ps3 attempting something new-read this and understand

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

Killzone 2 shows off what the cell processor is capable of i guess.

It sure felt like a flowing ingame movie.

No one can argue that it doesnt look good.

The cell has achieved what it wanted, i think it can do more though, time will tell.

angelkimne

As I said before, hardware and graphics are only part of the equation.

Half life 2 is kind of old and its a pure fps, not a cinematic experience, if you know what i mean.

Hardware and graphics are an important part of the equation in terms of advancement.

What if half life 2 was more like half life 1 graphics.. *shudders*

Cell is a step in the right diretction for consoles, hopefully, more games can be produced as good as killzone 2, graphics wise.
Come on you lazy DEVS!

Half life 2 is kind of old and its a pure fps, not a cinematic experience, if you know what i mean.

g0ddyX

killzone 2 is pure fps and not a cinematic experience.

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.Walker34

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell. I honestly think getting bioshock was developing an alliance with bioware and just getting them to test the waters. Mass EFfect 2 might be next unless microsoft releases a new console that can do these things.

wow...this guy sucks...lol.

[QUOTE="daveg1"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell.

Walker34

I'm actually the only person here who does. That is what is funny. I'm not talking about cinematics in the old sense of the word. I'm talking about how this can be utilized in a lot of different ways and how the ps3 can decode things on the fly. WAtch the uncharted video. Did you watch any of the the vids i posted or read that article? WAtch the god of war video. There is a ton of stuff going on that adds to a cinematic experience which hte 360 is not capable of.

WAtch the scene in uncharted with the truck chasing him down the alley. There is no way the 360 can even dream of doing something like that from the voiceovers to everything in between that adds up.

The 360 is oldschool and is actually from the year 2000. It's a graphics pusher and it's completely oldschool in the way games play out. The ps3 is something else entirely. Play banjo or halo sometime and really look at it and what it's doing then look at uncharted 2. It's not even a comparison. The ps3 is doing something completely different.

Anyone who thinks the 360 is better hardware is from the year 2000 not the other way around. It's not even close.

oh god...why is it that Sony FANBOYs always say a game can't be done on the 360(i'm looking at u Walker) until the games goes multi-plat. then when it does you don't see threads like this for a while until some other pretty game comes out? in truth YOU HAVE NO CLUE what games can and can't be done on the 360...this is all speculation ur bathering out. all i've ever heard from devs and people in the industry is how the ps3 n 360 arent that far apart..and how there is only a slight advantage if any. yet for some reasons guys come on here talking of this garbage like they somehow figure something out the that entire gaming industry hasn't figured out yet. i mean take it easy...just play the games, crazy kid.

[QUOTE="osan0"]oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.Walker34

Again i'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm talking about how it applies to games. You guys don't get it lol. The ps3 is creating some of the most immersive games to date and you are missing it because you're a fanboy.

i think ur the fanboy in here son.

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

People keep asking for facts and i already posted them. Look at the videos i posted and the article i posted and the games i listed. What more do you want? Those aren't facts? So when ever someone posts something you don't agree with you just say where are the facts even though i've actually posted facts here? lol.

Walker34

how are these games that you are listing pushing the evelope in gaming, how are they really that different from their 360 counterpart? Those arent new genre you're posted just old ones with different ideas.

you havent posted any facts just your own opinions.

watch the uncharted video again. I'm seeing something you aren't. WAtch teh truck scene as it's chasing him down the alley from the voiceovers to everything incorporated in between. That entire video is a good example of what i'm talking about. The 360 is not capable of decoding those kind of things on the fly like that nor can it do it as seamlessly or with as much detail. It's like playing a movie man. There is so much going on there.

The God of war video is the same thing. Watch how it cuts seamlessly between cutscene and gameplay. It's impressive and the 360 can't do that. I'm talking about actual gameplay and the entire experience here.

I'm not saying the cell is the end all be all here either. Intel is designing processors like the cell down the road that can do everything in between which will be even more impressive as far as being able to apply to the general public and do general tasks. The cell is actually ram strapped as is the 360 as far as what it can achieve. It also can't do certain things a standard cpu can as far as general purpose tasks. But as far as straight game and gameplay it's showing what it is capable of. How this applies to games right now is different and the cell is an impressive piece of work.

the truck scene in uncharted??? they did that exact same type scene on The Warriors game last gen, LAST GEN. its nothing new and fantastic...unless ur saying it looks prettier on Uncharted. which u wouldn't because u already spent a few posts saying how it isn't just about pretty graphics.

i'm telling yah....cows and their graphics. don't jingle anything pretty n shiny infront of them or u'll start a riot.

I still have yet to see anything on either console that can't be done on the opposing one. The cell is a good processor but, nothing for the "future". And Blu-ray is waste of time.

The God of war video is the same thing. Watch how it cuts seamlessly between cutscene and gameplay. It's impressive and the 360 can't do that.

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

People keep asking for facts and i already posted them. Look at the videos i posted and the article i posted and the games i listed. What more do you want? Those aren't facts? So when ever someone posts something you don't agree with you just say where are the facts even though i've actually posted facts here? lol.

how are these games that you are listing pushing the evelope in gaming, how are they really that different from their 360 counterpart? Those arent new genre you're posted just old ones with different ideas.

you havent posted any facts just your own opinions.

watch the uncharted video again. I'm seeing something you aren't. WAtch teh truck scene as it's chasing him down the alley from the voiceovers to everything incorporated in between. That entire video is a good example of what i'm talking about. The 360 is not capable of decoding those kind of things on the fly like that nor can it do it as seamlessly or with as much detail. It's like playing a movie man. There is so much going on there.

The God of war video is the same thing. Watch how it cuts seamlessly between cutscene and gameplay. It's impressive and the 360 can't do that. I'm talking about actual gameplay and the entire experience here.

I'm not saying the cell is the end all be all here either. Intel is designing processors like the cell down the road that can do everything in between which will be even more impressive as far as being able to apply to the general public and do general tasks. The cell is actually ram strapped as is the 360 as far as what it can achieve. It also can't do certain things a standard cpu can as far as general purpose tasks. But as far as straight game and gameplay it's showing what it is capable of. How this applies to games right now is different and the cell is an impressive piece of work.

[QUOTE="osan0"]oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.Midnightshade29

omg dude. you don't get it. you are telling me to do my homework? you do realize encoding and decoding video just doesn't apply to full length movies right it can be incorporated into games and things can be decoded on the fly right? I'm thinking and seeing outside of the box. You are looking at decoding as something completely other than what i'm talking about and seeing what's already been done. What's the point of decoding if it can't be utilized in games? The whole point is that it can and not in the way you are seeing it. There are layers here. That bus flying trough the streets is an example. You can have actually code on top of decoded video and have an spu doing one thing whil;e another is doing something completely else like sound processing or rendering graphics on top of it. People are seeing teh cell as this complex piece of hardware to program for when they don't understand processors like thsi will actually make things easier in the long run. It's actually less complex. You can actually assign various tasks to the spu's and take the load off the other processors. This is why the cell doesnt need an advanced gpu like the 360 does. Nor does it need an advanced ppe as far as games. For a pc sure it would struggle for doing a lot of general purpose tasks but that's not what it's aimed for. It's not in pc's as of yet adn that's what intel is for. For games processing it's awesome by todays standards and farther ahead then anything out there. Developers just didn't understand how to take advantage of it at first or are just lazy and thickheaded and stuck in their conventions. Plus due to the cell being highly specialized the development tools are not there which is understandable and that's sony's job to make it easier on the developers. But this isn't a mass produced chip so it's really not necessary for those tools to be everywhere. People aren't taking this chip to the pc. It's a specialized chip and is perfectly fine for sony's needs. The cell isn't trying to take over the world here. It's just trying to play games right now and currently its more capable then any other chip out there. Yes the cell is limited as far as what it can decode and render on top of in memory, because of it's cache but it's still able to do these things and these things can be part of actual gameplay.

Walker34

I get it. The cell processor was designed to be able to incorporate cinematic style gameplay. It's ahead of it's time actually. Intel if you look at their roadmap has processors similar to the cell's design years from now. Intel usually calls the shots and I think that will continue as far as when processors go to mainstream audiences and pc's. We are seeing a shift here though. The cell is actually ahead of it's time, and is not meant for general purpose computing but it is great for video decoding and certain tasks that do apply to games.

Look at uncharted 2 for example. Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSq_39-Yj6c&fmt=18

Watch the God of War preview and watch how it seamlessly goes between cinematic cutscene and gameplay all in realtime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiieqlgbn2c

Check out MGSIV, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain etc.. There is a trend here

The 360 is equipped with a tri-core processor and a beefed up graphics card and a dvd drive which is suitable for todays gaming needs. But it's also a lot of the smae and just graphic pushing. You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all. If you look at 360 games there is a difference in the style of game that is being developed. This change needed to occur because you can only push so many graphics. Games like Halo, Gears, BAnjo are pushing the envelope as far as rendering certain things but you can only go so far with that. They have good graphics but nothing there is really new a showstopper.

People saying the cell is not designed for games and is not strong when it comes to general purpose functions don't get it.

I also suggest people read this article from anandtech which explains the cell processor.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=8

Coupling the cell with blu-ray was a decision made by sony to jump ahead of the curve and we are starting to see this stuff in their games. So saying it isn't there isn't correct at all. I'm not saying hte cell is the end all be all here or is going to create a shift. If anything the cell is ahead of it's time and will probably go by the wayside ultimately in favor of an intel processor with similar design. Intel calls the shots in the processor department. The cell is currently being designed on a 90nm die and Intel has similar processors being designed that are on a 32 nm die and have the appropriate ppe to be able to deal with more general purpose tasks that will be more applicable to the general public, but for gaming and what Sony is offering the ps3 is offering something no other console can right now.

People are at a point and you hear people say games are all the same these days and aren't as fun anymore. There is a reason for that. You hear people say the 360 is all about blood and gore and packing as much nonsense action on the screen that you can. A change is needed and more advanced physics and logic and graphics are all apart of that. Games are changing and are going to go more the way of a full cinematic experience and Sony understands this and is ahead of the curve.

Walker34

Pre-rendered cut scene? Raytraced Quake 3?

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38145/135/
"Radeon 4800 supports a 100% ray-traced pipeline".
"All those Transformers teaser trailers were rendered on a GPU and - more importantly - directed in real-time".

hidden powah of teh cell is showing :D

Half life 2 is kind of old and its a pure fps, not a cinematic experience, if you know what i mean.

Hardware and graphics are an important part of the equation in terms of advancement.

What if half life 2 was more like half life 1 graphics.. *shudders*

Cell is a step in the right diretction for consoles, hopefully, more games can be produced as good as killzone 2, graphics wise.
Come on you lazy DEVS!

g0ddyX

[QUOTE="daveg1"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell.

I'm actually the only person here who does. That is what is funny. I'm not talking about cinematics in the old sense of the word. I'm talking about how this can be utilized in a lot of different ways and how the ps3 can decode things on the fly. WAtch the uncharted video. Did you watch any of the the vids i posted or read that article? WAtch the god of war video. There is a ton of stuff going on that adds to a cinematic experience which hte 360 is not capable of.

WAtch the scene in uncharted with the truck chasing him down the alley. There is no way the 360 can even dream of doing something like that from the voiceovers to everything in between that adds up.

The 360 is oldschool and is actually from the year 2000. It's a graphics pusher and it's completely oldschool in the way games play out. The ps3 is something else entirely. Play banjo or halo sometime and really look at it and what it's doing then look at uncharted 2. It's not even a comparison. The ps3 is doing something completely different.

Anyone who thinks the 360 is better hardware is from the year 2000 not the other way around. It's not even close.

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell.

Walker34

I'm actually the only person here who does. That is what is funny. I'm not talking about cinematics in the old sense of the word. I'm talking about how this can be utilized in a lot of different ways and how the ps3 can decode things on the fly. WAtch the uncharted video. Did you watch any of the the vids i posted or read that article? WAtch the god of war video. There is a ton of stuff going on that adds to a cinematic experience which hte 360 is not capable of.

WAtch the scene in uncharted with the truck chasing him down the alley. There is no way the 360 can even dream of doing something like that from the voiceovers to everything in between that adds up.

The 360 is oldschool and is actually from the year 2000. It's a graphics pusher and it's completely oldschool in the way games play out. The ps3 is something else entirely. Play banjo or halo sometime and really look at it and what it's doing then look at uncharted 2. It's not even a comparison. The ps3 is doing something completely different.

Anyone who thinks the 360 is better hardware is from the year 2000 not the other way around. It's not even close.

Intel didn't use these "features" because it isn't helpful at the moment; not because they didn't think of it or couldn't accomplish it. Programmers are barely able to handle two cores much less four or more.

[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

omg dude. you don't get it. you are telling me to do my homework? you do realize encoding and decoding video just doesn't apply to full length movies right it can be incorporated into games and things can be decoded on the fly right? I'm thinking and seeing outside of the box. You are looking at decoding as something completely other than what i'm talking about and seeing what's already been done. What's the point of decoding if it can't be utilized in games? The whole point is that it can and not in the way you are seeing it. There are layers here. That bus flying trough the streets is an example. You can have actually code on top of decoded video and have an spu doing one thing whil;e another is doing something completely else like sound processing or rendering graphics on top of it. People are seeing teh cell as this complex piece of hardware to program for when they don't understand processors like thsi will actually make things easier in the long run. It's actually less complex. You can actually assign various tasks to the spu's and take the load off the other processors. This is why the cell doesnt need an advanced gpu like the 360 does. Nor does it need an advanced ppe as far as games. For a pc sure it would struggle for doing a lot of general purpose tasks but that's not what it's aimed for. It's not in pc's as of yet adn that's what intel is for. For games processing it's awesome by todays standards and farther ahead then anything out there. Developers just didn't understand how to take advantage of it at first or are just lazy and thickheaded and stuck in their conventions. Plus due to the cell being highly specialized the development tools are not there which is understandable and that's sony's job to make it easier on the developers. But this isn't a mass produced chip so it's really not necessary for those tools to be everywhere. People aren't taking this chip to the pc. It's a specialized chip and is perfectly fine for sony's needs. The cell isn't trying to take over the world here. It's just trying to play games right now and currently its more capable then any other chip out there. Yes the cell is limited as far as what it can decode and render on top of in memory, because of it's cache but it's still able to do these things and these things can be part of actual gameplay.

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

p0g0theclown

more immersive then WOW really? i cant comment on dead space but bioshock atmospheric yes but immersive it wasnt imo

The only thing immersive about wow was all the pre-tbc 40 man raids ON role play servers(2, maybe 3 at the time ?)

^^This is coming from a huge wow fan.

[QUOTE="adman66"]why is this still goin on here on these forums. cell is all about number crunching that is it. and of course as a result it is a pain to program for since as you may have noticed all of the ps3 "system sellers" or "xbox killers" are released 3-4 years after launch(also note that some of these were in devellopement way before release) and in the end it costs more to dev for it(assuming its not a port and they actually try to use the "potential" of ps3), and believe me, i'm sure that devs can do the same thing or very simalar o nthe 360 if they spent teh same amount of resources on a game for it. but guess what. devs are in for the money, if they decide that make a game a little better will cost alot and loose them money they wont do it. and also notice that all the games you metion are almost all 1st/2nd party devs, in other words sony is backing them. sony wants to sell consoles not just games, unlike 3rd parties where they only make money off the game itself, you ever wonder why ps3 version of multiplats are generally a little worse visually and sometimes worse playability? third parties wont put more money on the line then they have to, sure they could make it look/play 100% the same but if its gonna cost another 5 million and take 2 months, they wonts. but sony will as you can see. also comparing cell to intel/amd is a joke just so you know. the reson that they dont is because a cpu for a pc is for what a cpu ios actually used for, general processing, and also the fact that they know that if someone wants to do some of hte things you mention they will have some kind of kickass gpu to do the gpu stuff. and intel/amd have processors that blow the cell out of the water, its just not out for the public yet(same for gpus) intel/amd have the time to milk products untill they are affordable and profitable, unlike ps3 that sells at a loss and cant wait to bring down production costs. so believe what you want to belive if cell is your god good for you, but dont go misleading everyone els with your "logic"Walker34

lol. yes the cell is all about number crunching and that is it? Great logic. Speaking of misleading people. Second the ps3 isn't my god. I'm just a smart person who understands how these things work thank you. Why is it the people who resort to assumptions and insults usually have the worst logic of all? Would you like to disprove what i'm saying? Other than saying the ps3 is all about number crunching and thats it and the cell is my god somehow?

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

Walker34

Exactly pretty graphics doesnt make a game. It's a lot of things and like i'm saying the 360 is the graphics pusher and can actually push more impressive visuals to the screen but it's limited as far as what it can do with those graphics. It has a superior gpu. Again you guys don't get what i'm saying at all. Where did i say pretty graphics. I actually said the 360 is the graphics pusher.

No warcraft doesnt take a great machine to run it, but it does take a ton of ram. It's a completely different game and genre. We are talking abotu consoles here and what this tech is ultimately going to be able to do on a larger scale is something else but will apply ultimately.

Notice "Raytracing acceleration structure" for the future.

the cell can be good when used properly but it really is just a single core ppc with a few geforce 8 series shaders stuck on, nothing special. everything the cell does can be done on the gpu. sure ps3 does have nice looking games but a core 2 duo is far ahead of the cell in usefulness. imprezawrx500

Note that SPE's SIMD (aka single instruction multiple data) model doesn't equal CUDA's SIMT (aka single instruction multiple threads) model.

They have a common floating point format but CUDA presents the programmer with SIMT model instead of SIMD model.

Each of G80's processing elements has the following specs
[MT IU]
[SP][SP]
[SP][SP]
[SP][SP]
[SP][SP]
[Share memory]

8 scalar threads processors(SP)
8192 32bit registers (32K).
- 512KByte total register file space.
768 thread active threads in total
16KByte on-chip memory
- shared amongst threads of a block
- supports thread communication

Source: http://s08.idav.ucdavis.edu/luebke-nvidia-gpu-architecture.pdf

For example;
Geforce 8600 GT/9500M GS/9650M GT has four of these processing elements i.e. 32 SPs with 32768 32bit registers.
Geforce 9600 GSO has eight of these processing elements i.e. 96 SPs with 98304 registers.

These values are stored next to actual execution cores i.e. GPUs are purpose built forarray processing.

...

This is in addition to texture, blend, filtering, hardware AA, Z-Cull, Early-Z-Cull, ROPs, texture/data de-compression, PureVideo (another SIMD engine for NV) and 'etc' support units. ATI Radeon HDs has more support units e.g. programmable tessellation and global illumination. These support units reduces the workload on the stream processors. CELL doesn't have this luxury. ATI Xenos also includes tessellation and global illumination units.

PS3's 7 SPEs only has 896 registers or effective 3584 32bit data registers. Remember, 1SPE is reserve for OS i.e. reduce to 6 SPEs with effective 3072 32bitdata registers.

*bows down and worships Cell* I am not worthy....I am not worthy!!

Generalmojo

*bows down and worships Cell* I am not worthy....I am not worthy!!

*bows down and worships Cell* I am not worthy....I am not worthy!!

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tirralirra"] made me giggle. Although i somewhat agree with TC, but isnt Nintendo the more obvious outcast here. Anyhow, Xbox is only a bit behind bcos they released their console earlier. tirralirra

[QUOTE="tirralirra"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] The ex-IBM lead designer CELL and Xenon would disagree with you. When it comes to PS3 and Xbox 360, the release date doesn't indicate advancement e.g. For RSX, NVIDIA G70 ( (November 14, 2005) design was released eariler than ATI Xenos (November 22, 2005). ronvalencia

I'd have to agree that PS3 games are way more cinematic than 360's though. And it does seem the PS3 is pushing further and further ahead of the 360. That new Uncharted 2 vid was crazy.

mr-krinkles

[QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.angelkimne

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.12345678ew

TC I see what your saying. Whether its the cell or the devs is definitly up in the air. I think the first trasistion in Uncharted from cinematic to gameplay was sorta eye catching, but in MGS4 it was unbelieveable. I literally sat there for 2 mins at the beginning of the game after the first cut scene cause I hadn't noticed that I was in gameplay mode, and prolly actually happened 2 or 3 times in the game to me.

But as for the 360 guys on here dismissing all of this, well is understandable. But you 360 guys need to watch the water your treading on cause everyone of these types of threads yall cling to Sony spending more money or devs putting more time in there games for the ps3. All the while clinging on to a console that MS doesn't support like that and to make excuses for them or understanding that they are only trying to make money. I mean I pay $60 for a game and I want to know that everything that could possiblybe done was done to make it a great game. I mean when will yall understand that MS is spending money on dlc but not on new ip's or for resources for devs to spend more time on a game to make them polished or to feel more like a virtual world your stepping into. I say that last bit cause the 360 games I've played all feel like pc games made for a console. Just like the TC is saying its hard to explain what makes that feeling but they have that. While the ps3's exclusives are definitly giving a whole different vibe and definitly don't feel like a pc game.

There is a difference but it is hard to put a finger on just what it is. But with each new game the ps3 releases it is getting to be more and more noticable of these differences. Anyone else here notice the dip in AAA games from the 360 since the ps3 was released, and really since Uncharted in Nov 07? Standards have changed and the PS3 is leading the way in those changes and standards.

I'm just tired of people saying the ps3 is not designed for games and the cell doesn't work well with them. It's 2009 and look at the games coming. They are much more impressive on the ps3 then anything on the 360. It's not even close. People saying there is nothing in a real world example that proves this are full of it at this point.

Walker34

reason you see more quality ps3 titles than 360 because games are built ground up for ps3 unlike 360.

More fluff. Refer to http://www.developmag.com/tutorials/141/BUILD-Defered-rendering ""Because you project your lights into the scene as a post-process, you're not lighting any pixels that are hidden behind any other pixels," says Jan-Bart van Beek, art and animation director at Guerilla, describing one of the advantages that convinced the studio make the early decision to use deferred rendering in Killzone 2." Killzone2 uses an efficient method for lighting. Same reasons for CryEngine3's switch to defered-rendering.ronvalencia

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I'm just tired of people saying the ps3 is not designed for games and the cell doesn't work well with them. It's 2009 and look at the games coming. They are much more impressive on the ps3 then anything on the 360. It's not even close. People saying there is nothing in a real world example that proves this are full of it at this point.

videogameblow

reason you see more quality ps3 titles than 360 because games are built ground up for ps3 unlike 360.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]More fluff. Refer to http://www.developmag.com/tutorials/141/BUILD-Defered-rendering ""Because you project your lights into the scene as a post-process, you're not lighting any pixels that are hidden behind any other pixels," says Jan-Bart van Beek, art and animation director at Guerilla, describing one of the advantages that convinced the studio make the early decision to use deferred rendering in Killzone 2." Killzone2 uses an efficient method for lighting. Same reasons for CryEngine3's switch to defered-rendering.HuusAsking

I completely agree with the TC . I'll even go further and say how much the 360 DESTROYED the entire Resident Evil 5 experience with its loading screens in between cut scenes and actual gameplay . As a PS3 exclusive, the game would've gotten a 9.5 easily if the entire run was like Metal Gear or Uncharted .

Now I wonder how Final Fantasy 13 will do as it isTHE game that needs seemless integration of full motion, in game cutscenes and gameplay . And I do hope that the 360 doesn't destroy the game this way !!!

I completely agree with the TC . I'll even go further and say how much the 360 DESTROYED the entire Resident Evil 5 experience with its loading screens in between cut scenes and actual gameplay . As a PS3 exclusive, the game would've gotten a 9.5 easily if the entire run was like Metal Gear or Uncharted .

Now I wonder how Final Fantasy 13 will do as it isTHE game that needs seemless integration of full motion, in game cutscenes and gameplay . And I do hope that the 360 doesn't destroy the game this way !!!

I completely agree with the TC . I'll even go further and say how much the 360 DESTROYED the entire Resident Evil 5 experience with its loading screens in between cut scenes and actual gameplay . As a PS3 exclusive, the game would've gotten a 9.5 easily if the entire run was like Metal Gear or Uncharted .

Now I wonder how Final Fantasy 13 will do as it isTHE game that needs seemless integration of full motion, in game cutscenes and gameplay . And I do hope that the 360 doesn't destroy the game this way !!!

I completely agree with the TC . I'll even go further and say how much the 360 DESTROYED the entire Resident Evil 5 experience with its loading screens in between cut scenes and actual gameplay . As a PS3 exclusive, the game would've gotten a 9.5 easily if the entire run was like Metal Gear or Uncharted .

Now I wonder how Final Fantasy 13 will do as it isTHE game that needs seemless integration of full motion, in game cutscenes and gameplay . And I do hope that the 360 doesn't destroy the game this way !!!

TC I see what your saying. Whether its the cell or the devs is definitly up in the air. I think the first trasistion in Uncharted from cinematic to gameplay was sorta eye catching, but in MGS4 it was unbelieveable. I literally sat there for 2 mins at the beginning of the game after the first cut scene cause I hadn't noticed that I was in gameplay mode, and prolly actually happened 2 or 3 times in the game to me.

But as for the 360 guys on here dismissing all of this, well is understandable. But you 360 guys need to watch the water your treading on cause everyone of these types of threads yall cling to Sony spending more money or devs putting more time in there games for the ps3. All the while clinging on to a console that MS doesn't support like that and to make excuses for them or understanding that they are only trying to make money. I mean I pay $60 for a game and I want to know that everything that could possiblybe done was done to make it a great game. I mean when will yall understand that MS is spending money on dlc but not on new ip's or for resources for devs to spend more time on a game to make them polished or to feel more like a virtual world your stepping into. I say that last bit cause the 360 games I've played all feel like pc games made for a console. Just like the TC is saying its hard to explain what makes that feeling but they have that. While the ps3's exclusives are definitly giving a whole different vibe and definitly don't feel like a pc game.

There is a difference but it is hard to put a finger on just what it is. But with each new game the ps3 releases it is getting to be more and more noticable of these differences. Anyone else here notice the dip in AAA games from the 360 since the ps3 was released, and really since Uncharted in Nov 07? Standards have changed and the PS3 is leading the way in those changes and standards.

GreyFoXX4

I agree. Waht's funny is people think they are owning me when I'm the only person here who knows what I'm talking about. I know this. I'm not being owned at all. This thread is so long because it's true and pissed off a bunch of 360 people. I own both consoles and have seen them side by side on multiple occasions and have no allegiance to one console or the other. The 360 is not capable of doing certain tasks. That's not to say the cell is perfect nor did I say that. If anything when it comes to rendering complex textures it can become bottlenecked and ram strapped. Hence why you see a lot of multiplats running on the ps3 without proper anti aliasing and other features because there is not enough ram to incorporate these things..., But I'm talking about games from a design perspective. Yeah it's how they are being developed. But the point is these games are going different directions on each console for a reason. The cell is better suited for certain things than the tri core is. The cell was designed with this in mind. Do you honestly think Sony just threw this procesor in their machine in hopes it could play games? It's designed for the types of tasks that they are implementing in their games. Please explain to me why we havent seen this kind of stuff on the 360 and why mass effect chops like crazy when there are a ton of transitions going on all at once. When rendering straight graphics and pushing textures to the screen in the oldschool way of doing things the 360 excels over the cell, because of its architecture and the amount of bandwith between the gpu and the processor, but as far as incorporating a lot of different things and being able to decode certain things on te fly and process sound and video and physics the ps3 is more capable.

The point is its a completely different architecture. The 360 is utilizing a cache and a gpu but once people figure out you can utilize the spu's to do these tasks and take the load off of memory and the gpu its a whole new ballgame. Yes it has to do with how they are being designed. But that's the point. You can't design games this way on the 360. Peopel are starting to realize you can have the spu's do these tasks without the need of a cache.

I'm also not saying the cell is the end all be all here. I still think those intel processors i mentioned in the original post will be the end all be all. The Cell is still a specialized chip and will be utilized as such for doing certain tasks. It's not a strong general purpose processor due to its ppe and memory bandwith but that's not what its being aimed at no matter how people want to spin it. That guy who said the cell is being used in PC's doesn't get what i'm sayign. It's being used for very specialized tasks. It's a specialized chip as it stands. If they release other versions with an enhanced ppe then it could be a very good general purpose core as well and that is what intel is planning on a much smaller die. For gaming it's perfectly capable of doing what Sony is attempting to accomplish in today's world.

This whole argument that it's the developers is an oxymoron and people just owning themselves. What piece of hardware doesn't need to be developed for to take full advantage of it? Do you think these developers just randomly develop good games without first having an idea of how the hardware is designed and what they are trying to accomplish? The fact is people taking advantage of the ps3's hardware are able to accomplish things the 360 can't. If it could they'd have done it. They haven't. Look at those videos and there is your proof.

I also understand it goes both ways, and the cell is not capable of doing things the 360 is, hence the problem with multiplats like i mentioned because most developers are still developing things for a standard architecture where the cpu pushes a lot of data to the gpu. But the cell is more ahead of the curve where the 360 is doing things in a more classic oldschool fashion with cpu->bandwith->gpu. The cell is capable of processing more under the hood before it even gets to the gpu which is the whole reason it doesnt need the bandwith. But yes things need to be designed this way. That's the point geniuses lol. Saying the cell is only good for number crunching is so ignorant and complete fail when seeing what this architecture is and what it is doing.

I'll have to agree. I think that in the future we will see Cell based CPU's developed by Intel and AMD that have evolved in General purpouse processing while still rock in number crunching. But this won't happen untill they have earned every single dollar they can using the old existing technology. The power of the GPU is constantly increased, while the CPU have'nt increased a whole lot. Currently it's the power of the GPU that is the main reason why games run smooth or not. The PS3 is proof that Cell works just fine as long as the developers learn how they program and exploit it. Look at all the exclusives, and how much the Cell is working with at once, 7.1 surround, animation, physics, 3d rendering, and more. The PS3 is a lot more customizable when making a game compared to the X360.