This topic is locked from further discussion.
Multiplats might have been good grounds for comparison if dev's were trying to go as far as possible with the tech in each individual console.
In reality (and this is a good thing) they aim for as much similarity as possible with the least possible effort involved.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.
If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.
We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.
In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.Bus-A-Bus
Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.
The Creators of P can go to the sun with P
The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close
People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X
How does that make X more powerful than P?
Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...
Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.
Fact also is lems can't prove that UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360 either. Seems we've hit a wall in this little debate. :|
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.
The Creators of P can go to the sun with P
The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close
People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X
How does that make X more powerful than P?
Espada12
Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...
Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.
Alan wake had 6 years dev time and was funded by MS, plz don't make it sound like playstation devs have more time and money when 360 exclusives are given that luxury as well. The thing is as well you can't prove UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360. The proof is in the pudding, until it has been proven otherwise I don't wanna hear it. PS3 is stronger than the 360, no matter how marginal it maybe.
AW?Let me tell you about AW...Remedy put their "farms" on AW,they went to Washington state,they copied every bits of it to make ti open world game...they started it as something that will show power of PC,then in 2007 nobody heard from them,they got back in 2009 with AW being 360 exclusive and linear game,it was only in late 2008 that MS said they are going to publish it.The worst thing is that at e3 09 game was 720p 2xaa but duo to alot of transparencies they wanted 4xaa they had to lower res.
You are also wrong about 6 yrs,its 5 years,and it does not help your argument that AW had 35 people working on it at start of project and when MS acquired it they went to 45 people.It is evident that most of time went on other things and not graphics as some other titles i know of have...
About KZ2 and UC2,i cant PROVE that they can be done on 360 but everything that KZ2 and UC2 do can be done on 360 and has been done before.People mentioned 250 lighsources as proof that KZ2 cant be done on 360 yet GTAIV has more then 400 in scenes and Crackdown has whooping 3000.
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]
I think these two console are probaly the closest two rival consoles have ever been in terms of tech power and potential power. We always heard that X console is undoubtably technically superior to Y console, because usually they were Technically more powerful. XBOX was undoubtably more advanced then PS2, SNES was undoubtably more tech advanced then Genesis, and Im pretty sure NES was technically more powerful then the master syestem.
But with these two consoles, for every dev saying X console is better, you have another one saying that Y is better.
XboximusPrime
hmm, if true then my mistake, I always thought NES was better. Anyway, my point still stands with SNES and XBOX.
It was pretty close, really. The SMS/Mk3 had a stronger CPU (3.5Mhz Z80), but the SNES had more dedicated hardware (thus was able to pull off a slightly better resolution--256x224 vs. 240x226). As for the SNES, that was up for debate, too, since the following generation pretty much did more of the same (the Genesis had a 7.5MHz Motorola 68000 while the SNES had its custom hardware again). This time, the Genesis had higher resolution but a lower color palette (and fewer effects), but that CPU let it handle more things at a time, which was why shooters could be faster-paced on a Genesis.Red dead was supposed to be alot superior on the 360 but this morning i played it on the ps3 and i really couldn't notice a difference. Theres no huge gap, only to nerds who like to blow it up and validate their purchase, when i see a fanboy i basically see someone who isn't confident with what they've spent their money on.
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.
The Creators of P can go to the sun with P
The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close
People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X
How does that make X more powerful than P?
Lionheart08
Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...
Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.
Fact also is lems can't prove that UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360 either. Seems we've hit a wall in this little debate. :|
Thus why exclusives are oranges to the multiplats' apples. How else can you properly compare without a reference?[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.
The Creators of P can go to the sun with P
The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close
People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X
How does that make X more powerful than P?
Lionheart08
Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...
Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.
Fact also is lems can't prove that UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360 either. Seems we've hit a wall in this little debate. :|
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Red dead was supposed to be alot superior on the 360 but this morning i played it on the ps3 and i really couldn't notice a difference. Theres no huge gap, only to nerds who like to blow it up and validate their purchase, when i see a fanboy i basically see someone who isn't confident with what they've spent their money on.
Nawshus
:| This pissed off ps3 owner beggs to differ, any one that says this is just doing DC.
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
It doesn't matter what code a console runs. The 360 might be running spaghetti code but the end result is that 90% of the multiplats look better and that is after 4 years of comparing.
What the console can actually output to your screen is what actually matters. What you're saying is that the PS3 outputs inferior graphics but the specific cell spu code it runs got mixed up and not optimized and that's why 90% of the time it looks worse.
DOES NOT MATTER, the bottom line is that most multiplats look worse, therefore it is less powerful because it outputs inferior graphics on identical software.
And the exclusives don't mean much because just as easy as you can argue that the 360 can't handle them, I can more easily and logically argue that it can just as it has over 90% of multiplats.
Every game that has ever run on the PS3, including games built from the ground up for that system that were then ported to the 360, ends up running better better on the 360 90% of the time.
But you say spaghetti code......Bus-A-Bus
Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII
And if FF13 was port from 360 to ps3 the same way it was ported from ps3 to 360(less then 6 months) it would be similar to bayonneta...360 hold it own well,lower res is duo to not using eDRAM,tiling that is.If it was used gameplay would been the same...
Proof for that please, all I know is: E3 2008 - march 2010 premiere.
No tiling - better performance, and game still has worse FR than PS3 version. Tell this to bungie, they done very lazy porst and don't know how to tll :roll:
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
It doesn't matter what code a console runs. The 360 might be running spaghetti code but the end result is that 90% of the multiplats look better and that is after 4 years of comparing.
What the console can actually output to your screen is what actually matters. What you're saying is that the PS3 outputs inferior graphics but the specific cell spu code it runs got mixed up and not optimized and that's why 90% of the time it looks worse.
DOES NOT MATTER, the bottom line is that most multiplats look worse, therefore it is less powerful because it outputs inferior graphics on identical software.
And the exclusives don't mean much because just as easy as you can argue that the 360 can't handle them, I can more easily and logically argue that it can just as it has over 90% of multiplats.
Every game that has ever run on the PS3, including games built from the ground up for that system that were then ported to the 360, ends up running better better on the 360 90% of the time.
But you say spaghetti code......alexfla
Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII
Yeah, this is the game build for the ground for PS3 and ported to 360, and it cleary shows that designed for PS3 =/= running better on 360.
This is your post:
Every game that has ever run on the PS3, including games built from the ground up for that system that were then ported to the 360, ends up running better better on the 360 90% of the time.
So show me other examples, I'm waiting.
[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
Yea...creators of P in comparison with creators of X have more money,more time,more talented "crew",they are much bigger...
Fact is,cows CANT prove that UC2 and KZ2 cant be done on 360,you cant give one simple reason other then:"MS did not release it yet".When is time to bash lazy and clueless developers you guys do that but you easily dismiss the fact that MS has almost non first party support,they have no ground up engine and talented devs that Sony has.
Bus-A-Bus
Fact also is lems can't prove that UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360 either. Seems we've hit a wall in this little debate. :|
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Show me some links.
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Bus-A-Bus
One devs word is still hardly proof, especially if there's no actual evidence to back it up.
Thus why exclusives are oranges to the multiplats' apples. How else can you properly compare without a reference?HuusAsking
Truth be told, there is no 100% valid way to determine unless a dev, who has good experience with both consoles, designs the same game specifically to max out both the 360 and the PS3. In essence, there never will be perfect evidence. :P
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
Wow, show me examples, I know one: FFXIII
sayonara89
And if FF13 was port from 360 to ps3 the same way it was ported from ps3 to 360(less then 6 months) it would be similar to bayonneta...360 hold it own well,lower res is duo to not using eDRAM,tiling that is.If it was used gameplay would been the same...
Proof for that please, all I know is: E3 2008 - march 2010 premiere.
No tiling - better performance, and game still has worse FR than PS3 version. Tell this to bungie, they done very lazy porst and don't know how to tll :roll:
The game has EXACT the same frame rate as ps3,if you want to nitpick then 360 has actually higher.
"Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM."
"Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that."
Again,you and i both know that Bungies last gen engine does not support tiling,same like UE2. :roll:
"To illustrate the improvements Xbox 360 brings to the table such as they are, here's a selection of clips put through frame-rate analysis. You'll see that while both versions can drop frames, it is the Xbox 360 version that is undoubtedly smoother on average. Minimum frame-rate is 26FPS on 360, and 20FPS on PS3. It's interesting to note that the character close-ups are seemingly no problem for the 360: 30FPS is maintained while PS3 struggles."
"The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-****effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off
Its EXTREMELY bad and rushed port that could not be possible on 360 till they announced it yet it still runs great...
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Lionheart08
One devs word is still hardly proof, especially if there's no actual evidence to back it up.
Its not exactly one...virtually all developers featuring some of most well known as Carmack,Crytek and Tim Sweeney along with 99% of others said they are basically neck and neck.
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]
Fact also is lems can't prove that UC2 and KZ2 can be done on the 360 either. Seems we've hit a wall in this little debate. :|
sayonara89
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Show me some links.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41998&page=17
17 and 18 page...
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
And if FF13 was port from 360 to ps3 the same way it was ported from ps3 to 360(less then 6 months) it would be similar to bayonneta...360 hold it own well,lower res is duo to not using eDRAM,tiling that is.If it was used gameplay would been the same...
Bus-A-Bus
Proof for that please, all I know is: E3 2008 - march 2010 premiere.
No tiling - better performance, and game still has worse FR than PS3 version. Tell this to bungie, they done very lazy porst and don't know how to tll :roll:
The game has EXACT the same frame rate as ps3,if you want to nitpick then 360 has actually higher.
"Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM."
"Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that."
Again,you and i both know that Bungies last gen engine does not support tiling,same like UE2. :roll:
"To illustrate the improvements Xbox 360 brings to the table such as they are, here's a selection of clips put through frame-rate analysis. You'll see that while both versions can drop frames, it is the Xbox 360 version that is undoubtedly smoother on average. Minimum frame-rate is 26FPS on 360, and 20FPS on PS3. It's interesting to note that the character close-ups are seemingly no problem for the 360: 30FPS is maintained while PS3 struggles."
"The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-****effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off
Its EXTREMELY bad and rushed port that could not be possible on 360 till they announced it yet it still runs great...
Nope:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-chapter-8-analysis-1?size=hd
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-chapter-11-analysis?size=hd
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-endgame-article
Yeah, this MUST be lazy and rushed port, but when PS3 gets worse versions of multiplatforms it's ok ;)
And really show me proof for development time of 360 version.
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
Guys at b3d(developers) said it could be done im sure they know more then random SW poster :)
Bus-A-Bus
Show me some links.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41998&page=17
17 and 18 page...
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
Oh, that might be the best way, but it is actually IMPOSSIBLE in this circumstance! Why, because they don't run the same code. So, even if the games look like they are the same, under the hood they aren't. Heck, even when you do run the same code, if being on PC has taught us anything, various elements of a setup can have a very varying affect on performance. Game X may look better on one setup compared to another, but Game Y might look awful (or not run properly at all). In the end it just doesn't tell you anything truly meaningful. So, again, Multiplatforms were NEVER a good measure of power. They are a clumsy at best.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
The BEST way to measure power is to have the SAME EXACT GAME running on both consoles. Which ever console produces the better graphics with the same game, is likely more powerful.
Of course this method of testing is somewhat flawed. That is certainly true if you only test one game. But what if you test 10 games? Wouldn't you agree that we get a more accurate measurement? What if we test 200 games in a 4 year period? I would say that is a damn good sample and will give an extremely accurate result even using this imperfect method.
Some think the best way to determine which is the more powerful system is by getting the 2 PS3 games that they believe have the best graphics and claiming that they can't be run on the 360 based on a subjective opinion.
I would rather take the actual 200+ real world tests that combine to give us a very good comparison of real world performance. As imperfect as it may be, it is without a doubt scientific and gives us the most credible data that can be collected.alexfla
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
Proof for that please, all I know is: E3 2008 - march 2010 premiere.
No tiling - better performance, and game still has worse FR than PS3 version. Tell this to bungie, they done very lazy porst and don't know how to tll :roll:
sayonara89
The game has EXACT the same frame rate as ps3,if you want to nitpick then 360 has actually higher.
"Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM."
"Mirroring PS3 resolution and anti-aliasing would require two tiles, introducing potential performance bottlenecks on elements that occupy both tiles. This isn't really an issue for most cross-platform developers (Fallout 3 and DiRT 2, for example, use three tiles to accommodate superior 4x MSAA), but the only plausible explanation here is that Square Enix had issues getting Crystal Tools working on 360 and down-scaled the framebuffer as a result of that."
Again,you and i both know that Bungies last gen engine does not support tiling,same like UE2. :roll:
"To illustrate the improvements Xbox 360 brings to the table such as they are, here's a selection of clips put through frame-rate analysis. You'll see that while both versions can drop frames, it is the Xbox 360 version that is undoubtedly smoother on average. Minimum frame-rate is 26FPS on 360, and 20FPS on PS3. It's interesting to note that the character close-ups are seemingly no problem for the 360: 30FPS is maintained while PS3 struggles."
"The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-****effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off
Its EXTREMELY bad and rushed port that could not be possible on 360 till they announced it yet it still runs great...
Nope:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-chapter-8-analysis-1?size=hd
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-chapter-11-analysis?size=hd
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-endgame-article
Yeah, this MUST be lazy and rushed port, but when PS3 gets worse versions of multiplatforms it's ok ;)
And really show me proof for development time of 360 version.
Yes,end game runs very bad so i heard but that does not change the fact that those scenes run better,it goes both ways.
Anyway...it started on ps3 as of 2006,ground up engine and then ported on to 360 in short time.Its AWFUL example,ps3 NEVER gets the same treatment.RDR was started development as ps3 exclusive,had 5 yrs to finish and 360 version looks superior,FF13 is more like bayonneta only it looks miles better.The fact that they used ONE tile and had UNLIMITED bandwidth to do a2c and they did not do it speaks volumes of port.
"Up to the trial demo version that was released [in April] in Japan, [FFXIII] was PS3-only in terms of development... The Xbox 360 version is definitely following after the PS3 version, but [we] were finally able to come to a point in the PS3 development where some of the staff could take their hands off and start programming the 360 version."
So lets say they started at the end of april with development and finished in beggining of 2010,its still about 8 months and thats super low for that big game.Also...they used bink for videos :lol: thats the stupidest decision some developer ever made...they probably knew not alot of people will bother with lower res cus it will sell tons of more on ps3 so who cares...
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
Show me some links.
sayonara89
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41998&page=17
17 and 18 page...
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
TF,Joker,Lee Yosh(Cgi),psorcerer.Anyway,there is nothing in KZ2 that is impossible on 360,not a single thing...
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Thus why exclusives are oranges to the multiplats' apples. How else can you properly compare without a reference?Lionheart08
Truth be told, there is no 100% valid way to determine unless a dev, who has good experience with both consoles, designs the same game specifically to max out both the 360 and the PS3. In essence, there never will be perfect evidence. :P
What about GTA4? Didn't R* North say they had two teams working simultaneously on both versions?[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41998&page=17
17 and 18 page...
Bus-A-Bus
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
TF,Joker,Lee Yosh(Cgi),psorcerer.Anyway,there is nothing in KZ2 that is impossible on 360,not a single thing...
How about 36MB big G-buffer? 4 tiles? ;) And about deffered rendering, Killzone is probably the only console game that uses it, others uses "something different" "Digital Foundry: You seem capable of handling a phenomenal amount of dynamic lights. Are you using a deferred rendering technique, or something fundamentally different? Steven Tovey: We're using the light pre-pass rendering paradigm for Blur. It's similar in essence to the approach taken by Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, GTA IV and others."[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]Yes,end game runs very bad so i heard but that does not change the fact that those scenes run better,it goes both ways. Anyway...it started on ps3 as of 2006,ground up engine and then ported on to 360 in short time.Its AWFUL example,ps3 NEVER gets the same treatment.RDR was started development as ps3 exclusive,had 5 yrs to finish and 360 version looks superior,FF13 is more like bayonneta only it looks miles better.The fact that they used ONE tile and had UNLIMITED bandwidth to do a2c and they did not do it speaks volumes of port. "Up to the trial demo version that was released [in April] in Japan, [FFXIII] was PS3-only in terms of development... The Xbox 360 version is definitely following after the PS3 version, but [we] were finally able to come to a point in the PS3 development where some of the staff could take their hands off and start programming the 360 version." So lets say they started at the end of april with development and finished in beggining of 2010,its still about 8 months and thats super low for that big game.Also...they used bink for videos :lol: thats the stupidest decision some developer ever made...they probably knew not alot of people will bother with lower res cus it will sell tons of more on ps3 so who cares...sayonara89I rememeber your posts on B3D about this Ruskie (hi, I'm Trejser ;)) But fact is: first RAGE game was former (Wii...) 360 exclusive Rockstar Games presents Table Tennis. By looking at GTA4 and RDR it clearly shows that it suits 360 hardware very well, PS3 - not so much. DICE - Lazy dev confirmed! They don't till and use A2C in BC2! Remedy - Lazy dev confirmed, they use tiling but "forget" about unlimited bandwidth and use A2C instead of some other technique ;) I think it's much more complicated than you think :) Grandmaster was highly criticed for that, he never said anything like that about any multiplatform game on PS3 (including Bayonetta), but FFXIII - lazy devs :)
Hi Trejser,im not from Russia :D...wasnt Remedies framebuffer something like crazy as 80 megs,thats where alot of bandwidth maybe went?:D I always thought they wasted alot of "power" on unnecessary things...there are ALOT of lazy devs but cmon it seems so LAZY what SE did...RDR was somehow expected,probably cus even with more general memory 360 also used eDRAM as frame buffer while ps3 they had to use general memory for that,plus 2xQAA...i dont think there is much problems with RAGE and ps3 but more with ps3 memory footprint.
Anyway...im bit tired of every day discussing with people about this stuff but you are cool guy,its pleasere when somebody actually posts links instead their own "professional" opinions :)
As i have said numerious times...ill wait 3 more days for Crysis 2 to show is it really that spectacular as everybody tauted it,maybe new console gfx king :D
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"][QUOTE="sayonara89"]
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
sayonara89
TF,Joker,Lee Yosh(Cgi),psorcerer.Anyway,there is nothing in KZ2 that is impossible on 360,not a single thing...
How about 36MB big G-buffer? 4 tiles? ;) And about deffered rendering, Killzone is probably the only console game that uses it, others uses "something different" "Digital Foundry: You seem capable of handling a phenomenal amount of dynamic lights. Are you using a deferred rendering technique, or something fundamentally different? Steven Tovey: We're using the light pre-pass rendering paradigm for Blur. It's similar in essence to the approach taken by Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, GTA IV and others."I thinkUC2,GTA IV both use deferred rendering,difference is it mixed with forward rendering.You HAVE to use deferred rendering in games like GTA IV,LOTS of lightsources so forward is no-go.Probably all three use deferred lightning but neither use deferred shading,i remember GG saying they are using deferred rendering cus of lightning and mix it with forward rendering.
36mb G-buffer theoretically should be biggie for 360 but this thread(excellent one) shows its not that big of a problem.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48155
"Sony Computer Entertainment has several games that use deferred rendering including Guerilla Games's Killzone 2, Media Molecule's LittleBigPlanet, and Sucker Punch Productions' inFamous. Other games known to use deferred shading are GSC Game World's Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl, Electronic Arts' Dead Space[3], NCSoft's Tabula Rasa[4], Realtime Worlds' Crackdown, Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto IV and Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft II [5]. Crytek's CryEngine 3 also implements deferred lighting.[6] " This is copied from Wiki but this should be accurate.
I suspect they used Bink because it meant no extra money out of pocket. They've been using Bink since at least the PC version of FF8 (check the video files on those CDs--they're Binks, too). To use an H.264 codec probably would've cost them.So lets say they started at the end of april with development and finished in beggining of 2010,its still about 8 months and thats super low for that big game.Also...they used bink for videos :lol: thats the stupidest decision some developer ever made...they probably knew not alot of people will bother with lower res cus it will sell tons of more on ps3 so who cares...
Bus-A-Bus
Hi Trejser,im not from Russia :D...wasnt Remedies framebuffer something like crazy as 80 megs,thats where alot of bandwidth maybe went?:D I always thought they wasted alot of "power" on unnecessary things...there are ALOT of lazy devs but cmon it seems so LAZY what SE did...RDR was somehow expected,probably cus even with more general memory 360 also used eDRAM as frame buffer while ps3 they had to use general memory for that,plus 2xQAA...i dont think there is much problems with RAGE and ps3 but more with ps3 memory footprint.Same here ;)Yeah, I can't wait for that, show me some some gameplay Crytek ;) Only thihg I'm not happy about is 960x540 video resolution with lots of compression (GT "HD"...) And yeah, AW framebuffer is too big to be true on 360, they probably messed up something in that answer to "sub-hd problem".Anyway...im bit tired of every day discussing with people about this stuff but you are cool guy,its pleasere when somebody actually posts links instead their own "professional" opinions :)
As i have said numerious times...ill wait 3 more days for Crysis 2 to show is it really that spectacular as everybody tauted it,maybe new console gfx king :D
Bus-A-Bus
Same here ;)Yeah, I can't wait for that, show me some some gameplay Crytek ;) Only thihg I'm not happy about is 960x540 video resolution with lots of compression (GT "HD"...) And yeah, AW framebuffer is too big to be true on 360, they probably messed up something in that answer to "sub-hd problem".[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]Hi Trejser,im not from Russia :D...wasnt Remedies framebuffer something like crazy as 80 megs,thats where alot of bandwidth maybe went?:D I always thought they wasted alot of "power" on unnecessary things...there are ALOT of lazy devs but cmon it seems so LAZY what SE did...RDR was somehow expected,probably cus even with more general memory 360 also used eDRAM as frame buffer while ps3 they had to use general memory for that,plus 2xQAA...i dont think there is much problems with RAGE and ps3 but more with ps3 memory footprint.
Anyway...im bit tired of every day discussing with people about this stuff but you are cool guy,its pleasere when somebody actually posts links instead their own "professional" opinions :)
As i have said numerious times...ill wait 3 more days for Crysis 2 to show is it really that spectacular as everybody tauted it,maybe new console gfx king :D
sayonara89
Man the day that 540p came on internet i was laughing as never before,i was actually glad to see how are they gonna get out of that one...i thought to myself,what did they mess up?:D I mean its not bad looking game but i always criticized it cus it looks so un polished,maybe Remedy would be better of with something similar to Max Payne...
About Crysis 2,i was reading one artists forum,and there was a guy that works at Crytek and the other one was the one who was showed the ps3 version and he said it was **** incredible and not only for console game but Cryteks game".
Anyway...i cant give you gameplay but one site has recorded sound of demoing in NYC and if you are interested...it sounds(guns,glass,explosions...) :shock: sound of weapons is on the level of BFBC2...for "HD" gameplay we will have to wait 3 more days... :)
http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/09/impressions-crysis-2-gameplay-world-premiere-in-new-york/
Here is recorded gameplay but of course sound only if you are interested(3rd from the bottom)
Same here ;)Yeah, I can't wait for that, show me some some gameplay Crytek ;) Only thihg I'm not happy about is 960x540 video resolution with lots of compression (GT "HD"...) And yeah, AW framebuffer is too big to be true on 360, they probably messed up something in that answer to "sub-hd problem".[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]Hi Trejser,im not from Russia :D...wasnt Remedies framebuffer something like crazy as 80 megs,thats where alot of bandwidth maybe went?:D I always thought they wasted alot of "power" on unnecessary things...there are ALOT of lazy devs but cmon it seems so LAZY what SE did...RDR was somehow expected,probably cus even with more general memory 360 also used eDRAM as frame buffer while ps3 they had to use general memory for that,plus 2xQAA...i dont think there is much problems with RAGE and ps3 but more with ps3 memory footprint.
Anyway...im bit tired of every day discussing with people about this stuff but you are cool guy,its pleasere when somebody actually posts links instead their own "professional" opinions :)
As i have said numerious times...ill wait 3 more days for Crysis 2 to show is it really that spectacular as everybody tauted it,maybe new console gfx king :D
Bus-A-Bus
Man the day that 540p came on internet i was laughing as never before,i was actually glad to see how are they gonna get out of that one...i thought to myself,what did they mess up?:D I mean its not bad looking game but i always criticized it cus it looks so un polished,maybe Remedy would be better of with something similar to Max Payne...
About Crysis 2,i was reading one artists forum,and there was a guy that works at Crytek and the other one was the one who was showed the ps3 version and he said it was **** incredible and not only for console game but Cryteks game".
Anyway...i cant give you gameplay but one site has recorded sound of demoing in NYC and if you are interested...it sounds(guns,glass,explosions...) :shock: sound of weapons is on the level of BFBC2...for "HD" gameplay we will have to wait 3 more days... :)
http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/09/impressions-crysis-2-gameplay-world-premiere-in-new-york/
Here is recorded gameplay but of course sound only if you are interested(3rd from the bottom)
Great stuff, thx ;)
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="sayonara89"] Same here ;)Yeah, I can't wait for that, show me some some gameplay Crytek ;) Only thihg I'm not happy about is 960x540 video resolution with lots of compression (GT "HD"...) And yeah, AW framebuffer is too big to be true on 360, they probably messed up something in that answer to "sub-hd problem".
sayonara89
Man the day that 540p came on internet i was laughing as never before,i was actually glad to see how are they gonna get out of that one...i thought to myself,what did they mess up?:D I mean its not bad looking game but i always criticized it cus it looks so un polished,maybe Remedy would be better of with something similar to Max Payne...
About Crysis 2,i was reading one artists forum,and there was a guy that works at Crytek and the other one was the one who was showed the ps3 version and he said it was **** incredible and not only for console game but Cryteks game".
Anyway...i cant give you gameplay but one site has recorded sound of demoing in NYC and if you are interested...it sounds(guns,glass,explosions...) :shock: sound of weapons is on the level of BFBC2...for "HD" gameplay we will have to wait 3 more days... :)
http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/09/impressions-crysis-2-gameplay-world-premiere-in-new-york/
Here is recorded gameplay but of course sound only if you are interested(3rd from the bottom)
Great stuff, thx ;)
No prob...im going to bed now,little exhausted and i gotta go to work tomorrow:evil: So good night Sayonara :)
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
Man the day that 540p came on internet i was laughing as never before,i was actually glad to see how are they gonna get out of that one...i thought to myself,what did they mess up?:D I mean its not bad looking game but i always criticized it cus it looks so un polished,maybe Remedy would be better of with something similar to Max Payne...
About Crysis 2,i was reading one artists forum,and there was a guy that works at Crytek and the other one was the one who was showed the ps3 version and he said it was **** incredible and not only for console game but Cryteks game".
Anyway...i cant give you gameplay but one site has recorded sound of demoing in NYC and if you are interested...it sounds(guns,glass,explosions...) :shock: sound of weapons is on the level of BFBC2...for "HD" gameplay we will have to wait 3 more days... :)
http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/09/impressions-crysis-2-gameplay-world-premiere-in-new-york/
Here is recorded gameplay but of course sound only if you are interested(3rd from the bottom)
Bus-A-Bus
Great stuff, thx ;)
No prob...im going to bed now,little exhausted and i gotta go to work tomorrow:evil: So good night Sayonara :)
Hah, same here ;) Good night.AW?Let me tell you about AW...Remedy put their "farms" on AW,they went to Washington state,they copied every bits of it to make ti open world game...they started it as something that will show power of PC,then in 2007 nobody heard from them,they got back in 2009 with AW being 360 exclusive and linear game,it was only in late 2008 that MS said they are going to publish it.The worst thing is that at e3 09 game was 720p 2xaa but duo to alot of transparencies they wanted 4xaa they had to lower res.
You are also wrong about 6 yrs,its 5 years,and it does not help your argument that AW had 35 people working on it at start of project and when MS acquired it they went to 45 people.It is evident that most of time went on other things and not graphics as some other titles i know of have...
About KZ2 and UC2,i cant PROVE that they can be done on 360 but everything that KZ2 and UC2 do can be done on 360 and has been done before.People mentioned 250 lighsources as proof that KZ2 cant be done on 360 yet GTAIV has more then 400 in scenes and Crackdown has whooping 3000.
Bus-A-Bus
AW was always coming to the 360, they didn't suddenly wake up and decide it was going to 360 don't make it seem as though 360 was out of the equation the whole time until MS made it exclusive...... also everything that has been done in those games have been done in 360 games I agree, but no matter how you spin it the best looking games are on PS3. Until that changes I'll assume the PS3 is more powerful.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
Because you simplify to the point that it doesn't make sense. You say when the creators of P use it, but you're talking about different development houses. The developers of UC2 and GOW3 have nothing to do with each other and can't be considered creators of P or PS3.
If you would say something like the creators of UC2 that powers P to the Sun are not allowed to use X so we'll never know if they could use X to reach the same distance as P.
We do know for a fact that the creators of ALL Multiplats that use P and X, are able to go closer to the Sun with X 90% of the time.This translates to X going farther than P if you run both of them with the same software or creators of whatever you want to call it.
In conclusion, X is more powerful than P.alexfla
Ughh wow.. I don't even know what to say.. here I'll break it down more.
The Creators of P can go to the sun with P
The Creators of X cannot reach the sun but they come close
People who use both X and P normally reach closer to the sun with X
How does that make X more powerful than P?
how old are you???
The FACT that remains is this:PS3 NEVER,in 4 years,had a game that RUNS better then its 360 counterpart.Thats worrying some for so called 3 time more powerful console and even when games are made on ps3 and ported on 360 games tend to run and look at least the same,in most cases again,better on 360.
Console gamers waste TO MUCH on trying to prove that cpu will outrun gpu,cpu is all that matters thats what you guys say.I would not say a word if ps3 had better gpu,more memory or bandwidth but it losses in all those except cpu,in best case they are equal,you do the math.
*Now im looking at MW2 comparison on DF,ps3 version does not include bloom effect(on KZ2 it takes 14% of spu,on 360 is free duo to eDRAM bandwidth),it has worse texture filtrating and in all that it has worse frame rate by average 12fps...
Bus-A-Bus
If by run, do you mean FPS wise. Because games like Burnout Paradise and Dragon Age Origins actually look better on PS3.
You can make a lengthy post all you want to TC, but even though 80 percent of 360 games look slightly better than the PS3 ones, those same 80 percent still look virtually identical to the PS3 ones. Now when we looked at the exclusives this gen, the PS3 is way better than the 360.gaming25Comparing exclusives is like comparing apples to bananas, they are too different. Multiplats are the only true way since the game was coded the same for both consoles allowing a fair comparison.
[QUOTE="alexfla"]UC2 and GOW3 both look good but truthfully, every objective gamer knows both games can be ported perfect to the 360.R3FURBISHED
I doubt that, both God of War and Uncharted were built from the ground up to use the PlayStation architecture.
I know for a fact that the 360 couldn't handle Uncharted 2. I'm a 360 gamer and I don't own a PS3 but even I can accept that the 360 has slightly less power than the PS3.
[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]UC2 and GOW3 both look good but truthfully, every objective gamer knows both games can be ported perfect to the 360.ColdP1zza
I doubt that, both God of War and Uncharted were built from the ground up to use the PlayStation architecture.
I know for a fact that the 360 couldn't handle Uncharted 2. I'm a 360 gamer and I don't own a PS3 but even I can accept that the 360 has slightly less power than the PS3.
You sure dont. ;)
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="alexfla"]
Even if you go back to the Atari 2600. When a new system such as the Colecovision is released, gamers compared the multiplats between it, Atari and the intellivision to judge which system was the most powerful.
This happened with the NES vs Master System, the TG-16 vs Genesis vs SNES vs Neo Geo, the Saturn vs PS1 vs N64, the PS2 vs DreamCast vs GC vs Xbox and now with the PS3 vs 360, we are supposed to believe that this method is not valid anymore because Sony marketing says so.
...alexfla
Really? People compared multiplats between NES and Sega MS? There weren't really many multiplats to compare, other than crappy movie spin-off games. And nobody really compared which was more powerful anyway. 8bit pretty much meant 8bit.
In the 16 bit era, it was all about Mascot vs. mascot. Either you liked Sonic, or you liked Mario.
It wasn't really till the PS1/N64 era when I first started hearing people make direct comparisons over which was more powerful within the same generation. And even then, it wasn't about comparing multiplats, it was all about the technical specs of the systems more than anything else.
In the PS2/xbox era, I started hearing people point out 'this game looks better on xbox', but the counterargument was that ps2 had a billion more great games, because there were so many exclusives for it vesus xbox having... Halo.
Finally, we have this generation, when more games are multiplat than not. Some multis are better on one system, some are better on the other, but in reality, the differences between those are minimal. Personally, I find the which controller you prefer to make a bigger difference between versions than any graphical differences. The only way to REALLY compare the systems performance is by comparing games that are built from the ground up to get the most from each machine. Of course, even then, art stile (miss-spelled intentionally because GS forums limitations) sometimes makes a bigger difference than technical graphics as far as how good a game looks anyway.
The point is, having been gaming since the 80's, I've never really experienced this comparing systems based on multiplats that you say has been the measuring stick since the dawn of video games.
[QUOTE="RoOodriGowW"]
'Multiplats have always been the ONLY credible way to compare devs skills'
If developers who develop games only for the ps3 can make games which look better than any other multiplat and 360 exclusive it's obvious that the problem doesn't lie on the console , it lies on the devs.Unless you are implying that the fact of developers working only on the ps3 making the best looking games and devs who doesnt take as much time don't making them equally good to be one big coincidence.
alexfla
[QUOTE="alexfla"]UC2 and GOW3 both look good but truthfully, every objective gamer knows both games can be ported perfect to the 360.R3FURBISHED
I doubt that, both God of War and Uncharted were built from the ground up to use the PlayStation architecture.
That doesn't mean much at all. Being built from the ground up changes nothing. By that logic, Halo 3 could not run on PS3.
All I know is that when I had to make a descision to either buy an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3, I compared the list of exclusives.
[QUOTE="sayonara89"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41998&page=17
17 and 18 page...
Bus-A-Bus
Examples of DEVELOPERS posts please (I don't know all devs on B3D) ;)
TF,Joker,Lee Yosh(Cgi),psorcerer.Anyway,there is nothing in KZ2 that is impossible on 360,not a single thing...
Seriously.....
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment