Cows --- Do you really believe some games can't be done on Xbox 360?

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]At the moment there is not a single game shown on the 360 that looks better than Heavy Rain most definetly. I don't care what type of game it is, because you guys compared different genres graphics to eachother all the time, so this does in fact count.MojondeVACA

Gears 2 can't be done on the PS3, really it can't. ;)

And for the last time, there is not a chance that RE5, or ANY MULTIPLAT EVER, is going to look better than either MGS4 or Gears. Period.

OrwellJames

Oh really, see what i heard (from sony PR none the less lol) that procedural generation will be a code that can be read off the blu-ray disc and stored as a small file; either cached on hdd or stored in the ram and will be the base of a larger piece of information or "files" (lol)being created off of that one file and the new information created will be the visuals, ai and physics we see on screen. Noting though, the large file created is not stored or cached for another use and is only reproduced when needed. Meaning the processes the spes are going thro constant procedural generation, the product of taht generation is then showen and discarded...

LibertySaint

O_o ...

If an item is on screen long enough to be seen and interacted with; it is sat in memory. AI and physics are just game code, so I don't know why they would mention them when referring to procedural generation.

If you want some first hand experience of procedural generation; I recommend looking up the demo scene and checking out the stuff on there. An entire 3D video may be only 64k, but you will notice they still use up the amount of ram you would expect from what is on screen.

"You must come from some other reality if you think gears,mgs4,kz2,hr look better than RE5 and FarCry2."

You know what, you're right, clearly the games that have to be built with the limitations of two very different platforms in mind are far better looking. There are very few people here or anywhere else who would agree with you. Everyone is entitled to their (stupid) opinion but it might be best if you kept yours to yourself.

i'll try my best...but i'm not the best person to answer...obviously

Isn't the PS3's RAM divided into traditional and dedicated graphics memory, the former being clocked at 3.2Ghz versus the latter at 700MHz same as the 360? While I'm not a PC gamer and thus not particularly nuanced in the field of graphics technology everything I've read has said that, regarding rendering and physics, the 6 usable components of the Cell processor are each good at specific types of functions, and the 256MB of dedicated graphics memory was able to utilize processing power far more efficiently.

I'm sorry PC gamers I'm probably slaughtering this so feel free to correct me. Nevertheless, the side by side comparison shows two consoles that are superficially nearly identical (512 MB RAM 3.2GHz Processor) but subtly (though importantly) quite different. Here's some important differences that I'd like to hear some knowledgeable opinions on:

-Sound processing is software-based in 360 and hardware-based in PS3. Does this mean extra processing power/RAM is used in the 360?Okay first question! :) So from what i've read, yes it does take up space but not nearly as much as one would think. The combined size of the software and the 360's os is still smaller then the ps3's os. I actually belive the software for sound generation is part of the 360's OS lol. AS for processing power, yes it will take processing power away from a game. Regarding the ps3, by hardware sound processing, they don't mean a sound card do they? Don't they mean an spe is used to make sound?

-PS3 has GDDR3 and XDR RAM, 360 only has GDDR3. How is this significant as regards efficiency of processor resources? As for the XDR Ram, yes it is more efficentt hen the gddr 3 ram but that doesn't mean it can be shared by the gpu as fast as the it can talk to the cell. Because the ram is dedicated on the ps3 the XDR ram connected to the cell is meant for the cell only and if the rsx would want to use that the XDR ram the data would have to go thro the cell in some kind of process to reach it and to be stored and then called upon when needed, bottle-necking the cell's main core. Overall the ps3's ram would be better for a game limited to small sized allocated data. If u want larger data files in the ram u may want to use the 360's unified ram because u can juggle it however u please without any negative performance to the hardware meaning larger textures or more textures can be stored on the 360's ram for the xenos to use. As well did u know the xenos has 10mb emedded ram, so really the 360 has 10mb more ram then the ps3. If a developer was looking to make a game fast and make it good they would want to use the 360 because less work to optimze the ram. AS well if they wanted huge textures or lots of them they would want to use the 360... But that can be disputed, so i'm not the best person to answer that lol.

-What's the difference between 3 dual-threaded cores and 7 single-threaded cores? The different components of Cell apparently support a diverse multitude of operations, but I haven't been able to find a lot of specific information on this, most likely because it seems to be quite complicated. The 3 cores on the 360 as symmetrically meaning easy multi-threading and the cell has 1 main core and 8 spes, 2 of which are dedicated to other system uses, leaving 6 spe for a game. The cell is an asymmetrical design meaning u have to code how each process is to be done on each spe, when on a the xenon in the 360 u can just make a code and it will be sent to one of the 3 cores, u can optimize the Xenos for better processing tho, like how devs on PC optimize for quad cores. Yes the cell can support a diverse selection of operation as can the 360, the cell is just better at some of those operation because each spe can be dedicated to one part of that operation when on the 360 one core would have to work out that whole operation. Yes it is very complicated... There is more to it, but i don't need to say it because i probably can't explain it well enough.

-PS3 has a dedicated processor for OS and 360 does not, but both feature in-game OS options. Is this a problem for the 360? No it is not a problem on the 360. Like on a pc u will have your Os running in the background and u can call upon at anytime u want by pushing a button or 2, as u can on 360 and ps3. Regarding the actual processing of the OS on the 360, the OS is operated on core 0 and is not always running on that core, the operation of the OS will move to what ever core is available and if no core is available the os will not run in background, but if the OS is called upon by pushing the in-game guide, operations ran by the game have to be decreased to run the OS, or peformance loss will result (which does occur in some games, but it is not bad as bad as i may make it sound, most people don't even notice.) Regarding playing music during a game, since the sound is ran by software, the game is already using that code and since its part of OS, when u play the music the game will usually shut off its music, but not sound effects allowing for the music to be played. If the game does not shut off its music when a user plays his/hers performance for the game is lost yes.... I'm not exactly sure how it all work since i'm not a developer but thats the jist of it i believe, right guys?

I'd appreciate honest and well-thought-out answers. Console gamers need not apply; you may be in love with your console but you know absolutely nothing about it. So unbiased PC guys, what's the verdict? Verdict is: Its up to the developer and their choice on a game. The consoles are both very well rounded and because of that they are machines that perform very similar.

There's also more information here although this guy seems incredibly biased against the PS3 (BC on 360 is "over 300 XBox games compatible" but on PS3 it's "Only partial support for Playstation 2." Come on guy).

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

OrwellJames

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

Oh really, see what i heard (from sony PR none the less lol) that procedural generation will be a code that can be read off the blu-ray disc and stored as a small file; either cached on hdd or stored in the ram and will be the base of a larger piece of information or "files" (lol)being created off of that one file and the new information created will be the visuals, ai and physics we see on screen. Noting though, the large file created is not stored or cached for another use and is only reproduced when needed. Meaning the processes the spes are going thro constant procedural generation, the product of taht generation is then showen and discarded...

AnnoyedDragon

O_o ...

If an item is on screen long enough to be seen and interacted with; it is sat in memory. AI and physics are just game code, so I don't know why they would mention them when referring to procedural generation.

If you want some first hand experience of procedural generation; I recommend looking up the demo scene and checking out the stuff on there. An entire 3D video may be only 64k, but you will notice they still use up the amount of ram you would expect from what is on screen.

Btw that 64kb thing u are talking about are talking about that german game? Cause yes i have that on my computer hehe.

yeah, yeah i know... hehe didn't you read my second part? :P

Btw that 64kb thing u are talking about are talking about that german game? Cause yes i have that on my computer hehe.

LibertySaint

I read the second part, I am just surprised at what Sony is trying to convince people of these days.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

yeah, yeah i know... hehe didn't you read my second part? :P

Btw that 64kb thing u are talking about are talking about that german game? Cause yes i have that on my computer hehe.

AnnoyedDragon

I read the second part, I am just surprised as what Sony is trying to convince people of these days.

bah, i don't need to read over my posts! lol i just read over my answers in red and such....man the grammar stinks, sometimes i don't even call something by its name, i just call it "IT"

lets just say i'm not good at communicating lol hope people understand what i typed...i could always go back and edit it, yes?

Both systems are basically equal. Some games will look better than others. It dosen't mean that one console is inferior to the other. I don't understand why people think this. PS3 and Xbox 360 are essentially equal graphics wise. It basically goes like this:

PC > Xbox 360 = PS3 > Wii.

Any game that is on 360 could be done on PS3 and any game that is on PS3 could be done on Xbox 360.

ThugKing6669

Personally I think its very obvious now that the ps3 does have a graphicall edge over the 360. The question is how much? Is it just a little or more? Unfortunately we wont be finding out until at least the end of 09.

bah, i don't need to read over my posts! lol i just read over my answers in red and such....man the grammar stinks, sometimes i don't even call something by its name, i just call it "IT"

lets just say i'm not good at communicating lol hope people understand what i typed...i could always go back and edit it, yes?

LibertySaint

[QUOTE="ThugKing6669"]

Both systems are basically equal. Some games will look better than others. It dosen't mean that one console is inferior to the other. I don't understand why people think this. PS3 and Xbox 360 are essentially equal graphics wise. It basically goes like this:

PC > Xbox 360 = PS3 > Wii.

Any game that is on 360 could be done on PS3 and any game that is on PS3 could be done on Xbox 360.

NinjaMunkey01

Personally I think its very obvious now that the ps3 does have a graphicall edge over the 360. The question is how much? Is it just a little or more? Unfortunately we wont be finding out until at least the end of 09.

you mean in the same way it was obvious the 360 had the graphical edge when gears of war released?

Isn't the PS3's RAM divided into traditional and dedicated graphics memory, the former being clocked at 3.2Ghz versus the latter at 700MHz same as the 360? While I'm not a PC gamer and thus not particularly nuanced in the field of graphics technology everything I've read has said that, regarding rendering and physics, the 6 usable components of the Cell processor are each good at specific types of functions, and the 256MB of dedicated graphics memory was able to utilize processing power far more efficiently.

I'm sorry PC gamers I'm probably slaughtering this so feel free to correct me. Nevertheless, the side by side comparison shows two consoles that are superficially nearly identical (512 MB RAM 3.2GHz Processor) but subtly (though importantly) quite different. Here's some important differences that I'd like to hear some knowledgeable opinions on:

-Sound processing is software-based in 360 and hardware-based in PS3. Does this mean extra processing power/RAM is used in the 360?

Extra memory and processor power would be used on the 360. Some processor power may be needed for the PS3, but not nearly as much since there is hardware to take the load off the CPU.

-PS3 has GDDR3 and XDR RAM, 360 only has GDDR3. How is this significant as regards efficiency of processor resources?

I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt that it would help out the cpu much. Memory is usually intended to allow multiple applications/processes run, it doesn't much affect how fast the processes are done.

-What's the difference between 3 dual-threaded cores and 7 single-threaded cores? The different components of Cell apparently support a diverse multitude of operations, but I haven't been able to find a lot of specific information on this, most likely because it seems to be quite complicated.

I think that the difference is that the dual threaded cores can share the load of the game. For example, if you have two dual core processors and are running an application(multi-threaded) that would use up 50% of the power on the first core, instead in theory there should be 25% load on both cores. The single threaded cores however, do not use this concept. Usually, I would think that each core would be assigned a specific task, such as physics or rendering. By doing this, the cell is making itself a CPU with important GPU qualities. Supposing the GPU can not handle rendering too many textures and the physics combined on one game, the CPU would help by taking the load off the GPU and vice-versa.

-PS3 has a dedicated processor for OS and 360 does not, but both feature in-game OS options. Is this a problem for the 360?

Not really, but it allows the PS3 to have more applications running simultaneously on the OS, such as downloading something, listening to music(although it hasn't been implemented yet) and other tasks, all while running a demanding game off the other cores.

I'd appreciate honest and well-thought-out answers. Console gamers need not apply; you may be in love with your console but you know absolutely nothing about it. So unbiased PC guys, what's the verdict?

There's also more information here although this guy seems incredibly biased against the PS3 (BC on 360 is "over 300 XBox games compatible" but on PS3 it's "Only partial support for Playstation 2." Come on guy).

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

OrwellJames

i hope that helped

I believe the games cant be done on a single DVD and the lack of a hard disk has to be a major pain to developers aswell

Performance wise the PS3 has yet to surpass the 360, id call them equal for now but the PS3 certainly has the bigger potantial

360 can't do crysis on very high settings....Heydanbud92

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]crysis can be done on consoles too. Ninja-Hippo

I have Crysis, and trust me, no it cant.

Really. It could. Would it look the same? Probably not, but it could.

Xbox sucks of course PS3 can pull better graphics then it.

WiiBalla

This is quite the fanboy question we are being asked. I mean, are you seriously asking if certain PS3 games couldn't be done at all on 360...or whether they can be done but with downgrading in certain areas? It sounds to me like a totally BS question intended to trap people you already made up your mind to disagree with.

Technically speaking any game can be done on any platform. Yes, RE5 can be put onto Wii, and Crysis could be put onto PS3. Hell, most FPS in terms of gameplay are still the same as 20 years ago so Halo could be put on N64. With the right downgrading in graphics, any game can be done on any console. Of course some may ask whether downgrading the game really makes it the same game or not, but that is a different debate for a different time.

Now, do cows believe certain games like Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid or Heavy Rain can't be done EXACTLY on 360 as they are on PS3. Well, we won't really know will we? Speculation is just speculation no matter whose side you are arguing for. Only the developers could answer this for certain and chances are they would just say what I said above...that anything is possible but there may be downgrades or changes. And the extent of those changes would be huge to fans of a console and "barely noticeable" to fans of the other system. Someone mentioned heavy rain was originally mutli plat? Well so was Alan Wake, but it doesn't stop lemmings from acting as if AW can't be done on PS3, or that it is graphically superior to all other games when its not even close. Plus we know that MS is publishing AW now, but the developers of Heavy Rain have stated Sony is basically giving the whatever they want to make the game as good and good looking as possible. So we don't know what has changd since the game went exlcusive. Sony could very well be teaching them to do things on the PS3 that couldn't be done on 360, or if the game was multiplat.

As for PS3 not proving its graphical superiority...I disagree. And until the 360 can release games that look like MEtal Gear or Heavy Rain, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. PS3 games are starting to look better...and lemmings are going to run damage control.

They probably just say that so hardcore lemmings get their feelings hurt and turn DEFENSE mode on and start making threads like these full of laughing emoticons so they can feel superior.

Welcome to SW.

Koalakommander

^^^^THAT^^^^

idk why i even click this board, its full of idiots and arroagant fanboys need a boast of confidence and feel the slighest bit insulted if someone has an opp diff than theres.

Dude, seriously, I've had 2 Xbox360s and both broke, so I went to the PS3. I had the 360 for 11 months for the first one and 11 days for the second. I've had my Ps3 since June 29, and the ps3 in MY P.O.V., the PS3 is better, and if feel the need to boast your system even more just because I point out something, maybe your psychologist can help you, I cant.

And as far as certin games not being on the 360, I have 3 words and one number

Metal Gear Solid 4

ps3 only or not, it just CAN NOT be ported to the 360. Its impossible, unless you want a game with like 8-10 disks. Its close to a 60gb game on one blu ray disk. it just cant man. at least at full value and graphics, sorry.

Gears 2 can't be done on the PS3, really it can't. ;)

PS3_3DO

360 can't do crysis on very high settings....Heydanbud92

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Too many lemmings jealous over great looking ps3 games , tis very sad.

AvIdGaMeR444

Too many cows thinking it is jealousy when it is actually just lemmings scratching their head wondering why cows think the PS3 outshines 360 graphically...

i lol at people like you :lol:

[QUOTE="Heydanbud92"]360 can't do crysis on very high settings....angelkimne

This is peoples argument now? Assume the vast majority of gaming PCs don't even have 'mainstream hardware', effectively denying PC from declaring PC graphics>Console graphics since 'apparently' only a small minority can run it even on high?

You don't have the figures to back that up, no one tracks the install base of PC performance.

Of course I don't have those figures to prove my side either. What I do have is what's considered mainstream hardware; the £80-100 range such as the 9600s, which will run Crysis on high at reduced but above 720p resolutions. Hell a little more and you have a 8800GT, then you can run Crysis on High at 1680x1050 like me.

I think ATI has something better for the price range though.

[QUOTE="leimeisei"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

Sony succeeded at a graphical powerhouse. I love how you lemmings always say "TEh 360 can haves a game just like uncharted or MGS4 anyday". oh really, well why doesn't it have one then???

Plus, the only reason PS3 was delayed by a year was so they could work the kinks out and not rush it and get a multi-billion dollar red ring of death problem.

And I love how cows think that having MGS4 and Uncharted somehow automatically means that the 360 is not capable of those graphics. Yes, those 2 games look amazing. But it is very arrogant of any cow to think that a console that has been on the market less than 3 years could never produce graphics equivalent of teh Uncharted and teh MGS4. I didn't think God of War 2 graphics could ever be done on PS2, but it happened. I didn't think Donkey Kong Country graphics would ever be possible on SNES, but it happened. But hey...teh MGS4 and teh Uncharted are just so ridiculously graphically awestrikingly magnificent, that the 360 just can't ever produce anything on that level. :roll:

I love how right the TC thinks he is. Honestly, there has not been a multiplatform game that has looked so much more superior on the PS3 it makes the 360's graphics look like ****. But MGS4 or Uncharted isn't on the 360, so you really can't know if the 360 can handle the PS3's graphics. We can never really know, so I don't know why you or other lemings are in this delusional cloud thinking that anything the PS3 can do the 360 can do and better, but then again I don't know why cows think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have those kind of graphics on the 360.

[QUOTE="Heydanbud92"]360 can't do crysis on very high settings....MojondeVACA

The Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are on par with almost everything except two things:

-Graphics;

-Hardware;

Playstation 3 graphics are better than the 360 except on ports because there made for the 360, heavy rain and MGS4 really prove that the PS3 is better in graphics.

One of the biggest problems is the hardware on 360 because it sucks, its always RROD and microsoft always promises that there going to fix that and they don't.

62% of Xbox 360's have 3 mounts of life or less.

The PlayStation 3 doesn't have any hardware problems.

Both have a great library of games, but the PS3 is better.8)

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

They probably just say that so hardcore lemmings get their feelings hurt and turn DEFENSE mode on and start making threads like these full of laughing emoticons so they can feel superior.

Welcome to SW.

1noteshort

^^^^THAT^^^^

idk why i even click this board, its full of idiots and arroagant fanboys need a boast of confidence and feel the slighest bit insulted if someone has an opp diff than theres.

Dude, seriously, I've had 2 Xbox360s and both broke, so I went to the PS3. I had the 360 for 11 months for the first one and 11 days for the second. I've had my Ps3 since June 29, and the ps3 in MY P.O.V., the PS3 is better, and if feel the need to boast your system even more just because I point out something, maybe your psychologist can help you, I cant.

And as far as certin games not being on the 360, I have 3 words and one number

Metal Gear Solid 4

ps3 only or not, it just CAN NOT be ported to the 360. Its impossible, unless you want a game with like 8-10 disks. Its close to a 60gb game on one blu ray disk. it just cant man. at least at full value and graphics, sorry.

Here we go again with this...Take the uncompressed audio out of MGS4, and you've more or less got a game that wouldn't even be particularly difficult to fit on one disc. Hell, even if it took more than one, an option to install the game would completely negate that (after all, MGS4 makes you install, what, 4 times? 5?). Would MGS4 on the 360 be as convenient as it is on the PS3? Probably not. Would you be able to do uncompressed audio? No; you'd have to settle for something like lossless audio. But the actual game itself not only isn't particularly big (you can beat it in under 5 hours, and a normal play through watching all the cutscenes will probably run you 15-20 hours), but since the cutscenes are rendered in real-time, they take up virtually no space, making the game even easier to fit on a DVD. Seriously, saying putting MGS4 on the 360 is impossible is basically like saying it would be impossible to fit an album on DVD audio back onto a CD. Would the quality be exactly the same? No. But it wouldn't be a particularly huge difference.

Besides, if we're playing this game, it's only fair to point out the fact that the PS3 has various hardware disadvantages just like the 360. So does that mean that 360 games couldn't be ported over to the PS3? I don't think so, but by cow logic I suppose I'd have to say yes. Maybe all those bad PS3 ports mean something after all...

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

spidadragon1

And graphical superiority has not been proven for the 360 either.

Exactly...both consoles are equal in terms of how games look. The 360's GPU is superior to that of the PS3's and the Cell has more potential and possible power then that of the 360's CPU. It's really just a wash though. Neither one is better then the other in terms of over all performance capabilities.

I think we all know that FFXIII will be one of the PS3's best looking titles and that'll be on 360 too.MrDziekuje

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Too many lemmings jealous over great looking ps3 games , tis very sad.

AvIdGaMeR444

Too many cows thinking it is jealousy when it is actually just lemmings scratching their head wondering why cows think the PS3 outshines 360 graphically...

they just have to tell themselves that so they'll feel better about their purchase

Well if Cows don't tout graphical superiority on their console, what else do Cows have going for them in arguments? :P

But really, I think it's silly how some Cows act when it comes to exclusive games. Just look at Final Fantasy XIII back when we thought it was exclusive. Cows were calmoring how the 360 could never handle the graphical achievement of it in its entire lifetime. Funny how that turned out, huh? Point is, as long as exclusive games exist, there will ALWAYS be arguments about which is graphically superior and whether the other console could handle their rival console's game.

The Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are on par with almost everything except two things:

-Graphics;

-Hardware;

Playstation 3 graphics are better than the 360 except on ports because there made for the 360, heavy rain and MGS4 really prove that the PS3 is better in graphics.

One of the biggest problems is the hardware on 360 because it sucks, its always RROD and microsoft always promises that there going to fix that and they don't.

62% of Xbox 360's have 3 mounts of life or less.

The PlayStation 3 doesn't have any hardware problems.

Both have a great library of games, but the PS3 is better.8)

ZAFS_666

Heavy Rain doesn't prove anything, and Metal Gear Solid 4 is not the current console graphics emperor. Fail.

Cows 2005: PS3 gonna blow 360 outta the water. Look at KZ2!!!

Cows 2006: PS3 gonna blow 360 outta the water. Look at KZ2!!!

Cows 2007: PS3 gonna blow 360 outta the water. Look at KZ2!!!

Cows 2008: PS3 gonna blow....awww forget it.

Riverwolf007

lol!

I really coudn't see games such as Killzone 2 or Gran Turismo 5 looking as nice on the 360 as they do on the PS3.