Street Fighter 4 PS3 Res?

Wonda-Boy

Can someone please tell me why the PS3 version of SF4 only scales to non HD 720p, whereas the Xbox360 version scales to both 720 &1080p???? :mad:

This is an absolute joke TBH, I have a Pioneer 46" Plasma and while the game looking stunning you can cleary see the AA lines on the Chars etc....If the Res was higher it would go some way to alleviate the "staircase lines" on the chars. I mean everyone knows the PS3 is a better machine with higherspec hardware inside (yes its not always shown) so why are PS3 owners getting short changed with sub standard graphics?

And this is not the first game I have come accross that has the same problem.

GothPunk

The game is upscaled to 1080p on the 360 from 720p. Most games released for either the PS3 or the 360 are natively 720p, so you're probably better off viewing them at this resolution. There's probably a way for you to force it to upscale (Try going into your display settings, select custom, and only leave '1080p' checked.) but why would you want to upscale a 720p source to 1080p?

As for the lack of anti-alaising, that's because the PS3 is harder to program for. A lot of third party developers (like Capcom) don't have the money to spend trying to get the most out of the Cell processor so that is why some games may look a bit different to the 360 version. The PS3 relys on it's CPU to make up for what it lacks in the GPU and in this way is different to modern PCs and thus harder to program for. First party developers for the PS3 have more time or money to develop their games so that's why Killzone 2 and Uncharted don't have 'jaggies' despite being on the PS3.

If you feel short changed I'm not sure what to tell you, either be angry at the people who designed the PS3 or the developers who do their best to develop for two different setups (PC/360 versus PS3).

ongarite

AFAIK as I know the PS3 has no AA, while the 360 has AA. Both run at 720p during actual gameplay.
The 360 doesn't render the game at 1080p, it will just scale the game to 1080p or PC resolution.

Your Pioneer Plasma is doing the exact same thing. It recieves 720p signal from PS3 and upscales it to native resolution of your TV.
In fact, the Pioneer probably does a better job of upscaling the 720p image to 1080p as it has the best scaler of any TV on the market.

Wonda-Boy

Being mostly a PC online gamer with high end hardware I have a keen eye for graphics etc...I have seen SF4 running on the xbox360 and IMHO it does look better then the PS3 which pisses my off to tell you the truth. I might look into forcing the res higher AFAIK my Pioneer goes up to 1125i last time I checked.

Thanx for the replies guys.

Retr0gamer

The PS3 is not a better machine than the 360. They are more or less comparable. The PS3 has the advantage in CPU but the 360 has a much better GPU which is more important in most cases and is also easier to take advantage of.

The 360 has much better AA support than the PS3. The GPU takes most of the strain so it's usually present in 360 games but not in PS3 games because it takes a lot more processing power to pull off the same effect. AA is sacrificed for better framerates.

The 360 version scales to 720p while the PS3 version scales to a resolution lower than 720p and is upscaled. Developers just haven't been able to get their heads around programming for the PS3 yet and it's lumbered with an inferior GPU meaning most games come out poorer on the PS3.

Wonda-Boy

I beg to differ, The PS3 and Xbox360 only "Seem" comparable becuse the power of the PS3 is not been utilised IMHO. The PS3 is a better machine its just not been taking advantage of, plus the fact the Xbox360 is around alot longer so the PS3 has abit of catching up to do....if the power of the hardware was taking advantage of the PS3 would offer alot more then it currently is.

Retr0gamer

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

I beg to differ, The PS3 and Xbox360 only "Seem" comparable becuse the power of the PS3 is not been utilised IMHO. The PS3 is a better machine its just not been taking advantage of, plus the fact the Xbox360 is around alot longer so the PS3 has abit of catching up to do....if the power of the hardware was taking advantage of the PS3 would offer alot more then it currently is.

Don't believe the hype as Chuck D once said.

The PS3 was supposed to come out a few months after the 360 but got delayed because of problems with manufacturing the cell chips. Remember this is the same company that gave us the BS about the 'Emotion engine' and told us the PS1 would have graphics that would surpass Jurassic Park.

The cold hard truth of the matter is that the PS3 has the better CPU but the SPU's aren't being taken advantage of. However as a PC gamer you should well know that for 3D games a good GPU is far more important than a good CPU and in this case the 360 outclasses the PS3 by a good margin.

Wonda-Boy

Okay so we have gone from the Xbox360 being comparable to the PS3 to the PS3 being marginally better then the DREAMCAST...hehe.

If developers actually harnessed the power of the PS3 things would be different....and TBH a high end GPU is nothing without a beefy CPU to back it up!

BTW, I aint trying to start a flame war here.....;)

Retr0gamer

Don't worry I know you aren't. You'll just have to get used to the fact that multiplatform games are going to look marginally (usually indistinguishably) inferior on the PS3, maybe it will change in the future but not likely or for a long time. Check out the eurogamer articles, the 360 come sout on top nearly everytime. I have to say usually I have to be really paying attention to notice the differences but there's some really annoying stuff in SFIV that will do my head in like the lack of self shadowing and errors in the reflections on the PS3 version, which is why I'm getting it for the 360.

A GPU is far more important though. My own PC has lasted for a good few years on the same CPU with just upgrades to the video card to keep it in line. It's only since multicores became essential that it needed replacing.

Still The PS3 is capable of some damn fine looking games. Killzone 2 and Uncharted and most exclusive games look excellent.

Helix

360 version looks far better than the ps3 version ive found

Wonda-Boy

I agree the Xbox360 SF4 is better....and Pro Evo 2009 is better on the Xbox also. I dunno its a crying shame, its like a Ferrari with a Mondeo engine!!

Helix

dunno why people harp on about the ps3 being so so much more powerful

when it comes to their ability to run games, the systems are on a practical par with each other. regardless of whats under the hood its all about how the parts work together

Mossy Monk

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

I agree the Xbox360 SF4 is better....and Pro Evo 2009 is better on the Xbox also. I dunno its a crying shame, its like a Ferrari with a Mondeo engine!!

You would swear the PS3 outputted games in black and white and looked like a Spectrum ZX the way you are going on about it.

noodler

Helix wrote: »

dunno why people harp on about the ps3 being so so much more powerful

when it comes to their ability to run games, the systems are on a practical par with each other. regardless of whats under the hood its all about how the parts work together

I would be disapointed if the PS3 doesn't eventuallu surpass the 360 in terms of grapics once developers really bother.

Retr0gamer

Unfortunately the PS3 is severely bottlenecked by the lack of bandwidth of it's graphics card. With blu-ray we should be seeing better quality textures, and we have in games like MGS 4 and little big planet that only load small areas with not too many textures, but games with much bigger play fields or that are texture heavy end up with worse or equal quality textures and transparency based atmospheric effects missing a lot of the time.

tman

There's a good head to head comparison of the two versions on Eurogamer (in work so I can't link to it)
In short, sexbox > gheystation

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Unfortunately the PS3 is severely bottlenecked by the lack of bandwidth of it's graphics card. With blu-ray we should be seeing better quality textures, and we have in games like MGS 4 and little big planet that only load small areas with not too many textures, but games with much bigger play fields or that are texture heavy end up with worse or equal quality textures and transparency based atmospheric effects missing a lot of the time.

Nevertheless, we got the likes of GOW2 and MG3 at the end of the PS2's lifespan so I remain optimistic in that respect.

Retr0gamer

Yeah but similarly the 360 will be pushed just as hard.

noodler

I wouldn't argue that the 360 has peaked in terms of what they can get out of it but I would hazard a guess that more of the 360's potential has been used already. That is to say I would say the PS3 has further to go than the 360 to reach their respective potentials.

All guesswork based on previous gens anyway but I guess we will see.

Helix

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Unfortunately the PS3 is severely bottlenecked by the lack of bandwidth of it's graphics card. With blu-ray we should be seeing better quality textures, and we have in games like MGS 4 and little big planet that only load small areas with not too many textures, but games with much bigger play fields or that are texture heavy end up with worse or equal quality textures and transparency based atmospheric effects missing a lot of the time.

the problem with the bluray player is that the transfer rate is too slow to from what ive read. textures dont have a single location on the disc like they would on the 360, for every time a texture is used, it gets a separate bd location. which is fooking nuts

CapRooney

they both look the exact same at the end of the day like unless your going to be pausing the game and comparing them side to side who cares. just play the f*cking game and enjoy one of the best fighters out there!!!

Helix

CapRooney wrote: »

they both look the exact same at the end of the day like unless

they dont tho

i have both of them here and the 360 version looks far better

CapRooney

the way yer banging on is as if the PS3 version looks like a PS1 game

Helix

where did i say that? im fairly sure i just said the 360 version looks far better

noodler

Helix wrote: »

where did i say that? im fairly sure i just said the 360 version looks far better

Its true, Helix is always banging on about one thing or another!

Professey Chin

tman wrote: »

There's a good head to head comparison of the two versions on Eurogamer (in work so I can't link to it)
In short, sexbox > gheystation

Hi there. This is the playstation forum. I believe youre lost.
Bridge that way

Retr0gamer

Usually I can't tell any difference from the eurogamer videos but this time it's very obvious that some stages have lower quality textures, there's plenty of jaggies from lack of AA, some effects are missing or have errors and there's worse lighting in the 360 version. It's nothing that's noticable unless they are side by side and you are looking out for them it really won't affect the gameplay since both run at a rock solid 60fps.

Helix

noodler wrote: »

Its true, Helix is always banging on about one thing or another!

part of the job innit

Wonda-Boy

Mossy Monk wrote: »

You would swear the PS3 outputted games in black and white and looked like a Spectrum ZX the way you are going on about it.

Thats the best input you have to the debate....SCORE!:rolleyes:

Wonda-Boy

Helix wrote: »

they dont tho

i have both of them here and the 360 version looks far better

I agree the difference is more then it should be, and its not like there is hundreds of things happening on screen now is there.

Mossy Monk

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Thats the best input you have to the debate....SCORE!:rolleyes:

It was more of an observation that an input to your debate. Score indeed. :rolleyes: for you

Cunny-Funt

Yes it looks worse on the ps3 cause the ps3 is not as powerful as the fan boys like to think it is.

Doesnt matter anyway, as both version will look worse then the version that will ultimately be the best home platform for the game.

Thats right, i'm talkin' bout the PEE to the motha fckin CEE yo!:cool:

norrie rugger

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Yes it looks worse on the ps3 cause the ps3 is not as powerful as the fan boys like to think it is.

Doesnt matter anyway, as both version will look worse then the version that will ultimately be the best home platform for the game.

Thats right, i'm talkin' bout the PEE to the motha fckin CEE yo!:cool:

Which PC is this?

Is it the magic PC that...
that the genearal household can afford?
Is relatively future proof?
Does not need upgrades every few months?
Is easily maintained?
Does not need expensive software?
You could give to kids and not have them destroy it in minutes?


PC is the best publically available platform but not the best HOME platform. Too many specification variations, too expensive, fast dating, over functioned to be the home choice.
Sorry but PC gaming is niche because of the immediate barriers.
It may provide the better graphics etc but it is just too damn difficult for Joe Public to bother about. People just want to turn on and play, without worrying about compatibility, hardware, software etc.


In relation to the OP, was this game designed to run on Xbox and ported?
Can not see why this game can not run at 1080p, seeing as feck all is really happening on screen

Retr0gamer

norrie rugger wrote: »

In relation to the OP, was this game designed to run on Xbox and ported?
Can not see why this game can not run at 1080p, seeing as feck all is really happening on screen

The original arcade machine board is basically just a PC, and not a very good PC. Since the Xbox is based on PC architecture the porting process was pretty simple for capcom I'd say and in fact is slightly superior to the arcade machine since the 360 has anti-aliasing. The PS3 on the other hand has gone with crazy architecture so either capcom waste time devloping it from the ground up or port it over and make a few alterations. Still a good port but the PS3's bandwidth problems meant a few unnoticable changes.

It doesn't run at 1080p because capcom wanted the game to run at a constant 60fps. If it wasn't constant or at 30fps it would severely affect a game like SFIV. 1080p would have been a big strain and would have ultimately resulted in inferior gameplay.

Helix

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Yes it looks worse on the ps3 cause the ps3 is not as powerful as the fan boys like to think it is.

no it IS very very powerful, but just not for the applications it was designed for

norrie rugger

Helix wrote: »

no it IS very very powerful, but just not for the applications it was designed for

Which is bloody insane

Retr0gamer

norrie rugger wrote: »

Which is bloody insane

But it's great for Folding at Home. The xbox 360 can't cure cancer.

norrie rugger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But it's great for Folding at Home. The xbox 360 can't cure cancer.

I'd prefer if it were SETI @ home.

It's number crunching power is immense but why stifle it with a sub par GPU?

Retr0gamer

The GPU is fine, they just bottlenecked it by giving it less video ram than the 360's GPU (well the 360 can be assigned more video memory from the main memory) and it has 20Gb/s (half as much as the SFIV arcade board) bandwidth compared to the 256Gb/s of bandwidth that the 360's GPU has.

Sony intended the SPU's to take some of the strain and calculations off the GPU but it's a bit crazy to do something like that. The SPU's are really just good at number crunching while dedicated graphics hardware is specifically designed to be good at processes for graphics.

Wonda-Boy

Helix wrote: »

no it IS very very powerful, but just not for the applications it was designed for

Helix what else is the PS3 designed for other then playing GAMES...and please dont say watching Blu Rays...its a bonus nothing more nothing less.:eek:

Very Dissapointed in the PS3 so far....its not the console I taught it would be TBH.

Still there is always the PS4....hehe. If I was not getting UBER gaming pleasure from my PC I would be major PISSED by the PS3.

noodler

At the same time many argue no 360 game looks as good as KZ2...

Wonda-Boy

norrie rugger wrote: »

Which PC is this?

Is it the magic PC that...
that the genearal household can afford?
Is relatively future proof?
Does not need upgrades every few months?
Is easily maintained?
Does not need expensive software?
You could give to kids and not have them destroy it in minutes?


PC is the best publically available platform but not the best HOME platform. Too many specification variations, too expensive, fast dating, over functioned to be the home choice.
Sorry but PC gaming is niche because of the immediate barriers.
It may provide the better graphics etc but it is just too damn difficult for Joe Public to bother about. People just want to turn on and play, without worrying about compatibility, hardware, software etc.


In relation to the OP, was this game designed to run on Xbox and ported?
Can not see why this game can not run at 1080p, seeing as feck all is really happening on screen

Norrie mate its not that difficult to keep a PC dude, I mean you only have to update the hardware if you want to play the latest games maxxxxxed out at super high res. I mean if you happy to play on a 19" CRT monitor you be surprised how cheap a gaming PC would cost!!!

noodler

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Helix what else is the PS3 designed for other then playing GAMES...and please dont say watching Blu Rays...its a bonus nothing more nothing less.:eek:

Very Dissapointed in the PS3 so far....its not the console I taught it would be TBH.

Still there is always the PS4....hehe. If I was not getting UBER gaming pleasure from my PC I would be major PISSED by the PS3.

Blu-Ray isn't a bonus in my view mate-you are paying for it so you should have factored that into your decision when you made the purchase. What is it you don't like about your PS3? I haven't got as much love for the 360 exclusives and around 75% of games are multiplatform anyway.

I happily played Fallout 3 for hours and hours thinking how gorgeous it was and never once noticing that it wasn't as graphically impressive as the 360.

If the price has put you off then just sell it and buy a 360 before the price drop

norrie rugger

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Helix what else is the PS3 designed for other then playing GAMES...and please dont say watching Blu Rays...its a bonus nothing more nothing less.:eek:

Very Dissapointed in the PS3 so far....its not the console I taught it would be TBH.

Still there is always the PS4....hehe. If I was not getting UBER gaming pleasure from my PC I would be major PISSED by the PS3.

Well I actually bought it as a BluRay player that also playes games!!!

Was going to get the Xbox but took a gamble that HDDVD would die

Azza

I can't wait for the PC version either. I feel my Pyscho Power been restrained by the limited console hardware.

To be honest graphics are not a concern in a game like this as long as the game has a smooth frame rate of 60 FPS. The PC version for sure will be the nicest looking but what I'm really hoping for is better multiplayer experience.

However I find the multiplayer using PSN annoying. I hate having to type slow ass messages on a pad. Makes communication with your opponent so awkard. Feels so constricted coming from a PC gaming background.

Retr0gamer

noodler wrote: »

At the same time many argue no 360 game looks as good as KZ2...

I wasn't that blown away by it. Still think there are 360 games on par or not far off and the environments are very small meaning more detail and shortcuts can be taken.

Kev_ps3

Azza wrote: »

I can't wait for the PC version either. I feel my Pyscho Power been restrained by the limited console hardware.

To be honest graphics are not a concern in a game like this as long as the game has a smooth frame rate of 60 FPS. The PC version for sure will be the nicest looking but what I'm really hoping for is better multiplayer experience.

However I find the multiplayer using PSN annoying. I hate having to type slow ass messages on a pad. Makes communication with your opponent so awkard. Feels so constricted coming from a PC gaming background.

Get a keyboard Azza, I got a wireless Microsoft one in Currys last year. Essential if your using the psn IMO

norrie rugger

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Norrie mate its not that difficult to keep a PC dude, I mean you only have to update the hardware if you want to play the latest games maxxxxxed out at super high res. I mean if you happy to play on a 19" CRT monitor you be surprised how cheap a gaming PC would cost!!!

I have a 42" 1080p telly, that would be my screen. So no, I would not be happy on a 19" monitor.

Would it still cost the same as, or less than, my bluray playing standard till it dies PS3?

Azza

I have a keyboard. What I used to type out my messages on boards. Unfortantly its not USB but a PS2 version so it ain't going work on the PS3

Azza

Actually Norrie even a medium spec PC would take better advantage of your TV than a console would. You would get more games to 1080p than you will on a console. Nearly eveything on both HD capable consoles is native 720p.

EA a while back started selling Crysis branded PC in the $699 that can pretty much max out Crysis and play any other PC game.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/09/11/crysis-pc-fully-specced/1

So no its not cheaper but you get what you pay for. Its not bogglingly expensive either. The PS3 may have Blu-Ray but any PC has the potential to do a thousand and one different things.

A Blu-Ray drive/burner can be got for €100 extra at the moment.

Cunny-Funt

Yeah what I mean by the PC being the best home platform for the game, I mean just that. I've come from spending the past year playing 3rd strike online on my pc.

& the experience on the console is sooooooooo dumbed down compared to that. I feel so constricted. Match making wise, communication wise (yes I use a KB) customisation wise.

PS3 = "unable to connect" 7 times before I can connect. If I was on a pc and got that error, It would usually be something I could fix myself , or help the other guy fix.

But your helpless on a console. I wanna set 3xP to up on the right stick and 3xK to down so I can do it with my right hand. But noooooooooooooooo. I'm on a console. :mad:

Communication is like the difference between instant messaging and e-mail or more like text messaging even (mobile phone). You can't just quickly say to the guy your playing '1 sec' you'd have to spend 20 seconds just to let him know that you need a second, so he wont just quit.

bah I could go on, no point really you don't sound like much of a pc guy hehe.

Btw though norrie, nice sig Glad you are supporting the cause :cool: But if you don't mind could you make a sig of your own? Or hell I could make one for you if yea want? Its just its confusing with two people having the very same sig if you get me.

PM me if yea want me to make one for yea, and what images/style yea want. Wouldn't take me too long to make one for yea if its similar to the one I made there.