Be honest, do you have any knowledge of developing games on the 360 or PS3?

Okay, so it's no secret that half of the people on this board often make claims about game programming, but what evidence do they have to support this? Well from my experience any time anybody talks any of this BS they never have anything credible to back up their claims. Im sure lots of us are getting sick of people saying "PS3 can give off better graphics than anything else" or "The 360 can put out graphics as good as the PS3". But really, what do these people know? Are they working in videogame development? Well chances are there is maybe a very small amount of videogame developers here on gamespot, but I can't see them making these fanboy like claims, I think they're a little more mature than that. But back onto my point, the people that make these claims probably know nothing of videogame programming or development like the rest of us, so without further ado, please, stop talking crap unless you can back up your points with some evidence, thankyou.

I have no idea how to make games for 360 or PS3.

Must be hard though.

I find the lulz to be found in the hardware side of the things. I love hearing, "The Xbox 360 will magically get better graphics as time goes on.."

Um first of all, 99% of the PS2 and Xbox games looked the same as their early launch titles save for a few titles like Okami and Fable. Devs have to squeeze out those results and THEN SOME. To use that as evidence for the contrary is a bit ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that the PS3 or Xbox 360 BASED on the last generation will only have a few games that will break the barriers.

I have a degree in computer engineering, I hang out at a forum that plenty of professional devs frequent, and I've been working on making a PC/X360 game using XNA. I'd say this gives me enough knowledge and experience to say that while I know some things, there's a whole lot that I don't know.

The problem most people have around here is they take a semester of computer science courses and read a few major nelson blogs and think they know everything about everything.

I have no idea how to make games for 360 or PS3.

Must be hard though.

Willy105

It depends on what kind of game you're making. You don't have to make a hardware burning 3D FPS with smoking effects, you can make a 2D RPG or Platformer. And, it's quite obvious, looking at the Xbox Arcade, that many don't really care about the graphics as much as the gameplay.

I have a degree in computer engineering, I hang out at a forum that plenty of professional devs frequent, and I've been working on making a PC/X360 game using XNA. I'd say this gives me enough knowledge and experience to say that while I know some things, there's a whole lot that I don't know.

The problem most people have around here is they take a semester of computer science courses and read a few major nelson blogs and think they know everything about everything.

Teufelhuhn

I agree completely. Most people on SW are under 12 so the lulz is even better. :P

Um first of all, 99% of the PS2 and Xbox games looked the same as their early launch titlesVoodooGamer

my only experience in programing comes from the texas instruments calculator during math class, by the end of the year i had flunked math but created an RPG for my calculator, so it all evens out :P

I developed 2 PSN titles, a WiiWare title, and one retail 360 game in the time it took to read your post.

No, but I am in my senior year working on a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Psychology, so hopefully I will have some experience developing games on the PS4 and 720.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

Um first of all, 99% of the PS2 and Xbox games looked the same as their early launch titlesTeufelhuhn

Like I said, most of the game titles looked like their early counter-parts, I didn't say ALL. Out of my stack of PS2 games, I can only count 10 of them that look substantially better than the rest most notably, MGS, Okami, and Resident Evil 4.

Chaos Legion, Champions of Norrath, and Dark Alliance look every bit as bad as Summoner or Dark Cloud.

No, but I am in my senior year working on a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Psychology, so hopefully I will have some experience developing games on the PS4 and 720.

SpruceCaboose

I find the lulz to be found in the hardware side of the things. I love hearing, "The Xbox 360 will magically get better graphics as time goes on.."

Um first of all, 99% of the PS2 and Xbox games looked the same as their early launch titles save for a few titles like Okami and Fable. Devs have to squeeze out those results and THEN SOME. To use that as evidence for the contrary is a bit ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that the PS3 or Xbox 360 BASED on the last generation will only have a few games that will break the barriers.

VoodooGamer

I'm sorry, but when Xbox launched, there was a definite difference in visuals. Xbox established early in the game that it was a graphics powerhouse with Halo, DOA3 and multiplats like Splintercell and GTA.

I'm just responding to that specific statement.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

I find the lulz to be found in the hardware side of the things. I love hearing, "The Xbox 360 will magically get better graphics as time goes on.."

Um first of all, 99% of the PS2 and Xbox games looked the same as their early launch titles save for a few titles like Okami and Fable. Devs have to squeeze out those results and THEN SOME. To use that as evidence for the contrary is a bit ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that the PS3 or Xbox 360 BASED on the last generation will only have a few games that will break the barriers.

Blue-Sky

I'm sorry, but when Xbox launched, there was a definite difference in visuals. Xbox established early in the game that it was a graphics powerhouse with Halo, DOA3 and multiplats like Splintercell and GTA.

I'm just responding to that specific statement.

He was saying that games released later in the life cycle looked the same as they did at the beginning. That might be true for Xbox (no personal experience), but that is far off the mark for PS2. Even compare Final Fantasy XII to Final Fantasy X. HUGE difference. God of War II was no short of amazing. Definitely looked much better than the launch titles.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

No, but I am in my senior year working on a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Psychology, so hopefully I will have some experience developing games on the PS4 and 720.

Teufelhuhn

Programming student. I stress that student part. I can pretty much guarantee that I would do more harm than good. Give me a year and I will be more than happy to help when I would actually be a help.

Unless your XNA game is a VB calculator or a C++ contact manager! :P

I dont' know why people don't have a clear understanding of what I'm saying maybe I'm not clear enough, if that is true then I apologize for the inconvenience.

What I was trying to say was that the majority of titles for the console didn't look all that different from the launch titles. A lot of em' did YES. But, a majority? No.

Maybe, I'm the one who is clueless on this but from what I can tell this is true.

Okay, so it's no secret that half of the people on this board often make claims about game programming, but what evidence do they have to support this? Well from my experience any time anybody talks any of this BS they never have anything credible to back up their claims. Im sure lots of us are getting sick of people saying "PS3 can give off better graphics than anything else" or "The 360 can put out graphics as good as the PS3". But really, what do these people know? Are they working in videogame development? Well chances are there is maybe a very small amount of videogame developers here on gamespot, but I can't see them making these fanboy like claims, I think they're a little more mature than that. But back onto my point, the people that make these claims probably know nothing of videogame programming or development like the rest of us, so without further ado, please, stop talking crap unless you can back up your points with some evidence, thankyou.

ONLYDOD

I'm more of an artist than a programmer though I have been learning a lot of C++ lately so Im more well rounded for game development, but I'm far from being able to say I have a full grasp on the development on a PS3 and 360. I haven't got my hands on a dev kit on a PS3, but I have used XNA which is an amazing compiler especially when teamed up with Torque game builder and game engine.

From what I understand from most devs is that the PS3's architecture is way different than a PC which is what makes it harder to program for. The 360 is easy to do programming for since its got just about the same architecture as a PC. Though overall that doesn't effect which console can in the end have better visuals, but it does effect multiplat games if they want to get both versions of the game out at the same time.

I personally rarely comment on any discussions involving game development andvarious developer skill etc, unless it is in defense to already proven talent.

although the subject does fascinate me.

Okay, so it's no secret that half of the people on this board often make claims about game programming, but what evidence do they have to support this? Well from my experience any time anybody talks any of this BS they never have anything credible to back up their claims. Im sure lots of us are getting sick of people saying "PS3 can give off better graphics than anything else" or "The 360 can put out graphics as good as the PS3". But really, what do these people know? Are they working in videogame development? Well chances are there is maybe a very small amount of videogame developers here on gamespot, but I can't see them making these fanboy like claims, I think they're a little more mature than that. But back onto my point, the people that make these claims probably know nothing of videogame programming or development like the rest of us, so without further ado, please, stop talking crap unless you can back up your points with some evidence, thankyou.

ONLYDOD

i pretty much rely on the opinions of people who work in the industry, and the end product, and some general knowledge about the hardware, how it's really built and what that really means, combine all of this and come up with a consensus

ie: what does the cell processor really do compared to a normal processor? how is it built? how much cache does a Cell SPU really have to work with? how does a thread go from the core to the SPU and then back? what's the difference between an RSX and an Nvidia 7800? how do unified shaders in the Xenos GPU make a difference? what tech does the 360's CPU really borrow? what tech are both consoles' CPU's built on? etc.

then there's stuff like, who kind of programming techniques work and what ones don't work on each console's gpu? how does EDRAM affect everything? how does multithreading affect multiplats? etc.

overall, the general consensus at the end of the day is that imo the Cell is overdesigned, it would be as nice of a setup as cows believe it is - IF it were built like a PC CPU, but it's not, and overall it's built for straight-line efficiency - meaning it's powerful but also very limited in scope and flexibility as each SPU doesn't act as a normal multithreading core and etc.

either way, nobody here talks about this stuff anyways so i dunno why you even brought it up

I like using cinema mode on UC2 ....

I'm in second year university in media arts and I made a java game last semester in a programming course. I assure you guys even at 'my level' people don't have a clue how to make games. But after that course, I can see how complex it is just to even program simple games.

Why would I want or need knowledge, when I can just type "FACT!!!!!!!" before I start writing some idiotic fanboy rant/claim and, by System Wars standards, my point will still be valid?