140°

Face-Off: Sleeping Dogs [ Digital Foundry ]

On Microsoft's system, Sleeping Dogs adopts a native 1200x720 presentation, with an 80-pixel horizontal upscale to 720p, while on the PS3 we're looking at a much lower 1152x640, which has more severe implications with regards to overall image quality. Anti-aliasing on both consoles is a post-process, most likely provided by NVIDIA's popular FXAA solution, although we find that the PS3 uses a more aggressive edge-detect algorithm in order to smooth over the additional jaggies created by the heavy upscale.

While the 360 game gives a passable impression of a native 720p presentation, it looks significantly blurrier on the PS3: the combination of the much heavier upscaling and a stronger FXAA solution covering the final image in a veil of softness. Finer texture details that are visible on both platforms are smoothed over and edges feature a distinct softness that is regularly apparent with anti-aliased sub-HD games. Specular highlights are also subdued on the PS3 due to the stronger edge-detection being employed, although this doesn't come across as a particular downside given that the characters can look a little too shiny in some scenes on the 360.

Aside from the obvious resolution differences, it is clear that the PS3 version is missing some of the more intricate texture details found on the 360, a situation not helped by the more aggressive FXAA implementation. Additionally, we also find that normal maps feature less distinctive bumps and ripples, leading to the affected surfaces looking a touch blockier in nature. The reason for this is that lower resolution artwork is used on many objects throughout the game, thus resulting in visible detail loss, while normal maps appear to be using a different, more lossy compression scheme which creates artifacts on surfaces which use the effect - the Xenos GPU has access to improved texture compression technology compared to RSX, which may explain this.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
stonecold34360d ago

wow square dropped the ball on this version i think i might give it a miss and due to lazy port i was going to get it but its not worth supporting a company just give ps3 half a$$ ports and not spending the time resources in the ps3 version ?

Anon19744360d ago (Edited 4360d ago )

I wouldn't worry about it. "Overall Sleeping Dogs is worthy of consideration on both console platforms"

I remember despite the strong reviews, you'd think the Orange Box back in the day was unplayable on the PS3 given the way people were talking about it. I skipped it but ended up saying "What the hell" and picked it up eventually on my PS3 for $15, and it was awesome! Same thing happened with Ghostbusters. Everyone was harping on how terrible the PS3 version was, but I tried it and had a blast.

These articles might make a difference to you if you have both a PS3 and 360 but I can't see the use in them. Watching that comparison video, if they weren't telling me what was different between the two, I'd never be able to tell you. In one scene, I guy fell through a glass pane and there was added blood particles on the PS3 version that wasn't there on the 360 version. That was the only thing I could tell you was different about the two versions.

I'd hardly call this a half assed port, and that doesn't seem to be the conclusion DF came to either. Anyway, I pity the gamer that would skip playing a game based on these type of pixel counting articles. If it really mattered to you, you'd be playing on a high end gaming PC anyway.

Bathyj4360d ago

Playing PS3 version right now. Its great.

Remember, a man who never eats pork bun is never a whole man.

Wintersun6164360d ago

It's the game that matters, not the graphics. I would NEVER miss on a good game just because the other version looks better.

TBM4360d ago

i have ps3 version and its playing just fine. can't believe people still care about comparisons. i just keep it for the console i felt most comfortable with.

just like i bought darksiders 2 for 360.

i could have easily bought both for the opposite, or both for the same consoles. pointless comparisons lead to stupid fights.

StrawberryDiesel4204360d ago

Well, I don't buy games that have screen tearing, period. It's the sign of lazy developing skills and if the devs don't give a shit, neither do I and I won't purchase the game. I love these comparisons, keep up the good work Digital Foundry! Next up should be the Darksiders 2 comparison.

specialguest4360d ago (Edited 4360d ago )

You're like a spoiled brat in the gaming world. Had there not been a comparison image or video of this game, you might have just enjoyed the game at its purest form for what it is. Seriously, is your entire gaming world that fragile to where a slight difference in graphical details (details you would've never known about) would shatter your chance to play a game you looked forward to playing?? That's really pathetic.

That's like a child who crave pizza, but because his slice had one less pepperoni than the other kids, he tosses it back in childish protest, crosses his arms and pouts.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4360d ago
fossilfern4360d ago

I really wish people would stop using FXAA its a terrible form of AA. Can they not use SMAA atleast ?

yewles14360d ago

Still using a more taxing solution on the PS3 GPU than letting the SPE's handle it? No wonder MM is helping out on LBP Karting...

JellyJelly4360d ago

I'll be getting the 360 version. Anyone know how the PC version fares?

T3MPL3TON 4360d ago

It's the best version of the game. Played the 360 version fr a bit it's fine but the PC version seems to have gotten the most attention.. which is odd seeing as this is really a console game.

vikingland14360d ago

Digital Foundry says the PC version is the best of the 3. But I only have a PS3 and Xbox 360 no gaming PC. So it looks like the 360 version for me.

pr0digyZA4360d ago

PC has ended up the best they included a bunch of new features, plus a 4 gig high res texture pack for free, and there has been 4 patches. Probably one of the best ports.

stuntman_mike4360d ago

The PC is definitely the best version. Plays better than the console versions.

iistuii4360d ago

The pc version of EVERY game is better. Just because its running at a higher resolution. so even if the game is a complete console port, it'll look better because the resolution irons out lots of jaggies.

RyuStrife4360d ago

no. fifa is still a little behind. they've improved it, but still lacking some features. Sure, you get full hd 60fps but it still isnt as good as the hd console versions.

neoMAXMLC4360d ago

Game keeps crashing back to my desktop. =|
My GTX 260 isn't exactly a powerhouse but it's nice having a pretty high frame rate even if it means playing this game on medium settings...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4360d ago
kevnb4360d ago

If people really care get it for PC, its a huge difference there in this game.

Show all comments (20)
100°

Square Enix Is "Working Hard" On Small To Medium-Scaled Games, CEO Says

The Square Enix CEO has recently confirmed in a shareholders' meeting that it is still working hard on multiple small-sized games.

CrimsonWing6927d ago

I thought they said they were focusing on bigger games… so, we’re staying the same now?

just_looken27d ago

They should come clean and just say that they are working hard on keeping the light's on as they were a greedy company that is now almost broke.

The_Blue27d ago

They can't decide rather to squeeze into the indie mobile market or AAA.

CrimsonWing6927d ago

All I can say is I hope Front Mission 3 Remake didn't get cancelled.

anast27d ago

Quality should be number 1.

Abnor_Mal27d ago

Does smaller games translate to smaller prices for the consumer, or no?

just_looken27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

HA HA square small prices this is the company that made avengers and said Final Fantasy VII Rebirth Didn't Meet Sales Expectations Amid Struggles

https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

Same in 2023 with ff16

https://www.eurogamer.net/f...

They got 202 million usd in operating income they want cash fast so get those $60 3hr long games out there fast and more microtransactions now.

Hotpot27d ago

Well I don’t mind more HD-2D games.. preferably something like FFVI, Chrono Trigger, or Xenogears.

shinoff218327d ago

Even some new single story experiences in hd2d(octapath is good but I like single story games to)

Show all comments (13)
150°

Fear Effect coming to PS5, PS4, Switch, and PC in 2025

Limited Run Games, in cooperation with Square Enix, will release action adventure game Fear Effect for PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, Switch, and PC via Steam in 2025, the company announced.

CrimsonWing6935d ago (Edited 35d ago )

What!? That is freaking great!!!! I really loved this game back in the day and was so pissed the Remake got changed and then eventually canceled. This is such great news that it’s the original. Will definitely get the plat for it.

Mr Pumblechook35d ago

The article mentions:

* PC
* Nintendo Switch
* PlayStation 4
* PlayStation 5

But why isn’t there a mention of the Xbox Series version?

CrimsonWing6935d ago

Yea that’s a Limited Run Games thing like what @Scissorman showed in the article. They’ve tried selling the physical versions of Xsex games, but they just don’t sell. But I’m fairly sure this should be digital for Xbox, if not, then it’s time to drop Xbox and come to greener pastures.

wesnytsfs35d ago

@CrimsonWing69, greener pastures.. Yep moved to mainly PC now myself get all the good games from both companies now if only Nintendo would release games on PC too.

RiseNShine35d ago

so a ps1 game launched in modern platformos, mmmkay. I can play it already in emulators with high res, retroachievements support and more, doesn't make much sense.

140°

Square Enix Is Going Multiplatform; The Layoffs & Its Past Don't Inspire Confidence

After its latest games didn't meet sales targets, Square Enix is going multiplatform but the company's track record isn't convincing.

Scissorman70d ago

Square Enix been multiplatform for decades, a few exclusively-deals doesn't make them any less multiplatform.

fr0sty70d ago

Nor is selling their games on a console with only 25 million install base going to bring their sales to where they hope they will be... Unless they somehow manage to dumb down FF7 trilogy to work on switch, they aren't going to have much luck. They already released it on PC, after all.

anast70d ago

Where are you getting that number?

SegaSaturn66970d ago

It kind of does, giving preference to a certain platform by timed exclusivity. Console ports generally feel superior. Legend of mana PC port extremely broken

neutralgamer199270d ago

Sega

It doesn’t when square themselves didn’t want to fund the development of remake. It’s only after the success of the 1st they realized their mistake but now contract is signed. If it wasn’t for Sony there would be no FF7 remakes. Same goes for silent hill 2 with Konami. They don’t want to fund AAA budget. Companies like PlayStation and Nintendo get blamed when in reality they are saving some of these franchises

Remember sega didn’t want to fund bayonetta and epic games didn’t want to fund another gears of war. It’s easy to blame console makers but they are the ones taking the risk and paying huge upfront costs without seeing the final product. FF7 remake trilogy won’t be coming to Xbox now or in the future. PlayStation and PC is what square signed up for. Sony paid them more than they would make from Xbox sales.

ravens5270d ago

I just wonder when everyone is going to demand that the Square Enix exclusives with Nintendo come to PS and Xbox. Or it's just the PS exclusives that matter lol

phoenixwing70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

I'd love for the nintendo exclusives to come to pc or ps5. They'd actually be playable then.

neutralgamer199270d ago

Raven

Exactly and that’s where square enix does more exclusive than any other platform. Gaming is square has always been very unrealistic with their sales expectations. Remember when tomb raider reboot sold 7.5 million and square said it wasn’t enough. They need to spend less on development and have more realistic expectations from sales.

And those thinking games being not on Xbox makes a difference don’t understand we have a decade plus of data showing square enix games having less than 20% of their multiplatform sales on Xbox (final fantasy series) and Nintendo consoles aren’t strong enough to run any current games. Nintendo switch should be as strong as Xbox one x atleast but we all know that’s most likely won’t happen

RoadRacer70d ago

@raven

thing is, as neutral said in their comm, the switch isn't strong enough to run flagship SE games
i think what SE does is, it makes unique games for switch only so that it has something for that console too. Thats where all the "underlined sans" rpgs go to mostly

maybe things will change when Swtich 2 drops cuz that's gonna be as strong as ps4 afaik from the rumors flying around

TheGamingHounds70d ago

@Scissorman

Your point is valid enough but when the icon of this company is limited to one console in timed-exclusivity, it means the company has crossed the line. By some degree at least

All things aside, Square itself stated "aggressive multiplatform strategies" so we all know what it's talking about

Scissorman70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

Then the headline should read "Square To Drop Exclusively Deals in Pursuit of A Sweeping Multiplatform Strategy". I don't recall this argument when Square Enix released Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, and Triangle Strategy on one platform. And even if FF is the icon, not all of its titles have gone to one platform. We're talking about three games, one of which is already on PC. Did Square suddenly go 'multiplatform' after it released subsequent Tomb Raider sequels on more than just the Xbox? It's just a silly way of putting it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 70d ago
TheGamingHounds70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

SE needs to go all in optimization. Broken PC ports won't help its case, especially with big releases like mainline Final Fantasy

Asterphoenix70d ago

It's actually simple. What doesn't inspire confidence is Square allocating their budgets on the wrong projects such as Forspoken, Avengers, Babylons Fall and Foamstars.

Square has always been multiplatform since PS3/360 days which 80 % of their games are. People kick up a fuss over PS exclusivity but not Nintendo which has more exclusive projects console exclusive from Square.

FF16 has done ok but not enough to fix the blunders that the past mistakes Square has made with some of their projects. FF7 Rebirth is unclear we'll see a PC release for sure so it's hard to say so far not as good as they would of liked.

Then again unrealistic expectations. If it weren't for Sony these games would at least had another 2 years development time. So some people need to be realistic in that regard.

Scissorman70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

It's the blunders that set those expectations so high. If you remove those from the equation, I bet the sales numbers would be more than stellar. Square believes it's okay to release a pile of risky, middling, garbage because the big boys will ultimately subsidize the cost. Don't worry if Forspoken sells poorly, FF16 will surely sell 10 million copies to balance that right out. Oh wait, it only sold like 4 million. Well that's a disaster. Meanwhile games that sell 2 million units with comparable budgets are deemed successful.

thorstein70d ago

I would also add that FFXVI, which I loved has a hint to one of their biggest problems: the number 16.

It's a great franchise, but that's all they've become known for. Dragon Quest is my favorite all time series but it's like they don't know what to do outside of those two IPs.

Valve never makes trilogies. The idea is that they don't want to become stagnant. Gabe Newell hates the number 3.

I can't imagine their talent wouldn't want to try a new RPG.

RoadRacer70d ago

Square Enix just really need to revise its expectations. Maybe consider a change in strategy on dev end as well. Multiplat will help for sure but only good games that are marketed well will sell

Show all comments (18)