Can PS3 handle Alan Wake?

Why is every topic about Alan Wake filled with stupid?

GreySeal9

Because we're at SW.

Why is every topic about Alan Wake filled with stupid?

GreySeal9

Burnout paradise has better graphics on ps3.

why are people mentioning RDR, it's like saying the xbox is more powerful than a PC because PC gta4 ran like crap.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="theseekar"]

Then why no PS3 games looks like it ?

I doubt it could run so huge scale, so next gen lighting and such huge detail in foliage all at the same time, RDR shows PS3 is old gen

Can you prove this?Or is it anytime something is wrong with ps3 version 360 is the one that got all attention.Did it ever occur to you that they had 40 megs less to work with on ps3 version?Or that RSX maybe could not draw everything,maybe it was bottlenecked?I do remember this is R*s 4th game on ps3 and they started it on ps3 as exclusives,whats wrong now?

[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]Easily, at 720p.Snugenz

Like RDR ? :P

More like inFamous since Alan Wake is developed as an exclusive.

Yes. Anything the 360 can handle the PS3 can handle and vice versa.

Lets compare to this game

Yes. Anything the 360 can handle the PS3 can handle and vice versa.

Puckhog04

Lets compare to this game

Respawn-d

We get it. Compare it to Infamous. Quit spamming the same damn pic.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] talking about scale, GOW3 is massive and the PS3 can easily run it ...... even at 720 ...... actually after finishing it ( i bought it 2 days ago) , i believe AW looks last generation. The game is sub HD, the PS3 can handle it easily .... and on 5 years in dev, i think the game could have looked next next generation. RDR is another case of multiplatform title that was made to take advantage of the x360 hardware more than the PS3 ....... can't really prove anything with it..... and yet the differences aren't huge, hence the same scores everywhere.2mrw

Can you prove this?Or is it anytime something is wrong with ps3 version 360 is the one that got all attention.Did it ever occur to you that they had 40 megs less to work with on ps3 version?Or that RSX maybe could not draw everything,maybe it was bottlenecked?I do remember this is R*s 4th game on ps3 and they started it on ps3 as exclusives,whats wrong now?

Im just asking you where did you get that it takes advantage of 360 hardware and not ps3.The thing is,they use deferred rendering in RDR,same like KZ2 and GTAIV.When you use deferred rendering you have to have framebuffer where your passes with lighting and other stuff are stored.RDR could have frame buffer around 20mb.On ps3 you have 462mb of free memory,20 more for fb is 442mb.On 360 you store framebuffer in eDRAM,do it in two tiles.So in 360 you have situation where you have 480mb with OS footprint and thats it.You dont loose those 20 megs like in ps3 since you have framebuffer.Your eDRAM will be friend for lots of transparencies like EXTENSIVE RDR foliage,particles and dust which are high bandwidth cost but they are almost free with enormous eDRAM bw but are costly on ps3 to do.That plus lack of memory and RSX could be reason for this...

And dont forget...since they already tile they have 2xMSAA without using anymore ram while on ps3 they still have to pay 15mb plus bandwidth for QAA.

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Lets compare to this game

SpiritOfFire117

We get it. Compare it to Infamous. Quit spamming the same damn pic.

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

if the PS3 can handle games like God of War 3, Uncharted 2, MGS4, Killzone 2 which are more advanced and can't be done on 360, surely they can do an inferior game like AW.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]Easily, at 720p.Gxgear

Like RDR ? :P

More like inFamous since Alan Wake is developed as an exclusive.

On an engine that was originally a multiplat engine. ;)

I'm not saying the PS3 couldnt run Alan Wake in fact i'd expect it to run it perfectly well.

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Lets compare to this game

Respawn-d

We get it. Compare it to Infamous. Quit spamming the same damn pic.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Can you prove this?Or is it anytime something is wrong with ps3 version 360 is the one that got all attention.Did it ever occur to you that they had 40 megs less to work with on ps3 version?Or that RSX maybe could not draw everything,maybe it was bottlenecked?I do remember this is R*s 4th game on ps3 and they started it on ps3 as exclusives,whats wrong now?

Im just asking you where did you get that it takes advantage of 360 hardware and not ps3.The thing is,they use deferred rendering in RDR,same like KZ2 and GTAIV.When you use deferred rendering you have to have framebuffer where your passes with lighting and other stuff are stored.RDR could have frame buffer around 20mb.On ps3 you have 462mb of free memory,20 more for fb is 442mb.On 360 you store framebuffer in eDRAM,do it in two tiles.So in 360 you have situation where you have 480mb with OS footprint and thats it.You dont loose those 20 megs like in ps3 since you have framebuffer.Your eDRAM will be friend for lots of transparencies like EXTENSIVE RDR foliage,particles and dust which are high bandwidth cost but they are almost free with enormous eDRAM bw but are costly on ps3 to do.That plus lack of memory and RSX could be reason for this...

And dont forget...since they already tile they have 2xMSAA without using anymore ram while on ps3 they still have to pay 15mb plus bandwidth for QAA.

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

rocoswav

It had year of development more on ps3,and had no aa.But Fallout 3 was made by same dev and Fallout 3 both are 720p but 360 is also 4xAA and better textures.Proven to be superior version...try to twits that one...

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

rocoswav

Link to Oblivion being sub-hd on the 360 ?

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]

We get it. Compare it to Infamous. Quit spamming the same damn pic.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] you really think that by bringing that 40 mb crap, you are proving that the x360 can handle the game better ?!!!!! in order to prove it, you have to be an expert in programming, so do i .... in ordr to understand each other ..... i can simply say the cell SOMEHOW can handle it, and you can;t prove me wrong either ........ GTA, RDR are the only R* games on the PS3 as far as i know. the x360 and the PS3 are so different that no multiplatform engine can work on them both 100 % ........ unless Crysis2 proves me wrong.2mrw

Im just asking you where did you get that it takes advantage of 360 hardware and not ps3.The thing is,they use deferred rendering in RDR,same like KZ2 and GTAIV.When you use deferred rendering you have to have framebuffer where your passes with lighting and other stuff are stored.RDR could have frame buffer around 20mb.On ps3 you have 462mb of free memory,20 more for fb is 442mb.On 360 you store framebuffer in eDRAM,do it in two tiles.So in 360 you have situation where you have 480mb with OS footprint and thats it.You dont loose those 20 megs like in ps3 since you have framebuffer.Your eDRAM will be friend for lots of transparencies like EXTENSIVE RDR foliage,particles and dust which are high bandwidth cost but they are almost free with enormous eDRAM bw but are costly on ps3 to do.That plus lack of memory and RSX could be reason for this...

And dont forget...since they already tile they have 2xMSAA without using anymore ram while on ps3 they still have to pay 15mb plus bandwidth for QAA.

Thats normal way to use 360.You HAVE to use eDRAM,i mean its one of key features.I would not be surprised if they do deferred lightning,particles and geometry culling(obviously) on spus since now a days everybody do that.So they take ps3 advantage as well...the point is that i think ps3 lacked about 60 megs that 360 did not,simple as that.

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

Bus-A-Bus

It had year of development more on ps3,and had no aa.But Fallout 3 was made by same dev and Fallout 3 both are 720p but 360 is also 4xAA and better textures.Proven to be superior version...try to twits that one...

you just proved my point LOL , and as for the "one year development" your right both versionsshould v'ebeen released at the same time 8 months before the release of the PS3:roll: good thing your not the marketing director forBethesda

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

Like RDR ? :P

Snugenz

More like inFamous since Alan Wake is developed as an exclusive.

On an engine that was originally a multiplat engine. ;)

I'm not saying the PS3 couldnt run Alan Wake in fact i'd expect it to run it perfectly well.

So why even bring up the previous comment?

I'm sure Sony's studios are more than capable of replicating the game. Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

rocoswav

It had year of development more on ps3,and had no aa.But Fallout 3 was made by same dev and Fallout 3 both are 720p but 360 is also 4xAA and better textures.Proven to be superior version...try to twits that one...

you just proved my point LOL , and as for the "one year development" your right both versionsshould v'ebeen released at the same time 8 months before the release of the PS3:roll: good thing your not the marketing director forBethesda

And whats your point?I said AW could be done on ps3,AW is developers mistake.It HAD to be better then it is actually...

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

More like inFamous since Alan Wake is developed as an exclusive.

Gxgear

On an engine that was originally a multiplat engine. ;)

I'm not saying the PS3 couldnt run Alan Wake in fact i'd expect it to run it perfectly well.

So why even bring up the previous comment?

I'm sure Sony's studios are more than capable of replicating the game. Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

I brought it up because of the two comments i quoted.

Its fantastic looking actually, and "nowhere close", you need your eyes checked. ;)

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Im just asking you where did you get that it takes advantage of 360 hardware and not ps3.The thing is,they use deferred rendering in RDR,same like KZ2 and GTAIV.When you use deferred rendering you have to have framebuffer where your passes with lighting and other stuff are stored.RDR could have frame buffer around 20mb.On ps3 you have 462mb of free memory,20 more for fb is 442mb.On 360 you store framebuffer in eDRAM,do it in two tiles.So in 360 you have situation where you have 480mb with OS footprint and thats it.You dont loose those 20 megs like in ps3 since you have framebuffer.Your eDRAM will be friend for lots of transparencies like EXTENSIVE RDR foliage,particles and dust which are high bandwidth cost but they are almost free with enormous eDRAM bw but are costly on ps3 to do.That plus lack of memory and RSX could be reason for this...

And dont forget...since they already tile they have 2xMSAA without using anymore ram while on ps3 they still have to pay 15mb plus bandwidth for QAA.

Thats normal way to use 360.You HAVE to use eDRAM,i mean its one of key features.I would not be surprised if they do deferred lightning,particles and geometry culling(obviously) on spus since now a days everybody do that.So they take ps3 advantage as well...the point is that i think ps3 lacked about 60 megs that 360 did not,simple as that.

This is why new accounts shouldn't be allowed to make threads in system wars. There would be much less of these obvious alt accounts. New people don't just come and post controversial topics. It's trolling and nothing else.nethernova

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]

elder scrolls 4 oblivion = open world

runs 720p on the PS3 , runs sub-HD on the 360 try to twist that one

rocoswav

It had year of development more on ps3,and had no aa.But Fallout 3 was made by same dev and Fallout 3 both are 720p but 360 is also 4xAA and better textures.Proven to be superior version...try to twits that one...

you just proved my point LOL , and as for the "one year development" your right both versionsshould v'ebeen released at the same time 8 months before the release of the PS3:roll: good thing your not the marketing director forBethesda

[QUOTE="nethernova"]This is why new accounts shouldn't be allowed to make threads in system wars. There would be much less of these obvious alt accounts. New people don't just come and post controversial topics. It's trolling and nothing else.2mrw

[QUOTE="nethernova"]This is why new accounts shouldn't be allowed to make threads in system wars. There would be much less of these obvious alt accounts. New people don't just come and post controversial topics. It's trolling and nothing else.2mrw

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] so all that talking about the eDRAM and you still not convinced that the game didn't take advantge of the x360 hardware :P !!!!!!! let me guess, if the game was PS3 exclusive, the dev. would find another way to make the game work 100% on the PS3 ...... i hope you got the point.2mrw

Thats normal way to use 360.You HAVE to use eDRAM,i mean its one of key features.I would not be surprised if they do deferred lightning,particles and geometry culling(obviously) on spus since now a days everybody do that.So they take ps3 advantage as well...the point is that i think ps3 lacked about 60 megs that 360 did not,simple as that.

thats definitely but lol at you assuming engine could overcome this.Id tech 5 was developed for 3 yrs,even id tech 4 had primitive virutal texturing.Its not something thats easy to implant.I mean it probably cant even be implanted.

About spus and eDRAM.Thats exactly what im talking about.They are different architectures.When they say we do this on spus,that does not mean you cant do it any other way,its just needs to be taken advantage of.Something that Id Tech 5 and Cryengine 3 have in mind...

So, what do you think?

Can the PS3 handle Alan Wake? :roll:

spudofwar13

For creating two high count alan wake threads providing endless lulz and giving SW a new meme

seekaris now a SW legend

If they made the game from scratch on the PS3 yeah it would run and look better on the PS3. If your talking about a simple port no it probably wouldn't look as good.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

On an engine that was originally a multiplat engine. ;)

I'm not saying the PS3 couldnt run Alan Wake in fact i'd expect it to run it perfectly well.

Snugenz

So why even bring up the previous comment?

I'm sure Sony's studios are more than capable of replicating the game. Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

I brought it up because of the two comments i quoted.

Its fantastic looking actually, and "nowhere close", you need your eyes checked. ;)

I don't need my eyes checked to know ugly textures when I see them, but feel free to join theseeker's ranks and beat a dead horse.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Thats normal way to use 360.You HAVE to use eDRAM,i mean its one of key features.I would not be surprised if they do deferred lightning,particles and geometry culling(obviously) on spus since now a days everybody do that.So they take ps3 advantage as well...the point is that i think ps3 lacked about 60 megs that 360 did not,simple as that.

thats definitely but lol at you assuming engine could overcome this.Id tech 5 was developed for 3 yrs,even id tech 4 had primitive virutal texturing.Its not something thats easy to implant.I mean it probably cant even be implanted.

About spus and eDRAM.Thats exactly what im talking about.They are different architectures.When they say we do this on spus,that does not mean you cant do it any other way,its just needs to be taken advantage of.Something that Id Tech 5 and Cryengine 3 have in mind...

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="nethernova"]This is why new accounts shouldn't be allowed to make threads in system wars. There would be much less of these obvious alt accounts. New people don't just come and post controversial topics. It's trolling and nothing else.nervmeister

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

So why even bring up the previous comment?

I'm sure Sony's studios are more than capable of replicating the game. Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

Gxgear

I brought it up because of the two comments i quoted.

Its fantastic looking actually, and "nowhere close", you need your eyes checked. ;)

I don't need my eyes checked to know ugly textures when I see them, but feel free to join theseeker's ranks and beat a dead horse.

Oh no ugly textures, game am fail. :roll:

I dont deny the game's faults but to say its "nowhere near" the PS3's top graphical games is a joke.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

I brought it up because of the two comments i quoted.

Its fantastic looking actually, and "nowhere close", you need your eyes checked. ;)

Snugenz

I don't need my eyes checked to know ugly textures when I see them, but feel free to join theseeker's ranks and beat a dead horse.

Oh no ugly textures, game am fail. :roll:

I dont deny the game's faults but to say its "nowhere near" the PS3's top graphical games is a joke.

Go ahead and reread the part where I said that.

Yeah I didn't.

The joke's the fact that even though you admit Alan Wake's shortcomings, you still think it can go ten rounds with GEoW2 or UC2.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

Oh no ugly textures, game am fail. :roll:

I dont deny the game's faults but to say its "nowhere near" the PS3's top graphical games is a joke.

Gxgear

Go ahead and reread the part where I said that.

Yeah I didn't.

Did ya not...

Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

Gxgear

Really ?

Yes. Especially if the developers can take advantage of the SPU's .

Did ya not...

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

Alan Wake is good looking but nowhere close to being comparable to the best looking titles on both consoles.

Snugenz

Really ?

"both consoles"

Wait what?

Don't make it out like a PS3 vs. 360 thing when it obviously isn't.

"both consoles"

Wait what?

Don't make it out like a PS3 vs. 360 thing when it obviously isn't.

Gxgear

I'm really not making it a PS3 vs. 360 thing, but the PS3 does have the best looking exclusives this gen, which is why i singled it out.

Doesnt change the fact that "AW is nowhere close" is a joke.

It can handle everything but that game's lighting, it has better lighting than Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God of War 3, and I played all those PS3 exclusives too.

mitu123

It can handle everything but that game's lighting, it has better lighting than Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God of War 3, and I played all those PS3 exclusives too.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

I'm really not making it a PS3 vs. 360 thing, but the PS3 does have the best looking exclusives this gen, which is why i singled it out.

Doesnt change the fact that "AW is nowhere close" is a joke.

Gxgear

The joke's the fact that even though you admit Alan Wake's shortcomings, you still think it can go ten rounds with GEoW2 or UC2.

Gxgear

Looks like we got another theseeker on our hands.

I never said that.

Just because it cant quite compete doesnt mean its "nowhere close".

:roll: