Sir_mihael, on 28 November 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:
Yalecsa, on 25 November 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:
So let's just think of it as a challenge mode, for the truly hardcore Sonic Heroes players.
Today I learned I was hardcore, and never knew it.
Yalecsa, on 25 November 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:
I also remember a great deal of differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Sonic '06 and Sonic Unleashed. But I'm going to go ahead and guess I've talked enough. >.>
This post of yours has been amazing by the way. I've already saved a lot what you've said in a shoddy notepad file just for my own reference.
Now I'm guessing the Xbox 360 was 'the' console for Sonic games of last gen, muchlike the Gamecube was the previous gen's console of choice, as I remember Unleashed having an erratic framerate on PS3, and Generations had the odd bit of input/frame delay here and there (if a review of the Green Hill PSN demo serves me right)
On the flip-side, I also remember hearing that Sumo favoured the PS3 when they made the Sonic & SEGA All-Stars games, with the 360 version suffering as a result. Any confirmation of any of this heresay would be absolutely brill. :D
I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm always a tad obsessed with always trying to get the best performing console release of any game (not counting being part of the PC Masterrace sadly..), ever since the dreaded Bayonetta on PS3 incident.
/>/>/>
Metal Gear Solid V did a bloody brilliant job of comparing each console release before launch, and I wish more sites (like Digital Foundry) did in-depth comparisons for older games.
Anyways. enough rambling/personal blog from me now.
Indeed, the 360 most definitely was the target console for Sonic games last gen. (Last gen? Feels wrong to say that somehow.) Sonic '06 has very rough performance on both machines due to being very rushed, mishandled, and Sega's first real attempt at making a 360 game. Everything Irixion mentioned about the game is true, although I would personally claim that the 360 version's loading times are still unbearable, even installed to hard drive. A brief analysis and screenshot comparison of the two versions can be found here (scroll down past the Splinter Cell comparison):
http://www.eurogamer...-article?page=3
There is an additional issue with the game that I rarely see mentioned, mainly because it only manifests in the PAL PS3 version, and only when running in SD. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, PAL PS3s cannot be put into 60hz when running in SD, meaning that all games run in 50hz. Most use a form of frame-skipping (much like the Gamecube in 50hz) to compensate for this, including Sonic '06. However, something goes very wrong with the FMVs of the game. They skip, they stutter, they're near unwatchable. They play as if the disc were scratched. And yet they work fine in 720p. Which is annoying, as there is another issue with the game! One can make the game have a more steady frame-rate if one sets one's PS3 to be in SD. In the case of Sonic '06, setting the PS3 to 480p does actually cause it to only render at 640x480, rather than usual method of dealing with 480p, being to render full 720p and then scale down. Meaning that if you have the PAL version, you're stuck either playing with an acceptable frame-rate but broken FMVs, or working FMVs with a near unplayable frame-rate! As rushed as the game was, the PAL PS3 version doesn't even appear to have had quality control testing performed. :|
Sonic Unleashed faired a bit better tech wise, thankfully. Again, the 360 was the lead platform, and the PS3 version suffers, but nowhere near to the same extent. The visual effects are a near match, albeit with the PS3 version having lower resolution soft shadows, with worse filtering. I recall the water in the Adabat daytime level, which was absolutely beautiful on 360, being a little less impressive on PS3. Both versions run at a resolution of 880x720, scaled horizontally to 1280x720, which due to how the human eye seems to work, doesn't look nearly as bad as one may expect. The frame-rate has trouble keeping a rock solid 30fps on 360 during the more intense levels, especially when playing as the werehog, while the PS3 version has trouble keeping 30fps at more or less every part of the game. The final level, Eggmanland, is a technical mess on both systems, but is near unplayable on PS3. The PS3 version also has some quite long loading times, though nothing like as bad as Sonic '06. Though speaking of loading, when one transitions between day and night, 360 owners are treated to an animation of Sonic transforming into the werehog, and vice versa for night to day. These are completely absent for the PS3 version, instead showing a spinning day/night emblem.
Sonic Unleashed also had a PS2 and Wii version, but that's an entirely different game, sharing no assets or engine code whatsoever. It would be unfair to compare those versions to the PS3/360 versions, as they don't even have the same levels. Instead, have a brief video comparison of the PS3 and 360 versions, again courtesy of Eurogamer's Digital Foundry (scroll past the Need for Speed segment):
http://www.eurogamer...-article?page=3
As a side note, I can't help but think they were a little unfair with their assessment of the game. I remember finding it incredibly pretty at the time, with the lighting, water, and pixar-style humans being particularly gorgeous. But hey, opinions.
By the time Sonic Generations came about, Sega had seemingly optimised the Hedgehog Engine a hell of a lot more. I've played the game a great deal on 360, and it holds a 30fps refresh very well indeed, only dropping when there's too much Havok physics going on. I can't speak for the PS3 version this time, as I've only played the demo, but it certainly held up a lot, lot better than PS3 Unleashed.
Did Sumo really favour the PS3? I've not really touched the original All Stars Racing, but the Transformed sequel I've played a great deal of, and I much prefer the 360 version of it to the PS3 version. The PS3 version runs at a higher resolution (1280x720, as opposed to the 360's 1152x554), but has real trouble maintaining 30fps. I only played the demo, but it was rare that the game hit its target frame-rate. The 360 version meanwhile uses some very impressive anti-aliasing to mitigate the low resolution, and does a wonderful job of hitting 30fps. I'd be very surprised to hear that Sumo preferred the PS3, especially with it being well renowned as more difficult to make games for. There were also versions of the game for the Wii U, Vita, and 3DS, but I've barely touched those. Digital Foundry assures me that the Wii U version runs at 1024x576, but my memory of playing this version at a friend's house has the game with a frame-rate not dissimilar from the PS3 version. The Vita version has downgraded visuals, but still manages to look very nice, especially on the Vita's OLED screen, albeit again with frame-rate issues. The 3DS version meanwhile runs on a completely different engine, with different assets, so a comparison would be unfair.
I've gone back to the PS2 version of Sonic Heroes, incidently, and thanks to PCXS2 can confirm that it does actually run at a resolution of 640x447, NOT the 512x448 I assumed. I am quite unsure as to why my eyes assume it to be a lower resolution than the other versions, but oh well. PS2 Shadow the Hedgehog also appears to run at this resolution.
I think it's fair to say that I, too, would love to see more comparisons of older games. I've always loved seeing the differences between versions. Had I the means to capture lossless footage from my older consoles, I would surely produce such comparisons myself, creating a sort of retro Digital Foundry. Alas, emulation of those systems simply isn't good enough to perform a proper comparison, and I can't justify spending money on a retro capture device, ahaha. Maybe one day, however. One day.
00
