Can we come to an agreement that PS3 is 25 - 50% more powerful?

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

The PS3 has blu-ray plus the HDD, and just the architect altogether so yeah *if you wanna get technical ur just wasting mytime*...There's no denying which one is the most powerful.

whitetiger3521

Care to explain why RDR looks so much better on 360 then

If PS3 was any bit more powerfull, they would look same or worst on 360, as logic dictates

If developers put the effort into the PS3 and take advantage of the extra coding space.... But ya see it's easier and probally cheaper to use the stripped down 360 version instead.

[QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

Care to explain why RDR looks so much better on 360 then

If PS3 was any bit more powerfull, they would look same or worst on 360, as logic dictates

Supafly1

If developers put the effort into the PS3 and take advantage of the extra coding space.... But ya see it's easier and probally cheaper to use the stripped down 360 version instead.

I keep hearing that they are about equal, even the programmers and game designers agree. Hardware is something you can't dispute or measure for "teh graphics".

But what you can measure is talent, the talent of the developers and the designers behind the games. And so far, Sony's 1st-party devs have shown more dedication and aptitude than any 360 devs to date. Hence why, they produce high quality games that keep pushing the bar for consoles. While the 360 is yet to introduce a game that even rivals titles like Uncharted 2, GoW 3 or even Killzone 2.

So while the hardware might be equal, the actual commitment and expertise is different between the console devs. This gives the fans the illusion that the PS3 is pumping out better looking games due to "TEH CELL", when in reality it is the talent and the dedication of the developers that deliver the goods. Oh and also the humongous budget that Sony pays up.

PabloEscobar20

You sir state the truth. Most people know this but won't admit it.

[QUOTE="Supafly1"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

If developers put the effort into the PS3 and take advantage of the extra coding space.... But ya see it's easier and probally cheaper to use the stripped down 360 version instead.

Tyrant156

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

and you mean next gen lighting, vast open areas, filled with huge thick forests with immense detail and huge visibility without faked 2D backdrops does not !!!! ???? dictate graphics ?

Link ? Proof ? Or is just your opinion ?

And BTW with jugnle in U2, you mean the narrow paths with walls around that had also a few trees stuck around those walls ? That is not jungle, that is a dungeon

Crysis was mainly hyped for its scale, and detaield forests and next gen lighting, all things that Alan Wake has and U2 does not

I am also doing graphics for 15+ years now, so when i see forests,i know is better than tiny paths and walls, vastly more detail and hard to light properly

Lol what programs do you use? and what iteration did you start on? also what kinda tech stuff i'll be wanting examples and no copy pasta's.

oh aye on the matter of the polys.

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/5942.html

@ bolded point is that your best excuse b...b.b...bbut its linear *insert cry face here*....lemmings these days higher native res and poly counts mean more on the graphics level.

Sorry, but no, resolution and polygon counts are just one aspect, just that

And how do you even know how many polygons AW uses ? Link ?

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="Supafly1"] So in other words: "Games are more easy to make on the X-box 360 so that must mean it's stripped down and crap." You don't anything about game design, why post nonsense?Ravensmash

Man we really need Crysis 2 and Rage to come out sofanboys can realize they dont have a super computer with the PS3. Its the same outdated hardware as the 360.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"] No, I think what he is saying is the stripped down version is just the 360 ported over with no improvements for the PS3. Same thing happened with GTA4savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="Supafly1"] So in other words: "Games are more easy to make on the X-box 360 so that must mean it's stripped down and crap." You don't anything about game design, why post nonsense?Ravensmash

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] There is nothing graphically that could be added though.

Ravensmash

it has less memory to work with, this will always make multiplats suffer in some way, a game like RDR will have more stuff on screen because of it, and possibly even sharper textures... oh wait it does!

Another thing to note is the SPE's don't really work well with open world or sandbox games. Asymetrical multicore design is difficult to get them all running at 100%, unless you have everything all ready to go, as in you know whats going to be needed to be processed next. Scripted scenes work well with the SPE's and it really pays off in GOW3, UC2, kz2. But the 360 does have an edge here, its design was to reduce alot of the bottlenecks and create something thats more effiecient. It might not have the same peak power, but its able to maintain higher poweracross just about every scenario you can throw at it, except for where the ps3 is strong.

No, I think what he is saying is the stripped down version is just the 360 ported over with no improvements for the PS3. Same thing happened with GTA4Tyrant156

[QUOTE="chrisPperson"][QUOTE="RavenLoud"] You know, I always wondered why the mods didn't ban you yet, now I understand. People like you are the heart and soul of SW and everything that makes it great, you guys are what keep all the smart people here: teh lulz is just too much. My hat off to you sir. I just learned an important concept today. :P

That being said, I disagree, in fact, AW is pretty much just as linear as MGSIV (it also had amazing detail), which didn't just get 10/10 for its graphics you know... The rest of your post is so full of bias and hyperboles that I won't even bother. I'll just let some other angry cow debunk you instead.

You seem so certain of something that is 100% false

U2 has a tiny world, that is not my fault that i cant consider a design used in PS1 era ... next gen, how could i ?

You see, i am nota PS3 ONLY gamer, so i have the choice to play in bigger, more open and using next gen detail, forests and lighting games on 360

the xbox is closerto the Ps3 withAlanWake than i first thought. But i would still say that the Ps3 looks better by about 10% ish. I own both consoles and they both look pretty good.

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] There is nothing graphically that could be added though.

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] You're not really adding, just making the game run better with PS3's capabilities in mind and not just sending out a rushed port like Bayonetta. Bethesda did a great job with Oblivion, taking the 360 port and improving the game for the PS3 syatem.Tyrant156

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] only a year later, plus didn't the 360 get the improvements via patchsavagetwinkie

Not trying to be mean but where did you get this information?

I was going to respond to his post but I think you took the words out of my mouth. theseekar: "Last Gen" that seems to be your favorite word. From what I've seen, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, GOW 3, or even your favorite games- Halo Reach, Alan Wake, and Gears of War are by no means "Last Gen" in any sense. They are all great looking games, and it is really obvious you have possibly never even seen a PS3, much less played any games on one.chrisPperson

You seem so certain of something that is 100% false

U2 has a tiny world, that is not my fault that i cant consider a design used in PS1 era ... next gen, how could i ?

You see, i am nota PS3 ONLY gamer, so i have the choice to play in bigger, more open and using next gen detail, forests and lighting games on 360

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] Well that's my point, with time and effort RDR can be made to look better on the PS3. It sounds to me like you're saying RDR can never look as good as it does now on the PS3. To me it seems like Rock star felt it looked good enough for the PS3 and released it.

Whitefire78

Not trying to be mean but where did you get this information?

I know the 360 has 32mb of system reserved space leaving it, it also has an extra 10mb embedded for a frame buffer

but out of the 512mb, 360 has 480mb dedicated to games +10mb embedded,

and ps3 has 416mb +256kb *6 (1.5mb) for each spe for games. I just want to point out this is release specs, i do know that sony has slimmed down the OS a bit, so thats where i got smaller edge. Granted i havn't been able to find anything on how much the system is still reserving,

The PS3 looks really good. The 360 looks really good.

Does it really matter how much better one might be than the other?

Maybe I'm just on the wrong board.

The PS3 looks really good. The 360 looks really good.

Does it really matter how much better one might be than the other?

Maybe I'm just on the wrong board.

sonicmj1

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

hamzah1235

But you cant compare it that way since one company(Sony) has TONS of 1st party studios,that are more talented and have ps3 tailored engines,they share tech and they are basically competing among themselves while MS 1st party is non existent,best looking exclusive is on 3rd party engine...

Better way is to compare them by multiplats,EVERY time that one console had edge in multiplats it was more powerful,thats enough for me to think that ps3 is not superior.More powerful by 2-5%,maybe,but superior,NO.

[QUOTE="Whitefire78"]

yah but my point was oblivion doesn't look better since they updated the 360 release. That little bit of memory the 360 has to work with still goes a long way, why do you think theres more visible stuff on screen on the 360 version, sharper textures, 360 has more space to work with. Small space, but enough to make an noticable difference, you'll never have a 1:1 on a game like rdr because the ps3 just can't load as much as the 360, that is a factsavagetwinkie

Not trying to be mean but where did you get this information?

I know the 360 has 32mb of system reserved space leaving it, it also has an extra 10mb embedded for a frame buffer

but out of the 512mb, 360 has 480mb dedicated to games +10mb embedded,

and ps3 has 416mb +256kb *6 (1.5mb) for each spe for games. I just want to point out this is release specs, i do know that sony has slimmed down the OS a bit, so thats where i got smaller edge. Granted i havn't been able to find anything on how much the system is still reserving,

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

hamzah1235

But Alan Wake destroys any PS3 exclsuive graphically, and RDR looks loads better on 360, making 360 obviously looking 50-100% stronger than PS3 old and datedhardware

actually as of now the 360 has a huge memory lock, its actually very big, like 100Mb, it'll be resolved with the x engine toolset though, reach is the first one using it.mayceV

Any link for that ? I only knew it took 32MB out of the 512MB for the OS

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"]

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

But you cant compare it that way since one company(Sony) has TONS of 1st party studios,that are more talented and have ps3 tailored engines,they share tech and they are basically competing among themselves while MS 1st party is non existent,best looking exclusive is on 3rd party engine...

Better way is to compare them by multiplats,EVERY time that one console had edge in multiplats it was more powerful,thats enough for me to think that ps3 is not superior.More powerful by 2-5%,maybe,but superior,NO.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"]

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

hamzah1235

But you cant compare it that way since one company(Sony) has TONS of 1st party studios,that are more talented and have ps3 tailored engines,they share tech and they are basically competing among themselves while MS 1st party is non existent,best looking exclusive is on 3rd party engine...

Better way is to compare them by multiplats,EVERY time that one console had edge in multiplats it was more powerful,thats enough for me to think that ps3 is not superior.More powerful by 2-5%,maybe,but superior,NO.

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"]

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

theseekar

But Alan Wake destroys any PS3 exclsuive graphically, and RDR looks loads better on 360, making 360 obviously looking 50-100% stronger than PS3 old and datedhardware

Lolz Lolz... He be funny... Your joking i presume.... Alan Wake is Great at its best But nothing blowing of the mind. :)

No, we can't, but we can agree that each is more powerful in certain areas and there are trade-offs across the board, but they are more or less identical in practice. Can we? I'll agree to this. /signedHahadouken

Yes.If RSX delivered as thought ps3 would be more powerful since cell would do things(animations,physics) that xenon simply could not,but since RSX turned out to be PC gpu of shelf cell has to be used alot to cover that,so it ends up pretty neck and neck.

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

But you cant compare it that way since one company(Sony) has TONS of 1st party studios,that are more talented and have ps3 tailored engines,they share tech and they are basically competing among themselves while MS 1st party is non existent,best looking exclusive is on 3rd party engine...

Better way is to compare them by multiplats,EVERY time that one console had edge in multiplats it was more powerful,thats enough for me to think that ps3 is not superior.More powerful by 2-5%,maybe,but superior,NO.

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="Whitefire78"]

Not trying to be mean but where did you get this information?

mayceV

I know the 360 has 32mb of system reserved space leaving it, it also has an extra 10mb embedded for a frame buffer

but out of the 512mb, 360 has 480mb dedicated to games +10mb embedded,

and ps3 has 416mb +256kb *6 (1.5mb) for each spe for games. I just want to point out this is release specs, i do know that sony has slimmed down the OS a bit, so thats where i got smaller edge. Granted i havn't been able to find anything on how much the system is still reserving,

The original dev kit only had 512mb, it was basically just like a normal 360, what this means is they have to write the debug tools into the game itself, which could be almost 100mb. The new dev kit allows them to make the game utilizing all the memory and make the tools on the side so it doesn't have to be built in. Any way some debug tools could be 100mb but i doubt there would be that many.

Plus you don't actually have to set aside memory, or you can test your game, disable the tools and throw some extra stuff in. But its not locked and the new dev kit will make it easer to test with all the game assets.

I lol at the lemmings trying to state that the 360 is equal to the PS3 in terms of hardware prowess :lol:. If exclusive titles are any indication of which platforms are more powerful, (Which they obviously are) PS3 is definately more powerful, as GOW3, U2, and KZ2 are in their own league graphically.Only hardcore Lems would ever state that any title on their platform is anywhere near the graphical fidelity of those titles. I would estimate its about 20% more powerful than the 360, due to te Blu-Ray and the Cell, in which developers use to maximize GPU efficiency by off-loading tasks onto the Blu-Ray and the Cell processor

hamzah1235

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

But you cant compare it that way since one company(Sony) has TONS of 1st party studios,that are more talented and have ps3 tailored engines,they share tech and they are basically competing among themselves while MS 1st party is non existent,best looking exclusive is on 3rd party engine...

Better way is to compare them by multiplats,EVERY time that one console had edge in multiplats it was more powerful,thats enough for me to think that ps3 is not superior.More powerful by 2-5%,maybe,but superior,NO.

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/04/6600.ars ps3 uses 96mb of space I've read another 9mb for a friends list, but sounds stupid.

I know the 360 has 32mb of system reserved space leaving it, it also has an extra 10mb embedded for a frame buffer

but out of the 512mb, 360 has 480mb dedicated to games +10mb embedded,

and ps3 has 416mb +256kb *6 (1.5mb) for each spe for games. I just want to point out this is release specs, i do know that sony has slimmed down the OS a bit, so thats where i got smaller edge. Granted i havn't been able to find anything on how much the system is still reserving,

savagetwinkie

Of course! Lets use multiplats! Games which are almost never hailed for their graphical fidelity and games which are almost ported from one system to another without any specific optimization towards the system its being ported to, while (for the most part) using middle-ware, out-dated engines to show off their graphical prowess! Of course! How culd i be so foolish :roll:...The PS3 is about 20% more powerfulhamzah1235

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="mayceV"] actually as of now the 360 has a huge memory lock, its actually very big, like 100Mb, it'll be resolved with the x engine toolset though, reach is the first one using it.mayceV

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"] Of course! Lets use multiplats! Games which are almost never hailed for their graphical fidelity and games which are almost ported from one system to another without any specific optimization towards the system its being ported to, while (for the most part) using middle-ware, out-dated engines to show off their graphical prowess! Of course! How culd i be so foolish :roll:...The PS3 is about 20% more powerfulhamzah1235

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

You probably played ps3 version of RDR since its sub hd and has QAA that blur textures thats why because RDR has awesome textures,especially for open world game.And is technically VERY impressive.Awesome textures,amazing animations,unlimited draw distance,superb lightning,god rays,physics,very detailed environments with LOTS of demanding to render foliage,most epic weather effects,everything is animated great in the world,even animals are used with mo cap,it feels alive...You really dont know what you are talking about...

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/04/6600.ars ps3 uses 96mb of space I've read another 9mb for a friends list, but sounds stupid.

I know the 360 has 32mb of system reserved space leaving it, it also has an extra 10mb embedded for a frame buffer

but out of the 512mb, 360 has 480mb dedicated to games +10mb embedded,

and ps3 has 416mb +256kb *6 (1.5mb) for each spe for games. I just want to point out this is release specs, i do know that sony has slimmed down the OS a bit, so thats where i got smaller edge. Granted i havn't been able to find anything on how much the system is still reserving,

savagetwinkie

The article actually states loosing anything from 20MB to 100MB ram, so it is not like an offcial number

Also you dont HAVE to use debug tools on 360, you can debug it on PC and then use th full 360 ram to run the game and see where it crashes

Then you go back to the code and see why it happened, on PC

If you cant find why, you can lower TEMPORARILY your ram usuage, which is easy and debug on 360

Only if the problem is ram related AND you cant spot it, you would ever need to have the debug tools on 360 ram, to solve it, but i am sure you can handle almost anything without the debug tools, or with just lowering your ram usuage in the level you get the problem, and then adding everyting back for testing

[QUOTE="hamzah1235"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

RDR is probably hardware demanding as UC2 is if not more.So you get the point.You are saying that multiplats dont push system and exclusives do,than tell me how come that RDR looks better then ANY 360 exclusive?Its clearly MS 1st party i crap when it comes to pushin it,they dont even do that.

Anyway...2 more days and Crysis 2 will be shown and will blow all this ps3 superiority crap away,im getting tired by that...

mayceV

Yes, i will :)

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="mayceV"] actually as of now the 360 has a huge memory lock, its actually very big, like 100Mb, it'll be resolved with the x engine toolset though, reach is the first one using it.theseekar

The article actually states loosing anything from 20MB to 100MB ram, so it is not like an offcial number

Also you dont HAVE to use debug tools on 360, you can debug it on PC and then use th full 360 ram to run the game and see where it crashes

Then you go back to the code and see why it happened, on PC

If you cant find why, you can lower TEMPORARILY your ram usuage, which is easy and debug on 360

Only if the problem is ram related AND you cant spot it, you would ever need to have the debug tools on 360 ram, to solve it, but i am sure you can handle almost anything without the debug tools, or with just lowering your ram usuage in the level you get the problem, and then adding everyting back for testing

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] actually it doesn't, and the x engine has nothing to do with what your talking about. The original dev kit only had 512mb, it was basically just like a normal 360, what this means is they have to write the debug tools into the game itself, which could be almost 100mb. The new dev kit allows them to make the game utilizing all the memory and make the tools on the side so it doesn't have to be built in. Any way some debug tools could be 100mb but i doubt there would be that many. savagetwinkie

The article actually states loosing anything from 20MB to 100MB ram, so it is not like an offcial number

Also you dont HAVE to use debug tools on 360, you can debug it on PC and then use th full 360 ram to run the game and see where it crashes

Then you go back to the code and see why it happened, on PC

If you cant find why, you can lower TEMPORARILY your ram usuage, which is easy and debug on 360

Only if the problem is ram related AND you cant spot it, you would ever need to have the debug tools on 360 ram, to solve it, but i am sure you can handle almost anything without the debug tools, or with just lowering your ram usuage in the level you get the problem, and then adding everyting back for testing

I have a code that handles both 360 and PC for my game, it is the same code, so if i get a crash on 360, i will be able to go to PC code (which is same) and see where the problem may be

I use XNA and C# and is all unified under one, i dont have to keep different code for each version, making debug far easier

Same code compiles for both platforms from what i have gathered, have not used it yet, but that is what it seems to be like

XNA and DirectX behind it, keep the code hardware free, so only those that use special engines and tricks would run in problems with using 360, i use it like it was another normal PC with a DX video card

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="theseekar"]

The article actually states loosing anything from 20MB to 100MB ram, so it is not like an offcial number

Also you dont HAVE to use debug tools on 360, you can debug it on PC and then use th full 360 ram to run the game and see where it crashes

Then you go back to the code and see why it happened, on PC

If you cant find why, you can lower TEMPORARILY your ram usuage, which is easy and debug on 360

Only if the problem is ram related AND you cant spot it, you would ever need to have the debug tools on 360 ram, to solve it, but i am sure you can handle almost anything without the debug tools, or with just lowering your ram usuage in the level you get the problem, and then adding everyting back for testing

theseekar

I have a code that handles both 360 and PC for my game, it is the same code, so if i get a crash on 360, i will be able to go to PC code (which is same) and see where the problem may be

I use XNA and C# and is all unified under one, i dont have to keep different code for each version, making debug far easier

Same code compiles for both platforms from what i have gathered, have not used it yet, but that is what it seems to be like

XNA and DirectX behind it, keep the code hardware free, so only those that use special engines and tricks would run in problems with using 360, i use it like it was another normal PC with a DX video card

[QUOTE="PabloEscobar20"]

I keep hearing that they are about equal, even the programmers and game designers agree. Hardware is something you can't dispute or measure for "teh graphics".

But what you can measure is talent, the talent of the developers and the designers behind the games. And so far, Sony's 1st-party devs have shown more dedication and aptitude than any 360 devs to date. Hence why, they produce high quality games that keep pushing the bar for consoles. While the 360 is yet to introduce a game that even rivals titles like Uncharted 2, GoW 3 or even Killzone 2.

So while the hardware might be equal, the actual commitment and expertise is different between the console devs. This gives the fans the illusion that the PS3 is pumping out better looking games due to "TEH CELL", when in reality it is the talent and the dedication of the developers that deliver the goods. Oh and also the humongous budget that Sony pays up.

Persistantthug

You see,

I've heard this theory many times before, and I've got to point out the absurdity of it.

It's as if you are saying that Bungie, that Remedy, Turn 10, Lionhead, even Ubiosoft (Splinter Cell)....you're telling me that all of these devs are subpar....that they are all significantly less talented then their peers in spite of being considered "top notch" game developers themselves.

I have to wonder if anyone that's brought this sentiment has stopped to actually listen to themselves.....It's really absurd and condescending to them.

The closer truth is, is XBOX 360 is not as powerful as the PS3 and the reason it can't deliver HD with its own 2010 exclusives is because.....well...it can't

This is not unreasonable...not by a longshot.

Just one note,Ubi is 3rd party,they made SC on UE2(modified last gen engine),Lionhead and Bungie also work with last gen engine,if you dont believe me check it for yourself,and yea,they are less talented as far as tech goes then top tier from Sony along with having last gen engines.

[QUOTE="PabloEscobar20"]

I keep hearing that they are about equal, even the programmers and game designers agree. Hardware is something you can't dispute or measure for "teh graphics".

But what you can measure is talent, the talent of the developers and the designers behind the games. And so far, Sony's 1st-party devs have shown more dedication and aptitude than any 360 devs to date. Hence why, they produce high quality games that keep pushing the bar for consoles. While the 360 is yet to introduce a game that even rivals titles like Uncharted 2, GoW 3 or even Killzone 2.

So while the hardware might be equal, the actual commitment and expertise is different between the console devs. This gives the fans the illusion that the PS3 is pumping out better looking games due to "TEH CELL", when in reality it is the talent and the dedication of the developers that deliver the goods. Oh and also the humongous budget that Sony pays up.

Persistantthug

You see,

I've heard this theory many times before, and I've got to point out the absurdity of it.

It's as if you are saying that Bungie, that Remedy, Turn 10, Lionhead, even Ubiosoft (Splinter Cell)....you're telling me that all of these devs are subpar....that they are all significantly less talented then their peers in spite of being considered "top notch" game developers themselves.

I have to wonder if anyone that's brought this sentiment has stopped to actually listen to themselves.....It's really absurd and condescending to them.

The closer truth is, is XBOX 360 is not as powerful as the PS3 and the reason it can't deliver HD with its own 2010 exclusives is because.....well...it can't

This is not unreasonable...not by a longshot.

but again, you don't understand that all those developers aren't shooting for 720p, resolution is one of those things that can be sacrificed. Like reach, do i want a game like UC2 so i can have my 720p, or do i want 40 ai 20 vehicles and non scripted fights to make for some chaotic and exciting gameplay? I take the gameplay, xbox studios are more about making fun gameplay while sony is too much about making pretty gameplay.

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Somewhat true, but you can't debug it on PC, its build is specific to 360 hardware so unless your running a different game engine on PC designed for x86, you can debug that but it won't effect the 360 build. Its just a different system, you can make the assets and game engine on pc though, you just can't run it.savagetwinkie

I have a code that handles both 360 and PC for my game, it is the same code, so if i get a crash on 360, i will be able to go to PC code (which is same) and see where the problem may be

I use XNA and C# and is all unified under one, i dont have to keep different code for each version, making debug far easier

Same code compiles for both platforms from what i have gathered, have not used it yet, but that is what it seems to be like

XNA and DirectX behind it, keep the code hardware free, so only those that use special engines and tricks would run in problems with using 360, i use it like it was another normal PC with a DX video card

Well, i have created a full 2D RPG wth XNA, and runs fine, i dont see why it is for hobbyists only, it is just not for demanding games, yes, but you can create amazing actual games with it, definatly far from a hobby

Not all games need huge resouces, or try to be the best looking, or even use 3D rendering (well, 2D on XNA uses 3D rendering but very basic), so dont need to go through anything other than XNA, like the game i am making

Of course, if i can use all the ram by using unified code or tricks for the debugging part, then bigger developers with huge teams can find ways to do the same i suppose

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="theseekar"]

I have a code that handles both 360 and PC for my game, it is the same code, so if i get a crash on 360, i will be able to go to PC code (which is same) and see where the problem may be

I use XNA and C# and is all unified under one, i dont have to keep different code for each version, making debug far easier

Same code compiles for both platforms from what i have gathered, have not used it yet, but that is what it seems to be like

XNA and DirectX behind it, keep the code hardware free, so only those that use special engines and tricks would run in problems with using 360, i use it like it was another normal PC with a DX video card

theseekar

Well, i have created a full 2D RPG wth XNA, and runs fine, i dont see why it is for hobbyists only, it is just not for demanding games, yes, but you can create amazing actual games with it, definatly far from a hobby

Not all games need huge resouces, or try to be the best looking, or even use 3D rendering (well, 2D on XNA uses 3D rendering but very basic), so dont need to go through anything other than XNA, like the game i am making

Of course, if i can use all the ram by using unified code or tricks for the debugging part, then bigger developers with huge teams can find ways to do the same i suppose

Why dont you use UDK then?Its free UE3 :D

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] But XNA isn't the real dev kit, you don't get to really abuse the hardware yourself, your using calls that abstract that layer away that translate to both PC and 360. Its like using java, M$ was kind enough to translate everything into proper machine code for you, XNA is for hobbiest but not professionals. Although i could be wrong, you might still be able to do inline assembly with XNA, but once you have the dev kit you'll be designing code specific to that hardware and able to optimize it more by getting under that abstraction layer.Bus-A-Bus

Well, i have created a full 2D RPG wth XNA, and runs fine, i dont see why it is for hobbyists only, it is just not for demanding games, yes, but you can create amazing actual games with it, definatly far from a hobby

Not all games need huge resouces, or try to be the best looking, or even use 3D rendering (well, 2D on XNA uses 3D rendering but very basic), so dont need to go through anything other than XNA, like the game i am making

Of course, if i can use all the ram by using unified code or tricks for the debugging part, then bigger developers with huge teams can find ways to do the same i suppose

Why dont you use UDK then?Its free UE3 :D

For a 2D game ?Would that work ?

I like to keep things simple and right now i have a code i know exactly how it works, which for me is the most major thing

The game is ready BTW, so would not make sense to use anything else at that point :)