[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]The 360 can't do that. IronBass
Are you a dev? No. Your word is irrelevant to me, then.
lol, so if someone isn't a dev their opinion is irrelevant to you? Spoken like a true egotistically jackass who can't support anything they say with actual evidence. What if I am a dev? Speaking of which i know a lot of developers who are complete idiots who think they are a lot smarter than they are. You fit that mold. Good developers actually listen to what people have to say regardless of what they do. So in that regard if you are, time to change professions.
so if someone isn't a dev their opinion is irrelevant to you? piercetruth34
Talking about something technical (what a console can do or not), yes, the opinion from somebody that is not an expert on that specific technic is irrelevant to me. Just like would be the opinion of a pizza delivery-boy about a medical issue. Irrelevant to me. You think those graphics can not be done on a 360? Good for you! :)
Stop using the fanboy card lol. I told you guys I'm not a fanboy.. I like the 360 I just think the ps3 is more powerful. If you aren't please explain to me why Mass Effect one of the better 360 games chugs horribly when there is a lot of stuff going on. And don't use the developer argument either because Bioware is one of the best developers there is and develops games specifically to take advantage of hte 360. The fact of the matter is bioware developed the game and the 360 couldnt handle it. You'd need a high end pc for it to play the way it should the way it was originally developed. Also explain to me why games like Killzone 2 runs flawlessly from start to end when it is a much more graphically intensive game than mass effect. Also explain why we havent seen a huge jump in graphics on the 360 in quite some time? Why doesnt gears 2 look that much better than gears 1? Sure they cleaned some things up but there hasnt been a huge jump in graphics for any of the exclusives. If you look at the new halo shot it isnt a jump in graphics. It's because the 360 is pretty much maxed out. Orginally the ps3 had uncharted and mgsiv came out that were somewhat of a jump in graphics. but multiplats still were better on the 360 and i already explained why. Uncharted was supposedly usig 25% of the ps3's cpu and now you have killzone 2 come out that's using over 50%. I would guess MLB the SHow is the same. LBP is also a nice looking game. Look at these games and tell me they dont look and do things better than anything on the 360. If you say otherwise you are blind or a fanboy. If you notice games like star ocean coming out arent a jump in graphics for the 360 because it's pretty much maxed out. There is nothing on the horizon that is a jump in graphics. Whereas the ps3 there is..... Yeah it's only 4 or 5 games but it used to be just 1 or 2 but there is a trend developing here. Now there are about 5 and they are going to continue to get better where the 360 has reached it's peak.
piercetruth34
You're just bs'ing numbers. There's is no way that the PS3 is running uncharted at 25% of it's cpu's max power. Optimization doesn't allow a game to use more power, it allows a game to use the power it already has more efficiently. Every game on the PS3 is utilizing the PS3's hardware at very high levels. Optimization is all on the developers end. It's about creating models with the lowest polygon count that still creates a smooth shape and has a clean mesh. It's about creating textures that still look great at lower resolutions. Effective use of lighting, and explosions. Getting rid of geometry in levels that can't be seen and therefore does not need to be rendered. Loading enemies as late as possible. Loading portions of the level as late as possible, etc. And yes, that is all on Biowares end. They're a great developer who make awesome games, but that doesn't mean the have a perfectly optimized video game (in fact, Mass Effect was very buggy at launch). Some of their past games have certainly had similar issues in the past. But you're overstating the frame rate problems. There are hiccups occasionally, but it's not really that frequent at all.
So what you are saying is the people who developed Killzone 2 are better developers than Bioware, because it runs flawlessly and that was bioware's fault? For some reason I have a hard time believing that.
No, it doesn't make Bioware a worse developer, it means they didn't optimize their game as well as they could have. Mass Effect was buggy as hell when it came out and that's a fact. It's ALL about optimization. Look at GTA4 for the PC. It was so terribly optimized for computers that even a PC that is 3X as powerful as a PS3 will notice the occasional stutter. Granted that is with the settings cranked way up.
[QUOTE="piercetruth34"] If you put god of war 3 in the 360 it would blow up. IronBass
I don't pretend to know everything and nor will i ever.piercetruth34
Then how do you "know"? You have not given any back up but your "opinion".
I do know that because of the way it is cutting between cutscenes and gameplay seamlessly like that for the reasons I tried to explain. The 360 does not have the capacity to do that. There is also a ton of stuff going on on screen which is the spe's showing their muscle. I can see the difference. You can tell that game is designed using the ps3's hardware and it's a more impressive feat. The 360 can output great visuals but there is no way it can do it as seamless as that with everything being interactive on screen and in realtime like that. The 360 would have to use different tricks to fool you into thinking it's realtime and it wouldn't be able to do that at all for that matter.
The 360 does not have the capacity to do that. piercetruth34
For the fifth time: Prove it But I bet you can't. Know why? Because you are not an expert on developing on the 360. In other words, there's no way for you to know what the 360 can do or not.
[QUOTE="piercetruth34"] The 360 does not have the capacity to do that. IronBass
For the fifth time: Prove it But I bet you can't. Know why? Because you are not an expert on developing on the 360. In other words, there's no way for you to know what the 360 can do or not.
I explained why dude. IT's not my fault you aren't grasping it. I wrote a really long post explaining why.
[QUOTE="piercetruth34"] I explained why dude..IronBass
You've not "explained" anything. You have just expressed your assumptions , which don't prove anything, so they are not explanations.
are you really this dense or are you messing with me? I wrote a really long post explaining why and subsequently backed it up with actual games and footage that do the things i was talking about.
[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="piercetruth34"] I explained why dude..piercetruth34
You've not "explained" anything. You have just expressed your assumptions , which don't prove anything, so they are not explanations.
are you really this dense or are you messing with me? I wrote a really long post explaining why and subsequently backed it up with actual games and footage that do the things i was talking about.
Sorry, but you have no proven anything. If your opinion and assumptions are the only things you have to back it up, you should save such long posts for your blog ;)
[QUOTE="djsifer01"] The 360 has screen tearing on almost every game and you can see it struggle especially when alot is going on screen. It very chopy were as the PS3 is very smooth with little framerate issues and almost no screen tearing at all. List of PS3 vs Xbox 360 Game Rendering Resolutions http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 [QUOTE="djsifer01"] To me when i play the 360 then i play my PS3 its night and day diffrence in output quallity. Thers nothing to argue about really if you know anything about how electronics work then you would know if coded right there is way more power to be worked with on 1 PPE and 6 SPEs than 3 PPEs on the 360 its simple math. SPEs has to cover RSX's design issues e.g. vertex shaders,lack of tessellation hardware, lack of Z Early-Cull, pixel shader stalls during texture operations.
How is that? Because people like to say what people want to hear and just say the fair thing because it's not worth upsetting anyone? The ps3 is a more powerful or advanced system from a technology and computational standpoint. These things have already been stated and were stated when it was first released. It took a while to take advantage of it because the system was vying for software against microsoft which is not an easy task, but we are starting to see games now that take advantage of it and games that were developed specifically for the hardware. IT just took a while.
How is it more powerful? Please explain in full detail
I would have to write a book and I'm not going to do that now. People wrote articles on this man. Read any technology site like anandtech or whoever and they will breakdown the hardware for you. The ps3 has a better media player and a more powerful cpu from a computational standpoint. The 360 has a very nice graphics card and comparable specs but the ps3 has been known to be about 3 times more powerful since they were released. IT was always questioned whether the software would take advantage of which. That i agree with is it comes down to software and how much developers can get out of the hardware or are willing to, but we are starting to see some of that. There is so much that goes into it ultimately from marketing to development tools to everything in between, and those are just specs. But from a flat computational power perspective the ps3 is a more powerful system. That is known. Blu-Ray is also a more advanced media technology. The cell also has 7 or 8 mini processors i believe vs the 360's 3 cores which allows the developers to do more if utilized correctly.
The 360 can push some amazing graphics because of it's gpu but underneath the ps3 has the capabilities to do much more with those graphics and that's what I'm saying.
It would be unwise to assume that work types are allocated the same for both consoles.
i honestly dont think killzone or mlb the show could be done on the 360. I think there is too much going on in these games where the hardware couldnt handle it.
djsifer01
I agree with you. People need to start realizing the 360 dosent have the power of the PS3 is a fact and games like these 2 show graphics that are not seen on the 360. So if the 360 can produce these types of graphics why havent they? KZ2's deferred rendering… Examples other games that uses deferred rendering methods are 1. FarCry2 2. CryEngine3
[QUOTE="T-Aldous"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]The 360 has screen tearing on almost every game and you can see it struggle especially when alot is going on screen. It very chopy were as the PS3 is very smooth with little framerate issues and almost no screen tearing at all. To me when i play the 360 then i play my PS3 its night and day diffrence in output quallity. Thers nothing to argue about really if you know anything about how electronics work then you would know if coded right there is way more power to be worked with on 1 PPE and 6 SPEs than 3 PPEs on the 360 its simple math.piercetruth34
How do you get fanboy goggles wired directly to your brain like that? Even IBM who developed both CPU's, say that they are about even. When I play my PS3 it looks about like my 360. Not much of a difference.
What do you expect IBM to say? They are selling both processors. Do you really expect them to say one is better than the other? That would be a marketing nightmare and business suicide considering Microsoft spent money to put their cpu in their machine. Do you really believe what IBM says dude? Are you really that naive? The Cell when it was originally marketed was their flagship processor. The 360 processor was marketed a step below. And no that both are in the two leading consoles they aren't going to say ****. Microsoft would never work with IBM again if they were going around telling everyone the ps3 has a better processor. If you notice how things are worded they say the xbox has a more than sufficient by todays standards to do amazing things as far as developers are concerned but when pure power and computational power is discussed the cell is a more powerful processor. It was IBM's flagship processor when it was put in the ps3.
That IBM engineer compares the total system not just the CPU i.e. treats the GPUs as a stream math co-processors. His made a special comment on ATI's Xenos.
Look at this trailer dude in HD. It has everything i've been talking about from integrating realtime cutscenes to gameplay seamlessly all in realtime. The 360 can't do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiFtG_-dh3w
piercetruth34
A carefull use of CGI rendered texture mapscan blended between RT 3D models and the cut scene..
You're just bs'ing numbers. There's is no way that the PS3 is running uncharted at 25% of it's cpu's max power. Optimization doesn't allow a game to use more power, it allows a game to use the power it already has more efficiently. Every game on the PS3 is utilizing the PS3's hardware at very high levels. Optimization is all on the developers end. It's about creating models with the lowest polygon count that still creates a smooth shape and has a clean mesh. It's about creating textures that still look great at lower resolutions. Effective use of lighting, and explosions. Getting rid of geometry in levels that can't be seen and therefore does not need to be rendered. Loading enemies as late as possible. Loading portions of the level as late as possible, etc. And yes, that is all on Biowares end. They're a great developer who make awesome games, but that doesn't mean the have a perfectly optimized video game (in fact, Mass Effect was very buggy at launch). Some of their past games have certainly had similar issues in the past. But you're overstating the frame rate problems. There are hiccups occasionally, but it's not really that frequent at all.FlyingArmbar
So what you are saying is the people who developed Killzone 2 are better developers than Bioware, because it runs flawlessly and that was bioware's fault? For some reason I have a hard time believing that.
No, it doesn't make Bioware a worse developer, it means they didn't optimize their game as well as they could have. Mass Effect was buggy as hell when it came out and that's a fact. It's ALL about optimization. Look at GTA4 for the PC. It was so terribly optimized for computers that even a PC that is 3X as powerful as a PS3 will notice the occasional stutter. Granted that is with the settings cranked way up. GTA4's game's memory footprint is not the same.
I think some of the best looking games made to date have been on the ps3 and even though i bet that a few 360 fans have said otherwise its true but also at the same time it doesnt really matter all of the that much. Yes i want games looking great makes it more really your able to get sucked into the game more with it looking real but if the core gameplay is well set then thats the main thing in my veiw
Log in to comment