you play it right' is like trying to convince me Tofu tastes great 'if you just cook it right'

S.T.A.G.E. on 03 January 2009
leo-j said:
Shadowblind said:
leo-j said:
It is the developer, because if devs knew how to develop on the ps3, they wouldnt be struggeling to make it = the xbox 360

The only problem I have with this is that if it was simply knowing the console that mattered, Sony's first parties would have already made games that with graphics that couldnt be emulated on the 360. So far, they haven't.

 

MGS4, and UNC beg to differ..

@Squillium

 

Its not fair to judge a 360 port on the ps3, Its better to judge games that where built from ground up on both systems "Devil May Cry 4, Burnout Paradise, GTA IV , etc.."

 

 The Xbox 360 could play MGS4 without breaking a sweat and could be created with the same level of graphics in a shorter amount of time. The issue is with compressing data. They would need multiple discs. It's not a graphics issue for the 360, it's a space issue.



fazz on 03 January 2009

Wow, I had not heard of Quincunx AA since the day I left my GeForce 6200! Good old times.

Anyway, the PS3s GPU is a dumbed down one. If only Sony had used a 256 bit interface or some little help for the GPU (like MS did), things would be different.



Squilliam on 03 January 2009
TKC-Muzzer said:
Squilliam said:
SMcc1887 said:
Its Saints Row, thats all Im saying.
I thought it was kind of blurred too, but I never had the same problems with any other game. MGS4 and Uncharted werent blurred so I blame THQ

Metal Gear Solid used Temporal AA (Whole set of different pros/cons) and Uncharted developers used MSAA IIRC.

Killzone 2 however uses QAA and thats my only gripe with an otherwise excellent game.

 

 

Your point is irrelevent. Killzone 2 is the best looking game i have seen on my TV (i have 360 aswell). Killzone 2 AA is impressive as anything when you consider everything else. I find that some 360 games look to soft on my TV due to the amount of AA which softens the edges to much. At the end of the day it is how it's used. I get fed up with things like this and pixel counts and shit like that. Unless you sit a freeze your game and go looking for these probelms you would never notice. As i said Killzone 2 is the best looking console game out there and thats all that matters in the end, games and especially the PS3 are being pushed further which is a good thing.

The Killzone 2 Beta was excellent, but I noticed the effects of the QAA on the game. I was a beta user as well, thats why I could mention that game honestly. The Xbox 360 issues on your TV may stem from the above average contrast ratio from the 360 as that can cause colours to look washed out. I believe you can change that setting IIRC.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
Electro General on 03 January 2009
jkimball said:
Squilliam said:

I love the smell of blurred uncompressed textures in the morning!

Its horribly ironic that they use a media format that allows for uncompressed textures (at a terrible price) and then they go ahead and make their preferred method for AA a texture blurring scandal.

These are two different scenes from the same game (Saints Row II) and they are pretty much identical except for the type of Anti Aliasing used on the different consoles. Sony 1st party use this form of AA as well, so if there were comparable Xbox 360 versions of those games the same complaints could be raised as well.

When I look at these shots, the PS3 versions make me feel like my character isn't wearing his prescription lenses. Its not horrible by any means, but it does annoy me and it irritates my eyes a little when I look at the PS3 examples in comparison to the Xbox 360 examples. In the end I wish that Sony had sprung for a better GPU which can handle a similar MSAA spec to the Xbox 360, rather than relying on this technology. I do appreciate its subjective, many people will prefer the PS3 version and thats perfectly fine, there are pros and cons for both techniques but my personal preferrence is definately MSAA when possible.

PS3: Shot 1 : Shot 2

360: Shot 1 : Shot 2

Disclaimer: These are lossless images taken from a professional capture card so they can be considered accurate and representative. Also the systems in question ARE set up correctly.

 

The PS3 looks more realistic. The x360 looks more like a video game. I opened all 4 in tabs, did an informal poll with family and fried (who know nothing about video games) and there were 'oohs and aahs' when they saw the PS3 version ("look how real the nurses hair looks! thats amazing" and "the guys are wearing square pants in the first one" (the 360 shot).

IN the real world you don't see every single hair on a persons head, you just see hair.  Look at the clothes, the beer bottles, the grain  on the bar.  The PS3 is clearly attempting to model real life, while the 360 looks like a really high res video game - but a video game nonetheless. 

 

 

 

Post of the thread.

If you honestly think the blurring looks better, then you can change the sharpnesss setting on your tv. That way you can even make HDTV look realistically blurry.



Grahamhsu on 03 January 2009

@Electros you need to read a guide on TV Calibration instead of pulling out bad ideas that people might even listen to...Please do not listen to this man he will destroy your taste of what is good and not -_- This picture is from a DVE calibration guide, this is an example of too much sharpness.

This is an example of sharpness set at a decent rating

And the quote on how sharpness works to affect your tv and viewing pleasure. You can see the image is distorted from too much sharpness on the first image. Personally for me the 2nd image requires a little more sharpness but it's personal taste.

"For viewing test patterns at least, the lowest possible sharpness setting you can get on all of your equipment is usually the best. Sharpness generally adds edge enhancement and noise which can in the end diminish the 3D effect and overall quality of a properly calibrated video system. Use it to taste, but try to see if you can live without it for awhile and see if you don't find the overall image better without it."




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

BrayanA on 05 January 2009
jkimball said:
Squilliam said:

I love the smell of blurred uncompressed textures in the morning!

Its horribly ironic that they use a media format that allows for uncompressed textures (at a terrible price) and then they go ahead and make their preferred method for AA a texture blurring scandal.

These are two different scenes from the same game (Saints Row II) and they are pretty much identical except for the type of Anti Aliasing used on the different consoles. Sony 1st party use this form of AA as well, so if there were comparable Xbox 360 versions of those games the same complaints could be raised as well.

When I look at these shots, the PS3 versions make me feel like my character isn't wearing his prescription lenses. Its not horrible by any means, but it does annoy me and it irritates my eyes a little when I look at the PS3 examples in comparison to the Xbox 360 examples. In the end I wish that Sony had sprung for a better GPU which can handle a similar MSAA spec to the Xbox 360, rather than relying on this technology. I do appreciate its subjective, many people will prefer the PS3 version and thats perfectly fine, there are pros and cons for both techniques but my personal preferrence is definately MSAA when possible.

PS3: Shot 1 : Shot 2

360: Shot 1 : Shot 2

Disclaimer: These are lossless images taken from a professional capture card so they can be considered accurate and representative. Also the systems in question ARE set up correctly.

 

The PS3 looks more realistic. The x360 looks more like a video game. I opened all 4 in tabs, did an informal poll with family and fried (who know nothing about video games) and there were 'oohs and aahs' when they saw the PS3 version ("look how real the nurses hair looks! thats amazing" and "the guys are wearing square pants in the first one" (the 360 shot).

IN the real world you don't see every single hair on a persons head, you just see hair.  Look at the clothes, the beer bottles, the grain  on the bar.  The PS3 is clearly attempting to model real life, while the 360 looks like a really high res video game - but a video game nonetheless. 

 

 

 

This is funny.

It is not a bug! It's a feature!