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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Tale of Vesperia PS3 has inferior graphic

indodude on 18 July 2009

The thing that makes me wonder is why people actually care about this. The graphical differences between multi-platform games(maybe some exceptions for a few games) are so little that it's amazing that people actually give a shit.



Around the Network
txrattlesnake on 18 July 2009
mibuokami said:

Guys please note the below:

This results in a somewhat uneven form of scaling for PS3 owners, compounded by the anti-aliasing solution chosen: quincunx, which combined with the lower resolution adds a somewhat obvious, and unwelcome, blur to the game

What EUgamer is saying is that the lower resolution result in a more 'blur' effect than the already slightly blurred 360 version which detracts from the overall image quality, the game shouldn't be significantly inferior, but there should be a noticeable (if slight) difference.

This should NOT be a big negative to most end consumer, especially if you have only the PS3; the game is still just as enjoyable and has been enhanced with additional features.

If however this end up being the resolution used in the final built, you should certainly be critical of Namco for their rather lackluster effort, this game in no way pushes the boundary of the PS3 and considering they've already ported an excellent Eternal Sonata over (which had better cell shading graphic!) this is somewhat of a black mark.

Look at this from the point of a critical consumer who should demand the best because -dammit- you deserve it. The product can suffice but don't let Namco feel that this is a action that can be tolerated as a long term business practice.


      What?  Putting basically the same graphics in the PS3 and 360 version but a ton more content in the PS3 version?



Shadowblind on 18 July 2009
txrattlesnake said:
mibuokami said:

Guys please note the below:

This results in a somewhat uneven form of scaling for PS3 owners, compounded by the anti-aliasing solution chosen: quincunx, which combined with the lower resolution adds a somewhat obvious, and unwelcome, blur to the game

What EUgamer is saying is that the lower resolution result in a more 'blur' effect than the already slightly blurred 360 version which detracts from the overall image quality, the game shouldn't be significantly inferior, but there should be a noticeable (if slight) difference.

This should NOT be a big negative to most end consumer, especially if you have only the PS3; the game is still just as enjoyable and has been enhanced with additional features.

If however this end up being the resolution used in the final built, you should certainly be critical of Namco for their rather lackluster effort, this game in no way pushes the boundary of the PS3 and considering they've already ported an excellent Eternal Sonata over (which had better cell shading graphic!) this is somewhat of a black mark.

Look at this from the point of a critical consumer who should demand the best because -dammit- you deserve it. The product can suffice but don't let Namco feel that this is a action that can be tolerated as a long term business practice.


      What?  Putting basically the same graphics in the PS3 and 360 version but a ton more content in the PS3 version?

Pretty much, yeah



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

International Douche on 18 July 2009
CGI-Quality said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Soriku said:
Small difference anyway...

It is very small, honestly, but it is noticable on a relatively small TV, unlike most resolution differences. 720p, to 1080p(or 1080i) is indistinguishable to the human eye, unless you are setting with 5 feet of a 52 inch television. If you think you can tell the difference, you really can't. It's all about your perception that you are watching the best, and in reality there is no difference whatsoever. That's why 1080p is completely unnecessary for most gamers. Unless you have a 70 inch television and excellent vision, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, and for 1080i, you will only be able to distinguish the difference during motion blurring.

Also, most things don't produce a 1080p signal. Most satellites/cable networks only go up to 1080i/720p, and pretty much only DD and Blu-Ray allow for 1080p, which you  can't distinguish anyway(most people have 42 inch HDs, so the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye).

In fact, there is NO reason to EVER buy a television under 52 inches, that is over 720p, ever. You are wasting your money. Period.

HIGHLY disagree with that.


I'm sorry have to agree. Usually Zen you are right on the mark but on this occassion you are babbling liquid shit I'm afraid. It's such a myth that you can't tell 1080p from less than 5-6 feet on a 40inch set. I have atrocious eyesight and can easily tell from 6 feet 720p\1080p. Also disagree about 720p set availability. I'm quite sure it's VERY difficult to even find a 720p set anymore that is 40inch+ and in stock online.

This isn't 2007, you don't pay a premium for 1080p sets anymore. They are the norm.



ZenfoldorVGI on 18 July 2009
International Douche said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Soriku said:
Small difference anyway...

It is very small, honestly, but it is noticable on a relatively small TV, unlike most resolution differences. 720p, to 1080p(or 1080i) is indistinguishable to the human eye, unless you are setting with 5 feet of a 52 inch television. If you think you can tell the difference, you really can't. It's all about your perception that you are watching the best, and in reality there is no difference whatsoever. That's why 1080p is completely unnecessary for most gamers. Unless you have a 70 inch television and excellent vision, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, and for 1080i, you will only be able to distinguish the difference during motion blurring.

Also, most things don't produce a 1080p signal. Most satellites/cable networks only go up to 1080i/720p, and pretty much only DD and Blu-Ray allow for 1080p, which you  can't distinguish anyway(most people have 42 inch HDs, so the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye).

In fact, there is NO reason to EVER buy a television under 52 inches, that is over 720p, ever. You are wasting your money. Period.

HIGHLY disagree with that.


I'm sorry have to agree. Usually Zen you are right on the mark but on this occassion you are babbling liquid shit I'm afraid. It's such a myth that you can't tell 1080p from less than 5-6 feet on a 40inch set. I have atrocious eyesight and can easily tell from 6 feet 720p1080p. Also disagree about 720p set availability. I'm quite sure it's VERY difficult to even find a 720p set anymore that is 40inch+ and in stock online.

This isn't 2007, you don't pay a premium for 1080p sets anymore. They are the norm.

I agree. You can tell the difference. There was a chart posted, and it clearly outlines the distance/screensize where 1080p becomes noticable. That chart is dead on.

However, you are absolutely and 100 percent incorrect about the fact that 720p 40+ inch plasma TVs being widely available and much cheaper online. I am currently shopping for a large plasma HDTV, and there are PLENTY to choose from in the 720p models and all are vastly reduced in price from their 1080p counterparts. Newegg and Amazon, in particular, are the easiest to browse for these.

That, sir, is a fact, and while I might have appeared to be "babbaling liquid shit" I was actually factually correct on at least one point, and you sir, are wrong.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
piggychan on 18 July 2009
mibuokami said:
Ajescent said:
I sense a storm brewing...a storm filled with...shit...

I don't normally like to make thread with potential to turn into flamebait, but this is actually a significant reduction in resolution (nothing like the fuck all difference you see in games like RE5 and more akin to Ghostbuster) and regarding a game I've very interested in. I think it's a valid concern which is unlikely to be addressed (hopefully I'm wrong) in the final built.

For owner of the HD twins who has not bought this game yet, this is topical and I'm in that boat which is why I care :)

 

well this was also brought up on another forum *cough* neogaf where Blim from Gamersyde did some screen grabs.. you have to scroll down tho..  anyway if it does get a western release I still say you should get the ps3 version if you not got the xbox 360.. just for the extra stuff.  But to be honest ps3 and 360 they don't  look that much different

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=330376&page=85

 

 

 

 



ZenfoldorVGI on 18 July 2009
International Douche said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Soriku said:
Small difference anyway...

It is very small, honestly, but it is noticable on a relatively small TV, unlike most resolution differences. 720p, to 1080p(or 1080i) is indistinguishable to the human eye, unless you are setting with 5 feet of a 52 inch television. If you think you can tell the difference, you really can't. It's all about your perception that you are watching the best, and in reality there is no difference whatsoever. That's why 1080p is completely unnecessary for most gamers. Unless you have a 70 inch television and excellent vision, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, and for 1080i, you will only be able to distinguish the difference during motion blurring.

Also, most things don't produce a 1080p signal. Most satellites/cable networks only go up to 1080i/720p, and pretty much only DD and Blu-Ray allow for 1080p, which you  can't distinguish anyway(most people have 42 inch HDs, so the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye).

In fact, there is NO reason to EVER buy a television under 52 inches, that is over 720p, ever. You are wasting your money. Period.

HIGHLY disagree with that.


I'm sorry have to agree. Usually Zen you are right on the mark but on this occassion you are babbling liquid shit I'm afraid. It's such a myth that you can't tell 1080p from less than 5-6 feet on a 40inch set. I have atrocious eyesight and can easily tell from 6 feet 720p1080p. Also disagree about 720p set availability. I'm quite sure it's VERY difficult to even find a 720p set anymore that is 40inch+ and in stock online.

This isn't 2007, you don't pay a premium for 1080p sets anymore. They are the norm.

Panasonic VIERA 50" :

1080p - $1299 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889187113

720p - $935 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889187104

 

Samsung Plasma 50" :

1080p - $1369 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889102301

720p - $899 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889102180

 

These types of deals are available in all brands, and have similar price spans. They are new products and available on many, many websites. They are also of the same or similar product lines, and aren't spun in any way. They are current. I pulled them just now.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

PS3beats360 on 18 July 2009

Tales of Vesperia is just another average JRPG game which are a dime to the dozen. MS must have paid some good $$$ to have timed exclusivity for ToV. The only JRPG series that matters is Final Fantasy series. The best version of Final Fantasy XIII will be on PS3. Final Fantasy Versus XIII and Final Fantasy XVI both remain exclusive to the PS3.



ZenfoldorVGI on 18 July 2009
PS3beats360 said:
Tales of Vesperia is just another average JRPG game which are a dime to the dozen. MS must have paid some good $$$ to have timed exclusivity for ToV. The only JRPG series that matters is Final Fantasy series. The best version of Final Fantasy XIII will be on PS3. Final Fantasy Versus XIII and Final Fantasy XVI both remain exclusive to the PS3.

ToV is the best jrpg this generation by a mile, and it's even better than the excellent PS3 exclusive, Valkyria.

You are just pissed off it has turned into yet another mutliplat that makes the PS3 look bad, via graphical comparison.

Since you don't care about the game, and obviously don't know anything about the game, you can make these harsh outside observations without investing anything.

I disagree with everything you've just said.

As for XIV, that's a MMO. I can't wait for Verses though.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Shadowblind on 18 July 2009
PS3beats360 said:
Tales of Vesperia is just another average JRPG game which are a dime to the dozen. MS must have paid some good $$$ to have timed exclusivity for ToV. The only JRPG series that matters is Final Fantasy series. The best version of Final Fantasy XIII will be on PS3. Final Fantasy Versus XIII and Final Fantasy XVI both remain exclusive to the PS3.

You fail. At failing.

You've shown me that its possible without meaning you've succeded. Well done. And I stopped reading your posting after "must have paid".



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.