[QUOTE="DEATH775"]I think GoW3 is going to get AAAAE. Kratos will definitely going to pull this off.ElTriforceoAs a big PS3 fan who has the $100 edition of GoW III pre-ordered, I have to say no. Beeing a short campaing game without multiplayer it won't be scoring AAAAE IMO
God of War 3 has better than 2x AA
This topic is locked from further discussion.
resolution > AA
[QUOTE="ElTriforceo"][QUOTE="DEATH775"]I think GoW3 is going to get AAAAE. Kratos will definitely going to pull this off.Jonas008As a big PS3 fan who has the $100 edition of GoW III pre-ordered, I have to say no. Beeing a short campaing game without multiplayer it won't be scoring AAAAE IMOI think it will score a 8.5 because of the no replayabiltly part.
[QUOTE="Persistantthug"][QUOTE="Revan_911"] My god, not this again. It's a linear, confined, button masher, that's why it looks good.Revan_911
Um,
no.
It looks good because developers took their time and specific care in making the the game look good. And because of the PS3's unrivaled console power, they were able to do it.
:D. The graphic card is basiclay a carbon copy of 7900 GT, what a joke. The PS3 is in no way better than the 360. Yes it is.It has a more powerful CPU with more parallel processing units capable of single task computational output similar to a previous-generation dedicated GPU. Also, the CPU memory is XDR and has greater bandwidth.
The Xbox 360 has a more efficient GPU due to its unified shaders and it is better equipped to handle general purpose code and bad port jobs, but it is less powerful in terms of raw computational power. The issue is how you ensure that the Playstation 3's parallel processors are not idling, and frankly the Sony 1st party developers show that's possible as well as what you get when you manage to tap into the PS3's extra resources.
The "hidden powah" is not hidden. It's been demonstrated in nearly every big-budget PS3 exclusive since late 2007. And last I checked, the PS3 has had the undisputed graphics king since 2007. Gears of War....then Uncharted: DF, then MGS4, Killzone 2, then Uncharted 2.
Beeing a short campaing game without multiplayer it won't be scoring AAAAE IMOI think it will score a 8.5 because of the no replayabiltly part. Just like your precious 360 version of Bayonetta?[QUOTE="Jonas008"][QUOTE="ElTriforceo"] As a big PS3 fan who has the $100 edition of GoW III pre-ordered, I have to say no.lafiro93
[QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]The demo is a very old build. NEXTIt makes me wonder if these people think the devs just put "E3 2009" on the title to make it sound cool or something?I don't think that's true..From what I played of the God Of War III demo, it looks to be a jagfest.
charltnxd
Revan_911, first off, yes the PS3 is substantially more powerful than the 360(read previous comments above), and in the E3 demo, which is a very old build, there were more the 20 high-res enemies on screen at once...not to mention the massive titan being rendered in real time in the back ground.
[QUOTE="Revan_911"] :D. The graphic card is basiclay a carbon copy of 7900 GT, what a joke. The PS3 is in no way better than the 360.Persistantthug
XBOX 360 GPU has a few extra features than the RSX, Xenos is slightly better. However, the PS3 has the CELL PROCESSOR which can graphics process and graphics render by itself, making it SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than the Xenos. See the difference between slightly and significantly? In a rudamentary kind of explaination, the PS3 has nearly 2 GPU's....of course PS3 is more powerful
When the XBOX 360 delivers a game that is the pinnacle of console graphics technology, like it did back in 2006, that the PS3 keep on producing over and over and over, let me know.
As of now, there's no leg to be stood upon regarding XBOX 360.
that's not even covering the BluRay or Harddrive in every PS3, which obviously furthers the gap.
You sir are absolutely wrong.Xenos does have a more then few features then RSX.Rsx is practically watered down 7800gtx but considering its closed box their performance are somewhat the same,rsx maybe even has the edge because you can use all of its pros and work around its cons.You cant do that with pc graphics card,developer has zillion possibilities of cpu and gpus in pcs all over the world.But that said xenos is somewhat between 2900xt and 1950xt,sure those have more raw power but again closed box...as you know 1950xt completely obliterates 7800gtx in PCs not to talk about 2900xt,and in consoles it would have even bigger edge because of FULLY programmable unified pipelines whith 95+% efficiency,and rsx old structure gives it 65% efficiency.Count in EDRAm,which actually if you use tiling allows you full screen AA 4x,and it has MONSTER bandwidth with main die so you can do deferred rendering like in KZ2 with no sweat,even faster(http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48155).
Cell can render?Ok,since alot of you guys say that cell can render lets break that PR bull.Can you please provide me some presentation of cell rendering?No you cant render with cell,ok you can like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA
What actually you can do with spus to help rsx is:process some vertex shaders(not pixels,which are more important but cant),do post processing and triangle culling.That is all i have heard from developers doing as far as helping rsx.Now you do understand there is 6 programmable spus,and ppu is dedicated for giving them tasks,so you have run all your physics a.i,audio etc plus helping rsx on it.How much you think there is left of spus?Larabee was fail with 80 cores doing rendering job,its simple cpus no matter what kind of them SUCK at rendering.It happens that cell can compensate rsx work,but how much non of you know and certainly developers know since they put 360 and ps3 in same ball park but still giving 360 edge with gpu and ps3 with cpu...
In the end could you please tell me what does UC2 and KZ2 do technically that is impossible on 360,or Alan Wake is not doing?let me tell you,NOTHING.Developers are the once responsible for UC2 and KZ2 graphics,because not everybody can make amazing looking games on ps3 even with dedicated engines made ground up for it,just look at Resistance 1 & 2...
:D. The graphic card is basiclay a carbon copy of 7900 GT, what a joke. The PS3 is in no way better than the 360. Yes it is.[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="Persistantthug"]
Um,
no.
It looks good because developers took their time and specific care in making the the game look good. And because of the PS3's unrivaled console power, they were able to do it.
Brownesque
It has a more powerful CPU with more parallel processing units capable of single task computational output similar to a previous-generation dedicated GPU. Also, the CPU memory is XDR and has greater bandwidth.
The Xbox 360 has a more efficient GPU due to its unified shaders and it is better equipped to handle general purpose code and bad port jobs, but it is less powerful in terms of raw computational power. The issue is how you ensure that the Playstation 3's parallel processors are not idling, and frankly the Sony 1st party developers show that's possible as well as what you get when you manage to tap into the PS3's extra resources.
The "hidden powah" is not hidden. It's been demonstrated in nearly every big-budget PS3 exclusive since late 2007. And last I checked, the PS3 has had the undisputed graphics king since 2007. Gears of War....then Uncharted: DF, then MGS4, Killzone 2, then Uncharted 2.
Xdr is there for only one reason and that is bandwidth because Cell needs it,it has low latency.As for general system bandwidth they both pretty much have no problem with that,both require different approach as far as bw goes.MGS4 was never the "real" gfx king,there is 10 multiplats i can count that have better graphics then MGS4,technically that game was average at best for high profile exclusive game,low res textures,terrible ground textures but character models looked fine ill give you that not to mention it wasnt even hd...
My god, not this again. It's a linear, confined, button masher, that's why it looks good.Revan_911So when your fighting on Gaia's arm against a leviathan with moving titans climbing on Mt. Olympus all around in real time, I guess the graphics have to look good ?
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="Revan_911"] My god, not this again. It's a linear, confined, button masher, that's why it looks good.Revan_911
Its on a scale thats much larger then most games, lets take a look at pc titles that are linear such as Dragon Age Orgins and the Wticher. How do they hold up? Not very well.
What Scale? It takes more than a couple of scripted quick time events to impress me. Probably if they put more than 10 enemies in the screen the game will fall apart. And the Witcher is on much larger scale, if you played it you would know. that must be why GOW3 is capable of handling 50 enemies on screen right? you obviously have no idea what youre talking aboutas far as the topic goes, possbile its the same method as in Saboteur? maybe
[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]
[QUOTE="Revan_911"] :D. The graphic card is basiclay a carbon copy of 7900 GT, what a joke. The PS3 is in no way better than the 360.Bus-A-Bus
XBOX 360 GPU has a few extra features than the RSX, Xenos is slightly better. However, the PS3 has the CELL PROCESSOR which can graphics process and graphics render by itself, making it SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than the Xenos. See the difference between slightly and significantly? In a rudamentary kind of explaination, the PS3 has nearly 2 GPU's....of course PS3 is more powerful
When the XBOX 360 delivers a game that is the pinnacle of console graphics technology, like it did back in 2006, that the PS3 keep on producing over and over and over, let me know.
As of now, there's no leg to be stood upon regarding XBOX 360.
that's not even covering the BluRay or Harddrive in every PS3, which obviously furthers the gap.
You sir are absolutely wrong.Xenos does have a more then few features then RSX.Rsx is practically watered down 7800gtx but considering its closed box their performance are somewhat the same,rsx maybe even has the edge because you can use all of its pros and work around its cons.You cant do that with pc graphics card,developer has zillion possibilities of cpu and gpus in pcs all over the world.But that said xenos is somewhat between 2900xt and 1950xt,sure those have more raw power but again closed box...as you know 1950xt completely obliterates 7800gtx in PCs not to talk about 2900xt,and in consoles it would have even bigger edge because of FULLY programmable unified pipelines whith 95+% efficiency,and rsx old structure gives it 65% efficiency.Count in EDRAm,which actually if you use tiling allows you full screen AA 4x,and it has MONSTER bandwidth with main die so you can do deferred rendering like in KZ2 with no sweat,even faster(http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48155).
Cell can render?Ok,since alot of you guys say that cell can render lets break that PR bull.Can you please provide me some presentation of cell rendering?No you cant render with cell,ok you can like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA
What actually you can do with spus to help rsx is:process some vertex shaders(not pixels,which are more important but cant),do post processing and triangle culling.That is all i have heard from developers doing as far as helping rsx.Now you do understand there is 6 programmable spus,and ppu is dedicated for giving them tasks,so you have run all your physics a.i,audio etc plus helping rsx on it.How much you think there is left of spus?Larabee was fail with 80 cores doing rendering job,its simple cpus no matter what kind of them SUCK at rendering.It happens that cell can compensate rsx work,but how much non of you know and certainly developers know since they put 360 and ps3 in same ball park but still giving 360 edge with gpu and ps3 with cpu...
In the end could you please tell me what does UC2 and KZ2 do technically that is impossible on 360,or Alan Wake is not doing?let me tell you,NOTHING.Developers are the once responsible for UC2 and KZ2 graphics,because not everybody can make amazing looking games on ps3 even with dedicated engines made ground up for it,just look at Resistance 1 & 2...
This shows some of the things the Cell SPUs are used for in God of War 3 and how it works: http://www.tilander.org/aurora/comp/gdc2009_Tilander_Filippov_SPU.pdf A tremendous amount of work can be offloaded to and assisted by Cell. Also, Playstation3 has 256mb gddr3 ram at 700 mhz and 256 mb xdr ram clocked at 3.2ghz Xbox360 has 512 mb gddr3 ram clocked at 700 mhz
Cell can render?Ok,since alot of you guys say that cell can render lets break that PR bull.Can you please provide me some presentation of cell rendering?No you cant render with cell,ok you can like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA
Bus-A-Bus
Cell isn't good at rendering in general, but that doesn't really matter since the PS3 has a GPU.
Also plenty of people use SPU's for pixel shading operations. Anything with random memory access (like texturing 3D geometry or shadow mapping) is pretty lousy, but for things like post-processing where you have uniform memory access the SPU's can fly. This is why Killzone does so much of its post-processing on the SPU's.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="Revan_911"] My god, not this again. It's a linear, confined, button masher, that's why it looks good.Revan_911
Its on a scale thats much larger then most games, lets take a look at pc titles that are linear such as Dragon Age Orgins and the Wticher. How do they hold up? Not very well.
What Scale? It takes more than a couple of scripted quick time events to impress me. Probably if they put more than 10 enemies in the screen the game will fall apart. And the Witcher is on much larger scale, if you played it you would know.GOW3 has up to 50+ enemies on screen at a time and higher quality assets across the board , sorry you lose.
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
Cell can render?Ok,since alot of you guys say that cell can render lets break that PR bull.Can you please provide me some presentation of cell rendering?No you cant render with cell,ok you can like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA
Teufelhuhn
Cell isn't good at rendering in general, but that doesn't really matter since the PS3 has a GPU.
Also plenty of people use SPU's for pixel shading operations. Anything with random memory access (like texturing 3D geometry or shadow mapping) is pretty lousy, but for things like post-processing where you have uniform memory access the SPU's can fly. This is why Killzone does so much of its post-processing on the SPU's.
I agree,there is no need for inefficient rendering with cell since it has gpu.But people mistake culling,deferred rendering and post processing with 2nd gpu.Cell CANT act like 2nd gpu,especially in games that are heavy on physics and a.i,you are not left with much spus power left.
What Scale? It takes more than a couple of scripted quick time events to impress me. Probably if they put more than 10 enemies in the screen the game will fall apart. And the Witcher is on much larger scale, if you played it you would know.[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Its on a scale thats much larger then most games, lets take a look at pc titles that are linear such as Dragon Age Orgins and the Wticher. How do they hold up? Not very well.
TheSterls
GOW3 has up to 50+ enemies on screen at a time and higher quality assets across the board , sorry you lose.
Proof?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment