Top
450°

Zone of the Enders HD Collection doesn't feature 60 FPS, but slightly higher on 360

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.

Read Full Story >>
gamingeverything.com
The story is too old to be commented.
SlavisH21368d ago

kind of a kick in the nuts but both versions are comparable and both ps360 get to enjoy a great series

jc485731368d ago

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.

bumnut1368d ago

Why buy the same game twice?

CraigandDayDay1368d ago (Edited 1368d ago )

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.

jadenkorri1367d ago

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.

WitWolfy1367d ago

I bought the whole Mass Effect trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I really liked the developer...

ScubbaSteve1367d ago

I didn't buy the whole Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I played Dragon Age 2.

bumnut1367d ago (Edited 1367d ago )

5 Disagrees, do these people really buy games twice?!?!?!

Suckers

pixelsword1367d ago (Edited 1367d ago )

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)?

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1367d ago
showtimefolks1368d ago (Edited 1368d ago )

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

Dragun6191367d ago

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.

wishingW3L1368d ago (Edited 1368d ago )

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. -_-

WrAiTh Sp3cTr31368d ago

John Carmack was right then, I guess...

WetN00dle691367d ago (Edited 1367d ago )

It seems so. Ahh well its the same damn game anyway.

pixelsword1367d ago

If he was right, then why did all versions of Rage suck?

STONEY41368d ago (Edited 1368d ago )

"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.

GenericNameHere1368d ago

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?

user47079791368d ago SpamShowReplies(1)
miyamoto1367d ago

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

j-blaze1367d ago

lol are you blind or something? ps3 version look washed out, x360 is sharper and has better frame rate get over it

Kurt Russell1367d ago

looks pretty much the same to me, all bar slightly different contrasts... something that tv's alter anyway.

pixelsword1367d ago

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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1367d ago
Godmars2901368d ago (Edited 1368d ago )

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.

DivineAssault 1368d ago

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

AngelicIceDiamond1368d ago

Well, Xbox version it is then.

dontbhatin1367d ago

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

specialguest1367d ago (Edited 1367d ago )

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.

dontbhatin1367d ago

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!