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

Forums - Sony - GOW 1+2 VS REMASTERS ! HUGE difference !

Slimebeast on 07 November 2009
Rainbird said:
Slimebeast said:
Rainbird said:
Slimebeast said:
Staude said:
Slimebeast said:
Avarice28 said:
Slimebeast said:

This just proves how unimportant screen resolution actually is, despite all the talk about HD.

The HD version is just sharper.

I am amazed how small the difference is.

Obviously you are not a fan of the series, but if you were would you pay 40$ for a blurry mess SD game from the ps2 era?   I perfer to have the HD version for it's sharper textures due to AA, vivid colors, and Solid frame rate.  I know you did not say this slimebeast, but I find it "funny" when wii only owners complain about remakes when every other game they buy on the wii "is" a remake with NO enhancements what so ever (gamecube to wii not that much of a difference IMO).  It is like the pot calling the kettle black.  This is obviously a game for those of us (me) who did not get to play God of War last generation (I had an xbox) and trophy whores like myself (guilty).

Of course I always prefer the best grafix possible, but Im not a big fan of putting resources into resolution, and I argue about this all the time with PC fans too.

For example, look at the small thumbnails in my sig. Even though theyre minimal, there's certain obvious qualities beyond the resolution that instantly show they are current gen grafix.

There's so many grafix effects that are far more important than resolution. Resolution is extremely over-rated.

Running a game at 640x480 vs 1920x1080... Insane difference. Try to run crysis on 640x480 (well if you could XD) even on the best graphics settings it'll look terrible.

No, it's not an insane difference. I have a high-end PC on which I play most games at 1920x1200, but Biosock and Oblivion look almost just as good when I play them on my X360 on my mommas SD TV.

Which is how big?

Resolution definitely means something, and if you have a 40" HDTV, then there will be a world of difference between running the collection and the originals on that TV.

If BioShock always ran in SD, it would look like crap when played on a HDTV.

The size of the screen is what makes resolution important.

My 1920x1200 screen for the PC is 24 inch, and my mommas SD TV is 28 inch.

Generally, I believe you start noticing the difference between 720p and 1080p when a screen hits 40 inches or higher. Seeing as your mom's 28 inch TV is SD, an SD picture will look better than if you had it on a 28 inch HDTV, because the picture doesn't have to be scaled.

I have played the God of War games on my 40" HDTV on a PS2, and the was picture blurry as hell. Playing the God of War Collection will be much better on my TV because of the higher resolution and the added anti-aliasing.

Both of these images are in the native resolutions:

("right click -> view image" to see the whole thing)

Of these two, the one with the higher resolution will be the better looking when blown up to 40 inches. That is why both the PS3 and 360 support HD output.

The first pic looks better. Is that the HD version?



Around the Network
darklich13 on 07 November 2009

Did they use 480i on the original? GOW is much cleaner than that when using 480p. There really is not that much difference between the old and the remaster.

On top of that the remastered isn't true widescreen. 



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


Rainbird on 07 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Rainbird said:

Generally, I believe you start noticing the difference between 720p and 1080p when a screen hits 40 inches or higher. Seeing as your mom's 28 inch TV is SD, an SD picture will look better than if you had it on a 28 inch HDTV, because the picture doesn't have to be scaled.

I have played the God of War games on my 40" HDTV on a PS2, and the was picture blurry as hell. Playing the God of War Collection will be much better on my TV because of the higher resolution and the added anti-aliasing.

Both of these images are in the native resolutions:

("right click -> view image" to see the whole thing)

Of these two, the one with the higher resolution will be the better looking when blown up to 40 inches. That is why both the PS3 and 360 support HD output.

The first pic looks better. Is that the HD version?

No, and it only looks better for as long as you play it in that size. When you size it up to what the the PS3 version will be running, you get this:

("right click -> view image" to see the whole thing)



pastro243 on 07 November 2009
Gnizmo said:
No seriously. Which one is the PS3 version? I am not trying to be a dick but I am genuinely curious. I cannot see a difference, and now I want to know. I compared them in full resolution, and then asked the question. Giving me the same pictures again doesn't change anything.


Check your eyes, its pretty obvious even if the difference isnt huge.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

MaxwellGT2000 on 07 November 2009
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
There is no difference other then the color of both sets are different, looks like they touched up the life/magic bar, but that's about it. Textures are the same, lighting is the same, models are the same, shadows are still a bit blocky.... yeah its the same.

I really don't know why people try to "compare" things by changing colors and resolutions, you know in science there is such a thing as a control, dear lord its a basic principal, you can't compare two sets unless there is a controlled variable, changing the color and then saying ZOMG LOOK HOW BIG THE DIFFERENCE IS, it's just unreliable data.

Actually, the PS3 version is clearly sharper and higher resolution.  That's the point I think most are missing - the games been given a resolution hike, better AA, etc. so it will look smooth on an HD TV rather than jaggy, with sharper textures.  But looking at an image that size you're not going to see that well represented.  Zoom in on the images to get the real picture - oh, someone's already done that.

See?  This is about making the game HD in terms of resolution, AA, etc. not re-doing the core engine, etc. so the models and so forth are going to look mainly the same - but sharper.

I'm guessing you also missed the point I made that said changing resolutions and color is the worst way to "compare" screenshots, if you're wanting to say it's the exact same thing except higher resolution, then say that.  Higher resolution and looking better are two totally different things, and saying there's a "huge difference" is simply absurd.  Higher resolution and higher AA can be done in an emulator and already has.

Nothing has changed at all except for the obvious changes to resolution, if you want to prove something seriously changed play the PS2 version in 1080p or play the PS3 version in 480p, in fact if I remember right the PS2 Gow was one of the few games on the PS2 to support higher "HD resolutions" by upscaling.

And to be clear, I'm talking about looking better on an HD TV - a higher resolution will make it look better than PS2 version upscaled - which is what the upgrade is all about.  Resolution respective to the display device absolutely makes a game look better - unless you think the exact same visual image with clear jaggy edges and a slight blurriness is better or equal to a sharp image with clean lines.

Also, I made it clear there ISN'T a huge difference because the focus is on HD resolution and making it look clean on an HD display, not upgrading the game wholesale - i.e. in my first post I pointed out the difference isn't huge and people don't seem to be looking at what the upgrades about.  I feel you didn't properly read my post.

 

And I feel the same so that makes us even.



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

Around the Network
Reasonable on 08 November 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
There is no difference other then the color of both sets are different, looks like they touched up the life/magic bar, but that's about it. Textures are the same, lighting is the same, models are the same, shadows are still a bit blocky.... yeah its the same.

I really don't know why people try to "compare" things by changing colors and resolutions, you know in science there is such a thing as a control, dear lord its a basic principal, you can't compare two sets unless there is a controlled variable, changing the color and then saying ZOMG LOOK HOW BIG THE DIFFERENCE IS, it's just unreliable data.

Actually, the PS3 version is clearly sharper and higher resolution.  That's the point I think most are missing - the games been given a resolution hike, better AA, etc. so it will look smooth on an HD TV rather than jaggy, with sharper textures.  But looking at an image that size you're not going to see that well represented.  Zoom in on the images to get the real picture - oh, someone's already done that.

See?  This is about making the game HD in terms of resolution, AA, etc. not re-doing the core engine, etc. so the models and so forth are going to look mainly the same - but sharper.

I'm guessing you also missed the point I made that said changing resolutions and color is the worst way to "compare" screenshots, if you're wanting to say it's the exact same thing except higher resolution, then say that.  Higher resolution and looking better are two totally different things, and saying there's a "huge difference" is simply absurd.  Higher resolution and higher AA can be done in an emulator and already has.

Nothing has changed at all except for the obvious changes to resolution, if you want to prove something seriously changed play the PS2 version in 1080p or play the PS3 version in 480p, in fact if I remember right the PS2 Gow was one of the few games on the PS2 to support higher "HD resolutions" by upscaling.

And to be clear, I'm talking about looking better on an HD TV - a higher resolution will make it look better than PS2 version upscaled - which is what the upgrade is all about.  Resolution respective to the display device absolutely makes a game look better - unless you think the exact same visual image with clear jaggy edges and a slight blurriness is better or equal to a sharp image with clean lines.

Also, I made it clear there ISN'T a huge difference because the focus is on HD resolution and making it look clean on an HD display, not upgrading the game wholesale - i.e. in my first post I pointed out the difference isn't huge and people don't seem to be looking at what the upgrades about.  I feel you didn't properly read my post.

 

And I feel the same so that makes us even.

Funny, because re-checking the thread I see the following:

1 - the expected 'It's HUGE' comments from the believers

2 - you and other going 'it's not huge' (correctly) then citing same textures, etc. and no real difference (incorrectly, rather to my amazement)

3 - I and others explain, quite calmly, that the difference is there but it's in resolution and improving the texture assets to be sharper and smoother, vastly improved AA (are you really saying you can't see the different between the huge jaggies in some of those shots and the straight lines in others?) and smoother frame rate which is all about having a far better image on an HD TV - the analogy would be watching a film on VHS on an SD TV then BR on an HD TV: same film, clear difference in image quality, however it is still the same film

4 - you quote me and correct me the difference isn't huge, which is odd because I never said it was huge, in fact I clearly said the opposite, while clarify what the differences really are, which clearly shows you didn't read my post properly

 

So you'll forgive me for knowing that I absolutely did read your post properly, and indeed everyone elses, however you clearly misunderstood mine, as you mis-quote me in black and white whereas I replied (not directly) to your and other comments with technical facts regarding the difference between the PS3 HD versions and the originals.

But hey, don't face facts.  Anyway, as usual I'm not getting into extended back and forth on a forum, it's a waste of time IMHO so this will be my final response on this.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

WereKitten on 08 November 2009
Staude said:

Running a game at 640x480 vs 1920x1080... Insane difference. Try to run crysis on 640x480 (well if you could XD) even on the best graphics settings it'll look terrible.

...

Actually, I don't think that's a good line of reasoning. Crysis with its textures, models, environments is clearly visually designed to run at higher defs. Downsample it and you're losing a lot.

Other games, like GoW, were designed (models, textures, effects, camera) for a lower res. Render them at a higher def and you're only getting (in content terms) that amount that was lost the first time around. A little bit of texture details, the finer points of some models depending on their LOD settings, etc. It depends a lot on how much the game was optimized for the specific output resolution, or how much was lost because of the rendering resolution bottleneck - again very variable depending on the game.

All of this is familiar to anyone who dabbled with emulators of any 3d console on the naturally higher resolution of PCs.

When it comes to visual quality, just like Reasonable said: the difference in these screenshots is not what I would call "huge", but still the images show improved AA, way less jaggies, slightly more texture details, and a lot more model detail for secondary objects. Plus, in motion it promises to be a solid 60fps experience. Basically what I expected.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

MaxwellGT2000 on 08 November 2009
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Reasonable said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
There is no difference other then the color of both sets are different, looks like they touched up the life/magic bar, but that's about it. Textures are the same, lighting is the same, models are the same, shadows are still a bit blocky.... yeah its the same.

I really don't know why people try to "compare" things by changing colors and resolutions, you know in science there is such a thing as a control, dear lord its a basic principal, you can't compare two sets unless there is a controlled variable, changing the color and then saying ZOMG LOOK HOW BIG THE DIFFERENCE IS, it's just unreliable data.

Actually, the PS3 version is clearly sharper and higher resolution.  That's the point I think most are missing - the games been given a resolution hike, better AA, etc. so it will look smooth on an HD TV rather than jaggy, with sharper textures.  But looking at an image that size you're not going to see that well represented.  Zoom in on the images to get the real picture - oh, someone's already done that.

See?  This is about making the game HD in terms of resolution, AA, etc. not re-doing the core engine, etc. so the models and so forth are going to look mainly the same - but sharper.

I'm guessing you also missed the point I made that said changing resolutions and color is the worst way to "compare" screenshots, if you're wanting to say it's the exact same thing except higher resolution, then say that.  Higher resolution and looking better are two totally different things, and saying there's a "huge difference" is simply absurd.  Higher resolution and higher AA can be done in an emulator and already has.

Nothing has changed at all except for the obvious changes to resolution, if you want to prove something seriously changed play the PS2 version in 1080p or play the PS3 version in 480p, in fact if I remember right the PS2 Gow was one of the few games on the PS2 to support higher "HD resolutions" by upscaling.

And to be clear, I'm talking about looking better on an HD TV - a higher resolution will make it look better than PS2 version upscaled - which is what the upgrade is all about.  Resolution respective to the display device absolutely makes a game look better - unless you think the exact same visual image with clear jaggy edges and a slight blurriness is better or equal to a sharp image with clean lines.

Also, I made it clear there ISN'T a huge difference because the focus is on HD resolution and making it look clean on an HD display, not upgrading the game wholesale - i.e. in my first post I pointed out the difference isn't huge and people don't seem to be looking at what the upgrades about.  I feel you didn't properly read my post.

 

And I feel the same so that makes us even.

Funny, because re-checking the thread I see the following:

1 - the expected 'It's HUGE' comments from the believers

2 - you and other going 'it's not huge' (correctly) then citing same textures, etc. and no real difference (incorrectly, rather to my amazement)

3 - I and others explain, quite calmly, that the difference is there but it's in resolution and improving the texture assets to be sharper and smoother, vastly improved AA (are you really saying you can't see the different between the huge jaggies in some of those shots and the straight lines in others?) and smoother frame rate which is all about having a far better image on an HD TV - the analogy would be watching a film on VHS on an SD TV then BR on an HD TV: same film, clear difference in image quality, however it is still the same film

4 - you quote me and correct me the difference isn't huge, which is odd because I never said it was huge, in fact I clearly said the opposite, while clarify what the differences really are, which clearly shows you didn't read my post properly

 

So you'll forgive me for knowing that I absolutely did read your post properly, and indeed everyone elses, however you clearly misunderstood mine, as you mis-quote me in black and white whereas I replied (not directly) to your and other comments with technical facts regarding the difference between the PS3 HD versions and the originals.

But hey, don't face facts.  Anyway, as usual I'm not getting into extended back and forth on a forum, it's a waste of time IMHO so this will be my final response on this.

Heh works for me, since my main point that you didn't address was the fact that, if you're going to compare screenshots claim there is a huge difference (not aimed at you the thread itself mind you) then there must be a control.  Especially if you claim HUGE differences, again you didn't, but that's the only point I was making and I guess you missed and is the only point I feel like arguing.  There is a difference in resolution, being clearer is debatable when you're trying to compare shitty screen caps like the ones in the OP, the PS2 screens had the brightness turned down (again I must state there needs to be a control here for comparison)

In the end I'm mostly saying the comparisons are stupid when they're so poorly done, I never even denied how the framerate is better, AA better, or a few clearer textures.  But I did state those weren't huge since they have already been done with the original game and an emulator by a few guys working on programs in their spare time. 

So yes I do think you missed my points as well, and since I didn't start the back and forth quotes, I leave that up to you to figure out why you started it :P



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

WereKitten on 08 November 2009

^Your original post stated this:


"There is no difference other then the color of both sets are different, looks like they touched up the life/magic bar, but that's about it. Textures are the same, lighting is the same, models are the same, shadows are still a bit blocky.... yeah its the same."


The fact that the PS2 version screencaps are very poor and that the color grading is completely different is beyond the point of a serious comparison. I assume we're all capable of understanding that, and figuring out that some extra texture details must have been squashed in the blacks of the PS2 version shots. Or that some blurriness comes from the bad capture.

And yet, you saying that -literal quote- "there's no difference other than the color" goes against what most people can easily see, even with all those caveats. There's plenty of extra details in the higher resolution shots, that decomposed in jagged messes in the PS2 version. So, notwithstanding the fact that the assets are the same, the end result of their presentation is not. Doesn't that confute the point you made?



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Serious_frusting on 08 November 2009

Lol at people saying it isnt a huge difference. Whats funny is you lot are saying that this difference isnt huge when really it is.

But as soon as a multiplat PS360 game looks a little worse on once console then the other aka Boynota

It is the biggest difference known to man



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st