Repeated cycles : PS3 leaps bounds hard to de...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[dcharlie]

http://www.videogamer.com/news/21-01-2008-7299.html

omg it's like the PS2 all over again! :O

PS3 is hard to develop for and X360 is easy, therefore PS3 will end up being OMG SHAT MY PANTS amazing where as X360 games will regress with the end results looking no better than Thing on a Spring on the c64.

We just have to wait...

... until 2007 2008 2009
... ish...
maybe....
... perhaps 2010 to be on the safe side.

[evilol]

you never give up do you?

[Kyle]

you never give up do you?

what's wrong with his thread? 

[bud]

why do you still read gaf?

[evilol]

smoke me

believe me i really wanna

[Howard Alan Treesong]

thanks for this informative and useful thread

[Himu]

sigh

[Howard Alan Treesong]

thanks for this informative and useful thread

i'm glad you like it.

I don't particularly

[evilol]

everyone's getting tired of your bullshit. find a new schtick.

[Kyle]

dcharlie

[evilol]

 ouch, ive been owned by some  japafag. ill never live this down :'(

[Eel O'Brian]

don't let it get to you, dcharlie

[y2kev]

I don't think the clear divide between Sony first party and PS3 third party will ever close, and there are legitimate reasons for this-- like tech sharing, dedicated programming for one platform, a shitton of money being poured into projects, etc. But there's definitely an element of the PS3 being harder to program for at play here.

But at the same time, we should consider what a lot of devs have said regarding the architectures simply not speaking the same language, resulting in the PS3 being "harder" because it is simply second. If you take that Turok demo, it's obvious that this was not just a "omg ps3 hard," it's obvious that the 360 version was sloppily carried over and then dumbed down to run at a solid (albeit still worse) framerate. And with sales the way they are, you can't really get pissed off at developers for doing this.

You're seeing some publishers get rewarded for good ports-- COD4 on PS3 is definitely at or past 1 mil worldwide, and that's not really something Activision would poopoo. But I can only imagine the effort that went into their port. Ubisoft says they have port costs down to 10% of the total budget...and if their future ports sell as well as AC on PS3 has, then I'm sure they'll be happy to continue that (only moderately substandard) porting. The main point here is that it isn't enough publishers. I wonder what Stranglehold sold on PS3-- not that it sold anything on 360 either.

I think that the idea some magical gap will close without looking at reality-- that is, sales-- is probably pixie dust snorted directly into Kittowny's nose. In terms of "first party" games, I think Sony is definitely holding their own or exceeding Microsoft's first party.

[evilol]

poor guy has this unhealthy obsession with sony. they're not going to die or quit the console race, so if i were you i'll chill

[Himu]

kevin why did you make such a serious reply

[y2kev]

kevin why did you make such a serious reply

sorry

i meant

rsx budget gpu

[MCD]

kevin why did you make such a serious reply

why not?

oh wait...EB isn't worth it...

[Kyle]

kevin why did you make such a serious reply

i enjoyed reading his post 

[Himu]

kevin <3

[Sho Nuff]

Oh whew, I thought that the PS3 was gonna be like those consoles whose games actually got worse and could never eclipse their first generation of games with subsequent titles!

(aka the n64 lol)

[Van Cruncheon]

rsx budget gpu

[y2kev]

Oh whew, I thought that the PS3 was gonna be like those consoles whose games actually got worse and could never eclipse their first generation of games with subsequent titles!

(aka the n64 lol)

Yeah, wtf happened there? SM64 is definitely the best looking game on the console. Was it just developers' ambitions outstripping the tech?

Banjo was beautiful but I remember it at like 5 FPS.

[MCD]

Conker was the best looking N64 game to date.

[The Fake Shemp]

Super Mario 64 was definitely not the best-looking N64 title.  I think he meant in terms of gameplay - nothing matched Super Mario 64 on the N64.

[MCD]

Zelda:OOT did for me.

[y2kev]

I definitely think SM64 was the cleanest looking, best running N64 game. OOT had some 4x4 textures stretched out massively in some areas. Gave me headaches. But it was still a pretty game I thought.

[Himu]

Super Mario 64 was definitely not the best-looking N64 title.  I think he meant in terms of gameplay - nothing matched Super Mario 64 on the N64.

Mischief Makers. Sin and Punishment?

[y2kev]

Super Mario 64 was definitely not the best-looking N64 title.  I think he meant in terms of gameplay - nothing matched Super Mario 64 on the N64.

Mischief Makers. Sin and Punishment?

I didn't really consider 2-2.5D stuff, but MM is definitely pretty. I've never played Sin and Punishment though.

[Himu]

talkin gameplay wise. mario 64 is - gameplay wise - my least favorite mario!

go this level 99 times to get the star! zzz

oot, majora's mask, mischief makers, sin and punishment, ogre battle 64 even though  i haven't even PLAYED it all have better gameplay than mario 64

oh and goemon!

[bud]

n64 zzzzzzz

i remember when you had to buy memorypacks for better performance

goldeneye is probably my favorite n64 game. the mp was jizz

[AdmiralViscen]

Goldeneye def rules

[huckleberry]

http://www.videogamer.com/news/21-01-2008-7299.html

omg it's like the PS2 all over again! :O

PS3 is hard to develop for and X360 is easy, therefore PS3 will end up being OMG SHAT MY PANTS amazing where as X360 games will regress with the end results looking no better than Thing on a Spring on the c64.

We just have to wait...

... until 2007 2008 2009
... ish...
maybe....
... perhaps 2010 to be on the safe side.

It sure is taking along time for the goddam games on the PS3 to look better than their 360 counterparts.



BTW...I am trading in my PS3 copy of COD4 for the 360 version today and need some people to play with....if you see me online send me an invite.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I love the bright eyed, bushy tailed outlook on PS3 in 2008 and their doom and gloom outlook on the 360.

SDF Sales Prediction for 2008:

PS3: 10 million
360: -5 million (5 million retailers selling back their 360 systems to overloaded Microsoft warehouses!)

[Van Cruncheon]

visuals on xbox360 2008 games =

[Smooth Groove]

I'm not surprised that Sony is still selling that "PS3 is a supercomputer" and "awesome untapped potential" material.  It worked wonders for the PS2 and Sony fanboys still eat that stuff up like it's crack. 

Even Sony supporters like Mickeyknox and Borys wanted to choke the Sony fanboys who kept claiming that the PS3 was capable of delivering a better Crysis experience than high end PCs. 

[y2kev]

Who said that? They aren't fanboys, they are literally distinguished mentally-challenged.

[Van Cruncheon]

the 360 is more powerful than the ps3 in most situations, anyhow!

[Smooth Groove]

Who said that? They aren't fanboys, they are literally distinguished mentally-challenged.

I don't really know who they are since I hardly visit GAF anymore.  They brought up the Cell's untapped potential as a reason for why the PS3 might be able to match or outperform a high end PC.  They kept it up even after Mickey showed them that the limiting factor in Cryis is the GPU, not the CPU.  It was all in that thread about the rumours of a PS3 Crysis.  

[Van Cruncheon]

"cell's untapped potential"

sony was so impressed by the cell's untapped potential that it sold the blueprints to toshiba and canceled all non-ps3 cell products!

[The Sceneman]

Super Mario 64 was definitely not the best-looking N64 title.  I think he meant in terms of gameplay - nothing matched Super Mario 64 on the N64.

I am honeslty loling

F-Zero GX
Yoshi's Story
Conker
Banjo

yes, even Zelda

better than Mario 64

Mario 64

And holy shit at the cells untapped potential, the PC of 2010, today! Sony are going to own so hard in 2008 the next generation of xfags who dont even exist yet are going to feel butthurt

[Smooth Groove]

indeed - top end pc's are packing 4 gig memory and, in some cases, dual/treble sli of cards that, on thier own, smoke the PS3/X360 equivalent GPU.

Seriously, the PS3 and 360 can't even handle COD4 at 60fps unless the resolution is kept below 720p.  On a single 8800 GTX, I can get a constant 60fps at 1680x1050 w/max settings.  And now that I have two GTXes, COD4 easily runs 60fps at 1920x1200 w/4x anti-aliasing.  

However, the same system can barely run Crysis at 1920x1200 w/ high settings.  If they can't even get COD4 to run at 60fps in 720P on the consoles without any anti-aliasing, I shudder to think what Crysis will look like on consoles.  

well , in this case, what happens after all this build up the X360 version is better than the PS3 version?
Crytek engine already takes advantage of symetrical cores, but there'll be a considerable rewrite for Cell, so i'd expect the X360 conversion process to be much more smooth.

As many people pointed out in that ridiculous thread, Crysis is so graphically demanding that CPU power is hardly ever a factor.  Even at just High settings, dual-cores don't provide much extra performance over single cores.  People w/quad-cores have noticed virtually no improvements in framerates at any setttings.  Unless consoles magically replace their GPUs, I don't see how the console versions can look anywhere close to Crysis on a high end PC.  

[Smooth Groove]

"cell's untapped potential"

sony was so impressed by the cell's untapped potential that it sold the blueprints to toshiba and canceled all non-ps3 cell products!

Really?  Wow.

As crazy as Kutaragi was, he was at least someone with a vision of what the Playstation should be like.  Now that Sony has given up on the Cell and therefore Kutaragi's vision, does Sony even know what they'll do with the PS4?   

Unless consoles magically replace their GPUs, I don't see how the console versions can look anywhere close to Crysis on a high end PC. 

i'd guess the Sony boys expect the Cell to have plenty of juice left over to help out with post processing/deferred rendering of the scenes to help the GPU ... ?

Why did Sony even pay Nvidia for a GPU if the Cell can do that much for graphics?  Why didn't they just use an overclocked PS2 GPU? 

[Van Cruncheon]

the plan originally WAS for the CELL to do all the lighting/rasterization/post-processing, but it proved to be too gutless for the task, so they went with the RSX, i.e. the 7600GT

[The Sceneman]

do you honestly think there will be a PS4, smooth?

[Van Cruncheon]

on top of that, xenos' has barely been tapped -- it's capable of some astounding shader stuff even the ps3 would be hard-pressed to match

[Smooth Groove]

do you honestly think there will be a PS4, smooth?

I think so.  Usually, a company needs 2 bombs in a roll before they'll give up.  Sony will be lucky if they ever break even with the PS3 but they probably have enough money from the old days to give it another try.  Now that the father of the Playstation is gone, Sony will probably just outsource the design of their next console to hardware manufactures like MS and Nintendo.  I think it'll be harder and harder to differentiate between the offerings from MS and Sony.

[Van Cruncheon]

i think he means like MS and Nintendo do, although they don't outsource the design but rather the discrete components thereof

[Smooth Groove]

i think he means like MS and Nintendo do,

yeah, that's what I meant. 

although they don't outsource the design but rather the discrete components thereof

So MS specifically asked for a GPU with unified shaders and a CPU w/3 cores? 

[Van Cruncheon]

well, they negotiated for features and set price points and then they got what they got

[Smooth Groove]

well, they negotiated for features and set price points and then they got what they got

ahh, that explains why Sony only had enough money for a budget GPU after all they spent on Cell and Blu-ray.  

[Rman]

It is really confirmed fact the Sony's GPU is ''teh suck'' compared to the 360's?

[AdmiralViscen]

I'm not surprised that Sony is still selling that "PS3 is a supercomputer" and "awesome untapped potential" material.  It worked wonders for the PS2 and Sony fanboys still eat that stuff up like it's crack. 

Even Sony supporters like Mickeyknox and Borys wanted to choke the Sony fanboys who kept claiming that the PS3 was capable of delivering a better Crysis experience than high end PCs. 

people were saying that? what?

[Van Cruncheon]

Rman, yes. the RSX is a flavor of the "budget" GeForce 7X00 line, with features and clocks roughly that of a GeForce 7600GT. The Xenos, OTOH, has a fully-unified shading model implementation and a DX10-esque feature set (minus a few items), and is pound-for-pound roughly 2x as performant as the RSX for DX9-class visuals (and vastly moreso for many DX10-class features). It is a fairly unique design, much like Gamecube's underrated GPU, and can showcase some amazing shiz if shitty devs would stop treating it like a middleweight bog-standard DX9 PC GPU. RARE is gonna make some PS3 advocates shit their fuckin' drawers this year.

power of xenos

on the other hand, the "xenon" tri-core ppc cpu in the 360 ain't much to write home about

[Rman]

Interesting. 

Is this the reason PS3 ports have been so sub-standard, with the exception of Burnout: Paradise and COD4? 

[Van Cruncheon]

eh, partly. Mostly the ports suck because the 360's high-level APIs are exposed as a specific take on DirectX, which most game devs are very familiar with. the PS3 has a bunch of OGL-esque APIs and some godawful native stuff. For tweaking and performance, Xenos' shader language is well-exposed through the APIs -- and so is RSX's, but RSX is bad bad bad crap crap crap compared to Xenos for heavy-duty shader lifting, what with Xenos' model being so fuckin' superefficient and streamlined, and RSX's being designed for brute force only the high-end 7X00 chips can muster. On the CPU end, the external documentation for CELL programming is so poor and the architecture so obtuse that many developers -- especially those in the porting game -- find it easier to simply run everything off the main SPE and to ignore any real parallelization altogether, which is why you see Uncharted from folks with access to internal documentation and support and Madden 08 from those without it. Did I mention the PS3 has shit documentation?

All in all, the two machines are roughly equal, and both have a lot of games with substandard programming efforts relative to what the machines are capable of. PS3 can pump significantly more geometry and given !SUPER! !DEVELOPMENT! !MAGIC! fake up a bit of what the 360 has as fixed features, but the 360 is definitely king for shading/post-processing and some lighting models like HDR.

[Smooth Groove]

Interesting. 

Is this the reason PS3 ports have been so sub-standard, with the exception of Burnout: Paradise and COD4? 

The PS3's memory architecture is also less flexible than the 360's.  Since both systems have so little ram, even something like an extra 30-50 megs of available memory could make a huge difference.  

[Van Cruncheon]

this is also true!

[y2kev]

I think that's a really great summary.

But knowing that Crysis is already beyond the two consoles is depressing

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

Crysis is really on a another planet when it comes to graphics.  Un-fucking-real.

 

[y2kev]

Crysis is really on a another planet when it comes to graphics.  Un-fucking-real.

 

I said before that Crysis' graphics were "unreal" to my friend and he pointed out how ironic it is that unreal in this context means closest to reality ever.

Crysis is absurd.