Not this again.. Naughty Dog says they're using only 30-40% of PS3's power.

The difference between first-gen and late-gen PS2 games was nothing less than stunning. Dire_Weasel

There are, in fact, "magical secrets" in pretty much every system ever made. The very nature of these systems imply this. Almost everything has a workaround. Hell, my entire computer architecture class was based on this notion. Workarounds create vast performance improvements. Now, the whole "% of untapped power" thing is a bunch of turds, unless they are just saying that there are x amount of features that they do not understand how to use yet.

In general though these magic secrets can never be implied and are not universal. Devs dont necessarily go around sharing their info, and it takes a top notch programmer to create the workarounds efficiently. In reality the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There is always more juice than you think in a computer system.

If you see some of the stuff we've done, in fact some of the stuff our guys have done, the GPU particle systems and things like, some of our guys have been working on the geometric styIe real time radiosity," explained Burton. "Even at the start of this generation, if you'd said to me, without actually me just looking at it and you were asking me off the cuff as a graphics programmer, could that happen, I'd have said no. And then you think, well, what's going to come next? You can still keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it.Nick Burton

[QUOTE="TheLegendKnight"]

why do people feel those comments as fake ?

just look at ps2 history, look at first PS2 games and the recent ones, God of War is one of the best proofs there...

so whats surprising when its said for PS3 too ?

Mash_Affect

What you see now is a good indication of the overall power of the PS3 and what you will see throughout its lifecycle. So if you're not satisfied yet, then I have some bad news for you...

oh i see, so people are just running with horse-glasses that can see only graphics and care for only graphical improvements, thanks for clearing that

Boy... I don't think I can trust someone who only works on the Xbox. He obviously has an agenda.

rragnaar

Oh... either that or, we shouldn't be surprised that people who work exclusively with a certain set of hardware are able to pull more juice out of it.rragnaar

agree.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

Boy... I don't think I can trust someone who only works on the Xbox. He obviously has an agenda.

Teufelhuhn

Oooh man...but yeah, I'm of the mindset that it's not surprising for the performance of games on a console to improve as time goes by. Both the PS1 and PS2 are great examples of this, and I'm sure we'll see similar things on all three platforms this generation.

It would be sweet if I could get these Edge Tools....

When was the last time Naughty Dog gave you "empty PS3 hype"?

I'm sorry for getting pissy about this, but I just hate when developers give us insight and gaming fans crucify them for it.Teufelhuhn

I don't really see this as something specifically Naughty Dog-related. I don't even care what Naughty Dog will deliver and what it won't. I'm just tired of this Cell crap Sony and its affiliates have been shoving down our throats since 2005. And to tell me that after the console has been out for two years you're using 30% of the Cell is ridiculous. I mean for heaven's sake, either you're completely inept or Gabe was right and the console is a complete failure. Naughty Dog's games don't have much to do with this, I just hate to see another developer going down the Insomniac route of doing Sony's PR. Increasingly lame PR. Does anyone still care about the hardware?

And to tell me that after the console has been out for two years you're using 30% of the Cell is ridiculous. I mean for heaven's sake, either you're completely inept or Gabe was right and the console is a complete failure.

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]When was the last time Naughty Dog gave you "empty PS3 hype"?

I'm sorry for getting pissy about this, but I just hate when developers give us insight and gaming fans crucify them for it.UpInFlames

I don't really see this as something specifically Naughty Dog-related. I don't even care what Naughty Dog will deliver and what it won't. I'm just tired of this Cell crap Sony and its affiliates have been shoving down our throats since 2005. And to tell me that after the console has been out for two years you're using 30% of the Cell is ridiculous. I mean for heaven's sake, either you're completely inept or Gabe was right and the console is a complete failure. Naughty Dog's games don't have much to do with this, I just hate to see another developer going down the Insomniac route of doing Sony's PR. Increasingly lame PR. Does anyone still care about the hardware?

I realize that Insomniac ran over your dog, so I can understand why you are upset with them... but seriously, you always rip on any company that seems to enjoy working with Sony and I don't understand it. It seems like any time Insomniac hints that they enjoy the hardware they work with you come out and call them Sony shills and dismiss their work. I respect you, I just don't understand your beef with Sony and their developers.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]When was the last time Naughty Dog gave you "empty PS3 hype"?

I'm sorry for getting pissy about this, but I just hate when developers give us insight and gaming fans crucify them for it.UpInFlames

I don't really see this as something specifically Naughty Dog-related. I don't even care what Naughty Dog will deliver and what it won't. I'm just tired of this Cell crap Sony and its affiliates have been shoving down our throats since 2005. And to tell me that after the console has been out for two years you're using 30% of the Cell is ridiculous. I mean for heaven's sake, either you're completely inept or Gabe was right and the console is a complete failure. Naughty Dog's games don't have much to do with this, I just hate to see another developer going down the Insomniac route of doing Sony's PR. Increasingly lame PR. Does anyone still care about the hardware?

Naughty Dog is far from the first developer to talk about how much power remains untapped and he'll be far from the last. That is a natural question gamers and journalists pose to developers (is there anything else to do?). I remember Next Generation (the now deceased US sister of the UK's Edge) used to have articles proclaiming game X,Y or Z 'The last great PS game'. They would confidently after a technologically impressive PS1 game that there was no more power left to be squeezed, but they'd alway be proven wrong a few months later.

I'm not a programmer, but based on history, the honest answer to questions about how much more can be done after the first year or three of a system's existence is always 'Lots more'.

Guys like Carmack and Newell are clearly brilliant PC coders, but as of the time of this writing, neither has offered anything technically impressive on a console (not even on the Xboxs, whose architecture is by all accounts similar to that of the PC). So I view them kind of the way I'd view brilliant linguists who doesn't speak certain languages real well but have an opinion about those languages. Sure, they should be listened to, but not viewed as the final word.

It's not ridiculous at all. What do you think, that 360 developers are out there using 100% of the CPU and GPU? Hell Epic made a very similar comment (they claimed about 25% usage, IIRC) after making a game that came out 1 year after the console launched (Uncharted came out 1 year after the PS3 launched, not 2), and now I see many people amazed at how much the sequel looks better than original. In the PC space things are even worse, since you can't even target a specific hardware spec and also since you have to go through layers of API's and abstractions.

When you're talking about complex systems there's always tremendous technical limitations in place that prevent a game from getting anywhere close to 100% utilization in all but the most trivial and contrived circumstances.Teufelhuhn

I realize that nobody ever utilizes 100% of any hardware out there especially on PC where things move too fast for anyone to even bother doing that. But on closed environments, developers can increase effeciency much faster so 30% is kind of bleh. Especially the way they say it - 30% of PS3's power. In fact, that's what annoys me the most.

*shrugs*

I realize that Insomniac ran over your dog, so I can understand why you are upset with them... but seriously, you always rip on any company that seems to enjoy working with Sony and I don't understand it. It seems like any time Insomniac hints that they enjoy the hardware they work with you come out and call them Sony shills and dismiss their work. I respect you, I just don't understand your beef with Sony and their developers.rragnaar

I think the point he's trying to make is that the developers shouldn't be worried about selling the hardware as much as they should be worried about simply making great games, and leave the PR speak to the console manufaucturers, if anyone.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]When was the last time Naughty Dog gave you "empty PS3 hype"?

I'm sorry for getting pissy about this, but I just hate when developers give us insight and gaming fans crucify them for it.UpInFlames

I don't really see this as something specifically Naughty Dog-related. I don't even care what Naughty Dog will deliver and what it won't. I'm just tired of this Cell crap Sony and its affiliates have been shoving down our throats since 2005. And to tell me that after the console has been out for two years you're using 30% of the Cell is ridiculous. I mean for heaven's sake, either you're completely inept or Gabe was right and the console is a complete failure. Naughty Dog's games don't have much to do with this, I just hate to see another developer going down the Insomniac route of doing Sony's PR. Increasingly lame PR. Does anyone still care about the hardware?

Naughty Dog is far from the first developer to talk about how much power remains untapped and he'll be far from the last. That is a natural question gamers and journalists pose to developers (is there anything else to do?). I remember Next Generation (the now deceased US sister of the UK's Edge) used to have articles proclaiming game X,Y or Z 'The last great PS game'. They would confidently state after a technologically impressive PS1 game that there was no more power left to be squeezed, but they'd always be proven wrong a few months later.

I'm not a programmer, but based on history, the honest answer to questions about how much more can be done after the first year or three of a system's existence is always 'Lots more'.

Guys like Carmack and Newell are clearly brilliant PC coders, but as of the time of this writing, neither has offered anything technically impressive on a console (not even on the Xboxs, whose architecture is by all accounts similar to that of the PC). So I view them kind of the way I'd view brilliant linguists who doesn't speak certain languages real well but have an opinion about those languages. Sure, they should be listened to, but not viewed as the final word.

I realize that Insomniac ran over your dog, so I can understand why you are upset with them... but seriously, you always rip on any company that seems to enjoy working with Sony and I don't understand it. It seems like any time Insomniac hints that they enjoy the hardware they work with you come out and call them Sony shills and dismiss their work. I respect you, I just don't understand your beef with Sony and their developers.rragnaar

There are developers I like and respect and there are those that I don't. Insomniac and Guerilla being Sony devs has nothing to do with it. When I rip id and Blizzard, does that mean I hate PC? When I rip Bungie, am I an anti-Microsoft fanatic?

Naughty Dog is far from the first developer to talk about how much power remains untapped and he'll be far from the last.CarnageHeart

Yeah, but others like id and Pandemic have stated otherwise with Pandemic chuckling "if there's some mystical untapped power in the PS3, we sure haven't seen it". It's not an exact quote and I was unable to find the article, so you may or may not choose to believe me.

But that was all a long time ago and was actually interesting back in 2005/2006, nowadays I don't see much purpose behind those statements.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I realize that Insomniac ran over your dog, so I can understand why you are upset with them... but seriously, you always rip on any company that seems to enjoy working with Sony and I don't understand it. It seems like any time Insomniac hints that they enjoy the hardware they work with you come out and call them Sony shills and dismiss their work. I respect you, I just don't understand your beef with Sony and their developers.UpInFlames

There are developers I like and respect and there are those that I don't. Insomniac and Guerilla being Sony devs has nothing to do with it. When I rip id and Blizzard, does that mean I hate PC? When I rip Bungie, am I an anti-Microsoft fanatic?

Fair enough. I've never seen you tear into those guys.

Fair enough. I've never seen you tear into those guys.rragnaar

Are you new? :lol:

I believe Dutch can attest all the anti-Bungie crap I've spouted over the years, haha.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Fair enough. I've never seen you tear into those guys.UpInFlames

Are you new? :lol:

I believe Dutch can attest all the anti-Bungie crap I've spouted over the years, haha.

:lol:... I must be.

Other than better bossfights, I hope they include the option to run in battles. We don't have to kill everyone in the game. Battles make it linear.gamingqueen

QFT.

I played this game again after playing MGS4 and so many times, I just wanted to sneak past the pirates, but the game FORCED me to kill each and everyone of them.

Yeah, but others like id and Pandemic have stated otherwise with Pandemic chuckling "if there's some mystical untapped power in the PS3, we sure haven't seen it". It's not an exact quote and I was unable to find the article, so you may or may not choose to believe me.

But that was all a long time ago and was actually interesting back in 2005/2006, nowadays I don't see much purpose behind those statements.

UpInFlames

I believe you. But to go back to a point I made in the post prior to this one, Id, Carmack and Newell have never impressed (from a tech perspective) on consoles, so I don't give their word much weight. However, Pandemic's Mercenaries 2 looks pretty cool (though RE5 recently reinforced the point that judging a game by trailers is a little dangerous) and I heard good things about Mercenaries 1 (which I never got around to).

I agree that the yardstick hardware should be measured by is games, but tech talk from developers happens, and I think guys who have actually demonstrated fluency in the console arena are more credible than guys who have demonstrated mediocrity.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Fair enough. I've never seen you tear into those guys.UpInFlames

Are you new? :lol:

I believe Dutch can attest all the anti-Bungie crap I've spouted over the years, haha.

I've seen some of it. Why hate :cry:

(as a sidenote my relationship to Bungie is almost emotional. If I ever start arguing about them directly instead of their games I do stupid things. I usually end up attacking some developer I simply don't like as much even if I still like them per se. Valve has recieved many undeserved kicks because of this. Half-Life 2 is still as disappointing as Halo 2 though IMO :P)

Half-Life 2 is still as disappointing as Halo 2 though IMO :P

inoperativeRS

You are dead to me.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Half-Life 2 is still as disappointing as Halo 2 though IMO :P

rragnaar

You are dead to me.

You are both dead to me.

Oh I could talk (ie. whine like a five year old) about both of them for ages. Half-Life 1 and Halo 1/3 are so much better. In singleplayer at least.

... doesn't mean I don't like them though :P

Naughty Dog states the obvious, 10 page thread ensues. News at 11:00.

Seriously, what system hasn't ended the generation with better-looking games than those is started with? This is much ado about nothing and should be common knowledge for anyone who has followed a hardware cycle before.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I realize that Insomniac ran over your dog, so I can understand why you are upset with them... but seriously, you always rip on any company that seems to enjoy working with Sony and I don't understand it. It seems like any time Insomniac hints that they enjoy the hardware they work with you come out and call them Sony shills and dismiss their work. I respect you, I just don't understand your beef with Sony and their developers.UpInFlames

There are developers I like and respect and there are those that I don't. Insomniac and Guerilla being Sony devs has nothing to do with it. When I rip id and Blizzard, does that mean I hate PC? When I rip Bungie, am I an anti-Microsoft fanatic?

Naughty Dog is far from the first developer to talk about how much power remains untapped and he'll be far from the last.CarnageHeart

Yeah, but others like id and Pandemic have stated otherwise with Pandemic chuckling "if there's some mystical untapped power in the PS3, we sure haven't seen it". It's not an exact quote and I was unable to find the article, so you may or may not choose to believe me.

But that was all a long time ago and was actually interesting back in 2005/2006, nowadays I don't see much purpose behind those statements.

Good memory. a quick google search gave me a link to the System Wars forum here on GS:

" If you look at the on-paper specs, the PS3 doesn't have this mythical, untapped reservoir of power. There's been a lot of talk about that, but it doesn't seem to be there. I have yet to see the evidence of this. It's always hard, a generation out - ''I'm not suggesting it won't happen, though.''

Id, Carmack and Newell have never impressed (from a tech perspective) on consoles, so I don't give their word much weight.CarnageHeart

Quake 4 was lackluster on the 360 (not that the PC version was much better), but from what I've heard Doom 3 was impressive technically on Xbox. I haven't played it or anything, didn't even see it in motion really, but I thought it was very well receieved both by critics and gamers.

As for Valve, they themselves continously admit that they're PC developers. They go so far as to basically refuse working on the PS3.

I've seen some of it. Why hate :cry:

(as a sidenote my relationship to Bungie is almost emotional. If I ever start arguing about them directly instead of their games I do stupid things. I usually end up attacking some developer I simply don't like as much even if I still like them per se. Valve has recieved many undeserved kicks because of this. Half-Life 2 is still as disappointing as Halo 2 though IMO :P)inoperativeRS

I've never cared for Bungie as a developer (I find them annoyingly self-aware, like they share a collective Messiah complex) and I think Halo: Combat Evolved is the most overrated game in existance (although Call of Duty 4 is getting awfully close), but I enjoyed the hell out of Halo 2. It was an actual game with, you know, level design - not just a string of insanely bland copy/paste maps. The vehicle segments alone blow everything Halo: Combat Evolved offered (which wasn't much at all).

Half-Life 2 - best game EVAR! Yes, better than Half-Life. Also, I love Valve. Awesomestest developer in the cosmos.

Good memory. a quick google search gave me a link to the System Wars forum here on GSS0lidSnake

Hmm, Google you say? Oh, you kids and your newfound contraptions! :P

Thanks. :)

Also, I love Valve. Awesomestest developer in the cosmos.

UpInFlames

Fanboy.

Yeah. I love categorizing. ^__^

Just shows how much our tastes differ. The level design is one of the many things I consider vastly superior in Halo 1 :P

Half-Life 2... There are lots of things I don't like about, for example the reliance on physics based puzzles (which turned old fast IMO) and the overall feel of the weapons. I always felt like the gravity gun was an excuse (a brilliant excuse but still) for not having very fun weapons otherwise.

TBH I find this mod to be more enjoyable for me personally than most of HL2. Valve hired the guy behind it not soon after the last episode was released so at least he must've done something right in their opinions as well :P

To each his own.

Naughty Dog states the obvious, 10 page thread ensues. News at 11:00.

Seriously, what system hasn't ended the generation with better-looking games than those is started with? This is much ado about nothing and should be common knowledge for anyone who has followed a hardware cycle before.Shame-usBlackley

I think that's pretty obvious, games get better-looking with more advanced features as time goes on. But that's true for all systems. Naughty Dog is here saying they're using 30% of the PS3's power - a statement that goes back to Insomniac, and in turn Sony all the way to the Dark Emperor himself, Darth Ken. Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but I can't shake the foul smell of PR drivel.

Just shows how much our tastes differ. The level design is one of the many things I consider vastly superior in Halo 1 :P

Half-Life 2... There are lots of things I don't like about, for example the reliance on physics based puzzles (which turned old fast IMO) and the overall feel of the weapons. I always felt like the gravity gun was an excuse (a brilliant excuse but still) for not having very fun weapons otherwise.

TBH I find this mod to be more enjoyable for me personally than most of HL2. Valve hired the guy behind it not soon after the last episode was released so at least he must've done something right in their opinions as well :P

To each his own.

inoperativeRS

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Just shows how much our tastes differ. The level design is one of the many things I consider vastly superior in Halo 1 :P

Half-Life 2... There are lots of things I don't like about, for example the reliance on physics based puzzles (which turned old fast IMO) and the overall feel of the weapons. I always felt like the gravity gun was an excuse (a brilliant excuse but still) for not having very fun weapons otherwise.

TBH I find this mod to be more enjoyable for me personally than most of HL2. Valve hired the guy behind it not soon after the last episode was released so at least he must've done something right in their opinions as well :P

To each his own.

GodModeEnabled

That explains so many things.

:P

Fanboy.

Yeah. I love categorizing. ^__^SteelAttack

Label me and put me in a drawer neatly, please.

Just shows how much our tastes differ. The level design is one of the many things I consider vastly superior in Halo 1 :P

Half-Life 2... There are lots of things I don't like about, for example the reliance on physics based puzzles (which turned old fast IMO) and the overall feel of the weapons. I always felt like the gravity gun was an excuse (a brilliant excuse but still) for not having very fun weapons otherwise.

TBH I find this mod to be more enjoyable for me personally than most of HL2. Valve hired the guy behind it not soon after the last episode was released so at least he must've done something right in their opinions as well :P

To each his own.inoperativeRS

Hmm, one of the best, most innovative weapons in FPS history with a near infinite usability...an excuse...for not having fun weapons. I don't follow.

I played Minerva and the level design is truly outstanding, but some awkward design choices prevented me to enjoy it fully.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Just shows how much our tastes differ. The level design is one of the many things I consider vastly superior in Halo 1 :P

Half-Life 2... There are lots of things I don't like about, for example the reliance on physics based puzzles (which turned old fast IMO) and the overall feel of the weapons. I always felt like the gravity gun was an excuse (a brilliant excuse but still) for not having very fun weapons otherwise.

TBH I find this mod to be more enjoyable for me personally than most of HL2. Valve hired the guy behind it not soon after the last episode was released so at least he must've done something right in their opinions as well :P

To each his own.

SteelAttack

That explains so many things.

:P

Hmm, one of the best, most innovative weapons in FPS history with a near infinite usability...an excuse...for not having fun weapons. I don't follow.

I played Minerva and the level design is truly outstanding, but some awkward design choices prevented me to enjoy it fully.

UpInFlames

Excuse is an exaggeration. What I'm trying to say is the rest of weapons felt boring to me in most situations and although some of them showed potential they were never utilised IMO, and in many cases I feel this was due to Valve's desire to show off the gravity gun. For example the grenade launcher on the SMG and the energy ball thingy on the assault rifle are much more useful in Minerva, both due to the level design and the fact you don't have a gravity gun and need to defeat turrets and other usual gravity gun subjects using other methods.

Considering the level design of Minerva is based on the first Halo's Silent Cartographer (with a few differences, Minerva only offers one path most of the time while the TSC has branching paths) I guess we really have different views on "good" level design. :P

GME, I just yesterday played through the library on Halo PC. It's a level where you kill. And not much more. And that's why I like it :P

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Id, Carmack and Newell have never impressed (from a tech perspective) on consoles, so I don't give their word much weight.UpInFlames

Quake 4 was lackluster on the 360 (not that the PC version was much better), but from what I've heard Doom 3 was impressive technically on Xbox. I haven't played it or anything, didn't even see it in motion really, but I thought it was very well receieved both by critics and gamers.

As for Valve, they themselves continously admit that they're PC developers. They go so far as to basically refuse working on the PS3.

I've seen some of it. Why hate :cry:

(as a sidenote my relationship to Bungie is almost emotional. If I ever start arguing about them directly instead of their games I do stupid things. I usually end up attacking some developer I simply don't like as much even if I still like them per se. Valve has recieved many undeserved kicks because of this. Half-Life 2 is still as disappointing as Halo 2 though IMO :P)inoperativeRS

I've never cared for Bungie as a developer (I find them annoyingly self-aware, like they share a collective Messiah complex) and I think Halo: Combat Evolved is the most overrated game in existance (although Call of Duty 4 is getting awfully close), but I enjoyed the hell out of Halo 2. It was an actual game with, you know, level design - not just a string of insanely bland copy/paste maps. The vehicle segments alone blow everything Halo: Combat Evolved offered (which wasn't much at all).

Half-Life 2 - best game EVAR! Yes, better than Half-Life. Also, I love Valve. Awesomestest developer in the cosmos.

THANK YOU!!!!

Best PC game I've ever played. :)

Valve and ID refused to work on the PS3 for whatever reason, yet there are developers out there like Insomniac and ND who actually know what the PS3 can and cannot do since they've actually worked on it. We like to criticize gamers who bash an unreleased game by saying, "Well, have you played it?", well to me thats what ND is doing here .... Carmack and Gabe have been pretty vocal on their complaints about the PS3, and ND, a dev with the most impressive looking game on console under their belt, is basically telling them," Well, have you worked on it?"

Carmack only decided to do a PS3 port for Rage after Sony gave them a couple of senior PS3 programmers, one of them a former ND programmer.

We all know how bad Newell screwed over PS3 owners, but thats a topic for a different thread.

Anyway, here's something I've avoided posting in this thread because it derailed the GAF thread, but I'm hoping we're much more mature around here. here's a quote from ND from way back when Jak & Daxter came out. Now I urge you guys to read through the entire thing because what is said afterwards is a really good analogy of how console games manage to look better as the devs gain more experience with it.

"People think of systems as glasses and ask: "how full is the glass". Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Any developer who gives you a "percent of system used" answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%. "

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Naughty Dog states the obvious, 10 page thread ensues. News at 11:00.

Seriously, what system hasn't ended the generation with better-looking games than those is started with? This is much ado about nothing and should be common knowledge for anyone who has followed a hardware cycle before.UpInFlames

I think that's pretty obvious, games get better-looking with more advanced features as time goes on. But that's true for all systems. Naughty Dog is here saying they're using 30% of the PS3's power - a statement that goes back to Insomniac, and in turn Sony all the way to the Dark Emperor himself, Darth Ken. Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but I can't shake the foul smell of PR drivel.

Totally dude. It's like this: Whenever a true 3rd party has something to say about a platform? Then it's time to listen. Whenever a company who is tied at the hip with the hardware they're talking about, then it's time to break out the "Who farted?" face. Naughty Dog isn't going to screw with their income by talking in any way non-positive about the only hardware it'll appear on. Same thing with Rare's statement a few days ago about Microsoft's hardware -- they came out and said basically the same thing.

It's PR horsecrap masked in truth. I'm just saying it shouldn't surprise anyone, since all systems benefit from the curve of developer familiarity.

'People think of systems as glasses and ask: "how full is the glass". Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Any developer who gives you a "percent of system used" answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%S0lidSnake

"People think of systems as glasses and ask: "how full is the glass". Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Any developer who gives you a "percent of system used" answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%. "

S0lidSnake

as odd as the wording on this analogy is, it is extremely true. anyone who has done any programming will wholeheartedly agree. this should be the auto respond for every post concerning a system's "potential power".

Quake 4 was lackluster on the 360 (not that the PC version was much better), but from what I've heard Doom 3 was impressive technically on Xbox. I haven't played it or anything, didn't even see it in motion really, but I thought it was very well receieved both by critics and gamers.

UpInFlames

Doom 3 was a minor miracle on the XBOX. I played and owned the PC version as well and what they actually squeezed out of the XB1 was amazing. It's a fantastic version of the game.

Half Life 2 on the XB1 is another story entirely.

"We just get more and more out of the 100%. "S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Quake 4 was lackluster on the 360 (not that the PC version was much better), but from what I've heard Doom 3 was impressive technically on Xbox. I haven't played it or anything, didn't even see it in motion really, but I thought it was very well receieved both by critics and gamers.

Grammaton-Cleric

Doom 3 was a minor miracle on the XBOX. I played and owned the PC version as well and what they actually squeezed out of the XB1 was amazing. It's a fantastic version of the game.

Half Life 2 on the XB1 is another story entirely.

I never played the xbox version of HL2 but the Doom port is indeed superb.

here's a quote from ND from way back when Jak & Daxter came out.S0lidSnake

I think that was an outstanding analogy and a great way to help people like us understand more about that sort of stuff. But it seems Naughty Dog got rid of the smart guys and replaced them with Sony PR lackeys. Too bad for them.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

"People think of systems as glasses and ask: "how full is the glass". Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Any developer who gives you a "percent of system used" answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%. "

OneWingedAngeI

as odd as the wording on this analogy is, it is extremely true. anyone who has done any programming will wholeheartedly agree. this should be the auto respond for every post concerning a system's "potential power".

exactly. I hate programming, but I had to learn it and all that stuff about replacing rocks with sand makes perfect sense to me.

Quote.S0lidSnake

Nice quote! And filled with so much common sense that it rings true. Even for someone without any knowledge of programming. Like me.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]"We just get more and more out of the 100%. "Skylock00

It's ironic, yeah.

It's also 7 years old, and on a different platform.

It's not ridiculous at all. What do you think, that 360 developers are out there using 100% of the CPU and GPU? Hell Epic made a very similar comment (they claimed about 25% usage, IIRC) after making a game that came out 1 year after the console launched (Uncharted came out 1 year after the PS3 launched, not 2), and now I see many people amazed at how much the sequel looks better than original. In the PC space things are even worse, since you can't even target a specific hardware spec and also since you have to go through layers of API's and abstractions.

When you're talking about complex systems there's always tremendous technical limitations in place that prevent a game from getting anywhere close to 100% utilization in all but the most trivial and contrived circumstances. Teufelhuhn

Actually, if I recall correctly, Epic stated that Gears used about 75-80 percent of the XB360's power, which seems like a valid statement. Conversely, stating that only 30-40 percent of the PS3 is being utilized in games like Uncharted and MGS4 reeks of PR nonsense, which is what some people are responding to.

I own a PS3 and I think the comment is nonsense. Some very respected developers have already stated that the PS3 has no hidden power and I tend to believe the words of those not suckling at the Sony teat.