ps3 attempting something new-read this and understand

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.

Martin_G_N

And the whole reason microsoft sucks. Maybe smart but they still suck. They are pretty much holding back technology for money purposes. Better businessmen sure and they will ultimately do it right and have the cash to do it. But it still sucks because most developers are still going the way of older tech at this point. The ps3 is more cutting edge but the 360 is getting the most out of what they have. you choose. At least it's interesting because it really is two diverging architectures and two completely different approaches to business.

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"]

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.

Walker34

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.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"]

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.

HuusAsking

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.

That's what the cell is capable of. It's here. Thats the point. Why do you t hink i keep saying for people to look at that uncharted video and that scene with that truck chasing him down the alley. It is in realtime adn the ps3 is doing it. The 360 can't do that. That's why i'm impressed and the whole point of this thread. It is rendering those things on the fly and in realtime and it's interactive. That's exactly what it is doing. No it's not the end all be all and the cell is limited in certain regards, there are still transitions, but it is doing just that. This is just the beginning but the cell is leaps ahead of other processors in that regard.

I suggest people really watch that uncharted video and what it is doing because it's the best example of what the cell is capable of. The entire video is doing exactly what you are talking about. MGSIV also did this. God of War also does this. No games on the 360 do this. Because it can't. The way the architecture is set up on the 360 it is not possible to be able to incorporate all those things seamlessly like that. The 360 is relying on older technology and development and a different way of doing games. It's older. The ps3 is doing something new.

[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.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/extended-warzone-uncharted-2/49328

here's a more full length version of it. The 360 can't do this. Yes the cell is limited as far as what is going on the screen and how many enemies it can incorporate right now and it's kind of just a playground right now and that's what uncharted is. MGSIV was similar and if you really look at what both games are doing they are very similar. but it's showing what the future is going to look like as far as games. But what it is doing is processing a ton of stuff on the fly to make these games similar to playing a movie.

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 !!!

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/extended-warzone-uncharted-2/49328

here's a more full length version of it. The 360 can't do this. Yes the cell is limited as far as what is going on the screen and how many enemies it can incorporate right now and it's kind of just a playground right now and that's what uncharted is. MGSIV was similar and if you really look at what both games are doing they are very similar. but it's showing what the future is going to look like as far as games. But what it is doing is processing a ton of stuff on the fly to make these games similar to playing a movie.

Xbox 360 can render limited scope scenes.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

The 360 can't do that.

Walker34

Can't do what?

That's why i'm impressed and the whole point of this thread. It is rendering those things on the fly and in realtime and it's interactive. That's exactly what it is doing. No it's not the end all be all and the cell is limited in certain regards, there are still transitions, but it is doing just that. This is just the beginning but the cell is leaps ahead of other processors in that regard.

Walker34

Photoshop style effects can be done on GpGPU in real time.

Since you didn't stated the CPU, refer to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38145/135/

"Radeon HD 4800 supports a 100% ray-traced pipeline".

"All those Transformers teaser trailers were rendered on a GPU and - more importantly - directed in real-time."

How about an real movie instead of a wanabe movie?

I suggest people really watch that uncharted video and what it is doing because it's the best example of what the cell is capable of. The entire video is doing exactly what you are talking about. MGSIV also did this. God of War also does this. No games on the 360 do this. Because it can't. The way the architecture is set up on the 360 it is not possible to be able to incorporate all those things seamlessly like that. The 360 is relying on older technology and development and a different way of doing games. It's older. The ps3 is doing something new.

Walker34

FMV can be overlayed on a texture surface on a GPU i.e. Intel X3100 IGP can do this.

Any mid-range GpGPU can do post-effects.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

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.

That's what the cell is capable of. It's here. Thats the point. Why do you t hink i keep saying for people to look at that uncharted video and that scene with that truck chasing him down the alley. It is in realtime adn the ps3 is doing it. The 360 can't do that. That's why i'm impressed and the whole point of this thread. It is rendering those things on the fly and in realtime and it's interactive. That's exactly what it is doing. No it's not the end all be all and the cell is limited in certain regards, there are still transitions, but it is doing just that. This is just the beginning but the cell is leaps ahead of other processors in that regard.

I suggest people really watch that uncharted video and what it is doing because it's the best example of what the cell is capable of. The entire video is doing exactly what you are talking about. MGSIV also did this. God of War also does this. No games on the 360 do this. Because it can't. The way the architecture is set up on the 360 it is not possible to be able to incorporate all those things seamlessly like that. The 360 is relying on older technology and development and a different way of doing games. It's older. The ps3 is doing something new.

mass effect and MGS 4 are the most cinematic games this gen... mass effect is on 360

I don't know much about the technology behind these two consoles, but even if you are right walker, there's no way that certain people (xbox fanboys and non-fanboys who don't what they are talking about) will accept or grasp what you're attempting to explain. I think the biggest problem with your argument is that you are only using that gaming footage to aide your explanation to why PS3 offers better cinematics compared to xbox 360 games. You don't have expertise the specifics to explain your claim. If a experienced developer was to actually comment on HOW/WHY the ps3 can create a better cinematic experience than the 360 rather than being vague and saying: "this is only possible on the PS3" then everything would be clear to everyone. No developers has done that yet...

I understand what you are saying about the xbox 360 pushing its graphics and how that won't cut it in todays games. Well, what about graphic cards on PC?

Can anyone tell me any games on PC that offer a very good cinematic experience with gameplay rather than just pure graphics? If there are then this might void your whole argument walker since PCs don't use cell-like processing technology. I know Crysis can get to photorealistic visuals, but since I haven't played the single player, I don't know how this game is in terms of cinematic experiences.

I don't know much about the technology behind these two consoles, but even if you are right walker, there's no way that certain people (xbox fanboys and non-fanboys who don't what they are talking about) will accept or grasp what you're attempting to explain. I think the biggest problem with your argument is that you are only using that gaming footage to aide your explanation to why PS3 offers better cinematics compared to xbox 360 games. You don't have expertise the specifics to explain your claim. If a experienced developer was to actually comment on HOW/WHY the ps3 can create a better cinematic experience than the 360 rather than being vague and saying: "this is only possible on the PS3" then everything would be clear to everyone. No developers has done that yet...

I understand what you are saying about the xbox 360 pushing its graphics and how that won't cut it in todays games. Well, what about graphic cards on PC?

Can anyone tell me any games on PC that offer a very good cinematic experience with gameplay rather than just pure graphics? If there are then this might void your whole argument walker since PCs don't use cell-like processing technology. I know Crysis can get to photorealistic visuals, but since I haven't played the single player, I don't know how this game is in terms of cinematic experiences.

mD-

Thanks I tried to explain it in as much layman's terms as I can. It's honestly not that complicated. What the spu's allow you to do is basically calculate various tasks without the utilization of bandwith or a bus. In the oldschool way of doing things and what is still done is you would be passing large amounts of data between the cpu and gpu which required a lot of bandwith to accomplish. The ps3 struggles because it is not set up this way. You can actually pass off various tasks like animation processing, or sound processing or additional graphics processing, physics, etc to the spu's to accomplish these tasks without dealing with a bus and leaving the cpu to accomplish more general purpose tasks. So in theory you are taking the load off the cpu and the gpu. Most of this stuff is being processed before it even reaches the gpu and at a much quicker rate(ie on the fly). People saying the cell is a number cruncher dont get it. Any microprocessor is a number cruncher. Look at it this way. What do people think the chips are in their graphics cards? They are specialized chips for dealing with graphics and number crunchers. SAying a chip is a number cruncher is an oxymoron in this case for that reason. Every chip is a number cruncher. It's more about it's architecture and what it's designed to do. The cell isn't there yet but in theory it's the future. If you ever hear people say things will continue to get smaller. That's what the cell is. These things like sound processing, graphics etc can all be processed on the chip itself vs having to pass data to another processor. The cell doesnt do everything itself but it is in theory capable of speeding up processes and helping quite a bit because of it's spu's. The more you are able to process on a single die the less you are going to be passing off through bandwith. A tri core or a multi cored processor has 3 general purpose chips which you are not getting the same benefit because it's somewhat redundant and you don't need that much general processing power in gaming. You are in theory putting all the work on the cpu. You are also passing large amounts of data to the gpu to process. The spu's actually work in conjunction with a single cpu and allow the cpu(ppe) to do what it is meant to do. Most of the work is done before it even gets to the gpu.

I suggest people google naughty dog and the cell processor and read it straight from the developers mouth. They are developing these games and they themselves think it's the future for the reasons i'm stating.

Try thinking of this as physics. It's just common sense. Having the graphics and sound processing done on a single die and being able to pass information between the spu's and the cpu, is going to be faster then passing it back and forth between two separate chips. That's what the cell is. It's like taking your sound card, graphics card and processor and making it the size of a watch. The smaller these chips get and the more powerful their instruction set becomes the faster it will be. Yes it's RISC all over again and yes these chips are specialized, but as these die's get smaller and smaller and as they are able to include more and more instructions its going to become more and more like this. You used to not be able to do as much on a risc chip. They were even more specialized 20 years ago, but they are becoming more and more general purpose and as this continues the more you will be able to do at an increased rate. The more you are able to process on a single die the less you are going to be passing off through bandwith.

Yes games need to be coded this way specifically otherwise you are basically bottlenecking the ps3 because the cpu and gpu are not as powerful as the 360. It also doesnt have as much bandwith between them. But that's not it's design and how it's meant to be coded. The 360 has 3 cores and a more powerful gpu and also has a larger bandwith because it's a different architecture entirely. But if tasks are coded for the cell it is actually much faster and more efficient. You basically have a cpu, 7 spu's all on the same die without the need for bandwith able to process more and at a much faster rate.

The PS3 is instilling discipline, ITT.

Ok, that clears things up a bit. It makes since now why Sony decide to go this route. The proof is being shown in these 1st party developed games like KZ2, Uncharted, which have a lot going on when you play due to the Cell's capabilities. I wonder how far the developers will go with this by the end of the PS3's timeline because I really enjoy this direction in gaming.

Also, this has me thinking about one big title (one of games I look forward to the most): Final Fantasy XIII. Now that this game is being developed for the 360 too. I guess it's reasonable to believe that both versions should run well because the in-game cinematics are seperate from the actual realtime gameplay (they look VERY similar though graphically) and there I THINK that there are some very short pauses in the game when there are transitions from realtime to cinematics (I'm basing this all off the FFXIII demo).

ps3 is attempting to make gamers eat, sleep and breath shooters.

This discussion brings up another question I have.

There's a good chance that mutliplatforms THAT REALLY PUSH THE CONSOLE TO ITS LIMIT will always run better on the XBox 360 than the PS3 for the most part, right?

This discussion brings up another question I have.

There's a good chance that mutliplatforms THAT REALLY PUSH THE CONSOLE TO ITS LIMIT will always run better on the XBox 360 than the PS3 for the most part, right?

mD-

Yes if they are being designed with the 360 in mind first. That's why i've been talking about multiplats all the time and that the 360 sells more and in turn 3rd party developers develop for it first because there is more money to be had ie sales. If developers were developing for the ps3 first it would be the other way around. because the 360 wouldnt be able to handle what the ps3 is doing. The games would also be better and why microsoft is holding back technology in ways. They are milking everything they can out of their architecture. Intel calls the shots and ultimately they will release a chip similar to the cell and they will milk that too.

If you read between the lines of what these companies say microsoft will always say their system is better considering todays technology. It is considering what developers have done and what they are doing.

Sony will say the power of the cell blah, blah and they are right too. They are trying to market their system and get developers to jump on board.

news flash until you get cameras , in the production of games your not going to get the cinematic look , not even on a ps3,

and news flash just because ps3 has a new processor , the 360 still out does it on a daily basis,

news flash until you get cameras , in the production of games your not going to get the cinematic look , not even on a ps3,

and news flash just because ps3 has a new processor , the 360 still out does it on a daily basis,

mariokart64fan

thank you sherlock holmes. Spoken like the average consumer who will eat, drink or sleep whatever works best for them.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/06/naughty-dog-edge-tools-make-ps3-games-better-than-xbox-360-games/

lets hope that these 3rd party developers get better at using the EDGE tools because I'd rather see games on both consoles being the exactly same.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/06/naughty-dog-edge-tools-make-ps3-games-better-than-xbox-360-games/

lets hope that these 3rd party developers get better at using the EDGE tools because I'd rather see games on both consoles being the exactly same.

mD-

me2. This is the one thing i hate about the ps3. The latest batch of multiplats are very good. Maybe they were using that. Naughty Dog is one of sony's biggest allies and if you read anything they do they really like the ps3. Naughty Dog is quickly becoming one of my favorite developers.

It sounds to me like the TC has awoken to some form of epiphany and is now unwavering in his belief that the cell was developed with a new gaming philosophy in mind.

With what evidence? Seemingly a couple of demo's from games yet to be released. Give it's capabilities a new name - say lets call it 'cinematic gaming' - throw in some further assumptions about how no other platform could possibly achieve the same results and hopefully it'll encourage more disciples to spread the word about the mighty cell.

I wonder if they are going to use a CELL proccesor in the PS4. Of course a better, cheaper version.JimCarreyForYou

It sounds to me like the TC has awoken to some form of epiphany and is now unwavering in his belief that the cell was developed with a new gaming philosophy in mind.

With what evidence? Seemingly a couple of demo's from games yet to be released. Give it's capabilities a new name - say lets call it 'cinematic gaming' - throw in some further assumptions about how no other platform could possibly achieve the same results and hopefully it'll encourage more disciples to spread the word about the mighty cell.

poptart

Yes that must be it...... Or i'm just smarter than you are? That's more likely it.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

It sounds to me like the TC has awoken to some form of epiphany and is now unwavering in his belief that the cell was developed with a new gaming philosophy in mind.

With what evidence? Seemingly a couple of demo's from games yet to be released. Give it's capabilities a new name - say lets call it 'cinematic gaming' - throw in some further assumptions about how no other platform could possibly achieve the same results and hopefully it'll encourage more disciples to spread the word about the mighty cell.

Walker34

Yes that must be it...... Or i'm just smarter than you are? That's more likely it.

Such belief in an idea with so little evidence or proof to support it shows the contrary.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

It sounds to me like the TC has awoken to some form of epiphany and is now unwavering in his belief that the cell was developed with a new gaming philosophy in mind.

With what evidence? Seemingly a couple of demo's from games yet to be released. Give it's capabilities a new name - say lets call it 'cinematic gaming' - throw in some further assumptions about how no other platform could possibly achieve the same results and hopefully it'll encourage more disciples to spread the word about the mighty cell.

poptart

Yes that must be it...... Or i'm just smarter than you are? That's more likely it.

Such belief in an idea with so little evidence or proof to support it shows the contrary.

HOw much have i explained here dude? Come on. You are the one believing crap without showing any proof at all except saying the ps3 is my god lol. Do you even realize how completely hypocritical you are?