Try our new beta! Click here
Submitted by Valay 1128d ago | news

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. (PS3, Xbox 360, Zone of the Enders HD Collection)

Attached Video
Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
SlavisH2  +   1128d ago
kind of a kick in the nuts but both versions are comparable and both ps360 get to enjoy a great series
jc48573  +   1128d 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.
bumnut  +   1128d ago
Why buy the same game twice?
CraigandDayDay  +   1128d 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.
#1.1.2 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(5) | Report
jadenkorri  +   1128d 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.
WitWolfy  +   1128d ago
I bought the whole Mass Effect trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I really liked the developer...
ScubbaSteve  +   1128d ago
I didn't buy the whole Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3... Lets just say I played Dragon Age 2.
bumnut  +   1128d ago
5 Disagrees, do these people really buy games twice?!?!?!

#1.1.6 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report
pixelsword  +   1127d 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)?
#1.1.7 (Edited 1127d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report
showtimefolks  +   1128d 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
#1.2 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Dragun619  +   1128d 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.
wishingW3L  +   1128d 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. -_-
#2 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(45) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
WrAiTh Sp3cTr3  +   1128d ago
John Carmack was right then, I guess...
WetN00dle69  +   1127d ago
It seems so. Ahh well its the same damn game anyway.
#2.1.1 (Edited 1127d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
pixelsword  +   1127d ago
If he was right, then why did all versions of Rage suck?
STONEY4  +   1128d 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.
#2.2 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
GenericNameHere  +   1128d 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?
user4707979   1128d ago | Spam
miyamoto  +   1128d ago
maybe the difference in graphic detail explains why

PS3 sharper graphics



so there's a trade off
makes sense to me
j-blaze  +   1128d ago
lol are you blind or something? ps3 version look washed out, x360 is sharper and has better frame rate get over it
Kurt Russell  +   1128d ago
looks pretty much the same to me, all bar slightly different contrasts... something that tv's alter anyway.
pixelsword  +   1127d 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.
WeskerChildReborned  +   1128d ago
Well this just sucks..
Godmars290  +   1128d 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.
#4 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
DivineAssault  +   1128d 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
AngelicIceDiamond  +   1128d ago
Well, Xbox version it is then.
dontbhatin  +   1128d 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
specialguest  +   1128d 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.
#5.1.2 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report
dontbhatin  +   1128d 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!
MacDonagh  +   1128d ago
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.

Related video
tack129  +   1128d ago
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.
Cryptcuzz  +   1128d ago
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.
MacDonagh  +   1128d ago
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.
Xof  +   1128d ago
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.
nukeitall  +   1128d ago

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.
#7.1 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(22) | Report | Reply
Canary  +   1128d ago
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.
jc48573  +   1128d ago
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.
nukeitall  +   1128d ago

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.
tack129  +   1128d ago
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.
dontbhatin  +   1128d ago
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.
RyuX19  +   1128d ago
Yeah you're right, big dips in framerate would be annoying.
Blankman85  +   1128d ago
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.
PirateThom  +   1128d ago
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.
Hicken  +   1128d ago
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).
SonyNGP  +   1128d ago
I guess I'll go with the 360 version. Same goes for Rising.


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.
#10 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
nukeitall  +   1128d ago
I wonder about Metal Gear Rising too...
Little_Suzy   1128d ago | Spam
kB0  +   1128d ago
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!
C L O U D  +   1128d ago
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 I still have the PS2 versions and the dips are not THAT bad...

What a shame...The MGS HD collection frame rate was amazing...
josephayal  +   1128d ago
Dam this version looks 2xbetter
deno  +   1128d ago
This is great and all but when is the vita version coming?
Snookies12  +   1128d ago
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?
deno  +   1128d ago
Numerous gaming sites have said konami is planning a vita version.
Snookies12  +   1128d ago
Awesome! If so, that's the version I'll buy.
baldulf  +   1128d ago
Konami isnt even able to decently remake its old games.

How much it has fallen.
kB0  +   1128d ago
Konomi isn't the developer, it's High Voltage Software.


The mighty haven't fallen, we have for accepting crappy ports :)

Either way no1 has a gun to your head to buy it!
Axecution  +   1128d ago

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
#14.1.1 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
baldulf  +   1127d ago
I know, but the responsible is ultimately Konami for selling a second rate product.

Why did not Konami handled internally the remake?
kB0  +   1127d ago

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.

aquamala  +   1128d ago
So we need next gen to run ps2 games in 720p 60 fps?
Quickstrike  +   1128d ago
is it just me or am I the only one that can't see the difference between the two?
demonddel  +   1128d ago
just u
synce  +   1128d ago
"HD" collections are done by whoever will do them for cheapest. You should never be surprised when they suck. Stick with PCSX2.
Axecution  +   1127d ago

Not to mention you can just use your PS2 disc. Dont even need to re-buy it lol
GrahamGolden   1128d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
Norrison  +   1128d ago
Double Post :S
#19 (Edited 1128d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
OniXRuleZ  +   1128d ago
Xbox hall the way baby! 20 frames up! NICE...
Snookies12  +   1128d ago
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...
pixelsword  +   1127d ago
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.
Omnislash  +   1128d ago
This is a PS3 buy.
kagon01  +   1128d ago
Well, I guess I have to wait for the price to drop or buy the original PS2 versions...
yesmynameissumo  +   1128d ago
I'm buying the shit out of this game.
segamon  +   1128d ago
Zone of the Enders 3: Start
foijsoijsdoif   1128d ago | Spam
urwifeminder  +   1128d ago
Die remakes its like hip hop butchers wrecking classic songs, i hope next gen we dont get remakes from this gen its getting out of hand.
Da One  +   1128d ago
What classic songs has hip hop butchered....?
Neo-Axl  +   1128d ago
Seeing as I had these games on PS2, Kinda just got kicked in the teeth knowing the 360 ver plays better(-_-)' Not Cool.
Zechs34  +   1128d ago
Why? You have had the privilege of playing them years prior, you should still have the original copies, and more than likely, this will sell better on PS3 (a la MGSHD)

Im just glad more people get to play these great games and hopefully that means ZoE 3 will come sooner rather than later. Maybe even sporting some FOX engine love.
Neo-Axl  +   1128d ago
Yep I still have the originals, But a HD version with trophies is perfectly fine with me, I was just hoping the PS3 version would sport 60 FPS.. Still buying it obviously,

Just a little down about it is all.
BlaqMagiq24  +   1128d ago
I did see the framerate drops come into play however they're not significant enough that it's unplayable. I'm still picking up my limited edition on PS3.
Parappa  +   1128d ago
So in other words the game isn't worth buying because it's a crappy port.

Looks like PC is still the only place to play these in 720p (or higher) with at least 60fps.

To top it all off they slapped on a demo for a crappy game on a crappy HD port.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Xenoblade Chronicles X Review - Nintendo World Report

18m ago - Nintendo World Report: I don’t tend to play games for extended periods of time – between work and... | Wii U

Lack of Piracy Killed the PS Vita

21m ago - Jason Santuci writes, "As Sony pulls the plug on first party Vita development I feel they didn’t... | PS Vita

See what games are coming out in 2016

Now - Visit our release calendar to see what games are coming out in 2016. | Promoted post

“Night City Assault” alpha demo hands-on impressions - The Gaming Ground

22m ago - Xtra Mile Games 2D story-based beat-em-up/RPG/Metroidvania game "Night City Assault" has a lot of... | PC

5 Indie Titles Prove 2D Still Lives

22m ago - Carl Williams writes, "2D is a rarer and rarer occurrence, especially on consoles. That is sadden... | PC

Five Games: Just Cause 3 And Everything Else You Need To Play This Week

23m ago - Rainbow Six, Just Cause and Xenoblade Chronicles X in the last big Five Games of the year. | PC