Another supbar PS3 multiplatform game. Where is the power of the Cell???

Lazy port, and the 360 always loses out in multiplats compared to PC.Slurms_M

I'm sorry? What?

Do I even have to link you to GRAW and Oblivion?

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Hiding behind a PC, I see. Typical.

Slurms_M

How am I hiding behind the PC?

I'm just telling you that the 360 doesn't get the best multiplats, so dont act like it.

You realise that the only multiplat thus far NOT to be better on the 360 was Tiger Woods, simply because the horrible bugs present in BOTH versions were more so in the 360 version?

:|

Yeah, devs have stated how hard the PS3 technology is. Devs like the one from Guitar hero who just happened to feel the need to completely bash the PS3 and forgot to fill all of the holes in his points, Yeah, wow. We all know how great guitar hero's graphics are. they really push those consoles.

"Studios are not going to spend twice the money and allocate more developers on a game slated for a platform with a small user base and a pathetic atach rate". I'm sorry, did you say CoD4??? I thought you didn't.

"The developers making games for the 360 did not have a problem releasing great titles before the platform was less than one year old" Why was that do you think? One, because it had an install base that had no competition. Two, it uses technology devs are already familiar with. Wow, that must mean its great, right?

If the PS3 is so crappy and so impossible to work on, why does CoD4 look the same or better on PS3? Why does Assassin's creed look just as good? Because those devs took the time to make a great product.

The_Crucible

You'd think this would be fairly obvious but:

Opinion of guy with degree who makes games on the console >>>>>x10,000>>>> whatever the heck you think

[QUOTE="Slurms_M"]Lazy port, and the 360 always loses out in multiplats compared to PC.hongkingkong

I'm sorry? What?

Do I even have to link you to GRAW and Oblivion?

Oblivion wasn't better on the 360

And I thought that GRAW was exclusive? Different game, same name is what the lems say when counting AAA exclusives.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="The_Crucible"][QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Hiding behind a PC, I see. Typical.

Funny how developers are not lazy when they are developing a game for the 360.

The_Crucible

Funny how you just skip the fact that most devs have stated how easy it is for them to work with the very common technology the 360 has. And how devs have said there's a definite learning curve on the PS3.

ITS YEAR ONE, PEOPLE! If you expected PS3, with its new technologies, to be running full steam within 11 months, you are insane. And to say that the multiplats are worse on PS3 because of lack of power is almost criminal.

And funny how Cows just skip the fact tha many devs have stated that the cell is a piece of crap.

The "definite learning curve on the PS3" can't be a good thing for Sony right now. Studios are not going to spend twice the money and allocate more developers on a game slated for a platform with a small user base and a pathetic atach rate...just to make you Cows happy.

And how do you guys repay these devs? With crappy sales and accusations of laziness and bias? LOL.

The developers making games for the 360 did not have a problem releasing great titles before the platform was less than one year old. Cows should really stop using this argume...err...excuse since most people are not buying into this tired urban legend of yours. The bottom line is that the Cell is not a very good processor for gaming purposes.

The Cell + The PS3's underpowered GPU = Crappy Games != Lazy Devs

Yeah, devs have stated how hard the PS3 technology is.

These are the opinions the professionals that are creating your games. I'll take their word over yours.

You can cry foul from now until the new generation of consoles are released, but the only way you will change opinions is by:

1) studying computer science

2) getting a job in a major gaming studio

3) making incredible PS3 games that will prove all those lazy devs wrong

Otherwise: Devs assessments>>>>Your opinion

"Studios are not going to spend twice the money and allocate more developers on a game slated for a platform with a small user base and a pathetic atach rate". I'm sorry, did you say CoD4??? I thought you didn't. The_Crucible

Development for CoD4 started a long time ago. Did you hear how Sony is begging developers (lazy or not) not to abbandon their struggling platform? Maybe you didn't. Check it out...and prepare to have your heart broken.

"The developers making games for the 360 did not have a problem releasing great titles before the platform was less than one year old" Why was that do you think? One, because it had an install base that had no competition. Two, it uses technology devs are already familiar with. Wow, that must mean its great, right?

If the PS3 is so crappy and so impossible to work on, why does CoD4 look the same or better on PS3? Why does Assassin's creed look just as good? Because those devs took the time to make a great product.

The_Crucible

How is having a technology that people are familiar with bad for business? How is having a technology that devs are threatening to abandon good for Sony? Lazy or not, they don't like the technology...and that technology is not proving to be very lucrative for them. Criticize them all you want, but you better start buying their lazy games or all the begging in the world is not going to help Sony very much.

That new technology of yours is not producing anything amazing right now. All the time that could be spent creating something wonderful (Sony's 4D, lol) is being used just to create something that looks just as good as it does on the 360. When you tie that technology to a crappy GPU and a horrible memory allocation it is understandable why developers are having such a hard time with the PS3.

multiplats are multiplats besides i believe cows were happy not ecstatic about Lost Planet coming to PS3 imo the game was crap anyways and i couldn't care where it went for all i care could've went to the Wii. As for the TC well i've seen so many of his misinformed threads i'm starting to believe he's just another 6 year old with a keyboard thinking he can grab an insult to people here. Very very sad.Solid_Max13

The irony...

Hmm, you clearly insult me with a personal attack for creating a thread that links to a Kotaku article. How was that insulting to people?

Is your PS3 doing so badly that the best rebuttal you can come up with is to call me a 6 year old? Cows are getting angrier and nastier lately. I hope you guys change for the better in 08. I guess I'll just have to wait, huh?

You will probably be banned for you post...so I guess I'll just leave it at that. See you in a week or so.

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"]

PS3 version is superior. Notice the explosion and novelty red lights in the PS3 pic? You phail!

btnheazy03

woop quake 4 that was soooo awesome on the 360 =],,, yeah ps3 has suckish ports but on games that are not multiplat i.e. rachet and clank and MGS and Killzone2 etc once they come out then judge the ps3 =].... if they suck then fair play lolo0squishy0o

You list R&C and games that are not out yet. How do you know MGS and KZ2 will be good? Didn't you learn anything from the Lair debacle? And speaking of Lair, why didn't you list the numerous Sony flops as examples of games we should use to judge the PS3 (seeing as we should not use suckish ports).

[QUOTE="Magical_Zebra"]

[QUOTE="black_awpN1"]THe game just got announced for PS3, and people are all ready saying its going to fail.tman93

The diehard cows will say "bu bu but, give the devs time"! The rest of the cows will either say "the game is not released yet" (they were not saying that with KZ2 and Lair screenshots) or they will damage control and say those SS's are published by M$... :lol:

Magical_Zebra

And we have a winner!!! :lol:

Like, totally! Other fanboys like, totally do it. Like, no way!!! :shock:

Oblivion wasn't better on the 360Slurms_M

And I thought that GRAW was exclusive? Different game, same name is what the lems say when counting AAA exclusives.Slurms_M

It is. However Sigma is not... ;)

These are the opinions the professionals that are creating your games. I'll take their word over yours.

You can cry foul from now until the new generation of consoles are released, but the only way you will change opinions is by:

1) studying computer science

2) getting a job in a major gaming studio

3) making incredible PS3 games that will prove all those lazy devs wrong

Otherwise: Devs assessments>>>>Your opinionPimpshigity21

I'm sorry, this is such a norm and crap argument used in SW in every thread. Instead of just focusing on the facts at hand, you decide to focus on the one who posted. Am I a dev, no? Is 99.99999999% of the users in SW? NO! So, quoting one dev and then telling me I'm wrong when i quote another is not "teh pwnage." There have been devs that have talked very highly of the PS3 just as there have been those that bash it. Thus far, a lot of the PS3 games have been very impressive for first year titles, especially considering the 360 grasp. It's year one, homes.

Development for CoD4 started a long time ago. Did you hear how Sony is begging developers (lazy or not) not to abbandon their struggling platform? Maybe you didn't. Check it out...and prepare to have your heart broken.Pimpshigity21

Yeah, I saw that ONE article from that ONE writer who didn't even have direct quotes from devs or Sony. To think that Sony, the maker of the PS1 and PS2 needs to beg developers is just ludicrous. Yes, the PS3 is in third and in a position that Sony has had before, but that doesn't mean all power in the industry is lost.

How is having a technology that people are familiar with bad for business? How is having a technology that devs are threatening to abandon good for Sony? Lazy or not, they don't like the technology...and that technology is not proving to be very lucrative for them. Criticize them all you want, but you better start buying their lazy games or all the begging in the world is not going to help Sony very much.

That new technology of yours is not producing anything amazing right now. All the time that could be spent creating something wonderful (Sony's 4D, lol) is being used just to create something that looks just as good as it does on the 360. When you tie that technology to a crappy GPU and a horrible memory allocation it is understandable why developers are having such a hard time with the PS3. Pimpshigity21

Did I say having easier technology was bad? NO! I said devs have gravitated towards it because of it and the install base. But that doesn't mean it not going to get easier for PS3. Last gen the PS2 was a pain for quite a while before devs showed some comfort. As more games are made on the PS3, the knowledge is increased on how to get the most out of it. Plain and simple. Not to mention, to think the install base isn't going to increase dramatically from this year on, you are not paying much attention.

And, then, at the end, you show just how ignorant you can be. You're going to laugh about 4D? Do you even know what 4D means in video games? I'm sure you don't. You think it relates to wearing red and green lenses and 3D. Its living enviroments. Its being on a map, in a sandbox game, and having things change like they do in life, night and day, seasons, growth, etc. If you think that's an impossibility, again, you are not paying attention.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

These are the opinions the professionals that are creating your games. I'll take their word over yours.

You can cry foul from now until the new generation of consoles are released, but the only way you will change opinions is by:

1) studying computer science

2) getting a job in a major gaming studio

3) making incredible PS3 games that will prove all those lazy devs wrong

Otherwise: Devs assessments>>>>Your opinionThe_Crucible

I'm sorry, this is such a norm and crap argument used in SW in every thread. Instead of just focusing on the facts at hand, you decide to focus on the one who posted. Am I a dev, no? Is 99.99999999% of the users in SW? NO! So, quoting one dev and then telling me I'm wrong when i quote another is not "teh pwnage." There have been devs that have talked very highly of the PS3 just as there have been those that bash it. Thus far, a lot of the PS3 games have been very impressive for first year titles, especially considering the 360 grasp. It's year one, homes.

Development for CoD4 started a long time ago. Did you hear how Sony is begging developers (lazy or not) not to abbandon their struggling platform? Maybe you didn't. Check it out...and prepare to have your heart broken.Pimpshigity21

Yeah, I saw that ONE article from that ONE writer who didn't even have direct quotes from devs or Sony. To think that Sony, the maker of the PS1 and PS2 needs to beg developers is just ludicrous. Yes, the PS3 is in third and in a position that Sony has had before, but that doesn't mean all power in the industry is lost.

How is having a technology that people are familiar with bad for business? How is having a technology that devs are threatening to abandon good for Sony? Lazy or not, they don't like the technology...and that technology is not proving to be very lucrative for them. Criticize them all you want, but you better start buying their lazy games or all the begging in the world is not going to help Sony very much.

That new technology of yours is not producing anything amazing right now. All the time that could be spent creating something wonderful (Sony's 4D, lol) is being used just to create something that looks just as good as it does on the 360. When you tie that technology to a crappy GPU and a horrible memory allocation it is understandable why developers are having such a hard time with the PS3. Pimpshigity21

Did I say having easier technology was bad? NO! I said devs have gravitated towards it because of it and the install base. But that doesn't mean it not going to get easier for PS3. Last gen the PS2 was a pain for quite a while before devs showed some comfort. As more games are made on the PS3, the knowledge is increased on how to get the most out of it. Plain and simple. Not to mention, to think the install base isn't going to increase dramatically from this year on, you are not paying much attention.

And, then, at the end, you show just how ignorant you can be. You're going to laugh about 4D? Do you even know what 4D means in video games? I'm sure you don't. You think it relates to wearing red and green lenses and 3D. Its living enviroments. Its being on a map, in a sandbox game, and having things change like they do in life, night and day, seasons, growth, etc. If you think that's an impossibility, again, you are not paying attention.

Reading your post is like watching the bad guy from James Bond trying to hang onto the ledge above the 500ft drop.

WTH??

Lazy port, and the 360 always loses out in multiplats compared to PC.Slurms_M

did you read that dev story the other day? and the PC will always be an unfair comparison because at some point--sooner or later--everything will lose out to a system which allows you to simply sub out the GPU for a new, better GPU and increase the visual fidelity.

I see people crying "lazy devs" (Crucible). Mr. Booth (PS3 developer) has some comments for you.

I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common misconceptions:

"The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"

Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.

"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"

In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.

"Uh, Blue Ray!"

Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream.

"But it's got a lot more space than DVD"

Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.

"Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and it will be amazing"

I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to be fun or not is another question.

Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an 'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response slower.

So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into practical realities for a moment:

Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and why exclusives often suck:

As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3 requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance. Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.

The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources, do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3 to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have often sacrificed their game in the process.

This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community. They are going to loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and usable machine.Mr Booth

http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2007/10/ps3-misconceptions-and-spin.html

Something to think about. He certainly has more experience than any of us.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="The_Crucible"][QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Hiding behind a PC, I see. Typical.

Funny how developers are not lazy when they are developing a game for the 360.

The_Crucible

Funny how you just skip the fact that most devs have stated how easy it is for them to work with the very common technology the 360 has. And how devs have said there's a definite learning curve on the PS3.

ITS YEAR ONE, PEOPLE! If you expected PS3, with its new technologies, to be running full steam within 11 months, you are insane. And to say that the multiplats are worse on PS3 because of lack of power is almost criminal.

And funny how Cows just skip the fact tha many devs have stated that the cell is a piece of crap.

The "definite learning curve on the PS3" can't be a good thing for Sony right now. Studios are not going to spend twice the money and allocate more developers on a game slated for a platform with a small user base and a pathetic atach rate...just to make you Cows happy.

And how do you guys repay these devs? With crappy sales and accusations of laziness and bias? LOL.

The developers making games for the 360 did not have a problem releasing great titles before the platform was less than one year old. Cows should really stop using this argume...err...excuse since most people are not buying into this tired urban legend of yours. The bottom line is that the Cell is not a very good processor for gaming purposes.

The Cell + The PS3's underpowered GPU = Crappy Games != Lazy Devs

Yeah, devs have stated how hard the PS3 technology is. Devs like the one from Guitar hero who just happened to feel the need to completely bash the PS3 and forgot to fill all of the holes in his points, Yeah, wow. We all know how great guitar hero's graphics are. they really push those consoles.

"Studios are not going to spend twice the money and allocate more developers on a game slated for a platform with a small user base and a pathetic atach rate". I'm sorry, did you say CoD4??? I thought you didn't.

"The developers making games for the 360 did not have a problem releasing great titles before the platform was less than one year old" Why was that do you think? One, because it had an install base that had no competition. Two, it uses technology devs are already familiar with. Wow, that must mean its great, right?

If the PS3 is so crappy and so impossible to work on, why does CoD4 look the same or better on PS3? Why does Assassin's creed look just as good? Because those devs took the time to make a great product.

You basically just restated his point. He clearly says the PS3 can produce the same results as the 360, but the developers have to spend much more time to do so. He says you have to make various sacrifices and basically "trick" the hardware into doings things that the 360 already does with ease.

Reading your post is like watching the bad guy from James Bond trying to hang onto the ledge above the 500ft drop.

Apathetic-Irony

Yeah, no kidding.

Bah, this guy is not worth replying to. He has snappy answers to everything under the Sun. His "opinions" are either totally incorrect or heavily tinted by fanboy bias. Nothing wrong with PS3...it's just that everyone (devs, industry writers, fanboys) is out to get Sony's machine. Okey-dokey.

I see people crying "lazy devs" (Crucible). Mr. Booth (PS3 developer) has some comments for you......

Dreams-Visions

Dude, show me where I said the devs were lazy? i bash the dev you quoted because its very odd that he just comes out with all of that. Seems like a lot of extra effort to put all of that together when all of it is already been discussed in forums for some time. Especially when his game comes nowhere near pushing ANY limits on ANY consoles. Its not lazy, its just the type of game he makes.

And you're ignoring all of the devs that have said how powerful the PS3 is. The devs that have made games like CoD4, Assassins Creed, Ratchet and Clank, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, and Uncharted, which are beautiful games.

Just like I said in the statement you quoted, you use a quote from one dev to dispute quotes from other devs. The only proof is in the games. And its been fairly minimal on the titles that have been affected. EA was the biggest culprit but has already started turning that around.

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"]

Reading your post is like watching the bad guy from James Bond trying to hang onto the ledge above the 500ft drop.

Pimpshigity21

Yeah, no kidding.

Bah, this guy is not worth replying to. He has snappy answers to everything under the Sun. His "opinions" are either totally incorrect or heavily tinted by fanboy bias. Nothing wrong with PS3...it's just that everyone (devs, industry writers, fanboys) is out to get Sony's machine. Okey-dokey.

Could you twist it any futher? YOU are just as biased as I. YOU obviously hate the PS3 and are trying to bash it with whatever the latest article is. THERE HAVE BEEN DEVS THAT HAVE SAID PS3 IS POWERFUL!!! THERE HAVE BEEN DEVS THAT HAVE MADE GAMES WHERE PS3 IS EQUAL TO THE 360, EVEN WHEN PS3 IS ONLY A YEAR OLD!!!!!

IF THEY CAN DO IT ANYONE CAN!!!!!!

CALL OF DUTY, PEOPLE. ASSASSINS CREED PEOPLE!!!! ANd you bring us guitar hero?!?!?! What!??!?

Crucible,

There have been devs that claimed the PS3 is powerful, but none that have been able to harness that power. The best they've been able to produce is stuff like R&C and HS (and CoD4, of course). Nice games, but hardly revolutionary.

You better forget about this 4D fairy tale Sony spin masters promised you. If PS3 games "have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolution" just to keep up with 360 games, how in the world do you think those "living environments" are going to be produced? And who do you think is going to risk financial ruin to provide you with those environments? You might think that Sony will invest a crapload of money to give you a "4D" game (who else has the money and is so desperate??), but all they've been able to produce is flop after flop. I can't believe there are still people willing to believe the all the Sony lies.

Yawn.

Another subpar PS3 bashing thread by the guy with the RIP PS3 avatar.

The last time I checked this game isn't out yet. When it the release date exactly. You can never compare a finished game to one that is still in development. Doing so makes you look stupid. Kotaku is the most sensationalist site ever. Its like the World Weekly News for videogames. Everything they do is for site hits. Quit feeding the troll.

Crucible,

There have been devs that claimed the PS3 is powerful, but none that have been able to harness that power. The best they've been able to produce is stuff like R&C and HS (and CoD4, of course). Nice games, but hardly revolutionary.

You better forget about this 4D fairy tale Sony spin masters promised you. If PS3 games "have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolution" just to keep up with 360 games, how in the world do you think those "living environments" are going to be produced? And who do you think is going to risk financial ruin to provide you with those environments? You might think that Sony will invest a crapload of money to give you a "4D" game (who else has the money and is so desperate??), but all they've been able to produce is flop after flop. I can't believe there are still people willing to believe the all the Sony lies.

Pimpshigity21

Where is the free 4X AA that MS spin masters promised you? The 360 was supposed to have 720p and 4XAA for EVERY TITLE. How many 360 games did that?

Gears 720p 0XAA

Halo3 640p 0XAA

Quit using translations from Japanese CEOs as some sort of law. It only makes you look like you are reaching.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/jaggies/lost-planet-ps3-burns-my-eyes-their-blood-soothes-313525.php

And you PS3 owners were so happy to get this game.

"Please Lost Planet, don't live up to that worse on the PS3 than it was on Xbox 360 stereotype."

Is the problem bad developers, or is the cell just not everything it was cracked up to be?

But hey, you guys can buy a 360 and play the good version.

Pimpshigity21

Jaggies 0.o? It's a downsized-low res pic that they had showed...

Crucible,

There have been devs that claimed the PS3 is powerful, but none that have been able to harness that power. The best they've been able to produce is stuff like R&C and HS (and CoD4, of course). Nice games, but hardly revolutionary.

You better forget about this 4D fairy tale Sony spin masters promised you. If PS3 games "have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolution" just to keep up with 360 games, how in the world do you think those "living environments" are going to be produced? And who do you think is going to risk financial ruin to provide you with those environments? You might think that Sony will invest a crapload of money to give you a "4D" game (who else has the money and is so desperate??), but all they've been able to produce is flop after flop. I can't believe there are still people willing to believe the all the Sony lies.

Pimpshigity21

I like how you just lazily throw CoD4 in there and say, "nothing revolutionary." Many are touting CoD4 the best looking game this gen. Not to mention Assassins and UT3.

But then you go on to get so twisted as to say PS3 is running lower native resolutions. ALL PS3 GAMES ARE 720P MINIMAL. Its the 360 that has lower resolutions in games like Gears and Halo 3. You need to read up a little bit.

Flop after flop? Are we now taliing in terms of hype threads or reality? Because the two are very, very different.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/jaggies/lost-planet-ps3-burns-my-eyes-their-blood-soothes-313525.php

And you PS3 owners were so happy to get this game.

"Please Lost Planet, don't live up to that worse on the PS3 than it was on Xbox 360 stereotype."

Is the problem bad developers, or is the cell just not everything it was cracked up to be?

But hey, you guys can buy a 360 and play the good version.

Magical_Zebra

The diehard cows will say "bu bu but, give the devs time"! The rest of the cows will either say "the game is not released yet" (they were not saying that with KZ2 and Lair screenshots) or they will damage control and say those SS's are published by M$... :lol:

Guess that isnt an excuse anymore, considering they got a whole year EXTRA just to port without the worries of developing the game to make it for PS3 '3nd gen':lol:

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Hiding behind a PC, I see. Typical.

Slurms_M

How am I hiding behind the PC?

I'm just telling you that the 360 doesn't get the best multiplats, so dont act like it.

For consoles, 360 has more of the best multiplats.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Crucible,

There have been devs that claimed the PS3 is powerful, but none that have been able to harness that power. The best they've been able to produce is stuff like R&C and HS (and CoD4, of course). Nice games, but hardly revolutionary.

You better forget about this 4D fairy tale Sony spin masters promised you. If PS3 games "have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolution" just to keep up with 360 games, how in the world do you think those "living environments" are going to be produced? And who do you think is going to risk financial ruin to provide you with those environments? You might think that Sony will invest a crapload of money to give you a "4D" game (who else has the money and is so desperate??), but all they've been able to produce is flop after flop. I can't believe there are still people willing to believe the all the Sony lies.

The_Crucible

I like how you just lazily throw CoD4 in there and say, "nothing revolutionary." Many are touting CoD4 the best looking game this gen. Not to mention Assassins and UT3.

But then you go on to get so twisted as to say PS3 is running lower native resolutions. ALL PS3 GAMES ARE 720P MINIMAL. Its the 360 that has lower resolutions in games like Gears and Halo 3. You need to read up a little bit.

Flop after flop? Are we now taliing in terms of hype threads or reality? Because the two are very, very different.

Not actually true. Some games like The Darkness and Conan run at a lower rez on PS3. There have been a lot more 360 games that upscale to higher rez due to wanting the game to fit in the 10Mb eDRAM.

Gears was 720p but no AA at all. They use tricks to hide jaggies.

Here is a thread at beyond3d that has all of this info about different native rez for various games.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43330

I see people crying "lazy devs" (Crucible). Mr. Booth (PS3 developer) has some comments for you.

[QUOTE="Mr Booth"]I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common misconceptions:

"The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"

Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.

"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"

In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.

"Uh, Blue Ray!"

Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream.

"But it's got a lot more space than DVD"

Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.

"Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and it will be amazing"

I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to be fun or not is another question.

Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an 'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response slower.

So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into practical realities for a moment:

Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and why exclusives often suck:

As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3 requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance. Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.

The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources, do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3 to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have often sacrificed their game in the process.

This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community. They are going to loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and usable machine.Dreams-Visions

http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2007/10/ps3-misconceptions-and-spin.html

Something to think about. He certainly has more experience than any of us.

He studied music in school and now he studies programming on his own. He also seems bent on shoe horning current single processor coding philosophy into the PS3. There are quite a few errors in there. I also love how a system with a standard HDD is being slagged for streaming data off the disc. The whole point of the HDD is that you don't have to do that. The zero loading between levels of R&C, HS and Uncharted are a testiment to that. I just don't buy what he is saying considering people who have much more dev experience have said otherwise. But hey its a strike against PS3 so anyone who ever worked on a game before must be right.

[QUOTE="Slurms_M"]Lazy port, and the 360 always loses out in multiplats compared to PC.Magical_Zebra

Define a lazy port. :shock:

any 360 game that comes to the ps3 in worse quality despite having ample development time.

[QUOTE="btnheazy03"]

:lol:

BUT BUT TEH CELL CAN REVERSE TIEM

- Krazy Ken

Apathetic-Irony

PS3 version is superior. Notice the explosion and novelty red lights in the PS3 pic? You phail!

LOL you are blind!!!!

yet another inferior port?

*chalks up another L for the PS3*

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"]

Reading your post is like watching the bad guy from James Bond trying to hang onto the ledge above the 500ft drop.

The_Crucible

Yeah, no kidding.

Bah, this guy is not worth replying to. He has snappy answers to everything under the Sun. His "opinions" are either totally incorrect or heavily tinted by fanboy bias. Nothing wrong with PS3...it's just that everyone (devs, industry writers, fanboys) is out to get Sony's machine. Okey-dokey.

Could you twist it any futher? YOU are just as biased as I. YOU obviously hate the PS3 and are trying to bash it with whatever the latest article is. THERE HAVE BEEN DEVS THAT HAVE SAID PS3 IS POWERFUL!!! THERE HAVE BEEN DEVS THAT HAVE MADE GAMES WHERE PS3 IS EQUAL TO THE 360, EVEN WHEN PS3 IS ONLY A YEAR OLD!!!!!

IF THEY CAN DO IT ANYONE CAN!!!!!!

CALL OF DUTY, PEOPLE. ASSASSINS CREED PEOPLE!!!! ANd you bring us guitar hero?!?!?! What!??!?

Sounds like paranoia to me.. All I hear latley is everyone is biased against the PS3..I am sorry but it is not just SW on gamespot that is trashing the PS3. Any cow who believes that really needs to take off the blinders. The whole industry is trashing the PS3.. Open your eyes.. The system is horrible.. Hasn't lived up to expectations and is a disaster by many standards outside of gamespot.

[QUOTE="The_Crucible"][QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"]

Crucible,

There have been devs that claimed the PS3 is powerful, but none that have been able to harness that power. The best they've been able to produce is stuff like R&C and HS (and CoD4, of course). Nice games, but hardly revolutionary.

You better forget about this 4D fairy tale Sony spin masters promised you. If PS3 games "have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolution" just to keep up with 360 games, how in the world do you think those "living environments" are going to be produced? And who do you think is going to risk financial ruin to provide you with those environments? You might think that Sony will invest a crapload of money to give you a "4D" game (who else has the money and is so desperate??), but all they've been able to produce is flop after flop. I can't believe there are still people willing to believe the all the Sony lies.

4D_RROD_GC1_5

I like how you just lazily throw CoD4 in there and say, "nothing revolutionary." Many are touting CoD4 the best looking game this gen. Not to mention Assassins and UT3.

But then you go on to get so twisted as to say PS3 is running lower native resolutions. ALL PS3 GAMES ARE 720P MINIMAL. Its the 360 that has lower resolutions in games like Gears and Halo 3. You need to read up a little bit.

Flop after flop? Are we now taliing in terms of hype threads or reality? Because the two are very, very different.

Not actually true. Some games like The Darkness and Conan run at a lower rez on PS3. There have been a lot more 360 games that upscale to higher rez due to wanting the game to fit in the 10Mb eDRAM.

Gears was 720p but no AA at all. They use tricks to hide jaggies.

Here is a thread at beyond3d that has all of this info about different native rez for various games.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43330

Darkness says on the box to run at 1080p native on Ps3. I had it but returned it, so I can't check right now.

PS4 > Xbox360

Thats right, I said it!! The PS4 will run cirlces around the 360......Microsoft caught us off guard, but the New PS4 Will blow the 360 outa the water. So I will play with the 360 just to see what the enemy has, but laughing inside because the PS4 will own the 360 next Gen. Its a matter of time!!! You might have won the battle cows this gen......but when the PS4 comes out we will win the WAR!!! RAAAARRWWWWW!!! :twisted:

The Xbox720 will kill the PS4 :PKillaHalo2o9

Oh waits its already dead:cry:

[QUOTE="btnheazy03"]

:lol:

BUT BUT TEH CELL CAN REVERSE TIEM

- Krazy Ken

Apathetic-Irony

PS3 version is superior. Notice the explosion and novelty red lights in the PS3 pic? You phail!

"Better to remain silent and be presumed an idiot, rather than to speak and remove all doubt."

I would take your own advice right now if I were you.

Edit: Wait, was this a joke post? Just noticed it didn't really make sense with some of your other posts.

Lazy port, and the 360 always loses out in multiplats compared to PC.Slurms_M

Shameful argument, very shameful. It's not the devs. It's the complicated hardware.

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]The power of the cell doesn't come from half assed ports made by lazy developersSlurms_M

Apparently lemmings think that.

i'm sick of this lazy developer bs. the fact of the matter is that its very difficult to port from 360 to ps3 while porting from ps3 to 360 is a much easier process. that wont change as long as devs keep using 360 as the lead sku.

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"][QUOTE="Slurms_M"][QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="Slurms_M"]

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]The power of the cell doesn't come from half assed ports made by lazy developersSlurms_M

Apparently lemmings think that.

Well, since developers are saying that the cell is crap, what did you expect?

Sorry. I guess I'll take the opinions of a couple of Cows in SW over those of paid professionals from now on.:P

That would be a good idea but I am no cow. I have a 360.

Having a 360 doesn't mean you don't bash it every chance you get, while praising the PS3 left and right. Seriously, if the 360 is overrated and every game is crap, as well as "paying for lag", why the hell do you even own the system? Do you really think your claims of owning it make you credible?

How often do I praise the PS3? Please tell me.

I bought it for Gears and Dead Rising, but I dislike both of those games.

you bought a system as expensive as the 360 for two games you had never played enough to know that you didn't like them? don't rush in next time.

[QUOTE="Slurms_M"]

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]The power of the cell doesn't come from half assed ports made by lazy developersPimpshigity21

Apparently lemmings think that.

Well, since developers are saying that the cell is crap, what did you expect?

Sorry. I guess I'll take the opinions of a couple of Cows in SW over those of paid professionals from now on.:P

Capcom has never said anything negative about the cell msot people that have are devs that have made almost all there games on Microsoft platforms are terrible devs in the first place. So whos advice are you gonna take the Ex harmonix dev?When Gutiar Hero 3 a very unimpressive game in the first place runs with framerate problems on both the PS3 and 360?

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"][QUOTE="btnheazy03"]

:lol:

BUT BUT TEH CELL CAN REVERSE TIEM

- Krazy Ken

FonkeyMunky7

PS3 version is superior. Notice the explosion and novelty red lights in the PS3 pic? You phail!

"Better to remain silent and be presumed an idiot, rather than to speak and remove all doubt."

I would take your own advice right now if I were you.

Edit: Wait, was this a joke post? Just noticed it didn't really make sense with some of your other posts.

And you should take your own advice as well. Go look up the other PS3 shots and they look about as good as the 360 version already even better in some ways. I wouldnt use a forum post from Kotaku as a reliable source. Regardless the game isnt out yet and and considering DMC4 according to Gamespot looks slighly better on PS3 a game that looks much better then Lost Planet dont be surprised if the PS3 version looks superior.