BlazBlue PC Game Petition

#1 Posted by Funzzo (835 posts) -

Please go here and help get this game on PC 
 
http://www.aksysgames.com/forums/topic/206
 

#2 Posted by TheMustacheHero (6655 posts) -

Petitions don't work. -_-

#3 Posted by Funzzo (835 posts) -

I know but I can dream.

#4 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -
@Funzzo said:
" I know but I can dream. "
If you know why do you bother...
#5 Posted by Funzzo (835 posts) -

Because I want this game and don't want to buy a 360 or PS3. 65 bucks for a 360/PS3 game no thanks. 

#6 Posted by hamlaser (230 posts) -

They used to make Guilty Gear for PC that was available in Europe but they stopped after Isuka. There is not a very large market for PC fighting games.

#7 Posted by Linkyshinks (9880 posts) -

Never going to happen, it may have happened with GG but the spec on this would require some serious work in the studio. Besides that fact, when the fuck are people going to realise this shit simply doesn't work. There's a good reason why it's not on PC, this game doesn't have the mass appeal of SF4,
 
Try this out on PC instead, it's pretty good, made by an ex Capcom employee apparently.
 
  http://www.giantbomb.com/blazblue-calamity-trigger/61-21768/screw-you-blaz-blue/35-250977/

#8 Posted by Funzzo (835 posts) -

The spec? From what I have herd this game runs off a modified XP arcade system or something.  I love 2D fighters and I know it does not have mass appeal that SF4.  I bought SF4 and I play GG midnight carnival more then SF4.  

#9 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4899 posts) -
@TheMustacheHero said:
" Petitions don't usually work. -_- "
Fixed
#10 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -

Well amended, SJSchmidt. 
 
Petitions sometimes work, and most specifically work in massive numbers.   If someone could get the digg effect going on the petition ( 
http://www.aksysgames.com/forums/topic/206 ) or somesuch, the developers might stand up and take notice. 
 
Street Fighter IV PC sold over 80,000 units in 2 months.  They made more than 2 million dollars in sales in the first month alone.   Not too shabby.   Seems there's a market for the PC Fighting game after all.  And not only that, but BlazBlue is actually /better/ than Street Fighter IV, as much as it pains me to say.   Since the arcade machines are just modified Windows XP systems,  there'd be no development costs.  Since they already have a deal with Microsoft's 360 live service, Games For Windows Live support would be very easy to implement.   Since Steam allows for large amounts of sales at low distribution costs, a PC release wouldn't even need to cost much money at all. 
 
...No reason not to let them know we want it.   Citing the above wouldn't hurt any, either.

#11 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:
Street Fighter IV PC sold over 80,000 units in 2 months.  They made more than 2 million dollars in sales in the first month alone.   Not too shabby.   Seems there's a market for the PC Fighting game after all.
There's a market for big name fighting games like SF4.  Realistically a PC version of Blazblue would probably only sell a few thousand...
 
@Kalean said:
Since the arcade machines are just modified Windows XP systems,  there'd be no development costs.
It's the same arcade hardware as Street Fighter IV runs on, Taito Type X2.  It doesn't eliminate the costs of getting it to run on consumer PCs, nor any other work involved in licensing or any other troubles.  The big cost comes from the required testing across many different potential setups.  Blazblue runs on 1 hardware make in arcades.  It would be easier to port than SF4 though because they wouldn't have to make lower graphics quality models & effects for low spec PCs.
#12 Posted by Funzzo (835 posts) -

Only 50 people signed the petition more gamers need to sign.

#13 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond said:

There's a market for big name fighting games like SF4.  Realistically a PC version of Blazblue would probably only sell a few thousand...
 

....It's the same arcade hardware as Street Fighter IV runs on, Taito Type X2.  It doesn't eliminate the costs of getting it to run on consumer PCs, nor any other work involved in licensing or any other troubles.  The big cost comes from the required testing across many different potential setups.  Blazblue runs on 1 hardware make in arcades.  It would be easier to port than SF4 though because they wouldn't have to make lower graphics quality models & effects for low spec PCs. "

Last I checked, Street Fighter, Tekken, and Guilty Gear /are/ the big name fighting games.   Guilty Gear extends itself to BlazBlue, so...  Furthermore, Street Fighter IV sold that well in one month with very minimal advertising before launch.   A game being available on the front page of steam is like a high quality advertisement all by itself.   
 
Indeed, BlazBlue runs on the Taito Type X2.  However, it was already running on several various  non-modified XP rigs when it was being shown before release at game and anime conventions.   Thus, it stands to reason that they already have the game available to run on consumer operating systems, and any additional compatibility testing needs be pretty minimal.
#14 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

Petitions don't work.  Almost ever.  If they eventually release it for the PC, it will not have been because of this.

#15 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -

You might be right, and you might not be.   
 
What most certainly won't help is naysaying, so please, if you've got all of 2 minutes free, reg, add your 'sig', and help us try.  

#16 Posted by TooWalrus (13257 posts) -

I've always wanted to play BlazBlue with a mouse and keyboard.

#17 Posted by Breadfan (6590 posts) -

Why would you want a fighter for PC?  That would be terrible. 

#18 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:
Last I checked, Street Fighter, Tekken, and Guilty Gear /are/ the big name fighting games.   Guilty Gear extends itself to BlazBlue, so...  Furthermore, Street Fighter IV sold that well in one month with very minimal advertising before launch.   A game being available on the front page of steam is like a high quality advertisement all by itself.     Indeed, BlazBlue runs on the Taito Type X2.  However, it was already running on several various  non-modified XP rigs when it was being shown before release at game and anime conventions.   Thus, it stands to reason that they already have the game available to run on consumer operating systems, and any additional compatibility testing needs be pretty minimal.
Guilty Gear is extremely niche as far as it goes.  They fucking mentioned Street Fighter on Family Guy.  Street Fighter is as well known as Madden and Halo.  Blazblue doesn't even have the Guilty Gear name recognition.
#19 Posted by Sicariusyoh (1 posts) -
@Br3adfan: Oh god yes.  Can you imagine the connection?  Sure, games are getting better, but... no.  Not worth the chance.
#20 Posted by Qorious (847 posts) -

I don't think BlazBlue would work in a PC environment. The mouse and keyboard aren't really meant to play a fighting game like BlazBlue.

#21 Posted by turbomonkey138 (4956 posts) -
@Cube: Because he wants to do something rather than complain on a forum
#22 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -

Wow, a lot of flaming for a simple and well-intentioned request.  
 
First and foremost, if using the setup I mentioned above, requiring an online GFWL profile to save and play online, piracy is decently discouraged, just like with SFIV PC, which cannot be played online with a pirated version.  
 
Secondly, while I am actually quite capable of playing fighting games with the keyboard, ( It's really not that hard, folks. ) most gamers that play more than FPS and RTS games on the PC have a gamepad of some sort or another.  I've got several.  My old PS2 pad and the USB converter I have for it is a nice one, for starters. 
 
Finally, if any of you actually played Street Fighter IV for the PC, you'd find that the online matches, so long as you're not playing against someone on the opposite side of the planet from you, are quite responsive, and have little to no lag.   Also, the game is superior to the ps3 and 360 offerings, as not only does it possess higher resolution textures and models, and sport higher gameplay resolutions in general, but it also has features that aren't enabled in the console versions, such as full self and soft shadowing, full anisotropic filtering, and 16xQ antialiasing.     The end result is it looks better on PC, and with a gamepad, will play exactly the same, only with less lag on the online matches. 
 
I understand that it feels good to bash on an idea that you don't believe in, but truly, this is a good one, particularly considering the nearly zero development cost of a game that's already practically finished and ready to market for the PC (Test runs of the game were done on normal XP machines with a variety of hardware before the game ever made it to the arcades or console ).  If it was distributed solely via steam, as well, for example, it would also have no real production costs, so they would be making almost entirely profit from the beginning, with very little investment on their part.

#23 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -

@Kalean

said:

Also, the game is superior to the ps3 and 360 offerings, as not only does it possess higher resolution textures and models, and sport higher gameplay resolutions in general, but it also has features that aren't enabled in the console versions, such as full self and soft shadowing, full anisotropic filtering, and 16xQ antialiasing

The textures and models are not better on the PC version of SF4.  Console versions have full self & soft shadowing too.  You never played the console versions, probably don't even own a PS3 or 360, and are hailing the PC version ignorantly.  Why are you bringing up this shit in a Blazblue thread btw?
 
edit - ugh Giant Bomb causing me to double post & be lethargic. 
#24 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -

The SF4 info was posted in response to the statement that there's not a big fighter market on the PC, and in response to the statement that there's no advantage to having them on PC. 
 
The textures are higher resolutions, I examined the files off a friend's PS3 copy, and am looking at the PC texture for Chun Li right now in comparison.  In addition, the self shadowing and soft shadowing do exist on both consoles, but not to the degree they are used on the PC version's max settings.  Look into it personally if you don't believe me.
 
At any rate, this thread is a simple request to sign a petition so that those of us who don't want to drop 300 dollars on a console can buy a copy of BlazBlue, too.  Once a week at a friend's place doesn't really fill the urge.
 
Is there some particular reason you guys want to discourage a PC version? Why the hostility?

#25 Posted by Shadow (4988 posts) -

never gonna happen
#26 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:
The textures are higher resolutions, I examined the files off a friend's PS3 copy, and am looking at the PC texture for Chun Li right now in comparison.  In addition, the self shadowing and soft shadowing do exist on both consoles, but not to the degree they are used on the PC version's max settings.  Look into it personally if you don't believe me.
Dude, the textures are NOT higher resolution.  How did you examine those files, rip the game to a friend's HDD with his bluray drive, then be the first person in the world to successfully reverse engineer Sony's PS3 game file system and security measures?
 
The only thing that the PC version of SF4 can do better is taking more soft shadowing samples.  There is no difference in the self shadowing, all versions use shadow buffers.
 
I have looked into it personally, and I understand enough tech to know you're talking complete bullshit.
#27 Posted by jakob187 (21762 posts) -

I guarantee that no one who is serious about BlazBlue gives two shits and a fuck about this game going to PC.  They typically play on PS3.

#28 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -

  @jakob187 said:

" I guarantee that no one who is serious about BlazBlue gives two shits and a fuck about this game going to PC.  They typically play on PS3. "
 

That's an interesting guarantee to make.  Universal statements are usually false, and this is no exception.  I'm serious about wanting to play this game.  I'm serious about wanting to get better at it.  And I want it to be released on PC.   So with all due respect, you're mistaken. 
 

@Diamond

said:

" @Kalean said:

The textures are higher resolutions, I examined the files off a friend's PS3 copy, and am looking at the PC texture for Chun Li right now in comparison.  In addition, the self shadowing and soft shadowing do exist on both consoles, but not to the degree they are used on the PC version's max settings.  Look into it personally if you don't believe me.

Dude, the textures are NOT higher resolution.  How did you examine those files, rip the game to a friend's HDD with his bluray drive, then be the first person in the world to successfully reverse engineer Sony's PS3 game file system and security measures?  The only thing that the PC version of SF4 can do better is taking more soft shadowing samples.  There is no difference in the self shadowing, all versions use shadow buffers.  I have looked into it personally, and I understand enough tech to know you're talking complete bullshit. "
While I should think that the information reported on anti-aliasing and the ps3's dynamic downscaling found here (  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-street-fighter-iv-article ) , and the information on the ps3's lighting, self-shadowing, and textures found on the next page over here (  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-street-fighter-iv-article?page=2 ) would be sufficient for you, I've also included a direct comparison between ps3 and PC (with the ps3 texture resized upward for effect.)  It is here (  http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8803/pcvsps3.jpg )  with a closer-up version here (  http://xs743.xs.to/xs743/09403/pcvsps3-2970.jpg ) .  I had to use image shack for the first one, instead of xs.to, because the full texture is too large for xs.to.
 
That should be sufficient proof for you.  However, even on the off-chance that you don't believe, still, the fact remains that the PC version can run much higher resolutions, anti-aliasing settings, and anisotropic filtering settings.  This of course speaks nothing of the three additional (and optional) shader overlays present in the PC version. (Ink, watercolor, and e-sumi.), as I don't consider those to have any impact on graphical superiority.   You are mistaken, though it was an honest mistake.  
 

 
Now that we've gotten past those, I have no specific examples of petitions causing a company to reverse their policy, and even if I did, they are truly rare, but I do not see how it could hurt.  
 
If any of you have a spare two minutes, please sign the petition at  http://www.aksysgames.com/forums/topic/206 and help those of us who are interested.   With GFWL online play, the game will be unattractive to pirates, as GFWL netplay does not function on pirated versions at all.   Please help us out.  It's hardly something you have to do, but it would be nice of you. 
#29 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:

While I should think that the information reported on anti-aliasing and the ps3's dynamic downscaling found here, and the information on the ps3's lighting, self-shadowing, and textures found on the next page over here  would be sufficient for you, I've also included a direct comparison between ps3 and PC (with the ps3 texture resized upward for effect.)  It is here with a closer up version here.  I had to use image shack for the first one, instead of xs.to, because the full texture is too large for xs.to.     That should be sufficient proof for you.  However, even on the off-chance that you don't believe, still, the fact remains that the PC version can run much higher Anti-aliasing settings, and much higher anisotropic filtering settings.  This of course speaks nothing of the three additional (and optional) shader overlays present in the PC version. (Ink, watercolor, and e-sumi.), as I don't consider those to have any impact on graphical superiority.   You are mistaken, though it was an honest mistake.

Your links aren't working.  Either way SF4 never even uses so much RAM that they'd have to downscale textures or model data on PS3, based on file sizes and memory usage from the PC version.  Anti-aliasing and resolution downscaling is not related to textures.
 
It's not about belief as much as me knowing you're wrong.
 
edit - you're going to have to show me how you magically ripped assets from a PS3 game.  Because it's far more likely you simply downscaled the PC version textures.
 
edit 2 - the eurogamer article doesn't even touch on lighting differences, but anyways that's been the 360 and PS3 version.  PS3 supposedly has 1 shadow sample while 360 has 2.  That's really the biggest difference besides resolution anyone has brought up between those 2.
 
edit 3 - just to be perfectly clear and stop this pointless discussion.  The PC version of SF4 never even uses 480MB of RAM, I just tested it again just now.  Basically no matter how high you have your PC settings cranked, RAM would never be a limiting factor for running the game on PS3 or 360.  That's all there is to it.  Whatever you believe you have observed is irrelevant.
#30 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond said:

 you're going to have to show me how you magically ripped assets from a PS3 game. 

There's been a lot of recent progress in the area of examining PS3 HDD file systems and structures, including more than one recent program allowing one to decrypt and take an image of the full drive.   The image can't be mounted as a normal hard drive on any typical PC, be it Linux, Windows, or otherwise, but file recovery software can still examine and find directories and files off of it.   You won't be too surprised to find that it uses a modified linux file system structure, home folder and all.  Inside the game folder, labeled appropriately "game", you'll find the various gameIDs for games you've installed as folders.  Within those folders are the assets that have been installed on the hard drive to ease load times.  This is an optional install for Street Fighter IV, but the option is there.  Once you've got access to those assets, it's not all that hard to figure out what to do with them.    Fortunately, this has almost no impact on piracy, as the PS3 hasn't been hacked wide open not due to difficulties in figuring out the file structure, but rather due to several exceptional security measures that are running simultaneously on the console.  The security measures aren't things I've delved into too much, since there's very little non-piracy application for looking into those, but I believe the figure I heard (read: I could be mistaken here) was once every 4 seconds, for the frequency that the security checks are made.   And you don't notice any slowdown from this in game.   Go Sony.
 

@Diamond

said:

 the eurogamer article doesn't even touch on lighting differences, but anyways that's been the 360 and PS3 version.  PS3 supposedly has 1 shadow sample while 360 has 2.  That's really the biggest difference besides resolution anyone has brought up between those 2. "

 
The eurogamer article doesn't delve into specifics on lighting, it is mentioned, however.  Furthermore, my argument was that the PC version possessed not only higher resolution textures, but a great many other higher quality graphical effects.  Clearly, it possesses higher resolution textures than the PS3, though whether they're higher than the 360 or the same, I couldn't tell you, as I have not examined the 360 version's files directly.    The graphical features that the ps3 has over the 360 are all featured on the PC version, and likewise the same with the features that the 360 has over the ps3.  And then there's the AA and AF control, and higher resolutions.   The argument is sound, the PC version has the best features from both consoles, and additional graphical improvements (or potential improvements. If you don't want to believe the shadowing, the AA and AF are indisputable).  Therefore the PC version is the best looking version, unless one has a rather low quality PC.    That's not an opinion, it's quite factual, and you've made no point to refute it.   You have, however, successfully diverted me from the original purpose of this thread. 
 
If I spend all this time explaining things to you to your satisfaction, will you (assuming I do eventually satisfy you) sign the petition?  I'd be grateful.
#31 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:
The eurogamer article doesn't delve into specifics on lighting, it is mentioned, however.  Furthermore, my argument was that the PC version possessed not only higher resolution textures, but a great many other higher quality graphical effects.  Clearly, it possesses higher resolution textures than the PS3, though whether they're higher than the 360 or the same, I couldn't tell you, as I have not examined the 360 version's files directly.    The graphical features that the ps3 has over the 360 are all featured on the PC version, and likewise the same with the features that the 360 has over the ps3.  And then there's the AA and AF control, and higher resolutions.   The argument is sound, the PC version has the best features from both consoles, and additional graphical improvements (or potential improvements. If you don't want to believe the shadowing, the AA and AF are indisputable).  Therefore the PC version is the best looking version, unless one has a rather low quality PC.    That's not an opinion, it's quite factual, and you've made no point to refute it.   You have, however, successfully diverted me from the original purpose of this thread.   If I spend all this time explaining things to you to your satisfaction, will you (assuming I do eventually satisfy you) sign the petition?  I'd be grateful. "
I don't disagree that the PC version looks best on high spec hardware because of rendering resolution, but you haven't exactly been up front or full of facts from the start.  From my own experience as close as I can tell the lighting models are exactly the same, textures are exactly the same, effects look at least nearly the same (it's really hard to tell with motion blur).  As far as the lighting model it's not something that'd be easy to prove either way in any situation.  Like most game development what game makers are going to do is not create new assets for the PC version but simply unlock rendering features such as shadow map resolution & LOD tiers (in an action game with any degree of exploration), perhaps allow for more motion blur or shadow samples.
 
However you have claimed the console versions of SF4 didn't have self shadowing or soft shadows, you claimed the PC version had higher resolution textures (which I'm sure you can agree isn't likely if you keep track of PC version memory usage).  You claimed the models were better on PC...  Do you still say these things are true?  Because that's why I responded to your claims in the first place.
 
I'd be interested to see a screenshot, for example, of this supposed SF4 PS3 version file/directory structure, and perhaps some specific files.  I can't say I agree that what you say you've done is likely or possible.  I am aware of PS3 HDD decryption, and as far as where they stand right now I honestly just don't believe you.  Even if I did believe you about what you say regarding the texture sizes on the PS3 version, I'd find that very hard to believe on a technical level.  It simply doesn't add up.
#32 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond: 
 
Oh, where to begin.   
 
Rendering resolution aside, you understand that the PC version is going to have the best features of both consoles, since the development was done on PC code, and any graphical features were first implemented there, yes?  If you combined the strength of each console version into one, you'd basically get the PC version on 2X AA and most settings on high.   What I claimed was that the PC had levels of self and soft shadowing not found on the consoles, and that's true, and can be displayed, not just to my satisfaction, but to anyone's, and Eurogamer has a nice comparison here. (  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/street-fighter-iv-tech-comparison?page=2 ) The Chun Li and Zangief shots are the only reliable ones, since the character intros can be duplicated exactly due to the fixed camera, whereas the gameplay shots (like Ken vs. Ryu ) would be much harder to manage for various reasons.   Even so, all shots look superior on the PC version.
 
You'll notice the self/soft shadowing is markedly better on the PC shots, as compared to the 360, which, by your comparison not mine, is the one with the better shadowing of the two consoles.  So this is already a visual improvement over both consoles, not just one or the other.   
 
The ram requirements on the PC are almost irrelevant, as there is different code between the two, and I'm relatively certain that the ps3 version requires less ram than the PC version at similar quality levels, due to a lower OS overhead, more native code, etc..   This is good, because the PS3 only has 256 megs of ram, with an additional 256 of video ram.   If, however, you wanted to argue the point, you'd also find that your video card uses between 140 and 180-ish megs of vram if available, when playing the PC version.   If the ram requirements were remotely similar between the two versions, that combined with your ram footprint would be a greater ram requirement than would run on the ps3.    
 
Let's move away from the ram footprint you gave me, however.  If you do not accept that the ps3 has lower res textures, and Eurogamer and I are hardly the only places that say it, that's fine.   If you're particularly interested in disproving me, feel free to go and image a PS3 hd yourself, there are tutorials out there. The SF4 folder is BLUS3 something or other, or at least my friend's copy was.   I did this test when the PC version came out a while back, the only textures I bothered keeping from the PS3 version was the chun li, for comparisons sake.   
 
 The models topic is a tough one to debate, because at the moment, I have no way of viewing the actual model files for direct comparison, not that I kept any model files from the ps3.   When playing the game, the high quality models looked cleaner to me even without AA, and that was the source of that statement.  It was not intended to be deceptive, but must be discarded if you want proof, for I have none.    ( Edit: This perception may be attributable to better shaders and shadowing, though without a direct file comparison I cannot be sure.  Mark this as questionable and conceded. )
 
 It's not a big deal to me if you don't believe me, the only reason I brought the textures and shadowing up was to illustrate that the PC version looks superior, which you've come as close to admitting as I feel I'll be able to get you, even with further evidence.    Spending further time discussing it with you only illustrates my foolishness, as each post brings us further away from the point of the thread.  
 
I'll ask again, would you be willing to sign this petition?  BlazBlue is not likely to look any better on the PC, unless they secretly have even higher resolution artwork that didn't make it onto the PS3 and 360 versions, and see fit to include it on the PC.  Which I find unlikely.   
 
What bringing BlazBlue to the PC will do is allow me to purchase a copy and play with my friend online, who has a PS3, but would only purchase BlazBlue to play with me.   Since I do not have a PS3 of my own, and I'm not going to borrow my friend's (it was already nice enough of them to let me muck about with their HD), a PC version would suit us both perfectly.  I'm not the only one who wants it, but it looks like I'm one of the only ones here who wants it, and that saddens me.    
 
Still, if you have two minutes, I would be very appreciative.    Examining a steam-only GFWL release from a strictly fiscal standpoint, it would take very little development cost overhead, very little production overhead, and begin turning a profit almost immediately, probably from day 1.  It's good for the company and it's good for the fans.  I don't see a downside.
#33 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:

Rendering resolution aside, you understand that the PC version is going to have the best features of both consoles, since the development was done on PC code, and any graphical features were first implemented there, yes?

The arcade version was designed for a very specific set of PC hardware lower spec than the 360 & PS3.  The 360 version is technically upgraded from the arcade version visually in the cases of AA & shadow map samples. 
@Kalean said:

If you combined the strength of each console version into one, you'd basically get the PC version on 2X AA and most settings on high.

Simply wrong.  For one thing the PS3 version has not technical advantages over the 360 version.  For another the 360 version uses more than 2xAA (although I hear it scales dynamically), and the 360 version is equivalent to all the PC version settings maxed except perhaps particle effects and shadows I suppose.
 
@Kalean said:

What I claimed was that the PC had levels of self and soft shadowing not found on the consoles, and that's true, and can be displayed, not just to my satisfaction, but to anyone's, and Eurogamer has a nice comparison here. (  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/street-fighter-iv-tech-comparison?page=2 ) The Chun Li and Zangief shots are the only reliable ones, since the character intros can be duplicated exactly due to the fixed camera, whereas the gameplay shots (like Ken vs. Ryu ) would be much harder to manage for various reasons.

That's not what you claimed.  You said the following : "but it also has features that aren't enabled in the console versions, such as full self and soft shadowing", which is factually wrong.  Hence my complaint.
 
@Kalean said:
The ram requirements on the PC are almost irrelevant, as there is different code between the two, and I'm relatively certain that the ps3 version requires less ram than the PC version at similar quality levels, due to a lower OS overhead, more native code, etc..   This is good, because the PS3 only has 256 megs of ram, with an additional 256 of video ram.   If, however, you wanted to argue the point, you'd also find that your video card uses between 140 and 180-ish megs of vram if available, when playing the PC version.   If the ram requirements were remotely similar between the two versions, that would be a greater ram requirement than would run on the ps3.
Code differences rarely make a difference in RAM.  99.9999% of the difference, if there were one, would be in the assets.  The PC version maxed utilizes less RAM than the PS3 has available even counting background RAM processes on the PS3.  Like you said, the PC version uses 140-180MB of VRAM, the PS3 has nearly 256MB available (probably more like 220MB).  You just proved my own point very clearly.  There is no additional source of RAM required.
 
@Kalean said:
Let's move away from the ram footprint you gave me, however.  If you do not accept that the ps3 has lower res textures, and Eurogamer and I are hardly the only places that say it, that's fine.   If you're particularly interested in disproving me, feel free to go and image a PS3 hd yourself, there are tutorials out there. The SF4 folder is BLUS3 something or other, or at least my friend's copy was.   I did this test when the PC version came out a while back, the only textures I bothered keeping from the PS3 version was the chun li, for comparisons sake.  
Eurogamer doesn't say the PS3 version has lower resolution textures and neither does anyone else with any technical knowledge.  It's only you, honey.  It's not up to me to prove you wrong in your ridiculous claims.  You claimed you performed some procedure that's current impossible and you aren't even backing it up.
 
@Kalean said:
 The models topic is a tough one to debate, because at the moment, I have no way of viewing the actual model files for direct comparison, not that I kept any model files from the ps3.   When playing the game, the high quality models looked cleaner to me even without AA, and that was the source of that statement.  It was not intended to be deceptive, but must be discarded if you want proof, for I have none.  
True, again the model detail is impossible to truly compare.  However, you'll notice the PC version never lowers fidelity on the model's polygonal detail.  Clearly they'd include console equivalent settings even if they were going to go above.  The model detail setting on PC simply changes the shader effects on the models, one step down from max and it starts to look like a Wii game (looks like simple vertex lighting).  I agree at a higher resolution the models may have more visible details.
 
@Kalean said:
It's not a big deal to me if you don't believe me, the only reason I brought the textures and shadowing up was to illustrate that the PC version looks superior, which you've come as close to admitting as I feel I'll be able to get you, even with further evidence.    Spending further time discussing it with you only illustrates my foolishness, as each post brings us further away from the point of the thread.  
I only have a problem with people misconstruing or misinterpreting facts and evidence.  It's my personal pet peeve.  The PC version does look better as long as you have decent hardware.  The difference is relatively slight however.  Batman AA on PC for example is a larger jump, there are clear differences in assets even if PhysX is disabled.  I personally don't care as much for seeing the higher resolution graphics (as I bought the PS3 version of Batman AA for the Joker content, and it's the worst looking version) as I do for people understanding and accepting the truth about graphics as they are.
 
@Kalean said:
I'll ask again, would you be willing to sign this petition?  BlazBlue is not likely to look any better on the PC, unless they secretly have even higher resolution artwork that didn't make it onto the PS3 and 360 versions, and see fit to include it on the PC.  Which I find unlikely.   
 
What bringing BlazBlue to the PC will do is allow me to purchase a copy and play with my friend online, who has a PS3, but would only purchase BlazBlue to play with me.   Since I do not have a PS3 of my own, and I'm not going to borrow my friend's (it was already nice enough of them to let me muck about with their HD), a PC version would suit us both perfectly.  I'm not the only one who wants it, but it looks like I'm one of the only ones here who wants it, and that saddens me.    
 
Still, if you have two minutes, I would be very appreciative.    Examining a steam-only GFWL release from a strictly fiscal standpoint, it would take very little development cost overhead, very little production overhead, and begin turning a profit almost immediately, probably from day 1.  It's good for the company and it's good for the fans.  I don't see a downside.
Personally me signing the petition would be dishonest.  I already own the game on 360.  I think the game is OK, but I'm not crazy over it really.  Basically I would certainly not buy it again on PC, and this would be sending a false message to the companies involved.  Furthermore I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the company to do so in a purely business sense.  Beyond all that I do believe petitions such as this are fundamentally worthless.  People can sign more than once, signing a petition is easier than putting down the money, people change minds, some people would pirate the game even if they couldn't play it online at all.  I'm sorry to disappoint you in that respect, and I do feel sorry for you that you're not able to enjoy the game you wish to.
#34 Posted by Milkman (17326 posts) -
@Funzzo said:
" Because I want this game and don't want to buy a 360 or PS3. 65 bucks for a 360/PS3 game no thanks.  "
It would cost the same on the PC...Unless you just want it on the PC so you can pirate it and play it free....But you wouldn't do that right?
#35 Edited by SJSchmidt93 (4899 posts) -
@Milkman said:

" @Funzzo said:

" Because I want this game and don't want to buy a 360 or PS3. 65 bucks for a 360/PS3 game no thanks.  "
It would cost the same on the PC...Unless you just want it on the PC so you can pirate it and play it free....But you wouldn't do that right? "
PC games do not cost the same as console games... ever.
#36 Posted by Milkman (17326 posts) -
@SJSchmidt93 said:
" @Milkman said:

" @Funzzo said:

" Because I want this game and don't want to buy a 360 or PS3. 65 bucks for a 360/PS3 game no thanks.  "
It would cost the same on the PC...Unless you just want it on the PC so you can pirate it and play it free....But you wouldn't do that right? "
PC games do not cost the same as console games... ever. "
Okay, maybe it's down $50 from the usual $60. Is that really all that much of a difference?
#37 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@SJSchmidt93 said:
PC games do not cost the same as console games... ever.
Modern Warfare 2?  But yea typically PC versions are $10 off.  Not a big difference.  It's just that some people don't want to buy a 360 and/or PS3.
#38 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond said:

The arcade version was designed for a very specific set of PC hardware lower spec than the 360 & PS3.  The 360 version is technically upgraded from the arcade version visually in the cases of AA & shadow map samples.  

The 360 version's upgrade was still based on PC code, and none, repeat, none of the graphical features found on the 360 are not found on the PC version, with the exception of this dynamic AA you're mentioning, which is, of course, a performance tweak, and does not contribute graphical quality as much as say, 8 or 16 AA on the PC version.

If you combined the strength of each console version into one, you'd basically get the PC version on 2X AA and most settings on high.

Simply wrong.  For one thing the PS3 version has not technical advantages over the 360 version. 
 
If the PS3 has no technical advantages over the 360 version, but the PC still has all the features of the 360 version, then my statement would not be 'simply wrong', but still accurate.     
 

 For another the 360 version uses more than 2xAA (although I hear it scales dynamically), and the 360 version is equivalent to all the PC version settings maxed except perhaps particle effects and shadows I suppose.

 So what you're saying is that you'd get the PC version with most settings on high? Just as I claimed? And possibly more than 2x AA?  ... Not seeing the contradiction, there. 
 

That's not what you claimed.  You said the following : "but it also has features that aren't enabled in the console versions, such as full self and soft shadowing", which is factually wrong.  Hence my complaint.
 

Full self and soft shadowing implies that the console versions have limited self and soft shadowing.  Which the screenshots illustrated.  Again, I do not see the contradiction. 
 
 

The ram requirements on the PC are almost irrelevant, as there is different code between the two, and I'm relatively certain that the ps3 version requires less ram than the PC version at similar quality levels, due to a lower OS overhead, more native code, etc..   This is good, because the PS3 only has 256 megs of ram, with an additional 256 of video ram.   If, however, you wanted to argue the point, you'd also find that your video card uses between 140 and 180-ish megs of vram if available, when playing the PC version.   If the ram requirements were remotely similar between the two versions, that would be a greater ram requirement than would run on the ps3.

Code differences rarely make a difference in RAM.  99.9999% of the difference, if there were one, would be in the assets.  The PC version maxed utilizes less RAM than the PS3 has available even counting background RAM processes on the PS3.  Like you said, the PC version uses 140-180MB of VRAM, the PS3 has nearly 256MB available (probably more like 220MB).  You just proved my own point very clearly.  There is no additional source of RAM required.
   You stated that the version of SFIV on the PC doesn't use more than 480 megs of ram.   Working from the assumption that it approaches 480 megs of ram, that's your ram footprint.  Most basic ram analysis involves the system RAM being used, and not the video ram.  My argument is that 450~480 ish megs of ram, plus a good 140~180 megs of VRam, equals between 590 and 660 megs of ram, more than the PS3 has.   If you'll explain how you got your ram footprint, then we'll know if this is a point of contention or not.  For example, if you checked the ram being used by the PC version utilizing windows task manager, it's known that task manager does not factor video ram into account.   If you used a more advanced ram-testing utility that does include video ram in its total calculation, then that's a different story. 
 

 Eurogamer doesn't say the PS3 version has lower resolution textures and neither does anyone else with any technical knowledge.  It's only you, honey.  It's not up to me to prove you wrong in your ridiculous claims.  You claimed you performed some procedure that's current impossible and you aren't even backing it up.

From  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-street-fighter-iv-article?page=2    :  "Xbox 360 boasts superior lighting and higher resolution textures on a handful of the backdrops, and the characters have additional self-shadows not seen in the PlayStation 3 game."   That sounds like Eurogamer's saying it to me. 
 
As to 'backing it up',  I luckily still had the texture comparison image I made to show people.  It wasn't good enough for you.   Reformatting and setting up my friend's PS3 HDD to do the same thing all over again would be a lot more effort than it's worth to offer further proof on a forum.  I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, since the only other alternative is basically getting Capcom to tell us they have lower resolution textures on the PS3 version.   Seth's pretty cool, he might be willing to do that, if he knew, but... I lack that motivation.  You can check the Ask Capcom forums if you are curious.   Still, as pointed out above, I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.

 The models topic is a tough one to debate, because at the moment, I have no way of viewing the actual model files for direct comparison, not that I kept any model files from the ps3.   When playing the game, the high quality models looked cleaner to me even without AA, and that was the source of that statement.  It was not intended to be deceptive, but must be discarded if you want proof, for I have none.  

True, again the model detail is impossible to truly compare.  However, you'll notice the PC version never lowers fidelity on the model's polygonal detail.  Clearly they'd include console equivalent settings even if they were going to go above.  The model detail setting on PC simply changes the shader effects on the models, one step down from max and it starts to look like a Wii game (looks like simple vertex lighting).  I agree at a higher resolution the models may have more visible details.
  Indeed.   This is all so.  
 

It's not a big deal to me if you don't believe me, the only reason I brought the textures and shadowing up was to illustrate that the PC version looks superior, which you've come as close to admitting as I feel I'll be able to get you, even with further evidence.    Spending further time discussing it with you only illustrates my foolishness, as each post brings us further away from the point of the thread.  
I only have a problem with people misconstruing or misinterpreting facts and evidence.  It's my personal pet peeve.  The PC version does look better as long as you have decent hardware.  The difference is relatively slight however.  Batman AA on PC for example is a larger jump, there are clear differences in assets even if PhysX is disabled.  I personally don't care as much for seeing the higher resolution graphics (as I bought the PS3 version of Batman AA for the Joker content, and it's the worst looking version) as I do for people understanding and accepting the truth about graphics as they are.
I agree that more content > higher resolution graphics.  I certainly have no intention to make an argument otherwise.   People were, earlier on, asking why one would want a fighter for PC, and stating that it would be an inferior experience to the console.   Street Fighter IV PC was my example to counter that.   I hope we have no disagreement on that point.   I believe that we have come to the conclusion that the PC possesses superior shadowing to the consoles, superior anti-aliasing potential, and superior anisotropic filtering potential.  I myself know that the ps3 textures are lower resolution than the PC version, and Eurogamer says they are lower than the 360 version, as well.  I'm sorry I fail to convince you of this.   
 
You say that there is a possibility the PC includes better particle effects.  I won't lie, at least from what I've seen on both systems, the particle effects appear to be the equivalent of the pc's 'high' on all systems.  When the PC has particles set to lower than high, there is visual degradation of, say, the hit-spark from Sakura's version of the shoryuken.   However, I have no direct manner of comparison for this, so I'll leave that to be my opinion.
 
Personally me signing the petition would be dishonest.  I already own the game on 360.  I think the game is OK, but I'm not crazy over it really.  Basically I would certainly not buy it again on PC, and this would be sending a false message to the companies involved.  Furthermore I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the company to do so in a purely business sense.  Beyond all that I do believe petitions such as this are fundamentally worthless.  People can sign more than once, signing a petition is easier than putting down the money, people change minds, some people would pirate the game even if they couldn't play it online at all.  I'm sorry to disappoint you in that respect, and I do feel sorry for you that you're not able to enjoy the game you wish to. "
I can't find a point of contention in any of this, though I disagree with petitions being worthless.   They do not need to be fully valid, they simply need to catch the company in question's attention to the degree that they consider the request.   I believe that it would be both fiscally in the company's interests, and in their fans' interests as well, so in my mind, getting them to consider it would be tantamount to getting them to realize that it's a good idea.   
 
Additionally, piracy does not automatically equate to loss of sale.  People who downloaded a pirated version that could not save or play online  ( Games that require one to be logged in to GFWL to save do exist.  SF4 PC is an example. ) might find that they wanted to buy the game to play with their friends.   Others that download it might have never intended to buy it in the first place, but be impressed by it and consider the idea.    Meanwhile, everyone who intends to buy it will buy it.     This means that the company will turn a profit.   Fear of piracy should not stop a company from making what amounts to very nearly free money.  

That said, I can't ask you to sign the petition if you don't have a desire for it to be released on PC.   However, if you come across a situation where you find someone that may wish to sign, and you remember this request, I would be most grateful if you'd mention it, even in passing.  It's not hard to google BlazBlue PC petition and come up with this page or the Aksys page, if one knows to look.

 
@Milkman said:

" @SJSchmidt93 said:

" @Milkman said:

" @Funzzo said:

" Because I want this game and don't want to buy a 360 or PS3. 65 bucks for a 360/PS3 game no thanks.  "

It would cost the same on the PC...Unless you just want it on the PC so you can pirate it and play it free....But you wouldn't do that right? "
PC games do not cost the same as console games... ever. "
Okay, maybe it's down $50 from the usual $60. Is that really all that much of a difference? "
I don't know if the small price cut from console to PC is a huge difference (though it is nice.)  However, I know that not having to buy a PS3/360 to buy the game would be nice.  I can justify spending 50 or 60 dollars on a game I'd really like.  I can't really justify dropping $350 or $360. 
#39 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

 @Kalean said:

The 360 version's upgrade was still based on PC code, and none, repeat, none of the graphical features found on the 360 are not found on the PC version, with the exception of this dynamic AA you're mentioning, which is, of course, a performance tweak, and does not contribute graphical quality as much as say, 8 or 16 AA on the PC version.
If the PS3 has no technical advantages over the 360 version, but the PC still has all the features of the 360 version, then my statement would not be 'simply wrong', but still accurate.     
So what you're saying is that you'd get the PC version with most settings on high? Just as I claimed? And possibly more than 2x AA?  ... Not seeing the contradiction, there. 
Full self and soft shadowing implies that the console versions have limited self and soft shadowing.  Which the screenshots illustrated.  Again, I do not see the contradiction.  

You're not being honest with yourself or me in this part of your response.  You're ignoring my points, and you're simply trying to be right when you're not.  You made some false statements, I have shown why you were wrong, but you aren't owning up to them.  I wouldn't have bothered with this entire derailment of this thread if I didn't feel your first comments so far off base to the point of doing everyone here a disservice (PC and console gamers alike).  Maybe you over reacted with falsehoods because of those trolling you with other fairly ridiculous claims.  I don't blame you for that.  It's pointless however for us to discuss those points if we can't discuss these things honestly.
 
@Kalean said:
You stated that the version of SFIV on the PC doesn't use more than 480 megs of ram.   Working from the assumption that it approaches 480 megs of ram, that's your ram footprint.  Most basic ram analysis involves the system RAM being used, and not the video ram.  My argument is that 450~480 ish megs of ram, plus a good 140~180 megs of VRam, equals between 590 and 660 megs of ram, more than the PS3 has.   If you'll explain how you got your ram footprint, then we'll know if this is a point of contention or not.  For example, if you checked the ram being used by the PC version utilizing windows task manager, it's known that task manager does not factor video ram into account.   If you used a more advanced ram-testing utility that does include video ram in its total calculation, then that's a different story. 
In PC architecture game assets will go to system RAM before they hit video RAM.  On a 360 at least the RAM is unified, they don't have to duplicate assets.  If SF4 was extremely RAM intensive, you'd see system PC RAM being cleared out a bit, but instead as you say VRAM hits around 180MB, yet those assets are not purged from system RAM, there is no point.  You don't add the 480MB and the 180MB.  Think about it, what assets are going into system RAM that aren't graphics related?  Game code, sound data (which is a good bit)... I can't even think of anything else.  Even if you focus on the textures and they were to downgrade the textures for the PS3 version, they'd be in a situation as they say where they didn't have enough video RAM.  As we both agree, PS3 has enough.  Thus no practical need to cut the texture size.  This alone doesn't prove the PS3 & PC have different texture size, this just proves there would be no reason to reduce on PS3.
 
@Kalean said:
As to 'backing it up',  I luckily still had the texture comparison image I made to show people.  It wasn't good enough for you.   Reformatting and setting up my friend's PS3 HDD to do the same thing all over again would be a lot more effort than it's worth to offer further proof on a forum.  I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, since the only other alternative is basically getting Capcom to tell us they have lower resolution textures on the PS3 version.   Seth's pretty cool, he might be willing to do that, if he knew, but... I lack that motivation.  You can check the Ask Capcom forums if you are curious.   Still, as pointed out above, I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.
You must accept my skepticism.  It would have been far easier to extract the PC texture and downscale.  What texture formats does the PS3 version use, what tools did you use to extract them, what are the file sizes, how did you convert them to the jpg?  Once again, YOU get Capcom to tell us in an official statement.  I am not going to waste my time trying to prove a point I know is already fact to an anonymous person over the net.  I am simply trying to inform you and any other readers of this post where I can.
 
@Kalean said:
I agree that more content > higher resolution graphics.  I certainly have no intention to make an argument otherwise.   People were, earlier on, asking why one would want a fighter for PC, and stating that it would be an inferior experience to the console.   Street Fighter IV PC was my example to counter that.   I hope we have no disagreement on that point.   I believe that we have come to the conclusion that the PC possesses superior shadowing to the consoles, superior anti-aliasing potential, and superior anisotropic filtering potential.
Those people were just trolling you, let's both be above that.  Personally I don't feel the reasons for playing SF4 on PC are sufficient, but I can see why some would disagree.  You don't want Blazblue on PC for the sake of it being on PC, you want it because you simply don't own a 360 or PS3.
#40 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond said:

The 360 version's upgrade was still based on PC code, and none, repeat, none of the graphical features found on the 360 are not found on the PC version, with the exception of this dynamic AA you're mentioning, which is, of course, a performance tweak, and does not contribute graphical quality as much as say, 8 or 16 AA on the PC version.
If the PS3 has no technical advantages over the 360 version, but the PC still has all the features of the 360 version, then my statement would not be 'simply wrong', but still accurate.     
So what you're saying is that you'd get the PC version with most settings on high? Just as I claimed? And possibly more than 2x AA?  ... Not seeing the contradiction, there. 
Full self and soft shadowing implies that the console versions have limited self and soft shadowing.  Which the screenshots illustrated.  Again, I do not see the contradiction.  

You're not being honest with yourself or me in this part of your response.  You're ignoring my points, and you're simply trying to be right when you're not.  You made some false statements, I have shown why you were wrong, but you aren't owning up to them.  I wouldn't have bothered with this entire derailment of this thread if I didn't feel your first comments so far off base to the point of doing everyone here a disservice (PC and console gamers alike).  Maybe you over reacted with falsehoods because of those trolling you with other fairly ridiculous claims.  I don't blame you for that.  It's pointless however for us to discuss those points if we can't discuss these things honestly.
 
I'm not attempting to be dishonest, I honestly don't see how saying "...the 360 version is equivalent to all the PC version settings maxed except perhaps particle effects and shadows I suppose." contradicts the statement that "if you combined the strength of each console version into one, you'd basically get the PC version on 2X AA and most settings on high."
 
They really seem to be the exact same statement.  I honestly lack the ability to see a contradiction there.   Unless you're referring to the AA contradiction which is superfluous at best. 
 

In PC architecture game assets will go to system RAM before they hit video RAM.  On a 360 at least the RAM is unified, they don't have to duplicate assets.  If SF4 was extremely RAM intensive, you'd see system PC RAM being cleared out a bit, but instead as you say VRAM hits around 180MB, yet those assets are not purged from system RAM, there is no point.  You don't add the 480MB and the 180MB.  Think about it, what assets are going into system RAM that aren't graphics related?  Game code, sound data (which is a good bit)... I can't even think of anything else.  Even if you focus on the textures and they were to downgrade the textures for the PS3 version, they'd be in a situation as they say where they didn't have enough video RAM.  As we both agree, PS3 has enough.  Thus no practical need to cut the texture size.  This alone doesn't prove the PS3 & PC have different texture size, this just proves there would be no reason to reduce on PS3.

Since it proves nothing, I won't argue this, but I still believe that the full assets of the PC version would not quite fit on the PS3 version. 256 megs of system ram is terribly crippling, and while windows task manager doesn't factor OS into that 480 meg footprint, PS3 would have to factor OS into that 256 megs.   To me, it doesn't seem like the PS3 could quite pull that off.  But we can disagree without any backfire.  As you say, it proves nothing. 
 


As to 'backing it up',  I luckily still had the texture comparison image I made to show people.  It wasn't good enough for you.   Reformatting and setting up my friend's PS3 HDD to do the same thing all over again would be a lot more effort than it's worth to offer further proof on a forum.  I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, since the only other alternative is basically getting Capcom to tell us they have lower resolution textures on the PS3 version.   Seth's pretty cool, he might be willing to do that, if he knew, but... I lack that motivation.  You can check the Ask Capcom forums if you are curious.   Still, as pointed out above, I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.

You must accept my skepticism.  It would have been far easier to extract the PC texture and downscale.  What texture formats does the PS3 version use, what tools did you use to extract them, what are the file sizes, how did you convert them to the jpg?  Once again, YOU get Capcom to tell us in an official statement.  I am not going to waste my time trying to prove a point I know is already fact to an anonymous person over the net.  I am simply trying to inform you and any other readers of this post where I can.
  I do accept your skepticism.   I'm simply not motivated enough to gather evidence in support of it again for the same reasons you're not motivated to try and prove that what I did cannot be done.    Extracting the files including options to extract them in both the native format or bmp, I chose the bmp options, and after putting the two versions side by side in Paint Shop Pro, I saved them as a  JPEG.  
 
I freely admit that it would be easier to have just resized the PC version, but the only reason to do that would be if I had intent to deceive.  My intent was to discover if the PS3 version really had lower resolution textures or not.  It's rather subtle, and it's not like one would notice too much if at all during gameplay, but it is there.   
People were, earlier on, asking why one would want a fighter for PC, and stating that it would be an inferior experience to the console.   Street Fighter IV PC was my example to counter that.   I hope we have no disagreement on that point.  
Those people were just trolling you, let's both be above that.  Personally I don't feel the reasons for playing SF4 on PC are sufficient, but I can see why some would disagree.  You don't want Blazblue on PC for the sake of it being on PC, you want it because you simply don't own a 360 or PS3. "

Of course they were trolling me, but while some people state 'Do not feed the trolls', I prefer to crush them.   What's the appropriate comic for this feeling?  Ah, yes. 
http://xkcd.com/386/ is the one. 
 
You are correct though, arguing that SF4 was better on the PC is rather irrelevant to why I want BlazBlue on the PC.   It was simply a tangent line or argument.  But someone was wrong.  On the internet.  
#41 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean said:
Since it proves nothing, I won't argue this, but I still believe that the full assets of the PC version would not quite fit on the PS3 version. 256 megs of system ram is terribly crippling, and while windows task manager doesn't factor OS into that 480 meg footprint, PS3 would have to factor OS into that 256 megs.   To me, it doesn't seem like the PS3 could quite pull that off.  But we can disagree without any backfire.  As you say, it proves nothing. 
PS3 has 2 banks of 256MB.  1 is system, the other is video RAM only.  As I said it proves that there'd be no reason at all to degrade the textures for PS3.
 
@Kalean said:
I do accept your skepticism.   I'm simply not motivated enough to gather evidence in support of it again for the same reasons you're not motivated to try and prove that what I did cannot be done.    Extracting the files including options to extract them in both the native format or bmp, I chose the bmp options, and after putting the two versions side by side in Paint Shop Pro, I saved them as a  JPEG.  
 
I freely admit that it would be easier to have just resized the PC version, but the only reason to do that would be if I had intent to deceive.  My intent was to discover if the PS3 version really had lower resolution textures or not.  It's rather subtle, and it's not like one would notice too much if at all during gameplay, but it is there.
For what it's worth I'd be terribly interested to see what the actual files were on many PS3 games.  For example in the Ryu ga Gotoku series games on PS3, I wish I knew if certain cutscenes were real time or simply FMV.  I agree it'd be impossible to tell in gameplay by your supposed comparison, however I too would like to know the truth.  If the PS3 version's textures were downgraded, I'd like to know the technical reason why.
 
@Kalean said:
Of course they were trolling me, but while some people state 'Do not feed the trolls', I prefer to crush them.   What's the appropriate comic for this feeling?  Ah, yes.  http://xkcd.com/386/ is the one.   You are correct though, arguing that SF4 was better on the PC is rather irrelevant to why I want BlazBlue on the PC.   It was simply a tangent line or argument.  But someone was wrong.  On the internet.   "
Well many trolls act more like glue.  You try to crush them and they stick to your shoe.
#42 Posted by TheGremp (2064 posts) -

I wish.  It'll never happen, but that would be awesome.

#43 Edited by Kalean (12 posts) -
@Diamond said:

PS3 has 2 banks of 256MB.  1 is system, the other is video RAM only.  As I said it proves that there'd be no reason at all to degrade the textures for PS3.
 

It's entirely possible you're right.  I don't currently believe it, but it's possible.   I'd need to investigate further. 

For what it's worth I'd be terribly interested to see what the actual files were on many PS3 games.  For example in the Ryu ga Gotoku series games on PS3, I wish I knew if certain cutscenes were real time or simply FMV.  I agree it'd be impossible to tell in gameplay by your supposed comparison, however I too would like to know the truth.  If the PS3 version's textures were downgraded, I'd like to know the technical reason why.

Ryu ga Gotoku ... Yakuza, right?   Unless PS3s are region-free, you'll have to wait till the U.S. version comes out. Sometime in 2010?   Look up some PS3 HDD utilities.   It's a pain, but if you're motivated enough, you just might figure it out.   However, I'm going to discourage you from trying.  The install process for SF4 didn't shove the movies or the music onto the HD, just the other stuff.   I think some other games put some of the smaller movies on there (.bnk files ), but I don't imagine most big movies need to be on the HD, they can just be streamed off the disc. 
 
If that's the case, you'll have to wait until someone figures out some crazy mod for PC Blu-Ray drives (and until Blu-Ray drives don't cost half the price of a PS3.) or some other method of reading every file on the disc.   
 
From what I saw, not all the files in every installed folder were the same type.   I don't know if this means that developers can each individually use their own files or not.    I noticed, for instance, that while every game folder seemed to have a similar set of files to those required for PSP games (Icon0.png etc.) for the XMB,  they did have differing file extensions in some folders.   There were some .pkg files, and every game that my friend had installed at the time housed .dat files in some quantity or another.   What was inside the .dat files obviously depends on the game.

"Well many trolls act more like glue.  You try to crush them and they stick to your shoe. "

... That's a fine quote.
#44 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Kalean: I'll send you a PM as the train has left the tracks and is now bearing down on city hall.
#45 Posted by Kalean (12 posts) -

Indeed.  

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.