Zone of the Enders HD Collection never truly hits 60 frames per second on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The 360 version, however, does seem to be sporting a slightly improved performance.
kind of a kick in the nuts but both versions are comparable and both ps360 get to enjoy a great series
I think I'll pick 360 version later. I already preordered limited edition for ps3...but we'll see what happens. Maybe we need to install ps3? Usually when stuff like this happens I end up buying both versions in their respective consoles.
Why buy the same game twice?
Why buy it twice? Seems like a waste of money. Save that money for a different game. There are plenty more HD collections and current-gen games that money could go towards. It's good to see these HD Collections coming steadily, though. It's great fan service. Admittedly, though, backward compatibility would be greater fan service. LoL Although, it is also nice to have trophies and nicer visuals.
only reason most people played zoe, cause they got it with the metal gear solid demo. I played and loved the game, i own both on the ps2, i will be buying this day 1. Its great the 360 fanbase gets to try it too if they never had a ps2. More fans the better, will keep the series alive.
I bought the whole Mass Effect trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I really liked the developer...
I didn't buy the whole Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I played Dragon Age 2.
5 Disagrees, do these people really buy games twice?!?!?! Suckers
I don't see any difference between the two on video. All I see is the 360 player is playing more aggressively in parts and the meter at the bottom spikes up because of that (like at around :47, and for some reason at the beginning there was a huge spike during the animation sequence?), but that is not to say that if the PS3 player played more aggressively that it would not do the same. Can anyone point out the difference(s)?
i got the limited edition for ps3 pre-ordered if its anything like mgs hd limited edition than ps3 versions will be worth good money after you done playing. so in a way its investment lol i hate the big MGR:Demo LOGO on the font of the game box
You know the real problem here is Konami. After the terrible Silent Hill Collection port, you would think they would put more effort into it by giving it to a solid studio like BluePoint Games (MGS Collection & God of War Collection) or an internal team at Konami, but they gave it to High Voltage Software, a studio that's been primarily developing Wii games this gen and recently developed Kinect games like Star Wars Kinect and Victorious: Time to Shine. smh.
not buying it then. I mean, are current gen consoles so weak that they can't even run a PS2 game at 720p/60fps? I already have these on PS2 anyway and they run at 60 frames there. =/ And lol at the PS3 version; Xbox has almost 20 frames over it! This is like Bayonetta all over again. -_-
John Carmack was right then, I guess...
It seems so. Ahh well its the same damn game anyway.
If he was right, then why did all versions of Rage suck?
"I already have these on PS2 anyway and they run at 60 frames there." ZOE2 has some major framerate issues on PS2 in certain areas, mainly boss fights. It's also by far the most demanding game to emulate on PCSX2, and it's highly GPU dependent. Dem particle effects are the prime reason. I do find it stupid though that a proper port can only do 720p and has poor fps. I suspect it's half to do with the demanding nature of the game, and half with the HD Collection developer, High Voltage. Known for games with huge framerate issues (The Conduit and Kinect Star Wars) and flat out bad games.
Why didn't they get Bluepoint for this HD Collection? They have been doing fantastic with other PS3 HD Collections, so why not this one too? Was it because they are currently working on the PS Vita version of PSASBR?
maybe the difference in graphic detail explains why PS3 sharper graphics http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/... http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/... over 360 http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/... http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/... so there's a trade off makes sense to me
lol are you blind or something? ps3 version look washed out, x360 is sharper and has better frame rate get over it
looks pretty much the same to me, all bar slightly different contrasts... something that tv's alter anyway.
Where is this difference? I don't see it. What time frame on the gameplay where you see noticeable slowdown? I don't see it. That frame crap means nothing if I can't notice the difference.
Well this just sucks..
This gen is too nit-picky on retro titles. Though worse still are devs offering old titles and being unable to deliver the same game to all systems.
well thats not nice is it? well it is what it is.. Every other game recently released was better on PS3 so this PS2 HD port being better on 360 is ok.. More ram in it so its understandable
Well, Xbox version it is then.
not complaining about you choosing the xbox version but why would a 20 fps difference be the prime decision? like it showed, it only got down to 37 fps thats perfectly fine. you see no difference in frames by the way these frames were dropping. Now it would be noticeable it it went from 60 straight to 37 fps but thats not the case. This is like comparing 2 cars with the same features and picking the one that has 2 more horsepower than the other. Excuse me if this makes no sense. im a bit drunk. lol
If both versions are exactly the same aside from the 10fps difference, it would be a natural decision to go with the one that is slightly better. Seriously, this is not difficult to comprehend lol. 10fps makes a noticeable difference when one version drops to 32fps while the other only drops to 42fps. 42fps still gives the look of smoothness even if it's not near 60fps.
I still would rather have consistent frame rates in the 30's and 40's. than have framerates bouncing between 60 and 30. you can see the difference with that big of frame changes. thats a fact!
This is an utter shame. I hope Kojima puts his foot down and demand that there be drastic improvements for both versions or decide to go with using that Bluepoint company since they clearly know what they are doing in terms of making HD remakes and they have experience to back it up. Also, check out TwinPerfect's dissection of the Silent Hill HD collection and what really went wrong with it in the attached video.
I can't stand that video, it's 20 minutes of actual problems, 1 hour and 30 minutes of them trying to be funny but failing and the rest blaming people that have little to no impact into the development of that HD Collection. Other than that I agree with the rest of your post, Kojima should have demanded better performance in that HD Collection since it's his work (unless he was happy with the end result). Also definitely agree that Bluepoint make the best HD Collections.
I second what you said. This is blasphemy considering this is Kojima game and being a PlayStation game. At least they could have overlooked it and make sure the ports were on par or given it to a developer that knew what they were doing I'm terms of HD collection ports.
We'll agree to disagree on the video. I agree that their format is a little odd, but the amount of problems and issues that they brought up is pretty damn ridiculous, especially all that nonsense about the voice acting and everything else. I wish Bluepoint did that HD collection. I hope that ZOE's HD collection can be salvaged. It looks like both versions runs slower than the PS2 version. Utterly mental.
It's worth pointing out that the PS3 version is stable at 30-40 FPS, whereas the 360 version goes from 60 fps to 35 fps. So long as it's over 30, the stable framerate is always best. As for the visuals, I'm not seeing any difference re: resolution, lighting, etc. So at this point I think it's quite clear that this is a (yet another) case of two approximately identical versions of a game being the center of idiotic fanboy arguments. Have fun! I'm outta here.
Wait! So 35 fps bottom line is worse than 30-40 fps because it is consistent? That is ridiculous. Higher frame rate is more responsive and that is rarely if ever a bad thing. If it was a bad thing, developers would have locked the frame rate, which obviously did not happen for good reason.
You're kidding, right? Big framerate dips are noticable, constant framerate dips are less noticable. The more consistent a framerate is, the less noticable it is.
I have to agree with Canary with this, but any person with common sense would think so. Whole point is to make sure you keep it consistent so that it isn't noticeable by the player. When you start having drastic dips, then it becomes a little sloppy. You want an example? Silent Hill HD Collection before they capped it down to 30fps.
What? We are talking above 30 fps, where most people can't really tell. The only time when drastic frame rate changes is undesirable is when it dips below 30 fps because the change is very jarring and very noticeable.
Making sure the framerate is at a constant framerate is a better experience. Silent Hill before they capped the framerate was having framerate that went above 30fps (up to 40 or 50) then down to 30 or 20. Was way worse in SH3 since the framerate went below 30 in some areas, making the main character walk or run as if she was some kind of heavy tank. After they capped it, it ran at a fairly constant framerate.
If you have ever played a Pc game where your system cant handle everything. for example: nothing is going on and you are running 60 FPS then a load of explosions happen and it drops all the way down to 35 FPS you can really tell the difference and it looks horrible. Just like if you go from stable 30 FPS and it drops down to 20 FPS. You notice the difference and it doesn't look smooth. Instead I personally would rather have it running between 30 and 40 because you cant notice the difference in the way the game performs.
Yeah you're right, big dips in framerate would be annoying.
And now I've heard it all. I was wondering how the ps3 fans would spin this but never in a hundred years would I have seen this one coming; lower framerate is better! The only thing worth pointing out here is that you and your ps3 bretheren will agree on ANYTHING as long as it puts the PS3 on top. There is absolutely no way that that ridiculous statement would fly around these parts if the 360 was the one with the lower framerate. re do I even start?? First off, PS3's frame rate ranges from 20 fps to 60 fps during gameplay so I have no idea where you're getting that it is stable at 30 - 35 fps. Where do I even start?? First off, PS3's frame rate ranges from 20 fps to 60 fps during gameplay so I have no idea where you're getting that it is stable at 30 - 35 fps. Article clearly states that the 360 has better performance so the fps drops are probably infrequent. It's worth noting that stability isn't determined by number of framerates dropped, but rather the frequency of said drops.
Disappointing. High Voltage prove, once again, they just aren't competent. Bluepoint are go to for these HD collections, they know how to do them right, MGSHD was a good conversion and improved things on both platforms... shame they were busy with PSASBR on Vita.
Well, I mostly wanted the Vita version, anyway, but this is still somewhat disappointing. Only somewhat, as it's not like I currently have a 360 to play it on, anyway(gonna get one this holiday, though).
I guess I'll go with the 360 version. Same goes for Rising. @nukeitall From what I've played at a gaming event in Dubai, the PS3 version had a bit of a framerate dipping, while the 360 version was pretty stable. But I guess I'll wait until the final version is out before I decide on which version I should go with.
I wonder about Metal Gear Rising too...
Metal Gear Rising is being developed on the PS3, while this is a port from a crappy company. The code was much easier to transfer to 360 which is very similar to programming in a win32 environment. Either way, for Fans I think ZOE HD collection deserves to be played by both 360 user and ps3 users, and hopefully much like the Silent Hill HD patches we will see performance boost on the ps3 to at least bring it on par with 360! This game should no be played at sub 40 fps!
Can't even lie...I'm disappointed. I was really looking forward to the 60FPS with this title specifically...not sure where things stand with this HD collection now...as I still have the PS2 versions and the dips are not THAT bad... What a shame...The MGS HD collection frame rate was amazing...
Dam this version looks 2xbetter
This is great and all but when is the vita version coming?
Is that a thing? I looked at the website but there's no mention of a Vita version at all. Is that just a rumor or did they announce it?
Numerous gaming sites have said konami is planning a vita version. http://www.1up.com/news/met...
Awesome! If so, that's the version I'll buy.
TGS 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Konami isnt even able to decently remake its old games. How much it has fallen.
Konomi isn't the developer, it's High Voltage Software. Research. The mighty haven't fallen, we have for accepting crappy ports :) Either way no1 has a gun to your head to buy it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... Oh man what an awful list of games... xD hahaha like everything they've done in the past 6ish years is just awful lmao except for a couple wii-ware games LOL they even developed that awful Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer game
I know, but the responsible is ultimately Konami for selling a second rate product. Why did not Konami handled internally the remake?
@baldulf Who are you to question their practices? It's prob cheaper to hire outside their hive. It honestly doesn't take a lot to understand for us is quality for them it's business. ppl need to stop taking shit so personally. :)
So we need next gen to run ps2 games in 720p 60 fps?
is it just me or am I the only one that can't see the difference between the two?
"HD" collections are done by whoever will do them for cheapest. You should never be surprised when they suck. Stick with PCSX2.
@Norrison Not to mention you can just use your PS2 disc. Dont even need to re-buy it lol
Double Post :S
Xbox hall the way baby! 20 frames up! NICE...
Hall the way? Lol, but seriously people shouldn't be happy another version is done poorly just because it's not their system of choice. It's clearly not fair to those PS3 owners that the same care wasn't taken with their version as well. Both 360 and PS3 fans deserve to enjoy it to its fullest. Although this collection doesn't seem like it was done very well unfortunately anyway...
You can't even see the difference, I've been asking for specific moments in that video where the difference shown: people disagreed with me, but none of them could show me where it was. It's total hogwash, both are the same.
This is a PS3 buy.
Well, I guess I have to wait for the price to drop or buy the original PS2 versions...
I'm buying the shit out of this game.